Youtube comments of Philip Rayment (@PJRayment).
-
187
-
106
-
104
-
103
-
98
-
95
-
94
-
91
-
"[Cars] allow us to go whereever we want, whenever we want, with whomever we want. Think about it. With trains, planes, and buses the routes are planned, and the schedule is timed. Only cars allow you to be spontaneous."
True. Up to a point. As long as you are talking about someone who is not too young or too old, too disabled, or otherwise not able to have a driver's licence, or too poor to own a car. Public transport allows almost all of those people to get around. A blind person cannot drive a car, but they can use public transport.
The video looks at the advantages of cars and the disadvantages of public transport, but not the other way around. Both have their limitations and their benefits.
Further, too much emphasis on cars means that public transport is poor, which limits opportunities for those who can't drive.
The video also talks about the money that governments spend on public transport to get people out of their cars, but igores the money that governments spend on roads for those cars. Think of it this way: You have trains built and maintained by private companies running on tracks built and maintained by those same (or other) private companies, and you have cars running on roads, including expensive freeways, paid for by the government/taxpayers. So despite calling for the free market to operate, the video is actually calling for government support for the motorist, often at the expense of the private (railway) companies.
"Personal car ownership is part of America's fabric. It brings people together and makes this big country seem a little smaller, and more free."
Actually, the railways did that first. And people travelling together on public transport seems to do a better job of "bringing people together" than having them all isolated in their own separate vehicles.
Having said all that, I'm not defending the push for electric cars, attempts to ban cars, etc. Both cars and public transport have their place, and yes, ideally the market should operate freely, but government support for cars by building roads undermines that.
(This comment written in Australian English.)
88
-
78
-
77
-
72
-
69
-
69
-
61
-
59
-
57
-
56
-
54
-
52
-
51
-
49
-
48
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
41
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
36
-
34
-
34
-
32
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
@martinepstein3332
"no allegation of fraud has been found."
Utter nonsense. There have been plenty of allegations. The problem is that the allegations haven't, for the most part, been tested in court. Further, Project Veritas has video evidence of people confessing to fraud.
Texas has increased it's prosecutors looking into election fraud from one to three, and still have to pick and choose which cases to investigate, as there are so many (see the video "Texas AG: 'No election fraud' myth driven by lack of investigations" on Rumble)
"I suppose that is better than a US president ringing up the mayor in Georgia asking him to dig up votes"
Asking him to do his job, you mean? Trump believed that there were invalid votes there, and so was asking the official to find them. Nothing wrong with that, beyond the way the left demonises it.
And that's not all. Much of the problem was election officials illegally changing the rules. For example, a state parliament legislated that postal ballots had to be in by a certain time, but an election official decided to extend the date, contrary to the law. That may not be "election fraud", but it is certainly election rigging.
29
-
29
-
29
-
Conservatives talk about our values, such as freedom, democracy, and individual liberty, but fail to explain why we have those beliefs. The West has those values and has been outstandingly successful because it is rooted in Christianity. It was Christianity that gave us compassion for strangers, so we founded public hospitals and many, many charities. It was Christianity that gave us the university system and universal education because we considered it good to study God's creation and to learn about God. It was Christianity that founded modern science for the same reason. It was Christianity that (twice) abolished slavery, because we believed in the freedom that God had given us. It was that freedom that gave us capitalism (using your own capital, such as money and skills) that made us much more productive and wealthy, doing away with feudalism in the process. It was Christianity that spread democracy, because even kings and emperors are subject to God's laws.
But Marxists and other atheists have been undermining Christianity in the West for the last couple of centuries, and although we still have conservatives willing to defend the values, where are the prominent conservatives willing to defend the source of those values?
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
Most people would have no idea of the benefits brought to PNG by Christian missionaries, some of whom I have known, and one of whom, retired, was my neighbour when I was young.
Christians also founded the Mission Aviation Fellowship to provide services to missionaries and they people they lived with in remote areas, often clearing just enough ground for a tiny grass runway in some remote mountainous area where they could land and take off with light aircraft such as De Havilland and Cessna models, to transport people, medical and other supplies, etc. MAF still provides such services, including responding to emergencies, in various places around the world, including PNG.
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
Historian Tom Holland: "In the age of Cicero, Cicero’s great contemporary Caesar is, by some accounts, slaughtering a million Gauls and enslaving another million in the cause of boosting his political career, and far from feeling in any way embarrassed about this he’s kind of promoting it, and so when he holds his triumph, people are going through the streets of Rome carrying billboards boasting about how many people he’s killed."
Sounds rather like Hamas and its supporters.
Tom Holland goes on to point out why things changed: "...compacted into this very very small amount of writing [the apostle Paul's letters in the New Testament], was almost everything that explains the modern world [the Western world] but also the way that the West has moved on to shape concepts like international law, for instance, ... concepts of human rights, all these kinds of things. Ultimately they don’t go back to Greek philosophers; they don’t go back to Roman empiricism. They go back to Paul. Paul, really, his letters are, I think, are, along with the four gospels, the most influential, the most impactful, the most revolutionary writings that have emerged from the ancient world."
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
Nick
"He believes in not supporting human rights? Got it"
What humans rights? The right to expect people to believe that you're something that you're not?
"You're comparing the discrimination, violence and brutalisation of millions of homosexual men over the course of many centuries..."
I think you exaggerate, and I don't see why that's the comparison in any case.
"...you tell me which human right is being violated more, ..."
The right of the player, given that homosexuals are not unfairly discriminated against, have violence done against them, nor are they brutalised. Sure, there will be the odd exception, but nobody accepts that.
"...which demographic is in need of the supporting of it's integration into society as a norm."
The player, clearly.
"Beliefs have to be justified, so far I have not gotten a justification"
Do they? Says who?
But in any case, the ultimate justification is that people were designed to be heterosexual and made male and female.
So that's me. What is your justification for your belief in the LGBT+ stuff?
"...you are the one supporting the continued discrimination and brutalisation of an entire group of people for zero good reason".
What continued discrimination? What brutalisation? I can't see where Jim P supported either of those things.
You seem to be going to great lengths in order to justify the discrimination against the player, which is the only discrimination that has occurred here.
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
"I've never met a Muslim that didn't put their beliefs above all. "
I have. There are many of what I would call cultural Muslims, who think of themselves as Muslim and follow some Muslim customs, but don't practice it greatly, including not even believing in God.
"Over all I prefer an atheist/non believer or even someone who claims to be a witch..."
And yet atheist regimes have been some of the worst in the world, examples including the U.S.S.R., China, North Korea, and Cuba.
"...rather than a religious person..."
It depends on what religion. Many are very different to each other. Lumping all theistic religions (but giving atheist religions a pass) in together is intellectually dishonest. Western Civilisation was built on Christian beliefs and the Christian worldview, and it has done an enormous amount of good. As one sociologist/historian wrote,
“Christianity created Western Civilization. Had the followers of Jesus remained an obscure Jewish sect, most of you would not have learned to read and the rest of you would be reading from hand copied scrolls. Without a theology committed to reason, progress, and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800: A world with many astrologers and alchemists but no scientists. A world of despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys, and pianos. A world where most infants do not live to the age of five and many women die in childbirth–a world truly living in "dark ages."
"The modern world arose only in Christian societies. Not in Islam. Not in Asia. Not in a "secular" society–there having been none. And all the modernization that has since occurred outside Christendom was imported from the West, often brought by colonizers and missionaries.”
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
Nick
"So not only are you uneducated on the topic of discrimination against homosexuals,..."
Making things up to vilify me is not an argument.
"...you are pretending that centuries of violence, brutalisation and criminalisation against homosexuals never existed..."
No, I'm not. I disputed the scale of it. I explicitly said that I think that you exaggerate. I never claimed that none existed. If you have to misrepresent what I said, it would suggest that your case is weak.
"...and is infact less important than the right to one person's unjustifiable belief."
I didn't say that either. I disputed that it was relevant to compare the two.
"But following your logic, wisdom teeth, choking, arthiritis, natural disasters, animals eating eachother alive is all perfectly fine and there's no problem with it, because surely we should just bow down to natural design as it knows best and is always correct, right?"
No, wrong. So I guess that you are uneducated on the topic of the history of design. None of those things, including impacted wisdom teeth, are the way they were designed.
"By not wanting to normalise homosexuality then you are advocating for continued discrimination against them,..."
No, that does not follow.
"...this hockey player is a role model for a lot of people, he knows that he influence on societal views on LGBT yet chooses not to use it."
Yes, that's why he chooses not to use it. Because it can influence people the wrong way.
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
@Sly News
"A business can refuse a customer, but it is not allowed to discriminate against race, gender, religion or sexual orientation."
Which they weren't doing anyway.
"I’m not religious,..."
Which probably means that you follow an atheist religious view. Atheists have this habit of labelling all worldviews except their own as 'religious'.
"...but it is my understanding that it is gods job to judge and not ours."
Not according to atheist religions. But I think you are talking about Christianity in particular (although for some reason are lumping all religions in together, despite their vast differences). However, in that case, you are wrong. God expects us humans to form governments and administer justice, which involves judging. We are told to judge righteously, which obviously requires judging.
"So they should make the cake for them without judgement and leave it to god to decide."
Why leave to God what God has already decreed? That would be saying that we don't believe God, or that we think God will flip and flop and make decisions different to what He's already said.
"But I get why they could be offended and [upset] being refused service because of what they do between the sheets."
It was actually over the required endorsement of an oxymoron: same-sex-marriage.
15
-
15
-
15
-
@simonharris4873
"Why are you so full of hate?"
Pointing out hate does not mean that one is hateful.
"What have these people ever done to you in order for you to wish them so much suffering?"
You really don't know? Or is this wilful ignorance?
* Forced people to lie, such as using incorrect pronouns.
* Invaded spaces reserved for women, including sporting competitions, toilets, changing rooms, and jails.
* Got people punished for disagreeing with them, including vilification, taking them to court, having them sacked, etc.
* Lied to children about their identity.
* Mutilated the bodies of children and adults confused about who they are.
* Censored them and acted violently towards them, as in this very video.
They are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
EDIT: and we don't wish them suffering. We wish that they would stop trying to force their bizarre views on others and that they would accept reality.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
Nick
"... the choice to not support LGBT is ... detrimental to an entire group of people ..."
How is it detrimental to them to not support their choices? On the contrary, it's detrimental to them to support their wrong ideas and delusions.
"...who have faced descrimination for years."
They have faces massive support for years, from the mainstream media, governments, corporations, the education system, clubs, and so on. Meanwhile good people who oppose these bad choices are mocked, vilified, fired, and so on.
"i'm dragging this world down by being against the people who hold back human rights progression? "
What progression? You haven't shown that it's progress!
"Do you not see the contradiction in your thinking?"
I can't see that there is a contradiction, and you haven't shown one.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
Nick
"You explicity implied that the human rights to having an unjust belief is more important than the human rights of an entire discriminated against group,..."
No I did not. First, I was talking about a just belief, not an unjust one. Second, I don't accept your reference to "an entire discriminated against group". The only justification you've given for that is historic discrimination, etc,. not current.
"....you attack me for rightfully questioning someone's belief,..."
I'm not sure what you're referring to there, but if it's my last line, I didn't attack you. I disagreed with you.
"... you have yet to justify this and why you think LGBT discrimination is so little of a problem that you value the former much higher."
False. I already said that "...homosexuals are not unfairly discriminated against, have violence done against them, nor are they brutalised."
Meanwhile, I asked you "What humans rights? The right to expect people to believe that you're something that you're not?" You have not answered that.
"...why are you antagonizing me for humoring your absurd comparison,..."
What comparison do you think is absurd, and why?
"...we do alot of unnatural things yet for some reason when it's with sexuality, you get offended, ..."
Define "unnatural". I didn't refer to things being "unnatural", but against the way we were designed: "the ultimate justification is that people were designed to be heterosexual and made male and female."
"...use moral code to explain what's wrong with same sex relationships,..."
I already have, and have just repeated it for you.
"...are there any victims? Who does it harm?"
Yes, there are victims, and society as a whole is a victim. When society accepts wrong things, society is on a downhill path. But further, the insistence on people accepting such things leads to people being discriminated against (the hockey player, for example), sacked (Israel Folau for example), bullied, being taken to court or threatened with that (Tasmanian Archbishop Julian Porteous for example), etc.
"... you've yet to explain what is harmful about homosexuality."
False, I've now mentioned it more than once: It goes against the way we were designed. It's like asking what's wrong with using a car as a battering ram. It's not designed as a battering ram, and will be damaged as a result. But to give a more specific example, it has spread STDs and HIV, which are, of course, harmful.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
Nick
I've responded in order of comments, but the key one is below the line of asterisks.
"So you're saying that by creating a safe environment where kids, who are born gay, can feel accepted and loved for who they are is detrimental to their health?"
There is no good evidence of them being born homosexual.
And yes, acting against the way they were designed is likely to be detrimental to their mental and/or physical health.
"Rather you think it's better that they be told that it's wrong and delusional..."
"Delusional" was reference to transgenderism, not homosexuality.
But yes, I think it's better that they be told the truth. Don't you?
"...and that they hide their sexuality for years on end due to fear of rejection and discrimination?"
I never said anything about hiding their feelings.
"Again you victimize the people who oppose LGBT..."
I'm not victimising anybody.
"...you have yet to justify your actions to oppose it,..."
False. I have justified it. But see more below.
"...if you truly cared about their wellbeing then again, you would support the creation of an environment where they feel loved and accepted."
I do care, and I do support them having an environment where they feel loved and accepted as human beings. But not affirmed in their wrong beliefs. The loving thing to do is tell the truth.
"You only see a problem with the increased prevalance of LGBTQ+ because you're homophobic, ..."
Except that I'm not. I have given you no reason to believe that I have an irrational fear of homosexuality or homosexuals. So you're just name-calling.
"...i don't know how else to put it, ..."
Then you're not trying. I don't have an irrational fear. I have a rational objection. That's how to put it.
"...homophobia is still very widespread,..."
Evidence please. Because almost every accusation I see of homophobia is, like your use just now, based on disagreement, not irrational fear.
"...many anti gay laws..."
Such as?
"...and just simply a negative attitude from people,..."
So you can't accept the possibility that a negative attitude might have good reasons? After all, you have a negative attitude toward me, don't you? And surely you think that you have good reason for that? So why can't those people also have good reason?
"...creating an unsafe environment."
Creating an unsafe environment does not follow from having a negative attitude toward something wrong.
"And the last two comments were not a reply to you."
Yes, I realised that. But I can still reply to you.
**********************
"your entire argument is based off the belief that LGBTQ+ is wrong and harmful to society,"
Now you're getting it! But do you see the other side of the coin? YOUR entire argument is based on the belief that there is nothing wrong with LGBT+, something you've yet to justify, despite me already justifying my position. Many of your challenges assume that there is nothing wrong with it. But you haven't shown that there is nothing wrong with it.
"You have yet to explain why just because something is unnatural, that it's bad"
I didn't claim that it was unnatural. That was your term. I said that it is bad because it goes against the way we were designed.
And you have yet to explain why it's not bad.
"i'm assuming you're also against cars, you want to protect people from the risk of crashing right?"
I don't disagree with homosexuality because of the dangers. The dangers I mentioned was merely an answer to your question about what the dangers might be.
I would not be opposed to driving cars, because cars were designed to be driven.
"Does the thought of people being happy anger you that much?"
More invention. I never even hinted that being happy was a problem. If you have to invent things to criticise me for, you clearly don't have any good reason to criticise me.
"no one's asking you to celebrate LGBT values, ..."
They are, actually. For example, my employer supports LGBT+ celebrations, and asks its employees to take part. Fortunately, they don't (yet) require us to. But I've heard of other organisations where you are required to wear a badge or ribbon in support.
"you deserve to be criticized because you are actively opposing the progression of human rights, there is no just reason to go against the human rights of homosexuals."
You have yet to say what those rights are and justify their existence. And why should one group have special rights just for them?
"I'm assuming you also care about the discrimination of racists, who are rightly criticized for having unjust beliefs, and you see them as the victim simply based off of the notion of discrimination alone?"
That's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I'm not referring to you personally, but many on the left claim that something is wrong simply because it's "discrimination", even though much discrimination is legitimate.
"70 countries criminalise same-sex relationships."
And many more criminalise a whole lot of other things, such as driving on the wrong side of the road, theft, rape, etc. So what's your point? I'm not commenting on whether they should or shouldn't, but my point is that this is yet another case of your belief that there is nothing wrong with same-sex relationships.
"The death penalty for same-sex relationships is either ‘allowed’, or evidence of its existence occurs, in 11 of these countries."
Presumably because they consider that to be a capital offence.
"In more than half the world, LGBT people may not be protected from discrimination by workplace law."
Then go and campaign in those countries.
"Most governments deny trans people the right to legally change their name and gender from those that were assigned to them at birth."
Most governments, as far as I know, allow all people to legally change their name. If so, that's wrong.
It is biologically impossible to change one's gender/sex, so that takes care of that one.
And the idea that people are assigned a gender/sex at birth is a straight-out lie.
"Two-thirds (64%) of LGBTQ+ people had experienced anti-LGBT+ violence or abuse."
Self-reported?
"Of these, 9 in 10 (92%) had experienced verbal abuse,..."
Including name-calling, like you've done with me? That's an attempt to make a problem appear bigger than it is.
"Less than half of those who did report their experienced to the police were satisfied with the response."
Which is an attempt to convince us that they are being victimised, but perhaps the response was quite reasonable. Not being satisfied with it doesn't mean that it's not reasonable. This is the sort of propaganda that goes into pushing the LGBT+ agenda.
"One third (34%) of Black, Asian and minority ethnic LGBT people have experienced a hate crime or incident in the past twelve months, compared to one in five white LGBT people (20%)"
It seems to me that "hate crime" is an overused term to make things out to be worse than they are. Rather like 'homophobia' and similar.
"Nearly half of trans people (45%) said that their GP did not have a good understanding of their needs as a trans person, rising to over half of non-binary people (55%)."
What needs? They are still either male or female, and therefore have the same medical needs as other males and females. More propaganda.
"90% of trans people reported experiencing delays when seeking transition-related healthcare."
What is "transition-related healthcare"? Body mutilation?
"Trans people of colour also experienced transphobia..."
There's that name-calling again.
"But according to you these don't violate any human rights and this is perfectly acceptable, correct?"
I'm sure Michael doesn't believe that violence against anybody is acceptable, but the point is it's unacceptable whether they are LGBT+ or not. It's not something particular to them.
"By not putting his social influence to use as a celebrity then you are choosing to hold back progression of LGBT acceptance, ..."
And that's a good thing, so what's the problem?
"... if it was a normal person then it wouldn't be a problem."
He IS normal.
"The bible doesn't own rainbows."
God does.
"I do not know how you think that pushing for equality is ruining the development of humanity, ..."
You're misrepresenting degrading of society as "pushing for equality", because, again, of your belief that there's nothing wrong with it.
"And if not supporting the LGBT isn't homophobic, then give me one good reason to oppose it, to oppose the progression of LGBT rights, rather,..."
Maybe Andre Teofilovic hasn't given you a good reason, but I have, so I don't know why you're still pretending you don't know a reason.
11
-
11
-
11
-
@pauls7803
"The Bible actively promotes slavery, such as Exodus 21, 20-21."
Except that it doesn't. The verses you quote are part of the regulation (not promotion) of slavery, in which a slave owner is to be punished for killing a slave.
"It was Christians, not Christianity that abolished slavery."
It was Christians who abolished slavery on the basis of their Christian beliefs such as the belief that all people are equal under God.
"Are you joking with that 'What has secularism done' line?"
Since when is a question a joke?
"Post Christian enlightenment values have led to freedoms for all,..."
No, that was Christianity. Historian Tom Holland:
“...compacted into this very very small amount of writing [the New Testament letters of the Apostle Paul], was almost everything that explains the modern world [the Western world] but also the way that the West has moved on to shape concepts like international law, for instance, ... concepts of human rights, all these kinds of things”
Meanwhile, so-called 'enlightenment' figures such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Voltaire, David Hume, Edmund Burke, and others, supported slavery.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
@pauls7803
"A slave owner is not punished for killing a slave if the slave lives for a few days after being struck, as the slave if the owner's property."
So I point out that it's about regulation, not promotion, and you completely ignore that fact, and pick on something that I didn't say. The slave owner was to be punished for murdering his slave. If, however, he was simply punishing his slave, but without intent to kill him, it's more like what we would call manslaughter, and the slave owner loses by losing his slave that he didn't intend to lose.
"The first 4 commandments prohibit freedom of religion and Jesus threatens non conformists with hellfire. Some freedom"
Why should we be free to reject the very One who made us, without suffering the consequences? But we are free to decide many things for ourselves, unlike race-based slavery and serfdom, which Christianity got rid of.
"Do you really think the Bible trumps ancient Greece for example as a sound system for lawmaking?"
Absolutely. First, law from God logically must trump laws made by man. Second, historically, this is what has happened, with the West's law codes being based on the Bible. That is just a matter of history. See for example Augusto Zimmerman's three-volume work on the "Christian Foundations of the Common Law", focussing on Australia, England, and the United States.
"We are now able to discuss matters freely, immune from religious persecution or intrrference."
Yes, thanks to Protestant Christianity that made the Bible available in the common language. As Indian scholar Vishal Mangalwadi wrote,
“Almost every alehouse and tavern turned into a debating society. People started questioning and judging every tradition of the church and every decision of the king. People could question religious and political authorities because they now had in their hands the very Word of God. The Word of God was an authority higher than the authority of the church and the state combined. ...
“Alehouses became debating clubs as people interpreted and applied the Bible differently to the intellectual and social issues of the day. Some were content to let the church settle their disputes. Others realized that the only way to determine which interpretation was correct was to read the Bible with valid rules of interpretation. This was a bottom-up intellectual revolution. It infused the minds of all literate Englishmen—not just those in the universities—with a new logical bent. It took no time for that revolution to spread into other aspects of people's lives. Until that time, England was only a middling power. But once the English people began using logic to interpret the Bible, they acquired a skill that propelled their nation to the forefront of world politics, economics, and thought.”
"This is why we now have freedoms in post Christian Europe."
No. Yet again, as I have shown from the scholarship, it was Christianity.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
@Sly News
"you weren’t designed ..."
The evidence says otherwise.
"You are an evolved being with hundreds of redundant and nonsensical processes that are vestiges of your animal past."
Oh, so many fallacies there.
1) I think you mean "obsolete", not "redundant". Adding redundant systems is actually a sign of good design. Quoting Wikipedia, "In engineering, redundancy is the intentional duplication of critical components or functions of a system with the goal of increasing reliability of the system,..."
2) The loss of a purpose does not prove evolution. Evolution needs to show significant gains of purpose.
3) Stephen Scadding (University of Guelph, Ontario) wrote a paper "Do 'Vestigial Organs' provide evidence for Evolution?" in which he says that "An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures and an analysis of the nature of the argument, leads to the conclusion that vestigial organs provide no evidence for evolutionary theory."
4) The claim is false, although evolution would predict that. But that's therefore a falsification of evolution. As far as I know, every single so-called vestigial organ is now known to have a purpose.
"Your tailbone(coccyx),..."
The coccyx is an anchor point for muscles. It is not obsolete.
"...appendix... "
The appendix has been known to have a purpose for decades. It provides a 'safe house' for the good gut bacteria, so that if the bacteria in the stomach are destroyed, it has a back-up supply. So it's a sort of well-engineered redundant system.
"...Wisdom teeth..."
If they erupt properly, the serve the same purpose as the other molars.
"... all serve no purpose."
And yet every one of your examples has a purpose!
"They are leftover from when we had tails..."
Except that we never did have tails. You're now using the evolutionary story to justify the evolutionary story. That's a circular argument.
"literally hundreds of studies since the 90’s. Here’s a couple. “ A genetic study of male sexual orientation” and another “ Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin study”."
Studies (by homosexuals) dating from 1991 and 2000, and (the first of which at least) has been criticised in that it "did not stand up to scientific scrutiny by other researchers." (The second had the same leading researcher.)
A 2019 article from the (pro-homosexuality) Kinsey Institute (that supports your position) says that "it’s important to point out that recruiting twins with different sexualities is extraordinarily difficult. Researchers estimate that just 0.012% of the population consists of a gay or bisexual person who happens to have an identical twin [ref]. This means that locating relevant participants and, further, getting both them and their twins to take part in a study is quite challenging."
A 2008 article in Science says that "Earlier twin studies of sexual orientation have suggested varying degrees of genetic and environmental influences. But they have suffered from the limitations typical of all twin studies. These include small sample sizes and assumptions that identical and fraternal twins both have the same family environments; if identical twins are treated more similarly by their parents than fraternal twins, for example, this could be mistaken for a genetic influence. Recruitment biases are also an issue: Some studies have enlisted participants who openly identify themselves as gay, who may not be typical of the entire homosexual population."
So as I said, not good evidence.
"If you want to punish a gay for being born with feelings of same sex attraction..."
Which I don't, so I don't know why you bring that up.
"Your argument which I’m assuming is that sodomy is a sin is just dumb."
Why is it dumb? We were designed to be heterosexual, and the Designer said that homosexual practice is wrong. Nothing dumb about that.
"Half of straight men and 40% of women have done anal."
I'm extremely sceptical of those figures, but even if true, how does that mean that it's not a sin? Logically, it doesn't. Which means that you made another evidence-free claim (that it was not a sin).
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
@gloryglory5688
"All the players? 23 of 30 did the right thing"
No, 23 did the wrong thing in supporting this nonsense.
"only seven are sitting on the sideline not playing & pretty much ruining any chance now they have of playing finals"
Thanks to the bullying of the LGBT+ lobby. Shame on them.
"they don’t mind having gambling advertising all over their jumpers,"
Or perhaps they tolerate it.
"they don’t mind being covered in tattoos, they don’t mind eating shellfish presumably, they obviously wear garments of two or more different fibres, they’re hypocrites"
Nothing in their religious beliefs forbids any of those things. You don't know what you're talking about.
"I don’t watch Bolt so I don’t know what that [person] said, ..."
Then why are you commenting? Afraid to hear the other side of the story?
"this has nothing to do with pushing agendas,"
False. It has everything to do with pushing agendas.
"it says that everyone is invited into the RL community, gay, straight, bi or whatever"
Except Christians who hold some of those things to be wrong, correct?
"you probably should read the bible, all those things are frowned on by their god,"
False. Which I can explain to you if you're interested. And it's not "their god", but God, as in the God of everyone, whether they acknowledge Him or not.
"it particularly mentions you’re not supposed to eat shellfish 11 times, go figure eh?"
Yep. Go figure what that's actually talking about.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@Vote YES to the Voice
"It's not about 'race'. It's about equal opportunity."
It may not be intentionally about race, but it IS based on race! Besides, what "equal opportunity" don't they have? And how is that restricted just to aborigines?
"All of 'the details' are freely available."
Including the actual final legislation that this would allow? No, I didn't think so.
"See, for example:..."
Okay, I've seen. And it doesn't have the actual final legislation either.
"Indigenous Australians come in all shapes, sizes and colours."
Yes, we know. Because many of them have more non-aboriginal ancestors than aboriginal ones. But they are still known as being "black" (which has always been a misnomer, as nobody is black; they are just dark brown).
" 'Race' is an archaic social construct."
True. It has no basis in biology. And yet, this proposal is based on that concept.
"On this matter, we are concerned with identity."
What identity is that? Oh, one that is (incorrectly) considered a racial identity!
"It may apply to all, but all don't receive it."
True. Like non-aborigines won't receive the same opportunity to be part of this Voice body. So why don't you stick to your principles of all having the same opportunity?
"Research: inherent cultural bias Australia"
Sorry, too vague a search term.
"See, for example: ANU (2020) 'Three in four people hold negative view of Indigenous people' "
Sorry, that's not applicable here. That's about racism, which you said is just an archaic social construct. So obviously those scholars don't know what they are talking about. Further, perhaps whatever bias there is is because of the aboriginal activists wanting special treatment. Did you think of that? Finally, the whole concept of "unconscious bias" is suspect, and the tests are questionable.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@swarti2036
"Aboriginals in Australia ARE discriminated against"
Various people in Australia are discriminated against. Including Christians (e.g. Israel Folau, Andrew Thorburn). So do they need a 'voice' too?
On the other hand, not all aborigines are discriminated against.
So if a 'voice' is based on discrimination, why not give a 'voice' to all people discriminated against? That is, base it on the actual issue, not on a 'race'? Do you understand Venn diagrams? Imagine have one circle (A) representing those discriminated against. And a second circle (B) representing aborigines. Your claim is that because A overlaps B to a large extent (which may or may not be true), you think B, rather than A, should be given the 'voice'.
"Not too hard to understand"
Actually, your logic IS hard to understand, because it is illogical! Why give B the voice when A is the group with the issue?
"yes you have been given ‘millions’, but you must remember, you had trillions taken !"
What trillions?
"Am indigenous voice in parliament is imperative"
No, it's racist.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@unionpepe7864
"because in America you have the freedom to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't effect the liberty of another."
In theory.
"If you rape, beat, or kill that is hurting the liberty other another America."
And if you disagree with the left's narrative on LGBT+, or disagree with their stand on climate change, or many other things, then you are hurting the people on the left, and putting society in danger. According to the left, at least.
"This same logic applies to free speech, you have the right to say whatever you want as long as you aren't attempting to harm or threatening to harm another person."
But, to the left, if it hurts their feelings, you are attempting just that.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@Robert-catesby
"Slavery wasn't abolished in British colonies until years after it was abolished in the UK."
I don't believe that is correct. Wilberforce tried to abolish slavery, but he had lots of opposition (as well as support). His first success was to get the slave trade abolished. As part of this, the Royal Navy was charged with treating slave-trading ships as pirate ships that could be boarded and taken, thereby freeing the slaves. This put a big dint in various countries acquiring slaves. But that didn't free existing slaves. Later, just before he died, he was finally successful in getting the slaves freed, throughout all British territories.
I suspect that your comment refers to those two events.
"...the monarchy have greatly benefited from the wealth stolen from these countries,..."
Stolen? You also overlook how those countries benefited from British influence.
"... India for example Charles grandfather did nothing to help 20 million Indians die of starvation , this romantic idea the the monarchy loves all its people of its empire is utter balderdash"
And yet the British also did their best to stop the Indian practice of suttee, burning widows alive on their husband's funeral pyres. Yes, the British were by no means perfect, and did both good and bad. But these calls for compensation look at only one aspect that suits the activists.
"I bet you that's not taught in British schools history"
I'm sure that there are a lot of things not taught in history classes, because you don't have time to teach everything. But your insinuation that it's not taught because it was a bad thing is an evidence-free assumption apparently based on your prejudice.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@pauls7803
"It's amazing how religion can do this to folk."
Which religion, and do what? The record of Christianity is very good. Atheist views, such as Marxism, terrible.
"If a slave owner kills a slave 'accidentally' (Bible doesn't actually state accidentally), there is rightfully no punishment because it's manslaughter. Unbelievable."
Your ability to believe is irrelevant. As I pointed out, he doesn't get off scot free. He suffers for what he did.
"I could respond to your other points but I'll leave it here as there seems no point."
Of course there's no point if they amount to your opinion.
"God has his go at setting acceptable laws and failed dismally"
According to what standard? Your opinion?
"We live in secular post religious Western Europe where we have certain rights.. "
No, we live in a place that is historically based on Christianity, which gave people human rights, but which is now leaning towards religious atheistic views such as Secular Humanism. That is, you're in the process of replacing a proven-beneficial religion with an atheistic religion which has few if any runs on the board.
"No, I don't think communist or any other dictatorial regimes are OK. Not sure why you bring them up really"
He presumably brought the Communist ones up because the Communist ones are atheistic ones, which show the results of combining atheism with unrestricted power. Christians have restricted the power of tyrants on the basis that the tyrants were subject to God's laws. Atheists have no such argument.
7
-
@smckay6438 "
"no she (sic) is wrong, our military fought for the republic!
That doesn't refute it also being a democracy. Aussie troops fought for the constitutional monarchy that Australia is, but also fought for the democracy that Australia also is.
"The republic declared war on japan and Germany not an intellectual thought! "
Yes, the democratic U.S. republic did that.
"AND DEMOCRACY IS TWO WOLVES AND A SHEEP DECIDING WHAT IS FOR DINNER! "
A democracy is when the people get to vote. In ancient Greece it was a true or direct democracy. In modern times, democracies such as the United States, Australia, the U.K., etc. are representative democracies.
"Its not fair, its majority rules and our republic is specifically set up to safe gaurd against DEMOCRACY "
False. It's set up to safeguard against the federal government having unlimited power. It's not against democracy, because it is a democracy.
"SHE IS COMPLETELY WRONG !"
This bloke is completely right.
"I'm sure your country will return all the aid and reimburse our treasury for all cost incured including you will now have to pay a fee, before hand if you want our military to protect you in the future!"
Which country? And what about the Commonwealth countries that were in WWII before America bothered to get involved?
"We will withdrawal from nato and your citizens will have to sign up to inport or export to or from our country !"
Speaking for my country, Australia, we are not in NATO. But we are in ANZUS and AUKUS and the U.S. hasn't said that we're not living up to our side of the deals.
"What you dont realize is the amount of your safety and comfort we underwrite !"
Speaking for myself, I do realise, and appreciate it.
But the U.S. Republic remains a democracy (ignoring the Democrats attempts to rig it).
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
"Let's play a game."
Let's instead be serious.
"1. Randomly open any page of the bible. 2. Do exactly as it says on that page. "
So when it says that Cain murdered his brother Abel, you're suggesting that that is an instruction that we are supposed to follow, rather than a record of what happened? You should learn how to read (understand/comprehend).
"That's how relevant the bible is, and damaging, to modern society."
Except that it's actually been a massive benefit. Thanks to the Bible, we have public hospitals and many charities, universal education, science, human rights, abolition of slavery, freedom, more democracy, and much more.
"Like 7 of the commandments are ludicrous."
You not liking them doesn't make them ludicrous.
"5 of them are in regard to not offending God."
There is some dispute about how they are numbered, but I only see three, not five, that could possibly be described that way. A better description would be to learn how to respect. Maybe as well as learning to read you need to learn to count.
"Then There's silly stuff like don't covet thy neighbour😂 Coveting thy neighbour is how basic capitalism works."
If you think that, then you don't understand capitalism. I suspect you're confusing it with materialism. Capitalism is not coveting. Capitalism is the freedom to use your own capital (money, effort, property) the way you want.
"Respecting your mother and father. Which isn't a law and it depends on the mother and father. They might suck."
It doesn't say that you have to like them or agree with them. But as your parents, you should respect them. Just like I respect the office of the premier of Victoria even though the current premier is a bad person.
"So I guess well done to them for saying the obvious, don't rape or murder."
It's only "obvious" because of the biblical teaching! Many other societies had no qualms with that sort of thing. But the Bible taught us that it was wrong. That's one of the (many) good things the Bible has taught us. See the video "Tom Holland tells NT Wright: Why I changed my mind about Christianity".
"It's amazing how you people take that, as being the basis of our modern laws."
No, it's not amazing. It's historical fact. Try reading the three-volume work by top legal scholar August Zimmerman: Christian Foundations of the Common Law.
"Commandments or no commandments, rape and murder would still be illegal."
As I've pointed out, history says otherwise. Watch that video. It's not very long.
"The Ten Commandments has nothing to do with laws."
Again, history says otherwise.
"Nope. Believing crazy stuff just makes you crazy. "
Is that your excuse? Is that why you got the American election wrong?
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@peterbulloch4328
"How can you say that when all politicians in this country abided by and supported their health leaders and officials recommendations?"
First, by choosing to go along with what the health officials said, regardless of the consequences of that. What the health official said was concerned only with stopping the disease; why would you trust a health official to take other things like the economy into account? The pollies job is to take all factors into account and make a decision, not just the desires of one group.
Second, who says that they did abide by the health officials? In Victoria at least, they refused to tell us what the health officials said, and in a few cases it turned out that they weren't doing what the health officials said. The health officials were the excuse for their totalitarianism.
"If Morrison had gone against their advice you would be slamming him for that too, right?"
Not necessarily, no. If he ignored it, yes. If he weighed it up against other considerations, no.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@richx9035
"really colonialism was a disaster for so many cultures and nations."
I disagree.
"Just like the indigenous people of Australia there was exploitation, oppression, slavery and genocide conducted by many colonialist nations."
So are you talking about Australia ("Just like the indigenous people of Australia") or British colonialism generally ("wouldn’t celebrate British colonialism.") or colonialism generally ("many colonialist nations")? You can't seem to make up your mind. There was no slavery in Australia. Yes, there was some exploitation and some oppression, but little genocide in British colonies.
And balanced against that, there was technology, medicines and medical procedures, hospitals, the rule of law, democratic government, freedoms, and Western values, which are things that made the West great.
"Perhaps you should read a little history."
I have. Perhaps you should read some history that's not from a Marxist/racist viewpoint.
"No celebrating the First Fleet is very offensive to many people."
So because some people are offended, we shouldn't celebrate it? By that logic, we should celebrate it because other people are offended by the attempts to denigrate and cancel it. But of course for the left, only offence they perceive counts, doesn't it?
"There are many available that don’t carry such a divisive stigma."
Not yet, but change the date, and the left will stigmatise that also. In other words, there is no suitable date, which is probably the entire point, smashing everything that's good.
7
-
@Kelly_Kapowski
"Usain Bolt had an advantage over other cisgender men ..."
That's other men. Using the pointless term "cisgender" (as though there is some point to it) shows that you're disconnected from reality.
"Should he have his own category?"
A category just for him and nobody else? That's a ridiculous suggestion. Or do you mean a category where the competition is fair? He already has that, and competes in that. It's the category for young adult men. There are other categories for senior men, young girls in various age groups, etc. He's not competing against women, seniors or children. He's already in the category that is applicable to him.
" Funny how we don’t see you bleating about that. "
Because there's nothing to bleat about!
"You still aren’t addressing my point."
You mean like you didn't address the opening posters point?
" So scaremongering about Trans women having a blanket advantage is absolute bollocks. "
It's not scaremongering to ask pertinent, fact-based, questions.
"Any old excuse to vilify Trans people as usual."
Who's vilifying them? Again, he was asking a legitimate question.
"You can use exactly the same argument that he [Bolt] had an unfair advantage."
Except that you can't. Bolt's advantage is not unfair. If he was competing in a competition for children, or for disabled people, or for women, he would have an unfair advantage. But competing in the appropriate competition for him is a fair advantage.
Men competing in a competition restricted to women is, clearly, unfair. And yet you seem to think that if the man calls himself something he's not (i.e. a woman), that somehow makes it okay? That is is what's bollocks.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@jojeification
"Greek gods are hundreds of years older than christianism, ..."
You still haven't explained "christianism".
And Christianity is the continuation of Judaism, which is worship of Yahweh, God the creator, known and worshipped by Abraham and Noah and Adam, all of whom long preceded the Greeks and their worship of 'gods' that were not creators nor supreme beings ('God' refers to the creator and supreme being).
"...the gods are literally from olympus."
No, supposedly, not literally. And at least in some cases, their 'gods' appear to have been simply ancestor worship. For example, Zeus is the same 'god' as Jupiter, which is likely to be a reference to Noah's son Japheth, from whom the Greeks descended. The Greeks even had a monument to "the unknown god", because they realised that the ones that they knew could not have been the ultimate God.
"Nothing to do with you."
It's on all of us to speak the truth.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@dotursdottir
1) I didn't say that it was a religion. (That would be like saying that theism is a religion. It's not; it's a category of religions.) I said that some atheistic views can be considered religions, by some definitions of that word. These include Confucianism, Zen Buddhism, Secular Humanism (which originally declared itself to be a secular religion), Scientology, etc.
2) What's your evidence that Christianity is evidence-free? Or is that claim itself evidence-free? Further, what is your evidence that "That's the whole point of it", given the apostle Paul's claim that if Jesus didn't really rise from the dead, the belief in Jesus is in vain? In saying that, he was making a claim that if the evidence doesn't exist, there is no point to it.
"And if you can't admit somehing so basic, you are as capable of a discussion as any woke moron."
So if I can't agree with your evidence-free claims, I'm a moron? How does that follow?
7
-
7
-
7
-
@jaydenroberts2615
"because the means by which we perform those actions are due to conveniences afforded to us by technology we’ve created."
Which doesn't mean that we weren't created to do that. That technology doesn't come by chance; it needs to be designed. Humans are so much more complex and yet we are supposed to have just come by chance! That is inconsistent.
"And there’s no proof we were designed in a particular way. The leading theory (because it’s been proven) is that we evolved randomly to suit the selection pressures in the environment at the time."
On the contrary, there's no proof that we evolved. But there is very strong evidence that we were designed and created, and yes, in a particular way, because the Creator left us a description.
The argument for evolution is actually circular, because it's based on a particular scientific method called methodological naturalism which a priori excludes supernatural explanations before even looking at the evidence. In other words, the naturalistic explanation (evolution) assumes that the explanation must be a natural one to start with, hence it's a circular argument.
Further, your claim makes little sense. Evolution does not involve changing "randomly to suit the selection pressures", i.e. changing to achieve a particular goal (of suiting selection pressures). It involves random changes, when are then selected by the environment. But those random changes are not goal-oriented.
"This isn’t an atheist creation myth, this is a fact"
No, it's not a fact. The scientific method involves observation, measurement, testing, and repetition. Goo-to-you evolution cannot be observed (it's in the past), measured, tested, nor repeated. It's a hypothesis that goes against the available evidence (the claimed mechanism, mutations, destroy genetic information rather than generating it, the origin of life is contrary to the laws of physics, etc. etc.).
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
I take your point, Chris, about aborigines not being a different race, but not all aborigines have the same culture these days. It's therefore not based on culture, but on one's (partial) ancestry, which makes it effectively on 'race'. The left calls you racist if you disagree with a Islam, despite that being a religion, not a race. If this proposal gave a separate voice to people of English descent, the left would be decrying it as racist, even though, actually, English is not a race.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@bobhawke7373
"The 2021 report revealed that the ABC was the most accessed news brand in Australia,..."
Given that they have more outlets that anyone else, that doesn't mean much. In Melbourne, for example, as well as their television channels and their online presence, they have at least four radio stations that I can think of off the top of my head.
"Sky News came well down the field in eighth position, with just 10 per cent of the audience, a drop of two percentage points from the previous year."
And in the 2022 report, they are up two percentage points from 2021, back to 12% and seventh position.
And of course it's not a fair comparison, with Sky not being free to air in the cities.
6
-
@Wolfways
"Don't pretend christians have never done anything bad."
Don't pretend I said that. I didn't. I said that "The record of Christianity is very good." I didn't say that it was perfect.
"It was also christians who oppressed pagans in Briton as soon as they had enough power."
I have to wonder how true that is. That's not denying that it happened to some extent, but wondering to what extent, given your other claims of rather-isolated cases worded as though it was widespread or common or normal.
"It was also christians who burnt "witches." "
Yes, for a very short period of time in a very localised place, and it was also Christians who stopped that.
"It was also christians who slaughtered many during the crusades."
Initially, the Crusades were a legitimate war to free Jerusalem from the Islamic invasion. They did descend into barbarity after that, but again, in the big picture, that was a blip. See the video "Bill Warner, PhD: Jihad vs Crusades".
"It was also christians who owned slaves."
Everyone owned slaves (well, not the slaves, mostly at least, but the point is that the practice was very widespread). Pretending that it "was also Christians", as though they were the only or main ones, is false. Christians twice stopped it.
"In celtic society women pretty much had equal rights, well before christianity arrived in Briton."
Evidence please.
Historian Tom Holland, referring to the letters of the Apostle Paul in the New Testament, said:
“... compacted into this very very small amount of writing, was almost everything that explains the modern world [the Western world] but also the way that the West has moved on to shape concepts like international law, for instance, ... concepts of human rights, all these kinds of things. Ultimately they don’t go back to Greek philosophers; they don’t go back to Roman empiricism. They go back to Paul. Paul, really, his letters are, I think, are, along with the four gospels, the most influential, the most impactful, the most revolutionary writings that have emerged from the ancient world.”
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
"Rubbish Bolt,"
What's rubbish about it?
"Company or sports organisations cannot discriminate on the grounds of gender, sexual preference or race."
Or religious views. And yet they did.
"If churches want to preach such things in their premises then that is a matter for them."
Which they apparently did. But now the club has made it a matter for the club. But you don't criticise them for that.
"Like him or hate him Andrews is correct, ..."
No, he's completely wrong.
"...there is no longer any place or legal position that allows bigotry in the workplace."
Tell that to the club that displayed that bigotry. And that's one of the reasons that Andrews is wrong—he's criticising the wrong side; blaming the victim.
"The only exception is Sky News and the Murdoch media ."
An evidence-free and gratuitous insult.
"It is insulting to gay people..."
You mean that the truth hurts? And if being insulting is a problem, look at yourself calling Christians bigots!
"...and those seeking abortions."
Yes, and I suppose abolishing slavery was insulting to the slave owners. So your point is...?
"The fact is he cannot head up Essendon or any major sporting body when his views are directly opposed to that of Essendon and the AFL."
Their actions are directly opposed to the views of the clubs. They promote inclusion, and then exclude. That makes them hypocrites, and yet you're defending that hypocrisy (and bigotry).
"What would be his attitude toward discrimination toward any gay players especially in the AFLW where many players are very open about their sexuality?"
I expect that he would oppose discrimination against them at least as much as he would oppose homosexuality. That's the thing about Christianity. It opposes wrongdoing even if that's done to people they disagree with.
"No not the unborn, the issue is his issue with gay people."
And yet his supposed opposition to abortion was cited as one of the issues. And "his" issue with homosexual is apparently unknown.
"His views would not be compatible with any sports body in Australia and therefore his position is untenable."
So you're claiming that every sports body in Australia is as bigoted as Essendon? And yes, his supposed views might be incompatible, but that doesn't mean that his actions would be. He is basically being charged with a thought crime.
"He is entitled to his bigotry..."
What bigotry? You haven't shown that he has any. Meanwhile, the club has discriminated against him because of theirs.
"....given his churches anti gay views he cannot be the CEO of an organisation with a stayed polar opposite view."
So the organisation should change its views and not discriminate.
"You could not expect any sporting organisation to make him CEO under those circumstances."
I can't expect sporting organisations to do the right thing? Why not?
"Yes it may be perception but surely you get why his position is untenable?"
Nope. But I do get why the club's position is untenable.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@sallycent6598
"Why all the cases of the election fraud have been thrown out of the courts.?"
For various reasons, including the courts not wanting to get involved. To take one example, Texas tried to take the actions of other states to court, but the court said that they didn't have standing, i.e. they hadn't suffered from what the other states did (which is debatable). So Trump, who clearly had suffered, tried to take the same case to the court, but the court told him he should have brought the case sooner.
Some where thrown out not because there was no case, but because Trump or whoever was bringing them wanted the court to reverse the results, which the courts were not prepared to do. That is, the courts decided that even if Trump proved his case, the requested remedy was too big an ask. So they didn't even look at the evidence.
Besides, it's not just about actual fraud. I said that the election was rigged. That includes election officials breaking the law by such things as not checking signatures on mail-in ballots, censoring of information unfavourable to Trump, etc. None of those sorts of things has been disputed; they are just ignored.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@sc1450
"What evidence do you have for your God's existence?"
First, He is God of all, ny just "my" God.
I have lots of evidence, so this list is just a starter listing some broad categories.
* The fact that anything exists at all. The natural world (universe) can't have been here forever, so it had a beginning. So what, outside of all of the natural world, could have caused it? Only something super-natural. That is, God. (The atheist belief is that it popped into existence out of nothing for no reason, a complete denial of the principle of cause and effect.)
* The fact that the universe, the earth, etc. is fine-tuned. Many of the fundamental values are so specific that the universe could not exist unless those values were precisely as they are. This could not happen by chance.
* The fact that living things show massive evidence of being designed. They have lots of interacting parts that could not develop in a slow, gradual, essentially-random, process.
* The fact that living things have massive amounts of information in their genomes. We know from observation that information (not noise) only comes from intelligent sources, yet it exists in all living things. What intelligence source predates living things? Only God. It's even been said that the laws of physics would need to be different for this information to have arisen naturally, so it's not just that we don't know how it came about; we know it couldn't have come about naturally.
* The fact that Jesus, who claimed to be God, proved the point by performing miracles and rising from the dead. He was observed alive after he was killed by hundreds of people, and this is documented by multiple historical sources.
6
-
6
-
6
-
@user-ov9m54hj1b "...all I was saying is that restricting people’s access to cars is not giving them more transport options."
True. But restricting people's access to public transport is also not giving them more transport options either. And with limited government funds to go around, a choice has to be made on where to spend those funds.
This video argues that these things should be decided by the free market, a principle I completely support. But although it says that should be the case, what it's actually arguing is that government funds should be spent on supporting motorists, by providing roads.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that it shouldn't provide roads, but you can't argue that is should be the free market deciding and want government support at the same time. If you want government support (roads), you have to accept that the government might choose to spend some of its limited funds on alternatives, i.e. public transport, which, after all, does a better job of providing options in some circumstances.
As such, your first claim that "it's not about cars vs public transport" is wrong. You can't have both to an unlimited extent. There needs to be a balance, and if you're wanting government funds, well, you need to accept that there is only so much pie to go around.
6
-
6
-
6
-
@MickRhodes-ml5cm
"Im sure that the EU view it as not wanting the rights of a less progressive nation... to impact on their citizen’s rights."
And there's the bigotry. A "less progressive nation" means a nation with more conservative values, rather than those of the REgressive left. It's about politics, not truth or lies.
"... hamstrung by a 240 year document ..."
Hamstrung? Is that what you think of a constitution that has served their country well, on the whole? So old values and standard should be thrown out simply because they are old? That's chronological snobbery. That's an atheistic attitude that newer is inherently better.
"They have every right to dictate what gets broadcast in their country, ..."
First, the EU is not a country.
Second, I gather this is like Australia tried to to recently—stop it being available everywhere. The recent Australian case was with the priest being stabbed in Sydney, and the E-Safety Commissioner (or whatever her title is) wanted Twitter to take down the footage of it. Not just to not have it available in Australia, but to take it down completely.
"The EU simply takes a hard line about speech which isn’t true ... ."
No, they take a hard line about speech that contradicts their views, labelling it misinformation, even when it isn't.
"...or isn’t supported by facts"
So it might actually be true, but because it can't be proved to their satisfaction, it's not allowed? How arrogant of them!
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@tomhicks1009
"Mate how ignorant can you be?"
Oh, I could be as ignorant as you. But I'm not.
"Aboriginal people have lived here for about 60,000 years "
According to the European, naturalistic, view. I don't believe in naturalism, which contradicts aboriginal legend. Funny how that point is ignored.
"It is the oldest culture/society on the planet."
Only if the 60,000 figure is correct. I reject it.
"They had complex family structures"
Like sons/daughters/grandchildren/cousins/etc.? Everyone has those.
"They farmed the land . They traded goods."
Yes, I'll accept that they traded. I'm not aware of any farming (and Bruce Pascoe is not an authority).
"They protected and lived with the land."
Protected it from what? And of course they lived with it—what else could they do?
"We as in the newest arrivals to this land have managed to pretty much destroy it in 200 years."
If you think that this country has been destroyed, you're looking with your eyes closed. Yes, it's society is in the process of being destroyed by the Marxist left, but that's about it.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@unionpepe7864 "no? I read the source material "Irreversible Damage: ..."
How is simply describing the contents of a book any sort of rebuttal to my point? Unless you've already decided (but don't show) that the book is wrong?
"what about the green new deal is socialist? It involves revamping our aging electrical grid into the 21st century while providing skilled jobs for millions of Americans."
It's more than that, and it's how they do that. Rather than leave it to market forces, they plan on imposing things on society. The left-leaning Wikipedia lists some points of the plan, including the following: "Guaranteeing a job ... Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security ..." etc. Nothing wrong with having safe housing, etc., but providing those things as government schemes is socialism.
"Again democrats aren't trying to remove conservatives freedom of speech."
Except that they are. No, removing free speech is not their goal. Stopping conservatives from spreading their ideas is, however, their goal, which is a denial of free speech.
"Democrats aren't passing any laws that restrict conservatives voices."
There are ways to do it without passing laws, although even that is being done in some places (e.g. Canada, so not the Democratic Party as such). But so-called hate speech laws fit the bill, when they are worded and applied as broadly as they often are.
"Companies are simply banning extremist on their platform right or left that comment threats or try to rally people to a violent cause because then they can be held legally responsible."
Simply not true (that that's all that they are doing). I, personally, have been told by my employer that I cannot share my ideas with my work colleagues. I was not threatening anyone, or rallying anyone. This was not to do with being held legally responsible, but due to simply disagreeing with their internal ideological policies.
"Corporations aren't under any legal obligation to give you freedom of speech only the government is."
Actually, under the law (here in Australia) my political and religious speech is protected. When I was asked if I disagreed with my employer's policies, I told them that I disagreed with my employer's religious and political views. They changed the subject.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@paulrichards6894
"think slave owners used the bible to justify slavery so saying Christianity helped end slavery is nonsense"
No, that 'logic' is nonsense. That some people misused the Bible to justify slavery doesn't mean that other Christians didn't end slavery.
Sociologist and historian Rodney Stark: "Slavery ended in medieval Europe only because the church extended its sacraments to all slaves and then managed to impose a ban on the enslavement of Christians (and of Jews). Within the context of medieval Europe, that prohibition was effectively a rule of universal abolution.
Historian Jeremiah J. Johnstone: “Christianity has successfully abolished slavery not once, but twice before—in late antiquity and again in the 1800s, with the elimination of the transatlantic slave trade after the American Civil War. Much more could be said (and has been written) about the efforts of Christian leaders like William Wilberforce and John Wesley, who tirelessly worked in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to abolish slavery.”
"whats that got to do with the bible being ok with slavery"
Little. But the Mosaic Law in the Bible (no longer applicable) regulated slavery, which was a virtually-unavoidable part of life then. And New Testament teaching led to slavery being abolished twice in Christendom.
"i wouldn't use the bible for toilet paper"
Neither would I. That would be disrespectful for the book that has done more to improve the world than any other. Historian Tom Holland talking about the Apostle Paul's letters in the New Testament: “...compacted into this very very small amount of writing, was almost everything that explains the modern world [the Western world] but also the way that the West has moved on to shape concepts like international law, for instance, ... concepts of human rights, all these kinds of things. Ultimately they don’t go back to Greek philosophers; they don’t go back to Roman empiricism. They go back to Paul. Paul, really, his letters are, I think, are, along with the four gospels, the most influential, the most impactful, the most revolutionary writings that have emerged from the ancient world.”
"when people quote bible verses its a sermon"
Factually incorrect. So does that display your level of education?
"they have little to do with slavery"
They are relevant to slavery.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Nick
"you gave me the reason that "it goes against design" despite there being no reason as to why that's a bad thing."
What makes you think that there is no good reason why that's a bad thing?
"When I asked you "Who does it harm" you replied with the fact that homosexual men have a higher STD rate, also good job completely missing the mark on the car analogy, if you care about risks so much then why stop at homosexuality?"
As I have already pointed out, my objection is not based on the risks. As such, the car analogy stands.
"...do you only want to invade other people's personal lives when it comes to homosexuality."
I never said that I would invade other people's personal lives. You made that up.
"So again can you explain to me how going against "natural design" ..."
I never mentioned "natural design". That was your term, and really a self-contradictory one, as nature doesn't design. I said "design", which means that there was a designer.
"...through homosexual relationships is harmful to other people?"
For one, those STDs etc. can be passed onto other people.
"How does it negatively affect society?"
By attacking the basis of Western Civilisation, which is Christianity. It basically, if tacitly, argues that the Bible, the basis of Western Civilisation that has done so much good in the world, is wrong.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@therealkakitron
"sorry you don't understand how logic works, but the burden of proof lies on the person making the positive claim,..."
That is false, and I'm sorry you don't understand that. The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, positive or otherwise. Here's Ryan S on Wyzant Ask an Expert:
“...those who make negative claims are just as much under a burden of proof as those who make positive claims--the mere negativity of their claims does not automatically render these claims correct or justified or something that people should embrace.”
"...not the one who isn't convinced of the claim due to insufficient evidence."
You're distorting the situation. You made a claim; you didn't simply express a view that you weren't convinced.
"Same applies to the claims made in the bible. You may believe what it says, but how do you prove that what it says is true?"
How do you "prove" that a lot of history is true? Some of it you can't, but some of it you can through having multiple sources, archaeological evidence, etc.
"The bible makes lots of claims, and it's circular reasoning to try to use the bible to prove the bible."
Then it's just as well I'm not doing that, isn't it? It's not circular reasoning to use a history book as evidence for what happened in history, which is what I did.
You haven't answered how your fairy question is an equivalent question.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@sticktothefacts8905
"So if people shouldnt be forced to do something against their core beliefs, you are supporting twitter/facebook etc to not carry messages they dont agree with?"
I do support Twitter, Facebook, etc. to not carry messages that they don't agree with. As long as they come out publicly and say so. For example, saying something along the line of "We support progressive views and will not allow conservative, Christian or etc. views". If they'd say that up front, I think I'd be happy (my only hesitation is them saying that now after building their power base by being, or pretending to be, neutral).
The cake bakers were up front as to why they wouldn't bake the cake. Twitter, Facebook, etc. deny that they favour one side, but do anyway. They are being dishonest.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
"Religion doesn’t need to be woven into the education system."
Does that include atheist religions? And why not anyway? If it wasn't for Christianity, you wouldn't even have universal education.
"Home and in a house of worship is plenty enough."
No, it's not.
"Fact is, religions and religious dogma, have overwhelmingly been the most common causes of most of humanity’s worst conflicts and acts of horrific evil."
Well, some have. Such as the millions slaughtered by Marxist (atheist) regimes in the 20th century. But one of the problems with atheists is that they pretend that all 'religious' views have the same problems, but exclude their own views from that, despite the clear evidence that many religious are very different to one another. To lump them all (except their own) in together is nothing more than propaganda.
Further, Christianity is actually behind most of the good things in the world, having founded public hospitals, many charities, universal education, the university system, and modern science, plus having twice abolished slavery, spread democracy, raised the status of women, and promoted human rights.
"What is actually written in religious texts about morality is almost all centuries if not millennia, out of date."
You mean like Darwin's views that some 'races' were inferior to others, and that men were superior to women? That's not even two centuries old. Or are you referring to things like not murdering or stealing or things like loving one another, i.e. things that are found in the Bible?
"In general religion holds back humanity’s progress, actively discouraging open-mindedness."
Again, that would be correct for some religions, including atheistic ones, but clearly not of Christianity which has resulted in a lot of progress.
"The sooner the human species decides to untangle religion from morality, the better."
Where would you get morality from then? Your subjective opinions? Why would that be better?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@tannerpayne4384
"Here are the two simple facts of the YES campaign, "
"Indigenous peoples lived in Australia long before the British arrived (everyone knows this)..."
Depending on how long is 'long', yes, I'd accept that as factual. However ...
"... so it makes sense that they be included in the founding document of the country."
That's an opinion, not a fact. Facts tell you what , not what .
But if you want another , it's a that they mentioned in the constitution, right at the beginning, where it refers to "the of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, ...". Unless, of course, like some former evolutionists, you don't really consider aborigines to be people?
"And the Voice is ONLY an advisory body, anyone trying to say otherwise is misinformed or trying to lie to you."
That is debatable. Yes, technically, it's only an advisory body. But one which Albanese said would have enough power that no Prime Minister would be game to go against it. Further, it have some power, and the High Court might decide that it has more than what it ostensibly has.
"The panel is formed by elected indigenous elders, ..."
Who elects them?
"...who will advise the government on how policies and laws might be affecting indigenous peoples."
Which could involve just about any policy or law, that affects non-aborigines also, but for some reason the rest of us don't get our own special 'voice'. That's discrimination, and on the basis of supposed race, i.e. it's racist. I'm sorry that you attempt to defence such a racist proposal.
"Hope I helped"
No, you didn't, I'm sorry.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
What's a "two party preferred system"?
We have preferential voting, if that's what you mean, which results in multiple parties, such as Labor, Liberals, Nationals, One Nation, United Australia, Greens, and so on. So it's not a two-party system either, even though there are two who dominate.
And preferential voting is a good, democratic, way of voting.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@MacchiatoSwirlGirl
"it doesn't tell me anything about his policies.."
So can't figure from his view what sort of policies he might support...
"tells me he might not represent all of the people under the U.S. law of constitution."
... but it can somehow tell you that? Sorry, that's just bigotry. If he was an atheist, would you come to the same conclusion? If he was a Christian, but didn't mention it, would you come to the same conclusion?
"He follows the law under what he thinks his religion should have a right too."
That sentence doesn't even make sense. But I'll point out that "his religion" (i.e. Christianity) is the foundation of Western Civilisation. If you don't like his views, you'll reject Western Civilisation, as much of the left is doing currently.
"Which may not represent me, my family, cohorts or my faith..."
Your faith? So you follow a different religion? So what's the problem? You think he should agree with your faith, but you can't agree with his?
Or are you saying that he should follow his religion, but not tell you about it?
Yes, his views and yours may be incompatible, but he was duly elected, and has as much right as anyone else duly elected to hold his views, and to tell people what they are.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
"How do you make progress" Macpherson asks. By returning to Christianity. It was Christianity that forged a lot of the progress, as acknowledged by numerous scholars.
Agnostic historian Tom Holland, talking about the apostle Paul's letters in the New Testament:
"...compacted into this very very small amount of writing, was almost everything that explains the modern world [the Western world] but also the way that the West has moved on to shape concepts like international law, for instance, ... concepts of human rights, all these kinds of things. Ultimately they don’t go back to Greek philosophers; they don’t go back to Roman empiricism. They go back to Paul. Paul, really, his letters are, I think, are, along with the four gospels, the most influential, the most impactful, the most revolutionary writings that have emerged from the ancient world.”
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@pwillis1589
In DNA, there are 64 codons, or three-letter 'words'. 61 of those code for a particular amino acid, but there are only 20 amino acids coded for. How is that possible? Because, to take a couple of examples, both TTT and TTC code for the same amino acid, phenylalanine, and all of CGT, CGC, CGA, CGG, AGA, and AGG code for arginine. You can't say that there are 61 amino acids on the basis that there are 61 codons.
Similarly, yes, there are various combinations of the X and Y chromosomes. But they all result in only two sexes, male and female.
Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, 22 of which we number 1 to 22. The remaining one we call either XX or XY, because in the latter case, one of the pair is different. When chromosomes are inherited by a baby, sometimes there is a 'copying mistake' and you end up with an extra copy (or two) of a chromosome. An extra copy of No. 21 results in Down Syndrome. An extra copy of No. 18 results in Trisomy or Edwards syndrome. As you've listed, you can get an extra copy of an X or a Y as well. But none of these constitute a different sex. You are still either male or female, or perhaps having some characteristics of both. There is still no third sex.
"Sex just isn’t as simple as we use to think it was."
The human body is far more complicated than scientists such as Darwin used to think it was. But sex, invented by God (Genesis 1:27) is still binary, and in that sense, still quite simple.
"This is the same crowd that would have been freaking out when we discovered the earth actually rotates around the sun."
Sure about that? Some of those onew who 'freaked out' were the scientists of the day who had adopted the idea that the sun went around the earth from pagans. The scientists of the day who concluded that the earth orbits the sun were Christians who believed that God created (as were the ones who 'freaked out') and looked at the evidence.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
"Radical Islam" is Islam done faithfully. "Islam" is cultural Islam of people who are not committed to the religious beliefs.
Like Blair describes "radical" Islam, Christianity also essentially holds "that there is only true faith" (and of course they can't all be true, give that they have opposing views, including atheistic religions), "and that society, politics, and culture should be governed only by that view". However, the difference is that Christianity doesn't believe in forcing people to believe; it doesn't believe in "an armed struggle to achieve it". He also says that "radical" Islam is "in open conflict with open, modern, culturally tolerant, societies", but doesn't acknowledge that those societies are the product of Christianity, which was the basis for Western Civilisation. So in fact, the religion of Islam is in conflict with the religion upon which the West is based. Surprise surprise!
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@deanlowdon8381
"I’ve tried ... to engage in discussions about real political issues and ... all I ever got back was insults ..."
I've tried too, and for the most part what I get back is leftists citing leftists as evidence that I'm wrong. Or just asserting that I'm wrong. Or attacking straw-man arguments, like this one:
"Now that Trump has lost so many of his supporters, and parts of the media, want to claim it’s all a big conspiracy."
First, it's not a claim about conspiracy, but about bias and corruption. Secondly, we've been pointing it out for years; it's nothing new.
"You’re honestly telling me that the ‘News’ channel that spent 8 years criticising everything Obama did ..., yet supported everything Trump has done, doesn’t have a bias!?"
It didn't used to. Fox only looked biased compared to the rest who were actually biased. And no, they didn't support everything Trump did. Lately, however, they seem to be moving to the left.
A Harvard study of how the media treated Trump's first 100 days in office ("News Coverage of Donald Trump’s First 100 Days") showed that most news outlets were overwhelmingly negative (CNN 93%; NBC 93%; CBS 91%, NYT 87%, Washington Post: 83%, Wall Street Journal: 70%), but Fox was 52%. So which ones were biased? Hint: everyone but Fox.
And that 52% figure also disproves your claim about supporting "everything" Trump did.
"Trump’s ramblings about non-existent voter fraud?"
Someone's in denial. Voter fraud has been documented. As Rowan Dean rightly said, it's yet to be seen if that's enough to change things, but it has definitely occurred.
"Blah, blah, blah conspiracy. "
Well, the left has been doing that for the past four years, with the Russian Collusion conspiracy, the Ukrainian quid pro quo conspiracy, and so on. Did you criticise the left for that?
"Blah, blah, blah, blah media bias."
The media bias is well documented even apart from the evidence I cited above.
"Get over it, Trump lost by near it 4 million votes in total and the people have spoken.
The media has spoken. But they do not decide.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@cletusj.johnson1850
"don't bring your god into this mate"
It's not "his" God, but the God, who made everything. You owe your very existence to Him.
"I am exercising my right to "free speech" by telling you that no one cares about your nutcase religion and your imaginary friend in the sky. Goodbye."
Yes, you are exercising your free speech, by saying things that are not true and doing so in an insulting way. It's legal, and should be, but it's unethical and intellectually dishonest.
"...our religion tells others how they should act, talk, dress and live their lives to be a good person,..."
Rather, it relates God's definition of "good", and so we choose to be good. Atheism has no basis for even defining "good", so when you have such people with power, they'll do what they want, such as slaughtering millions as Stalin and Mao and other atheists did. (That does not mean that atheists can't be good; but they are adopting an essentially-Christian view in order to be that.)
5
-
@vidyanandbapat8032 Your theology and history are poor.
Of course the Judeo-Christian tradition didn't have a free press—the press hadn't been invented then! But the Judeo-Christian worldview did give rise to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and so on. It limited the government. When a Roman emperor massacred innocent people in angry revenge for an uprising, Bishop Ambrose told him off and forced him to introduce a new law that would not allow any executions without a cooling-off period. The Magna Carta was predicated on the principle that even the king was subject to God's law, a principle recorded over two millennia earlier when the God's man Samuel confronted King David over arranging the death of the husband of a woman he wanted.
Once the press was invented, Christians started newspapers in various places around the world, giving a voice to the people. They helped spread democracy partly because they involved people in running organisations, and the skills they gained helped them to organise politically. See The Missionary Roots of Liberal Democracy by Robert Woodberry.
No, God was not the God of a few Jewish tribes. He is the creator of the world and humanity. He is everybody's God (there being only one).
The Roman Empire adopted Christianity after it had spread widely in the empire.
The "archaic Jewish traditions" were part of the Mosaic Law (if not add-ons to that) that were never applicable to Christians, and which became redundant with Jesus. The most obvious example is the requirement to sacrifice animals for sin was no longer necessary once Jesus became the ultimate sacrifice, fulfilling that requirement for all time.
Paul was not a Roman, but a very religious Jew with inherited Roman citizenship.
The question is not which law emanated from the Judeo-Christian worldview, but which didn't? Common law was based on the Bible. See the three-volume work Christian Foundations of the Common Law by Augusto Zimmerman
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@unbreakable7633
"The common law emerged from a conflict with ecclesiastical law and in England this separation became the great foundation for individual liberty."
Not according to legal scholar Augusto Zimmerman:
"The modern roots of our individual rights and freedoms in the Western world are found in Christianity. The recognition by law of the intrinsic value of each human being did not exist in ancient times. Among the Romans, law protected social institutions such as the patriarchal family but it did not safeguard the basic rights of the individual, such as personal security, freedom of conscience, of speech, of assembly, of association, and so forth. For them, the individual was of value ‘only if he was a part of the political fabric and able to contribute to its uses as though it were the end of his being to aggrandize the state’. According to Benjamin Constant, a great French political philosopher, it is wrong to believe that people enjoyed individual rights prior to Christianity. In fact, as Fustel de Coulanges put it, the ancients had not even the idea of what it means."
and
"At the time of Magna Carta (1215), a royal judge called Henry de Bracton (d. 1268) wrote a massive treatise on principles of law and justice. Bracton is broadly regarded as ‘the father of the common law’, because his book De legibus et consuetudinibus Anglia is one of the most important works on the constitution of medieval England. For Bracton, the application of law implies ‘a just sanction ordering virtue and prohibiting its opposite’, which means that the state law can never depart from God’s higher laws. As Bracton explains, jurisprudence was ‘the science of the just and unjust’. And he also declared that the state is under God and the law, ‘because the law makes the king. For there is no king where will rules rather than the law.’ "
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@sc1450 "Dude, I don't believe your God exist & so stop saying stuff like this is god's design."
So you're trying to impose your beliefs on me! What's wrong with me saying if it's true? You not believing it doesn't make it false.
"If we want to defeat this woke & cancel culture nonsense that is going on, we all have to work together but if you are hell bend on pretending Religious people are ... awesome & Atheists are idiots."
No, if we are going to defeat this cancel culture nonsense, we have to recognise what's behind it. Ands what is behind it is a rejection of God's design and standards, leaving people to make up their own rules. Much of this has come from Marxist ideology, and that ideology is thoroughly atheistic. I'm not saying that atheists are idiots. I'm saying that they are wrong. Just as you are saying I'm wrong (except that I'm not telling you to keep your views to yourself). The question is, which one of us has the evidence to support their views? Christianity is based on the evidence that God exists, that He came to Earth in human form, was executed but came back to life, etc. Atheism is based on the evidence-free belief that God doesn't exist.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@agro59
"such a closed mind."
Yours or BENÉ's? Your mind seems pretty closed to what BENÉ is saying.
"we don't abuse our bodies or our partners as we love them"
Just like driving a car on flat tyres is not going to do it any harm, I guess. Oh wait, it wasn't designed to do that, just as we weren't designed to be homosexual.
"...so just accept people for who they are, you don't see what happens behind closed doors so why put your energy in hating something you don't understand?"
Who is hating? On the contrary, you will correct someone you love. If we hated them, we'd ignore then and let them suffer the consequences of their actions. Besides, this is not behind closed doors; this is shoved in our faces all the time.
"let it go without pushing your closed opinions upon others ..."
You mean like the AFLW is not pushing their closed opinions on their players? Oh, wait... Okay, so just the same old double standards.
"...we have morals and ethics too, ..."
Where do you get them from? If it's not from God, then ultimately its just subjective opinion.
"Go get out of your little bubble and go meet some gay, lesbian whatever people and you will see we are no different to you or the person next to you."
I know some. And yes, they are just like me in many ways. But not in the particular way we are discussing here.
"...personally I have experienced sexual harassment, sexual abuse, violence, discrimination and have been on the receiving end of people like you yelling profanity at my family..."
People like BENÉ? You know him that well? Or are you projecting someone else's actions onto him? Also, I have personally experienced discrimination for simply and politely expressing my opposition to the LGBT+ agenda. That's not from some crazy in the street yelling at me, but by my employer's H.R. department. Such is the oppression of the LGBT+ activists. Of course this AFLW story is another such case.
"...what about gay bashings and murders that happened..."
Not by Christians who point out that we were designed to be heterosexual, I expect.
" let alone the confusion within yourself thinking there's something wrong with you or the thought of your family diss owning you cause your not of the norm."
No, that is misrepresenting BENÉ. He never said that it had anything to do with it not being the norm. You invented that. Rather, as he explicitly said, it's because we were designed to be heterosexual.
"Homosexuality goes back century's..."
So does murder, theft, lying, and a whole lot more. Being old doesn't make it right.
"...it's only cause of the catholic church and western society decided it was wrong..."
No, it's because of the way we were designed. God condemned homosexuality around 2000 years before the Catholic church and Western Civilisation existed.
"how is love wrong?"
Again, you're attacking a strawman. Nobody said love was wrong.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@DJ-yj1vg
"There is something fundamentally wrong with a preferential voting system when a govt is elected with LESS primary votes than another party. Think about it."
I have thought about it for a long time, and you are wrong. One reason is that the total votes is what counts, not just the primary votes. Without preferential voting, you could have 60% supporting one of two conservatives (30% each) and 40% supporting a 'progressive', and the progressive would win because he got more than either conservative. With preferential voting, someone must get at least 50% to win—a much fairer outcome. This is achieved by eliminating the candidate with the fewest votes (one of the conservatives in this example) and the second preferences of those votes get distributed (to the other conservative). Of course that relies on people actually putting their second preference down for the other conservative.
"More people voted for Libs than Labor. And yet Labor have won the election.."
That can happen either way, because what wins the election is who gets the most seats, not the most votes. If Labor gets 51% of the votes in 51% of the seats and the Liberals get 80% of the vote in the other 49% of the seats, the Liberals will get more votes, but Labor wins because they have achieved more seats.
"They are the facts."
Yes, they were some of the facts. But they don't tell the whole story.
5
-
@jimothygreen8879
"There have been countless studies done and puberty blockers do not have any permanent side affects. anyone saying there are side affects are either lying or misinformed. pretty simple."
Or maybe the people claiming that there are countless studies showing no permanent side effects are lying or misinformed.
"It isnt a delusion, its rejecting the gender identity you were assigned at birth."
You are not assigned a gender identity at birth. That is pure fiction. If you are male and think you're female, you're deluded. That's basic logic.
"Gender dysphoria is a recognized medical health condition with clear treatment options that are documented and proven to work effectively."
Yeah, pull the other one. First, the video points out that there is disagreement with that by professionals who have been cancelled for not going along with the political correctness. Second, here's what one of the academics in this movement wrote:
"The problem is: I was wrong. Or, to be a bit more accurate, I got things partly right. But then, for the rest, I basically just made it up. ... Everyone was (and is) making it up. That’s how the gender-studies field works."
"A doctor cannot refuse treatment to a patient with gender dysphoria who wants it because of this. its like refusing to give medicine for a disease."
I neve said that they shouldn't give treatment. But the problem is not their body, but their mind. So why treat their body?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@backup3142
"my rebuttal is you are comparing science to sociology,"
No, I'm comparing facts with facts. One is a fact of science and the other is a fact of design and history. It's your opinion that one is merely societal.
"... citing a source which has a very clear bias..."
Everyone has a bias. It doesn't make it wrong, and you haven't shown it to be wrong.
"... do not understand how arguing and questioning are both attempting to understand topics better, "
I never said that they didn't have anything in common. But clearly they are not synonymous.
"Also you typed that slavery was not a consensus and said I did believe that,..."
I said that you did believe that it wasn't, or that it was? I said that slavery was not a consensus, and you claimed that it was a consensus. I'm missing something somewhere. Or you are.
"...and then literally quoted me saying that i thought it wasn't."
Are you referring to your comment that "Obviously, not everybody will always be in consensus..."? 'Consensus' means that there is general agreement, but not unanimous agreement. Saying that "not everybody will be in consensus" is either A) a redundancy, as there will be a few who don't agree (which means that there IS consensus) or B) saying that there is no consensus after all. Given that you'd already claimed that there was consensus, I took that to be A, a redundancy, as a few hold-outs doesn't deny that there was consensus. My point was that there was no consensus in the first place. That is, there was no general agreement but with a few exceptions, but considerable disagreement.
"Just because apes can speak, it does not make them intelligent, same goes for you and typing"
A poor analogy, given that apes can't speak in the sense of forming sentences or even words, and it does take intelligence to type, as opposed to simply hitting random keys.
"P.S. I am resorting to insults because I genuinely think that you are more thick skulled than a Neanderthal and need to be insulted for anything to remotely penetrate your veil of ignorance"
Then please disabuse yourself of that notion that I'm that thick. A bit pedantic at times, but not thick.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
"Sadly, OZ is a very racist place, ..."
I disagree.
"I came here at age 14, in 1961,..."
I have lived here longer than you.
"...nature gave me blue eyes and blond hair,..."
I got that from my parents, but that's neither here nor there.
"...my nighbour is Moslem, she has to deal with lots too."
Racism? Because Islam is not a race.
"Why we cannot live and let live, respect each other, tolerance, compassion, love, all forgotten, all gone together with freedom.."
By and large we do. Sure, there are exceptions, but they are the exceptions, not the rule.
5
-
5
-
@jaydenroberts2615
"I don’t appeal to the bible so I don’t care how we’re hypothesised to be designed."
You don't care how we were designed? But that is a critical point. (Yes, I know you said "hypothesised", but my comment was based on history and science, not a baseless hypothesis.)
"Fact of the matter is we do things which contradict our biology all the time so to say it’s unnatural, in order to not be a hypocrite, you better be ready to forage for food, walk around naked and never cut your hair. That’s the natural state of human beings"
What makes you think that that's the natural state? How do you know were weren't designed to cut our hair, farm, wear clothes, etc.? Because of your (presumed) evolutionary beliefs? Sorry, I don't appeal to atheist creation myths.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
So what are your arguments for this, Chris?
1) There is a consensus from the right to the left.
And yet, if there was such a consensus, you wouldn't be pushing it yet again and answering the objections.
2) It's for the original inhabitants.
But a) were aborigines the original inhabitants? b) the original inhabitants are long dead.
3) A succession of PMs from Howard onwards have endorsed that position.
But Turnbull rejected it and Abbott doesn't agree with the proposal.
4) A vague statement will lead to calls for judicial activism.
So his response is to make it specific that they do get judicial power!
5) The constitutional change should be so that aborigines have a say in their own welfare.
Ignoring that they already have a say, the same way everyone else does. Disingenuous.
6) Race has been in the constitution since the start.
But that doesn't make it right.
7) The right to make laws for aborigines was put there in a 1967 referendum.
But that was to protect them, not give them special rights.
8) Don't pretend that this is divisive. ... It's not divisive.
But giving a special 'voice' to just some of the population is clearly divisive!
9) Aborigines are the most disadvantaged group in the country.
Assistance should be on the basis of need, not membership in a 'racial' group. Many aborigines are not disadvantaged at all, and plenty of non-aborigines are disadvantaged.
10) If the government can make laws for one group, surely they can take advice from them.
It doesn't follow that it needs to be a formal body to provide that advice, and, again, the ability to make the laws was to protect them if necessary.
11) The claim that it's not needed because there are indigenous pollies in parliament is insulting to those pollies, as they were not elected to represent their race.
Or maybe it's insulting to propose a separate body because having actual, elected, representation is somehow not good enough? Further, this simply reinforces that this is a racist proposal.
12) Keeping doing the same thing will not solve the problems.
True. But then in one sense, this is continuing to do the same thing—bowing to the whims of the activists. Further, sure, do something different to help those with disadvantage—regardless of race.
13) Why don't we want them to take advice from indigenous people? We've been doing that for a long time.
Umm, so this is not something different?
14) But this is different because the aborigines get to decide who gives the advice.
But is that choice made (in part) by non-disadvantaged aborigines? (Even left-wing activists?) Then it's not necessarily composed of those who are disadvantaged, which is Kenny's supposed point in this.
15) People opposed to this ought to talk to the people involved.
They have. Some of them are indigenous themselves.
16) This is the opportunity to take a big step forward.
This begs the question of whether this step is a forward step or not. It's racist. So it's not.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Opinionsrnotfacts574
"I am most confident that Jesus does not involve himself in secular political matters..."
The problem with that statement is that a "secular political matter" is not purely political. Jesus is the truth, and IF, for the sake of argument, the election was fraudulent, then why should that not concern Him? We are not supposed to lie or cheat, so if politicians lie or cheat, that may be a political matter but it is also a matter of justice.
Further, God appoints governments, and expects them to act righteously.
"...he certainly does not want you to evoke his name and claim that he supports your side when he supports cherishes and loves every man woman & child not just Republicans"
I'm not a Republican, but then that's mainly because I'm not an American. But you seem to overlook that God is not just a God of love, but also of justice. Yes, He loves all, but that doesn't mean that He supports injustice. If (again hypothetically) my "side" is in the right and the other "side" is in the wrong, then why wouldn't He support my "side"? (That doesn't mean that He will necessarily respond the way I want; He's not a machine nor a slave there to serve me. He might wait for other matters to play out before acting, for example.)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@wilhelmredhood7296
"Atheism isn’t a religion."
I didn't say that it was. Neither is theism a religion. They are both categories of religions. Examples of atheistic religions include Scientology, Confucianism, Marxism, and Secular Humanism, the last of which declared itself to be a secular religion in its founding document.
Also, for what it's worth, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared atheism a religion.
Part of the issue is what is meant by "religion". Like most terms, it has a range of meanings, including things like being the core beliefs on which you base your life. By that definition, atheist views qualify as religious.
"Pretending it is, does your credibility no favours, as it’s an obvious false equivalency. "
On the contrary, pretending that atheist beliefs are somehow in a different category than theistic beliefs is the obvious fallacy here, and does your credibility no favours.
"The rest of your arguments sort of unravel once you accept that fact… "
And given that your claim is not a fact, the rest of my arguments stand. Right? Actually, no, even if you were correct, most of the rest of my arguments stands. Most of it was not dependent on that fact.
"Morality exists within religions but it is not by necessity, a product of them."
In the case of Christianity, morality comes from God. So yes, it is a product.
"Morality can be derived from empathy, dignity and common decency,..."
But why should empathy, and dignity be moral standards? Is that simply your opinion?
Further, where do you think common decency derives from? The fact is that Christianity formed the basis of Western Civilisation and imbued it with it's values, to the point that most in the West don't know where those values came from, and presume that they are innate in humanity. But they are not. In ancient Rome, for example, historian Tom Holland pointed out that "The sexual economy is founded on the absolute right of free Roman males to have sex with anyone that they want any way that they like." He also points out that it was Christianity that changed that.
"evidenced by the existence of plenty of secular humanitarian organisations worldwide"
They are copycats, in that they are copying what Christianity started. Or they have simply secularised formerly Christian institutions such as the Red Cross. While I do acknowledge the existence of secular humanitarian organisations, I also note the comment of Roy Hattersley who write a biography of the founders of the Salvation Army, in which he says “I’m an atheist. But I can only look with amazement at the devotion of the Salvation Army workers. I’ve been out with them on the streets and the way they work amongst the people, the most deprived and disadvantaged and sometimes pretty repugnant characters. But they look after them as best they can. I don’t believe they would do that were it not for the religious impulse. I often say I never hear of atheist organizations taking food to the poor. You don’t hear of ‘Atheist Aid’ rather like Christian aid, and, I think, despite my inability to believe myself, I’m deeply impressed by what belief does for people like the Salvation Army.”
"Religions are most often the reason one group de-humanises another, which is usually followed by terrible violence."
True. I'm not defending "religions". I'm defending Christianity. One of the problems with atheists that I have already pointed out is how they lump all religions (except their own) in together, as though they are all the same, despite the huge differences. That's intellectually dishonest, especially given that I have already pointed that out to you.
As for de-humanising followed by violence, you only have to look at Marxist (atheist) regimes that slaughtered millions in the 20th century. Or even at the abortion issue, where the unborn babies are dehumanised as merely 'fetuses' or 'part of the mother's body', or 'a clump of cells', leading to the slaughter of millions of innocent babies.
"...independently of whichever holy book or imaginary friend you believe in."
What imaginary friend? I believe in the very real, very evidenced, God.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@StevenDykstra-u3b
"... but Lucifer tempted Eve into being human."
No, he tempted Eve into disobeying God. God had already created them human.
"Biblically, the knowledge or knack to know and thus choose good or bad/evil was unwanted by God no less,..."
God didn't want man to "know" evil in the sense of having personal experience of it.
"...why would he empower humans (with conscience choice)..."
He didn't. God created them with choice. Else they would not have been able to choose to do what Satan said.
"... which God feared, ..."
What are you referring to there?
"Did Lucifer expect man as ally, or like God, as a competitor?"
Neither, I would say. Lucifer hated man, so tried to destroy him or get God to reject or destroy him.
"Personally, the logic contained within the Penteteuch is hard to (even) misconstrue into being logical."
Huh? Rather, it's hard to misconstrue into being illogical.
"But even Hitchens passed a frontal assault on Biblical logic for its innumerable self-negaying propositions,..."
Christopher Hitchens? Why would you say that "even an atheist" found fault in the Bible? Of course an atheist would try to.
And what "innumerable self-negaying propositions"?
"Yet, I like much of what Jesus reportedly said."
So you pick and choose?
"It was a Buda also touting the Golden rule (as did others)."
Evidence please. Jesus said to do unto others as you would have them do to you. I've seen others who have said "do unto others as they do to you", which is not the same thing.
"It ... fails if your ontology is based upon tribalism"
How so?
"For another world, we dump logic and thus intellectual integrity."
Evidence please.
"You think honest textual/logical analysis of religion is held at good ole P.U. : Praeger University?"
What is this "religion" you refer to? Are you of the mistaken view that the various different religions—from pantheistic ones to polytheistic ones to monotheistic ones to atheistic ones—are all different flavours of the same thing? On the contrary, many are very different to each other.
But ignoring that, then yes, PragerU is pretty much on the ball. Why would you imply otherwise?
"I am a Deist who believes a Satan and a God do not dabble in man's affairs."
Ah, okay. You reject the history that God has given us. That explains a lot.
"I read it not "Thy will be done, ", but "Thy will be (extstence). Done.""
When you have to swap words around to change the meaning, why not just reject it outright?
"...given we are biologically evolved beings with endowments for survival."
Provide evidence for being biologically evolved, please. And opinions of scientists based on materialism doesn't count as evidence.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"Cardinal Pell, was instrumental in suppressing child abuse that he knew about."
Evidence please. Baseless accusations are despicable.
"Then he cruelly fought to deny decent compensation and recognition of the offences."
False. His world-first compensation scheme was done in conjunction with and the support of the police and the government. It has been criticised in hindsight, but that is a case of judging it by later standards.
"So don't tell me he was a wonderful man."
Why not? For a Catholic, it seems that he was.
"And stop using the, he was a man of God defence. That was. And is used by the religious, to assume that all people of faith just can't do wrong."
Perhaps some do. But it's also used to point out that, assuming that they are following biblical teaching, they hold to a standard of being truthful.
"And those who aren't religious, aren't capable of any good."
Again false (as a generalisation). If they don't believe in God, they do not have a rational basis for being good. They don't even have a rational basis for drawing a distinction between right and wrong. But none of that means that they can't do good. Atheists often get the two confused.
"Your defending a man who's primary moral goal is to defend the power of the church."
Unless you have good evidence of that, I'd assume a man whose primary moral goal is to obey Jesus.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@davidrichaidson3269
"Oh Phillip sorry but do you know how ridiculous you sound?? Is there, can there be an expert in religion??"
Oh David, sorry, but do you know how ridiculous you sound? Haven't you heard of theologians? That is the title for an expert in religion.
"Religious thought is merely that, ideas that are never, can never stand up to any, any empirical evidence!!"
What's your empirical evidence of that claim?
"These thoughts have over years and years used by humans to deny others of logical thought thus slavery of the mind!!"
Again, what's your empirical evidence. Specially in the light that it's well documented that Christianity has taught freedom of the individual and has always championed reason.
"Phillip that is exactly your malaise, slavery of the mind, you seek to cancel authors as Dawkins, merely that you do not, cannot engage in any sensible debate merely displays their utter ignorance!!"
And yet here I am engaging in sensible debate while you're vilifying both Christianity and me.
"It would help if acolytes of religion, or should I call your ilk ideologues, could strive to prove your arguments..."
We have been doing that for centuries. Meanwhile, our critics tend to call us names and and vilify us rather than engage in reasoned argument.
"...go to the Caribbean thou dliggsrd if not dullard, see what religious thought has done to a people??"
One major fault of atheists and their kind is to lump all "religious" views except their own into the one basket. I'm not defending "religion"—which vary widely and can include atheist religious such as Zen Buddhism, Confucianism, Secular Humanism, Marxism, and Scientology—but Christianity. But I agree, many religions do terrible things. Just witness the denial of freedoms and economic basket cases of atheist-run regimes such as the former Soviet Union, China (although it as adopted the Christian invention of free enterprise so is doing much better economically), North Korea, and so on.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@kevinkelly2162
'But the sin of Sodom was neglecting the poor."
No, like all of us, the sin of Sodom was rejecting God. That can manifest in different ways. You only quoted part of the statement from Ezekiel. Here's the fuller description of what they did wrong: "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me."
They were prideful, didn't aid the poor and needy, where haughty, and did an abomination. Jude 7 says: "...just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire,..."
So the sinS of Sodom included homosexuality.
"...it says more about how your mind works than reflecting the word of God."
Perhaps you should take your own advice.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@shellodee
"In the first 3 months of pregnancy it is literally potential life, ..."
No, it's actual life. The chances of a miscarriage don't change that.
"it takes all nutritional needs from its host even if that host hasn't got the excess..."
The host provides the baby's nutritional needs, even if that's at it's own cost.
"Until it is deemed viable outside of the womb, it's simply the potential for life..."
I guess you are defining "potential life" to suit your views.
"...or a parasite..."
Already answered.
"miscarriages in the first 6-8weeks often end up flushed btw..."
Irrelevant to the argument.
"You want to be graphic about a procedure many women get due to pregnancy being the result of rape,..."
A relatively rare circumstance the pro-death crowd use to justify abortion in general, and which doesn't justify punishing the innocent baby. In what other crime is the criminal's offspring executed?
"maybe she has other children who would have their quality of life negatively impacted if another child was added to the family,"
What about killing one of them instead? Why discriminate against the unborn one? (Of course I'm not suggesting that; I'm pointing out the absurdity of the concept of killing one to preserve the quality of life of another.)
"...what about if the mother has a full time care disabled or ill child that requires her absolute attention,.."
You do realise that adoption remains an option?
"... after all that they cannot physically, psychologically or financially provide for that potential child,"
Not being about to provide for that child (no "potential" about it) is not reason to kill it.
"Don't be so quick to judge a woman for doing what she believes to be best for the sake of that potential child."
Who says he is judging her? Perhaps he's judging the doctor that actually kills the baby. Or perhaps he's arguing against the act rather than the people involved with the act.
"sticking your ... in someone doesn't make you some all knowing God amongst men you damn fool"
On the other hand, we do know an all-knowing God, who has said that it's wrong to kill innocent human beings.
"Plenty of new compounds are discovered around impact craters and nowhere else on this planet. Plenty we don't know and can't comprehend until we see it."
So? They are not life, just (possibly) ingredients for life, like silicon is an ingredient of computers.
"Really i just cannot stand ... people like eric here making ridiculous [deleted] statements about a procedure he will never be able to undergo or have to face undergoing."
You haven't shown that his statements are ridiculous. And not experiencing for oneself is not a reason to not comment.
"Dopes with their egos puffed up to hide their shortcomings because he'd rather post comments to YouTube..."
So now you're a mind reader knowing his motives?
"telling women they're terrible people for aborting pregnancies"
He never mentioned women, let alone say that they were terrible people. When you have to make up things about someone, you've presumably got no actual argument.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@dpatrick1992
"We do not worship Mary. Prayer and worship are two different things."
I agree that prayer and worship are two different things. But we pray to God, not humans.
"How can a human being who is dying every second that passes by because they are aging can ask another human to pray for them but they can't ask the Angels and saints in heaven who have true life within them to pray for them ?"
Because we cannot talk to humans and angels in heaven. God is omnipotent and also knows our thoughts. Humans and angels are neither. How do you think Mary could possibly hear hundreds of people's simultaneous prayers from around the world?
"protestants will decorate their entire homes with images and portraits of friends and family and other human beings but they will get upset if you have a stained glass window in your church with Jesus face on it. "
I've never known a Protestant to get upset over that. They might, however, get frustrated at portrayals of Jesus on the cross, taking the point of view that He is no longer there. Protestants have an empty cross, as Jesus rose again. But pictures of Jesus? No. (But keep in mind that we don't really know what Jesus looked like.)
"MARTIN LUTHER BROKE HIS VOWS. PULLED A NUN OUT OF THE CLOISTER, TOOK HER AS HIS WIFE AND FOUNDED PROTESTANTISM. "
Luther did not set out to found Protestantism. He tried to reform the Catholic Church, but they kicked him out. His marriage and the rest was after that.
"Those three things are the pillars of our faith."
No, Jesus is the pillar of our faith.
"There is a communication and an overall hatred towards Catholics for no reason other than people truly don't understand the true origins of the Christian faith."
That may be the case with atheists and some others, but the difficulty that us Protestants have is with the bad doctrines of the Catholic Church. Yes, it falls into the camp of "Christian", but it has become a distortion of true Christianity.
"What separates us is we don't walk around telling protestants they are going to hell, ..."
Neither do most Protestants, and to the extent that we do, much of it is because for many (not all) Catholics its an inherited belief, not a personal decision. That is, many people who call themselves Catholic are really cultural Catholics, not born-again Christians. But yes, there are many other Catholics who are undoubtedly Christians.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@jojeification
"Why are you even talking about christianism ?"
I think you are the only one who is. The rest are talking about Christianity.
"Because there were people at a table? Those were Greek gods, ya know, the ones from olympus?"
If you don't realise it was more than simply people at a table, you're not even trying.
"The world does not revolve around you or your beliefs"
Actually, to a fair extent, it does. Historian Tom Holland talking about the letters of the apostle Paul that are found in the New Testament (my bolding):
“... compacted into this very very small amount of writing, was almost everything that explains the modern world [the Western world] but also the way that the West has moved on to shape concepts like international law, for instance, ... concepts of human rights, all these kinds of things.”
"tell me what's the connexion with the topic."
I don't know what you're referring to. But why haven't you explained what "christianism" is?
"Also, most of what you say is untrue or simply based on your belief and not on facts ..."
Because you say so? What's your evidence?
"The point is simple: you pretend this is about Christianity..."
Or you pretend that it's not.
"...while it is a depiction of a bacchanale in olympus with dyogenes, god of wine and party in the centre."
Just as Jesus is in the centre of the painting of the Last Supper, which this is clearly based on. Drawing similarities doesn't help your case.
"If you can't see the connexion between Olympics, Olympus' gods, France, wine & party...the problem definitely is on you."
I never said that there was no connection between the portrayal and the original Greek 'gods'. But so what? If they use those 'gods' as an excuse to mock Christianity, it's still an attempt to mock Christianity.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@turnerfamilyinozi
"Why?"
Because it's wrong.
"I don't think and certainly hope that nobody is pushing kids towards changing gender. "
There's a fair bit of evidence that they are.
"It is mainly the religious right who believe in 2000 year old book with many contradictions that are opposed to change."
You have an issue with a history book being old? It's more likely to be right than ones written a long time after.
Besides, that book is authored by God, Who knows everything and doesn't make mistakes.
And it has no contradictions. That has been debunked long ago, but atheists keep falsely claiming that it does.
Finally, Christians are not opposed to good change, which is why they have introduced a lot of good changes, such as public hospitals, universal education, science, abolition of slavery, etc.
4
-
4
-
@dethdefy
"Who is teaching Marxist ideologies?"
Government schools.
"Just not sure why religion should get a free pass with tax dollars and then be able to discriminate in their employment?"
Just not sure why atheists should get a free pass with tax dollars and then be able to teach their views in government schools.
"atheism is the lack of belief in a god or religion."
Atheism is a belief in no god. (A lack of belief is agnosticism, but that's tantamount to atheism anyway.) Like most words, 'religion' has a range of meanings, and it can include atheist views, as I gave examples of.
"There is no ‘atheist view’ other than the single one I just mentioned."
False. That is the key view, but other views follow. For example, atheists believe that the universe came into existence naturally (not created), that morals don't come from God, that the information in living things came about naturally, that we weren't created heterosexual, and so on.
"And there aren’t atheist schools who get government funding."
No, there are government schools that teach atheist views such as the ones I just mentioned, plus Marxist (atheist) views such as homosexuality being okay, that one can change their gender, and more. Christian schools at least say up front that they are Christian.
"There aren’t schools who teach - “there is no god” "
No, instead they teach that God didn't create, etc. etc., and by example, teach that God is at least irrelevant.
"The fact is, certain religious schools want the right to discriminate."
As does everyone. Any time any employer hires someone (and there was more than one applicant per position), they discriminate against those that they don't hire.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@sc1450
"Fine, you can preach your view points to us & we will listen to it."
Thank you. I appreciate you conceding the point.
"But don't count on us following it."
Don't worry. I'm not!
"Gay people will keep on marrying gay people. Lesbians will do the same."
They will keep on forming alliances that don't count as marriage. I know.
"Atheists will keep on doing whatever they want. Ok"
Well, not really okay, because that can have dire consequences. I'm not saying you should be forced to stop being atheists, but if they are true to their beliefs (most aren't) they don't have any fundamental reason to do what is right by other people. This is why when atheists have gained great power, such as in the cases of Stalin and Mao, the results have been horrendous. Christians say that by God's standards, killing other humans (made in God's image) is wrong (except in certain cases such as self-defence). But atheists believe that they can make their own standards, and while most will go along with what society (historically Christian in the West) says, when you are in charge of everyone and make your own standards, what's wrong with slaughtering millions?
"Saying woke people are Atheists are wrong."
I didn't say that, but I'd think most are atheists. Effectively at least.
"They cancelled Richard Dowkins, an Atheist."
You do realise that it's possible for all woke people to be atheists without all atheists being woke?
"Also they never criticize Islam. Why?"
Because they believe that the enemy of your enemy is your friend, and Islam is the enemy of Christianity. So they go along with it. For now.
"Woke is a combination of Communists & Islam."
I'm not convinced about the Islam part of that equation, but communism is atheistic.
"There is both Atheists & Religious people in there."
Ignoring the Islam part, I know that there are nominal Christians in it. Biden, for instance, claims to be Catholic. But then he's happy for babies to be murdered in the womb, against Catholic (and other Christian) teaching. So his claim to be Catholic seems quite nominal.
I'll answer your question about evidence for God in a separate reply.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@LOCATIONREDACTED
"You've given me food for thought."
I'm glad. To expand, initially relations with aborigines were good. However, in some places and at some times, relations were bad. Some people (following Darwin and his evolutionary views) considered them sub-human, and treated them badly. Sometimes aborigines attacked the Europeans, and the Europeans fought back, with superior weaponry and went overboard in their response. There are certainly some aspects that are lamentable, but at the same time, the picture was not all a negative one. Despite claims to the contrary, aborigines had the right to vote from the 1850s—depending on which state (colony then) they were in. When South Australia became the first place in the world to give women the vote, that included aboriginal women (given that aboriginal men already had that right). Of course that brief summary leaves out a lot.
But in recent decades, the racism industry has highlighted the isolated (but too common) atrocities and made them out to be typical of all people at all times, failing to acknowledge all the good that was also done.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@tomhicks1009
"Since colonisation Australia has lost over 35 mammals"
Since European colonisation, I presume you mean. And how many were lost since aboriginal colonisation/settlement? From Australian Geographic: "HUMANS LIKELY KILLED most of Australia’s native megafauna some 45,000 years ago, a new study suggests." (Capitals in the original.) That claim is controversial, but the question remains, as does the question of what your point is. You're trying to blame European settlement as though it is uniquely at fault, without showing that.
"We have destroyed once beautiful forests and grass lands and turned them into waste lands or concrete jungles."
Or useful farming land, and houses for people to live and placed for them to work. You think it would be better to let it go unused?
"The aboriginals lived with the land for 60,000 years."
You're already claimed that. And I've answered it. Repeating it doesn't make it any more true.
"We have destroyed it in 200 years."
And yet it is still here; it hasn't been destroyed.
"And we are the “advanced society” apparently."
Clearly we are, unless you think that just getting by on a subsistence existence, without law and order, medicine, and technology is a good thing.
"I know who Pascoe is..."
So why did you pretend that you didn't?
"...but to wright off scientific facts based of one fraud is nonsense."
What scientific facts?
"They preserved/protected the land"
How did they do that? Other than by not having the ability to make better use of it?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@unionpepe7864
"...the market itself had corporations prove that global warming existed and rather then tell the world they covered up the information research how Exxon discovered global warming."
I don't believe that Exxon "discovered" global warming.
"now I'm not sure what you do for a living but I'm an industrial electrician and we call these things turn overs where we will work for 3 months and be given all those things. so i would expect them to do that if were gonna be doing turn overs all over the country"
I don't really follow that sentence, but who "gives" you those things? The companies you are working for, or the government (taxpayers)?
"you just restated this point without evidence"
You asked what freedom of speech they are trying to take away. I gave examples (i.e. evidence). You simply asserted, without evidence, that they are not. So I restated my point without further evidence, because I'd already supplied some that you had ignored.
"hate speech laws are very cut and dry..."
So?
"...if you attempt to spew hateful rhetoric in public places you are fined, do it 30 times and youre probley going to jail. dont call people racial slurs or advocate to remove their rights"
But what constitutes "hateful rhetoric"? My point is that the left call almost anything they disagree with, "hate". It's not just racial slurs; what about calling someone "homophobic" simply for disagreeing with homosexuality? Why isn't that a (non-racial) slur? The left do that all the time. But if conservatives do something equivalent, it's now "hate".
"Freedom of speech isnt freedom from consequences."
Sorry, no. Freedom of speech IS freedom from consequences when those consequences are punishing someone for freely speaking. You might as well say that you have a right to drive over the speed limit, but should expect a fine or jail if you do so.
"You can say what you want as long as its not threating anothers liberty ..."
And yet I gave you an example—the very thing that you are replying to—that shows that to be utterly false.
"but you still face consequences such as ... losing your job, etc".
The only reason you lose your job is because they say that you are NOT free to say things!
"...again freedom of speech means the government cant arrest you."
What you're trying to say is that freedom of speech simply means that there is no legal penalties, but there could still be other penalties (not just incidental "consequences"). That is a valid point to make, but then I gave that example in response to your claim that "Companies are simply banning extremist[s]...". I showed that that was not the case, so you moved the goal posts.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@backup3142
"first off, arguing is questioning."
They are not synonyms. Sure, you might do some arguing as part of questioning, but that doesn't make them the same thing.
"Second, how are you going to say "as educated people, they should already know why it's correct"?"
I'm not going to say it. I already said it. I said it by a process of thinking and typing. Not hard at all. But of course that is not what you're asking. There are some things that are common knowledge. If you claim to be educated and don't know those things, then it's fair to say that they should know.
"Blindly accepting things without arguing or questioning them is the opposite of intelligence; you are a clear example of that."
I never mentioned blind acceptance. I was talking about knowing why something is the case. Do you blindly accept that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius? Or do you question that by arguing against that? Sure, make sure you understand why that is believed to be the case (the opposite of blind acceptance), but questioning it as though it's open to question, when you don't actually understand the reasons, is not a valid position to take.
"Third, the overall consensus on slavery was it was good because they did not view slaves as people."
That would have been the rationale of the people who accepted it, but my point was that there was not consensus; there was always opposition.
"Obviously, not everybody will always be in consensus, but for the most part, people in the west did think that slavery was good."
Simply not true. Christianity taught that it was wrong, and even well before Christians—who argued against it precisely because the slaves were people, made in the image of God—got it abolished in the 19th Century, popes had decreed against it, as early as around the fourth century, from memory (which fits with the quote below). One researcher (Jeremiah H. Johnston in Unimaginable ) wrote:
"... starting in the fourth century, widespread racism ended for hundreds of years. Why was this?
"That's when the Christian movement emerged as a dominant cultural force in the Roman Empire, and the bold socio-theological statement 'There is neither Jew nor Greek' took hold. Unfortunately, racist ideology, and with it justification for slavery in the West, reemerged in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The influential voices that spouted this new racist ideology—all of them European—were atheists who explicitly rejected the notion that humanity had been created in the image of God. Humanity is not special. Human beings are not equal. Humanity is not one, but is made up of various races or subspecies, some of which are inferior to White Europeans. It was this post-Christian thinking that the ugly racism of antiquity made its comeback..."
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@3082lopo
"Bible have been rewritten several times trough out 2000 years to suit at the time of politics."
Nonsense. Modern translations are based on the ancient manuscripts we have, i.e. being direct translations of as close as we can get to the originals. You have no idea what you're talking about.
"So they can have changed something on the lines of slavery in it also."
No, they can't have. If anyone did, others would point out that it doesn't match the ancient manuscripts.
"Or Jesus Christ was at the time a slave and made uprising with other slaves to fight back the owners or something."
In other words, you're making things up.
"We dont know as it was so long ago..."
But we have the historical records. Just as we do for many other people and events in ancient history, although the Bible has far better quality of evidence than almost anyone else in ancient history.
"...we all know about it by someone explain it trough people talking from memory or what there parents told them or grand parents and so on and on."
False. Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. We have literally thousands of manuscripts, parts of manuscripts, and non-biblical manuscripts quoting the Bible dating as far back as the first century in some cases.
"It's a weak argument that there was talk about it in a bible."
No, it's a strong argument, given that the Bible has been proved to be a very reliable source.
"I would ask when was it added to bible."
When it was first written.
"As Christianity was also forced on people like at sword point. Lose your head or start to believe in there religion."
Some did that, but for the most part, that's false.
"It's a method used for lots of religion."
With some, yes. But that has no bearing on the extent that it was used by Christians.
"Also probably one of the reasons why my country is mostly atheist's"
That's more likely due to atheist lies and propaganda.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@jonvdk5016
"you understood her incorrectly then."
I've looked, and found more information. Deves was supporting Claire Chandler, and the latter's proposal was mainly aimed at amending the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, about which Chandler says "sporting codes, clubs and volunteers can have legal action taken against them for offering single-sex women’s sport." Yes, it does also say that "Sporting codes should offer participation options for everyone – but this must include single-sex sport for women.", so you have a point, but your point also misses the main point that under current legislation, it's not clear that sporting bodies can make their own rules, as you say that they should. So you should have supported Deves' plan, at least in part.
"Now you're sounding authoritarian to mandate what is and isn't a women's sport."
No, I did not do that, if you mean that I'm saying that sport X must be a women's sport. If you're accusing me of saying that women's sport must only be for women, that's just axiomatic—if it's not just for women, it's not women's sport!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I've often heard Americans claim that America is a republic, not a democracy, but with one exception, none of those people could justify the claim, and that one exception essentially said that the claim is really referring to it not being a pure democracy.
Much of this comes down to definitions, it seems to me. Even after watching this video, I think it's fair to say that America is a democracy, but a particular type of democracy. More precisely, it's a representative democracy, and even a particular type of representative democracy.
It's interesting to compare this to Australia, which is similar in some ways but also different in some. Like America, Australia is a federation of what were British colonies, but unlike America, it became independent peaceably, with the consent of the British government. Australia's constitution was originally an act of the British parliament. However, it seems to me that Australia's constitution was influenced by the American one. Just comparing the references to no religious test, etc. you'll find very similar wording. Like Britain and America, it has a bicameral government. Like America, representatives of the lower house are proportional to the population of the states. Like America, the states all have equal representation in the upper house (also called the Senate).
However, unlike America, we do not have an elected president. That non-political role is fulfilled by the Governor General, representing Australia's Queen, Queen Elizabeth. (The GG is appointed by the queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister). Therefore there is no equivalent of the Electoral College.
One common way of describing Australia's system is a representative democracy. It's also described as a constitutional monarchy. There are some who would like to make it a 'republic', i.e. to replace the queen's representative with an president, although there is no agreement on how that person would be elected.
So in some ways Australia's system is very much like America's, but it's never called a republic, despite this video indicating that some of the things that make America a republic are also things found in the Australian system.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"we are not the same,..."
Every individual is different, but biologically we are generally very much the same. Same organs, same melanin (albeit different amounts), same blood, etc. There are difference in culture, however. But that's something that can be changed.
"...we have never done horrific crimes to anyone..."
Not true. And it's not true for me either.
"...like you people,..."
Which people? The ones who thought you were less evolved, or the ones who thought you too were made in God's image and did what they could to help?
"...my people will finally have the rightful payments that you people have denied us for over 250+ years..."
What rightful payments?
"money will soon improve your lives so why wouldn’t it improve our lives"
It improves lives when you earn it. But when you are given it, all it does is give you a sugar hit, and then it's gone, and you've learned nothing about what really satisfies.
"what’s you peoples excuse for being a failure in a country built to suit yas..."
The excuse is that success or failure is up to the individual, not the country or group.
"...we’ve been through hell while you people have prospered..."
No, some people, regardless of skin tone (a trivial difference) have 'been through hell' and others, especially those who put in the effort, and again regardless of skin tone, have prospered. True, some wrong thinking by many—but not all—people has had very bad consequences, but that's mostly in the past now.
"in the 70s and 80s my family have slaved on cattle stations for peanuts making just enough to eat and pay bills"
And my family also made just enough to eat and pay bills. That situation is not restricted to one particular group.
"...I grew up in a tin shack in the 80s because we wasn’t given jobs and housing..."
And that suggests the real problem—you expect to be given those things.
"...I still went to school,then tafe and college then I worked on the railway then construction,..."
Okay, so this society gave you a good education and the opportunity for paying jobs, but all you can do is complain about this society.
"now they’ve made it more difficult to obtain a job for those of us who can’t provide the papers for them"
Yes, but that applies to everyone. I still work on the railways (I have for 45 years) and I'd have trouble myself getting a job today, with my level of education (less than you got). It would only be my experience and personal skills that would get me one, I reckon. The point, yet again, is that the problem is not restricted to one group based on skin tone.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@simonharris4873
"His job isn't to forced his outdated religious beliefs onto others."
What makes his beliefs outdated?
And what's your evidence he was forcing his beliefs onto anyone?
And why not criticise the school for forcing their views on him?
"You think this student is evil?"
Gregory Henderson didn't call the student evil. What he called evil was the idea of calling black white, or in this case, insisting that the teacher lie about the sex of the student.
"WOW! Is that what Jesus would say?"
Yes, actually. "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,..." (Romans 3:23) That's saying that everyone is evil.
"It was over his aggressive attitude towards the principal."
The principal who insisted that he lie? The principal is the one at fault here.
"Some Christian huh?"
For speaking the truth? Absolutely!
"Which one?"
There is only one.
"The one that thinks PI = 3?"
Pi is 3, to an accuracy of one significant digit. To three digits it's 3.14. To 8 digits it's 3.1415926. None of those are exact, but 3 is not incorrect, it's just less precise than you are used to. And, contrary to the false claim of some atheists, God never taught that Pi=3 anyway.
"He should show everyone respect, ..."
True. But you don't respect people by lying to or for them. Yet that's what he was ordered to do.
"He failed on both accounts."
What's your evidence? Because it appears that the contrary is true.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@renebatsch2555
True, it's not a pure democracy, but a representative democracy, which I think is the most common sort.
"A pure democracy is dangerous to any minority."
As I understand it, a true or pure democracy is where the voters voted directly for or against the laws, i.e. not voting for representatives who vote for (or against) laws.
That is, I'm not aware of any reason (in principle) why you couldn't still have a constitutional pure democracy.
But even a constitutional democracy is, in principle, no barrier to being dangerous to minorities. The barrier to discrimination against minorities is the constitution, which itself has to be voted for. So what's to stop the voters voting for a constitution that allows such discrimination?
Really, it comes down to the ethics of the people. As John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other".
The danger or otherwise for the minorities is not the form of government nor the constitution per se, but the morality of the people behind it.
3
-
"I wonder which cabin was reserved for the termites, carpenter bees and beaver."
Did you miss the bit where he said that bees didn't need to be on the ark? The same would apply for termites.
And if you think that Noah had no way of preventing beavers eating the beams, then you haven't tried thinking of a way.
"he also said the earth is only 6000 years old"
Because it is.
"and dinosaurs are not real..."
No, he didn't. He said that the word 'dinosaur' was recent.
"After decades in the industry, I can promise you that all the cut lumber (beams, boards etc), which probably make up 98% of the "ship" definitely did NOT come from already dead trees."
He didn't claim that they were. He was talking about particular bits of timber, not the entire thing.
"But all that's beside my initial JOKE post, which was obviously taken as serious by many."
The problem is that, for your termite sentence at least, it was very similar to many serious comments I've seen.
3
-
3
-
"Western societies are secular societies."
Secular means keeping church and state matters separate; it does not mean atheistic. Western societies are based on Christianity.
Former Time reporter David Aikman:
“The eighteen American tourists visiting China weren’t expecting much from the evening’s lecture. They were already exhausted from a day of touring in Beijing. But what the speaker had to say astonished them.
" 'One of the things we were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world,' he said. 'We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next, we focused on your economic system. But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West has been so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.'
This was not coming from some ultra-conservative think tank in Orange County, California ... This was a scholar from China's premier academic research institute, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) in Beijing in 2002.”
Historian Tom Holland:
“...compacted into this very very small amount of writing [the Apostle Paul's letters in the New Testament], was almost everything that explains the modern world [the Western world] but also the way that the West has moved on to shape concepts like international law, for instance, ... concepts of human rights, all these kinds of things. Ultimately they don’t go back to Greek philosophers; they don’t go back to Roman empiricism. They go back to Paul. Paul, really, his letters are, I think, are, along with the four gospels, the most influential, the most impactful, the most revolutionary writings that have emerged from the ancient world.”
"Keep your religious mumbo-jumbo out of other people's lives, thanks."
Why? You don't keep yours out of other's lives.
3
-
@alisons9740
"We who see through an egocentric con artist and want America to be respected by the rest of the world, protect democracy, and believe in diplomacy, ethics, women’s rights, racial justice, the environment, and so much more, will fight for Biden.
"You'll fight to make things worse? Why?
"And to clarify, “fight” used to mean ballots, not arms…"
As in when Trump said "fight", he meant politically, not with arms, right?
3
-
3
-
It's not a cult, and it's done an enormous amount of good in the world. One academic wrote:
“Christianity created Western Civilization. Had the followers of Jesus remained an obscure Jewish sect, most of you would not have learned to read and the rest of you would be reading from hand copied scrolls. Without a theology committed to reason, progress, and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800: A world with many astrologers and alchemists but no scientists. A world of despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys, and pianos. A world where most infants do not live to the age of five and many women die in childbirth–a world truly living in "dark ages."
The modern world arose only in Christian societies. Not in Islam. Not in Asia. Not in a "secular" society–there having been none. And all the modernization that has since occurred outside Christendom was imported from the West, often brought by colonizers and missionaries.”
Of course that doesn't mean that all Christ's followers—let alone all who claim to follow Him—are without fault.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"Religion is redundant to be honest"
Christianity is not, because it's true, and is the basis of Western Civilization, starting or spreading things like public hospitals, charities, universal education, universities, modern science, literacy, democracy, equality, and freedom.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Rwethereyet
"To all who are vehemently against abortions and quick to judge those who have had to face that extremely difficult decision, allow me to invite you to lovingly be open to foster one or more children who are sadly feeling unwanted and loved as they get bounced through the foster system."
First, people doing the wrong thing should stop simply because it's wrong, not because you're helping them out.
Second, many people do the things you suggest. We would have liked to adopt, but couldn't partly because there weren't enough babies. We have done short-term fostering.
Implying that people who are against abortions need to provide an alternative and are not providing that alternative is to put blame/responsibility in the wrong place.
"But the question is, “what are the outraged doing about those unwanted children who weren’t aborted?”"
Apart from the fact that they are doing quite a bit, no, that is NOT the question. The question is, is it right to kill an innocent human being?
"How far does your outrage go? Or is it really just judgement?"
Do you apply that standard for any other wrong? Do you keep quiet about, say, burglaries because you're not providing in other ways for the burglar?
3
-
3
-
3
-
@robertholland7558
"The existence of God and morals are 100% unrelated!"
If morals don't come from God, they are just subjective opinion. In fact they are closely related.
"I a, not going down that rabbit hole."
So you'll just throw stones from the side and not support your claims. Typical.
"Religion, of any kind , is a problem."
Well, atheist religions are. But that doesn't mean that Christianity is.
"Christianity is not repeat not the basis of western civilisation!"
Sociologist Rodney Stark:
"Christianity created Western Civilization. Had the followers of Jesus remained an obscure Jewish sect, most of you would not have learned to read and the rest of you would be reading from hand copied scrolls. Without a theology committed to reason, progress, and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800: A world with many astrologers and alchemists but no scientists. A world of despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys, and pianos. A world where most infants do not live to the age of five and many women die in childbirth–a world truly living in "dark ages."
he modern world arose only in Christian societies. Not in Islam. Not in Asia. Not in a "secular" society–there having been none. And all the modernization that has since occurred outside Christendom was imported from the West, often brought by colonizers and missionaries."
"If you want to teach your children religious philosophy do so outside the formal education system, private or public!"
If you want to teach your children atheist views, do so outside the formal education system.
"It is my choice, I do not want my tax do.laws spend that way."
No, it is not your choice. Any more than it is my choice to not support atheist views in schools.
3
-
3
-
@di_ibzy
"No we do not come from that middle eastern bloke noah ."
Evidence?
"That’s what you have been taught to believe so you believe it ."
No, I believe it because it comes from a very reliable source, with evidence.
"No, the flood of Noah is one of the easiest biblical myths to debunk, ..."
On the contrary, the same flood is remembered in accounts from all around the world.
"...not only with DNA, ..."
DNA supports it. See the video "Noah's Flood Genetics", with Dr. Robert Carter.
"...but with geology, ..."
Geology supports it too. Most of the earth's surface is covered with sedimentary rock (as you'd expect from a global flood), much of it in formations that are continent-wide (or wider), and filled with billions of fossils that could only have been formed by being buried quickly and deeply.
"...basic knowledge of biology..."
Biology is about how living things operate, not about their history.
"...and dendrochronology"
Dendrochronology is based on a naturalistic view, ignoring evidence that it's unreliable.
"When you consider that salt water is deadly to fresh water fish and vice versa,..."
To fish today, not so much then, when the oceans would have been less salty. And your claim is not true of all fish anyway.
"...even without the pollution of millions of rotting corpses..."
It's not in evidence that the pollution would be that concentrated.
"...all vegetation, including aquatic plants, who need the light miles of water would block out completely, would be rendered extinct, as would most, if not all, marine life, "
Also not in evidence. Yes, I've no doubt that a lot would have been destroyed, but not all of it.
"...his implausibly huge boat, ..."
Implausibly? That depends on what you consider plausible.
"...along with enough food for millions of species for a year."
He didn't have millions of species. Just a few thousand kinds. In fact I don't think that there are millions of species if you don't count species that weren't on the ark, such as insects, fish, etc.
"...whose growth patterns coincide with older trees, ..."
That is a very subjective alignment.
"...and showing no sign whatsoever of having been submerged."
Because they are post-flood (and not as old as claimed).
"Geology likewise, shows not evidence at all for a global flood,..."
Already answered. And a lot more evidence could be provided, including planation surfaces, wind gaps, underfit rivers, lack of erosion during supposed millions of years, and bent formations that had to all be still soft when bent.
"The whole myth is a recycled version of earlier myths,..."
Evidence? Given that the oldest extant accounts are necessarily the oldest accounts.
"...and shows a total absence of scientific understanding, ..."
Nothing unscientific about it.
"...or any idea of the size of the Earth,..."
It says nothing about the size of the earth.
"...or the size of vessel required to house so many animals and plants."
Your claim shows a total absence of understanding what the actual claims are, as you have the wrong idea of how many animals were on the ark and apart from food, there were not plants on the ark.
I do, however, appreciate you actually making an attempt, rather than just dismissing and insulting, as so many do.
3
-
3
-
3
-
That "disgusting book" has changed the world for the better, with its followers founding public hospitals, many charities, universal education, science, and the university system, as well as spreading democracy, twice abolishing slavery, promoting human rights, and elevating the status of women, amongst others. I fail to see how that makes the book "disgusting". Perhaps you can explain?
"I'll stick to Stephen King"
I prefer books about reality than novels, even though they can be good too.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@RiZZOBE4R
"As a teen I fought hard for my civil rights, as did others,..."
What rights? The right to have your immorality (God declares it wrong, given that He designed us to be heterosexual) publicly accepted? That's not a right.
"Ma'am with all respect I've accepted that I can't change,..."
You're probably right. But God can change you. Further, although you may not be able to change your feelings, you can change your actions.
"I accept responsibility for my sins and I will get what I deserve as he sees fit."
That suggests that you don't appreciate the seriousness of it. What you'll get is what you presumably want—existence without Him and all that He provides. He has provided a world for us to live in, love, friends, food, variety, and so much more. Imagine having none of that, for eternity. And then think that I've probably understated how bad it will be.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@masonhunter2921
"He needs to be reminded that the Constitution intentionally does not contain the words God, Christian, or Christ."
So if a word is not in the constitution, he's not allowed to use it?
But what about the Declaration of Independence and its acceptance of the Creator?
"And that the brilliant First Amendment protects both the freedom of, and the freedom from, religion."
Well, freedom of, at least. So atheists are free to engage in their atheist beliefs, such as Secular Humanism, the founding document of which referred to it as a secular religion.
"The country was clearly founded, based on the personal writings of our founders, on the Enlightenment. Which placed a much higher value on reason than on superstition, science rather than religion."
What you overlook (or are ignorant of) is that science is a product of and dependent on Christianity, as was the so-called Enlightenment originally, before the non-Christians took it over, and that Christianity is where they inherited the use of reason from (see for example Rodney Stark's The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success. )
And that Christianity is not superstition, but the worship of the well-documented, well-evidenced creator God.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@aidenaune7008
"except that it shouldn't be, because God created the universe explicitly to not have any proof of his existence so as to ensure our free will,"
What do you mean by "proof"? In logic, 'proof' depends on the correctness of the premises. In maths, proof is basically logical proof, I think. In a criminal court case, proof is evidence that is sufficient to convince the judge or jury beyond reasonable doubt. In a civil court case, it is considered proved if it's more likely than not. In science, there is no such thing as proof.
So when you say that God didn't want to supply "proof", are you claiming that he didn't want evidence enough for us to be convinced? Because plenty of people have been convinced on the basis of the evidence, which for them means that God has been proved.
And why is that the requirement for free will anyway? God walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden. They had "proof" that God existed, but still had free will, and they used it to disobey Him. So proof is not a blockage to having free will.
"the universe with or without God, will look exactly the same, "
Without God, there would be no universe, and no universe looks somewhat different to a universe!
"we know that God created the world in 7 days ..."
Six, actually, plus a day of rest.
"although it might have been a metaphor and not true history like most of the bible"
Nope. It is written as narrative, and the top experts in the language agree that it was written to be taken as actual history. Also, Jesus referred to it in ways that He accepted it as actual history.
"but the universe is identical to one that was not, so we should treat it as if it were one that was not when it comes to science."
Oh, so many things wrong with this comment!
1) False premises typically lead to false conclusions, as in this case.
2) The 'science' is not merely investigating the universe to see how it operates; it is declaring that it came about without God.
3) Even IF the universe looked identical when the origin was either A or B, why should science treat the origin as A rather than as B? Surely that's being quite arbitrary.
4) Even IF the universe looked identical when the origin was either A or B, why not treat the origin as irrelevant, rather than treat it as one or the other?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@pwillis1589
"This is comical."
Your continued attempt to misrepresent the Bible? Yeah, sure.
"Exodus 21 explicitly says the Lord gave Moses the following Laws ..."
Yes, He did. He gave Moses the laws for the then-fledgling nation of Israel. Not for all people for all of time.
"...in Leviticus 25 the Lord gives further rules for obtaining and owning slaves."
You mean the bit that includes these bits: "If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves ... Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves."?
No, I guess you're referring to, say, this: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves." What you omit to mention is that life as a slave in Israel would have been better than in the nations around them, as they were to be treated as human. They weren't allowed to steal slaves, so that implies that they could only buy people who were already slaves, which would make the slave better off.
In summary, slavery was very common then, and these laws regulated the slavery (which was not race-based, by the way) and protected the slave from mistreatment.
"All very clear and explicit."
And yet you cherry-picked.
"Who is the authority on what instructions are to be followed and those that are not?"
The Bible. As I said, they were laws for the ancient (pre-Christian) nation of Israel. Many of the principles still apply (e.g. that homosexuality is wrong), but the laws (e.g. what should happen to them) no longer do. If you understand the rationale instead of just making a superficial read of the text, you'll be in a better position to comment.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@jonpoulda3362
"Yes. That is my answer to your question."
How does it answer the question? It was basically a yes/no question, but there's been no such answer.
"A trans person’s life in no way affects yours,..."
Evidence please.
"...so you have zero reason to treat them with disrespect."
I don't. Do you not understand yet that disagreement does not equal disrespect? Or are you unaware that it's possible to disagree respectfully?
"As far as sports go… How many female trans people are even playing in sports?"
Quite a few.
"The number is MINUSCULE, as is the percentage of trans people out in the world,..."
Yes, compared to all athletes, it is very small. But that doesn't change the fact that it's wrong for men to compete in women's sports.
"...so no, your concern is not valid, ..."
That does not make it not valid.
"...nor is it valid in regard to “men” in women’s spaces. "
And yet you don't say why. And why the scare quotes? They are men.
"Tell me… How many men have claimed to be trans and then assaulted women on women’s restrooms?"
How is the number relevant? The first point is that it can happen, and has happened. The second point is that it makes it much easier for non-'trans' men to go into women's places. If 'trans women' can go in without being verified that they are 'trans', then what is stopping other men going in?
"Outwardly, you’d never be able to tell the difference between a trans man and a biological one, "
Nonsense. That may be true sometimes, but it's not true that it's "never".
"...yet you WANT them to used the women’s restroom… "
Of course. They are women.
"...and would be the first to scream ... murder if you happened to see one enter one."
You're making things up about me. That's not the way to have a rational conversation.
"Statistically, trans people are far more likely to be the victims of crimes than the perpetrators."
Didn't you mother ever teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?
"Now I would appreciate answers to my questions."
You haven't answered mine yet.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@mikeyhinojosa3837
"over 200 civilians have died, and over 50 of them were kids. That doesn’t seem to be taking extra precautions,"
There's that unexplained word "extra" again. I asked what it was supposed to be "extra" to, yet you didn't explain.
I also asked what they could do more. You didn't answer that. So presumably you can't even think of what more they could be doing. And yet you criticise.
And your response is illogical. That X number died doesn't mean that more would not have died if they hadn't taken those "extra" precautions.
"...if they really cared about the innocent people they wouldn’t keep them trapped in Gaza and the West Bank."
Given that neither place has borders with only Israel, how does Israel prevent them from leaving?
"Hamas are definitely doing horrible things but let’s not act like Israel is innocent."
On the contrary, let's not pretend that people are claiming that Israel couldn't improve when what they are really saying is to put the blame where it really belongs, with the terrorists.
Have you heard the recording of the Israeli military calling a person in Gaza telling him that they should evacuate because the place is going to be bombed, and he declines because he'd rather the deaths as a propaganda weapon? And the military person telling him to think of the kids, and the Palestinian saying that if the kids die, it will look bad for the Israelis?
Again, what could the Israelis do "extra"? Answer that or your criticism has no credibility.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"No minister of religion should be telling congregants how to vote."
No person should be telling others how they must vote, but there's nothing wrong with giving them advice.
"This isn't a matter in the religious domain."
Why not? In some respects, this is a moral issue, which seems to be right up the alley of a church minister. (Not that this Catholic position makes any sense.)
"It is disgusting to see this and explains the demise of organised traditional religions."
No, it doesn't. The demise of some organised religions is in going away from what the Bible teaches. The ones that stick with what the Bible teaches are doing quite well.
"People don't want to hear politics, divorced from theological issues, from religions."
How is this divorced from theological issues?
"If there were a referendum to ban religion, I would expect religious leaders to come out against it,..."
The ACT government just forcibly took over a Catholic hospital. That's not banning the religion, but I would expect religious leaders to come out against anything that the religion is concerned with. And Christianity is concerned with just about everything about the person, given that the person was made by God.
"Have a look at church attendances and see how these people have undermined the very principles they exist to espouse."
See my third paragraph. You're only half right.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@oldgolfer7435
"Schools should educate, not teach religious dogma."
You do realise that "teaching religious dogma is educating? The issue is not education vs. teaching religious dogma; the issue is what you're teaching.
Christian "dogma" is what made the West great. It was Christians, with a Christian worldview, who started public hospitals and many charities, founded science and universal education, twice abolished slavery, spread democracy, raised the status of women, helped form human rights legislation, and so on.
What is now being taught instead in government schools is based on the religious dogma of neo-Marxism, a particular atheist view. So the government schools haven't stopped teaching religious dogma—they've merely changed to a different religion, one that divides and denigrates, not one that builds up and has high standards.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@TheCripple911
Yes, there would be aborigines alive who don't exist because their ancestors were killed. But on the other hand, as PositivePawPaw said, they would still be digging roots out of the dirt with sticks. And they wouldn't have access to modern technology nor medical advances now civilised laws and government. Nor education, nor so many other civilising things. So, looking at the whole picture, they would probably be far worse off than now.
You do, however, mention trading rather than colonising. But what would they have traded that Europeans would have been sufficiently interested in? And who would they have traded with? Just the relatively few aboriginal groups at a few points on a coast somewhere? I can't see much trade developing at all, unless, say, you have things like education, literacy, a common language, etc. etc.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"She is specifically talking about Wikipedia, where the emphasis is on peer reviewed facts."
No, it's not. Wikipedia is not about facts, but about "reliable sources", which is code for mainstream sources that they agree with.
"First of all, truth is not facts. According to Webster, facts are objective, observable, and verifiable bits of information. Facts are data. Whereas, truth is the interpretation or synthesis of those facts to form a logical, cohesive mindset."
Oh? Then why does Merriam Webster list as the first definition of "truth" the following: "the body of real things, events, and facts"
"Truths are theories."
No, truths are things that are true. Like, you know, facts.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@pwillis1589
"Yes the original constitution was explicitly racist"
You missed the bit where I pointed out that you referred to our "current" constitution.
"Section 51 was used to legislate the white Australia policy which is explicitly racist."
What does "racist" mean? I understand it to refer to treating someone differently based on race, and yes, by that standard, it's racist. But it's also often used to mean treating someone in a worse way based on race (which seems to be how you're using it), and it is not evident that that section was for that purpose (that it was subsequently used for that purpose is a separate matter).
"What is an opened end voice to parliament?"
I assume he's referring to the proposal to vote on something that we don't know the details of.
"A voice is just that, no veto power, no legislative capacity, no financial delegation."
Supposedly. The concern is that a court might give it some teeth.
"All it does is provide equity to a constitution that was written to be specifically racist in sections 25, 51, and 127."
Given that two of those were removed (at least insofar as aborigines are concerned) and the other was anti-racist, that supposed equity is not needed.
Besides, how does introducing more racism (per my definition) produce equity?
"Indigenous Australians do not currently have constitutional recognition."
False. They have the same constitutional recognition as the rest of us. Why make it (more) racist?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@redblaze8700 "There’s no evidence that the 2020 election was rigged. "
Nonsense. There is plenty of evidence.
"Even Trumps own people couldn’t find evidence for such,..."
Except that they did.
"...even Trump-appointed judges ruled against the ridiculous claims from his legal team."
First, for the most party, they never investigated the evidence, so didn't rule against the claim; they declined to take on the cases.
Second, much of the other evidence of rigging was of things that a court would not take on because it wasn't illegal, like the mainstream media's fake news, the social media censoring pro-Trump information like Hunter Biden's laptop, etc.
However, it has not even been disputed that some election officials violated their own state government's legislation to help rig the election, such as telling vote counters to accept signatures of mail-in ballots without properly checking them.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@JustapErson
"Leave religion out of it,..."
Perhaps you should take your own advice. A religion is a type of worldview. Some other worldviews are atheistic ones, and in fact the semantic range of the word "religion" can encompass atheistic views. Secular Humanism, for example, when founded, described itself as a "secular religion".
So what you're actually doing is bringing your own worldview/religion into this conversation, in asking the OP to leave his out of it!
Further, he didn't actually mention a religion. He mentioned God and God's revelation to us. Yes, there are religions based on God and His revelation, but those religions are the product of God and His revelation. To put it another way, try answering this question: Is God the product of religion, or is Christianity the product of God? And if you think that it's the former, what's your evidence?
"...it just makes the right look like a bunch of nutcases."
Only to atheists who think that they know better. In fact it was people who believed the Bible and its revelations about God that founded public hospitals, many charities, universal education, the university system, and modern science, and who spread democracy, twice abolished slavery, raised the status of women, and who made Western Civilisation the enormous success that it has been by spreading biblical views and Godly standards.
Does that really sound like the fruit of "a bunch of nutcases"?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Jamie0175
"No, the other half are intellectually dishonest and they are aware of it."
I think we're dancing around the point. That it was an obsession was your claim, not his nor mine. You made that claim because you felt that the only reason he'd bring it up would be due to an obsession. But that is a big assumption which there is insufficient evidence for. See also my next point.
"Also, him even bringing it up out of nowhere is the whole problem; you cant see it either, or you can see it, but your own bias and issues are getting in the way of admitting the obvious."
I don't agree. He made a valid point about the inconsistency of two different views regarding what "life" is. Pointing out such an inconsistency is logically quite legitimate, and does not indicate an obsession, even if he was wrong. And yet, I hold essentially the same view. You say that affects my ability to admit what you think is obvious, but I'd say that your opposing view is preventing you from seeing that he had a valid point.
"...anything but admit you were wrong and admit he's clearly got problems."
You have attempted to discern his motive, but have not shown, let alone clearly, that he has problems.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ScottBub
"That is called a special pleading fallacy. Basically you are saying that an infinite regress is impossible, but you put a god in there and a god is infinite."
An infinite and an infinite regress are two different things.
"If god can be infinite then the universe can be infinite."
The universe cannot be infinite, as the laws of thermodynamics don't allow it to be infinite. But the Laws only apply to the physical, not the spiritual (supernatural), so God can be eternal. This makes sense in another way, as time is part of the space-matter-time creation. That is, time is something God created, not something He is subject to. God is therefore outside of time. So it's not that He's been around for an infinite amount of time, but that He simply exists, with no beginning or end (both of which imply time).
"There’s no need to add magic."
Nobody is adding magic. Except perhaps the naturalistic people who propose a beginning from nothing, whereas nothing can't create anything.
"Btw, the second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems."
Which the universe is. And the Law was discovered and shown to be correct on Earth, a not-entirely-closed system.
"But you shouldn’t cry foul on science and then use it in your argument for magic."
Nobody's making an argument for magic. And nobody's crying foul on science. What we are crying foul on is naturalism, which mainstream scientists believe in, at least when it comes to past events.
"Do you accept science and if you do then why complain when it’s applied and also use it incorrectly?"
Creationists founded science. They do not complain when it's applied properly, and they don't use it incorrectly. Proper science does not assume that all explanations have to be natural ones.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"Its not a university, it is not a school. It is a freaking Youtube Channel"
In the sense that it doesn't offer courses and degrees, you're correct. But see their video about how they got started. They wanted to offer an alternative to the lunacy of the established universities that are now teaching nonsense, and universities now also teach online, so they decided to reach a much wider audience with an online presence rather than a bricks-and-mortar university.
"There is no decent paying job ANYWHERE that would hire anyone with a non-degree from PragerU. Go find one. Just try."
That is a sound-bite with no substance. A non-degree isn't a thing. I already have a job with a non-degree from PragerU. That is, I got a job without having a degree from PragerU. Really, that's all your comment is claiming.
"Yes this video was made to portray the idea that this Youtube Channel is not only just as good, but better than an accredited university…"
Which it is, in the sense of not agreeing with the idea of safe spaces and not hearing alternative views. I doesn't claim—as you seem to be implying—more than that, such as being better in offering degrees or etc. in other words, it's claim is correct as far as it goes, which is not as all-encompassing as you're pretending.
"…judging by the comments, their idiot followers agree. Those are the dense ones."
Given that you're presenting a straw-man version of the claim, no, others are not the idiots.
"So accredited universities are bad because they teach facts that make you uncomfortable?"
That is a total distortion of what he says, which means that your argument is nonsense.
"The point of college is to prepare you for the work world."
And PragerU helps with that, by being realistic instead of woke.
"Everything I have said has been completely factual."
Incorrect, as I have shown.
"Gender studies requires students to read and analyze challenging texts just as an English class would."
Funny man. Gender studies promotes unscientific ideas. Here's what one gender studies 'researcher' (Christopher Dummitt) said "The problem is: I was wrong. Or, to be a bit more accurate, I got things partly right. But then, for the rest, I basically just made it up. … Everyone was (and is) making it up. That’s how the gender-studies field works."
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@MT-lv3ls
"Do you want me to tell you what to believe and pass laws that I think you should have?. No?."
Not if those laws and beliefs are bad ones. That's one reason we oppose the trans agenda.
"I grew up without any doctrine spewed at me and there is a reason I am an atheist."
Because you grew up being implicitly taught that Christian doctrine was irrelevant. I didn't have any doctrine spewed at me either. I had good, evidence-based, teaching taught to me. That's why I am a Christian. I'm sorry you missed out on that.
"Because seeing how people who follow faith act is why I avoid anything to do with it."
You're looking through atheist-coloured glasses if that's your rationale, noting the smaller number of bad ones and ignoring the much greater number of good ones. Christians founded public hospitals and many, many, charities, the university system, universal education, and science, and spread democracy, twice abolished slavery, raised the status of women, gave people freedoms, and formed the basis of the world's most successful civilisation. Atheist regimes, on the other hand, slaughtered millions in the 20th century and oppressed their citizens.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@grantleyhughes
"Prove that."
How do I do that? I can give you evidence, but whether or not you consider that 'proof' might be another matter.
Christianity is based on the documented accounts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Historians concerned with that period do not believe that the accounts are fabricated. They accept that Jesus existed, was crucified, and was reportedly seen by many people after his crucifixion.
And of course Jesus came with the background of the Old Testament, and of being the creator (i.e. God). God creating is the only explanation that makes sense. The universe creating itself is nonsense; nothing can create itself, as its existence would therefore have to precede its beginning. And nothing can't create something, as in order to create, there must be something to do the creating. So the principle of cause and effect requires that the physical universe—which science tells us cannot have existed forever—must have been caused by something non-physical, which we'd call God.
There is a lot more evidence that could be given, but there's some at least. So back to you. What's your evidence that Christianity is fabricated?
3
-
@grantleyhughes
"The onus of proof is on the religious."
No, the onus of proof is on the one making the claim, at least when challenged to do so. You made a claim, which I have now challenged, so you have the onus to support your claim. Before explicitly challenging your claim, I did make my own counter-claim, which you challenged, so I accepted the onus to support that. I have now done so. So now you have the onus to support your original claim.
"The bible is not a text book."
The Bible is, in large part, a history book, and one that has been proved to be very reliable in many details. A text book is a book written to be used in schools, so technically you're correct, but that's an irrelevant claim.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"Andrews is putting australians first..."
Yeah, right. That's why he's not just burdening Victoria with massive debt, but that affects all of Australia.
"...to build housing, restore strength in hospitals, fix roading ..."
He's been in government for years, and yet those things still need fixing. Don't believe the promises that never come.
"Think about it, he had the budget over triple in price, at least ..."
How so? For one thing, as they pointed out in this interview, he hasn't provided evidence for that. For another, if that is correct, how come he thought otherwise to start with? Lack of proper budgeting in the first place?
People should not get credit for fixing things that they broke.
"Good move, Australians first."
That would be a good move, but that's not what he's doing. It's him first, with China's (not Australia's) help, but now the debt has got so bad even he's been forced to admit he's out of money.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@TransLivesMatter3452
"Only in regions where decent (secular) education is lacking, like in parts of Africa."
As I said, "not so much in places replete with atheist myths being taught to the exclusion of all else." But then I wouldn't call that 'secular' education "decent", given that. But please, if you disagree, please point out what this 'secular' education is teaching that supposedly counters Christianity.
"These places, too, will eventually see it fall. It's only a matter of time."
That depends on whether atheism or Christianity wins out. Christianity created the West. Atheist countries like the Soviet Union, China, Albania, Cuba, North Korea, etc. don't do so well.
"Incorrect. For example, far right Christian nationalism, both in the US and Australia, is experiencing a decline. "
Define what you mean by "far right Christian nationalism", and show that it's even a thing in Australia. I only ever hear about it's supposed existence from atheists.
"Nope. Guise equals denomination."
In other words, variety, as I said. But you try and make it sound like a bad thing.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@dethdefy
"I'm only going to answer the proof one,..."
And yet you don't. Instead you ask me to supply evidence for God.
As I said, we'd have to define 'proof' first. There are different forms of proof:
* Logical proof: Logic can be used to 'prove' something based on the premises, but it doesn't show that the premises are true.
* Scientific proof: Science doesn't do proofs, so this one is an oxymoron.
* Criminal court proof: Here proof is the judge or jury being convinced by the evidence 'beyond reasonable doubt'. That is, the proof is not absolute. Also, it is deliberately biased in favour of the defendant, because the system would rather a guilty person go free than an innocent person be convicted.
* Civil court proof: Here proof is the judge or jury being convinced by the evidence on the basis of probabilities. That is, the case is considered 'proved' if it's more likely true than not.
So which 'proof' are you referring to? I can easily prove God logically with the right premises, but you'd disagree with the premises.
I reject the typical atheist position that a Christian has to prove God beyond reasonable doubt but the atheist doesn't have to prove God's non-existence beyond reasonable doubt. That is, there should be no default position.
So the only reasonable 'proof' is on the basis of probabilities, i.e. that God's existence is more likely than not.
Further, what I'm rejecting is the notion that God's existence can't be proved. Because, using that last option, it can be. So I'm saying that it can be, not that it will be.
My evidence for that is that many people have been convinced by the evidence. Some of those actually set out to disprove God's existence, and ended up believing that God exists, on the basis of the evidence. That is, because those people were convinced by the evidence, God's existence was proved for them.
That doesn't mean, of course, that you will be convinced by the evidence. So I'm not saying that I can prove it to your satisfaction. But it does mean that it's incorrect to say that "there is no proof for God". There is much evidence for God, but whether or not that is enough for someone to be convinced by the evidence will depend on the individual, including how open to the idea they are to start with.
"It'll need to discount the other 7999+ gods of course..."
What other 7999+ gods? I already asked you to explain the thousands, but you haven't. I'll elaborate: we are talking about a supreme being and creator. There can be only one of those. Yes, there are other claimants, but I don't know of many at all. The ancient Greek 'gods' don't qualify, as they were the offspring of other 'gods'. In fact, the Greeks had a 'statue to the unknown god', as they realised that none of their gods qualified, and that there must be one greater than all those.
"...and be extraordinary as it's an extraordinary claim."
What makes it extraordinary? Your atheist view that no God is the default? Sorry, I don't accept that.
"A book won't cut it."
Why not? It sounds like you're prejudging.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@MMaximuSS1975
"Religion is definitely in conflict with science."
Christianity is not in conflict with true science. But one big problems atheists have is lumping all religions—except their own—in together, as though they are all alike. Nothing could be further from the truth.
"The only reason why science would need religion is as a case study for why humans are so prone to magical thinking."
What magical thinking? Things like the universe popped into existence out of nothing? Oh wait, that's an atheist view.
Scholars disagree. For example, Paul Davies said "In the ensuing three hundred years, the theological dimension of science has faded. People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature- the laws of physics - are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they come from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is rational basis to physical existence manifested as lawlike order in nature that is at least part comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological world view."
"no it doesn't."
Yes, it does. Rodney Stark, for example, talking about Christianity said "Without a theology committed to reason, progress, and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800: A world with many astrologers and alchemists but no scientists."
"Christianity has always embraced gullibility, guilt, and ignorance."
Evidence?
"Every time I get into a discussion and people find out I'm an atheist they shut down any kind of legitimate inquiry."
Maybe because you have no idea what you are talking about.
"more evidence for God and the Bible? No there isn't."
What's your evidence that there isn't?
"You have absolutely zero evidence for God. None. Absolutely none."
Again, what's your evidence that he has none?
"As for the Bible archeology has destroyed the book."
Completely false. It's vindicated it on numerous occasions, including finding evidence of the Hittites, to give one well-known example.
"It's mostly fiction from cover to cover."
Archaeologists and historians disagree with you.
"Current consensus is the Exodus never happened."
Partly because they are looking in the wrong time.
"We know Genesis is pure nonsense plagiarized from other previously existing pagan mythology."
No, we don't know that. The evidence actually points the other way, of Genesis being the original.
"As for the New Testament Jesus was a MYTH even if someone existed or not."
And yet historians are almost unanimous that he existed. See the YouTube video "Atheist Refuted by Agnostic Historian (Bart Ehrman) on the Existence of Jesus."
"The Gospels are a more fiction fabricated by the early church. There was no crucifixion story. There was no resurrection. There was no Jesus who died for any sins or was the son of any God."
What's your evidence? These ridiculous claims, that go against the scholarship, is likely what causes Christians to not want to debate with you.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ivanbremer8662
"And you believe it’s not the LNP’s ABC."
It's clearly not, the way the ABC is biased against the conservative side of politics.
"And s.k.y news is on your side."
It's closer to it, and it's more balanced.
"You stay living in your propaganda snowflake fairy land where the largest corporations on earth along with sky care about you and Australia."
You haven't shown that it is "propaganda snowflake fairy land". And clearly SKY does care about Australia.
"I’m for Australia, not your US Style divisional politics."
You mean the sort of divisional politics that the ABC relentlessly pursues? I'm not for that either.
"The media in Australia is two teams , both working for the LNP,..."
Clearly the ABC isn't working for the LNP, and either is any other media in the country.
"And you are falling for it hook line and sinker."
Again, not in evidence.
"Then get mad at fellow Australians for telling you."
I didn't "get mad", but when fellow Australians are so biased, why should I agree with them?
"Why do you hate fellow Australians, because s.k.y told you."
I don't, and SKY didn't. You simply made that up.
"Please start thinking for yourself."
I do. Which is why I don't simply agree with you, nor the ABC, nor SKY all the time. Again, your implication that I don't think for myself is something you simply made up.
"Why are you supporting foreign influence in Australia and our politics."
What foreign influence are you talking about? SKY is an Australian-based company employing Australians. The fact that it's owned by an Australian-born American is neither here nor there, given that the Australian presenters can think for themselves.
"Do you put foreign corporations ahead of Australia."
I put what's right first, whether that's Australian, foreign, or whatever. I certainly don't put foreign corporations ahead of Australia simply because they are foreign corporations. And I haven't even hinted otherwise. So that's something else you've made up.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@turnerfamilyinozi
"He used the science at the time, he was generally correct."
I think I have seen the film, but don't recall many details. He may have used "the science at the time", but how good was that? As for being generally correct, I've no doubt that there were many uncontentious things he said, but from memory a judge decided that there were quite a few errors in it.
"He never said that the Artic would be gone and polar bears would be extinct, or that Florida would be under water in 7 years."
The Florida one was new for me. The others I have heard, but one problem is that sometimes claims get exaggerated by critics, and another is that the original claims are couched in qualified language but beaten up as though fact. Claims about arctic ice disappearing (perhaps just in summer) and polar bears being in danger (but perhaps not extinct) were definitely made. But in that particular film? I don't recall specifically, although those did ring a bell.
"I fell for the right wing misinformation about him."
Misinformation from sources such as Sky, or from random commenters on the Internet?
"But it is good to see you believe in science sometimes."
Of course I do! The wonder is that you do, given that science was a product of Christianity and is based on Christian principles.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@JDG-hq8gy
"Give the sailors, soldiers, etc. pay for a few months until they can find a new job."
This is leftist economics for you. Just act as if money can be got out of thin air. What are you going to pay them with if you're removing the funding? Also, your suggestion was to stop the funding for a week, and now you're talking about sacking them!
"The sailors and soldiers losing their job is good because then they'll have to get a new one that actually makes them productive members of society, not another cog in the imperialist machine. "
So you're not interested in defending the country from enemies? Okay, got that. Maybe you're part of the Chinese government?
"Get the homeless people all the medical and psychological help they'll need to end their addictions."
Good idea (which the video touched on too), but although I pointed out that drugs could be a problem, I never said that it was the entire problem. What about the attitude that led them into using drugs in the first place? What do you do about that? What is needed (in many cases; acknowledging that every circumstance is different) is a change in attitude or even worldview. If you think that the world owes you a living and you don't get it, you might turn to drugs or other ways of coping. If you realise that you need to put in your own effort to support yourself, you would probably stay off drugs. So not rejecting that help getting off drugs is a good idea, but in many cases it wouldn't be enough by itself.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@slappy8941 Christianity is the predicted continuation of Judaism, which is worship of the one true God, which goes back to Adam, at the very beginning. In that sense, it precedes all other religions.
Christianity didn't invent everything, but it did more to make the world a better place than any other religion. For example, in ancient Rome and Greece, they had hospitals, but only for the soldiers, the wealthy, and (ironically) the slave, i.e. the workforce. It was Christianity that introduced public hospitals. Similarly there were schools in those ancient civilisations, but only for the wealthy. Christianity introduced universal education.
Christianity also abolished slavery, lifted the status of women, resisted tyranny, founded modern science, spread democracy, promoted human rights, and so much more.
Western Civilisation IS based on Christianity, as Greg Sheridan said in the video.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@manualspiceyapple3788
"oh, incase I wasn't clear god probably doesn't exist and is definitely irrelevant."
What's your evidence for both of those claims?
"A secular position would be that X should be among the many things taught."
So the secular position is that Christianity is just another also-ran of things taught, contrary to Christianity's claim to be ultimate truth about God, us, and eternity. Therefore the secular position is implicitly teaching against a Christian view. Therefore it is not neutral.
"I literally explained the difference in the meanings of belief, but you contradicted my conclusion without addressing the differences
"
Sorry, it seems I overlooked clicking the "Read more" link that was hiding the last part of your comment.
"You're also mistaking religious ideas of belief with the general idea of belief."
Actually, I'm not.
"When someone believes something religiously they do it with faith and hold to that faith despite contradictions."
First, I'm talking about Christianity, not other religions, atheistic or theistic. Insofar as Christian belief is concerned, that it flatly wrong. Biblically, faith is trust based on evidence. We have faith in (trust) God because we have the evidence that God is a trustworthy person. What you are citing is a definition of 'faith' commonly used by atheists who wrongly think that the Bible uses the same definition.
"If I asked you who god is you'd give me a description of the biblical god."
I would give you a description of the one and only God, which the Bible describes. ('God' means the supreme being; creator. There can, by definition, only be one supreme being.)
"If I asked you how many fingers I'm holding up behind my back, you'd probably believe I had fingers."
True. Because the evidence is that, except in rare cases of deformities or accidents, people have fingers.
3
-
@manualspiceyapple3788
"Gays can marry,..."
Yes, they can marry people of the opposite sex. Otherwise it isn't marriage.
"polygamy is likely next, ..."
I might have agreed a few years ago, but then came along the idea of changing your sex, to prove me wrong. But paedophilia might well come before polygamy. It's that slippery slope we are rapidly racing down.
"western society has been largely secular for over a century."
In a sense, yes. But Western society was formed by Christianity, and underpins it. Most of the 'secular' West's values actually come from Christianity. But it's rapidly losing that, and will implode as a result if that is not reversed.
"our god means as much to me as the Greek pantheon does to you."
Well, the Greek pantheon doesn't even qualify as God, as none of them were actually God in the sense of being supreme beings. Even Zeus was the offspring of two other gods, so even he wasn't the supreme being or creator. So you're comparing cheese and chalk, and failing to actually make an argument beyond your own disbelief.
"love you, mate. Have a great night"
And both God and I love you too. You have a great night too.
3
-
3
-
@sc1450
"I still don't see any facts. I see just some opinions & beliefs. That's all"
Then you were reading it with your eyes closed. Simply waving it away without explaining why most of it is supposedly not factual is you being in denial.
"Science says this world might never had a beginning..."
No, it does not. Scientists used to accept the Steady State theory that said that the universe has always existed, but the problem is that, in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, the universe is running down. It hasn't fully run down yet, so it can't have been running down forever. That's why the Steady State theory was rejected in favour of the Big Bang model that proposes a beginning to the universe.
"So you saying this world had a beginning just shows your lack of scientific knowledge."
False, and I have just explained why.
"And a world that doesn't have a beginning doesn't need a Creator."
That makes sense, but as I said, science accepts that it had a beginning.
"Bible didn't abolish slavery."
I didn't say that it did. I said Christians did, in line with their Christian worldview. Wilberforce, the main campaigner in England, was a Christian who said that it was wrong to enslave people who are made in the image of God.
"Jesus did nothing against slavery ."
Except for provide the basis for Christians to abolish it.
"So don't give credits to your religion."
And yet the experts acknowledge that it was Christianity that did it. And more than once. For example, Rodney Stark wrote: "Slavery ended in medieval Europe only because the church extended its sacraments to all slaves and them managed to impose a ban on the enslavement of Christians (and of Jews). Within the context of medieval Europe, that prohibition was effectively a rule of universal abolution".
"Also Science was not created by Christians."
Not science as we understand it. Loren Eiseley: "The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation … . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption."
"Science was there in other non Christian countries too."
Rodney Stark: "..progress was the product of observation and of trial and error but was lacking in explanations—in theorizing. Hence, the earlier technical innovations of Greco-Roman times, of Islam of China, ... do not constitute science..."
"If you can't even make Church people follow Bible..."
I can't make anybody do anything. And the fact that there are a few (relatively speaking) who don't toe the line doesn't mean that the line isn't there.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"we don't blame the car manufacturers for car accidents"
We do, actually, if the manufacturer makes the car in an unsafe way. But then cars are designed to be as safe as possible, whereas guns are designed to kill. So they are not really comparable.
"...there have been multiple studys that have disproved the whole video games make people more violent which isn't true"
Well, you can make studies come to almost any conclusion you want. But I would believe this one, if it in fact concluded exactly what you said, that it makes people more violent.
However, that doesn't rule out that it desensitises people to violence, making them more accepting of it, or that it reinforces bad tendencies that might already exist. In other words, I don't accept that they have no negative influence at all.
3
-
@StofStuiver Labels can be difficult, especially when positions move, so although I would label these views as being on the left, I won't argue that point with you.
But feminism not existing during Marx' time doesn't mean that this is not his legacy; it's just a different method to achieve the same goal of reshaping society. Marx himself said "it is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists". Not just some things he might have referred to, but all.
Communism means taking from the rich to give to the poor, which is not only stealing, but fundamentally flawed as it penalises enterprise, and therefore everyone ends up poor. About the only communist country that has done well economically is China in recent decades, and that is because it embraced capitalism.
Capitalism is the system whereby people can make money by their own efforts rather than simply working for a wage, and can invest that money in new enterprises. Like any tool, it can be misused, but in principle there is nothing wrong with it.
3
-
@StofStuiver
I'm not American.
"Feminism was a forced idea that did not sprout from any enlightened thinker, or Marx after that. It is a pushed narrative to divide peoples, that has no (sound) philosophical basis."
How does that contradict my claim that it has the goal of reshaping society?
"How does that in any way related to feminism? And yes, we should always be critical. Doesnt mean if we are, we change society or want to."
It was ruthless criticism, and said by someone who wanted to reshape society. It's not directly related to feminism, but the same thinking underlies feminisim.
"Not stealing."
If you take something from someone that they own, it's stealing.
"Capitalism is a mechanic of stealing..."
False. Capitalism is a system where you offer people goods or services that they might want, and they voluntarily pay for those goods or services. That's not stealing.
"Dont shove me in a corner i do not belong."
I didn't talk about you at all. Don't accuse me of things I didn't do.
"I dont like to debate in those 'labels' to begin with, bc it obscures what is really happening. Since you refer to those labels, i suggest you do the same."
It's hard to define which group you're talking about without labels.
"You should also note that capitalism aswell as communism are very new to mankind."
I'm not so sure about that, at least for capitalism.
"So dividing everyone is those 2 camps is ridiculous."
It was you who talked about those two camps. I never indicated that they were the only two.
"One should wonder how people did it before those 2 modern extreme views."
I don't consider capitalism extrems, and as I said, I'm not sure that it's new. What system, for example, was used in Israel in Old Testament times?
"You should wonder if either of these things would exist if people would still live in their social group... because that is the basis of all this."
I don't understand what you are trying to say there. What "social group" are you referring to?
"And there you go fully wrong and is why i think you are american."
And yet you are wrong on the second point and you give no evidence of me being "fully wrong" on the first point.
"Most people in the world still can see through capitalism and recognize its flaws."
Most people don't have a proper idea of what it is. What flaws? You haven't shown any.
"In capitalism money always flows from the bottom to the top. "
Please define "bottom" and "top".
"In other words, an increasing majority gets poorer and poorer and a decreasing minority gets wealthier and wealthier."
That is simply false. Everybody get wealthier and wealthier. The number of "poor" has been reducing thanks to capitalism. As people innovate to make money, they vie for market share, and this drives down prices. The poor then can buy more with their limited funds, and even have some over that they can invest in some way, perhaps even becoming capitalists themselves.
"slavery (what we had in the middle ages)."
I'm not sure that there was much in the middle ages. It became popular again just around the 16th century.
"I find it mind blowing that people still want to defend capitalism, while the evidence of its failing is in your face."
It's actually been very successful, making Western countries the most successful on the planet.
"Here look at this, was just uploaded, then you can see what capitalism leads to:"
Thanks for that waste of time. I watched about 26 minutes of it, and it didn't mention nor talk about capitalism.
" European people fled to to escape the already fully settled ownership of lands and goods in Europe.... Capitalism always fails in a limited natural resource situation."
Again, false. Capitalism started in and flourished in Europe.
3
-
J
"Thank you for for the clarification and yes I do think I'm more sophisticated than my forbears, some of those people owed slaves so yes I certainly do."
I'm not sure that not owning slaves makes one more sophisticated, but I'm also not sure that sophistication is a relevant measure.
"it sounds like your suggesting religion is the only defence against ghastly things."
Christianity has always stood against tyranny. Even the vehemently anti-Christian Richard Dawkins once said, "There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings. I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death. I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse."
"Id rebut this point with religion has been responsible for some ghastly things itself,..."
Particularly atheistic religions. Marxism was been responsible for more deaths in the 20th century than any other religion in any century, by far. So yes, some religions have been responsible for some ghastly things, but it's a typical atheist tactic to lump all religions except their own into the one basket as though they are all the same.
"it's certainly not moraly superior in any way to other methods of morality."
When God provides the morals, they are absolute. When atheists provide the morals, they are matters of opinion. And if they have power, as with Stalin, Mao, and others, they feel no need to conform to the morals of others.
So you're incorrect. Morals from God are superior.
3
-
@pwillis1589
"You did not in any way demonstrate any evidence for God."
And yet I did mention one bit.
"Naturalism provides as much evidence for existence as a god."
And yet you didn't not in any way provide even as much evidence as the little I provided.
"While I agree the majority of biblical scholars believe in the historicity of Jesus there is and has been throughout history a significant element of scholars who don't."
I didn't refer to the majority of biblical scholars, but the majority of historians concerned with that period. And yes, there may have been more in the past, but currently there is only one that I know of. You are choosing to go with the very-minority view. Why? Confirmation bias?
"Dr Richard Carrier is one currently."
An atheist who got his qualifications so that he could promote his atheist view as a scholar. Yes, I'm quite aware of him, and in fact he was the reason that I put "virtually" in my claim, because he is the only one, as far as I'm aware. See the video "Atheist Refuted by Agnostic Historian (Bart Ehrman) on the Existence of Jesus.".
"Christianity is not the basis of Western culture and without any evidence is dismissed as a false assertion."
What makes you think I have no evidence? I have so much evidence that it's too much to put in a comment like this without making it longer. But given that you've made the claim, here are some quotes:
David Aikman:
-----
The eighteen American tourists visiting China weren’t expecting much from the evening’s lecture. They were already exhausted from a day of touring in Beijing. But what the speaker had to say astonished them.
"One of the things we were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world,” he said. “We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next, we focused on your economic system. But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West has been so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.”
This was not coming from some ultra-conservative think tank in Orange County, California or from Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. This was a scholar from China's premier academic research institute, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) in Beijing in 2002.
-----
Rodney Stark:
-----
Christianity created Western Civilization. Had the followers of Jesus remained an obscure Jewish sect, most of you would not have learned to read and the rest of you would be reading from hand copied scrolls. Without a theology committed to reason, progress, and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800: A world with many astrologers and alchemists but no scientists. A world of despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys, and pianos. A world where most infants do not live to the age of five and many women die in childbirth–a world truly living in "dark ages."
The modern world arose only in Christian societies. Not in Islam. Not in Asia. Not in a "secular" society–there having been none. And all the modernization that has since occurred outside Christendom was imported from the West, often brought by colonizers and missionaries.
-----
Vishal Mangalwadi:
-----
Devout Christians cultivated their minds by copying, preserving, and studying great books because they believed that to be God-like meant to develop the intellect, to grow in our knowledge of all truth—whichever individual or culture discovers it first. That is what made the West a thinking civilization. Amputation of its soul cannot but lead to the closing of the American mind.
-----
See also the YouTube video "Tom Holland tells NT Wright: Why I changed my mind about Christianity"
"Sorry I remain sceptical."
Despite your claim that you would be on board.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@p.chuckmoralesesquire3965
"the sum of your insight was that they are different types of terms."
No, that was not my point. My point is that if you have two different explanations, A and B, to explain X, you can't say that A must be true because it explains X. The fact that there is another explanation (B) means that you haven't shown that A is the correct explanation. You were saying that the reason there are two different words is A, and I was saying no, there is also B. Therefore you've not provided evidence that A is the reason that there are two different word. My point was one of logic.
"You could have explained that sex and gender are a spectrum, they are bimodal, not binary."
I could have, except that I do my best to avoid telling untruths. There are two sexes, male and female. No more. So where's this supposed spectrum? And how does the existence of both 'female' and 'woman' show that?
"We all exist on a point between 2 extremes male and female."
Simply false. We are all either male or female. Period.
"You could have offered something but you went full scale smugnorant and looked silly."
No, I was making a point of logic that showed that your claim (that they had different meanings) was not the only conclusion that could be drawn from your evidence (that they are two different words). As such, your conclusion was apparently baseless.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Well-argued take on the situation, Scott. I've not watched the entire discussion even once (only snippets of it), so I'm not in a position to argue against you. And for much of it I wouldn't disagree anyway.
But I do have concerns. For one, leaders (like Trump) tend to make promises that they can't really make, because future administrations may act differently. I'm thinking here of a promise that Russia will be keep any peace agreement into the future. On the other hand, America having a commercial interest in Ukraine's minerals would support future American administrations having an interest in keeping Russia at bay.
I dislike the attitude that I seem to be seeing that Trump is doing what's in America's best interests. As America's president, he should of course be doing that, but in attempting to help Ukraine, his goal should be Ukraine's best interests, not America's (in case there may be some conflict between the two, of course). If you're helping someone for what you can get out of it, you have the wrong motive.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@AbeerKDas
"bias means misinformation and handpicked data."
No, it does not. The Collins dictionary says that it's "a tendency to prefer one person or thing to another, and to favour that person or thing." It also often means that that tendency is unfair, but that's not a necessary part of the meaning of the word.
And yes, bias can often be wrong (when it's applied unfairly, when it results in people cherry-picking, when they allow misinformation to creep in), but it's not necessarily wrong. Which is why I referred to having the right bias. I'm biased towards wanting facts and evidence, for example.
"i just said NO ONE is ur friend"
Which is wrong too. I have friends, and perhaps more to the point, I have people, groups, and organisations that I can trust.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@PaulJames-v4c
"well you must be a southerner, never been to darwin."
True.
"most Aboriginals are on the pension."
Okay, that adds some context, but still doesn't show that the card "makes no difference". All it shows is that it only helps a subset, e.g. those not on a pension.
"You can buy gift card with your card to buy grog and smokes, etc,"
If that's true, then you may have a point. But you didn't mention that before. However, according to several places I've looked, the card cannot be used to buy "specific cash-like products, gift cards and prepaid cards." I had trouble finding what gift cards are excluded, but another place said that "it cannot be used to purchase alcohol, gambling products and open loop gift cards". How do you reconcile that with your comment?
"I love it when you people stick your nose in things that you know nothing about."
Questioning what someone says is not 'sticking my nose into things'.
"Im black, are you calling me a lier"
What does the amount of melanin in your skin have to do with it?
And no, I was not accusing you of being deliberately deceitful, but instead challenging your supposed logic and questioning whether you really had a handle on the complete picture.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@tomhicks1009
"You would argue that the sky isn’t really blue "
No, I only argue when I have reason to think something's incorrect.
"You think Australia is doing fine since the arrival of Europeans."
That's relative, but essentially, yes. As is most of Western Civilisation, the most successful civilisation with the most democracy, most freedoms, and best technology.
"I think Australia is worse off "
Because...?
"I believe the Aboriginals had a strong connection and understanding with nature."
Yes, I can see that you have that romantic/almost-religious view (nothing wrong with that if it's accurate, but ...).
"You don’t"
Because they never achieved most things that the West, or even many other civilisations, did, such as writing, technology beyond boomerangs and the like, science (despite laughable claims to the contrary), farming (at least on any sort of scale), medical innovations beyond a few natural remedies, etc. etc. Most of these things come from studying nature. Living in nature and coping with it and learning some things to avoid in it is not the same as understanding it.
"Let’s see how Australia’s environment looks in 60,000 years"
Yeah, sure!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@stephendoherty981
"Also, everybody knows that 'From the river (Jordan) to the sea (Med)' is a chant for freedom."
No, it's a chant for the elimination of Israel, as is well known, and Hamas' charter calls for Jews to be eliminated.
"Its charter states' From the Sea to the Jordan, there will only be Israeli sovereignty'.!!! That's far worse and makes no accommodation with the Palestinians, right?"
Wrong. Even now, Israel has Palestinians living within its borders, including holding important positions such as judges and members of parliament. It might want a single nation in that area (which, after all, was their land historically), but it doesn't follow that there is no accommodation for the Palestinians. By contrast, which surrounding Muslim nations have many Jews living in them?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"I eventually came to realise that integrating science and religion is impossible."
The first problem is the term "religion". What does that mean? That can cover anything from Christianity (which founded science, as pointed out in the video) and other monotheistic religions to polytheistic and pantheistic religions to atheistic religions such as Marxism, Confucianism, Zen Buddhism, Secular Humanism, and Scientology. The term is just too broad and all-encompassing to make sense in a comment like that.
So integrating science and Christianity is not impossible, given that science is based on Christianity.
"Religion goes against reason, fact, and reality."
Most religions might, but Christianity doesn't.
"It is an idea based on faith and mysticism."
Christianity is not based on mysticism. And in Christianity, 'faith' does not mean what it means to atheists; it means trust based on evidence. That is, we have evidence that what God says and that we can check is true, so we trust Him (have faith in Him) when He tells us about things we can't check, such as what happens when we die.
"I'm happy to see the slow decline of Christianity in the west."
The West is based on Christianity. A slow decline in Christianity in the West will result in a slow decline in the West.
"The world will be a better place without religion."
Especially without atheist religions. But not without Christianity, which has done an enormous amount of good, founding public hospitals and many charities, starting science, spreading democracy, abolishing slavery, raising the status of women, introducing universal education, and more.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"I still don’t understand why a joke about a character that is historically dubious at best..."
Not historically dubious at all, as I'm rather sure I would have shown you before.
"...if this Jesus character is a god..."
No, he's not "a" god. He IS God.
"...and has the characteristics described to it in the bible..."
"it"? You can't even be civil in your commenting.
"...it would not be even remotely concerned,..."
What's your evidence for that?
"...and if so would make themselves heard."
How does that follow?
"By what means do christians or muslims presume to know whether there god is offended."
The left always seems to know whether something is offensive or not. So why can't other people?
"If Morrow is claiming the blasphemy laws in the bible..."
He made no mention of them. So I have no idea what you're talking about.
"...then he is most definitely against free speech,..."
That depends on how you define free speech. My view (even if uncommon) is that you should be allowed to argue for any point of view you like, but not to simply be rude or deliberately offensive. For example, you should utter profanities, but you should be allowed to argue that there's nothing wrong with uttering profanities.
"...and also has the burden of proof in proving the bible to be the word of god."
Apart from Morrow not saying anything that requires that, that has been shown over and over again by many, many people.
"The idea that an Abrahamic god exists is as far as I can see, quite ridiculous."
How so? And what alternative is less ridiculous?
"If you have some sort of novel testable proof one exists lay it on me..."
"... otherwise mocking go on."
No, I have no novel testable proof. I only have the mountains of evidence that have been well-known for a long time.
"... otherwise mocking go on."
I'm sure it will regardless.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@marvelstark3797
I known nothing about the situation she's protesting about, so I don't have a view one way or the other on her claims. But...
"...she still has the right to express it inside the parliament. right?"
Wrong, I'd say. She is part of the body that invited Marcos to speak, so she should respect that and not protest on that occasion.
"...the very fact that she did it on a silent protest says it all."
No, it doesn't say it all at all. Being a silent protest does not invalidate every other consideration.
"...she heard that marcos jr one of the motivator of human rights abuse, then for her he is not welcome..."
Are you saying that she acted on hearsay? That makes her protest all the more unreasonable.
"... doing it in a silent protest where she did not shout inside the parliament, that way she still possess the ethical behavior as a lawmaker. as simple as that."
No, it's not that simple. A silent protest is better than a noisy protest, but that doesn't make the silent protest acceptable. That's simply not logical.
The opening poster pointed out that "this should be done by writing to the International Criminal Court,... " Janet Rice herself said that the ICC was hearing a case (as though that somehow make him guilty). If it's already with the ICC, then a protest is just saying that you're not happy to leave it with the justice system, and want to punish him further. That's not ethical.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@SuperEdge67
"Religion should not be taught in school."
Even in comparative religious studies? I didn't say that they had to convert children, just accurately teach what Christianity is.
Beside, religious views are already being taught in schools. Much of is atheist-based, especially this Marxist stuff.
"If parents want to raise their children as Christians that’s up to them…….do it in the home not at school."
Why? So the atheists can counter it in schools?
"Which one of the 100 versions of Christianity would that be."
What 100 versions? If it recognises Jesus as Lord, it's true Christianity. If not, then it's not.
"Or could you be wrong and ‘God’ is one of the other 3000 deities worshipped."
I think you're making up numbers. "God" is, by definition, the creator; supreme being. Only one can be supreme. All others (not that there's many) are pretenders.
"Your ‘truth’ to many is just a 2000 year old fairytale."
You know not of which you speak. First. it's recorded, eye-witness history, not a fairy tale. Second, the Bible records around 4000 years of history; it's not all from 2000 years ago.
But to expand, Western Civilisation is based on Christianity, as many scholars acknowledge; To quote one of those scholars,
"Christianity created Western Civilization. Had the followers of Jesus remained an obscure Jewish sect, most of you would not have learned to read and the rest of you would be reading from hand copied scrolls. Without a theology committed to reason, progress, and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800: A world with many astrologers and alchemists but no scientists. A world of despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys, and pianos. A world where most infants do not live to the age of five and many women die in childbirth—a world truly living in "dark ages." "
If that sort of stuff was taught, we'd be much better off. Even the vehemently anti-Christian Richard Dawkins said that "I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse." Even he realises that Christianity has a history of civilising society and holding back nonsense such as CRT.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@killbotone6210
"Well according to that book were all made in "His" likeness so it's not our problem if that's what " Hes" like."
We were made in His likeness (why the scare quotes? You don't agree with his self-identification?), but that doesn't mean that we are identical to Him, but after He made us, we rebelled against Him and are now not like Him in more ways, such as by sinning.
"And no, there is no free will when an all powerful being has decided and knows every choice you will ever make."
No, He hasn't "decided" every choice we will make. That's the entire point of free will! Duh!
And yes, He knows every choice that you will (from your perspective) make, because He is outside of time, so has already seen (in our future) what choices we did make. That does not mean that we don't have free will.
"So you're saying your version of a god was powerless to stop Sin from entering the world he created? Ok"
Absolutely not. He could have stopped it, by only by removing our free will. But that would go against the very decision-making beings that He designed us to be.
"And who created Sin?"
Man (under the rebellious influence of Satan).
"And who created Satan?"
God created angels. Some of those angels rebelled, with the lead one (Lucifer) subsequently being known as Satan.
"And when your version of a god ..."
It's not our version of a god. It is the God, as He has related Himself to us.
"...created Satan, did he know what Satan would do?"
As I said, God is outside of time, and knows everything.
"Information for adults. Not for children."
No, information for everybody.
"There is no reason a child should be reading about women who have sex with their dad."
Except, perhaps, to help them understand that some people do bad things. Or is teaching them that not a good thing in your mind?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Michael Steers
"They are ruled by the Bible, Koran, so by religion..."
With the exception of the US, the countries you mentioned are NOT ruled by the Bible. You also make the gross error of thinking that all non-atheistic religions are the same. They are not. Islam is very different to Christianity, so of course that is NOT what I want.
Both the U.S. and Australia were essentially founded by Christians. If you don't want that, then why shouldn't you move to one ruled by atheism, such as China or North Korea?
"...we certainly dont want to be ruled by religion in Australia."
Who is "we"? Atheists? You are in a minority. And you completely ignore (or are ignorant of the fact) that Western Civilisation is based on the Bible. If it was not for Christians based on their Christian beliefs, you wouldn't have the benefit of universal education, public hospitals, science, freedoms, and much more.
"We want FREEDOM FROM RELIGION."
No, you want freedom from a Christian worldview/religion because you prefer an atheist worldview/religion. And yet atheist regimes have a shocking record, and Christian ones have a very good record.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@kennethgoldston4643
"I will show you the sites of mass slaughter near Maryborough, Woolooga, Bouldercombe, Mount Larcom, The Leap, Rockhampton, Springsure, Gippsland, the Kimberley, Myall Creek."
I believe that at least some of those are disputed, but regardless, a genocide is an attempt to wipe out an entire people group. Which wasn't intended and didn't happen.
"...it was used by the commentators, reporters and courts then and now,...
I wouldn't take the word of commentators or reporters without knowing who they are. If courts actually did (and not just prosecutors), then you have a bit of an argument there, but then we've had courts make some bizarre claims also.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@theBeat2
"It might be time for you to revisit a biology book."
No, he was right. Do you think that a mother had four arms, four legs, two hearts, two brains, two sets of DNA, two different blood types?
The baby has its own body, with its own arms, legs, heart, brain, DNA, and sometimes different blood type. Saying that it's part of the mother's body is a blatant falsehood.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Tenskwatawa4U
"I believe in God, but I have no proof."
I have, as have many others.
Proof is evidence sufficient to convince one to believe. In a criminal court case, the judge or jury has to be convinced "beyond reasonable doubt", which is deliberately biased in favour of letting the guilty go free rather than punish an innocent person. In a civil court case, the judge or jury has to be convinced on the basis of the probabilities, i.e. the case has to be shown to be more likely true than not. If the judge or jury is so convinced (in either type of case), it is considered proven.
Many people—including many former sceptics—have seen enough evidence to convince them. Therefore, for those people, God was proved. It doesn't, of course, mean that someone else will be convinced, so it may not amount to proof for them. But that might also come down to their willingness to go where the evidence leads.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@EonsEternity
"... its also clear that Ukraine also doesnt want to end it either."
I reject that. Perhaps it's true that they don't want to end it on Trump's terms, but that doesn't mean that they don't want to end it.
"A war won is a war lost,..."
Well, it's won by one side and lost by the other. But is that what you're referring to?
"...but this isnt anywhere near that. So lets not escalate it that far."
Of course I'm not suggesting elevating it, but I suspect you're claiming that if America gets more involved, that's what it would become. But what are the alternatives? For the victim to lose, at least some (like not making a thief return all the stolen property, just some), or for it to drag on and on? Wars are often won by strength, and not showing strength is a losing tactic. That's probably why this started in the first place, because America was projecting weakness. That's the concern that various countries have currently about China, that we've not been projecting strength, thereby encouraging China to be offensive.
2
-
2
-
@protorhinocerator142
Just to add, the point of the parable is NOT about what help you give someone, but WHO you give it to. It was common then to help family and friends, but not strangers, specially not people who you didn't like. The point was that you help the ones who need help.
Jesus told the pharisees "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself." The pharisees then questioned who "your neighbour" was, and so Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan (the Jews despised the Samaritans), to point out that you love (and therefore help) those who need help. Obviously, what help you give them depends on what their needs are.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@WindTurbineSyndrome
"All indigenous peoples in every continent have been under genocidal attack since western civilization discovered them but want their land."
Complete nonsense.
"Aboriginal and Torres Islanders lived with the land they had the longest running tribal organized society going back many tens of thousands of years."
According to a modern, 'progressive' view. That it went back that long is a naturalistic view. That it was an "organized society", is contrary to the evidence.
"So if an aboriginal says the land should not been seismically shaken. And her human rights and belief in song lines are just as valid as the science of industry."
No, fiction is not as valid as fact.
"I believe this lady and she is tuned in."
Tuned in to what?
"Aboriginal people have been attacked and told to just go off to bush and die off."
Yes, some were attacked (partly thanks to the same naturalistic views). Many others, however, were treated well and fairly.
"Disgusting racism to say Raylene is a nutter with no truth."
More nonsense. That is said on the basis of the silly beliefs, not on her 'race'.
"The song lines are everywhere not just on land."
What "song lines". They've yet to be shown to exist.
"Saying they were stone age living they had a very balanced life with the land and sharing it with the animals."
I don't agree with connotations of the "stone age" label, but they failed to develop much in the way of technology and led a very basic, harsh, lifestyle with minimal organisation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tobak952
"Universities had been a thing since ancient Greece, and was reinvented in the 13th century, "'
Even if true, that doesn't affect my argument.
"...there were people who dedicated their life to science throughout the entire medieval period."
Only if you have a very broad definition of science. Many scholars agree that science was a product of Christianity, as mentioned in this video.
"Capitalism was the result of democrathy,..."
Democrathy??
"... wich was the result of, among other things, secularization. cough cough French revolution cough first amendment cough Seperation of church and state *cough*.
Capitalism had its foundings in northern Italy around the 12th(?) century. Well before the events that you mentioned.
"Christianity is a main reason the enlightenment didn't hit sooner,..."
Just as well. The so-called enlightenment wasn't particularly enlightening.
"...the requirements for the enlightenment: Scepticism, religious freedom, democrathy was forbidden by medieval christianity and often explicitly in the bible"
That is false insofar as the Bible is concerned at least. In the Bible, the Bereans were commended for being sceptical of what Paul (the apostle) taught. Neither is there a ban on democracy, which was helped by the church (although more so after Catholicism loosened its grip).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@godamid4889
"souls are imaginary"
What's your evidence?
"Australia is a secular country."
A secular country historically based on Christianity. As is the West generally.
"no, they are not. That is utter [deleted] and convenient ignorance."
Please try reading Augusto Zimmermann's Christian Foundations of the Common Law, Volume 3 : Australia. Zimmermann is a top legal scholar.
"Name one reference to a Christian value in our laws."
* No murder
* No theft
* No rape
Sorry, that's three. Of course I could have done a lot more.
"Just one that Christians can honestly claim is theirs alone."
Why? That wasn't the claim. You're trying to move the goal posts.
"what does how a parliament start have to do with the laws that get made?"
It's a reminder of the basis for the laws.
"Before the Lord's prayer, which is a crock of [deleted] to be saying in parliament..."
Because you don't like it? What's wrong with recognising the maker of us all?
"...they open with paying respect to the indigenous landowners. So Christian values must be based on Indigenous Australian values, according to your ridiculous logic."
You're right. ppattayguideorg was incorrect to imply that all Australia's laws are based on Christian values. However, historically, that is their origin.
"And which Christian values? Opus Dei? These happy clappers who put their needs above the frail and over worked? Those Mormons? Anglicans, Protestants, Quakers?"
Christian values are ones from the Bible, not from a particular religious group. (And Mormonism aren't Christian.)
"I don't live in one of your echo chambers ..."
Clearly not. But that doesn't mean that you don't live in a different echo chamber. An atheist one perhaps.
"... and Pat myself congratulating myself on what a great christian I am."
I didn't see anyone doing that. I think you are still making stuff up.
"There are more non-religious people than christians in Australia these days."
Which proves as much as the Lord's Prayer at the start of parliament proves that laws are based on Christian/biblical values. Besides, I reject the claim, as with a broad definition of 'religion', atheists are too.
"Think I am losing anything?"
Yep. Eternal life.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Didigetitwrong
"So Canteen, WorldVision, Unicef and once off payements to natural disasters killed people?"
You made your original comment in the context of discussion about UNRWA, where it would have led to killing people.
Donations to help with natural disasters, and to World Vision, shouldn't be killing people, but then presuming that the money doesn't all get to where it's needed is, I believe, being either overly cynical or not appreciating that organisations have expenses that they have to cover too. I don't know much about Canteen, but it's probably okay, except that it does support the trans agenda which has a high suicide rate, not due to lack of acceptance but due to confusing reality with delusion.
Unicef kills unborn people.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bobdown6235
"Fire anyone , inspire any hate ,..."
It's the left that does that. For example, people were fired simply for supporting the NO campaign on so-called same-sex marriage. I've been threatened with the sack simply for politely expressing my views.
"Have I got that right? yep I'm pretty sure I have."
No, you haven't. Christians don't agree with LGBT stuff, but that doesn't mean that they hate them. On the contrary, they love them, and want the best for them (which is to be as they were designed).
And no, it's not a book of fables; it's accurate history, as archaeology has shown.
"Religion should have NO say in government..."
No, only atheist views should have a say. Right?
"...and should NOT have tax exemptions."
Why not? Pretty-well every other non-profit does. Why single out religious groups for discrimination? Especially given all the good that they do.
"Religion is much like masturbation, in that, it's OK in the privacy of your bedroom but should never be practiced in public and never, never in front of children."
Because you don't agree with it?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@chriswatson7965
Like most words, 'religion' has a range of definitions. At its broadest, it refers to the set of beliefs on which you base your life. And everyone has those. The idea that it's limited to belief in God (another of its definition) would mean that Zen Buddhism, Confucianism, Scientology, Mary Baker Eddy's 'Christian Science', Marxism, Secular Humanism, etc. are not religions. Secular Humanism, when founded, described itself as a 'secular religion', and the U.S. Supreme Court has called atheism a religion for some purposes at least.
So I don't know exactly what your views/worldview/ideology/religion is, but by the broader definition, you do have one.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Royal.Grand.Majesty
"When too much factual information is provided against your ideals and beliefs..."
The problem is that it's not factual.
"...you just believe that it's propaganda or worse an AI bot."
Talking about yourself dismissing facts as Israeli propaganda?
"My question to you is: "What's wrong with rejecting parts of your land from being given to another"?"
What made it their land? And what's wrong with giving the land back to its rightful owners?
"Are you hearing yourself? You're doing what every Israeli Official does. You treat Palestinians as second class citizens."
How is he, and how are they, doing that? There are arabs living in Israel and holding political and judicial office in Israel. But there are no Jews living in areas controlled by Palestinians, let along holding office there. It's the Israelis who are treated worse than second-class citizens in Palestinian areas.
"You think they want their land to be allocated for them?"
Do they not want any land? If they want land, then some needs/needed to be allocated.
"You think Palestinians deserved to be treated the way they have been for the past 75 years because they rejected and opposed the request for parts of their land to be given to another?"
They rejected and opposed the decision to give a small part of the land back to the Jews who have been living there for 3,500 years. They weren't even agreeable to the small part that was to be given back to the Jews, wanting to deny them any of the land.
"Israel is the occupying force here, that's what you're forgetting."
No, Israel is occupying their own land. That's what you're "forgetting".
"Any retaliation from the Arabs is nothing short of justified..."
So killing, raping, torturing innocent Israelis is justified? You're defending terrorism. Why not instead have some sort of negotiated agreement? Oh, that's right, because the Palestinians refused to agree to Jews living in their own land at all.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@simonharris4873
"Name one of her sins."
Why do you demand information from me when you won't support your own claims?
"The Greeks and Romans had many Gods. Clearly you're wrong on that. "
None of their gods qualified as supreme beings. They were lesser beings. They were, for example, all offspring of other 'gods'. The Greeks even erected a statue to the real God, even though they didn't know Him, because they realised that their own gods didn't qualify.
"What evidence? You mean the copious quantity of evidence that discredit the bible."
Well, yes, the supposed copious quantity that for some reason you can't seem to supply. Maybe it's not so copious after all.
"Go look at the description of Solomon's molten area."
It wasn't molten. It was a brass vessel holding water, and called a 'sea', that was cast from molten brass, but that's beside the point.
"10 cubits in diameter and 30 in circumference. That means PI = 3.0."
Not, it does not.
First, it's describing a vessel and giving sizes. It's not teaching the value of pi. It never even mentions pi. You made that bit up.
So you haven't supported your claim that pi was given to two digits of precision. Your evidence is that 10 and 30 (not pi) are two digits of precision. But they are not. The (correct) term I used is "significant digits". Significant digits are ones other than leading and trailing zeros. So 10 and 30 (and 3) have a precision of one significant digit. Which means that your claim regarding the precision of pi is wrong.
Again, it was describing a vessel, not giving instructions for constructing it. So what degree of precision was required? Not a great degree. So the vessel might have actually been 9.68 cubits in diameter, which is 10 (to one significant digit), and the circumference might have been 30.4 cubits in circumference, which is 30 (to one significant digit). And yet those sizes result in pi = 3.14. So, as I said, you are assuming a precision that is not stated to be the case, not used, and for which there was no requirement.
For this reason, the claim that the Bible gives an incorrect value of pi has been rejected by mathematicians.
Now, I've defended my claim about pi and thereby refuted yours. So how about you defend your claims that I've challenged and which you've not supported? Or admit that you can't.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@therealkakitron
"let's put it this way, if the existence of a god or gods had been demonstrated, there wouldn't be the number of different religions based on other gods, and probably nowhere near the number of atheists."
How does that follow? Many people would claim that global warming has been demonstrated, but there are many others who will disagree. Similarly, there are many who would claim that the claims of the global warming people have been demonstrated to be false, but the global warming adherents don't agree.
For another example, the (rough) sphericity of the earth has been demonstrated, but there are still plenty who believe that the earth is flat.
That something has been demonstrated does not mean that everyone will accept that. Especially if there is, say, a government using propaganda to misinform people, or from a Christian point of view, Satan trying to get people to believe that God doesn't exist.
"As for you not being able to prove it and your honesty, ok, I retract my statements."
Thank you.
"I don't know whether or not you can (all I know is you haven't to me) so I'll remain unconvinced until you can demonstrate his existence."
I can produce evidence, but whether or not you will be convinced will be another matter. Before I do, however, I'll point out that there are many examples of atheists who believed that God didn't exist, until they looked at the evidence and became convinced— on the basis of that evidence —that God does exist. So there is clearly evidence there. One example is investigative journalist Lee Strobel who was upset when his wife became a Christian, so set out to prove to her that God didn't exist. He used his investigative skills to study the available evidence, and ended up becoming a Christian. And yet I still often see atheists claim "there is no evidence for God"!
The evidence itself is wide-ranging and cumulative (e.g. some of the evidence might only support that there is a God, not that Yahweh is that God). There's far too much to detail here (and there are plenty of other source online and offline), but to just outline some areas...
* The very fact that anything exists at all. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that everything (i.e. the material universe) is running down (increasing entropy). The fact that it hasn't yet completely run down shows that the universe hasn't existed forever (as used to be believed by many scientists 70+ years ago; the 'steady state' view), so it had a beginning. As, logically, nothing can create itself (it can't do anything until it exists), then the universe (i.e. all time/matter/energy) had to be caused by something else, i.e. something not natural, i.e. something SUPERnatural. That is, God.
* Many of the fundamental constants in the universe (e.g. the strengths of the weak and strong nuclear forces) have to have very precise values in order for the universe to exist. The odds of this happening by chance (as opposed to design) are so exceedingly small that they amount to zero. That is, it might be something like the odds of winning the lottery every week for 100 millennium.
* Living things contain massive amounts of genetic information. The only source of information is intelligence. So an intelligence had to exist before life began. God is the only available candidate.
* The well-documented, by multiple sources, of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus is also evidence for God's existence.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@NeoRelic-o8p
"It's possible to see Israel as a colony. Thus, colonialism."
So if something is possible to see, it's therefore true?
"It's possible to interrupt the displacement of Gaza as threatening the extinction of an entire population."
I don't understand that sentence.
"Thus, some people are afraid it is leading towards genocide."
Again, that some people are afraid of that doesn't mean that it's true. And given the lengths that Israel has gone to, to avoid civilian deaths (warning them when they are about to strike so that they can get out, for example), and that civilian deaths as a proportion of the whole is very low compared to other wars, shows that fear to be unfounded.
"There is no need for me to clarify if I share the opinion or if it is just a simple statement of fact."
Clarity is not based on whether something is factual or not, or whether it's a shared opinion.
"The responsibility lies with the reader not to make assumptions, and instead ask questions."
So we shouldn't assume that you meant what you said? Please explain how that works.
"If you look closely, it becomes obvious that the degree of severity of the conflict in the middle east stems directly from the cultural differences that came from the winners of WWII allowing the Holocaust survivors to colonize an area that is still fundamentally living with the same mentality as people had in biblical times."
Again, you're claiming colonisation when it was instead a reclaiming of their own land. Second, the people in the area are living with a mentality that began more than 600 years after the end of biblical times. Third, you haven't shown that the severity is any greater than it was, say, 1000 years ago. Fourth, even though I'd agree that the severity is due to the cultural differences, you seem to be trying to blame that on "the winners of WWII allowing the Holocaust survivors to" resettle there. What does them winning WWII or them being Holocaust survivors have to do with the severity?
"The point I was making with my original comment was that it is not antisemitism that is driving this divide."
How are those cultural difference not a case of antisemitism?
"Many Palestinians are Jews and have lived relatively peacefully with Arabs for a long time before the European Jews came into the area"
No, the Muslims turned on the Jews centuries ago. They invaded Jerusalem, for example, in AD 638. The Arabs colonised Israel. The Muslims are happy for Jews to live peacefully with them, as long as the Jews are dhimmis, people who are treated as less worthy and do as they were told. But to have their own country? Unacceptable!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@turnerfamilyinozi
"Why would any one believe a president who told over 30 000 lies in four years?"
I checked out a sample of those supposed 30,000 lies, and they didn't stack up. So why would I believe his critics that made those false claims?
"Or have you forgotten that Trump said if he lost the election he would claim fraud?"
You seem to think that he meant that he would claim fraud even for a legitimate loss. But in fact he had good reason to expect to win, including his pollster telling him that if he increased his vote by some figure (I forget what; say 10%), there is no way that Biden could beat him. He did increase his vote by the suggested amount, but for some reason, Biden, who hardly even campaigned, supposedly increased his vote by even more! So perhaps Trump had good reason to predict that only fraud would explain it. And therefore his statement doesn't have to mean what you think it means.
"Tell you what, I will show you many of Trump's lies and all you have to do is find one that is not a lie. It should be pretty easy don't you think?"
It was pretty easy when I did it before, so bring it on.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@highpriestofgavinalmightyh1304
"There are numerous problems with a literal interpretation of the Noah myth— specifically how the majority of civilizations of that time period kept on trucking along as if nothing had ever happened."
You are making a very fundamental mistake. There are two views about history to consider here. One is the biblical account, which puts the flood at around 4,500 years ago, and all the civilisations known to history after that. The other is the secular view, which rejects the flood account, and claims that the civilisations are older. And what you're doing is trying to put the secular age of the civilisations into the biblical timescale and, correctly, pointing out that they don't fit. Well, duh! That's because they are competing views! Of course they won't fit. So one of the views is wrong, but what you're effectively doing is saying that the biblical account is wrong because it doesn't fit with the secular view! With just as much logic, I can say that the secular view is wrong because it doesn't fit with the biblica account! The biblical account needs to be judged on its merits and how it fits the evidence, not on how it fits with a competing view!
"...modern languages do not all traced back to a single language from 4500 years ago, etc."
As Michael correctly points out, that is not what Christians claim. In fact, the opposite is true. The biblical account indicates that multiple languages were created by God. It makes sense that these were allocated to family groups, and Noah had 16 grandsons, so 16 languages would be an obvious possibility. As you implied, linguists have been unable to trace all modern languages back to one, but they have traced them back to about 16 languages. So yet another bit of evidence consistent with the biblical account.
"…you’ll notice Ham and other apologists completely deflect and shift the goalpost when pressed on this."
No, I have not noticed that at all. On the contrary, the explanation I've given above came from the same sort of people you accuse of deflecting.
"There are in fact not examples of worldwide floods in every society and culture."
That's a strawman. Nobody claimed that there were examples in "every" society and culture. Just many of them.
"There are examples of worldwide flood myths in many cultures that reside in regions susceptible to flooding, though. Isn’t that interesting?"
And also in areas that are not susceptible to flooding. And many of those accounts agree in remarkable details (although also often disagreeing in others. For example, there are quite a few who mention the Noah character sending out birds after the flood, and at least seven of them (from memory) explicitly mention a raven! Isn't that interesting? How does your "many regional floods" account for similarities like that?
"Most literalist Christians claimed that the worldwide flood occurred approximately 4500 years ago. The problem? Every civilization that existed 4500 years ago continued trucking along as if they had not been completely wiped out by a massive flood."
You already said that. You're repeating yourself.
"How many animal populations are there?"
I guess that depends on how you define and count "populations".
"Now, if you try to use the excuse of “microevolution“..."
No, I don't use that term. It's ambiguous and misleading.
"I’m going to have to point out that you are acknowledging “macroevolution” as well, because without it, you don’t have speciation."
I also don't use "macroevolution" for the same reason. But ignoring that, you are completely wrong. Observed speciation comes about through specialisation, where a population with a broad gene pool produces offspring with a narrower gene pool. For example, the population might include bears with genes for both brown fur and white fur (I'll ignore that white fur might be from a lack of brown gene). From that group, you might get two separate groups, one with white fur and one with brown fur, because each group has lost the information for the other. What "macroevolution" requires is a gain of genetic information, not a loss. So observed speciation (which has a loose definition in any case) does not require "macroevolution".
"Evolution is not one creature spontaneously changing into another. That’s a strawman that fraudulent apologists around the world continue to go with."
Actually, they don't. However, they do point out that leading evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould appeared at one time to suggest that.
"I don’t know what “scientism“ is, ..."
You don't? If I was you, I'd have consulted a dictionary rather than display your ignorance. It's the belief that science can answer everything.
"Millions? Do you know how these time periods are discovered?"
They are not discovered. They are invented.
"Are we tracking that everything is not in fact predicated on “carbon dating?”"
Of course.
"Are you aware that there are multiple dating methods including radiometric dating and several varieties of carbon dating? Are you aware of how atomic decay is determined?"
Yes, yes, and yes. Are you aware of the assumptions that go into radioactive dates? Are you aware that when samples of known age have been measured, the resulting dates are often wrong?
"These will all be very important subject matter for you to cover before we can continue this conversation."
They have long been covered. What will be important before continuing is to answer the challenges I'm putting to you. Otherwise it will quickly devolve into you having baseless claims.
"There is no indication that multiple languages were ever sprung from a single source in a single day."
There is no indication that they didn't, either.
"They are often based on old legends of actual localized flooding events."
What's your evidence for that?
"... particularly cultures from regions not prone to flooding."
What's your evidence for that too?
"The story of Noah is likely based on a legend of a wealthy man..."
What makes that likely? And how does that even fit with the biblical account, such has having birds, and it covering the highest mountains?
"Older related legends and myths from the region such as the Epic of Gilgamesh tell the same basic story."
What makes you think that they are older? Having older manuscripts doesn't mean that the accounts are older.
"In the Epic of Gilgamesh, Utnapishtim (Noah) is warned that a god plans to destroy all humanity and is told to build a ship to save himself, his family, friends, and cattle. In the Epic of Atrahasis, a tribal chief survived with his family by floating in a boat down to the Persian Gulf."
Yes, corrupted accounts of the same event. And the Epic has indications of that corruption. As stories get retold, they tend to lose details, not gain them. Genesis has three ark dimensions (length, width, and height) that naval architects have said would make the ark very stable in heavy seas. The Epic has one dimension that applied to length, width, and height. That is, it describes a cube, which would be quiet unstable in heavy seas.
"...it is not a story to be taken literally..."
Why not? Nothing you've said so far shows that.
"as Ken Ham pushes it to be on impressionable children who lack the necessary scientific literacy to be able to scrutinize his particular literalist claims or interpretation."
True. You'd rather the secular view be pushed on impressionable children who lack the necessary scientific literacy to be able to scrutinize its claims or interpretation, wouldn't you?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@smedleyfarnsworth263
"Why did we need platform screen doors? ... Without them we could run any train type on the line."
If it wasn't for the CBTC signalling. (Probably).
"Then they opt for an orphan signaling system just for this line, ..."
In theory, to increase capacity. (How much it does may be a valid question.)
"...without this signaling system we could run any train type on the line."
If it wasn't for the platform screen doors. My point is that the reason for not running any other train type is not down to just one thing.
"As for building HCMT that are limited as to where they can run, did it never occur to the government to simply run more standard trains?"
Although the government (politicians) would sign off on the decision, such decisions are normally made by the (government) transport planners, and they consider a lot of factors. That doesn't mean that their decisions are beyond reproach or completely objective, but they are not due to incompetence or whim.
"Flexibility does give rise to better capacity."
It can give rise to better capacity. It can also reduce capacity. It depends on the particulars.
"I am merely questioning the expenditure to place such a CBTC system on a relatively short line."
It's not a short line. East Pakenham to Sunbury is a long way. You're probably referring to it being a short section of that line, and yes, in hindsight, that could be questionable. But I believe that the original intention was to put it on the whole line, and even later, it was to put it over a greater section of the line (Westall to Watergardens?). But cost led to them cutting it back to shorter and shorter sections, with, I think, the intention to extend that later (although whether that ever happens may be another question).
"Transposing of trains will be difficult during disruptions."
It long has been. Ever since we had some types allowed to run on some lines and not others. In fact before then too. We used to have both three-car and six-car trains running into the city close to the peak, and that caused problems with tranposals. So did transposing, say, a Comeng an an Silver (Hitachi) (which were both allowed to run on all lines) because in some cases you could end up with one of them dividing into two three-car trains, then having one of those three-car trains attempting to attach later to one of the other type.
"It is also not the purview of the State Government to keep Alstom in work. Let Alston source work for themselves from other places."
It's not Alstom per se. It's the Alstom-run North Ballarat Workshops and the local workforce that would be put out of a job without new orders. I'm not justifying the decision, but clarifying the situation.
"You have not mentioned anything about the lack of a direct connection to Southern Cross Station, the hub of regional and interstate services."
What about a direct connection to Richmond, the hub of the sporting area? You can't have everything.
"It is a second rate project delivered at a first rate cost. AKA a vanity project."
Not really. It's a long-planned (by transport planners) expansion of the network, endorsed by both sides of politics. Your criticism is better applied to the Suburban Rail Loop, which was not part of the transport plan, but a Labor Party idea.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sticktothefacts8905
I agree that this is a bit subjective, but I didn't just "decid[e] it isnt relevant to the baker issue" as though that was an arbitrary decision, I explained why it was a different situation.
However, this started with you asking the opening poster a question, and I chose to give my own answer, pointing out a difference—which I consider to be significant—in the two cases. You took exception to my response for some reason, including telling me to ask the original poster, even though I wasn't asking anything.
I also said that you were presuming an equivalence which was not there. I'll concede that I was too black-and-white about that. No two situations are ever identical, so the question is whether they are different enough to make a difference. If so, they are not equivalent. In my opinion, as I've explained, I think that they are different enough to make them not equivalent.
You said that you you didn't have to presume an equivalence, although clearly you were presuming one, as also shown by your subsequent comment saying that they were both provider choice issues covered by Sky.
Do you think the difference that I mentioned—one being up front with their views, the others hiding them—is irrelevant to whether or not they should both be allowed to do what they want? If so, I'd be interested in hearing your reasons for that. Otherwise, this is really an argument about nothing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@RamanathanPrabakaran
"Perhaps it reveals the attitude of Australian voters, that they are not against Christianity,..."
Many are against it.
"yet, they want to put religion at a distance from politics."
Because they don't understand what that means.
"All over the surface of this globe, where Christians live densely, they show not much interest to mix religion with politics."
I think that's too simplistic.
"Anyhow science and technology brought the subject identified as "industrial revolution", in the Europe. Improvements in thinking and actions also evolved and changed people there from barbaric to civilized."
It was Christianity that changed attitudes, well before the industrial revolution. And it was Christianity that brought science and much of the technology.
"... any religion or its teachings or the philosophies, never dictate the human beings to slaughter fellow human beings, instead all religions want people to love each other."
Categorically false, except perhaps in a very superficial sense. Many religious views are quite happy to allow for killing fellow human beings.
"If people with a label of certain religion go crazy or hysterical, frenzy, or deranged, the fault is with people not with the religion."
Not if the religion is a bad one.
"Her Faith and her wisdom probably could guide her to love and look after people in her vicinity who belong to any faith."
Her faith is one that teaches that infidels should be killed. How closely she follows that I don't know, but how would her faith guide her to love people when it teaches that?
"As a Senator or Legislator she knows her prime duty is to be faithful to this land."
As a member of her faith, she knows that her prime duty is to be faithful to her beliefs.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bobhawke7373
"Lower than SBS😂😂😂No one in the regions watches SBS. So that evens that out."
No it doesn't. They are lower than SBS in total, which is, again, what you'd expect from Sky not being free in the cities. Your argument only makes sense if they are lower than SBS is in the regions, but you're actually implying that SBS is lower in the regions.
Other aspect of the report are questionable too. For example, the ABC is shown as having a count(?) of 421, but that's an aggregate of multiple radio and television stations across the country, whereas the Herald Sun is at 182, even though that's one single newspaper in Victoria only.
But then one of the contributors used to be a Director of News at the ABC, another was with the BBC news, and a third is still with SBS news. Others are connected to the apparently-left-wing Australia Institute. I only had a superficial look, but didn't spot any obviously-conservative people there.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Wolfways
"It looks like you're implying that."
Perhaps you should clean your glasses.
"Your excuses for the other things are basically "we did it but then stopped so should be praised" which has never applied to anyone ever."
That's your negative spin on what I said. I'm trying to keep things in balance, acknowledging failures, but also keeping them in perspective, whereas you want to highlight the negatives as though they define Christians.
"You can't avoid prison by apologising to the judge."
On the contrary, you can often get a reduced penalty (perhaps even avoiding a custodial sentence) if you are remorseful.
"Celtic women could be rulers, homeowners, landowners, and business owners."
Okay, I've looked that up, and yes, it seems that they often could be. However, there is also some dissent. One person I found (on a forum—but citing two books as sources) says "The idea of women having an equal position in Celtic society is an exaggeration, mostly borne from Boudicca being mythologised as a British cultural symbol of independence. While they were better off than their Roman counterparts, Celtic women still lived in a patriarchal society."
A blog author—also citing two (other) books as sources—under the heading of "Celtic Women—Emancipated or Not?", writes "Opinions differ widely on this subject. The ancient legends are full of strong, Celtic women who were the equal of men, women who fought in battle and led their clans. There’s no doubt that in early Ireland women enjoyed a degree of equality with rights and freedoms unseen in the rest of the Roman and Greek worlds. On the other hand, the historical evidence strongly suggests that early Ireland was like much of the rest of the ancient world—a woman’s life was difficult. It was still a man’s world."
And "But again, the evidence for women’s equality in ancient Celtic society is mixed. Says Philip Freeman [one of his sources]: “Irish law texts tell us that women were classed along with children, slaves, and insane persons as having no independent legal rights.” As in many ancient cultures a woman’s legal status was tied to whatever man had authority over them: husband, father, brother, etc…"
And "So a Celtic woman in ancient Ireland had more rights and privileges than their counterparts in Rome or Greece. But until Patrick brought the Christian idea of equality between the sexes, it was still a man’s world. It’s a truly Christian idea that every person is considered equal to every other."
In summary, you're right to claim that they had significant rights, but perhaps not that they "pretty much had equal rights".
"I'm not saying the bible wasn't influential."
You're implying that, or at least that it had little good influence.
"Rome was good at propaganda."
What propaganda? And what does Rome have to do with it? It persecuted Christians for centuries.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Happy IDAHOBIT Day!
"When a human is born, they are assigned a sex - female, male, or intersex. "
No, they are not. They are conceived with a sex. That's nine months before birth. In the past people learnt their baby's sex at birth, but with ultrasound, they can now learn it before birth.
This claim that they are "assigned" a sex at birth is an outright lie.
"This is not gender,..."
If gender is not sex, why do people want to change their sex on their birth certificates to match their chosen gender? And why do they want to use sex-based toilets and changing rooms to match their chosen gender? Why do they want to play in sex-based sports and insist on others using sex-based pronouns to match their chosen gender? Why do they want to mutilate the sexual aspects of their bodies to match their chosen gender?
This whole "sex is not gender", although true (sex is reality; gender is fiction), is actually denied by the trans activists who conflate the two. So they are lying about that also.
When are the lies going to stop?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Frohds14
"Bad jokes doesn't affect my faith, on the contrary."
However, they can badly influence others, even if that's just reinforcing non-Christians attitudes toward Christianity/Christians. We are supposed to be salt and light. In fact we are also told to "destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ," (2 Corinthians 10:5).
"And to all those who threaten the mockers with purgatory and hell, I recommend the word of Jesus: Judge not, that ye be not judged."
We are not supposed to judge hypocritically, but John 7:24 says "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgement.”
I agree that we should not "threaten" others with purgatory and hell, but we can, and indeed should if we love them, warn them of hell.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@killbotone6210
"The point is more the torture they put him through for proving them wrong."
What torture? He wasn't tortured, unless you're talking about the stress of having to defend himself against critics. And in fact he didn't prove them wrong. Galileo was right, but he didn't actually have much evidence at the time.
"That's what happens in Christianity when you openly use critical thinking."
As I said, it was because he was offensive to the pope. His heliocentric views were an excuse.
"Yeah you can say Religion created modern science but nobody here is buying that."
Well, the atheists aren't because they dare not concede that they might be wrong.
"The Scientific Method was not established by any organised religion."
So you ignored the scholar I quoted? Here's another one, from Loren Eiseley: "The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation … . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption."
"One crazy claim after the other."
A claim backed up by much scholarship, so not crazy. Do you want more examples? How about Paul Davies?
"In the ensuing three hundred years, the theological dimension of science has faded [note that science began with a "theological dimension"]. People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature- the laws of physics - are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they come from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is rational basis to physical existence manifested as lawlike order in nature that is at least part comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological world view."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@LadnoMuun
"Everything is subjective, there is not a single objective thing / thought in this world."
So that statement is not objective. Okay, I'll take it as false.
"For a tiger or a serial killer a murder is good,..."
No, it's not. Murder is, objectively, bad. Even if the murderer wants to do it or likes doing it.
"Hence there is no such thing as objective things,..."
Making a self-refuting statement is funny enough. Digging in on it is funnier still.
"mathematicians? You mean a handful of people who very loosely agree over just a few things?"
There are far more than a handful, and they quite explicitly agree on most things related to mathematics. But then your statement wasn't meant to be be objective, was it?
"A lot of them would argue that 1 + 1 isn't always 2 you know ..."
Yeah, I agree. I think it's 41*. But I would be joking, not serious.
(* Draw it out. write 1+ 1 on a bit of paper, but join the bottom of the first 1 to the left of the +.)
"like I said, everything is "defined" based on our personal observations / perception..."
No, it's based on reality. But again, you weren't being objective, were you? That would contradict your claim that nothing was.
"so hard to prove someone wrong with arguments and facts."
At least when the person you're trying to prove it to doesn't believe in objective facts.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheNerd-Y
I appreciate your attempt to be calm and conciliatory. That said...
"not necessarily. All trans ppl know that they're not the same gender biologically as they are socially."
I agree that they don't all agree with each other. But of course the context is around those 'trans' people who insist on playing in the sport of the other sex. They are only doing that in order to be affirmed as being that other sex. Or else they are doing it simply to make it easier to win, which is an even worse motive.
"It's a difficult situation for them,..."
A difficult situation of their own making.
"I'm just trying to think of the best option all round."
That's easy. That 'trans women' play in men's competitions, because that's what they are. That's not hard at all.
"Hopefully someone can come up with the very best solution for this that will benefit everyone"
That they stop thinking that they're the sex they're not. Easy.
"The way we can be inclusive of everyone."
Translation: The way that we can bend over backwards to affirm their delusion. The trans activists are the most exclusive of all, rejecting anybody and everybody who doesn't agree with them.
"And for now, I think it's the best, except perhaps just mixed gender sports groups."
How is that best for women? This is one of the points being made—that this trans movement is erasing women.
"..and thus would give trans-females (who still have a biological male body) ..."
Not just a biological male body. They are still male. Period.
"And another sad truth is that you can NEVER please everyone."
True. So stick with facts and what's right. That may not solve everything, but it gets harder when you're dealing with people divorced from reality.
"Yes we should be inclusive,..."
What do you mean by that? In reality, it should mean that we accept people as people no matter what their views. In practice, it's self-contradictory, as it's used to mean that we should accept 'trans women' as women and anybody who disagrees is excluded.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@surfclimbcycle
"This would explain perfectly, why not one single election-fraud court case, has been resolved in Trump's favour."
No, it doesn't. First, most of those court cases never happened, because the courts dismissed them without even looking at the evidence. The court case that Texas brought, for example, was dismissed because Texas supposedly didn't have standing. So Trump, who clearly has standing, brought it himself, but they found another reason to dismiss it. They never even looked at the evidence (in that and many other cases).
Also, some cases were dismissed because the court was not prepared to throw out that many votes, not because the votes were investigated and found to be legal.
And in other cases, such as the propaganda of the MSM and the censorship of the social media, it wasn't actually illegal. But it was still election manipulation.
And finally, Trump did win one or two cases; it's wrong to say that he didn't win one. In at least one other case, Trump withdrew the case because he got what he wanted without the court having to intervene (I wonder how that happened if he had no case?).
"Trump lost the election, "
Yes, because it was stolen from him.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@EL_Duderino68
"Phill maybe you need for there to be a supreme being..."
I made no mention of needing one. I said that that is one of the requirements to be God, and therefore many so-called "gods" don't even qualify. Check the dictionary; it's one of the actual meanings of the word.
"...but I don't think there is one."
Then how does anything exist? The only alternative explanation I know of essentially magic or miracle, but without a magician or miracle worker. That is, first there was nothing, then it exploded and became everything. For no reason. Or, to put it in scientific terms, "The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere.". Really?
"I don't need a god who needs worship ..."
How do you know you don't need Him? How do you know that he's not responsible for your very being?
"...and will punish me with eternal torture if I don't follow the contradictory rules of a doctrine written by men. "
He won't. That's a fallacy. If you reject Him, He will oblige, and leave you to your own ends. Of course, that will be hell, given that, as I implied, everything that exists is from Him, so without Him supplying everything that exists, you'll have absolutely nothing. Including company, I would assume. But that's because you don't follow the non-contradictory doctrine written by God; nothing to do with contradictions written by men. Those, of course, would be silly to follow.
"I follow the Golden Rule because of my innate empathy."
Who or what caused you to have the ability to have innate empathy? Please don't tell me that it just happened by chance.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@chadjcrase
I'm not sure that I wrote what I meant when I said "Everything in the Bible about Him can be reasonable attributed to Him.". I think I meant to say that everything in the Bible about Him can be taken to be accurate. But technically I was correct anyway, given that Jesus/God is the ultimate author of the Bible, so when Luke, for example, records something about Jesus, then that record can, technically, be attributed to Jesus Himself.
"Paul was nowhere near those Jews who looked on with wonder when a simple carpenter extolled, essentially, the foundations of the modern world."
Interestingly enough, historian Tom Holland attributes the basis of the modern world not to the Sermon on the Mount, but to Paul!
"...compacted into this very very small amount of writing [Paul's letters], was almost everything that explains the modern world..."
Although he does go on to also credit the gospels: "...his letters are, I think, are, along with the four gospels, the most influential, the most impactful, the most revolutionary writings that have emerged from the ancient world.”
(from the video "Tom Holland tells NT Wright: Why I changed my mind about Christianity")
"I always appreciate your sayings either way."
Thank you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@abrahamthebewildered1448
"You're pretty arrogant there, aren't you?"
No, although I could have made myself clearer with more words. As in this response to you.
"You're literally saying that the practitioners of every other religion on Earth have no morality."
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if we don't get our moral standards (ultimately) from God, then they come (ultimately) from personal opinion. That doesn't mean that nobody but Christians have morals. It means that the morals that all people do have either come from God (even for non-Christians) or they are based on opinion. In the case of atheists in Western society, they often come from that society which is, historically, Christian. For an example of a non-Christian historian's view, see the short video "Tom Holland tells NT Wright: Why I changed my mind about Christianity"
But even historically-non-Christian societies have belief in God somewhere in their past and might have some of their moral standards dating from then.
"I'd argue that Buddhists are more moral than Christians, so what now?"
I'd ask by what moral standard you judge buddhists as being more moral than Christians. I'd also point out that the Godly moral standards come from God, not from the practice of Christians, so there is no shortage of Christians who have poor moral standards.
"Religion being the basis for a successful civilization. That's a terrible argument."
For the truth of Christianity? Yes. For the importance or relevance of Christianity, no.
"All nations were once religious."
Yes. And most still are in some way. So how does that affect anything I said?
"Religion has always been nothing more than a coping mechanism for humans in a world outside their control."
I reject that assertion. So what evidence do you have to support it?
"One nation at any given time would rise to dominance, and as technology progressed along with the ages, ..."
Yes, others have been "dominant" but I referred to "success", not dominance. And to Western Civilisation being the most successful, not the only successful one.
"Christian Europe's time came later..."
Later than earlier ones? Of course.
"...so its ability to conquer more land and keep more stable empires was greater than that of say, the Roman empire."
A lot of Christianity's spread was not by conquering, but by converting.
"...and keep more stable empires was greater than that of say, the Roman empire."
You're claiming that Christianity was more stable than the Roman empire simply because it came later. But how does simply being later mean that?
"The policies also evolved naturally with time with religion ..."
I'm talking about Christianity, not "religion". Religions vary a lot from each other. Putting them all in one basket is like saying that eating is good for you. Of course it is, but not everything you eat is good for you. It's not eating per se that's good, but what you eat that is good.
"...not only holding back the progress in this area but in that of scientific advancement."
Yes, science is a big part of the success of Western Civilisation, but science (and therefore the success that flowed from it) are thanks to Christianity. It was Christianity that gave birth to modern science, based on a Christian worldview, and acknowledged by many scholars. Paul Davies is just one of a number who I could quote: “...theological assumptions unique to Christianity explain why science was born only in Christian Europe. Contrary to the received wisdom religion and science not only were compatible; they were inseparable.”
"Christianity was not the basis for any success."
Again, see that video above with Tom Holland. Not only does he admit that Christianity is the basis of Western Civilisation, but that it has therefore positively benefited the rest of the world too. According to Robert Woodberry in his paper "The Missionary Roots of Liberal Democracy", one of the ways it has done that is by spreading democracy to many countries.
"It happened to tag along with nations that would have been successful anyway."
No, it led the way. Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary?
"The extreme left's version of science is more akin to a religion, frankly."
True. But then using a broad definition of "religion" (which doesn't have to include belief in God), atheistic views are religious too.
"All that said, I'm not against religion as long as equal respect is shown from all parties in society, ..."
Why do you think that equal respect is important? It didn't used to be. (Again, see that Tom Holland video.) I'd suggest it's because you've been raised in a historically-Christian society from which you've learnt that value.
"...and one doesn't use their ideology to subvert the truth."
Agreed. But then that idea comes as much as anything from a Judeo-Christian worldview, which teaches the importance of being truthful, from the "you shall not bear false witness" of the Ten Commandments to Jesus saying "I am the way, the truth, and the life", and the Bible commending the Bereans for checking that what even the apostle Paul was telling them was the truth, among other things.
"Yes, everyone knows this, I don't need it explained."
Not everyone seems to know it. But it's good that you didn't need it explained.
"Marxism breaks from religion, but religious belief has little to do with the core values."
I disagree. It breaks from theistic religion, being atheistic, but it is itself an atheistic religion, using a broad definition of the term, such as being a set of core beliefs.
"The reason these ideas are bad has nothing to do with the attachment of atheism, but rather an inherent selfishness of the feeling of entitlement without the effort."
I disagree. Christianity teaches that we should love one another, that we are all created in the image of God, that we have no right to harm others (beyond certain situations such as self-defence, punishment of evil, etc.). Atheism rejects the basis for that view (note that I'm saying the basis, not the view itself), and that leaves atheists free to then reject the view if, in their opinion (because without God it ultimately comes down to opinion) they have reason to. And if you have the power (e.g. Stalin, Mao) and the inclination, then you have that reason. So their atheism—their rejection of God providing the standards—is a key factor.
"Saying Marxism is a form of atheism is not correct."
Lenin: “The philosophical basis of Marxism, as Marx and Engels repeatedly declared, is dialectical materialism, ...—a materialism which is absolutely atheistic and positively hostile to all religion.”
2
-
@tessijordan5862
"I do agree that most of humanity seems to have some basic ideas about things like honesty and compassion, but they really are not universal."
I never indicated that they were. On the contrary, I know that they are not.
"...other religions see animals as NOT having souls,..."
Because they don't.
"...and okay to eat..."
God said it was okay to eat them.
"Religions vary greatly about our morality, views about marriage, monogamy, divorce, gender."
Very true.
"I'm not even looking at whether these are good or bad dogma, just the fact that they are NOT universal beliefs."
I agree that they are not universal.
"What I think we could evolve towards as a society, is just less rigid rules about a lot of things..."
To do that, we'd have to have a motive to do that and a clear goal. What would be the basis for that goal and what would provide the motive?
"... and just really trying to understand whether or not an action or idea causes harm to one's self or others, and always using that as a moral guide"
So, again, that's your dogma (or part of it). We all have such dogmas (although not all have the same dogmas).
"...instead of a rigid outline written by a well-meaning group of people who lived in a totally different world."
In the case of Christianity, it's not a well-meaning group, but God Himself. Not that He makes it all that rigid.
"Religion relies on belief in a deity."
Not necessarily. There are, for example, atheistic religions.
"Pretty easy to set ethical criteria without a deity, ..."
Of course. But on what basis? And why follow them? That was, essentially Arkeus Alexander's question, that you haven't actually provided an answer to. Atheists such as Stalin and Mao came up with their own (why not, if you're answerable to yourself rather than God), which resulted in the slaughter of millions.
"Religion has the awkward problem of saying that the deity is all-knowing and all-powerful,..."
You now have the awkward problem of saying why that is awkward to say if it is in fact true.
"...so it isn't easy to then say that well, maybe they were wrong about that."
Can you say that about your comments that I've addressed above?
"With secular law and science, we can have laws against something (like a speed limit) that can be changed once we realize that it isn't working...."
Of course Christians can do that too. After all, Western laws and science are both based on the Bible.
"As to the ultimate purpose of being alive, is it not possible to believe that it is to simply experience existence, while being loving and compassionate?"
Where did we get that purpose from?
"Isn't that enough?"
No, but the question is more "is that correct [that that's all it is]?"
2
-
2
-
@Pemalite
"There is zero evidence that your God exists."
What's your evidence that there is zero evidence? Or is that a faith position? Because I know of plenty of evidence.
"And thus I can discard your claim of a God with equally as much evidence."
Given that there is lots of evidence for God, then discarding Him is going to take a lot of evidence. So what is it?
"The Bible is also a book written by man..."
You make this claim as though it is widely accepted or self-evidently true. However, Christian have always accepted that it's actually written by God, as it claims. So what's your evidence to refute that widely-accepted view?
"...translated and interpreted multiple times,..."
Yes, it has been translated from the original languages into more languages than any other book. However, that is not a criticism of any sort. If you're meaning that it's a translation of a translation of a translation and so on ... then no, that's simply false. An atheist myth, I'd call it.
"If the religious nut jobs can't agree on what the Bible says..."
Why just look at the nut jobs? What about the myriad of sensible, intelligent people who accept what it says?
"Not to mention... Again. Lack of evidence for any of the Bibles Hocus Pocus fairy-tail rubbish anyway."
It has no hocus-pocus fairy tales. You are grossly mistaken there. It has a lot of actual history, which in many cases has been shown to be correct through archaeology and other disciplines. None of it has ever been shown to be wrong. Or perhaps you can be the first? What's your evidence?
"I have done my research."
In the wrong places, apparently.
"...try telling me again how your God exists when I have had to shovel the left-over remains of a dead child into a bag."
First try explaining how that addresses God's existence. And why, as a supposed Christian for more than a decade, you fail to understand how it doesn't.
"Your God even if it did exist ... is not worthy of worship."
By what standard do you judge worthiness? After all, atheists have no standard to judge such things except their own subjective opinions.
2
-
2
-
@pwillis1589
"the Constitution as finally adopted contained a clear power for the Commonwealth Parliament to legislate in a manner that discriminated on the basis of race,..."
In the non-negative sense that there was provision for making special laws, etc. on the basis of race.
"...both as to immigrants coming into Australia, as well as to people (whether British subjects or otherwise) of a particular race already in Australia."
Section 51 (xxvi) explicitly excluded making laws regarding that particular 'race' already in Australia.
"There was an expectation that the new Commonwealth would use these wide powers to implement the ‘White Australia’ policy,..."
By who? Everyone? A few prominent people? Some particular group or groups?
"That Constitution contained, and still contains, a direct constitutional requirement to discriminate on the basis of race in certain voting matters."
Actually, that provision (section 25) appears designed to oppose discrimination by the states. It says that if the states don't allow certain races to vote, then those people won't be counted for the purposes of section 24 that provides for the number of members of the House of Representatives, which is based on a state's population. So if the states want greater representation in the House, they ought to allow those other races to vote.
"And the Constitution left Aboriginal people entirely under the control of the States and their Parliaments, with freedom to enact State laws that discriminated against them or otherwise."
Because the states were sovereign, so in this respect the constitution simply retained the status quo. Except that section 25 penalised the states if they didn't allow aborigines to vote.
"A number of discriminatory laws on the basis of Aboriginal race were thereafter enacted by the States,..."
I'm not sure how true that is. A number of discriminatory laws existed before the constitution was enacted.
"Such a summary must, it is submitted, lead to the conclusion that the Constitution was designed to promote a race-based legal and social system in Australia."
Yes, your summary must lead to that conclusion, but the facts of the matter don't support that, at least to the extent that you claim.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@gdiwolverinemale4th
"Your conclusions are unsurprisingly wrong ..."
Unsurprisingly? What does this say about your expectations?
"Correct, but they had their own internal ruling hierarchy. Look up King Herod as an example"
With limited power. That doesn't make me wrong; it just means that the picture is more complex than either of us implied. And although Herod was a Jew, he acquiesced more to Rome than anything.
"how could that be if they believed Christ was God?"
Because they believed that Christ was the same God that they, as faithful Jews, had always followed and worshipped. The God of Abraham and Isaac and Israel.
"Judaism does not permit departure from orthodoxy."
What do you mean by "orthodoxy"? What the Tanakh recorded, or the Pharisees' misunderstandings/misinterpretations of it, such as the examples that Jesus pointed out? Yes, the Pharisees didn't like Jesus going against their rules, but Jesus didn't go against the Tanakh. He endorsed it.
".. the victories that were won before they angered the Lord."
That needs clarification. What do you mean by "angered the Lord"? They were, for example, all after God got angry with them at Sinai, which resulted in all but two of them not making it to the Promised Land.
"Also, there were many Jews fighting in the US and the Soviet military"
No doubt, but not enough to say that it was the Jews who won that war.
".. the current US administration is dominantly Jey wish"
Evidence please. I know that the Jewish ethos has made many of them very successful, but that claim seems rather extreme. Further, even to the extent that you're correct, why is that a problem?
"...and the chant .... "Jey wes will not replace us" by the US patriots most clearly reflects what is going on"
The mere existence of such a chant proves nothing.
I agree that a lot of Jews being very liberal is a problem, but then a lot of non-Jews being very liberal is also a problem. So the problem is liberalism, not Jewishness.
"I doubt I am going to find something in the Bible that I cannot find in history or in the news."
That's a rather silly statement, as well as being disputable. Let me rephrase that for you to highlight the silliness of it: "I doubt I am going to find something in one source of history that I cannot find in history ..." That is, your comment implies that you don't think that the BIble is included in that category of "history".
And of course you won't find something in the history contained in the Bible that you'd find in today's events (news) (ignoring prophecies).
But the disputable part is that some of what you'll find in other sources contradicts what the Bible says, which means that, as a Christian, you should realise must be misinformation. That is, if you want to get a correct account of history, the Bible is your primary source (for the aspects of history that it covers).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@pope9187
As I said, it's not my standard.
We've already discussed an example: the snowflake. It's shape is not designed; it's determined by the laws of physics (although the laws of physics were "designed").
Things that are not designed are things that are random in arrangement. The parts of a machine, for example, need to fit together in a specific arrangement for the machine to work, but a pile of machine parts sent to the tip and tipped out of a rubbish truck has the parts in random positions. The parts of a living thing also need to fit together in a specific arrangement to work.
Nuts hold onto bolts according to the laws of physics, but the laws of physics would never create a bolt with a consistent thread, let alone a matching nut (that is designed ) to fit the bolt.
When you build a house, you arrange the parts (bricks, wall timbers, roof tiles, benchwork, cupboards, windows, doors, etc.) in specific places that 'work' well (there's no point in having a window in the floor, or benchwork on the ceiling, or cupboards with the doors facing the wall). But leave the house without maintenance, and eventually it will decay and collapse into an undesigned heap of rubble.
Going beyond your question...
Design is something than an intelligence does (such as plan a house), while the opposite—randomness—is what nature does, as the result of entropy (things 'run down'). But to fend off an objection, yes, nature does create complex things, such as trees (and all living things), but only because trees contain (a) a plan (DNA), (b) molecular machinery to implement that plan, along with (c) mechanisms to obtain energy from the environment (e.g. sunlight) to power that machinery. However, nature can't make those plans in the first place, so cannot explain the origin of these self-replicating systems. Even IF it could make the plans, it wouldn't have the molecular machinery to implement those plans. Yes, the molecular machinery is also built according to plans, but you need something to build the molecular machinery! Living things inherit the molecular machinery from their parents (and with that can make more molecular machinery). So you need more than the DNA; you also need the cell that has the machinery to turn the DNA into a new living thing. That cell came from the parent living thing. But where did the first cell come from? Nature has no ability to design cells (or anything) from scratch. The entire process must be started by an intelligence. So we are talking about an intelligence that must exist before we had (physical) living things.
2
-
@pope9187
Some scientists, in espousing the idea of a multiverse, have suggested that other universes could have different laws of physics. So possibly yes, they could have been otherwise, if being otherwise doesn't defy logic.
We could say that God designed evolution except for two things. 1) God told us otherwise. 2) For God-designed evolution to work, the mutations would have to be non-random. In fact some mutations aren't completely random, in that there are some mutations that are more likely than others, or that occur in specific places more than in other places. But other mutations are completely random, and randomness is the opposite of design.
I guess then next option is ones like Dawkins' Weasel computer program, where random changes (mutations) are non-randomly (intelligently) selected. However, there are two problems with this also. One is that there is no evidence of an effective non-random selection mechanism, i.e. no evidence that evolution has an end goal, and the second is that as things work now, any selection of "good" mutations would be swamped by the bad mutations. To illustrate, geneticists have discovered that each new generation of humans has around 100 additional mutations on top of the ones inherited from the previous generation. Virtually all of those mutations are negative ones (albeit most are almost-neutral). Natural selection selects entire organisms, not individual mutations. So there is no way to select the very rare slightly-"good" mutations without also selecting all the new bad mutations.
"Seems like ID could cut out a lot of this nonsense about irreducible complexity and specified complexity ... but at least it isn’t using God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge."
ID doesn't use God as a stop-gap. ID says that there is evidence of design, but doesn't try and identify the designer. Meyer in this video is going beyond the science of ID and saying that God is the best explanation of that design.
And, as you will see if you watch the video carefully, God is a rational conclusion, not a claim merely from lack of an alternative.
I don't accept your claim that we know from experience that minds are only associated with physical brains. We have long known about the immaterial God (the idea was not invented to explain the origin of information) and have plenty of evidence for Him. Intelligence, like information, is something immaterial, even if with humans it is tied to a physical object.
2
-
@pope9187 God told us otherwise in Genesis.
"And why would you need genetic mutations to be non-random?"
Because, as I said, "randomness is the opposite of design." Random mutations destroy, not create.
"I mean, presumably theists believe that God personally made them,..."
No, I believe that I came about by a process that God designed. God could have intervened directly or indirectly in that process, but I don't know whether He did.
"...that specific sperm cell was no more “designed” to fertilize that oocyte any more than the millions of other sperm cells that didn’t get there in time were."
Yes, God built in a system that may be random, but which operates within designed limits. I'd say that it's analogous to a computer game that has a random component in the designed game. That is, randomness might control which adversary appears next, but only limited aspects like that. The system is not just designed for randomness, though; it's also designed for fitness, with the fastest sperm being the winner.
"... the selection process isn’t, it’s based on adaptability and that trait aiding in survival."
True, natural selection is not random, in principle. However, natural selection is a weak process. The deer that is killed by the lion may be the weakest, but it might also be the unluckiest, such as the nearest one. Further, the environment is random, in the sense that the environment could have been open grassland, forest, lake, or whatever.
"...you’re just plainly wrong to say there is no evidence of an effective non-random selection mechanism."
Then it's just as well that I didn't say that! As I've already alluded to, there are three mechanisms for why things are the way they are. 1) Design, 2) randomness, 3) laws of nature. Natural selection falls in the last category.
But I'm not sure what your concern is. Natural selection selects, it doesn't create. In order for natural selection to help evolution along, there has to be improved creatures to select from. There is no mechanism for making such improved creatures.
"…I don’t think there is any empirical evidence as of yet to support an immaterial mind independent of a physical brain."
Not directly, no. But plenty of indirect evidence that God exists.
"…issues like the Interaction Problem…"
Why is that even a problem? To paraphrase someone, I don't think that there is any empirical evidence as of yet to support that the immaterial can't interact with the material.
"…what exactly does ID think about evolution?"
I'm not an ID expert. But as I understand it, the ID adherents generally accept common descent. Whether or not that's a formal part of ID I don't know.
"I mean, from what I’ve heard from Meyer, it’s kinda just like “something, something, Cambrian explosion..? blah, blah, must be designed”…"
Again, I'm not sure, but my understanding is that it's (formally) nothing more than "there is evidence of design". How that design was incorporated into living things I think is an open question for ID (even if not for some of its adherents). But as there is formally no conclusion that God is the designer, then it can't be a god of the gaps argument.
"Like if I asked Meyer how homo sapiens came about, what would he tell me, that they were created from the dust in one spontaneous instant absent any genetic precursors?"
I don't know his personal beliefs in that regard, but I assume not.
"Because I’m pretty sure there’s no scientific evidence that would support that…"
It depends on what sort of scientific evidence you are talking about. There scientific evidence that humans didn't evolve from an ape-like creature. There are too many differences between chimp DNA and human DNA to have come about in the supposed time available. To go from the first living thing to humans is genetically impossible. Having ruled out that naturalistic view, the only alternative, special creation, is thereby supported scientifically.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@elzoog
It may not be possible in every single case, but we have a pretty good idea of what nature can and can't do. For example, Paul Davies said that the laws of physics can't create information: "biological information is not encoded in the laws of physics and chemistry … (and it) cannot come into existence spontaneously. … There is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing."
Some things are just so unlikely that their odds are effectively zero. "[Fred Hoyle] calculated the odds against a simple functioning protein molecule originating by chance in some primordial soup as being the same as if you filled the whole solar system shoulder-to-shoulder with blind men and their Rubik’s cubes, then expected them all to get the right solution at the same time."
Entropy is also a useful guide. It tells us that things break down, or go from complex to simple. An old example is that of gas in a two-chambered container. Put gas in one compartment, and it will spread to the other (connected) compartment. Why? Simply because that's the most likely outcome. In theory, there is no reason why you couldn't put the gas in both compartments and then observe it concentrating itself all in one of the compartments, as the movements are random. But the odds of that happening are so vanishingly small that we don't even consider it a possibility. The only way it can happen is with a mechanism (e.g. a pump and valve) that makes it go that way. But that requires design.
Another example is a lottery. The winner is the result of a chance process. But if the same person kept winning week after week, we'd know that it wasn't chance, but design (i.e. somebody causing it to happen that way). The authorities, even without knowing who was rigging it, would suspend it until the cause was found, because they would be so certain that it couldn't happen by chance, i.e. naturally.
Another point is that we already do this. The lottery was one example, but another, and one touching on my first comment that it may not be possible in every single case, is that of stone tools. Archaeologists often have to determine whether the shape of the stone they found is natural or was man-made (i.e. a tool). They don't throw up their arms in horror and say "We have no way of determining if this was created (shaped) by an intelligence". No, typically, they can tell.
Yet another example of this is the SETI program. It was designed (!) to search for radio signals from an intelligent species. But how would we know if the signal came from an intelligent species? Because a random signal or noise can be explained by nature, as can a repetitive signal, such as a beep every 3.6 seconds. But a non-random, not repetitive signal must be from an intelligence. Do you know what a non-random, non-repetitive signal looks like? Well, your reading one! The letters in these sentences are not random, but neither are they repetitive.
2
-
@pope9187
"…it’s a collection of stories from an ancient Hebrew culture from thousands of years ago before science was even an established study."
What does science have to do with it? It is (in large part) a historical record. You don't need to do science in order to accurately record things you see and hear.
"why would we take the Book of Genesis to be a reputable source of human origins though…"
Because it claims to be, is accepted by millions to be, and shows evidence of being, the testimony of God Himself. And He would know.
"…why can’t you just say the same thing about evolution, a process which is also predicated on the fittest surviving."
Because evolution has no mechanism for producing the enormous amount of new information required. You're referring to natural selection rather than evolution. Yes, natural selection (in principle) causes the fittest to survive. But where did the fittest come from? There is nothing in evolution to create ever more fitter and fitter creatures.
"And this is kinda why ID isn’t taken seriously in the scientific community, because it’s literally pseudoscience,…"
No, it's not pseudoscience, and it's not taken seriously by a large part of the scientific community (not all of it) because it points to a designer, which atheists can't stand the thought of. Not that all those scientists are atheists, but the atheists lead the charge on this, and many others follow like sheep.
"…whenever you try to pin down details of when or how a supposed intelligent designer tinkered with things and what that consisted of and how precisely humans fit into that, then it’s just this wishy washy “well, i dont really know… but like, Darwinian evolution is impossible.."
So you're arguing that because ID doesn't have all the answers, it's pseudoscience? Then I guess all of science is pseudoscience also.
"It literally adds nothing to the discourse other than to claim design,…"
Which is not a case of adding nothing! That's a very significant step. If, for example, scientists thought that living things were designed, they would not have proposed a list of over 100 (I believe) vestigial organs, i.e. evolutionary leftovers with no remaining purpose. This thinking led to doctors removing things like wisdom teeth and tonsils far too readily, until it was discovered that they weren't useless leftovers after all. (Of course there is still a case for removing them if they are causing problems.) It also wouldn't have led to the idea of 'junk DNA' (effectively another 'vestigial' component), holding back discovery of what that DNA is for, for years.
Professor John Mattick said that "the failure to recognise the implications of the non-coding DNA will go down as the biggest mistake in the history of molecular biology". A mistake that likely would not have been made if scientists didn't assume no-design.
"If you disagree, name for me one thing that would potentially disprove ID."
Showing that design is not required for the origin of living things or parts thereof.
"We can do this for evolution,…"
Pull the other one.
"…even as far back in Darwin’s day you had J.B.S. Haldane ..."
Not that it changes the argument, but Haldane was born a decade after Darwin died.
"...suggesting that if anybody could find a fossil of a rabbit in the pre-Cambrian layer, evolution would be thoroughly disproven outright,…"
He also said that we would not find wheels or magnets in living things, but we have found both, and yet evolutionists still hold to their beliefs. And, we've also found pollen in the Precambrian, but that somehow hasn't caused evolution to be discarded. No, evolution is such a flexible hypothesis that it can be changed to accommodate any finding, which means that it's NOT falsifiable.
"…evolution by natural selection is still the best scientific model for explaining the data…"
Yes, that's what the true believers in evolution believe, but the evidence says otherwise.
"I mean after all, Meyer never actually cared about the science, his entire objective is just pushing Christian conservatism into the culture,…"
The Wedge Strategy said that Meyer doesn't care about the science, does it? Where?
"Who knows if he actually even believes half of the stuff that he promotes."
Who knows if you believe half the stuff you're saying? I mean, a question like that is designed to cast doubt without a scintilla of evidence or argument.
"evolutionary theory and big bang cosmology actually have predictive capabilities which accord with data."
ID and creationism both have those as well. But evolution has often been shown to be wrong, and is just modified to fit anyway. As I said, it's unfalsifiable.
"We’ve mapped various genomic structures, which have demonstrated common ancestry in the manner which has been suspected, even prior to our knowledge of a genetic code."
Actually, genomic information has contradicted various evolutionary claims previously made.
"…as of right now it appears that our sciences must operate on methodological naturalism…"
Why? Why a priori rule out a supernatural explanation? That is a case of deliberately introducing bias, and science is surely supposed be about coming up with correct explanations, not natural explanations.
"…this isn’t to say there is no supernatural realm or no God or any of that,…"
Technically, that's correct. But having started with the assumption that the explanations must be natural, when that 'science' is used (as many people do) so say that the Bible got it wrong, they are simply making a circular argument—concluding with the premise they started with. Plus, those natural explanations never come with a caveat pointing out that they presuppose naturalism, so they are deceptive.
"…those suppositions have literally had no explanatory effect on any scientific theory or discovery."
Not true. See the article "Does Intelligent Design Help Science Generate New Knowledge?" by Casey Luskin which explains how ID can and does and has helped science.
On the other hand, how has evolution helped? Evolutionist Philip Skell wrote "Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. … I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss. …"
A.S. Wilkins wrote "The subject of evolution occupies a special, and paradoxical, place within biology as a whole. While the great majority [of] biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that ‘nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. ‘Evolution’ would appear to be the indispensible unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one."
"As Stephen J. Gould suggested, science and questions of religion should be considered as non-overlapping magisteria,…"
He did. The problem is that they both make claims about some of the same things. So they do overlap.
"…whereas we do have models and theories which accord with the scientific data for such things as cosmology…"
Hmmm, yes, cosmology. James Gunn, co-founder of the Sloan survey, said "Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science. … A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology."
But of course cosmology is an "approved" science, so we don't need to be too strict about that, whereas ID is an "unapproved" science, so we have to find every shortcoming with it that we can.
2
-
2
-
Various groups, many of which would be professional and competent. But they often run them for interest groups (e.g. political parties, newspapers) and those groups can then select and spin the results.
And of course polling is not an exact science. You have to be very careful that your selected respondents are a fair sample of the population, which can be difficult to do. Competent pollsters do their best in this regard, but results can still be questionable.
Another factor is the willingness of people to take part (what if Democrats were more willing than Republicans, for example?*) and to answer honestly (this has apparently become a bigger issue in recent years, with more conservative or right-wing people not trusting the pollsters so giving false answers).
You also need to consider how its broken down. A poll might ask, say, 5,000** people their views, which may be a reasonable sample. But then if you break that down by state, that might becomes 100 per state, which may be a non-representative sample. Then if you want to know (from that poll) how young people in a particular state will vote, you might be down to a sample of 10!
*—The pollsters can try and adjust for that though, such as by weighting for known numbers of Democrats and Republicans.
**—This is just an example, and may not be anything like numbers typically polled.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@stephendoherty981
"Nonsense comment."
No, it isn't.
"UNRWA has vastly more experience of delivering aid in that region than any other body."
Given that they work only in that area, that's perhaps to be expected.
"Its one of the biggest aid bodies in the world."
By what measure? By expenditure, UNRWA is 8th largest of the UN agencies, less than a tenth of the biggest, WFP.
By staff numbers, UNRWA is the largest UN one, with Red Cross being a lot bigger.
By assistance received, UNRWA is not in the top four UN agencies.
And of course, by the number of countries it operates in, it would be one of the smallest.
"Its been delivering aid to Palestinians since the day Israel occupied Palestine in 1948."
Palestine was not (and is still not) a country. Israel re-established itself in its own country in 1948.
"Just because Israel is trying to destroy it..."
Which it's not. Unless you're claiming that the entire area's population is Hamas.
"...because it doesn't want Palestinians having refugee status,..."
I don't believe that's the case either.
"doesn't mean other countries should try and destroy it too."
And again, they are not.
It's your comment that is nonsense.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@John Hoyle
"If only the religious lived by that rule. The world would be such a nicer place."
Factually false. If it wasn't for Christians speaking their mind, “...most of you would not have learned to read and the rest of you would be reading from hand copied scrolls. Without a theology committed to reason, progress, and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800: A world with many astrologers and alchemists but no scientists. A world of despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys, and pianos. A world where most infants do not live to the age of five and many women die in childbirth–a world truly living in 'dark ages.' "—Sociologist and historian Rodney Stark.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@HillSummitHomestead
"Not everyone was a Brit Subject (my bad). ... Voting in Australia is dependent on Citizenship, as only Australian Citizens have the right to vote in Australian elections,..."
Okay. But the context here is aborigines, and many (not all) aborigines already had the vote, and were therefore counted as citizens, showing that those ones had equality well before 1948. And while you might need to be a citizen to vote, you could presumably be a citizen without the right to vote (which is the case at least with minors). Else 1948 didn't make all aborigines citizens, as not all had the right to vote. But I'm assuming you're saying that all aborigines were counted as citizen at least by then, even though not all had the right to vote.
"however, we don't have a Bill of Rights."
If a Bill of Rights is a list of what rights we we are granted, I oppose it. Rights don't come from governments—we have rights by virtue of being human beings. Governments can restrict some rights (e.g. imprison criminals), but are not the ones to grant rights. But if a so-called Bill of Rights is designed to restrict what rights the government can take off us, I'm all for it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Nick Williams
"Great point, fair & balanced."
Except that the other side expects Christians to play with their toys.
"What do you mean by western tradition? I thought western tradition was being your own individual, pursuing freedom."
In part, yes, it does. That idea came from Christianity.
"How can you be free if your mind is controlled by a fantasy?"
It probably can't, but then God is not a fantasy.
"Plus, Christianity is more Middle Eastern than it is Western."
In origin, yes, and yet scholars acknowledge that Christianity is the basis of Western Civilisation. Here's just one of several that I could cite (from journalist David Aikman):
" “One of the things we were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world,” he said. “We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next, we focused on your economic system. But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West has been so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.
"This was not coming from some ultra-conservative think tank in Orange County, California or from Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. This was a scholar from China's premier academic research institute, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) in Beijing in 2002."
How many more such citations would you like?
2
-
2
-
2
-
"The reason why the church burned bibles and bible owners. They didn't want people to find out what it actually said. "
No, that was because they wanted power. The Protestant Revolution changed that, and yet people believed it all the more.
"they can't talk Xtian because there's nothing there when all you're told is that you are ruined in your very DNA by someone ELSE's sins,"
No, by your own sin. And yes, they can "talk Xtian", because there's a lot there.
"It's a disempowering religion..."
The number of people it has empowered proves you wrong.
"I will say that Xtianity is only racist in their rampant anti-Semitism."
What rampant anti-Semitism? Christians are among the biggest supporters of Israel.
"MY white Eastern European ancestors were some of the first peoples to be burned out, forced to covert or be murdered or enslaved so it's not skin."
For the most part, Christianity spread by preaching, not force. There were exceptions, though.
"...another MILLENIUM of ignorance such as the Dark Ages were."
There was no dark ages. Historians have rejected that idea.
"...1,000 YEARS of human progress being halted began in the 5th."
On the contrary, Christendom advanced more than any other culture.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ivanbremer8662
I am also for Australia and Australians, but I'm also for the truth, and I have checked out claims like this numerous times, and many of them are not the truth.
Yet you choose to criticise what you falsely think are my motives and bases for my conclusions.
"...reject anything not from sky..."
SImply false. I look at numerous sources, not just sky, and I don't reject all those others. You're still making things up.
"...you turn on your fellow Australians as though they are all liars..."
Again, simply false, and again, something that you just made up. The fact that I'm disagreeing with you does not mean a) that I'm "turning on" you, nor that b) I think that they are "all liars".
"Well you continue to stick up for foreign powers controlling Australian media and politics."
You haven't shown that I am doing that. Again, you're making things up. Did the ABC teach you that?
"You continue with your hate..."
What hate? Again, you haven't shown that I have any. And can you say that you don't hate? Such as hating SKY, conservatives, foreign corporations, etc.?
"...and devision..."
What division? The left has this funny attitude that division is caused by people disagreeing with them. Whereas the left disagreeing with conservatives is not, somehow, division.
"...thats has worked so well in the US."
By the left? Yeah, sure. Biden came in with a promise of unity, then started imposing the left's views on everyone and accusing Trump supporters of all sorts of things. That's the left's "unity", a code word for "division".
"Who are you for, Australians and Australian or a foreign controlled mega media organization..."
I've already told you what I'm for. It seems that you take more notice of your opinions of me than of what I actually said.
"Only those who turn you against your fellow Australians..."
Like you're doing?
"Australians are not your enemy."
I never claimed that they were. So something else you made up. You're good at inventing things, aren't you?
On the other hand, Australians don't all agree with each other. Many would agree with me and I with them, but many others (such as yourself) disagree with me and I with them.
"Why would you defend foreign control of Australians media and politics."
What foreign control? You haven't shown that there is any.
"Can you not see where it has and is taking us. To hell."
The left, including much of the media (especially the ABC) is doing that, and a lot of that influence comes from foreign woke leftist individuals. Even your ABC is ant-Australian, as part of its anti-West agenda. Yet you defend them!
2
-
@tonefilter9480
So you completely ignore the points I've made, and instead bring up a whole slew of new claims. Kind of suggests that you lost those arguments, so are trying something different. Embarrassed?
"You can claim what you like, but anything Trump did that was arguably positive was overshadowed and negated by his ludicrous and unfounded allegation of election fraud."
Except that it's not unfounded and not ludicrous. The Democrats have often claimed election fraud in the past, but somehow, for no apparent (good) reason, they claim that it was the best election ever this time. I think Trump erred in lumping various problems under "fraud", but it's absolutely clear that the election was manipulated in numerous ways.
"I read the Court cases as they unfolded, the affidavits of the nutcases filed in the cases and the Courts decisions."
In most cases the courts didn't even take on the cases so didn't look at the evidence.
"A President who seeks to overturn an election is an anathema to democracy itself. A dangerous precedent."
Yes, true. So the Democrats and their supporters should be ashamed of themselves for rigging it.
"The fact he was meeting with Sidney Powell, Mike Lindell and other clearly deranged individuals..."
Sidney Powell is an experienced lawyer. Mike Lindell is the owner/manager of a large business. "Clearly deranged" people would not likely have had such success. Your claim of "clearly deranged" seems to be based on you disagreeing with their claims. Disagreement does not amount to derangement.
"...whilst having the ability to start Nuclear War is enough to declare him the worst ever President."
As opposed to a president who seems to have trouble staying awake, putting together coherent sentences, remembering who his relatives are, needing notes to know whether to take questions or not and who from, totally bungling the withdrawal from Afghanistan, thinking that African Americans are too stupid to use the Internet or get ID, and thinking that people can change their sex?
"...he turned out to be unhinged, totally narcissistic and unable to distinguish competent people from raving lunatics."
The only evidence you have provided does not show that.
"If you can’t see the problem with his actions in these regards then you are not objective."
What problems? You haven't shown any that withstand scrutiny.
"...he, in effect, justified their approach with his actions thereafter."
Nope.
"From being too ready to accept Russian interference in elections,..."
How so?
"...to pressuring Ukraine to dig dirt on a potential rival..."
Democrat lies. He did no such thing.
"...to being unable to have the grace to ensure a smooth transition of power."
There was a smooth transition of power, so that's false."
"He was a disaster for America."
If he was a disaster, what does that make Biden? No, Trump was not a disaster at all.
"He wants unswerving loyalty to him, not the USA and that is classic authoritarianism."
Not in evidence, but there is evidence that the left wants that. See the examples of Democrat officials controlling what people can and can't do in response to Covid. Or even global warming for that matter. The Democrats are influenced by Marxism which is authoritarian.
"And he wants to try again."
I hope he does and I hope he wins.
"Really he should be jailed for all his tax fraud which is soon coming to the full light of day."
Oh, okay. First, CNN beat up a leak of one of his tax forms which showed nothing wrong, and now you're accusing him on the basis of evidence which has not yet been seen. You're scratching for anything, aren't you?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@poutine57
"I was raised with no religion so I don't really know what preaching is."
And yet you made out that you did!
"I find the whole concept of religion confusing."
The word "religion" is used in a number of different ways. At its broadest, it's the set of your core beliefs, on which you base everything else. You can also use the term "worldview". As such, even you have a religion/worldview.
What that set of beliefs comprises can vary widely, including the existence of God (monotheism), multiple gods (polytheism) everything is god (pantheism), or no God (atheism).
If your beliefs are Christian, you believe that God created everything (so everything, including us, are designed) and that He sets the rules (absolute morality—some things are always right or wrong), that we (and only we humans) are like God in some ways (made in his image, and therefore special) and that we will exist for eternity.
If your beliefs are atheistic (and consistent), you believe that the universe, including us, are the products of a series of accidental events, that we decide what's right and wrong (relative morality), that we are merely advanced animals, and that when we die, that's it.
Which beliefs you have will affect how you see the world in a major way.
Christian beliefs have led to helping others (public hospitals; many charities), universal education (so everyone can read the Bible), the spreading of democracy, championing equality (the abolition of slavery; elevating the status of women; human rights), the study of God's creation (given that God makes laws for people and for nature), restrictions on tyranny (even rulers are subject to God's laws; so Magna Carta, for example), and much more.
Atheist beliefs have led to the slaughter of millions (Stalin didn't feel he was answerable to anybody, and humans weren't special), crime (why obey society's subjective standards if you can get away with it?), dishonesty in science (a growing problem), etc. etc.
Other beliefs treat women poorly, think that war is the way to get people to follow your religion, allow for eating humans, and so on.
"I live by, do unto others."
A Christian concept that has no rational basis under an atheistic view.
"I'll be listening to him to see if he keeps on about it. that to me, is a problem."
Because he espouses the view that underlies Western Civilisation and has made it great? How is that a problem?
"I was not raised with christian values,..."
If you were raised in Western Civilisation (e.g. the United States), then you were raised with Christian values, as they are the basis of Western Civilisation.
"I don't have a problem with any religion either."
No, only with people talking about it, apparently. Even though Christianity expects people to talk about it. Which means that you do have a problem with Christianity.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dmarshall8366
"He? You mean Muhammad, Lord Shiva, Buddha, or your particular God?"
I mean the supreme being and creator, the meaning of the word "God". There can only be one supreme being, and neither Muhammad nor Buddha are even in the race, being humans. Perhaps Lord Shiva is simply the Hindu name of Yahweh.
"I assume yours is the only one and all the others are wrong?"
What others? Per my comment above, most "gods" don't even qualify for the role.
"You have no evidence that there are any imaginary friends."
Duh! Of course not. IF they are imaginary. But you're begging the question. If your claim is that I have no evidence for God's existence, then I challenge you to provide evidence that I have no such evidence. Can you? Or does the demand for evidence only go one way?
"You believe in whatever you like but don't pretend only you and those of your own faith are right."
I don't pretend. I know, based on evidence. Clearly not everyone can be right, as they often contradict each other. But what's your evidence that they are all wrong? Or that Christianity in particular is wrong?
"If you were born in India you would not even know what a Christian God is."
First, what's the relevance? That doesn't make God imaginary. Second, there are nearly 28 million Christians in India, and of course they'd know. Third, many non-Christians know about (the 'Christian') God in any case. That's just a silly comment.
Finally, I asked you for evidence of Him being imaginary (as one of two questions), and you've failed to provide any. So I guess that you just made an evidence-free claim (based on your blind faith in no God).
2
-
2
-
2
-
@joris4235
"christianity as a whole considers specific races to be evil,"
Utter nonsense. The Bible does not even recognise the concept of different human races.
"...this is morally wrong..."
Even IF the Bible thought that, what makes it morally wrong? That is, by what standard, other than your subjective opinion, do you judge that?
"...and proves the dated nature of christianity."
Given that your claim was wrong, it proves no such thing.
"science does admit when theyre wrong, countless times."
Did I say that it didn't? No, I did not way that it didn't.
"they've been wrong about their theories eg; the big bang was an expansion, not an explosion."
An expansion that rapid could legitimately be described as an explosion. You're splitting hairs. A better example in that field is admitting that they were wrong about the Steady State theory. But even that was done reluctantly, because the Big Bang idea appeared to confirm the Bible's claim that the universe had a beginning. And they still won't admit to being wrong about the Big Bang and certain other things. So as I said, it will only admit to being wrong when it suits the scientists to do so.
"christianity has also tended to do questionable things in the past aka, kill the jews in the 1400s during the black plague, burn people alive for not believing in it."
Yes, Christians are not perfect, and have often done things that are contrary to what the Bible teaches. And you've had other Christians opposing those sorts of thing.
"promoting slavery in the book."
Except that it doesn't. In the laws applicable to the pre-Christian nation of Israel, slavery was regulated, not promoted. And in any case, that was a rather different concept to the slavery we think of today.
"the israelites being commanded by god to commit genocide."
They were commanded by God to be righteous, and punish the wicked. You seem to think that they shouldn't have done that.
"overall, its just not a very pleasant religion."
Wrong. Your evidence is wrong, and you ignore all the good it has done, including founding public hospitals, many charities, universal education, and science. It has also spread democracy, raised the status of women, twice abolished slavery (based on biblical teaching), supported human rights, and more.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@missJolie85
"Actually you are allowed to hate within legal parametes as well,..."
That depends on the jurisdiction.
"You might only be disagreeing, but a lot of people do hate and unfortunately that's where the worlds at."
What you're not mentioning is that a lot of people are accused of hate for simply disagreeing.
"The hate speech laws are there so that the hate doesn't go too far."
No, they are often there to shut down disagreement, by defining it as hate.
"It's your employers prerogative to decide if your views are so much against his/her values that they believe you are damaging their business."
They have never said that I'm damaging their business. And how could I be when I'm actually only raising my disagreement with management? Further, under Australian law (where I live), political and religious speech is protected by law. In theory at least. But my employer would argue that they are not stopping my political or religious speech; simply telling me that I'm going against their policies!
"Your employer isn't your puppet. If you don't like it, find a new job where people allign more with who you are."
Why? I've been there longer than my employer has been (the business was taken over by another company). They are in the wrong, so why should I submit to their attempts to impose woke ideas on me?
"Maybe you misjudged your colleagues and they are not your "safe space"."
I understand the meaning of words. We were explicitly told that a workshop we had to attend on diversity in the workplace was a safe space to air our views. I did (and did so politely), and then they wanted to sack me for my comments. In other words, it's only a safe space if you agree with them.
"It happens to ... everybody in life".
How on earth does that justify it?
"Not everybody likes you and you don't like everybody."
Now you're making things up. My colleagues like me, and my boss was ropable when he was asked to sack me. In fact his boss said that he would handle it, as my boss was so angry that he might have gotten himself into trouble.
"Freedom of speech has NEVER been absolute, In almost all western countries it does NOT include libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, public security, and perjury. "
I know. But that is not what this is about. This is about not being allowed to disagree.
"Some countries have hate speech, which is just another point in a long list."
No, it's not "just another point". It's an attack on free speech, on being allowed to disagree.
"Also in my country, who has this law, we have had like a couple of convictions over the years."
And how many people have been taken to court and then the case was dropped, or they were not found guilty? And is your country's law as bad as some others? That is, is it fair to cite Norway's laws as examples of others?
"And you don't have to spend your hard earned money fighting every claim in court, you are talking as if the police and the juridical system is drowining in money and can afford to investigate every claim and process it at court."
It's not always a police matter. There are laws that allow people to take other people to court.
"If it does get through you can be sure it's serious, and you should pay for a laywer."
And that is the punishment. One person here in Australia has been taken to court many times by a person who has been deemed by the courts as a vexatious litigant, but the courts keep accepting his complaints. So that first person has to spend time and money and effort fighting the cases, even though he keeps winning. This particular person won't submit to tyranny, but most could not hold up against that sort of barrage of litigation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@yourlocaldolphin
"The Bible doesn't need to be taught in public education. ... religious instruction should be optional."
Why not and why? Because you don't believe it's true? That's your belief system talking, not evidence.
"I personally believe ... that if you want your kids to be taught the Bible, enrol them in RI, go to a Christian school."
In the current situation that's what I'd do. But why should I have to? Because you think Christianity is an optional extra, rather than something core?
"However, not everyone follows Christianity..."
And that is the problem. But you seem to have this atheist view that you're bringing to the table that all these different 'religious' views are equal, and equally wrong, except for the atheist views, which you presumably think are right.
"...the bible should remain an optional thing in schools."
You said that about three times in your comment, but haven't given a reason why, beyond an unstated view that for some reason it's not important. However, the Bible is the basis of Western Civilisation and has done more good for the world than anything else. Including prompting Christians to start universities and introduce universal education. It has the runs on the board as a very important book, and yet you want to treat it as of less importance than many other subjects taught at schools.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Nor for one moment am I defending what the U.S. Salvos are reportedly doing, but it's not primarily a charity that depends on your donations. It's a Christian church that depends (or should depend) on God, and as Christians have been doing for 2000 years, they also do charitable work. They are doing it for that reason, not because it makes them feel good.
Roy Hattersley wrote a biography of the founders of the Salvation Army, and he said (my emphases):
"I’m an atheist. But I can only look with amazement at the devotion of the Salvation Army workers. I’ve been out with them on the streets and the way they work amongst the people, the most deprived and disadvantaged and sometimes pretty repugnant characters. But they look after them as best they can. I don’t believe they would do that were it not for the religious impulse. I often say I never hear of atheist organizations taking food to the poor. You don’t hear of ‘Atheist Aid’ rather like Christian aid, and, I think, despite my inability to believe myself, I’m deeply impressed by what belief does for people like the Salvation Army. "
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Ben Frediani
I think we first have to understand what it means to be made in God's image. God is spirit, so we are not physically in His image. God is asexual, so that is not part of God's image. Rather, we are moral beings able to design, communicate, know God, love, think abstractly, having free will, etc. I'm not sure how much of that we are really capable of changing.
Altering genetics or going transhuman doesn't change any of those things, although it does essentially say that we think we can redesign humans to be better than God could do. (Unless we are altering genetics to simply restore what God designed, i.e. fix genetic errors that have arisen since creation.)
God created the angel Lucifer, who rebelled against God.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@blacklotus108
"I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them."
But what does that mean? More specifically, what does it mean that He came to "fulfil" them? Well, here's one example: the Mosaic Law required animal sacrifices for sin. Jesus didn't abolish the need for sacrifice, but He was the ultimate sacrifice. He fulfilled that requirement. Therefore, we no longer need to sacrifice animals. The law is not abolished, but it no longer applies.
For another example, the Mosaic Law also restricted eating meat to 'clean' animals, but after Jesus, we no longer have that limitation.
It's true that Christians differ on whether or not some of the Law still needs to be observed, but as a complete body of law, it doesn't. Checkmate cancelled.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TallisKeeton
"I think they are wise and just becouse of their effects (their fruits) :)"
That assumes that certain effects (fruits) are good (and others bad), which means that the question of what standard you are judging them by remains unanswered.
"...even though we can not be sure (agnosticism lets say) if they were inspired by God or just developed by human brain using its abilities gained from nature and from culture in slow process for centuries."
What makes you think we can't be sure?
"And I dont think that we must engage God in any debate to make sure that something (some topic) is objective or subjective."
I'm not suggesting that we must engage God in every debate; it would depend on the topic. But given that God is the source of everything good, then it is appropriate to acknowledge him in a wide range of topics.
"I m sure we can see God as the last resort or the last instance of truth, wisdom, justice, beauty and whatever :)"
No, God should be the first port of call, not a last resort.
"but I m q, sure also that there must be more to the topic of objective/subjective than only the use of the last instance (God) to divide between what is objective and what is subjective :)"
I'm not so sure, but I was specifically talking about morals, or right and wrong. If they are not from outside of us (i.e. from God), then they are just our opinion. And if those opinions are based on other factors (such as human wellbeing), then those factors being relevant is also just our opinion. And so on.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bubullibooooo9928
"I told you to google and tell me what did ancient Greek and Roman Philosophers call that place..."
How could that possibly show that the Bible is fairy tales?
"Google and tell me"
I don't need to. I know that Rome at least had their own name for it, later on. As I have already said, that doesn't mean that Israel never existed.
"Historians have disproven the bible for centuries..."
I quoted an archaeologist to you saying otherwise. You've only made an evidence-free claim. It seems that you have no evidence.
".it's just intellectually lazy to use a magical book as proof"
First, it's not a magical book (again, unless you can show otherwise).
Second, I didn't. The evidence I gave you was from an archaeologist. Name-calling and evidence-free assertions are not proof.
"Um....it was never called Judea...EVER!"
Britannica: " Judaea, the southernmost of the three traditional divisions of ancient Palestine; the other two were Galilee in the north and Samaria in the centre. No clearly marked boundary divided Judaea from Samaria, but the town of Beersheba was traditionally the southernmost limit. The region presents a variety of geographic features, but the real core of Judaea was the upper hill country, known as Har Yehuda (“Hills of Judaea”), extending south from the region of Bethel (at present-day Ramallah) to Beersheba and including the area of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Hebron."
You really think that you know better than the scholarship, don't you?
"Google footage of Palestine restored if u dare"
I'm still waiting for evidence that the Bible (which records a lot more than just the existence of Israel) is just fairy tales.
" "Judea was a name used by English speakers for the Hilly internal part of Mandatory Palestine until the Jordanian rule of the area in 1948"-Judea/Wikipedia"
That's not all it says.
"It helps to READ!"
Yes, it does. Including this bit from the same article: "The name's usage is historic, having been used in antiquity and still into the present day;"
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@josmith1815
"Same could be said about work places if men are so superior"
Yes, it could. If you are talking about something where men are superior. In sport, it's with physical strength. What is it with work places?
"But all you hypocrites want the advantages of segregated sport and then the advantages of non segregated work places."
Of course we want the advantages, but not at the disadvantage of others. And I've never been one to advocate for women having equal representation in the workplace just because they are women.
"If you were honest you would acknowledge men advantages across the board."
I believe that I am honest, but no, I won't acknowledge that, because I don't believe that it's true. First, I believe that such decisions should be made on the basis of an individual's ability to do the job, not their sex, because individual abilities vary in ways that often overlap. But on average men appear to do better in some skills and women do better in other skills. You'll typically find women dominating in teaching, nursing, and marketing, for example.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"who wants God Botherers running a country."
Me, for one. After all, it's those "God Botherers" who have given so much to the world, including universal education (probably why you have the ability to read and write), public hospitals (have you ever used one?), freedoms, the abolition of slavery (perhaps you would have been one), science (without which you wouldn't even have computers to write your nasty comments), and much, much, more.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@turnerfamilyinozi
"For over 40 000 years Australian was neither Western or Christian. Can you tell me when Australia became Christian and Western?"
Australia became Western and Christian when Europeans settled here (as I'm sure you're aware). Aborigines were here for maybe a couple of thousand years before that.
"What is the earliest evidence of your god showing up?"
It's not "your" (or my) God, but God, the creator of everything. I'm not sure what you mean by "showing up", but I'd suggest in the Garden of Eden.
"Hey we agree I also don't believe he existed."
Do you have any evidence of that, or is that just a faith belief?
"is then dissension in the Christian camp.?"
There is dissension. There are those that believe what God said, and those that compromise with what atheists believe, bizarrely.
"If so, which version of Christianity should be taught in the Curriculum."
The biblical version (if anything). Although what's probably more to the point here is teaching about the enormous positive impact that the Bible has had on the world; not teaching the Bible itself.
"Australia is a secular country. It quite correctly does not support or oppose any religion."
It was founded on Christian principles, and has long recognised God. But in practice, in parts it has long opposed Christian teaching, such as the anti-Christian ideas of evolution and deep time. So you'd support not opposing Christian teaching in that regard?
"We have seen what Christianity has done to Ireland."
What would that be? In recent years, I've seen what anti-Christian ideas have done.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@eleonoraformatoneeszczepan8807
"if a woman is scared out of her wits by another person and her body aborts the baby in the process, would that count, as providing?"
I don't know the specifics of the law, but I wouldn't expect so, unless perhaps the other person was deliberately trying to terrorise her.
"As for your question, I don't know that I can anwser that question as is."
Which suggests either that you have a problem with expressing yourself, OR that you have no actual justification for killing babies.
"Likewise, I don't know I can anwser that question if it were extended, from babies to the death penalty."
If you're referring to capital punishment of criminals, without commenting on whether that's a good thing or not, it's different, as it's executing a criminal for his crimes, vs. executing an innocent baby.
"I suppose it's a bit like 'the speluncean explorer' dilemma, ..."
I hadn't come across that one, but I've just had a quick read of it. I don't think that that dilemma is anything like abortion, except in the very rare case of the medical situation where the mother is going to die without one, and even then it's only similar, not the same. That is, a baby may die in the attempt to save a mother's life, but killing the baby is not the intention.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Australian parliament has no authority to pass such laws. Australia's system of government is based on the states being sovereign, and the country being a federation of the states. The federal government can, in theory, only make laws in areas which the constitution lays out, and anything not mentioned is a state responsibility.
Section 109, which Ty Peterson mentions does say that where a federal and a state law conflict, the federal one applies. But in the context of what I've said above, that must only be applicable if it's an area that the federal government has the authority to make the laws in the first place. Otherwise the entire principle of the states being sovereign is turned on its head.
However, it's not that simple. First, the federal government has expanded its powers in a couple of ways:
1) By getting agreement from the states that a particular area will be a federal responsibility.
2) By simply assuming authority and not having the states object (i.e. not taking them to court).
Also, one of the federal responsibilities is international agreements. So the federal government has successfully overridden states by getting some international agreement (such as world heritage sites) to take precedence.
And finally, despite what I said above about Section 109, apparently there is some evidence that the High Court might, in some circumstances at least, be prepared to apply S.109 rather loosely.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Andrew-ep3id
"For me I'm okay with living this life as a decent person, not screwing over others and just turning to dust when it's over."
Define "decent". By God's standard, you are (like all of us) a sinner, needing forgiveness. Your concept of "decent" is relative to what Western Civilisation considers reasonable, and that is, historically, based on Christian standards.
And you won't just turn to dust. Your soul is eternal, but if you're not a Christian, you'll get your wish to live without God and all the good things He provides (including, for example, friends), and I'd point out that such a life would be, literally, hell.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Aurora-mw1bz
"Separation of Church and state "
The Christian doctrine that there are two different but equal bodies, and that the state should not control the church.
"Go be a Preacher."
Why? A Christian is not allowed to be a politician? That's unfair discrimination, and bigotry.
"Leave politics for someone who wants to govern."
What on earth makes you think that a Christian wouldn't want to govern? That is, the two are not mutually exclusive. Rather, it seems that you would only want atheists to govern.
"Johnson came in with radical judgemental views upon those who don't think exactly like he does."
His "radical" views seem completely in line with the views of millions of people for centuries, and views that built Western Civilisation. What makes them radical?
Rather, it seems that you're being judgmental about views that don't agree with the way you think.
"Religion is personal."
Evidence please. Because in fact Christianity is explicitly NOT personal. We are supposed to share Christianity. So it seems that you're trying to impose a non-Christian view on Christians!
"We don't need to know that."
False. We ALL need to know about God.
"He is one who was touting it."
As he should.
"He brought the controversy upon himself."
No, that was the people who object to normal, regular, long-standing, Christian views upon which Western Civilisation is built. That is, people like you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Snoop_Dugg
"A lot of people might just want SRL and the Melbourne Airport Rail link projects to continue development."
True. But I expect the airport link would go ahead anyway. I also think that the Suburban Rail Loop is, in principle, a good idea, but it was a Labor Party thought bubble not supported by transport planners, without a business case, with other things being needed ahead of it, and by a state already heavily in debt.
"They might be working in the construction and rail sectors and want job security in this impending recession."
They might. But then I also work in the rail sector, and I don't think a government that is in the process of running the state into the ground and undermining the basis of what makes a good state is something to vote for.
"The cost of living is going up after all..."
Yes, and in large part thanks to the policies of this state, such as moving away from reliable, cheap, energy to more-expensive, unreliable energy, and by trying to run a lot of things itself instead of letting the market decide, which is the sort of approach that has made the West so successful.
And yes, favouring roads over rail is part of that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dmw798
"please tell me where all the conservative votes went then, because UAP or One Nation didn't do well either."
First, you don't have just "conservative" and "progressive" (or whatever) votes. You have a range of views. What you had, though are votes that previously went to the conservative side, but this time didn't. Which means that they probably weren't that conservative to start with, but not progressive either.
Second, in fact a lot did go to UAP and One Nation, I believe. But that was spread out across the country, so it achieved little, in that it got those parties no lower-house members. (The senate is a different story.). I saw something that indicated that the One Nation vote was in the same ball park as the Greens. But the Greens vote tends to be concentrated in inner city seats, where they can get a majority, and very thin elsewhere, whereas One Nation votes, are, as I mentioned, spread out more.
Third, many went to the teal 'independents' who pretended to be conservative, and got many of the traditionally-conservative votes from voters, per my first point, that were not really conservatives but typically voted that way.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@winstonsmith7801
"And it clearly states in our constitution that we are not allowed to be given any dental or medical treatments without Informed Consent."
I've already answered that, and you've not shown me to be wrong. It does not say that we are not allowed to be given that. Rather, it says that the (federal) government is not allowed to give us that. It does not say that the states can't, because it's the federal constitution.
"ScoMo allowed the states to mandate . He is an ... evil Punt."
He arguably had no power to stop them. Yes, I do agree that he could have opposed them more, but that poor judgment does not warrant calling him evil.
"The federal Government called the State of Emergency , they encouraged the states to mandate the experimental drug ,..."
Not (strictly) correct. At least not in referring to "the" state of emergency. States called states of emergency (with Victoria violating the spirit of the law that allowed them to do that). I don't recall the federal government declaring one.
I also don't recall any federal government encouragement for the states to mandate the vaccines, although individual members might have offered favourable opinions.
Further, it is quite misleading to call the vaccines "experimental". They had properly undergone, and passed, two of the three required trials, with the remaining one being the long-term one. But given the scale of the problem, it was understandable that they were made available before that third trial was completed. (But yes, I do agree that it was wrong to mandate them, especially given that the third trial was not complete.)
"Greg Hunt himself said it was the biggest trial in History."
Apart from it not being an official trial, that is simply an observation, not an endorsement.
"In August 2022, it was revealed Mr Morrison had secretly sworn himself into the additional portfolios of health, finance, treasury, home affairs and industry, science and resources between 2020 to 2021."
True, and that was a silly move. On the other hand, with one exception, he apparently never exercised his power in those roles.
"He was the architect and he alone is to blame for the lives he ruined but the inflation we are now experiencing ."
Nonsense. He created the national cabinet, but it was that cabinet—dominated by the states—that is mainly to blame. And yes, he spent a lot on covid, but then it was an emergency (with the spending to compensate mostly for the actions of the states), and the ALP wanted the government to spend even more. And some of the problems of the current inflation are due to left-wing policies supported by the current government.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@alb9
"In order to believe the New Testament you have to believe the Old Testament."
People can believe one thing without believing what it's based on, even if that is inconsistent.
"The New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament."
Approximately correct.
"Now the Old Testament says in Ecclesiastes, by the wisest king who ever lived, that “nothing new happens under the sun״.
It does, but beware of taking that too literally. For example, have you ever existed before? Of course not. You're new.
"Okay, so then how can the son of man come into the world and die for the sins of mankind if that would be something new happening under the sun from the times of Solomon."
Only if you take it too literally. It wasn't new in the sense that Israel always had the practice of sacrificing the first born son for sins. That's what happened with Jesus.
"The New Testament contradicts the Old Testament."
No, it doesn't, and your examples fail to make your case.
"Ezekiel 18:20-21 also states all you have to do is repent of your sin and you will live. No body has to die for you."
No, it doesn't mention nobody having to die, and that's not all it says. It also says that if one "turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right,", he shall live. It requires you meeting a standard, but a standard which is unachievable.
"And also it debunks the Christianity claim of the “original sin” that the children will not inherit the punishment of their parent’s sins."
Original sin is the sin of Adam that we all inherit. Christianity doesn't claim that children will not inherit that sin nature. But I think you've muddled your claim there.
"Even Christ’s first words in the New Testament were “repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand”. The main message is repentance."
Yes, you have to repent, and Jesus has to pay the price. There's no contradiction there.
"Not that Jesus vaccine shot cures all sins false doctrine."
Well, the way you word it is false, but otherwise you've failed to substantiate your claim.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tracygeddes5867
"I am a Christian and I do not know the god they worship,"
Which means that you're not a Christian, as you don't know the God of the Bible that we worship.
"I was commanded to love one another as I have loved you..."
You were also told not to sin. And affirming a lie is not the way to love someone.
"...when I hear their transphobic bullying ways..."
Are you going to retract your claim of me being a transphobe and apologise? If not, why not? Do you agree with making false accusations?
"...wrapped in misunderstood scriptures ..."
You haven't shown any misunderstanding.
"so you stand up for your conscience & beliefs by denying them the very essence of who they are."
Errr, no. If a boy thinks he's a girl, the essence of who he is is a boy. Those that deny that essence are those who think he's a girl.
"Love the sinner hate the sin,..."
You're falsely accusing us of not doing the first part, while you're not doing the second part.
"...the book says to stone the sinner,..."
No, it doesn't. It records that that was the punishment in the pre-Christian nation of Israel.
"...but no we need to cherry pick those bits that suit our agenda."
Are you indicating that you intend to stone sinners? If you think it says that and you're not going to cherry-pick?
"I have a suggestion…cherry pick,..."
Now you're arguing that we should cherry-pick? Wow!
"98% of the comments here have nothing in common with the spirit of life they are based on the fear of an imagined construct. "
No, they are based on the fact that God created two sexes, male and female.
"God is not a jealous angry god..."
Exodus 20:5: "I the LORD your God am a jealous God"
Ezekiel 25:17: "I will execute great vengeance on them with wrathful rebukes. Then they will know that I am the Lord, when I lay my vengeance upon them."
Maybe you don't know the Bible as well as you think.
"...the spirit of god is the very embodiment of life and love."
That bit is true, but that does not contradict God not tolerating people worshipping other things nor does it contradict Him getting angry at sin.
"Now you have something to say to the transgenders among you."
I always have. I love them. And therefore I won't pretend that their confusion matches reality.
"he wanted to return to the school,and ... continue disrespecting the child."
What disrespect? Disagreement is not disrespect.
"it beggars belief why so many want to push their version of a so called truth at the expense of a small child’s well being."
I agree. The actions of the transgender activists pushing their ideology at the expense of children is terrible. And worse when so-called Christians do it.
"I guess the Mat Walsh video rants have a lot to do with it."
No, it's more to do with the Marxist ideology behind the transgender movement. Matt Walsh is only one of numerous people pushing back against this nonsense.
"...they pretend it’s for the child’s well-being,..."
It IS for the child's well-being. How does it help to encourage wrong ideas?
"they think the child is being forced,"
I don't know about others, but I have never suggested that. I do, however, believe that he is being misled.
"if they truly investigated they might see it from the child’s eyes,..."
How does that change facts? Does the child understand reality better than others?
"I am so saddened for the child,children all over facing this transphobic menace,"
You still haven't shown any transphobia. That (typically), sound just like name-calling because you can't make an actual argument. When are you going to retract and apologise?
"if it becomes obvious that this is their firm conviction then I would endeavour to help,show understanding and kindness.and hard as it is I would have to accept in a few small cases that the child needs support to continue in the gender they see themselves,"
So you'd help them live a lie. How "Christian" of you!
"these transphobes will do all they can to destroy even a small child’s sense of self. "
Those doing that are those who pretend that the boy is not a boy.
"My job is to offer support and kindness to the vulnerable."
Then why do you argue that people should encourage them to believe a lie?
"how can you claim you know god when you condemn the weakest amongst us."
How can you claim to know God when you tell lies about other people? We are not condemning him. We do not have an irrational fear of transgenderism or so-called transgender people. We disagree with him, just as you are disagreeing with us. We want him to understand the truth, not a lie. That is the way to love and respect him.
"I guess when they started quoting scriptures to support their transphobia ..."
When are you going to stop making that false accusation? You haven't shown any transphobia in us. You simply label it that in order to demonise.
"As we first discussed it was about the teacher who refused to allow the child some respect."
No, it was about a teacher who refused to lie. Why do you misrepresent him?
"the teacher should show that they care about the child’s needs, ..."
He did. By speaking the truth.
"brow beating children to conform ..."
Which is not what happened.
"...it is right the teacher is no longer there."
You're victim-blaming. And supporting evil.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@killbotone6210
"Apart from the 5 sources I already gave you "
All but one being livestreams that I don't have a time machine to watch, and one I've told you I can't find but you refuse to help with—which is not the same as spoon-feeding.
"Virgin Media Ireland live tweeted the transcripts and they are still on their pages."
Okay, I've looked for that, but can't find it. Do I need a Twitter account to see it? Because I don't have such an account and have no intention of getting one.
"It's up to you now..."
I have made a reasonable attempt, even though it's not my job to find support for your claim. If you point me to support (an exact search term should do), I will do that search, but if not, they as far as I'm concerned, you are making a claim that you are failing to substantiate.
"...I can't spoon feed you any more."
Your sources have not been specific enough to call them spoon-feeding. And as I said, the onus is on you, not me, to support your claims. Your claim was serious enough that I was (and still am) prepared to check it out, but I'm not going to spend a whole heap of time looking for it when it's your responsibility to provide it.
"...he obviously holds his version of a god/s as infallible."'
Because God is infallible. That's not "my version", that's a standard biblical/Christian understanding of God.
"And that's pretty normal for Christians."
So you now admit that it's not "his version"! Then why did you refer to it in that way, as if to pretend that I'm an outlier in thinking that way?
"But he seems to be extending that infallibility onto second hand sources of information like Sky."
Complete and utter nonsense.
"...because they support his personal arguement which is based on his personal choice of his personal version of a god/s.."
You have just admitted that it is NOT my "personal version" of God! You contradict yourself.
"...therefore he feels justified in making claims like " the teacher was forced to lie" because that claim is coming from a source he has endowed with the infallibility of his imagination."
And yet I was prepared to look at and consider your evidence to the contrary (why would I do that if I thought them infallible?), if you would only supply it.
"It was telling when he started attacking other Christians here, judging them to be not Christian because it's easier to then discard their value as a human."
What I find telling is how you are ascribing motives and opinions to me that I don't have and that I have not expressed.
The ONLY person I "judged to not be Christian" was one who herself said that she worshipped a different god to me. And that was the only reason I said it. That same "Christian" falsely and repeatedly accused me of being transphobic, and refused to retract and apologise (and never justified the accusation), but somehow I'm the one in the wrong, according to you.
Further, I have never had any intention to "discard their value as a human". That's another thing you simply made up about me.
2
-
@JustaNaughtyBoy666
"It appears that Philip is quite happy to take it on faith that the scant information that he holds is actually true, ..."
You don't know how "scant" it is, and I have no evidence to the contrary, despite asking for it.
"...he doesn't need to fact check anything."
I have tried to find the claimed evidence to the contrary, but have been unable to. Your accusation is baseless.
"It also appears that he feels that his god is not actually his god, as his god has now miraculously become "...the God of us all." "
That makes no sense. As the God of us all, that also makes him my God. But He is not "my" god in the sense that He's simply my version.
"That is for Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists alike, although, I guess Buddhists are also atheists, hehe. "
That people of other religions, including atheists (and yes, some Buddhists are) don't recognise God doesn't mean that He is not God of all.
"Naive theists are funny, though, ..."
What about naive atheists who simply don't understand what the Bible and Christianity teaches? Because I see a lot of that.
"...does it get tedious seeing the amount of silly they manage to put in these comments."
What I find tedious are the atheists who mock and disparage and make up things about people, but don't actually address the arguments. Like a certain Brian Newton for example.
2
-
2
-
@JustaNaughtyBoy666
"...you do not have anywhere near complete information..."
I doubt anyone has that.
"What is key though, is if we take your barely adequate information and match it to other information, it needs to be assessed on whether it is true."
I'm always happy to look at both sides. What other pertinent information can you point me to?
"...here is scant information/evidence on so many gods out there, ..."
True. But there is plenty of information/evidence on the one true God.
"...yet for each religion and denomination making claims with this scant information it's so flimsy that it cannot be demonstrated as being true."
Insofar as Yahweh is concerned, what's your evidence that He cannot be demonstrated to be true? Because that has been demonstrated many times.
"So my point is that you are claiming things to be true when clearly it has been far from demonstrated that it is."
I disagree. I reckon it has been "demonstrated" to be true. It's like a court case. If you only hear the evidence by the prosecution, they may be dishonest witnesses lying to you. But even if they are honest, they still might inadvertently paint a distorted picture, so it's good to have evidence from the defence too. But if the defence can't provide evidence, then the prosecution's evidence will likely sway the judge or jury. That is, the prosecution can demonstrate their accusation if there is no defence evidence. Which, at the moment, is the case here. But if you can produce evidence for another point of view, go for it. Subject to me being able to read it and it not being unduly time-consuming, I will look at it. But simply claiming that there is evidence to the contrary yet not producing it is hardly at all convincing. In fact the lack of such contrary evidence only strengthens the conviction that the claim is true.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sweetlemonade6925
"It's a FACT that colonisation happened!"
That's true.
"Colonisation meant that indigenous cultures and ways of life got eradicated and western languages and values were forced upon the people."
That's not so true.
"Modern day Western culture is heavily influenced by non white people, usually by black and Asian people. So white people have a lot to thank black and Asian people for."
That is also very questionable. Many experts acknowledge that Western culture is very much a product of Christianity, and Christianity came out of the Middle East, so yes, Asians do just get in there. Now I'm not denying any influence, but I think it's grossly overstating it to say that it is "heavily" influenced by non-whites and usually by black people.
Furthermore, I don't even like the terms "black" and "white" when referring to people. There are no people who are black nor white (ignoring the rare albino). All people are the same colour, brown, but having different amounts of the skin-colouring pigment, melanin. So "white" people are actually very light brown (lacking much of that pigment; albinos completely lack it) and "black" people are actually very dark brown (having a lot of that pigment), and other people are on the spectrum in between. (There are some other differences, such as us "white" people having so little melanin that the red blood shows through and give us a pink tinge.) The difference is not black vs. white, but culture, regardless of "colour" (actually shade).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@davidrichaidson3269
"I knew you would resort to the same circular argument all adherents of religion do!!"
And yet you've not shown any circularity.
"Who was the first theologian, and how he assessed as being so and by whom??"
I don't know, and I don't see the relevance. You seem to think that in order to be assessed as an expert in God, God has to exist. If so, it is you making the circular argument that because God doesn't exist, nobody can be an expert in God, and theologians (supposed experts in God) don't count because God doesn't exist.
"You then descend onto a diatribe over politicsas the defence of religion..."
Huh? Where did I mention politics?
"were you ever forced to read King James Bible, how does thou shalt not square with freedom of thought!!"
First, I was no more "forced" than any child is rightly expected by his parents to do certain things. Second, why specifically the KJV when they all say the same thing even if using different words? Third, how is saying that certain actions (such as murder) are not acceptable in conflict with freedom of thought?
"Do you understand how ridiculous some of these teachings were/are..."
No. And I've had plenty of atheists make claims along those lines, but they simply don't stack up.
"for instance one is not as your defined Christian eat particular foods, so people living on an island were not allowed to fish say on the Sabbath for sustenance, but rather forced to purchase dried fish exported from Norway to feed slaves [snipped]"
Where does the Bible say that Christians can't eat particular foods? On the contrary, it did away with the old Jewish restrictions of only eating "clean" foods.
"You are unfortunately such a dumbbell I guess you are suggesting that people who live in Christian countries will no doubt finally wear a crown in heaven,..."
Again with the resort to insult, and no, I don't suggest that it has anything to do with what countries you live in.
"Phillip you are indeed a fool I don't engage self imposed closed minded people!!"
Well, I guess I'll have to continue to put up with your insults then, given that I don't have a closed mind. And no, I'm not a fool.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@A rtie Fishal
"Folau engaged in hate speech."
What makes it 'hate speech'? Is disagreeing with the woke automatically labelled 'hate speech'? Why can't your criticism of him be called 'hate speech'? You obviously hate what he did.
"But why?"
I believe that he was asked for his view. Is there something wrong with that?
"Does he feel empowered by mouthing off?"
Do you feel empowered by describing it that way?
"Even if what he said was true, why be a total [deleted] about it?"
He wasn't. That's your jaundiced view of it.
"The evidence you ask for is right there in front of you."
In other words, the "evidence" is just your jaundiced opinion. Figures. No actual evidence at all.
"His intolerance."
Like you're showing now, of what he did? Why doesn't that make you a hypocrite?
"His need to repeat passages from a work of fiction."
Do you feel empowered to describe as a work of fiction a book that is (a) authored by God Himself, (b) believed by millions around the world, (c) including many very intelligent people, (d) that has helped many, many, people, (d) that has shaped Western Civilisation, making it as good and successful as it is, (e) teaching the equality of all people, (f) instigating the end of slavery, the introduction of public hospitals, many charities, universal education, science, and the spread of democracy, and (g) much more?
"Even if I believed in what the Bible states (the Old Testament),..."
You should. It's accurate history. But I'm not sure of your point given that his quote was from the New Testament.
"I wouldn't go around upsetting people just because I felt the need to jump on my sanctimonious soap box."
You mean like you're doing now? Again, doesn't that make you a hypocrite?
"That's just mean spirited."
It might be if that was his intention. Was it? Evidence?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jamesbroughton7635
There are two problems here.
First, by itself, that is not evidence that he was "slanging gays", nor that was "post[ing] rubbish online", nor that he was "offensive", nor any of the other false accusations you've made against him, and totally failed to justify. To do that you've have to show why they upheld the bid to sack him. Without that, it could be for some other reason.
Second, you are flat out wrong. No court upheld their bid to sack him, nor did a court agree that he breached his contract. That is simply false.
So yet again, you fail to justify why you're blaming a victim of bigoted discrimination.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Christianity': Why should the Pope in Rome dictate what other nations and their populations do on this Earth? "
The Pope does not represent all of Christianity, and he doesn't dictate to other nations. The example you give doesn't make your case. Any person can suggest/influence/implore/etc. ideas to others, but that doesn't make those things dictates.
"Including 'God' does not actually exist and is just a concept created by humans."
What's your evidence of that? Because I've asked this question many times, and never had an answer. This seems to be a blind-faith belief of atheists.
"'God' beliefs are just one of the greatest cons in human history."
And what's your evidence of that claim too?
"the 'Christian' Bible has it's foundations in the 'Catholic Bible' "
Not true. The New Testament came before you could label the early church the Catholic Church.
"They believe in cannibalism."
You could argue that by believing that the bread and wine is actually Jesus' body that it amounts to cannibalism, but it's not fair to say that they "believe in" cannibalism.
"Believing in the fairy tale of original sin, "
What makes it a fairy tale?
"OR will they make their decision based upon their Catholic upbringing and brainwashing?"
What brainwashing? And what makes you think that their Catholic upbringing is at odds with the constitution?
"Especially since God does not even actually exist except for as a concept alone."
What's your evidence for that too?
"Why do not Australians utilize critical thinking skills?"
They do.
"Do you all just believe anything that others tell you?"
No, I don't. Which is why I don't believe what the atheists tell me. I'm not so sure about you though.
"What about seeking out and finding the real apparent truth about reality? Deal more with real reality rather than fairy tale belief systems."
I do. That's why I believe in God and reject atheist ideas such as evolution and the Big Bang.
"Doing so, one may come to find out that the Earth is not flat,..."
Actually, one might come to find out that the idea that the church believed that was an outright atheist lie. But then atheists don't accept the idea of a God that says that they should tell the truth, so I guess we shouldn't expect better.
"... we do not exist under a dome with lights on it, nor do we exist in a geo-centric solar system that early Christianity, (Catholics), believed was really true and punished those, even fatally at times, for any who did not subscribe to their fairy tale belief system."
Actually, the dome with lights and the geocentric solar system was an ancient Greek idea that was accepted by the scholars in the church, but then also challenged by other scholars in the church. Yes, it was Christians (including Catholics) who showed that the old Greek idea was wrong.
And their belief system is not a fairy tale. That it is a fairy tale is actually an atheist fairy tale.
"Do Australians believe that saying magical words over bread and wine magically turn that bread and wine into the very body and blood of Jesus Christ that they then ingest? If so, why exactly when science shows it's not really true?"
Most Australians don't, and if you'd read Axle Axle.Australian.Patriot's comment properly, you'd have seen that he said Australia's heritage came from the Anglican church, not the Catholic church. And it was actually evangelicals in the Anglican church, not the Catholic-like Anglicans.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Jews and Israelis are two different things. Judea was a small state of the land of ancient Israel."
The original country of Israel comprised twelve 'states' (tribes) each with their own land. In the south you had the tribes of Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin, with the other nine to the north of there. Judah was the largest of those three, and one of the largest of all twelve. After King Solomon died, the country divided into two, with Judah and Benjamin becoming the nation of Judah, Simeon apparently no longer being an identifiable group, and the other nine retaining the name Israel. (Israel being named after their ancestor Jacob/Israel.)
The post-division nation of Israel was later conquered by the Assyrians. Later again, Judah was conquered by the Babylonians and many of its people taken to Babylon. However, the Babylonians were themselves later conquered, and the new ruler allowed the Jews (as they had become known) to return to their land and reestablish a nation there.
Calling a Jew an Israelite is quite accurate, and not like calling a (conquered) Tibetan a Chinese (conqueror).
Judea is a later Roman name for Judah.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JamesDio-yu5yd
"no it was taking there land"
You asked me what claims I was wanting evidence for. I listed them. You've ignored that list, except I guess for the first one, which was a repeat of another of your claims that I've asked you about.
You claimed "Because of your history towards these people, don't forget what you guys done."
What we did was lots of things, including, as I mentioned "bringing law and order, medicines, technology, and Christianity". But you seem to want to ignore all the good and highlight one supposed bad thing. That's misleading bias right there. But also, as I mentioned, it's a further claim that I questioned you on, and which you haven't justified.
The aborigines settled in this land perhaps thousands of years ago. There is apparently some evidence that they displaced other people who were already here. But regardless of that, British people later also settled here. What is the basis for saying that the land belongs to the aborigines? They were simply earlier settlers, and ones that didn't settle in particular places, but moved around, hence seemingly owning nothing in the way of land. So how can it be taken from them if they didn't own it?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@AMERICANPATRIOT1945
"Your entire argument is religious,..."
Define 'religious'? It has a range of meanings, and by one of those meanings, many Christians say that Christianity is not a religion.
"...and is therefore false."
That is a complete non-sequitur. Being 'religious' doesn't make it false.
"That is not a genetic fallacy."
Claiming that something is true or false based on its source is the very definition of the genetic fallacy.
"Religion is never within its rights to wield power over people."
Again, define 'religion'. The word can include atheist religions too.
"That is called separation of church and state."
No, it's not. Separation of church and state is the state not having control over or aligning itself with a particular religious group.
"Abortion is a healthcare choice."
Abortion is killing a human being. That is simple scientific fact.
"The choice is between a woman and her provider. No one else deserves a vote because no one but the woman owns her self."
What about God? And what about the baby? Why doesn't the baby get a vote? And what about the father of the baby? It's half his.
"That is a proven postulate."
If it's proven, it's not a postulate. What's your evidence that it's proven?
"A fetus is not viable until it is ready or nearly ready to be born and is therefore not a baby."
Nonsense. First, 'fetus' is a medical term for a baby at a particular stage of development. No pregnant mother says "I can feel my fetus kicking". Second, babies are able to survive outside the womb well before they are nearly ready to be born.
"Scientific literature separate from religion makes that distinction."
There is a consensus of biologists that human life begins at conception. So abortion is killing a human being.
"A fifteen week fetus is nowhere near the status of a baby."
To back up my response above, the (U.S.) National Cancer institute defines a fetus as "In humans, an unborn baby that develops and grows inside the uterus (womb)." (my bolding).
"Since the woman has total self ownership, she has every right to eject the fetus at any point until viability."
The baby is a distinct human being, with its own DNA, blood type, brain, heart, arms, legs, etc. It is not part of its mother.
"...God is only a made up religious construct ..."
What's your evidence?
"...and has never been proven to exist ..."
What's your evidence?
"Science disagrees heavily with anything based solely on faith."
False. Science is based on faith. To quote one scholar on the matter, Loren Eiseley: "The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation … . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption."
"Religious claims in opposition are made up and baseless,..."
That depends on the religion. Yes, atheist and other non-Christians ones are made up and baseless.
"...as well as justifying slavery."
Yes, depending on the religion. One I won't name has long endorsed it and still practices it. Atheists during the so-called Enlightenment endorsed it. But Christianity twice abolished it.
"Religion is never within its rights to use government to force itself upon those who don't believe."
Yeah, only atheists can do that, right?
"The woman owns all of this plus herself 100%. The fetus owns none."
The woman takes in the nourishment, and passes some on to her baby. Then the baby owns it just as much as the mother owned it.
"As a result, only the woman gets a vote before viability."
In your opinion. But the baby is a living human being. That makes it sacred.
"The entire anti-choice movement is religious, and it therefore invalid."
A conclusion based on false premises, and therefore unsound.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Unbroken
"My response to this clearly biased ... post..."
Yes, I'm biased to the truth.
"...even atheist countries like the Soviet Union and China have laws against murder and rape ..."
My comment was, necessarily, a simplification, and could be expressed in a more nuanced way. Soviet countries have a Christian (Eastern Orthodox) heritage, and their laws against murder would have predated their atheism. It's also the case that Christian countries have influenced non-Christian ones.
"...because they are essential to order and the ability of people to live, ..."
Up to a point, but Western/Christian laws apply equally to everyone, whereas in the atheist countries you mentioned, the leaders Stalin and Mao thought nothing of murdering millions of people. Yes, they might have had such laws, but only followed them when it suited them.
"...so your logic on that is just bias speaking and not any objective analysis ..."
No, it's based on evidence. See, for example, the three volumes on the biblical basis for the common law in England, Australia, and the U.S., written by legal scholar Augusto Zimmerman.
"...of what it takes to create a stable society...".
You're assuming that those societies are stable. The Soviet Union fell, and although China hasn't, China has adopted some Western values.
"...even ancient societies that never read the Bible had such laws, ..."
Perhaps in limited ways. Historian Tom Holland:
“But the more you live in the minds of the Romans and I think even more the Greeks, the more alien they come to seem, the more frightening they come to seem. And what becomes most frightening really is a kind of quality of callousness that I think is terrifying because it is completely taken for granted. The kind of innocent quality about it. Nobody really questions it.
In the age of Cicero, Cicero’s great contemporary Caesar is, by some accounts, slaughtering a million Gauls and enslaving another million in the cause of boosting his political career, and far from feeling in any way embarrassed about this he’s kind of promoting it, and so when he holds his triumph, people are going through the streets of Rome carrying billboards boasting about how many people he’s killed. This is a really terrifyingly alien world, and the more you look at it, the more you realise that it is built on systematic exploitation. So the entire economy is founded on slave labour. The sexual economy is founded on the absolute right of free Roman males to have sex with anyone that they want any way that they like. And in almost every way this is a world that is unspeakably cruel, to our way of thinking.
And so this worried me more and more, and it was kind of like I was thinking well I’m clearly not ... the heir of the Greeks and Romans in any way, really. ... And this is then enhanced for me by then writing a book about late antiquity and the emergence of Islam from the late religious context; ... and I began to realise actually that in almost every way I am Christian.
And I began to realise that actually, Paul although in many ways he seems a must less familiar figure than Cicero, ... what is it, ... seven letters that ... conventionally people ... absolutely accept—as Tom Wright was saying, this is not a very lengthy amount of writing, but compacted into this very very small amount of writing, was almost everything that explains the modern world [the Western world] but also the way that the West has moved on to shape concepts like international law, for instance, ... concepts of human rights, all these kinds of things. Ultimately they don’t go back to Greek philosophers; they don’t go back to Roman empiricism. They go back to Paul. Paul, really, his letters are, I think, are, along with the four gospels, the most influential, the most impactful, the most revolutionary writings that have emerged from the ancient world.”
"My response ... is to encourage you to read James Madison, the author of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, especially his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments."
Okay, I've read it. It appears to me to be an argument as to why the state should not financially support the church. It's not an argument that the government should not support a good and correct religious view. Indeed, the Memorial and Remonstrance includes the following:
* the duty which we owe to our Creator
* the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. [That is, the bill will undermine the good of Christianity, which was obviously something that should not be undermined.]
* Compare the number of those who have as yet received it [the light of Christianity] with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; [i.e. Christianity is true]
* earnestly praying, as we are in duty bound, that the Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe
He was opposing the state financially supporting Christianity, because doing so would undermine Christianity, which needed to be spread to others. It is not an argument that the state should not base its laws on the good, correct, religion of Christianity, nor was it espousing the idea that people should not tell others about Christianity. Quite the opposite was the case.
"If a person doesn't want to be the object of conversion attempts, you're bothering them, so don't."
That's like saying that if a person heading for the edge of a cliff doesn't want you telling them that they are in danger, you shouldn't tell them. Besides, Jesus told us to tell others about Him. For example, "the whole multitude of his disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen, ... And some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples.” He answered, “I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out.” "
"...even if you're all excited about your religion -- that's what churches are for)."
No, it's not. Churches are for people already convinced, not for people who need to hear the good news.
"...the existence of God cannot be shown by evidence or science (not a scientific question). God wants it that way I believe."
What's your evidence for thinking that? Because God Himself said otherwise: "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"If you believe the bible, then you don't believe the earth is spherical because the bible says so."
No, it doesn't say that it's not spherical. In fact it says that when Jesus returns there will be some in bed and some working in the field, which implies darkness on one side and light on the other. And the church never believed that it was flat. That was an atheist invention.
"I like the way he cherry picks his scientist examples to show that they were religious."
He didn't need to cherry-pick. Virtually all of the early founders of science (including Galileo) where Christians.
"But religion wasn't so nice to Galileo. They imprisoned him."
Actually, he was only placed under house arrest, and that was to do with him being offensive to the pope, not because of his ideas, which, although debated (he didn't actually supply good evidence), were taught in the (church-run) universities.
"Religion also did not recognize that the earth wasn't the center of the universe until the 20th century."
And yet there is evidence that the Milky Way IS near the centre of the universe. But atheists are out of date on that information, it seems.
"Explain the compatibility of religion and astronomy as we know it today."
Christianity provides the philosophical underpinning of science, including astronomy. That's why science was started by Christians.
"Bottom line, if you can believe in a god that you have never seen, heard and that contradicts his own principles and teachings, then of course you can believe in science as far as it agrees with your religious paradigm."
Have you ever seen electricity? Dinosaurs turning into birds? Planets forming? I'm sure that there are a lot of things you believe in that you've never seen. Yes, because (you believe) you have good evidence for them. The same applies to belief in God. There is good evidence for Him, even though I've never seen Him.
What contradictions of his own principles and teachings? I know of none.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Timbuctoo
"Well done... it's rare that people actually understand the difference between a religion (man-made) and a faith (belief system)"
It really comes down to how you define those words. Like most words those words have a range of meanings. For 'religion', that can be a particular religious organisation or denomination (e.g. Catholic, Baptist), or a particular theistic view (Christian, Hindu, etc.) or, in a broad sense, the set of beliefs on which you base your life. Many Christian take the view that 'religion' means a set of rites and rituals, and on that basis, I believe, they deny that Christianity is a religion. I disagree with saying that it's not a religion, but because I'm normally using a different definition of the term—specifically, the broad one of a religion being a set of beliefs. And by that definition there are atheistic religions, including Secular Humanism which explicitly called itself a secular religion in its founding document.
And of course one of the definitions of 'faith' beloved by atheists is "belief without or contrary to the evidence", which is not the way the Bible uses the word.
"I'm tired of being told as a Christian I am religious."
Only because you're using a definition of 'religious' that allows for you thinking that way.
"Christianity is not a religion."
Again, it depends on which definition you are using.
"The fact that people love us all into the religion bin is part of the problem."
Although I'm happy to consider Christianity to be a religion, I definitely agree that lumping all religions (except atheist ones) in together as if they are all sufficiently similar is a big problem, and one I often challenge atheists on, as it is a terrible argument to say (for example) that religions cause violence. Yes, some do, but others do not.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I first read about this in a railway magazine published in about 1924, in an article about monorails which included the Patiala railway and the Listowel and Ballybunion railway, both of which still exist in museum or recreated forms. This video explained the technical aspects of the Brennan monorail in much greater detail than I had seen before.
It couldn't run on existing tracks because it needed double-flanged wheels, which cannot go through normal points (US: switches) (and stub switches would also be problematic because of the frog).
One possible practicable use for this could have been in military railways that needed to be constructed quickly; laying a single rail would be quicker than normal railways, and one of the supposed benefits was the ability to cross a gully simply by installing a cable across the gully, and running on that cable. The weight of the train does make me wonder how realistic that would be, however.
Yet I have to wonder if something like this would be more practicable today, given modern, lightweight materials that could reduce a significant amount of the weight.
And many passenger trains every carriage motorised, so every vehicle having the gyroscopes may not be out of the question. Or perhaps articulated vehicles could be used, where the gyroscopes hold two (or more?) carriages upright.
But in the end, for most purposes, I guess it remains the case that it doesn't have a significant advantage over normal two-rail trains.
2
-
2
-
2
-
"The main strength of the Church is the teaching of moral values."
I don't know about that. Sure, that is an important aspect of Christianity, but it's so much more than that. Can you put down merely to moral values its founding of public hospitals and many charities, its founding of universal education, its founding of science, its spread of democracy, etc. etc.? It's more to do with how they see the world and our place in it. Moral values are one part of that, but just one part.
"The Christian church is a fairly new religion that borrowed from previous religions which borrowed from the ones before them going back further than anyone imagines."
I disagree, and I see it differently. Christianity is the fulfilment of Judaism (Jesus being the predicted Messiah). Judaism (and therefore Christianity) is the worship of the one true God, going back to before the Jews, back through Abraham and Noah to Adam. So really, there is a direct line between God who created everything and Christianity (and Jesus was actually the creator).
2
-
@Alotofnades
"You can’t prove that modern western morals are a direct product of Christianity."
I'm not claiming that 'the church' invented morality. God did. But the complete set of morals, so to speak, that we have inherited, are, I believe, derived from Christianity. And as I've explained to the opening poster, Christianity is really the fulfilment of Judaism (with Jesus being the promised Messiah), and Judaism is worship of the one true God, going back in history to before the Jews, back through Abraham and Noah and to Adam.
Historian Tom Holland said (referring to the Apostle Paul) (my bolding): "And I began to realise that actually, Paul although in many ways he seems a must less familiar figure than Cicero, ... what is it, ... seven letters that ... conventionally people ... absolutely accept—as Tom Wright was saying, this is not a very lengthy amount of writing, but compacted into this very very small amount of writing, was almost everything that explains the modern world [the Western world] but also the way that the West has moved on to shape concepts like international law, for instance, ... concepts of human rights, all these kinds of things."
"And they will exist after Christianity disappears."
Which it won't.
2
-
@marthienel2190
"t did that, but as a follower of developing humanitarian values and scientific progress, not as a leader."
No, it was as a leader. It didn't "follow" science. It founded science, because it provided the worldview that allowed for science. Loren Eiseley, for example, wrote “The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation … . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.”
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@pwillis1589
"Responding to a point is not the same as refuting it..."'
If you don't show that my response is wrong, then it should be considered a refutation.
"Sections 25 and 51 remain racist elements of the constitution. "
Again, I have addressed them. You haven't shown me to be wrong; you just repeat the claims.
"You addressed section 51 but completely failed to refute it."
In that particular case, I didn't claim to completely refute it. More a case of putting it in perspective.
"You did not provide any reason at all that section 51 didn't provide the ability for racist legislation to be passed by the Commonwealth."
No, I wasn't trying to. I pointed out that the fact that it was used that way didn't show that it was meant that way. You're trying to move the goal posts.
"The indigenous population where explicitly made non citizens by section 127."
Again, I've already answered that, and you've not shown me to be wrong.
"No aboriginals were allowed to debate or participate in any of the debates, consultations, or vote in the referendum for the Constitution."
Why do you think that they weren't allowed to vote in the referendums for it? As for consultation, I think I asked you for evidence, which you've not provided, preferring instead to repeat the claim.
"You are just lying in saying they were. ...you continue to deny historical fact. You clearly are unable to distinguish the difference..."
You do realise that an abusive ad hominem argument is logically fallacious?
"...unable to distinguish the difference between political representation and constitutional recognition and just saying "no you didn't" is purile."
No, it's a statement of fact, because you're trying to justify your position by imagining things about me.
"On numerous occasions and in this short paragraph I have clearly demonstrated your lack of knowledge of Australian constitutional history."
What you've clearly demonstrated is your ability to repeat yourself rather than answer rebuttals.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@boff1n
I appreciate your comments.
"it breaks the most important pillar of separation of Church and State."
It does, but I'm not sure that you know what that means. The concept of separation of church and state is that the state does not control the church, as was the case (and technically still is) in England, where the monarch is/was the head of the church.
It does not mean that "the church", i.e. Christians, cannot have a say in the running of the state.
"As a non religious person myself ..."
That depends on your definition of "religious". The semantic range of the word religion can include any set of ideas you hold as core ideas, on which you base your life. And there are such things as atheist religions, such as Marxism, Confucianism, Scientology, and Secular Humanism, the last of which when founded described itself as a secular religion. So on that broader definition, I don't accept that you're not religious. Another use of it is to do with performing a lot of rites and rituals, which Protestant Christianity doesn't have, so many Christians also say that they are not religious. But all of that is simply questionable labelling.
"...I don't want a Church overtly influencing or dictating law in this country."
I wouldn't want "a" church doing that either. But it's a fact of history that much of Western Civilisation is based on Christianity. In other words, if the church (generally) didn't influence the society, including the law, we would not have the Magna Carta which is the basis of English, Australian, etc. law. If the church didn't influence society, including the law, we'd still have slavery. And we wouldn't have science, or universal education, or public hospitals, or most/all charities, compassion for the poor and disadvantaged, and so much more. One (non-Christian) historian (Tom Holland), in talking about the New Testament letters of the apostle Paul, put it this way:
“... compacted into this very very small amount of writing, was almost everything that explains the modern world [the Western world] but also the way that the West has moved on to shape concepts like international law, for instance, ... concepts of human rights, all these kinds of things. Ultimately they don’t go back to Greek philosophers; they don’t go back to Roman empiricism. They go back to Paul. Paul, really, his letters are, I think, are, along with the four gospels, the most influential, the most impactful, the most revolutionary writings that have emerged from the ancient world.”
So you should want the church (generally) to keep influencing law and other things in this and other countries.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MohdSabir-k4x
"plz study the history"
I have, but of course there is so much history there I haven't studied it all.
"Don't disscus with me. when you don't known about this."
Why not? You don't like rational discussion?? I'm not allowed to ask questions? Which is what I did, after all. I made no claims.
"You want that Palestinan should leave their homes
why ?"
I never said that I want them to, did I? How about sticking to what I said rather than reading into my comment things that aren't there?
"There were 13 to 15 millions in pakestine,"
When was this? And where is/was "pakestine"? If you are referring to Palestine, that was never a country. If I don't know just what area you're asking me figures about, I can hardly provide them.
"Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Syria have already taken millions palastenian"
I'm not going to say that you're completely wrong, but here are some quotes from various parts of the internet, which at the very least justify my questions:
PBS: "Why Egypt and other Arab nations are hesitant to take in Palestinian refugees"
Wikipedia: "Most Palestinian refugees live either in the West Bank or Gaza Strip, or the three original "host countries" of Jordan, Lebanon and Syria who unwillingly accepted the first wave of refugees in 1948;" (my bolding)
WION: "Explained: Why Arab nations don't want to take in Palestinian refugees from Gaza"
AllArab News: "Arab and Muslim nations loudly proclaim their support for Palestinian cause, yet refuse to accept Gaza refugees" and "With the exception of Jordan and Egypt, which have adamantly stated their refusal to accept any Gazan refugees, there has been little talk from other Muslim and Arab countries in the Gulf region about taking in the refugees."
2
-
2
-
@ExistenceUniversity
"The universe is everything that exists."
Evidence? Yeah, you're sort of right, but really, the universe is the entire physical existence. Further, I said that " in one sense, God is outside the universe." But He is also everywhere, so is also within the universe. Not to mention that He became man and inhabited this planet for a while as a physical being. So no, you can't prove God's non-existence that way.
"You must resort to god being outside of reality in order to justify your believe in him."
I guess that depends on how you define 'reality'. I don't limit it to physical reality, so no, God is not outside reality.
So where is your demonstration that God being eternal is counter to reality, that you promised?
2
-
@SuperSushidog
If your argument that happiness is derived from being unconditionally selfless,..."
But it doesn't, and the opening post didn't say that. It said that selflessness was an example of where joy comes from, and didn't mention it being unconditional. So your comment was based on something not said, and therefore, as I said, your comment has no relevance.
"Or perhaps happiness comes not from being selfless, but from being selfish."
I hope you're not suggesting that they are the only two options, because they are not.
"So it seems that God is selfish,..."
If you mean by that that God wants what He is entitled to (which is everything, as He created everything), then sure. But we would not normally call someone selfish for simply wanting what they are entitled to.
"Jesus said to "Love your neighbor as yourself," but He didn't say more than yourself, did He. Who is your neighbor? Why help a neighbor and not a foreign enemy..."
Jesus explained that your neighbour is anyone who you encounter. He also said to love your enemies, so your question assumes something that is not the case. But loving anyone does not mean that you give them whatever they want, if what they want is not good for them. Which also answers your point about giving everything to people who would abuse your generosity—that's not good for them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Royale_with_Cheeze
"America isn't a Christian country."
What makes you think he was referring to America, given that this is an Australian show?
Second, it depends on how you define "Christian country". True, America is not formally Christian (per the 1st Amendment), but it's (a) Christian in the sense of a majority of the population identifies as Christian, and (b) it is part of Western Civilisation, which has Christianity as its foundation.
"If we were strictly a Christian county, I don't suppose we would have Synogogues, Mosques and houses of worship for every other religion..."
Given that Christianity is tolerant of other religions, this claim is not in evidence.
"For what it's worth, the largest established religion in the world is Buddhism."
What do you mean by the largest "established" religion? Formally adopted by a country??
"Maybe they know something about spirituality that Christians don't."
How does that follow? Given that Western Civilisation, based on Christianity, is the most successful and free, maybe Christians know something about spirituality that atheists don't.
"That's not knocking Christianity, just saying there are more Buddhists."
Except that there are not. Christianity has 2.2 billion, and Buddhists have half a billion. It's fifth on the list.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Knappa22
"Pride when it is about conceitedness and arrogance is certainly a vice. And that’s what the Biblical sin of ‘pride’ is about. "
You're right. But Trevor Arthurson is also right that "Wearing a symbol of pride is to promote an abhorrent sinful behaviour" even if it's more to do with the promotion of sinful behaviour than the pride itself.
"However Pride can also be about accepting who you are without shame, and that’s a good thing."
I'm not sure that pride in oneself is ever a good thing. Pride in others, however (such as your later example of a soldier's sacrifice) is good, at least if what they did is good. I can also be proud of who I am if I'm crediting God, rather than myself, for that.
"How destroying the social fabric??"
The values of Western Civilisation are based on Christianity, and all this LGBT+ stuff is an attack on that, and therefore an attack on Western Civilisation. That's how it destroys the social fabric.
"What should they do? Lie and marry a member of the opposite sex?"
They can remain single. The only person you can marry is a person of the opposite sex. Otherwise it's not marriage, but sin.
"He’s 53, married to his partner of 24 years,..."
Sorry, but that's not "marriage", which is, by definition and design, a lifelong union between a man and a woman.
"If you find that abhorrent you are the problem in society, not him."
I'm not the one going against the way that we were designed to be (in that regard at least).
"In every regard?"
That depends on what you mean by "normal". One use of the word is "typical". So in that sense, a diabetic is not "normal".
"Boasting about 'normality' is pretty meaningless."
In the sense of typical, I agree.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@pgraham28
"Not correct. Why is it so common for people to go to "atheism is a religion"? "
Because it can be considered to be a religion, within the semantic range of the word. Although technically I agree that it's not. That is, it's no more a religion than theism is a religion. It's a category of religions, such as Scientology, Zen Buddhism, Marxism, Confucianism, Secular Humanism, and so on—all being atheistic religions. Secular Humanism originally described itself as a secular religion.
"It quite clearly is not."
And yet I've explained how it is.
"A" + "theism". You know the "A" means to be absent of belief in something right? It is quite literally the opposite."
"A" means "not". Atheism is a belief that there is not a God. Yes, I know that it's often claimed to be a lack of belief in God rather than a belief in no God, but when atheists base their views and actions on there being no God, the distinction becomes one without a difference.
"The religious believe whatever they claim to believe. An atheist is the belief you are wrong."
So an atheist also believes whatever they claim to believe. How does that make them different?
"An atheist just doesn't care about your story."
And yet they spend a lot of time and effort trying to discredit it. It seems that many of them do care.
"Atheists also do not have a "set of beliefs" and are not guided by anything like religious people are. We have our own ideas."
Yes, atheists have their own ideas. Or set of beliefs, that guide them. Yes, different to Christians, who are different to Muslims, who are different to...
"All religious people are atheists when it comes to every religion other than their own."
What you mean (because I've heard this many times before) that all religious people are atheists when it comes to the gods of every religion other than their own. But I'm not sure of your point. Are you trying to say that Christians are really atheists? So if Christians are religious, then it follows that atheists are too.
"Atheists just don't believe your religion too."
Atheists reject every worldview except their own. As a Christian, I do too. So we both reject the same number of worldviews. Again, that doesn't help your case.
"Stop trying to label something you clearly dont understand."
The fact that you don't agree with me doesn't mean that I don't understand it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@conviviostates6540
"Teachers are hired because they have a degree and a license."
Are you suggesting that there are no other requirements? Like how good a job they do, how they present, etc.?
"We don’t hire teachers based on how they look - that would be discrimination based on the US Constitution, amendment 14."
This is no more about how the teacher looks than if they teacher turned up naked. He would "look" different, but it's not the looks that are the issue. Besides, this is in Canada. The U.S. Constitution doesn't apply there.
"Students need a licensed, qualified teacher."
Who will teach them well, and not mislead them.
"No abuse."
No physical abuse, but there is an abuse of reality and decency.
"As far as perverting reality, also protected by the first amendment."
So a licenced, qualified, teacher can teach them that 2+2=5 and he would be protected by the first amendment even if he was in America? I don't think so.
"Your country, your rules."
Not my country, and even if it was, it wouldn't be my rules.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bogdananderson1472
"Religion has done more harm than good over the centuries."
True, in the case of many religions. Especially true of the atheistic religion Marxism. But I'm not defending "religions". I'm defending Christianity, which not only has done a lot of good, it is the basis of what you even consider to be "good". Without God, you don't have an objective basis for even thinking that some things are "good" or "bad". Without God, it's just a matter of your subjective opinion.
"The amount of blood spilt over the centuries in the name of religion is just unthafomable."
In the case of wars, it's not unfathomable. It's been documented in the comprehensive Encyclopedia of Wars, and that shows that only about seven percent (if I recall correctly) of wars were religious wars. (And of those, about half can be attributed to one religion, and it isn't Christianity.) But then I doubt they included in that wars based on Marxist or other atheistic views such as evolution. And of course they wouldn't have included the war on the unborn, opposed by Christians.
"Its not Gods representative that sits on the throne of the Vatican over the centuries..."
Given that I'm not a Catholic, I won't argue with you on that one.
"Making a statement like that by myself a few centuries ago would have me tortured and probably burnt alive at the stake for heresy in the name of Religion."
Well, in the name of Catholicism, to be more precise. But then, as I said, Marxist views have slaughtered and are slaughtering far more, and many of those for being Christian.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@shellodee
"doesn't have a fully formed heart at 5wks. "
I didn't say it did. You referred to a heartbeat, and that's what I was talking about. So now you're moving the goal posts.
"Look man, you're not going to move my opinion on this,..."
So your mind is closed to facts.
"...clearly I won't be changing yours."
Not without giving me a valid reason why it's okay to kill an innocent human being.
"I was exactly like you at one point in my life, ..."
I doubt it.
"...I understood the other side of the discussion."
If your arguments have been anything to go by, you clearly don't understand the gravity of killing an innocent human being.
"It's not a decision that you, as a man, will ever have to make for your own health, psyche, body, safety or for anyone else."
My experience or lack thereof doesn't change that it's killing an innocent human being.
"...a woman's choice isn't as simple as your judgement."
It is, actually. It may be a hard choice to make, but a simple one.
"Her responsibility isn't to opinions or people like you."
No, it's to her baby (among other things).
"She has to consider ALL the additional factors when accepting the additional responsibility someone else's potential life and the quality of that life. ..."
It's not "potential" life; it's actual life. That you don't see this shows that you've never been like me.
"...and the quality of that life. "
Killing a baby is no solution to a poor quality of life.
"t's not a simple topic,"
It is, actually. Is it okay to kill an innocent human being? Yes or no.
"...men like you need to stay out of it."
Because I'm a man (that's sexist and an invalid argument), or because you don't agree with it being wrong to kill an innocent human being?
"If you put your points forward to a rape victim who can't be a mum to a product of that rape, and you'll be the death of both of them."
What do you mean "can't be"? The point is that rape victims can be mothers to their babies. It's happened. I mentioned a well-known one, which you ignored. Yes, the mother is a victim, and that's tragic. But that's no excuse to make her baby a victim too.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@damedusa5107
"Oh my, what a shining beacon Christianity has been."
True, it has. It is the basis Western Civilisation, and it founded public hospitals, meany charities, universal education, the university system, and modern science, as well as spreading democracy, twice abolishing slavery, raising the status of women, promoting human rights, and more.
"It’s almost as if you don’t know the history of your own faith. It’s makes your comment ridiculous."
On the contrary, his comment is consistent with the enormous amount of good Christianity has done, which suggests that it's you who doesn't know the history of Christianity.
"Because every message you hear from him was decided by someone else."
What does that mean, and what is your evidence?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Justin: "This is what religion is".
False. Religion is a set of beliefs, but different religions have very different beliefs. There are even atheistic religions.
"They have no idea what these religions were like before".
I'd say he is the one who has no idea (given that he's including Christianity). Christianity is the basis of Western Civilisation. If not for Christianity... well, here's how sociologist Rodney Stark put it: "Christianity created Western Civilization. Had the followers of Jesus remained an obscure Jewish sect, most of you would not have learned to read and the rest of you would be reading from hand copied scrolls. Without a theology committed to reason, progress, and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800: A world with many astrologers and alchemists but no scientists. A world of despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys, and pianos. A world where most infants do not live to the age of five and many women die in childbirth–a world truly living in "dark ages."
"The modern world arose only in Christian societies. Not in Islam. Not in Asia. Not in a "secular" society–there having been none. And all the modernization that has since occurred outside Christendom was imported from the West, often brought by colonizers and missionaries."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jeanpierre4370
"One, what evidence?"
* Not properly checking signatures of mail-in votes,
* Extending closing dates contrary to legislation,
* censorship of news favourable to Trump,
* demonising Trump at every turn,
* etc.
"The polling showed, and all voters counts went Through"
I don't know what you're trying to say there.
"Two, completely false, we did have a big investigation lead by Rudy. We had a court hearing, Rudy brought many witnesses to the stand to claim voter fraud but ALL were dismissed due to NO EVIDENCE."
I think that's like claiming that there was no need for a police investigation of a crime because a private investigator has already done his own investigation. Rudy didn't have the powers that a proper investigation would have. However, I will clarify my answer. You said "We also had a MASSIVE investigation on this..." (my emphasis) I replied that "It was dismissed without much investigation" (change of my emphasis). I was referring to the numerous court cases brought by various people which were mostly dismissed without even looking at the evidence. I wasn't denying that there was some investigation. If you are just referring to one particular case, I'm not necessarily disagreeing. However, I don't recall Rudy's case ever being accepted by the courts. Can you please provide details of that case?
"Three, stop twisting my words and copy my whole statement."
I did not knowingly twist your words, and still don't believe that I did. It doesn't make sense to copy more than the bit I'm replying to, so I will continue to copy just what I think is relevant.
"I said Trump was rigging the election because he was telling his followers to vote in person..."
Yes, you did say that. But how is telling people to vote the way that most people normally do, a case of rigging the election? It just made no sense to me that you were actually claiming that, so I skipped that part of your comment.
"Trump tried his best to stop the vote-by-mail process, ..."
The process that helped rig the election. Yes, he did, as he should have.
"...he tried to tell certain not all states to stop counting..."
So? Only some states had broken their own rules.
"... & to only accept the first wave, AKA Trump's votes."
No, to only accept the legitimate votes, not the ones that came in after the deadlines that were being counted contrary to legislation.
"Biden on national TV supported all votes, he encouraged all ballots to be counted, unlike Trump."
And how is that a good thing? Trump's team explicitly said that they wanted all legal votes counted. Biden wanted all votes counted, the implication being that he wanted the illegal ones included. Yet you make out that Trump was the villian here!
"Four, jesus..."
What does the creator of the world have to do with your comment?
"on National TV Trump literally said "If I win, it's a fair election, if Biden wins, something was rigged", ..."
So? That was his opinion, and apparently legitimately held. Trump was told by his pollster before the election, that if he increases his vote by 5% (? I forget the figure), there is no way that Biden could win. Obviously that wasn't meant as a legal statement, but just being realistic. Trump did that, and yet, contrary to reason, Biden somehow won anyway. You could argue that Trump and his pollster were wrong, but not that it shows any deceit or manipulation on Trump's part.
"he literally planned this if Biden won, he was trying to steal the election."
As I said, the evidence says otherwise.
2
-
2
-
@JarethGT
"you're still in "red vs blue" land."
Well, with America's two-party system, that seems appropriate!
"Biden is a garbage career politician with a bad track record,...
No argument there.
"...and Trump is a failed business man turned reality show host, who can't accept he lost an election."
Sure, he had some business failings, but also a lot of success. So I don't accept that part of your description of him. And although technically he lost the election (Biden is now president), there is good reason to think that that was only due to election manipulation, not because more people wanted Biden.
"Once you realize that neither of these guys [don't care] about you, we can talk."
Translation: once I realise something that you haven't demonstrated and which is not self-evident, you're prepared to talk. So not willing to actually convince me that your premise is correct?
"Until then keep looking to your political savior to tell you what is going on."
My sources of information are not limited to Trump, who is not in any case my "political saviour", given that I'm not an American.
And I note that you didn't bother defending your implied claim of Trump's delusions being as bad as Biden's.
2
-
@jeanpierre4370
"first, that's literally every election!"
What is? You had a go at me for not quoting you fully, but you haven't quoted me at all for me to know what point you are responding to.
"Not all elections are 100% accurate,..."
Duh!
"Trump just made it known more and made it sound like it's a bigger deal to you suckers."
Thanks for the gratuitous insult, but you've just made another assertion without evidence.
"Did you even take the time to math out it out, it's literally a low number that will not affect the outcome of the election."
And yet your subsequent comments show that you're only including "fraud votes that were proven!". So you have failed to include any of the problems I mentioned, choosing to instead answer a straw-man argument.
"Now if the voter fraud was leaning idk 40% then I'll agree with you, but Trump made a 1% sound like it's a 100% issue!"
Clearly you exaggerate, and where does your figures of c40% and 1% come from? Did you make them up?
"That's why no one cared, there's no evidence to support a 'Massive' rigged election."
And yet I mentioned some that you have completely ignored.
"Also, we were at pandemic level, we got an extension for EVERYTHING! To me it makes sense to do the same for our votes."
Okay, so you do finally address one of my points. But don't justify breaking the law to do what seems to you to be a good idea. Further, the CDC said that there was no problem with voting in person. The extension was for political, not medical, reasons.
2
-
@JarethGT
"What I meant by stuck in red vs blue land, is you seem willing to line up behind a team, rather than just evaluate a president based on actual policy and merit."
And yet you give no evidence of that. Further, I've actually said in these comments that I wasn't using the 'fraudulent vote' argument that Trump made such a big deal of, and other, similar, comments.
"Trump is clearly a compulsive liar, delusional, or both. If you want evidence there's 4 years worth of audio, video, and text of him contradicting himself and lying constantly."
Yes, I want evidence. (Citing "4 years worth of audio, video, and text" is a fallacy known as 'elephant hurling', i.e. claiming lots of evidence but not actually providing any.) I've see a list of his supposed lies, and checked out a sample of them, and it turns out that they are not, in fact, lies! I'm not claiming, of course, that he is perfect and never lies or never contradicts himself, but I've seen no evidence of this being a defining characteristic of him. So not only do I not see evidence of Trump being as you describe, I flat-out reject your claim that he is "clearly" so.
"I'm not playing that game. I can point at both Trump and Biden and call them on their shit, rather than rally behind a politician and the party like it's a football game."
As can I. But Trump's policies (you did mention policies) are clearly far better than Biden's. He rejected the left's nonsense of supporting the delusion of people changing sex, for example. He stood up against killing babies, whereas Biden supports killing babies. He supported religious freedom whereas Biden trashes it. Like you, I can criticise both, but unlike you, I see that Trump was a far better (albeit not perfect) president than Biden.
"Trump lost the election and he knows it."
That's an ambiguous statement. Sure, he lost in the sense that Biden is now the president. But did he lose fairly? That is the real question.
"The evidence his administration brought forward was SO bad, not even republicans who supported him could get behind it."
That claim is clearly false, given that there is and and was no shortage of Republicans who do/did get behind it.
"Trump called foul before anything happened, ..."
Evidence? He called foul on things before the election, sure, but not before "anything happened". One thing he called foul on was the mass mail-in voting, after that was announced. But even if he did call foul before anything happened, it doesn't prove your point, because a reasonable person could reasonably conclude that the left would try and rig the election given their attacks on Trump right from the beginning, such as their attempts to impeach him starting the day that he was sworn in (i.e. "before anything happened")
"He played off his supporters paranoia so in the event that he lost the election, he could say "See! I told you it was rigged". "
What's your evidence that playing off his supporters' paranoia was his tactic? Or is that your interpretation of what he was doing?
"If you can't see that, then there's no point in even engaging in this conversation. "
So there's no point in having this conversation if I don't agree with an evidence-free claim you've made? That makes no sense.
"As for Biden, yeah he sucks what else do you want me to say."
You could say that he's lied, that his policies are anti-reality, that he helped manipulate the election, that he supports killing babies. That is, you could say a lot worse than "he sucks", which is not really saying anything other than you don't like him.
2
-
@JarethGT
"My claims may seem broad, or vague to you because I didn't want to type up a political manifesto in YouTube comments."
There is a middle ground between providing nothing and providing everything. I didn't object to you not providing everything.
"...there's an ocean of that information out there for you to find...
I know there is. But it's opinions of anti-Trump people, or it's deceptive or selective. So you're again elephant-hurling.
"...if you haven't noticed that, you are clearly biased."
True. I'm biased towards the truth and wanting evidence. You're not biased?
"Google can explain all this to you if you're willing to look."
You want me to look at a biased source? It has been shown that Google itself is biased. See, for example, some of the Project Veritas stuff.
"As far as Biden's policies, I care more about his foreign policy than the things you mentioned."
So what you're saying is that your opinion on Trump vs. Biden, or at least your opinion on Biden, is based on what issues you think important. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, as long as that's clear what you're doing, but that is one of your biases.
"You said Biden supports "killing babies", you must be referring to his support of planned parenthood?"
That's only part of it, but yes.
"I don't like abortion, but I think early term abortion is preferable to an unfit mother raising a child that she is incapable of raising."
So you think that killing an innocent human, (and without getting that person's agreement) is better than giving that person a chance at life and, say, helping that mother become a fit mother? Don't you think that's like trying to avoid the pain of a sore toe by chopping off your leg? Not to mention that another—and non-lethal—option is to adopt the baby out.
"Anti religion policies? What are they? Cite them. There's still a church on every block with people attending every sunday, even in the midst of a pandemic."
That's just false to start with, in the sense that many churches have been prevented from opening during stages of the pandemic, and pastors prosecuted for doing so. Sure, that's state rules rather than Biden, but you brought that up.
But more relevantly, holding to religious views does not simply mean holding personal beliefs that are not related to reality, but instead holding fundamental beliefs that influence a person's understanding of reality, society, and so on. So telling people that there are more than two sexes when God only created two, telling people it's okay to kill babies when God forbids and hates that sort of thing, telling people that it's okay to go against the way God designed us to be (heterosexual), telling people that the world came about by chance rather than design, and so much more, are just a few of the examples you ask for.
"The whole transgender thing is a waste of mental energy. Why do you guys care what people want to call themselves?"
Wrong question. Rather, ask why we care that we are told that we have to accept this unscientific nonsense? If it was simply a case if what someone wanted to call themselves, there would probably be little objection. But when we are told that we must go along with this stuff, your question completely misses the point. When we are told that we must refer to someone else (i.e. this is NOT about what they "want to call themselves ") in a way that is flat out wrong (i.e. they are ordering us to lie), you are asking the wrong question.
"Our country, our planet, and our species is on the line and you are worried about THAT?"
It's obviously not the only thing I'm worried about, but yes, because "THAT" is one part of an attempt to reshape society to an atheist view, literally destroying the very foundations of Western Civilisation. It was Christianity that shaped Western Civilisation (and much of the rest of the world too)*, and that is what is under attack. Transgenderism is one of the current focuses of that attack, and a key part of that is controlling what people can do or say, i.e. taking away our ability to refute this attack.
*—There's an ocean of information out there (to quote someone) on this, or, if you ask, I can provide some of that for you.
"I think we're on different wavelengths here, and I mean that with as much respect as possible in a disagreement."
I agree. We are.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@shanecameron7869
"So can you detail the transgender policy?"
I realise (or assume) that your question wasn't directed to me, but I'll have a go at answering.
I can't find such a policy on the Athletics NSW site. However, the Little Athletics site has a policy, which is actually a policy by the Australian Human Rights Commission, Sport Aus, and The Coalition of Major Professional & Participation Sports. Will that do? No, I won't "detail" the 52-page document.
"What are the criteria for them to be able to join?"
To join the sport? To join a team? What?
"What research have you done into understanding what the advantages or maybe even disadvantages transgender athletes have. "
The advantages/disadvantages are quite obvious: A so-called transgender woman is a man, and, all else being equal, has the advantages a man has.
"What are the performance effects of hormone blockers, HRT and other medication that transgender athletes take whilst transitioning?"
Who says that they take them? The policy makes no mention of taking such drugs being a requirement.
"Otherwise it just sounds like you’ve done no work understanding the story from the other side of the fence ..."
What is there to understand? There are men and women who, for some reason, seem to think that they are not actually that. This is called being out of touch with reality.
"It’s called the Dunning Kruger effect."
That seems more like insult than anything. There is no evidence that the commenter has a low ability at a task.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Religious people do have the right to assemble…on weekends, in churches."
For now. What makes you think this is not part of a slippery slope?
"Religious schools are a relic of the past -"
If it wasn't for Christianity, you wouldn't have universal education.
"We have a weird situation where less than half of the population believe in god, and declining, yet we’re holding on to a system set up when 95% of citizens believed in god."
You're right. We should return to more people believing in God. Otherwise, the benefits of Christianity will also eventually disappear.
"...the weird entanglement of religion education and secular education needn’t continue, and it won’t in future generations."
No, perhaps it won't. But how would that be a good thing?
"The trend is real - people in this country are losing their religion en masse… this is not opinion. It is an undeniable fact backed by ABS surveys."
A questionable fact. A lot of people who were nominal Christians are no longer claiming that, partly due to campaigns by atheists. But the real Christians are not losing their Christianity en masse.
"As this occurs at some point the relevance and usefulness of religion (taught as truth) is very likely to questioned."
Oh, it's already being questioned. By people who are opposed to it and want to impose their own views.
"you’re confusing humanistic themes (which are fine) with the whole Christian message (which contains self-destructive elements)."
Huh? What humanistic themes, and what self-destructive elements?
"If you can convince yourself there are only positive messages, and ignore (or not see) the harmful elements then that’s what you’ve managed to do."
If you can convince yourself there are only harmful elements, and ignore (or not see) all the good that Christianity has done (well-documented), then that’s what you’ve managed to do.
"It should however give you pause when you discover the reality of suicidal teenagers who are being ostracised by their families due to their sexuality - and some of these misguided Christians have even posted in this very short tread, and they would be the sort of people to cast a child out of the family. "
Yes, Christians should not ostracise family members who sin. Neither should non-Christians ostracise Christians who disagree with them, as happens a lot these days and is endorsed by governments, the media, etc. This proposed bill could be an example.
"The historical linkage of teaching religion alongside other subjects will eventually be broken - it will take a few generations but it will ultimately happen."
Only if existing trends continue. But history has shown that God has at times stepped in and changed things. We hope and pray that He will again.
"And more on topic, if I’m a Catholic teacher at a Catholic school - teaching mathematics- I’m travelling along fine and in my late 20s I have a crisis of conscience and realise I no longer believe in any religion. What do I do now - ..."
Read the Bible and reject the misinformation of atheists and return to Christ.
"...do I report myself to the principal and resign from my job? Do I sell my house and uproot my life?"
What about government teachers who become Christians and realise that the Marxism and other anti-Christian views being taught in government schools are wrong? What are they supposed to do?
"There are plenty of non-believing teachers right now in the system who just keep their mouths shuts."
True enough. So what should happen per my question?
2
-
2
-
@Pineapples_Pizza
"...perhaps one thing you could reflect on is the forced conversion of indigenous people around the globe on every populated continent."
Evidence of that happening on that sort of scale please.
"Peoples with thousands, or tens of thousands, of years of their own religious beliefs and customs."
According to the secular view. I don't hold that view.
"And then along comes the Catholic Church with their aggressively missionary messaging."
In other words, along come Christians (many Protestants) who wanted to tell those people the wonderful news that they could be free of their fear of evil spirits, etc., and know Jesus.
"Reflect on the permanent and generational damage caused to customs, language ..."
Many of their languages have been documented solely thanks to missionaries.
"...and religious tradition."
So you're prefer that women continued to be treated as worthless (e.g. the religious tradition that led to them being burned alive on their husband's funeral pyre), that they continue to live in fear of evil spirits, that they don't get the benefits that Christianity has brought to the West, and so on? That sounds like you don't care about them.
"Look at the whole picture - the whole mess not just your rose tinted version."
The whole picture is that their lives are much better as a result. So what's your point?
"not going to get into a never ending game where you parse my post and asking endless questions."
Translation: You're not going to attempt to defend your claims that I'm challenging you on. All my questions are direct responses to your claims.
"If you’re content with your current beliefs, and most people are, then great….good for you."
In other words, you want to spend multiple posts here spreading your beliefs, but I should keep quiet. The arrogance!
"All I would point out is that the coming demise of religious schools is not the catastrophe that this newsreader is making out..."
But you're refusing to justify that opinion. It's actually clear that he's right.
"...but I just don’t see this as a bad development, and nor do most Australians."
That doesn't mean that you and they are right, and I've challenged you on your claims, but you're refusing to back them up with evidence.
"Most of us are are not religious and are indifferent at best… and others, like me, think the demise is a good thing."
But why? You seem to think an evidence-free opinion carries more weight than history and other evidence. That's not a rational way to think.
"Those in the Christian bubble might be alarmed but the rest of us (most Australians) just don’t care."
I'm not in a Christian bubble. But it seems that you might be in an anti-Christian bubble, where you think that you're right simply because many others agree with you. But can't back up your claims with evidence.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@pero1558
"There is no men's or women's clothing."
There is, actually, although there is also a lot of overlap.
"Labeling clothing in such a way is one big fantasy of clothing designers, manufacturers and retailers,..."
So they are made different? That kind of undermines your first claim.
"...as I would say: pure indoctrination of innocent children!"
What indoctrination?
"Not only indoctrination but also slavery, which I thought had been abolished..."
It was. Although it has made a return in things like sex slavery and people trafficking. But I don't know what you're referring to.
"...everyone had the right to freedom and self-determination."
Who gave them those rights? And what do those rights extend to? You can choose some things (place of residence, marriage partner, job, etc.), but not others, such as your parents or sex.
"In my view the bible is one big lie and threat to our freedom."
And yet it was the Bible that gave us much of our freedom.
Why do you think it's one big lie? It has, after all, been shown to be true in many details and nobody has been able to point out a definite error in it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@binmcbin1890
"the first recorded Christmas was in 336 AD."
I have given you an earlier source, so why do you claim otherwise?
"So you've just admitted that it was originally a pagan holiday."
I did no such thing. I gave evidence of the very opposite of that.
"Sol invictus wasn't Christmas. It was worship of the sun God/end of year festivals, darkest period of time, harvest festival."
Yes, it wasn't Christmas. It's origin came after the origin of Christmas, possibly an attempt to replace Christmas.
"Constitine then adapted December 25 as a Christian holiday when he adopted Christianity as the official religion in."
False. As I said, it was being celebrated before Constantine.
"I really don't understand why church groups try to white wash history like this. The evidence you're claiming isn't even new evidence, you just said that to give it some credibility but it's nonsense. It was written centuries ago. "
I'm not trying to whitewash Christmas. The evidence that you claim is not new. As I said, I was taught that too. That's the old view.
"As you said... REFERENCED christmas not celebrated. "
False. I said that he referenced Christmas being celebrated.
"One single scholar guessed that his birthday would be December 25th. His reasoning was the world began on march 25th so jesus was born on December 25th on the winter solstice."
One single scholar? Who? And I've never heard of any reasoning that the world began on 25th March. The winter solstice is not 25th December either; it's 22nd December.
"To select that one scholar, "
Who? I'm not "selecting" any scholar.
"...before all the other earlier recorded harvest and winter solstices festivals..."
WHAT earlier recorded festivals? I already asked you to say what harvest festival you were talking about, and your only answer was to equate it with the Sol Invictus festival which came later?
"...is a dishonest white washing on history."
What is dishonest is misrepresenting what I said, ignoring the evidence I provided, and sticking to your own story without providing evidence when I have already shown it to be wrong.
"The evidence does not at all suggest pagans tried to replace Christmas, only your dishonest interpretation suggests that."
It's also dishonest to claim that what I gave you was an interpretation rather than facts.
2
-
2
-
@binmcbin1890
In one sense it doesn't matter which festival it replaced. But if you can't provide evidence, then I've got no reason to think it replaced any.
"And with hippolytus it was a prediction/guess whatever you want to call it."
It wasn't a prediction because it was after the event. It wasn't a guess, as he gave reasoning. So neither label fits. How about calling it a reasoned conclusion?
"Just because it didn't replace a specific holiday on a specific day doesn't mean it was adopted by already existing pagan festivals and rituals from a number of different cultures."
That sentence makes little sense. Did you leave something out? It says "Just because it didn't X doesn't mean that it was Y", when I'm not claiming Y.
"You don't need to name and know the exact festival it replaced because there IS no one singular festival it replaced. I hope that's clear now. "
Yep. It's clear that the claim is vague and unsubstantiated. Look I understand what you're saying, and that it could have replaced numerous festivals. But "could have" is a "guess", not a definite.
Arguing that it should not be celebrated is not an example of coming up with a different date, so we can dismiss Arnobius and Origen from your list.
One Catholic source I found said that Irenaeus determined that Gabriel visited Zechariah on 25th September. When Gabriel visited Mary he said that Elizabeth was six months pregnant, which means that the visit to Mary would have been on 25th March, which means that Jesus birth would have been on 25th December. I didn't spend a lot of time searching, but I didn't find another source for that, although I did eventually come across a source that rejected that claim and said that Irenaeus didn't supply a date at all. So we can dismiss Irenaeus too.
Perhaps Augustine (a couple of hundred years later, so not a competitor to Hippolytus) did personally believe it was on 25th March (I didn't find that), but he is recorded as saying that Jesus "is believed to have been conceived on the 25th of March, upon which day also he suffered; so the womb of the Virgin, in which he was conceived, where no one of mortals was begotten, corresponds to the new grave in which he was buried, wherein was never man laid, neither before him nor since. But he was born, according to tradition, upon December the 25th."
The Biblical Archaeology site says this of Tertullian:
"Around 200 C.E. Tertullian of Carthage reported the calculation that the 14th of Nisan (the day of the crucifixion according to the Gospel of John) in the year Jesus died was equivalent to March 25 in the Roman (solar) calendar. March 25 is, of course, nine months before December 25; it was later recognized as the Feast of the Annunciation—the commemoration of Jesus’ conception. Thus, Jesus was believed to have been conceived and crucified on the same day of the year. Exactly nine months later, Jesus was born, on December 25."
Yes, there were other dates proposed. I wasn't rejecting the idea, but questioning who proposed them and why, and when they did so.
The bottom line is that the date of Jesus birth on 25th December was proposed for reasons other than replacing pagan festivals. The Biblical Archaeology article also points out the following:
"Most significantly, the first mention of a date for Christmas (c. 200) and the earliest celebrations that we know about (c. 250–300) come in a period when Christians were not borrowing heavily from pagan traditions of such an obvious character.
... in the first few centuries C.E., the persecuted Christian minority was greatly concerned with distancing itself from the larger, public pagan religious observances, such as sacrifices, games and holidays. This was still true as late as the violent persecutions of the Christians conducted by the Roman emperor Diocletian between 303 and 312 C.E."
2
-
@binmcbin1890
"it doesnt matter at all which festival itreplaced."
I've already explained why it does.
"I already gave evidence and showed traditions that had carried over, I said constitine replaced sol invictus with christmas, I said traditions have been taken from saturnalia."
You haven't provided evidence that the date was chosen in order to replace pagan festivals.
"These arent wild theories, this is the most accepted theory."
These are old theories, which are being challenged more these days.
"just because you cant read, or didnt hear all the evidence from a guy on youtube doesnt make this fiction."
I can read, and of course it doesn't mean that it's fiction. But without evidence, we can't assume it's fact either. And there is evidence that the date was chosen for other reasons.
"Hippolytus was 100% making predictions,…"
Predicting what? It can't be predicting when Jesus was going to be born, because this was 200 years after Jesus was born.
"You suggest that giving reasoning doesnt make it a guess, thats false, its an educated guess."
A guess and an educated guess are two different things. And an educated guess is defined as "a guess based on knowledge and experience and therefore likely to be correct."
"Still a guess though,…"
One that is likely to be correct.
"To be honest I think this is just a lack of understanding about how traditions arise. They dont just replace another. They are celebrated by some, not by others. Traditions take from other cultures, they build and change over time."
I know that. Which is why the claim of Christmas replacing them is hard to substantiate. As one of the sources I found said (from memory): various pagans had festivals for almost every day of the year, so picking a date for Christmas couldn't help but replace a pagan festival. But of course that makes a mockery of the claim that it was designed to replace a pagan festival.
"You keep asking me to provide something that doesnt exist."
Ah, so, there is no evidence of it replacing a pagan festival?
"…does not mean that it didnt take from pagan traditions and adopt other festivals customs."
The question is not whether some pagan traditions and customs got incorporated in it, but whether it was designed to replace any pagan festivals. Or even whether it was a Christianised version of a pagan festival.
"You keep pretending like there isnt evidence for this."
Pretending? You've just said that the evidence doesn't exist!
"I suggest you have a read about it for yourself,…"
I have. Which is why I hold the view that I do.
"No you dont cross Arnobius and origen from the list because it proves the opposite to what you claim your quote suggests. It proves that there was no organised collective idea of christmas, it proves that many Christians didnt even acknowledge christmas as a thing."
Okay, but they are irrelevant to my particular question (that you provided them as an answer to) of who else proposed other dates.
" "I found another source that suggests" lol no offence, but knowing you, it didnt mean that at all,…"
I never used that phrase. And you don't know me as well as you seem to think you do, given how you invent motives for me.
"…your only source so far doesnt mean what you claimed it to mean."
I accept that it doesn't say that it was being celebrated. But it does support that the date was based on the supposed date of Jesus' birth, and not something else.
"…the religious ones with vested interests in…"
...in telling the truth? Because Christians believe very much in telling the truth.
"…propping up the legitimacy of Christianity agree with you."
Only if it can be done truthfully. Of course atheists don't have a solid basis for choosing to tell the truth.
"Youre believing a false reality because it feels good."
I'm believing it because the evidence appears to be there.
"You take vague and misleading quotes specifically selected and cropped quotes by people with special intrests and youre choosing to ignore history."
All (more) ad hominem. The mark of a poor scholar and lack of good argument.
"…youre making the evidence fit your hypothesis…"
No, I used to believe largely as you did, and changed my mind on the basis of the evidence.
"For you to see Constantine officiate the day and give it a date, have traditions like gift giving, holly mistletoe, christmas tree, when its not anywhere in the the bible and then declare christmas is an original idea solely by Christians is to completely misunderstand history and how cultural change works."
You're imposing your own expectation of what I think on me. I never claimed (and in fact have said the opposite) that all customs of Christmas are Christian. However, gift-giving apparently comes from the magi giving gifts, and from Saint Nicholas. The Christmas tree originated in Germany among Christians there. Mistletoe, on the other hand, apparently has no Christian origin. Simply not being in the Bible doesn't make it pagan, as you seem to be implying.
And Constantine formalising it doesn't mean that the date wasn't already at least an option based on what was thought to be Jesus' birth; that doesn't make it pagan either.
"…1 singular quote from some random theologian…"
No, it's more than that; I pointed out that one of your supposed sources for a different date (Augustine) also related that 25th December was thought to be Jesus' birthday.
"Just google Christmas customs taken from pagan traditions and read an article thats not from a bias church group…"
What? One from a biased atheist or other non-Christian group instead? Just because something is not from a church group doesn't mean that it's not biased.
"…sorry mate, youre just white washing history and I dont get why."
I'm not whitewashing history, and my argument is because of the evidence showing that the date wasn't of pagan origin.
2
-
2
-
@binmcbin1890
"no you didn't provide evidence that proves Christmas was being celebrated by Christians."
What I said was (with added clarification), "I provided evidence that the date of Christmas was not based on Sol Invictus and that it [the date being 25th December] preceded any celebration of Sol Invictus."
"His quote suggests no festivities."
To be more precise (and I have already acknowledged this), the quote didn't suggest festivities. That's not the same as it suggesting no festivities.
"His quote does not in any way suggest there were festivities with traditions we have today."
A claim that I never made.
"Those traditions didn't come from the bible or the church."
Some (not all) of the traditions did come from the church, as I have pointed out.
"There is nothing in the bible about Christmas."
Again, I never claimed that there was.
"There is plenty of evidence sol invictus came before Christmas,..."
What is that evidence? What I suspect you mean is that the earliest evidence for celebration of Sol Invictus predates the earliest evidence for the celebration of Christmas, which is not the same as what you just claimed. It's the same fallacy as the claim (made by others, not in this discussion) that the Gilgamesh Epic predates the Genesis account because we have older records of the former. Which ignores that the originals of the Genesis account could be older than the originals of the Epic.
"You're so dishonest."
Another ad hominem which I reject.
"We already established that it's irrelevant whether or not it replaced one event over night ..."
No, you claimed that; it's not "established". You admitted that you had no evidence.
"...yet you still think no evidence of that means Christmas was first!"
Not at all. There are three possibilities: that Christmas was first; that Sol Invictus was first, and that we don't know (at least for certain) either way. I (justifiably) think that "no evidence" indicates the third option, whereas you're unreasonably accusing me of going for the first option.
"How do you not see how this is totally flawed and dishonest to suggest otherwise."
That's not the question. The question is why you assume I'm arguing things that I'm not.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@johnbrinsmead3316
I don't know about "generous", but yes, non-government schools get money from the federal government because the state governments don't support them. All parents of students, whether government or non-government pay taxes, so that makes sense.
Most non-profits are tax exempt. Including government schools. How is that relevant?
Christians have been taken to court, sacked, and otherwise discriminated against on the basis of their beliefs. This very video, I think it was, mentioned an example from Tasmania. I have personally been discriminated against at work, being bullied, threatened with the sack, and silenced by the H.R. department.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@simonharris4873
"Oh, I forgot to mention, he's a hypocrite as well. Always demanding "facts, evidence and reason" from those who provide plenty, without ever providing any himself."
That's a lie. I always provide evidence myself, when I have the onus to do so. But mostly people simply assert that I'm wrong rather than challenge me for evidence (indication of a closed mind), whereas I ask for evidence (indication of a mind open to being convinced), which is often not forthcoming, as in this very case. (Thanks for providing evidence for my claim!)
"And when you honour his request, he just shifts the goal posts again."
Another lie, that I've already pointed out to be a lie.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tonyboleno8191
"take the classic example flogged to death on this show weeks ago and in the newscrap papers about schools banning ham sandwiches. nobody, anywhere, was banning ham sandwiches."
Good. You're actually attempting to provide some evidence. I like that, because it means either that you have made your point, or, alternatively, that I can show that you are wrong because the evidence doesn't say what you claim.
I do recall something about that. I searched the Sky News Youtube channel for "sandwich" and separately for "ham", and found a clip of Piers Morgan on that very topic, from a month ago. However, there are three points to make in reply:
First, nowhere in the clip did he say that schools were banning them. Rather, he said "Primary school children in Australia are being urged to ditch ham sandwiches..." (my bolding).
Second, he showed evidence of this urging in the form of a poster or leaflet or something saying just that.
Third, he also showed a clip from Karl Stefanovic on the Nine network on the same topic. So it's not just Sky and Newscorp.
So, any evidence that does actually support your claim?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jfkfitirjdjjsisieirirjfjdj5967
"my apologies for mixup,"
Accepted.
"but what your mob has done and is doing still covers both your explanation,because there is a lot of tribes that are actually wiped out,"
Maybe so, but does that really justify the claim? More on that in my next comment.
"...so intent is definitely evident..."
False. That it might have happened doesn't mean that it was intended to happen. That is illogical. But further to my previous point, if there was actually intent, then why would the Europeans have had the inent granularized down to specific tribes?
"I’ve got relatives in their 90s who have many horror stories of being targeted by sickos,even today I’ve been racially profiled and have had armed men pull up and blame me for something I never did,"
I'm sorry to hear that, but anecdotal evidence of individual cases does not demonstrate genocide.
"...so it seems a lot of your people still want the thrill of inflicting harm on us,hunt us so to speak,..."
You have provided no evidence whatsoever that "a lot" of people want to do that. Which, with your other comments, suggests that you make a big thing out of something small (without minimising the trauma of the individual cases).
"I think what James said about him knowing people that have indeed caused deth to my peoples is true ..."
I never disputed his claim on that. Only the extrapolations to supposed genocide.
"you’ll never understand until you actually go through what us original peoples have or witness it"
True that I won't have the understanding that comes with personal experience. But I'm questioning supposedly-factual claims, not individual experiences.
And by the way, what evidence do you have that aborigines are the original people in Australia? (I'm not disputing, of course, that they were here before Europeans.)
2
-
@aaronfranklin6863
"wait,what dictionary you reading for definitions,..."
Let's see.
Oxford: "the murder of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group, with the aim of destroying that nation or group"
Collins: "Genocide is the deliberate murder of a whole community or race."
McMillan: "acts committed with the intention to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group"
Merriam-Webster: "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"
All those include intent to wipe out an entire group, yet I never said acknowledged such an intent (except in the case of Tasmanian aborigines).
"...what happened ere is in fact how the dictionary defines genocide..."
Odd. First you ask me "what" (which) dictionary, then you declare that "the" dictionary defines it how it happened. So what dictionary are you using?
"your a liar,acting like a creepy [deleted]"
And yet you've not shown any lies, nor any creepiness, etc. On the other hand, you've shown yourself to be one who makes baseless allegations.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Tyronepeader
"My response is all too relevant,..."
Your response is without evidence or reasoning. And as such continues to amount to nothing but insult.
"Unabashed advocacy of Trump ..."
What unabashed advocacy? I've pointed out that Bolt has said he doesn't believe Trump should run again. And that was on the basis of his focus on the last election, i.e. a criticism.
"...propagandistic attacks on the Demorats..."
Well, I guess you spelt that correctly, but what makes them propagandistic? The criticisms have evidence to back them.
"Occasionally, Bolt has queried whether Trump might be the best Republican candidate in 2024 ..."
Okay, so not "unabashed advocacy", contrary to your claim. And of course that is not the only time Bolt has criticised Trump.
"...he generally toes the editorial line..."
What editorial line? You haven't shown that there is one.
"...on pro-Trump enthusiasm."
Again, I've pointed out that some of that is actually criticism of leftist propaganda, bias, and lies. But, to paraphrase you, "it identifies you as a Sky News critic wholly incapable of countenancing any other perspective than the anti-Sky editorial line peddled to you on the ABC".
2
-
@AntithesisDCLXVI
"Telling people that they're wrong and how isn't an attack or scoffing unless you're controlled by pride."
If you're inventing motives or making up things about the person, then yes it is an attack.
"You demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding for logic."
You haven't shown that, so that's just more invention.
"You seem to think the impetus to back up a claim is based on whoever goes first,..."
The onus is on the person making the claim, if/when they are challenged.
"...which is a very childlike view of things."
There's more of that scoffing/mockery/insult.
"My negative statements are not claims that can be proven,..."
But they are claims that you are making.
"...they are REJECTION of your unproven claims."
No, they are claims in their own right. Especially given that you either made them before I responded, or they were in response to questions from me.
"You're the one claiming a thing can exist or can happen,..."
Give me an example of where I claimed that, which you then rejected, and which I then challenged you on.
"The burden of proof is on you."
Still wrong.
"As for what I worship, I've made that clear..."
I didn't ask what you worshipped. You told me what I supposedly worshipped, but that was invention.
"Meanwhile, the way you argue is just irrational and unethical, ..."
Says the person who claimed to know what I worshipped, and pretended that I had asked what you worshipped.
"...showing your mind and heart are closed to truth and you just believe what you want."
Or perhaps you are/do. The only basis for your claim seems to be that I believe differently to you. It does not logically follow that I'm the one that is wrong.
"Sometimes I wish I had that ability, it would've saved my life a lot of hardship, but unfortunately I am obsessed with accurate truth."
And yet you seem more obsessed with inventing things about what I believe and why.
"Also, by saying you disagree with the practical wisdom I'm focused on, you're saying you disagree with worshiping Love and treating others accordingly. "
That's a non-sequitur and more invention.
"Look at the evil things your pride makes you say just so you can disagree, argue, and feel superior. Choose your words more carefully, man."
More invention and insult.
"Yeah, anecdotal reports are not enough and shouldn't be enough to convince anyone."
There is a difference between anecdotal reports and eyewitness accounts. Perhaps the stories he mentioned cannot be relied upon, but you haven't shown that (and he hasn't shown that they can be). But when there are enough anecdotal reports, it should be taken more seriously. Many scientific studies are done by means of surveys, which are arguably compilations of anecdotal reports.
"I want hard, concrete, irrefutable, peer-reviewed evidence before I go believing anything."
So you reject all of history, do you? Because no history has what you demand, except perhaps some limited recent history that just might qualify.
"You dishonestly twist my words just to put me down. It's clear who your father is (John 8:44)."
More insult and invention. Yes, perhaps he was being dishonest. Or perhaps he just misread your comment and therefore sincerely and inadvertently misunderstood it. But it seems that you choose to put the worst possible spin on it.
"I never said I don't believe in the Spirit,..."
You did actually. That is, you don't believe in the Spirit (the third person of the trinity), instead believing in the spirit (an impersonal force or similar).
"...that's just more dishonest twisting of my words to suit your agenda."
There's that invention of his motive again.
"Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy, ..."
True, but the Bible also teaches us that we should take wise counsel and that iron sharpens iron. Which means that if you have a view that is not shared by other intelligent people, perhaps there's something wrong with your view.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@lon3271
"are you by any chance implying that assylum seeking is the same all those crime you have listed?"
I was replying to BrownLeaf's comment about "illegality". Neither of us mentioned asylum seekers.
"So following your logic then it make sense to say britain is dumping criminals in Rwanda then?"
You have that completely distorted. First, it is illegal to enter a country without permission, with about one exception. These people are entering the country illegally. So (ignoring that exception), yes, they are breaking the law, and are therefore criminals. However, that exception is when a person meets the requirements of being a genuine asylum seeker. So until that is determined, it would be unfair to call them criminals. As I understand it, they are being sent to Rwanda until their claim is assessed.
But one of the requirements of being a genuine asylum seeker is that you seek asylum in the first safe country you can get to. So if you're coming from some war-torn place in Africa or the Middle East or wherever, and you get to, say, Italy, that is where you must seek asylum. If you then continue on through France to England, you do not meet the requirements. If you do that, you have entered England illegally, and therefore could accurately be called a criminal.
"So why not just then arrest them?"
I believe that's what they would be doing. Arresting them then taking them to Rwanda for processing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Saskfinest1
"what was found by Christian precisely, stop being vague."
I'm not being vague. As I said, " It was Christians who founded science, based on their understanding of God, and some of that understanding still underpins science."
"What science exactly."
Science itself. The stuff that scientists do. Not the stuff the ancient Greeks or Chinese or whoever did, as that wasn't really science, as I explained above with a quote from Rodney Stark.
"They are not in denial that god exist, they believe he doesn't exist. Big difference."
What's the difference? They believe that God doesn't exist, so they are in denial that He exists.
"A positive belief that god doesn't exist is what?"
A description of atheism. Atheists often claim that they simply have a lack of belief in God, just like I might lack belief in aliens, but it's more than that, it's a belief (i.e. not simply a lack of belief) that God doesn't exist.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@juicymelodic
Part 4 (last part)
"How am I damning myself?"
By rejecting God.
"What will your imaginary god do to me?"
Get things straight. We are not talking about an imaginary God, but the real God.
What God will do to you is give you what you want—existence without Him, and all that He has provided (including friends, happiness, rationality, etc.). But that will be hell.
"That is completely false, a quick google search would save you from being misinformed."
No, it's not false at all. A quick Google search will bring up a lot of misinformation (as well as correct information). That's not a rebuttal.
"Firstly, trinity was invented during Council of Nicaea in 325 AD."
Then how come the concept is in the New Testament?
"Secondly the god adapted by christians from Jews, which adapted it from Midianites is called YHWH,..."
Evidence of that supposed adaptation please.
"Also Catholicism is a far from original christian faith as can be. It's a mix of pagan and roman traditions with a lot of build up through the ages."
Nonsense. I'm not Catholic, and disagree with Catholicism, but that's at best exaggeration. Yes, it has adopted some non-Christian/biblical ideas, but there are other beliefs a lot further from the original Christianity than Catholicism.
"What I cannot stand is religion..."
Which religion? There's a wide range, from pantheistic to polytheistic to monothestic to atheistic ones, plus ones that differ in numerous other ways. Saying that you can't stand religion is like saying that you can't stand ideas.
"...because it destroyed my life among with countless of other lives. "
Well, you mustn't be talking about Christianity then, which has destroyed no lives, and which has done a world of good.
"...I do have immense respect for people with such integrity and those who follow the path of unconditional love towards others."
So you appreciate his Christian attitude, but reject the basis of it.
"It would be nice if there was a loving god out there,..."
There is. Why do you think otherwise?
"...god of the bible in the old testament is not loving, quite opposite -an angry psychopath."
Evidence please. And don't confuse justice with a lack of love.
"World around us also cannot be a creation of a loving god, quite opposite as well."
How do you figure that?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@peterremkes9376
"It is a simple question which has become increasingly difficult to answer."
And yet plenty of people can answer it quite easily.
"The point is, what do you call a man who has become a woman through surgical intervention and vice versa."
What do you call a married bachelor? It's a nonsense question because there is no such thing. Similarly, there is no such thing as a man who has become a woman through surgical intervention. The man is a man with mutilated body parts, not a woman.
"In Australia alone cost of living, treatment of our elderly, health system in crisis, an increasing, rightly or wrongly, spend on weaponry which at times has been just money thrown away with questionable purchases. "
Some societies historically and even currently have treated the elderly a lot worse than we do. We have done better—and have higher standards— because of the values of Western Civilisation that this nonsense about transgenderism is part of an attempt to undermine. Western Civilisation is the result of Christianity, which pioneered the public health system and has been a big part of it for most of the past 2000 years. For that matter, Christians were looking after widows 2000 years ago too.
So no, they are not bigger problems. Those problems are part of the same problem.
"Worldwide, environment and climate, a terrible war in Ukraine..."
Still part of the same problem (or not really a problem). The West has been much better than other places at looking after the environment. Climate as a problem is overblown. I think it's been said that no Western democracies have gone to war with each other.
"However I do have to say that I cannot agree with trans men or women participating in sport contests of their chosen gender. Let that be clear."
Well, that's something, but then if a man truly can become a woman, why shouldn't they? That is, your position on that seems to be at odds with your position that a man can become a woman.
But to sum up by repeating myself, this issue is about an ideology that calls black white and good evil (and man woman) (Isaiah 5:20) and is trying to undermine the basis of Western Civilisation. That's how serious this is, and many other problems that you might perceive as more important are actually part of that problem.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@donaldmcronald8989
(second attempt)
"If you take a listen to WLCs debate with Arif Ahmed (here on YouTube), you will find multiple instances of such statements."
I also asked you for evidence. This is too vague to qualify.
"The book is called Reasonable Faith (lmao). Page 37"
That's better. I've found the book on Google Books, but it must be a different edition, as there is nothing like that on p.37. But see more below.
"And on the same page (37), 'We can know the truth whether we have rational arguments or not' "
Okay, I've found that on page 50. I'll come back to that below.
"Arif quotes from WLCs book. What is the matter with you?"
You originally said nothing about a book. When you did, you referred to "the book", as though you'd already referred to it. His comment was justified.
"Or maybe you can tell me what else it says on page 37?"
I can, and will, tell you something else it says on page 50.
"Whether you believe you exist or not has nothing to do with the reasons for Christianity and angels and God's throne and resurrections,..."
How about a slight modification to Chris G's question: Do you need a rational argument to known that your father/mother/brother/sister/son/daughter/neighbour/etc. exist? Of course you don't, because you know the person—you don't need rational argument.
"What a silly response."
No, it wasn't. The sentence in Craig's book immediately preceding the one you quote says "He knew Christianity is true because he knew Jesus, regardless of rational arguments". That is, because he knew Jesus, he didn't need rational argument.
Further, when Craig said 'We can know the truth whether we have rational arguments or not', that can legitimately be read (and I think should be read) that there are some circumstances where we "can" know without rational arguments. I don't believe he's saying that we "can" do that in every case.
Ergo, his quote was taken out of context, and was a reasonable comment to make.
But that page (50) doesn't say "that we should only use reason insofar as it supports Christianity.", at least with that wording, and I can't see anything similar. So I'm still waiting for evidence.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@carmengoff7175
"They are STILL experimental,..."
Define "experimental".
"NOT fully tested"
So you are conceding that you were wrong when you previously said that they were "not even tested"? Good. And that I was right when I said that they " have been tested"? Good again. So with me having said "you can argue that they haven't been sufficiently tested if you like", you have accepted my point and switched to that argument. And yet, you seem to still want to act as though I was wrong and you were right! That's not intellectually honest.
"we ARE the test subjects."
That is simply false. It is false that we are the test subjects. At most, we are further test subjects, but I'm not even sure that is the case. In America, human testing has to go through three stages. The first two stages have been done, i.e. they were tested on humans (hence your original argument was wrong). The third stage was started, and with good results so far, it was approved for use under and "emergency use" provision. According to the FDA (my emphasis): "An EUA request for a COVID-19 vaccine can be submitted to FDA based on a final analysis of a phase 3 clinical efficacy trial or an interim analysis of such trial, i.e., an analysis performed before the planned end of the trial once the data have met the pre-specified success criteria for the study’s primary efficacy endpoint."
So yes, it might be technicallyl still experimental, and the testing has not been fully completed, but it has nevertheless had a lot of testing and officially released even though that's under a particular early-release process.
"This info is easily researchable, is not hidden."
True. So why did you make a wrong claim in the first place, and only switch to a more-accurate claim after I pointed out that you were wrong?
2
-
2
-
@ozziecoops
"The vaccine is a emergency approved trial vaccine its common knowledge"
I didn't say otherwise. I disagreed with the claim that it had not been tested. I never said that it had been fully tested. Although, in fact, in the U.S. the Pfizer now has full approval; it's not longer emergency approval, as of a few days ago..
"maybe you need to go research and get off MSM."
I do do research in places other than the MSM. If I can offer similar gratuitous advice in return, maybe you need to not jump to (wrong) conclusion about what someone is saying.
"Also not 1 person on this planet knows the long term affects because its a trial."
Technically, that's true. But how long do you wait? A year? Five years? 20 years? A full lifetime? It's true that there have been medications approved for use that later turned out to be dangerous, but they are the exceptions to the rule, and this is a matter of balancing risks. What's the risk of a not-fully-tested vaccine vs. no vaccine? The consensus (from various viewpoints, not just the left) is that the vaccine is the lesser risk. However, I do believe in it being voluntary.
"they cannot stop you from moving freely between borders go do some research its in the constitution."
Again, I never said otherwise. In fact, in this interview, Pauline Hanson made that very claim, and my comment was "On that I believe Hanson is probably correct."
"do you know anything about common law or the constitution"
I believe that I do, yes.
"-Rand Paul"
I agree with him on that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Snipergoat1
"That was about as close to being an atheist as really existed back then."
I agree. Dawkins said that "...although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.". So deism was about as close to atheism as one could feel they could justify at the time.
"Oh and Paine's "The Age of Reason" is an interesting book even if you are religious yourself."
I'm a Christian who has read it. Perhaps "interesting" is the best that could be said about it. But one bit I did find interesting was one of the footnotes. First, he argued that Deuteronomy could not have been written by Moses, because it records Moses' death. That of course doesn't mean that Moses didn't write most of it, with Joshua or someone appending that information about Moses.
But the footnote I refer to said that a particular bit of the text (a sentence or paragraph?) in the previous edition was not written by him, but was added by someone else, such as the publisher, but he thought it good so kept it in the edition I was reading. By his own logic, as there was some text in there not written by him, that means that he didn't write the book.
So who did write The Age of Reason, given that, according to Paine's own words, it wasn't Paine?
(Many of his other arguments were just as fallacious.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@CoreyJones-kq1wj
"how can atheism be a religion ?"
First, I didn't claim that it was. Any more than theism is a religion. Rather, they are types of religion.
Second, because it depends on how you define "religion". Like most words, it has a range of meanings, including the set of core beliefs on which you base your life. That could include atheistic views.
Third (and based on the second reason) atheistic religions do exist, such as Marxism, Scientology, Confucianism, and Secular Humanism. That last one's founding document described it as a "secular religion".
Fourth, the U.S. Supreme Court has classified it as a religion. Sure, that doesn't mean that everyone has to recognise that decision, but it does kind of show that it can be considered a religion.
2
-
@colinyates7485
"Unless you are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, First Nations People, you are not indigenous,..."
Then I guess I'm indigenous, as I am a member of the first nation on this continent, Australia. The aborigines didn't have nations, just tribes.
"First Nations People, is the definition of indigenous,"
What dictionary?
"...remember, they have been here for 65,000 years."
According to European naturalistic views that contradict aboriginal history. I don't accept that timescale.
"They are indigenous we are not, mate."
So it seems, as it seems that the definition has been changed to reflect usage by the left. From older dictionaries: "originating where it is found;" and "Native; born in a country; applied to persons."
"Please oh please don,t bring religion into this,..."
Why not? You are. Your views are based on the atheist religion known as Marxism, which wants to bring down the Christian-based Western Civilisation.
"I believe you are talking utter nonsense."
I don't think he's completely right, but neither is he completely wrong. As I said, the 65,000 years comes from naturalism, a philosophical position opposed to Christianity. The problem is that the evidence supports the biblical view far better than the naturalistic view.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"I don't think Trump lost the election - I think it was rigged!"
I think Trump DID lose the election.
Because it was rigged!
Many of the claims of fraud are unproven (but not really tested), and the claims about the voting machines are questionable.
However,
* The Democrats vilified him left right and centre, including many false accusations culminating in two baseless (and failed) impeachments.
* Most of the mass media supported the Democrats with that, running a continuous campaign against him while actively supporting Biden.
* Social media (and the mainstream media) censored news unfavourable to Biden, with the Hunter Biden laptop being a prime case.
* Election officials in some places broke the law in several ways.
* The few proper audits that have been done show numerous problems with the ballots, such as duplicated ballots, missing chain of custody, etc.
* The left (including RINOs) have been fighting even holding the audits, showing that they have something to hide.
I have seen the left dispute the claims of fraudulent votes and the claims about the voting machines (although they haven't proven the claims wrong), but I've seen virtually no rebuttal of the points I've listed above, and that list in itself is sufficient to show that the election was manipulated. Add to that the improbability of Biden getting more votes than Trump given that Trump's vote increased by an enormous amount, and you have very strong prima facie evidence of a rigged election.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Raygo. "I am not "running away" from you sonny..."
Clearly not. You said you were done, but here you are back again.
"I simply see no point in banging my head on a brick wall."
I agree. So stop banging your head against the brick wall of logic, reason, and evidence.
"And I do not see you as an "opponent",..."
And yet you are arguing with me.
"...your argument and views are too contemptible to merit that."
Then point out what is wrong with them. Oh, you can't?
"Your question about why shouldn't rape victims "make the best of a bad situation" tells me all I need to know about your tiny mind and character."
And yet, again, you don't point out anything wrong with it. And it was not my question, of course.
"And now I am done with you."
So running away again? Or will you be back again?
"your opposition to women having the freedom to choose is, like all "pro-lifers", based on ignorance, condescension, and prejudice."
So more vague claims without evidence. How does Randel providing evidence mean that he's showing his ignorance?
"Absolutely, because the number is meaningless in the context of a world population of 7 billion."
Oh, okay. So up to 50 million innocent people being killed each year doesn't matter because it's only a small proportion? Okay, so why not remove laws against murder, rape, etc.? After all, that will only affect a relatively few people too.
"It also gives no insight whatsoever as to what proportion of those terminations were conducted in the first, second, or third trimester of pregnancy."
They are all a case of killing innocent babies, so how is that relevant?
"Ignorant, because your argument, (like all pro-lifers) is based on the fallacy that a fetus is a human being..."
That's absolutely not a fallacy. "fetus" is a medical term for a baby at a particular stage of development. It is absolutely a human being. What do you think it is? A fish?
"IT IS NOT."
Biologists disagree with you. A paper looking at this very question found that "95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization (5212 out of 5502)." So much for Randel's ignorance. You should try looking in a mirror.
"Condescending because you assume you have the insight and the right to preach to women about their reproductive rights."
We all have the right to object to killing innocent humans, which is precisely what this is about. Not "reproductive rights". Nobody is talking about whether or not they have rights to reproduce.
"And prejudice because at root it is a misogynistic hobbyhorse which simply ignores all kinds of data."
More pro-death myths. A lot of the objection to abortion comes from women. There is nothing misogynistic about it. And as for ignoring data, try the biological data that a baby is a human being.
(Your link to a video): "As of 2018, there have been 10,181 recorded acts of violence against abortion providers [in America] since 1977..."
So, that's a tiny fraction of the 300 million Americans, so by your logic, that's "meaningless"
Besides, in the same time, there have been something like 100 times as many per year against babies, and that's only counting the fatal ones. I'm not justifying those 10,181, but you're justifying the killing of babies at a rate more than three orders of magnitude higher.
It also repeats the furphy that banning abortions will lead to back-alley abortions. But of course these will also be a meaninglessly-small number by your logic, and will definitely be smaller than the number of babies killed. But further, the thing that reduced the rate of back-alley abortions was not legalising it, but antibiotics. So we would never return to that situation even if abortion was banned.
I didn't bother with the rest of the video; there was already enough wrong with it to discredit it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bobhawke7373
"Look it up."
It's your responsibility to support your claims. Not mine.
But given that you mentioned some specific search words, I did that, searching on Google for "Barrett confirmation, senate roe v Wade" (without the quotes). The first hit was an article from NPR (not exactly a conservative site) titled "What conservative justices said — and didn't say — about Roe at their confirmations". (By the way, providing a title like this makes it much easier to search for something.) It goes through each of the five judges in detail, which is too much to repeat here, of course, but before providing that detail, it says this (my bolding): "As nominees, those justices consistently avoided direct statements about Roe, including whether they'd vote to overturn it."
Which contradicts your claim and is consistent with mine. Now, what was that about me not being as ignorant as I am now?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Corruption Fighter
None of those mean that the U.S. is not a democracy. The ancient Greeks had a "direct" democracy, where all the eligible citizens (which was a rather limited group) had the right to vote on every bit of legislation. What both Australia and the U.S. have are not that, but "representative" democracies, where we vote for the people who will make the legislation (they are our representatives ). But that's still considered a democracy. And as I said, Australia's democracy is a constitutional monarchy, whereas the American system is a republic. But in both countries, people vote for their representatives (and America for more, because, as you say, they also vote for the head of state, and they also vote for various other positions such as police chiefs and judges in some places, I believe), but the fact that the people vote makes both democracies, even if of somewhat different kinds. So I (still) see no basis for saying that America is not a democracy. Being a democratic republic and a a democracy are not two mutually-exclusive concepts. A country can be both, because the former is a subset of the latter.
" if it was a true democracy the popular vote would be the president !!"
By that standard, Australia is not a democracy either, so I don't see how that statement is true.
You can keep trying to explain your view to me if you want, but so far, it seems that the claim (which I've heard a number of times) is completely baseless.
2
-
"Guy's definitely a nutter..."
What makes him that? Merely that you disagree with him?
"...dismissal of geology and atomic decay..."
He did neither.
"...to construct a nonsensical argument on the basis of wilful ignorance to scientific method disqualifying its validity as an objective measure."
What's nonsensical about it? What wilful ignorance? You haven't justified either. You've merely insulted.
"Delusion is terrific until sociopaths learn it from you and that's what's happened."
True enough, except the delusion in by those who reject the biblical account and feel that they can do what they like. Sam has articulated this well.
"So unfortunately it cannot be tolerated of either and the instinctive predictability of this outcome is why you get all the resistance to YEC and the like."
No, the reason for the resistance to biblical creation is because it shows that the Bible is true and that we are answerable to God, and people don't like that, as they want to be a law unto themselves.
"...does deserve a fiction signage."
Why? You've not shown that it's fiction.
"Let me give the relevant example: the statement God does not exist is a logical fallacy as reactionary to an unfalsifiable statement that God exists, no natural test can be accomplished as the subject is, by definition beyond or not subject to any natural constraint ..."
Science requires falsifiability. Determining which claim is true is more a case of seeing which fits the evidence better. For example, court cases don't invoke falsifiability so much as simply seeing which claim fits the evidence better. God cannot be falsified scientifically (because science can only test the natural, not the supernatural), but that doesn't mean that you can't have evidence for God.
"...be very certain they [the left] have attached morality quite securely to their belief system..."
True. But then even if Sam didn't make it clear, morality needs to be from an external source (i.e. God) if it's not to be ultimately just a matter of opinion. The left's morality is not from God (except to the extent that they've borrowed it from Christianity), and so is opinion.
"You cannot for example say a law should be moral when asserting a moral law as the very opposite of that law will be legislated by the same reference of being moral,..."
You're treating morality as purely subjective. If it's from God, it's not.
"...you will have to say a law must be logical and then they will have to reason to oppose it."
I disagree, as logic is based on premises that they may not agree with. Logic and reason are not enough. You need a foundation to build logic and reason on. Morals, or God's standards, provide the foundation. Almost all laws are there to formalise moral values. Why are there laws against murder? Because murder is morally wrong (according to God). Why are there laws against 'hate' speech? Because those who made the law consider 'hate' speech to be morally wrong.
"That doesn't have to challenge faith, because religion is for you. It's not to be given away."
Christianity is for everyone, and Christians are supposed to 'give it away', i.e. evangelise.
"If you can't substantiate something objectively, which does not mean by argumentation, then keep it as a belief."
Belief is acceptance that something is true. And God can be objectively substantiated, in that there is plenty of evidence that supports the view that He exists (etc.).
"...use objective measures, not contentious ones."
Objective measures can be contentious. Avoiding contentious ones can mean sticking to what they already agree with you on. There is no point in that.
(I did agree with a lot of your comment about the left.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
J
"I'm afraid if schools charge for admittance they don't deserve any tax payer support what so ever. "
Why? The parents of the students at those schools pay taxes, so why discriminate?
"As far as employing only their own is concerned again no, you don't get to discriminate against people because you don't like them and expect tax payer's money."
So you would also agree with the Labor Party being forced to accept Liberals on staff?
"Oh but it is for me to judge im a tax payer any thing to do with tax payer's money is my business."
Then it's also mine, and I'd rather my taxes go to a school that teaches good Christian values, not 'secular' (atheistic) values.
"Oh and religion doesn't belong in schools period ..."
Because you say so?
"it's irrelevant"
It's absolutely relevant. It was Christianity that laid the basis for Western Civilisation and the freedoms it has brought, that introduced universal education, public hospitals, that spread democracy, that elevated the status of women, that abolished slavery, and that founded modern science, among other things. Christian teaching is VERY relevant.
"English science technology and trade training is all that should be taught."
That that include naturalistic (atheistic) science? And if you're opposed to Christian views being taught, why teach science in the first place, given that it is based on Christian principles?
"they are minority tax payer's and are thus irrelevant remember the majority rules."
Nice to know that you think minorities are irrelevant. Well, atheists are still in a minority, so I guess they are irrelevant too.
"No the majority of Australians don't support funding for private schools..."
I'd be surprised if that's the case, but then with the deliberate misinformation put out there by those taking your view, I'm not sure that that's particularly relevant.
"private schools shouldn't be getting tax payer's money..."
Again, why not, given that many of those taxpayers send their children to private schools?
"this line about teaching atheism is ridiculous..."
It's not ridiculous. Government schools teach atheist ideas. The very idea of keeping God out of school is an atheist mantra. I think the problem is that you are so convinced that your views are self-evidently correct you fail to see that they are in fact just part of a particular (anti-Christian) worldview.
"For your information religion ...[is] still offered today so their goes your theory."
To what extent is it taught? Enough to balance the atheist views taught?
"No I have a problem funding private schools who charge admittance..."
But why?
"do they follow the cariculim? Because every supporter who's been on sky says they want to continue to operate the way they want."
I believe that they do follow the curriculum, but also teach their own values.
"Because not everyone can afford to send their kids to those schools so their tax dollars shouldn't be funding schools for people who can afford it."
What about the tax dollars of those who choose to send their children to those schools? Why discriminate against them? So sorry, but your explanation makes no sense.
"I'm afraid quite a few bigots are Christians yes just look at your beliefs,..."
Says someone who wants to treat Christian taxpayers differently because you don't agree with their views.
" im afraid what you've said about teaching atheism shows what a lack of awareness you have about the world."
The lack of awareness is yours, not his. He provided examples which you have ignored.
"It's small minded thinking which I'm afraid seems to be a traight of Christians amongst others if something doesn't fit in your small minded view of the world you attack it."
Says the person attacking the idea of religious schools receiving similar taxpayer support as government schools. A typical trait of village atheists.
"Private schools don't deserve funding at all, it's fundamentally unfair to make people who can't afford it pay for others who can."
No, it's fundamentally unfair to take taxes from all people then distribute it according to religious beliefs. And many people who send their children to religious schools couldn't afford it if they had to pay the full amount, while many who send their children to government schools could afford to send their children to private schools.
"There's only one bigot here..."
Well I agree with Alan, so that must mean that the one bigot is you.
"it's the person who wants institutions to continue to be able to discriminate against people they don't like that would be you. "
Sorry, you must have been looking in the mirror when you said that. That describes your views to a T.
"…the vast majority of Australians don't agree with your opinions and one day the majority will be aithests it's nearly half now."
Ah! A self-contradictory statement! The majority are not atheists, so it's them who don't agree with your views.
"Your saying atheism is being taught in schools but you can't explain how,..."
False. He gave actual examples, which you have ignored.
"…even if it is being taught so what? It sounds like you want it your way or the highway."
He never argued that. You're making that up.
"Well your not getting it ..."
Because you're not making a valid argument.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"...the story is a nice fairy tale. Most know it is not real, but enjoy the fairytale."
No, most do NOT "know" it's not real. And what's your evidence that it's not real? And which parts are you talking about anyway?
"I know religious people will disagree, ..."
For good reason.
"But I also have the right to my beliefs, ..."
True, but you don't have the right to pretend that yours are correct, unless you're willing to back that with good evidence.
"Christmas is the only time I will talk about the fictional characters of the Bible."
What fictional characters? Given that we are talking about the birth of Jesus Christ, it's not just "religious people" (you actually mean Christians) who will disagree, but virtually every historian on the planet concerned with that part of history. It is accepted by historians that Jesus existed, was crucified, and that people claimed to have seen him alive afterward.
See also the short video "Atheist Refuted by Agnostic Historian (Bart Ehrman) on the Existence of Jesus."
"But my religion is much older..."
That depends on how you count it. Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism (Jesus being the messiah predicted in Judaism), and Judaism is the worship of the one true God, tracing back through King David, Moses, Abraham, and Noah, to Adam. There is nothing older than that.
2
-
2
-
@denniswakabayashi9000
"There are no state seeking to criminalize the female for taking abortion pills, including any red state."
As I said, a loophole that needs closing. Of course that could be by making the sale of them illegal.
"You didn't mention lawfully traveling out of state to procure lawful abortion then returning to home state."
True, I didn't. But only because I think that would be unconstitutional. I'm not certain about that though.
"Don't you know where the abortion fight is waged in America???"
All sorts of places, I imagine.
"The prolife movement acknowledges "my body my choice" in the abortion debate ..."
No, they don't. That is flat-out wrong. And not the least because they point out that it's not the mother's body. If the pro-abortionists really believed in "my body my choice", they give the baby the choice. Because it is, after all, the baby's body.
"The convoluted misogynist argument made is that the doctor doesn't have the right to assist with abortion."
First, how is that "convuluted"?
Second, how is it "misogynist" to want to protect babies?
Third, the doctor doesn't have the right to perform an abortion. Calling it "assist[ting]" appears to be an attempt to downplay the doctor's role.
"Okay for the woman to abort but not okay for the doctor to assist with abortion."
I do recognise that the laws are aimed at the abortionists rather than the women. But that is a reasonable thing given how the mainstream media, politicians, etc. have lied to them about what an abortion is. Not the least of which is the "my body my choice" lie. The abortionists know better.
"Prolife not really anti-abortion but anti-safe abortion..."
And that's another of those blatant lies: pretending that there can be such a thing as a "safe abortion" when an abortion is actually the deliberate killing of a baby. There's nothing "safe" about that! Pro-life is absolutely about stopping the intentional killing of babies.
But of course the pro-abortionists obviously don't care about innocent human lives.
"You don't understand. The overturning of Roe means this is as far as it goes. From now on voters will begin to codify abortion access and rights in their state constitutions."
Repeating your claim does not make it any more true.
"From here on the prochoice will begin to advance their agenda through the ballot box."
They'll try. And the people who don't like innocent babies being killed will continue to fight them all the way. As they've been doing for the last half-century. You've given absolutely no reason to think they'll stop now.
"You have no argument so you make things up like killing babies."
That's not made up. That's exactly what abortion is. That's simple (and scientific) fact.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@EL_Duderino68
"You never back up your comments with factual evidence and expect me to? That's hilarious."
1) My first comment in this thread didn't make any claims. It did, however, ask you two questions.
2) Your reply didn't answer either question. Instead, you asked me one.
3) I answered your question.
4) You denigrated me, and asked me for my understanding of two words.
5) I gave you my understandings, and pointed out that you had provided no basis for your denigration of me. I also asked you another two questions
6) You didn't answer the questions, instead choosing to denigrate me again.
7) I pointed out the evidence-free denigration again.
8) You accused me of not backing up my comments with evidence, implying that I was a hypocrite for expecting you to.
So I've answered all three of your questions (not requests for evidence), but you didn't answer one of mine.
So what evidence did you ask me for that I have failed to provide? None. And if your "never" is referring to all my responses to various people, that claim is simply false.
Further, that list above is evidence of my point that you are the one arguing badly here, and thereby a refutation of your claim that I "never" provide evidence.
But if you remain true to form, you'll ignore most of that and make up something else to denigrate me with, perhaps even pointing to the length of this response as some sort of problem.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jojeification
"why do you think it is a mockery of Christianity ?"
If it's based on the painting of The Last Supper, then that's sufficient reason.
"10 messages in and you still can't articulate it."
First, that should have been obvious, as it's in the news.
Second, nobody had asked me to articulate it. Unlike you, who has been asked by me several times to explain "christianism", but apparently you still can't articulate that, which make you a hypocrite.
"you're actually the only one drawing similarities to push your narrative."
No, you're also drawing similarities to puch your narrative.
"So people sitting on the same side of a table HAS TO be about that one pairing ? Because reasons ?"
I didn't say it had to be. That it appears to be about that is widely accepted (as well as being disputed).
"so the best you can say is : "people sitting on the same side of a table = my religion" ?"
No, he didn't say that. He said compare the paintings. He never said that they were the same in that one detail, did he?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@RealSZ
"I mean you are right about Eostre and all of that, but I hate to break it to you, it isn't a direct origin. You see, Easter was only used as a translation of the holiday to the Anglo-Saxons when they were being converted to Christianity,"
Easter is from the Anglo-Saxon word for Easter or Passover, and there were many derivatives of it, such as Ēastersunnandæg, which referred to Easter Sunday.
Etymology online says "Old English Easterdæg, "Easter day," from Eastre (Northumbrian Eostre ), from Proto-Germanic austron-, "dawn," also possibly the name of a goddess whose feast was celebrated in Eastermonað (the Anglo-Saxon month corresponding with April ), from aust- "east, toward the sunrise" (compare east), from PIE root aus- (1) "to shine," especially of the dawn."
That is, it came from the same word as did "east", referring to toward the sunrise.
2
-
2
-
2
-
"None of us Australian born should have anything to do with what is happening in the middle east."
So you don't believe in helping victims of a terrorist attack? I hope you're never a victim of a crime and find that strangers won't help you.
"Religion over there has been at war over a piece of baren , scortched and blood drenched earth for over 3000 years..."
Religion has??? Countries and regimes have, as they have in most places in the world. In this case, one religious group that's been around for only around 1,500 years wants to wipe one ethnic group from the face of the earth, and you give that some sort of moral equivalence?
"...so why is a young continent like Australia butting into enthnic affairs of another country as Israel, afganistan, iran, iraq etc,etc."
It's the Australian country, not continent, doing that. And doing it because it believes in justice and helping good win over bad. I'm sad that you don't agree with that, and are happy for the bad ones to win.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dethdefy
"You've grabbed too much there."
I only 'grabbed' things that you said. So that implies that you said too much.
"You said Government schools are teaching Marxist schools, therefore you should of easily been able to pick a 'bad' one as you insinuating they all do."
One worse than the rest? That doesn't follow.
"Do non religious school tell kids they should change from a woman to man?"
I didn't claim that any school said that anyone should change from a woman to a man.
"…but it's not a subject."
I never claimed that it was a specific subject. Rather, it's imbued throughout various parts of the curriculum.
"Unlike religion in religious schools."
That's not in evidence. And even if it was true, I can't see the relevance. As a religious school, it makes sense to have a subject on the topic of that religion.
"I'm tempted to touch the 'there is evidence for Christian beliefs' bit. But i wont."
Are you saying you want to argue that I'm wrong (in which case I'd ask for your evidence of no evidence), or are you wanting to ask what that evidence is? I'm happy to answer that question.
"You want me to address the others let me know."
You can put that matter of evidence on your list to address. Also, my question about the evidence that men can become women and vice versa.
"You shouldn't be required to divulge your belief or lack of belief in a religion when going for a teaching role in a school that receives tax dollars."
Even when your beliefs are relevant to the role? Why not?
"That in turn would mean that people can't be discriminated against."
You say that as though there is something wrong with discrimination itself, yet I have already pointed out the fallacy of that.
"Your twisting the word discrimination."
No, I'm not.
"Again, discriminating someone because of their performance is very different to discriminating because of their sex, race or religion."
Why? You don't say. And of course I wasn't talking about performance, because someone being hired hasn't performed yet. I was talking about meeting the qualifications and requirements for the position. But I can give you another example. Casting agencies discriminate against hiring women for playing the role of, say, Caesar, in a movie. Or against hiring a Sudanese for playing the role of, say, Queen Elizabeth. Those are cases of discrimination on the basis of sex and 'race' respectively.
2
-
@dethdefy
"A lot of words there."
Yes. These things take more than one-liners to explain.
"I want scientific proof."
Okay, so you want something that doesn't exist. That's called loading the dice so that I can't possibly meet your request. I already pointed this out, but you have ignored that.
"Science is what we have available to prove beyond reasonable doubt a theory is true."
It's not the only tool. Most court cases don't rely on science.
"Gravity is a theory that can be experimented on and demonstrated."
No, gravity is an observable fact, that also has a theory of how it works. Yes, it can also be scientifically demonstrated.
"Your god or any god can not."
Science deals with the natural world, not the supernatural. Science is the wrong tool for that. So again, you're loading the dice.
"Extraordinary proof is required because it’s an extraordinary claim. Obviously."
If it was obvious, I wouldn't have questioned it. Rather, whether or not it's extraordinary is subjective.
"...the fact that we have ants and that the sun is expanding is not enough"
Obviously, because those two facts do not demonstrate your claim. But the problem is not that you've failed to provide extraordinary evidence; the problem is that you haven't provided any evidence of your actual claim.
"And you don’t think that the theory of an almighty creator is extraordinary!?! "
Nope. At least no more extraordinary than the alternative view that the universe just popped into existence from nothing for no reason, contrary to the principle of cause and effect.
"Don’t you think it’s just a little coincidental that wherever you were born and what your parents believe has a MASSIVE impact on what you believe."
Not at all. Again, cause and effect. Or do you think that it's just a little coincidental that children of atheists also tend to be atheists?
"If you were born in the Middle East, you wouldn’t believe in the Christian god."
And yet many do. Just as millions do in China, to pick one example.
"Pretty poor effort from someone so almighty that people are so convinced THEIR version of god exists…..but no one else’s. "
Just like how atheists are so convinced THEIR views are correct, but no one else's?
"A book doesn’t cut it because it’s a weak piece of evidence."
What makes it weak? You haven't explained your claim; you've simply repeated it.
"Neither does the age of the book."
Why not? A book written at the time of an event should carry more weight (all else being equal) than a book written well after the event.
"Again, demonstrate the extraordinary claims in the book today. Repeat the ‘Miracles’."
You want me to repeat things that only God can do? Again, you're loading the dice.
"If I wrote a book today. Claimed to be god Based a few historical locations on it. Made some VERY broad assumptions about the future."
What about some very specific claims about the future? This is not a good analogy.
"In 2000 years it would hold the same weight as the bible ..."
No, it would carry far less weight, because apart from the few historical locations, nothing would be verifiable. That's not the case with the Bible. Also, the Bible was not buried for 2000 years, but was able to be checked immediately by people in the know. Another fault with your analogy.
"It would t be evidence that I was a god though."
No, not on the basis of an evidence-free claim.
2
-
@dethdefy
"Of course you're trying to discount science as a viable way to prove god, because it currently it isn't able to."
I'm not "trying" to discount it. I'm pointing out the simple fact that science doesn't do proofs, so you can't ask for scientific proof.
"This is despite it being the most reliable tool to test theories."
It's the most reliable tool to test theories about physical things in the present. It's not the most reliable tool for everything.
"A court case sometimes doesn't rely on science because it will rely on something else that based in reality."
A court case often doesn't rely on science. But yes, of course it relies on other things based in reality. I never suggested otherwise.
"You're trying to link something beyond the scientific method and natural law (god) to something based in reality. Its not the right test."
Says the person who wants scientific evidence of God! But what courts do rely on a lot is reliable eyewitness testimony. And we have that for God.
"I still can't believe trying to say that proving god wouldn't be extraordinary!? Or an extraordinary event. That is simply ridiculous."
And yet you don't give a reason why it's extraordinary. You also ignore the extraordinary nature of the alternative view.
"... your saying it's not extraordinary to say it's JUST your god that is the right one.."
There is only one. Much of the evidence is agnostic as to which of the handful(?) of claimants is the right one.
"The big bang theory is the best science has come up with."
That doesn't make it the best one, and it doesn't say much for alternatives if that is the best one.
"But the difference between this theory and the god claims, is that scientist to (sic; don't?) claim this with absolute certainty."
Their claims seem pretty certain to me. Can you give me examples of them qualifying it as less than certain?
"They'll accept if another theory comes up, is peer reviewed with evidence to come along for the ride."
And if it's naturalistic. You forgot that requirement of methodological naturalism. In fact the Big Bang replaced the Steady State theory ('Big Bang' originating as a mocking term by one of the staunch Steady State believers), but with considerable resistance because it proposed a beginning to the universe, which single detail supported the Bible's claim of creation having a beginning. That is, they accepted the theory only reluctantly because of its implication of support for the Bible. Scientists have their biases and worldviews like everyone else.
"... you're saying they definitely happened and also because your book says they did."
That being a very reliable record.
"You then sight the book and therefore the miracles as evidence."
No, I make the claim because of the evidence in the Bible (and other supporting evidence). I'm not making a circular argument as you claim (and as you're doing in citing (naturalistic) science).
"Then when i say show/repeat the miracles you say - well only god can do them.....so you'll have to believe me."
False. I'm correctly pointing out that I can't show/repeat the miracles. I'm not saying that you'll therefore have to believe me. I'm saying that there is good evidence for God, including miracles. I'm not saying that you'll have to believe me because I can't repeat them.
"Please give me the one best prediction of the future you see in the bible."
I don't know that there is one best one, and this is not my area of expertise, but the prophecies around Jesus taken as a whole are significant. For example, it is predicted that He would be born in Bethlehem, that he would be pierced without His bones being broken, and many other details.
2
-
@dethdefy
"Well that's just being difficult."
No, it's being accurate.
"Well i'm asking for scientific evidence than. And i know your going to say 'well it's a supernatural thing so...'."
It depends on what you're asking for. For direct scientific evidence of God? You're right, science can't do that. But if you want indirect evidence, that can be done. However, you've been trying to shift the burden. You claimed that "Now we both know there is no proof of god...", In your next comment, you said "I'm only going to answer the proof one,". But, as I pointed out in my reply, "And yet you don't. Instead you ask me to supply evidence for God."
You made the claim of no proof for God. The onus is on you to support your claim, not on me to prove you wrong. You have since made three more comments, but still haven't supported your claim. Why not?
"I don't think that cuts it in a world where we're limited by verifiable tests."
We are not limited by verifiable tests.
"Otherwise we could use your reasoning to twist and turn our way to anything made up."
Show me how. Without misrepresenting me.
"Eye witness testimony written in a book that's been rewritten, revised and can no longer be verified."
What's your evidence that it has been rewritten and revised in a way that changes it in any substantive way, or that it can no longer be verified?
"That would no longer hold up in a court today."
Your claim wouldn't.
"Again...proving your theory..."
Back to that word "proof". Haven't you learnt anything I said?
"An unproven being,..."
I've already pointed out that He's not unproven. You're not keeping up.
"You STILL think that wouldn't be extraordinary.??!?"
Your question was loaded.
"In YOUR mind there is only one god."
No, there can only be one God; one supreme being and creator of all.
"But the majority of the world disagrees with you."
Nope. More than 50% are either Christian or Muslim, so more than 50% believe in there being one God.
"In your first paragraph you said science doesn't do proofs. You answered the question yourself ..."
That's not a question.
"...you later contradicted yourself by saying - "Their claims seem pretty certain to me. Can you give me examples of them qualifying it as less than certain?" "
That's not a contradiction. You can be certain of something without proof. Atheists accuse Christians of that all the time. And I notice that you gave me no examples.
"The difference again with science vs religion is that religion says this is the ONLY way...science will find the best current way and be happy to contradict itself if better theories and evidence comes up."
Repeating yourself is not an answer.
"Religion is stuck in the past."
So is history, and most of this is about history.
"Again, your steady state example is just another perfect example for accepting new theories and evidence."
As you so conveniently ignored, that "perfect example" was an example of how it was only accepted reluctantly, and that because if appeared to support the biblical account on merely one detail ! You also ignored that they switched from one naturalistic view to another naturalistic view. So, not it does not support your claim.
"Your claiming miracles are real because they're in the bible.....??!?"
The Bible being an accurate historical record, yes.
"This is unbelievably flimsy."
Because...?
"Just because a book said a miracle happened, does not mean it did."
I never claimed that it did. That is, it's not because "a book" says it, but because the accurate, reliable, Bible says it.
"Do you accept the miracles in Hinduism? In Islam? They're very old religions with the same sort of evidence you sight."
Islam is not as old as Christianity, and the age of Hinduism is questionable. And what's your evidence that they have the same sort of evidence? Much of what Islam cites is actually the same evidence that the Bible cites, and I'm not aware of Hinduism having much evidence.
"God wanted to prove himself ..."
What makes you think that?
"There are passages in the bible that are seriously messed up."
According to what standard? Sandman's? Sorry if I don't take your standards seriously.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@iangreen180 Victoria has had its share of accidents too, although they have involved fewer fatalities. I think NSW was just unlucky with Granville with the derailment happening just at that spot bringing down the bridge and turning it into such a disaster. Melbourne had a runaway train some years back, but fortunately nobody was seriously injured, let alone killed. And it's had other accidents too, but again, mostly, fortunately, without loss of life.
I travelled from Adelaide to Melbourne one Australia Day weekend many years ago, on The Overland (when it was broad gauge), and it was the most comfortable train ride I've ever had.
What is now known as Puffing Billy was one of four narrow gauge lines built in Victoria, and that was, I think, a government (not Railways) decision to save money, by having a cheaper railway that could follow the contours more, avoiding massive cuttings, embankments, and bridges. But it was built to 'big' railway standards in many ways, and yes, it was never a fast line, with top speeds being 15 or 20 mph, depending on which of those lines it was. But there were other broad gauge lines built in very hilly terrain in the state, such as the Cudgewa, Strzelecki, and Outtrim lines.
2
-
2
-
"It did its best to avoid the unsolved light speed problem facing Young Earth Creationists."
That might be because Meyer is not a biblical creationist (YEC).
Further, there are a number of possible solutions to that question. True, it's unsolved in that we don't yet know which is the correct solution, but then a lot of things in science are unsolved, so that's not a show-stopper.
Further, you failed to mention the Horizon Problem of the long-agers. That's like correcting someone's spelling while making a spelling mistake of your own.
"And totally failed to mention that none of those scientists were YECs."
Kepler, Boyle, and Newton were all biblical creationists.
"Yes, even Lemaître, not just a Belgian physicist but also a Catholic priest, knew full well that the universe was a lot older than 6,000 years old."
I reject that you can "know" something that is not true. Rather, you (wrongly) "believe" it.
"And if anybody wants to suggest that the speed of light has changed since the creation of the universe, Stephen Meyer explains to you why that is impossible..."
That's debatable, but then some secular scientists have claimed that. A 2002 article said "Headlines in several newspapers around the world have publicized a paper in Nature by a team of scientists (including the famous physicist Paul Davies) who (according to these reports) claim that ‘light has been slowing down since the creation of the universe’." Apparently it was only a bad idea when creationists in the past suggested that. It's okay for mainstream science.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@gribwitch
Given your reply, I've done a bit more research. According to what I can find (only on Wikipedia, unfortunately) there were the following referendums:
* Croatia 2013 (against SSM) Yes
* Slovakia 2015: (against SSM) Yes, but invalid due to insufficient votes.
* Slovenia 2015: (for SSM) No
* Irish Republic 2015: (for SSM) No
* Bermuda 2016: (for SSM) No, but invalid due to insufficient votes.
* Switzerland 2016: (against SSM) No (very narrowly) but invalidated by the Supreme Court which ordered a re-vote. Apparently that is yet to be held.
* Romania 2018: (against SSM) Yes, but invalid due to insufficient votes
* Taiwan 2018: (against SSM) Yes
As far as I can tell, Britain did not have a referendum, and that was my understanding anyway. Australia had a 'Clayton's' referendum, which is not quite the same. If the Australian one had been an actual referendum, I understand that the government would have funded both sides to put their case. As it wasn't an actual referendum, that didn't happen.
So the pattern seems pretty clear. If you want to get SSM passed, don't ask the people—they will most likely say no.
P.S. The list above is of countries; there were also referendums in various U.S. states.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"His homophobic attitudes ..."
What homophobic attitudes? I assume you're making the same stupid mistake that many do, treating disagreement as an irrational fear.
"His attitudes to women were also controversial."
Only because of the false accusations the left made about him. A common leftist tactic: make claims about someone, then claim that the person is 'controversial', only because they've created that controversy.
"If anyone lost him the faith of the Australian people, it was Tony Abbott."
No, it was the media and the rest of the left.
"As for Malcolm Turnbull, well it might have been reluctant but his government brought about marriage equality."
Completely false. Marriage equality already existed. Homosexuals were already entitled to marry just like everyone else: to someone of age, not already married, not closely related, and not of the same sex. There were not different rules for them. "Marriage equality" was code for redefining marriage away from the lifelong union between a man and a woman that God defined it to be.
In summary, his "worst attributes" were simply things that you don't agree with.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@archive2500
"Yours is a claim either. "Christianity hasn't." "
You're right that I also made a claim. However, I challenged your first on your prior claim.
"Alright. I can back it up."
Good. But we'll see how well you do.
"There is no evidence of creation and flood mythology."
Hang on! Your evidence is a claim of a lack of evidence? Sorry, by itself at least, that's not evidence. Just because you don't know of any evidence doesn't mean that Christianity claimed nonsense.
Further, what do you even mean? That there is no evidence of creation and the flood? Or that there is no evidence of the mythology? Surely you're not claiming the latter, and yet if you're not, that word is completely superfluous. And if you're claiming no evidence of the things themselves, what's your evidence that there is no evidence? Because I know of plenty.
"Snakes aslo can not talk,..."
Christianity doesn't claim that they can.
"It is also impossible for a couple to reproduce up to arouns 8 billion today, there is a thing called inbreeding depression."
Not so. Do you know what the actual problem with inbreeding is? We all have two copies of our genes. When parents have children, each child gets one copy from each parent. If one of the genes is defective (thanks to a mutation), then typically the other gene can be used instead. The problem with inbreeding is that there is a much higher chance of getting the same defective gene from both parents, which means that the child has a problem. However, if both parents had no defects to start with, there is no problem! Adam and Eve were created without defects, so they were quite able to have been the progenitors of all the people around today.
"There is no evidence that humans came from dirt as well. "
Again you're citing a lack of evidence instead of actual evidence.
"It is impossible for all animals to survive after shoving each pair of them inside a single ... boat."
Why? For the same inbreeding reason? Because that has the same answer.
"These are all non-sense stories."
A claim that you have yet to demonstrate. Wrong claims and your claims of lack of evidence do not support your claim.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@christinehede7578 I wasn't claiming that people can't "manage" to get one; I was questioning that it was "quite easy" to get one. I've just looked it up. To get a KeyPass ID, you need a document from each of "category A", "category B", and "Category C", where Category A is a birth certificate or visa or passport or citizenship certificate or Immicard, category B includes those but adds others such as a driver's licence(!), WWCC, and a number of others, and category C includes things like a bank card, medicare card, etc. If you're born here and don't have a passport, then you pretty-much need to get a birth certificate. Sure, quite doable, but in my opinion takes it out of the "quite easy" category.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Amused to death by We, the Dunning-Kruger Sheeple
"Just because some people think it’s silly believing in a 2,000-year-old…"
Some people like you? So what? That proves nothing.
"…a 2,000-year-old desert mythology, …"
Yes, I would be too. It that's what it was. But it isn't.
"…which heavily plagiarised pagan mythologies,…"
Untrue.
"…living for some mythical afterlife…"
What's your evidence that it's mythical? Oh that's right, you can't have any.
"…at the expense of this one…"
What expense? It makes this one better!
"We all have the right to believe whatever we want."
Who gave us that right?
"…the Flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh,…"
The Epic of Gilgamesh is a corrupted version of the Genesis account. For one, the Epic's version of the ark is a cube, which would simply roll over and over in heavy seas. It can't be true. The Genesis version of the ark has been shown by naval architects to be stable even in very heavy seas.
"…co-opting the winter solstice by miraculously having Jesus born on that day,…"
The history we have actually shows Christmas being celebrated on 25th December before any record of a winter solstice celebration. It would appear that Christmas was co-opted by the pagans.
"…the baptism rite by water,…"
Details?
"…the list is longer than the inconsistencies in Gospels…"
There are no contradictions in the Gospels.
"…the church erased the Gospel of Thomas, saying it was apocryphal,…"
No, they didn't "erase" it. They simply had good reason for not including it.
"…though it is believed only to contain the words of Jesus…"
Believed by the critics? Not by the experts.
"The church, by contrast, opted for keeping the masses ignorant. It was only after The Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican—the Second Vatican Council, or Vatican II— in 1962-1965 that mass stopped being given in Latin, and that the priest faced the congregation instead of giving them his back (while he alone communed with God and passed on the Word)."
That is a half-truth. Yes, that is true of the Catholic Church. But not of Protestantism which has been around for 500 years.
2
-
2
-
@Sarah Love
"Funny how people make fun of religion but don't even bother to understand even the basics,..."
It would seem to me that you could take that thought on board.
"No one believes God will fix their problems, you have to fix your own problems, ..."
Actually, some do. But more accurately, a lot believe that God can fix their problems and sometimes will do so, especially if it's something that they can't do themselves.
"I'm scientific and believe in the big bang,..."
There's a contradiction. The Big Bang is part of cosmology, which, as astronomy professor James Gunn of Princeton pointed out, "Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science. A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology."
"...the math embedded in the universe makes me believe in a higher being, higher purpose, god."
That's a valid point.
"...religion originated as a sort of code of conduct for man passed on by the leaders of tribes, "
What's your evidence (given that you've studied it) that that is how Christianity or belief in Yahweh started?
"The morals and ethics in religion are still just as valid today as they were 2000 years ago,..."
That depends on which morals and ethics you are talking about. The reference to 2000 years ago does imply Christianity, though, in which case I'd agree with you.
"they have evolved and will continue to do so."
No, they are the same as 2000 years ago. However, their application can be adapted to new circumstances.
"I think we need to have basic ethics and morals taught to children in school, now that religion not popular."
Oh, various religions are still popular. Christianity still has about 2.5 billion followers, for starters. In the West, atheist views like those of Secular Humanism are very popular in some circles. But if you're going to teach basic ethics and morals in school, what's the basis for doing that? Christians say that they come from God. Atheists reject that, which leaves that they come from fallible and inconsistent human opinion. The latter is hardly a basis for teaching.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Christianity ,,, it has absolutely nothing to be proud of , "
So you don't think we should be proud of public hospitals, twice abolishing slavery, introducing universal education, spreading democracy, inventing science, raising the status of women, and so on? You must have strange views of what we should be proud of.
"Let’s start by being good human beings with out being guided by PRETEND GODS"
First, what pretend gods? Christianity believes in the true God (singular).
Second, how does that work? The evidence is that people are good because of the influence of Christianity, even if that's from simply being raised in a Christian or historically-Christian society.
"I strongly oppose religion in schools and politics ."
So you oppose good views being taught in schools and influencing politics, and would prefer only your views be spread instead? That seems rather selfish and backward.
"If you wish to believe in fake gods , that’s your personal choice"
I guess so, but I believe in the real, true, well-documented, witnessed, God.
"see there you go quoting rubbish from the book of FICTION"
What's your evidence that it's fiction? Because many archaeologists, scientists, and others can show how it's consistent with the real world.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@brett22bt
"if you don't believe the fact-checkers,..."
They've been shown to be biased, so why should I?
"... then perhaps you'll believe the judiciary."
Perhaps. But then you don't given an argument from the judiciary.
"The Murdoch press faces far more liable and defamation cases than the ABC."
Two problems with that claim. 1) are you talking about the Murdoch press world-wide? That's far bigger than the ABC, so you'd kind of expect more. 2) Facing cases does not mean that they are guilty, so not actually an argument from the judiciary. This is one way the left tends to operate: bring a lot of complaints, then publicise the fact that X has received a lot of complaints. Whether the claims have merit is another matter. I know of a case where an organisation was reported to the fraud squad, and then the organisation's opponents smeared them by claiming that they were under investigation for fraud. An accurate, but misleading and self-serving claim. The fraud squad found no fraud.
Most of the rest of your comment relies on figures which you've not supplied, and as such are just sweeping claims. Such as "constantly", "paying millions", "most common", etc.
"Tucker used this excuse not long ago to justify his false claims against Dominion voting machines."
I think Fox' lawyers used that excuse, and it's not yet in evidence that the claims were false.
2
-
2
-
@chrismurphy3124
"So your saying he spent time, energy & ad space on his news channels just because Rudd wanted it? Seriously?"
No, I did not say that.
"The money was being spent either way,..."
No, cutting it back would save money.
"...it was sabotaged and the money ended up being wasted,..."
But was it? That's not in evidence.
"...no matter what your political views you should be angry at this."
Why? Because it didn't go the way that you preferred?
"He is against 'climate alarmism' because newscorp takes money from the mining/coal industry,..."
No, he's not. He was, then changed his mind, as I indicated. So how does that fit in with your claim about taking money?
"Do you really think he doesn't speak publicly about these things without a motive?"
I never suggested otherwise. I'm sure he has reasons for speaking publicly. But you seem to be assuming that his "motive" is something nefarious, which again is not in evidence.
"What was the 'good' argument that Newscorp made that the NBN was bad?"
I'm sure that there were many, but in particularly that it was going to cost a lot of money for uncertain benefit, i.e. uncertain that the benefit would be worth the cost.
"Whether you like it or not, green energy is the future."
Can I please borrow your crystal ball? Regardless, you've switched from disputing that the ABC supports it to trying to justify their support, and only on the basis that you think it's going to happen anyway! Not, note, on the basis that it's a good thing.
"Even if you don't believe in climate change, ..."
I believe that the climate changes. I don't believe the predictions on just how it will change (they've proven to be unreliable already) and the claims that we have to fight it in a way that will hardly change anything anyway.
"...coal, oil & gas are all finite and will eventually run out."
First, the claim that they will shortly run out has been around for decades, and yet we keep finding more. Second, even if/when it does, that will gradually push up the price and make alternatives more attractive. But why waste that energy while we still have it?
"Even BHP can see the writing on the wall and are shifting away from gas & oil."
Yes, but what writing? The writing from activists in such organisations who are more concerned about renewables than profitability, or the writing that the governments will go along with the global warming alarmism and make life difficult for them? Either way, that's not actually good evidence that BHP are worried about fuels running out. After all, if you can get taxpayer subsidies for going 'green', that's arguably a good business decision.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dmarshall8366
"I promise that will never happen because no editor or boss of any Murdoch outlet would dare."
So you ask me a question, then reject my answer out of hand, because you, somehow, know better, but fail to provide any evidence.
"Journalistic freedom does not exist within his media organisation."
Then how do you explain various presenters stating mutually-exclusive opinions? Oh, I know. You don't. You'll just add some more evidence-free claims.
"Note also most of my answers are censored, this is the gutter where the Murdoch media resides."
As far as I know, YouTube does the censoring. And yes, it is a gutter in that sense, but Murdoch media does not "reside" here. See, as I predicted—more evidence-free claims.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
J Preferences are not , in principle, legal vote rigging. Here's an example. Suppose you want to vote conservative, and there are two conservatives, A and B, standing, and one 'progressive', C. Further suppose that 60% of the electorate want a conservative. You want to vote for A, but A only gets 25% of the vote. B gets 35%, while C gets 40%. Without preferences, C wins, despite 60% of the electorate NOT wanting him. With preferences, you can say "I want A, but if not A, then I'd prefer B". So when A and B both fail to win, A's preferences are given to B (assuming everyone votes like you in this example), and B ends up getting 60% of the vote, just as the electorate wanted (in that they wanted a conservative, and most of those wanted B). If you want your vote to "stay where you put it", then when A comes last, your vote would be discarded and you'd have effectively wasted it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@RC-qf3mp
"Get it?"
No.
"Sure, you can classify people that way, but it’s odd to prioritize genotype over phenotype."
1) Why is it odd
2) How was I doing that anyway?
3) How does that make it a better analogy?
The point is that one 'version' (five toes/XX and XY) is the standard, and the other is the anomaly.
"Genitals at birth is how people have classified sex since forever and it’s not a ‘wrong’ way to do it."
True enough, but we also know that those genitals correspond to XX and XY, and they correspond because the genetics causes the phenotype (exceptions to the rule notwithstanding).
"And XX are almost always female and XY are almost always male."
And people mostly have five fingers, and the exceptions don't change that rule.
"But those are CORRELATIONS with the genital standard, not THE standard for sex itself."
No, they are not mere correlations, but causations.
But they are not direct causations. That is, XX doesn't directly cause you to be female, and XY doesn't directly cause you to be male. Rather, the genes on those chromosomes cause production of different quantities of various hormones, and those hormones cause you to be male or female And of course that extra detail is still a gross simplification of a lot of interacting and complex processes. However, that means that things can go wrong along the way, which means that XX might not always cause female genitalia, etc. But clearly that is what is supposed to happen if it all works properly.
"That’s a human, arbitrary decision to make it the standard; it’s not compelled by the biology."
No, it's not a human, arbitrary decision. It's the way humans were designed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@AudioGardenSlave123
"I don't think anyone can really believe that after, "100,000,000 years it has only dropped 3ft into the ground. "
Maybe not the more they are misled.
One of my points is that it would well have been covered by even kilometres of rock, and that rock has since been eroded. That is a very common scenario. So, as I said, fossils don't "drop into" the ground. They get covered up, and they must get covered by more than three feet in order to become fossils. But then much later, erosion can uncover them (some fossils are found right on the surface), or at least leave them just a few feet under the ground. In fact most fossils are found near the surface. Very few are found a long way down, because palaeontologists don't dig down that far in the hope of finding fossils. A few are found in mines or deep quarries, but most are found on or near the surface.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
So basically, Mal P, you don't agree with what the Bible teaches, so Pell, who follows what the Bible teaches, must be a bad person. Right? That's bizarre logic.
"Can you show me one verse in the gospels where Jesus says that Homosexuality is a sin?"
Why limit it to the gospels? The entire Bible is God's (Jesus') testimony and revelation to us.
"Do not judge others ( Matthew 7/1/2)"
"If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people?
Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?
Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!"
Galatians 6:1-3. Perhaps you're missing the context of Matthew 7?
"Go read your Bible first and then come back ."
Good advice. You should take it.
"Yes, it's from the letters Apostle Paul wrote to those Churches. But Paul is not Jesus right?."
Neither is Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, but you were prepared to accept them!
"His conservative background shaped him to reject Homosexuals. Nothing to do with Jesus."
"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,..." 2 Timothy 3:16. That includes Paul.
"There are Scholars who claim that Paul could have been a closet Gay man struggling with his feelings."
There are all sorts of people claiming all sorts of ridiculous things. But Paul was inspired by God, and what he wrote is consistent with other parts of the Bible.
"Instead of reading the Bible literally, I encourage you to read it seriously."
If you read it seriously, you'll read it literally where it is meant to be understood literally, i.e. excluding figures of speech, parables, etc.
"And there is no reason to believe what the Bible says about sex any more than what it says about the world been created in 6 days."
I'll agree with that one. But there is no reason to disbelieve that it was created in six days. The Bible clearly and explicitly says, that, including God Himself writing the only part of the Bible that He personally wrote Himself ("For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day."). It's only the naturalistic ideas of mainstream scientists that says otherwise.
"The Bible is not the final authority when it comes to sex."
The Bible IS the final authority on everything it speaks about. And note that Jesus quoted the Bible often, as though even He considered it authoritative. Such as when answering Satan in the wilderness, Jesus didn't tell Satan he was wrong on His own authority as God, but quoted Scripture as though it was at least as authoritative as Him.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@louminarty
"no it's not 😂 it's pathetic and only the right care about it."
It may not be the "biggest" threat, but it's a big one. And so what if only "the right" care about it? Are you saying that "the right" don't matter? The point is, "the right" are the ones that are right on this issue.
"Normal people just ignore it"
Meaning those on the left that are pushing it? No, they are not the normal people.
"who's telling you what to say and do?"
For one, my employer, who says that I MUST use the wrong pronouns of a 'transgender' person. Else I could be sacked. How crazy are those that tell people what they must say, then deny that they are telling people what to say??
"how does it effect your life in any way?"
People are sacked, taken to court, vilified, etc. for expressing views that are contrary to the woke left's bizarre views.
"pronouns effect you? 🤣🤣 You poor thing"
So you asked how it's affecting someone, are told how, and them mock them for it!
"you need to stay off right wing news, nobody says happy holidays"
Nonsense. My employer recently sent an email referring to "the holiday season", and also said "Many of our teams and colleagues are coming together to celebrate ..."
Christmas?
No.
"... the end of the year". No mention of Christmas at all.
"American corporations by any chance?"
Not in my case. Australian.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@anonnemo2504
"I've have no idea what you mean by "trying again part X" etc.."
I tried posting a comment, but YT hid it. So I tried again, breaking it into separate parts. The second part posted, so I then tried to break the first part into two sub-parts.
"Just as I have no idea as to why your powers of logic fail you so and can you see not see that the term, "magic Grandpa" is only a euphemism?"
It's not merely a euphemism. It's mockery, where you choose to insult rather than be civil.
"I have already answered your final question."
Not that I've seen.
"One cannot prove the non-existence of a supreme being, because one cannot uncover an absence of evidence for it."
I realise that, as I said. But that does not remove the onus of someone making such a claim to back it with evidence. If they can't back the claim, they shouldn't make it. If they make it, they should back it. If they can't, then they are talking nonsense and their credibility is shot.
If I said that evolution never happened, and you challenged me to back that claim with evidence, and I refused on the grounds that I can't produce evidence of something that didn't happen, would you find that acceptable? Would you think that it was okay for me to make such an evidence-free claim without it being considered nonsense?
"You're welcome."
To what? Your failure to properly answer my questions?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Theineluctable_SOME_CANT
"You are wrong. Completely. There's nothing in your post that is remotely correct."
Except pretty-well everything he said.
"go harass somebody at church, pal...
"
So you consider a rebuttal to your response to my post to be harassment? That only tends to support what JohnJ469 was saying.
"Obviously you are trolling me, so whatever..."
Again, said by the person who made baseless claims about Christians on a comment posted by a Christian.
"People of faith do their own self-maligning.... Don't blame me for pointing out the obvious. Or do. "
Do you have any actual facts, or just insults?
Here are a couple of quotes for you:
Sociologist Rodney Stark wrote:
"Christianity created Western Civilization. Had the followers of Jesus remained an obscure Jewish sect, most of you would not have learned to read and the rest of you would be reading from hand copied scrolls. Without a theology committed to reason, progress, and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800: A world with many astrologers and alchemists but no scientists. A world of despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys, and pianos. A world where most infants do not live to the age of five and many women die in childbirth–a world truly living in "dark ages."
The modern world arose only in Christian societies. Not in Islam. Not in Asia. Not in a "secular" society–there having been none. And all the modernization that has since occurred outside Christendom was imported from the West, often brought by colonizers and missionaries"
Prominent atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel:
"I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers."
What has atheism achieved? Well, there was the slaughter of 40 million by Mao, 20 million by Stalin, North Korea, and so on.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MrTheclevercat
"Separation of church and state is pretty much the deal in the Western world because that is equality."
No, separation of church and state is non-existent in various European countries. And separation of church and state is to stop the state controlling the church. It only has to do with equality in the sense of the government not favouring one Christian denomination over another (like the British government used to favour the Anglican church over others).
"Promoting christianity over other religion's is oppressive to people who aren't christians."
Actually, it's liberating, as has been shown over and over around the world.
"That's why it is illegal for you to use the public (everyone's) area for your (not everyone's) religion."
Except that's it's not illegal. It's simply against this anti-Christian's council's views. And, barring this sort of attitude, I expect that other religions would be allowed to do similar. After all, as you say, it's the public's area, for everyone, including Christians.
"So you aren't "banned" more than anyone else is "banned.""
That's not in evidence. Besides, the West is based on Christianity, not other religions (except that you can argue that it's based on a Judeo-Christian worldview).
"You are simply no longer receiving special treatment ..."
You've only asserted—not shown—that it's special treatment.
"...that's incredible to me that you can't figure out the answer."
It seems incredible to you because you are starting with false or missing premises.
"Have your religion's festivities where they are appropriate."
They tried, but the council banned it.
"This is like assuming you can put up decorations in someone else's yard..."
No, it's like assuming that you can put up decorations in a "public" place (you said that yourself), not someone else's private place.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@videogamers100 Yeah, how dare people in the richest country in the world expect...the government to give them homes, wages without having to work, luxury cars, and three cruises a year?
My point? Just because a country is the richest in the world (even assuming that's accurate) doesn't mean that it's people should expect X, where X could be anything you choose it to be. Rather, you have to make a case that X is a reasonable thing to expect. Further, it's rich because of the freedom to do your own thing; socialism suppresses that, and socialist countries are poor. No, I'm not saying that socialism is the same as a safety net, nor that safety nets are necessarily a bad thing, but that too-readily-given government handounts are socialist in nature. More discriminate safety nets may not be, however.
2
-
@beldiman5870
"It is part of the definition itself."
Where? You defined as society as an environment where people help each other, not as an environment where they have a right to be helped. That is, people help each other voluntarily out of love and care, not out of duty, which would be the case if the recipients can demand it as a right.
"So yes, I believe that in a modern, rich society, everyone deserves help and respect"
They deserve the respect of being people created in God's image. Beyond that respect is earned. And if you don't pull your weight, then you don't deserve help. A good society is where people help others a) voluntarily, not because it's a right to be helped, and b) where they don't deserve it.
This is one of the problems of the left. They turn gifts into required payments. Christianity started a trend of helping people simply because those needed help. They founded hospitals, charities, schools, etc. But then those roles were handed over to governments and they became a right that people then felt that they could demand rather than request or hope for.
2
-
@jfkfitirjdjjsisieirirjfjdj5967
"you need us to believe we came from somewhere else..."
That is just factual history.
"...everyone could’ve come from ere and spread out across the world from ere,you don’t know..."
I do know actually. Reliable history records that everyone spread out across the world from the mountains of Ararat where the ark came to rest. (And if you want to go with the secular Western story, we call came from northern Africa.)
"...if my tribes culture is correct then everyone would indeed come from ere,I know my culture lore is correct"
Aboriginal culture records accounts of aborigines being created, of a great flood that they survived, and even of all once having the same language. There are some remarkable similarities between some Aboriginal stories and biblical stories, although also differences. The differences are understandable for orally-transmitted accounts. For example, one aboriginal story about the flood says "The sky opened and the water poured down in a great deluge. Many people were drowned, but some were saved on mangrove boats." You can easily imagine a father telling his child the story, perhaps like this:
"The sky opened and the water poured down in a great deluge. Many people were drowned, but some were saved on an ark."
"Daddy, what's an ark"?
"It's a boat, like our mangrove boats"
And then when the child is grown up and relating the story to his children, it becomes "The sky opened and the water poured down in a great deluge. Many people were drowned, but some were saved on things like our mangrove boats." And then, over time "things like our" gets dropped, and it becomes simply "on mangrove boats".
So the differences, including embellishments and forgetting migration to this continent, are understandable. But the similarities indicate that both the Genesis account and the aboriginal accounts, along with many other accounts from all around the world, stem from a common event that their ancestors experienced.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@medialcanthus9681
"abolish slavery? Weren't they the ones who created that slavery which they later abolished."
Nope. Slavery was widespread in the ancient world, and with some good reason. That is, some slavery was actually people working off a debt that they owed. The laws of the pre-Christian nation of Israel regulated slavery, to protect the slaves, but it wasn't the origin of slavery.
In the New Testament, it was taught that slaves were, to God, equal to their masters. This thought, and that all people are made in the image of God, led to early Popes issuing edicts against slavery. They didn't have a lot of effect, but over time, with Christians treating slaves as equal when it comes to things like communion, slavery died out.
Much later it returned in a more racist form, supported by the atheists and neo-atheists of the Enlightenment, but again Christians, with William Wilberforce being one, stepped up to the plate and got it abolished a second time.
"As to women's rights, kindly find out how a woman should behave as written in the holy book."
How should I behave towards my boss at work? He is my 'master', and I am his 'servant'. Those are the roles that we have. It doesn't mean that he is superior to me as a person.
The Bible says that in a marriage, the husband is in charge. However, it also says that the husband must love his wife sacrificially, as Jesus did with the church. In the church, Jesus is in charge, but Jesus acted as a servant, despite being in charge. In other words, although the Bible appoints the husband to be the head of the house (as my employer appoints my boss to be in charge of me), this is most definitely not a case of treating the woman as inferior or as a chattel or anything else like that.
"and what about killing the natives n aboriginal pple? Dare to hold their head high?"
Yes (as a generalisation). Many Christians treated the aborigines as equals. What the aborigines did suffer from was evolutionary (which is atheistic) ideas which promoted the idea that aborigines were not as evolved as Caucasians. Many bodies of aborigines were dug up and sent to museums as examples of 'primitive' man. Some were even shot for that purpose.
"and did the holy book ask them to hold the head high. Did it not say be humble?"
I was using your term (or a version of it). But what you (and therefore I) were referring to was not hanging our heads in shame; it wasn't about being proud of ourselves. We can, however, be proud of our God and what He has done for us.
2
-
@russellparratt9859
"Your reply reads as...[snipped].
I guess it might, to someone to whom these views are so very different to their own. It doesn't make them wrong, though.
"On another point, your "god" is no more than the essential element of Jewish creation mythology."
What's your evidence for that? Or is this just anti-Christian fiction?
"It was a culturally specific myth, that was able to spread to many other places either by force, coercion, or popular appeal."
What is culturally-specific about teaching that all people were created by God? And it mostly spread by being convincing and being helpful.
"when people try to explain these things with rigid theological dictates, they always get it wrong."
I'm explaining these thing with history.
" "Jesus" was also the reason why...[snipped]"
The Inquisitions and especially the witch hunts were short-term aberrations. In fact most of what you mention were exceptions to the rule.
"...why the Bubonic plague spread everywhere, ..."
I'm not aware of the connection. What did this have to do with Jesus?
"and the assaults upon the indigenous populations of countries colonised by the "civilised" West."
What assaults? See also my response to Medial canthus in this sub-thread. It was Christians/Christian teaching that stopped cannibalism, spread democracy, introduced literacy, and more, to many of those indigenous populations.
"It was the eventual rise to supremacy of SECULAR laws that were able to break the oppressive hold that the church had upon Western civilisation, freeing it from clerical tyranny."
That is fiction. It was Christianity that made Western civilisation.
2
-
"The next census will show yet another fall in the number of catholics in Australia, because of stuff like this."
Even if true, that says nothing about whether they were in the right or wrong.
"...it will only hasten their decline into irrelevancy."
No, they will always remain relevant, even if ignored. (Well, Christianity will, at least.)
"They also take public money,..."
Taxpayer money, provided in many cases by Catholics. So your point is...?
"All schools should be 100% privately funded."
I'd go along with that. As long as you mean it: ALL schools, not just religious ones. Anything else would be discriminatory (in a bad way).
"I also said I support their right to do this. So you should learn to read."
I don't see where he suggested that you didn't.
"It might be true that the church will shrink faster if it shirks its traditional values, but it will shrink regardless,..."
That's not a given. That's your hope, based on short-term trends. Christianity has been in decline numerous times before, only for God to revive it.
"...I think bad PR doesn’t help it."
True, in many cases at least. But there will always be those giving it bad PR by falsely maligning it.
"Saying that some girls can’t attend just seems mean, rather than principled."
Given that there was a valid reason given, it's clearly principled rather than just being mean. Further, I don't think that the school said that they couldn't attend. They just couldn't do so as a couple.
"Because I never said the voice was going to pass, neither did the polls,..."
Well, the polls did early on.
"But the stats on religion in Australia are very clear. Look at the census results, look at the trend, and use some common sense."
Even common sense says that some things go in cycles. And as I said above, God has often revived it.
"I’m suggesting that this sort of thing only hastens the decline of catholicism."
I'd tend to agree there. These sorts of irrational attacks do have a negative effect.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sc1450 People have to follow the standards. The problem is not what the Bible's standards are, but that some church people didn't follow them.
"So saying that lack of fixed standards like Bible may make Atheists do bad things is not true..."
Then it's just as well I didn't say that. That is, I never said that a lack of fixed standards would "make" atheists do bad things. On the contrary, I indicated that most atheists would not be like that.
"because Church even with the Bible has killed Millions in the past in the name of religion, woman set on fire in the name of witchcraft etc."
Again, that's because they didn't follow those standards. But as those standards existed, other Christians have fought against those practices. If the standards didn't exist, they would have no basis for fighting against them.
Also, the figures are exaggerated. The number of women burnt for being witches is quite low (a few score, I think). And the numbers killed by atheists far outweigh all "religious"-based killings, even when including other theistic religions.
"We are ok without the Bible because you even having Bible doesn't seem to be any better than us. It's a useless Book."
No, it's not useless. You've cited a few examples of people going against God's standards despite supposedly believing the Bible. What you're ignoring is the tremendous amount of good cone by Christians because of following God, including founding public hospitals, introducing universal education, founding science, abolishing slavery, improving the status of women, spreading democracy, and more.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dmarshall8366
"Jonah living in a whale is a bridge to far for my logic"
The Bible doesn't say that it was a whale. It says that "Now the Lord provided a huge fish to swallow Jonah,". The word "fish" here can refer to sea creatures, so that doesn't rule out a whale, but it doesn't say that it was a whale either.
So, given that correction, what is actually illogical about it? And as Jill Stevenson mentioned, similar has actually happened in recent times.
"Noahs Ark, two of every creature? Feeding them, the poo, ..."
Try reading "A Feasibility Study of Noah's Ark" which looks at all sorts of aspects like that, and shows that it's feasible.
"...keeping preditors from prey, ..."
Zoos do that all the time. Ever heard of cages or compounds? If you can't figure that, you're not trying.
"...walking on water,..."
What is impossible about God walking on water? Or causing someone else to do it to?
"...raising people from the dead, ..."
Again, why is it so hard to believe that a being capable of designing and creating humans, could raise them from the dead?
"...turning Lots wife into a pillar of salt, ..."
Child's play for God.
"...parting oceans, turning water into wine, could go on and on but you get the point."
Yes, I get the point. The point is that you have already ruled out God, and therefore those things can't have happened. Start with a faulty premise, and nothing will make sense.
So given that you've ruled out God, please explain how nothing can explode and become everything for no reason. Explain how that doesn't defy the principle of cause and effect.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Sai Sasank
"Metric is internally consistent..."
I would normally understand the term 'internally consistent' to mean that it doesn't contradict itself anywhere, in which case my response would be that the same applies to the imperial system. But perhaps you're using it to mean that the same terms (kilo, etc.) apply for all measurement types. In that case, yes, you're right.
"...and easier to use"
For the most part, yes, I agree.
"That is the main argument."
And I think that's the point. I wasn't arguing that the imperial system is better. Rather, as I said, "Like much of this video, it may be that metric is better, but the rationale given for it is questionable. " I guess that could have been clearer, because the word "much" was meant to apply to the rationale too. There IS a good argument for the metric system (it being easier and consistent). But the comment I was replying to, and a number of the reasons given in the video for it being better, are questionable. Just stick to the main argument, and you have a point. Start adding other reasons like the claiming that the metric system has logic, and you're giving the impression that it has advantages (other than the main one) that it simply doesn't have.
"So converting is so much easier and I can use my energy on something else important"
True. And yet, I wonder if it contributes to a dumbing down, where we make everything so simple that we tend to lose the ability to think more complexly.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"... if your amen-corner Ideology is a mish-mash of BOTH "politics" & AND "religion" ..."
I would like to see a much clearer definition of what that means, of where the distinction lies. For example, suppose "religious" people said that practice X was morally wrong, and consequently religious groups wouldn't hire people with that practice. There is a public (read: mainstream media) backlash against this, and the politicians decided to get involved and pass laws about it. What began as a "religious" issue, has just become a "political" issue. So has that religion just become a non-religion because the politicians got involved? My point is that there are some issues that are in the realm of both religion and politics.
Also consider that the basis of our laws—common law—has its origins in Christianity and the Bible. In fact Western Civilisation is, historically, based on Christianity. The magna carta that is a key document in our legal history was very much influenced by the idea that the king is subject to God's laws. So where does your proposal then leave Christianity?
Getting right down to basics, politicians pass laws (in many cases) because they consider something to be morally wrong. That's the case with the proposed laws discussed in this video. We consider it morally wrong to promote violence and hatred of Jews. But morality is the domain of religion. That's why we have laws against rape, for example—because Christianity considers it morally wrong, unlike the ancient Roman empire where it was acceptable (in many cases, even if not in all).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@romany8125
"False? Just watch what the douche in the video says. Anyone who knows anything about physics would call him out on his bs."
And yet, although not a trained physicist (like you?), I know something about physics, and am not calling him out on anything related to physics. So clearly your comment is false.
"The argument of this kind: we don't know, therefore God - is a logical fallacy of the simplest kind, works only on children and, well, theists."
I know many theists that it doesn't work well on, and given that he's not using that argument, your side-tracking.
"Non-carbon based lifeforms are just unknown to us at this moment, not unlikely or improbable, so stop making things up."
I'm not making things up. I admittedly probably can't find anything readily on that at the moment, but I've seen articles explaining why non-carbon-based lifeforms are unlikely and improbably. By contrast, it appears you are simply speculating about things you don't know. You can imagine anything when you're not familiar with the limitations.
"And to talk about odds you would need to put aside the fairy tales book ..."
I'm not consulting a fairy-tales book. I've already mentioned that, but you ignore me.
"Than you would know that if the chances of life on the planet are one to a trillion (very debatable)..."
Definitely debatable. The chances are actually far lower. Sir Fred Hoyle, for example, calculated that the odds of a single functional protein coming together in a primordial soup are equivalent to the solar system being filled shoulder-to-shoulder with blind men with Rubik's cubes all coming to the solution at the same time. And that was just for a protein, not life.
In fact, the chances are zero, because nature is incapable of creating genetic information (or any such information, as would be needed for any form of life). According to Paul Davies, it's actually contrary to the laws of physics: "There is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing."
"...and the amount of planets is estimated as 70 quintillion"
Which includes inhospitable planets like Mercury and Jupiter. The vast majority of planets discovered so far are nothing like Earth.
"Put that in your pipe and smoke it..."
I don't smoke, and your claims are wrong.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@simonharris4873
"Nope, the context was limited to a situation where nobody was ... causing any harm to others."
That's not in evidence. Clearly, they would be an influence on others, and that influence would be in favour of something immoral.
"So you have a problem with my comments, but no problem with his? Tells me all I need to know about you."
That he is also a sensible person?
"Nahh mate, I'm an atheist."
And therein lies the problem, rejecting reality.
"I don't an imaginary friend telling me what to believe."
And neither do I. God is real. Or perhaps you can produce evidence that He is imaginary?
"I'm not the one with an lmaginary friend."
And neither am I. So your point fails.
"STRAW MAN ALERT!!! I never said anyone "forces parents to send their children to a catholic school"."
Nevertheless, your argument (which fails anyway) fails further unless that was implied.
"You wonna talk about values and beliefs WRT morals. We had a plebiscite on that a few years ago. A considerable majority disagree with you."
So? You start by suggesting you would talk about values and beliefs with respect to morals, then switch to popular opinion! But then for an atheist, opinion is the only basis for morals, isn't it?
"Given that "moral" stems from the acceptance of the community,..."
No, it doesn't. Except for an atheist, who has that subjective opinion, because they have nothing else to base it on, having irrationally rejected the real basis.
"it's quite clear that both your personas are wrong when it comes your claims on these people and their morals."
No, it is you who is wrong, because your wrong premise has led to a wrong conclusion.
"You know there's nothing in the bible that says 2 girls can't go to a school dance together."
Talking about strawman alerts, this is not simply about two girls, but about two girls appearing to be in a same-sex relationship.
"Again, I'm not the one that bought up theology, PJ is."
I don't recall mentioning theology. I brought up morality.
"Fact is, the anti discrimination laws in our country are well known."
Which doesn't make them right. And I don't think anyone has said that what the school did was illegal.
"If the school can't abide by them, they should move to another country."
No, the country should accept what's moral and reject what isn't. Just as everyone should.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MickRhodes-ml5cm
"Do you seriously think that Americans and Australians have the same rights?"
I think that we largely do, but obviously there would be some differences. We are both part of Western Civilisation which is based on Christianity, which promoted human rights. Much of Europe has gone away from that more than the United States, and in some respects more than Australia.
"We don’t and that’s primarily as we have different values."
Yes, in some respects, but not in others.
"How about Americans and mainland Chinese? Do you think they have the same rights?"
Given that one is historically, and still very much, Christian, and the other is Marxist (atheistic), no, they have very different views. And that is why China, far more than America, is a problem.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dankdubious7702
"That is true too, but remember that there were traditions well before this that revolved around winter solstice."
I guess you could find some traditions somewhere for almost all of the calendar. That doesn't really mean much. And the winter solstice is a few days earlier, so although a festival for it might have lasted for a few days and overlapped, it's not a good match.
"It was Catholics that promoted these, ..."
Sorry, what are "these"? The other traditions, or Christmas? When do you think the early church could realistically be called "Catholic"? Because I'd say that was well after when Christmas was first celebrated.
"In my opinion, if we dont make a separate occassion and keep it holy, if we do the same things on the same days under a different name, we really arent doing anything different at all..."
There is no evidence that I'm aware of that Christmas was intended to replace a pagan festival. Even if there was a pagan festival on the same date, it doesn't follow that Christmas was put on that date in order to replace it.
And we are not doing the same thing. We are celebrating the birth of Christ, which the pagan festivals did not do. So we are doing something different.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Yes if you are religious it just means you don't know enough science ..."
And yet, as pointed out in the video, it was Christians who founded modern science.
"or are to stubborn to acknowledge that there is no proof of a god."
As opposed to the atheists who claim that there is no proof or evidence, but who cannot provide evidence of their claim? What's the evidence for this claim of yours that there is no proof of a god?
"Many people are too afraid to confront the truth because they are used to believing in a god and don't want to disappoint family and friends as well as feel like they wasted their life preaching."
Many people are too afraid to confront the truth because they are used to believing in no god and don't want to disappoint family and friends as well as feel like they wasted their life not believing in God.
"If something came to me to tell me that they are god and did something to prove it so grand, I would still deny them as god ..."
So you'd reject evidence for God. Not surprising for an atheist. Their faith is stronger than the evidence.
"because by the logic of having a god, would mean that something made that god too"
You're assuming that God had a beginning. That is a faulty assumption, and therefore removes the basis of your conclusion.
"This can go on forever since the idea of god is a catch 22 and makes no sense to believe such small thinking stuff..."
Does this "small thinking" including assuming that God had a beginning, when the Bible and Christians don't teach that? Maybe it would be a good idea to actually understand the idea that you criticise before showing your ignorance of the topic.
"...people are not using logic to question why out of all the billions of galaxies, why did god only make Earth the only one with life ..."
Why do you think that's a valid question? We already know that God's purpose was to create man, and the Earth and the universe are simply a place for man to exist.
"why would people believe in stuff we proved to not have merit such as "the Earth is flat and the center of the universe"."
The church never believed in a flat earth. That was simply an atheist invention. And, it turns out, there is evidence that the Milky Way is close to the centre of the universe. Not that being the "centre" has to mean the physical centre as opposed to the centre of attention, but there you go.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
lenamonroe4130
"Christians also helped building hospitals in the West they also helped with opening colleges/schools and charity work etc."
They didn't simply help with those things. They instigated many of them. It was Christians who founded public hospitals, for example. Hospitals already existed, but they were for soldiers and slaves (who were valuable assets). The wealthy paid doctors for home visits, but the poor fended for themselves. Unlike the Romans and Greeks who cared only for themselves, the Christians cared for others. It was also Christians who founded universal education.
"...Ancient Rome and Greece ... invented public roads, public bath houses, feeding the poor, public colloseums, public libraries, public pools and toilets etc. Helping they neighbor are Civic values, not socialist values."
Feeding the poor? No, that was Christians. And although I don't know specifics, I would question how much those other "public" things were done the general public. It does seem that bath houses were available for most, but then that was pay-for-use, so the more people you allow the more money you can make.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"The 2021 report revealed that the ABC was the most accessed news brand in Australia,..."
Given that they have more outlets that anyone else, that doesn't mean much. In Melbourne, for example, as well as their television channels and their online presence, they have at least four radio stations that I can think of off the top of my head.
"Sky News came well down the field in eighth position, with just 10 per cent of the audience, a drop of two percentage points from the previous year."
And in the 2022 report, they are up two percentage points from 2021, back to 12% and seventh position.
And of course it's not a fair comparison, with Sky not being free to air in the cities.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@samirgomeznovelo746
"This makes no sense,..."
Except that it does.
"...you are not taking into consideration the prefferences of everyone else,..."
How does it not take them into consideration?
"This would also hurt always the political ideology with less candidates,..."
No, it doesn't.
"...lets say A, B and C are leftists and only D is right wing, that would mean that even if D got a double digit advantage over its co.petitors, he will definetively lose if he does not get a direct 51% number 1 vote, ..."
Correct. And, unfortunately (from the point of view of me being a conservative), that's as it should be. That is, the conservative loses not because there were fewer conservative candidates, but because there were fewer votes for a conservative. Because a majority don't want a conservative.
"...lets say [D] got 45% A got 30%, B 20% and C got 5%, in a ranked system, the clear victor would have lost, ..."
If he only got 45%, he's not the clear victor. A majority don't want him.
"...obviously the leftist would put D as their last option, that way, they are simply robbing the election from D, which had the most votes out of the 4 candidates,..."
D had the most first preference votes. You left out that bit. But a majority wanted someone else.
"...that means that the largest group of people that wanted in a coordinated and democratic manner the most voted candidate..."
And yet a majority didnt' want him. It's about who the voters prefer to be in office, not who gets the largest single block of votes.
"...democracies are supose to follow the single mayority,..."
False. They are supposed to follow the majority. The word "single" is not part of the definition. And the majority didn't want D.
"...in a democracy people has just 1 vote,..."
No, they have a vote at each election. So unless they only vote at one election... In the preferential system, they only get one vote (per election). However, they can list where that one vote goes in order of preference.
"...by allowing them to rank their choices it turns into a mutiple round system but with a single casting moment, ..."
Correct. And yet in this video, Steve Forbes endorses the idea of a multiple round system. In which, by the way, the people get to vote a second time. Does that mean that they have more than one vote? Or does it mean that their first vote is discarded and they get to cast their one vote a second time?
"...it is just that you are forcing people to vote for other candidates even if they do not believe in them, ..."
No, it is not forcing them to vote for other candidate. It's forcing you to rank the candidates in your order of preference. And even that's assuming that the system is not optional-preferential.
"...so they will cast their vote based on their closest ideology, looks or popularoty even if they do not like the actual policies or they do not trust the candidate."
And that never happens with any other type of election?
"...a multiple round vote would be better than a ranked system..."
It may be better in some ways. But it does involve people having to vote a second time, it's less convenient, it adds to the cost of the election, and it means having to wait longer for the result.
"...to me the best way to vote is via a single vote with a simple mayority win, in a democracy the largest group should win, even if it does not get more than the 50% of votes, because it means that the policy or candidate got the largest support..."
The largest group (in your example) is the group that doesn't want D. And yet you think he should win anyway! But turn it around. What if the leftists put up some pretend conservative candidates, but only had one of their own? Wouldn't that be a good way for the leftists to split the conservative vote so that they can win even if most people don't want a leftist?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yes, we should all remember that this occurred in a modern, industrial, Western society, with the support of the population.
There already existed an anti-Jewish feeling, but another significant factor was the acceptance of evolution (Ernst Haeckel was Germany's main promoter of it, and some of his fraudulent ideas persist to this day, such as the idea that babies in the womb develop through evolutionary stages), and that some 'races' are more advanced than others. And of course the Germans considered the so-called Aryan race the most advanced. This also explains why some victims of the holocaust were the disabled.
It also explains why there was a similar (albeit much smaller) earlier slaughter of the Herero people of the German-controlled South West Africa (now Namibia), reducing their population from 80,000 to 15,000. The Herero were often referred to as 'baboons' and were considered an inferior race.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"For those in Christ, no proof is needed."
Where do you get that idea from? Paul said that if Jesus didn't rise from the dead (i.e. if we didn't have evidence of that), then our faith is in vain. The Bereans were commended for checking what Paul told them, rather than just believing it without question.
But you've got a point. When Thomas said that that he wouldn't believe that Jesus had risen from the dead unless he saw the evidence, he was told to not worry about the evidence, but to simply have faith. Oh wait—no, he wasn't told that. He was given the evidence!
"For the lost, there's never enough."
That part often seems to be true, but then there are plenty of exceptions, such as Lee Strobel, the investigative reporter who set out to show that the Bible was wrong, only to end up being convinced by the evidence.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Nick Williams "Religion is a huge problem,..."
Many, including atheist ones, are. Christianity, on the other hand, has the runs on the board, in introducing universal education, public hospitals, many charities, abolishing slavery, spreading democracy, lifting the status of women, founding modern science, and so on.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@leonharrison800
"Stop the lies. "
They aren't lies.
"Judeo,Chridtian,Islamic all Patriarchal."
That's not the same thing as not respecting women.
"No respect for women ..."
False, as I said (in the case of Christianity). At the time of Christ, women were considered second class, but Jesus treated them as equals. In the New Testament it's said that "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." That is, everyone is equal (and that was one factor that led to Christianity twice abolishing slavery). At the time (and before), a woman normally had to have a man to look after her. This was either her father or her husband. When she was widowed, she was on her own, with no income. One of the first things the church did was set up a fund to help widows.
If someone wrote a novel about Jesus rising from the dead, they wouldn't write that this fact was discovered by women; the novel wouldn't be credible. But the New Testament records just that (indicating that it's not fiction), and implicitly granting the women respectability. Christians passed laws to stop women being used as pit ponies in mines. It was Christian countries that first gave women the vote.
Meanwhile, in other societies, women are often still treated as second class citizens. In one society until Christian influences brought a stop to it, widows were burned alive on their husband's funeral pyre (reportedly still happening within my lifetime), and even as recently as a few years ago a female photographer complained that that society has organisations for the protection of cows but not women.
"...or lgbt people."
That is false too, because you seem to think that respect means agreeing with them. Christians respect LGBT+ people, but disagree with their beliefs.
"Get a reality check."
I'm citing reality to you.
"t was Indigenous cultures that had a place and respect for non binary. "
That's nothing more than pro-LGBT propaganda.
"Two Spirit people always existed ..."
No, that's an invention. As someone here said, get a reality check.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@iceman4660
"I agree with you."
Thank you.
"Its probably fair to say that it was in Protestant christendom that the drive to end slavery originated."
Much as I'd like to credit Protestantism (being a Protestant), I don't know that that's correct. I've read that several popes disapproved of it, albeit with limited results. Jeremiah J. Johnston, in his book Unimaginable, ties it up with racism, but indicates that it was much earlier.
“Christianity has successfully abolished slavery not once, but twice before—in late antiquity and again in the 1800s,...As you may recall, as far back as our available sources take us, philosophers, politicians, and playwrights expressed racist opinions and dogmas. But starting in the fourth century, widespread racism ended for hundreds of years. Why was this?
That's when the Christian movement emerged as a dominant cultural force in the Roman Empire, and the bold socio-theological statement "There is neither Jew nor Greek" took hold. Unfortunately, racist ideology, and with it justification for slavery in the West, reemerged in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries."
Wilberforce and his colleagues were of course Protestants (assuming you count Anglicans as Protestants). But if it was first abolished starting around the fourth century, that predates Protestantism by about a millennium.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sam7559 That sounds good, and I'm quite tempted to agree, but I think I stand by my previous reply above:
----------
If they truly are questions from people wanting to learn, and not arguments to the contrary. There is nothing wrong with a child asking his parents why fathers are necessary. But when a journalist does it in the media, they are not doing it to learn; they are arguing for a contrary view, or at the very least arguing that a contrary view has merit, when, as educated people, they should already know why it's correct.
----------
In other words, it depends on their motive. Are they genuinely questioning, are they genuinely challenging to be certain that we're not just assuming, or are they trying to reshape society. Or, to put it another way, is this coming from a genuine desire to know, or from a worldview that rejects most of what is good?
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Time to claw back 200 years of unpaid taxes from the various churches in this country."
Taking money from them that they were not required to pay is theft. And do you propose that for all other non-profits, or just churches? If just churches, why the discrimination?
"It's totally unreasonable that religious institutions are given a tax-break unlike literally everyone else."
It's not unlike literally everyone else. It also applies to most non-profits. Get your facts right.
"they are un-accountable, un-auditable, un-suable "
False, false, and false.
"Their representatives have habitually abused children for centuries."
Also false. Some bad eggs in the batch should not be a reflection on the church as a whole.
"They have guilt-tripped people into providing donations."
Exceptions to the rule.
"They pay no tax on this income..."
Just like most organisations. For-profit businesses pay tax on profits, not income.
"...and use the money to acquire more assets."
As a generalisation, that is false. Much of the money goes to wages and other financial support.
"The whole game is a total scam."
No, atheist attacks like yours are the scam, full of falsehoods.
"Oh, sorry, customers of Catholicism represent a tiny 50% of 'christians' "
Customers? "Christians" in scare quotes? You either can't or don't want to make a rational argument; your comments are full of rhetoric and falsehoods. Further, 50% is not "tiny", so you have actually conceded Ervin Nagy's point, without admitting it. Hardly intellectually honest.
"...seeing as though they all subscribe to the same fairy-tale, ..."
What's your evidence that it's a fairy tale? Why would millions, including many intelligent people, including the founders of scientists, think that it's real? No, this is just another of your falsehoods.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@inmundo6927
"You are exactly missing the point. Thats not at "the heart" of the religion, is superimposed by fear and will to dominate... "
No, it is you who missed my point. I never claimed that it was at "the heart" of that religion. Rather, I asked if "be good to others" is at the heart of that religion. Because you'd have to wonder how it could coexist with those other beliefs.
"But whatever, Im not religious,..."
That depends on how you define "religious". One definition of religion is the set of beliefs on which you base your life. By that definition, you'd presumably qualify. Another understanding of it is a set of rites and rituals. By that definition, I probably wouldn't, even though I'm a Christian.
"... so I have nothing to defend or argue about."
And yet you argued about it! And you made claims about it, which you have an onus to defend.
"nobody knows the truth.."
And there's another of those claims that you have an onus to defend. What's your evidence that nobody knows it?
"...but yeah, they are atheistic views, which I believe is necessary for "true" religious thinking."
How does that make sense?
"There's nothing, then there is the "self". And not much beyond that."
Yet again, evidence please.
"All diff religions get lost trying to interpret what is beyond "truthfully"..."
And again! But I suppose there will be no evidence for that claim either.
"...yet most go back to the same creational myths and converge on the tripple deities and so on and so forth..."
And yet most don't. And what makes the Christian account a "myth"? Incompatibility with the atheist's origins myth?
"Im trying to get to that root. The sense of wonder... I suppose you can call it."
Good. But perhaps try looking at reliable recorded history, not arguments that presuppose no God.
2
-
@inmundo6927
"What are you exactly debating about?"
With you? I'm debating claims that you have made.
"I dont even know if you post 3000 diff questions and lines of thought..."
I actually post very little except in response to what other people post.
"... you clutter the debate heavily making it really impossible."
That's your opinion.
"I simply dont even know what your point even is... to challenge anything I say for the sake of it?"
No, to challenge it either because I disagree with it or disagree with your logic.
"Any point of your own to propose?"
Not necessarily.
"Or are you goint to pick appart absolutely every sentence I make??"
Only if I think it warrants picking apart. But then a lot of what you say does warrant that.
"Asking me to reword or retrace my steps for every letter I write? "
No, asking you to justify your atheistic claims that you seem to think are widely accepted or self-evidently true, when neither is the case.
"One at a time.. WHAT DID I SAY which so prompted you to question every paragraph Ive written ever since???"
Everything I quoted you saying!
"That religions DO NOT have proof of being THE TRUTH? other than make believe? ... Is that even debatable.. "
Of course it's debatable. The fact that you seem to think it doesn't shows your ignorance of the topic. This is an issue that I often face with atheists—their worldview is fundamentally different to that of Christians, to the point that they often simply don't know how different it is, and take things for granted that are not accepted by everyone. And then are surprised and puzzled when they are challenged on things that they think are universally accepted.
"What-ever.. you are not supposed to believe it, just grab any religious book there is and show me the science.."
I'm not discussing "any religious book"—another atheistic fallacy of treating all religions other than their own as essentially the same. (You had the same fallacy in your claim of religions not having proof of the truth.)
And much of the discussion is about history, not science. And much of the rest is about God's existence, something that is outside the scope of science to study. So I don't know why you're bringing science into it*, unless you're an adherent of scientism, the unscientific view that science can answer all questions.
*—I do know, actually. It's because of that fundamentally different worldview that atheists have.
"there isnt."
Oh? Evidence please. Because I can quote examples. For one, the Bible records that God created living things to reproduce after their own kind, i.e. the offspring of dogs will be dogs, not cats, for example. And science shows that that is indeed what happens. The Bible also gives an outline of the hydrological cycles.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@turnerfamilyinozi
"But the unvaccinated can and do hurt other people in society "
First, this is about vaccination status, not vaccination itself. For example, I am vaccinated (by choice) but still know that mandating it is wrong.
Second, no, unvaccinated people don't hurt anybody. People with covid potentially do, but that is a different category (even if there is overlap). Unvaccinated people don't necessarily have covide, and vaccinated people can have covid. I didn't say that people with covid should be allowed unrestricted access. I said people who choose to not be vaccinated should not be discriminated against.
Third, if vaccination is supposed to protect the vaccinated person. So what is the danger to vaccinated people if they are in the company of unvaccinated even if the latter have covid?
Fourth, do you apply that logic to all diseases? Perhaps we should also ban people who haven't had the flu vaccine from restaurants and the like. Do you support that? If not, you're applying a double standard.
"They also put undue pressure on the medical system."
Unvaccinated people without covid? How?
"Most laws are made to protect people in society."
True, but not at the expense of reasonable personal freedom. After all, car accidents kill hundreds(?) each year. So maybe we should ban cars to protect people in society?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@marvelstark3797
"...that was you POV."
A reason-based one.
"...she and some of her colleagues did not partake to that invitation. so, in overall, she has the right to do so.."
That is your POV, but your conclusion does not follow from your premise. She is still part of the body that invited him, so she should respect that. She could of course object to the invitation, but to object in that manner once the event is underway is disrespectful.
"...also, respect is given, not required."
I don't know what you mean. Respect was not given (by her) in this instance, but respect is required. Even disagreement should be done respectfully.
"there are much more worst that happen in the parliament that is worth disrespecting."
"Others are worse" is always a bad argument to justify an action (although it's legitimate when pointing out hypocrisy).
"what considerations you are talking about?"
Protesting in that context and as part of the body that invited him, for one.
"...did she disrespect the parliament for doing it in silent? nahhhh.. there are much more worst that happen in the parliament that is worth disrespecting."
Again, "others are worse" does not make this occasion okay. She did disrespect parliament.
"...you need to improve your reading comprehension. if you are reading and understanding properly the whole discussion about that comment,..."
My reply was to your comment alone, not the any greater discussion. As such, you've not shown any lack of reading comprehension on my part. Further, it was a question (complete with a question mark!), because I wasn't sure what you meant. It seems you mistook it as a claim, in which case you're the one who needs to improve your reading comprehension.
"...the very fact that for you silent protest is better that noisy protest, says it all that if we talking her of ethics, ..."
False (and that's a fact, not an opinion). Someone who steals a loaf of bread is not as bad as someone who steals a car, but both are being unethical.
"...her silent protest is much more ethical than noisy protest of any other debate in the parliament which sometimes comes to shouting."
Yet again, "others are worse" is not an argument to exonerate her. Further you compare her protesting an invited speaker with regular debates in Parliament, which are two different things.
"with the words that you were saying here, i guess you really have a problem with your comprehension in understanding when reading and listening."
Another commenter corrected me on that, and I acknowledged that I was wrong on that point. But that was not a comprehension problem, just something I misheard.
"i hope next time, you will try to improve comprehension and understanding simple things. coz, it jsut really waste your time commenting nonsensical things."
I'm not infallible, and admitted to one mistake, but otherwise what I said stands, and I've pointed out that you appear to have a comprehension problem in not recognising a question as a question.
"she has a manners. just so happen that you dont like it."
Yes, she has manners, but not enough. And it's not simply a case of him not liking it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JasonMysteria
"Your whole comment is wrong."
No, it's not.
"Homophobia means to be afraid of homos or gayness in general."
A phobia is an irrational (baseless) fear, not just a fear. But otherwise yes, that's what the word means.
"You can hate, dislike, or disagree with homosexuals and homosexual lifestyles and not be homophobic."
I know. I never said otherwise. What I did say, however, is that the word is often wrongly used of people who disagree without being afraid.
"Phobia basically means fear of, not hatred for."
I never said that it meant hatred for. In fact, what I actually said was "It means to have an irrational fear of homosexual/homosexuality,"
"Also, even if someone's homophobic or doesn't agree with homosexuality, so what? It's their choice and preference."
It's also right to disagree with it; it's not merely a choice or preference.
So what part of what I said do you actually disagree with? You said that my comment was all wrong, but didn't identify anything that was wrong in my comment.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@codemang87
"you call it gods word ..."
Because it is.
"...but ignore the fact that each book is written by a different man..."
No, I don't ignore that. I'm well aware of that. When a celebrity writes his AUTObiography, he will often get a professional writer to write it for him. Much of the wording of the autobiography is that of the professional writer, but the choice of content and the responsibility for its accuracy, and the name on the front, is that of the celebrity. Similarly, God 'inspired' various men to write His book.
"...and supposed prophet."
Not necessarily prophets. The human authors included shepherds, kings, fishermen, prophets and probably unnamed bureaucrats.
"You also ignore that man has rewritten and removed those same books."
Except he hasn't, for the most part. The Israelites were very careful to make sure the copies they made were very accurate, doing things like counting the number of words on each line and checking them against the previous copy, and, given that every letter had a numerical equivalent (like the Roman numerals I, V, X, etc.), they added up the values and compared them too, similar in principle to modern computer checksums. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, they included copies of Old Testament books much older than the previously-oldest known copies, which showed how little that they had changed over time.
"Ironically, you don't even appeared to have read Jeremiah 14:14 who clearly says the prophets are telling you lies."
Except that I have read it, and it clearly does not refer to all prophets (God was telling this to a prophet after all! ), but to particular ones at the time who were lying.
Jesus (who is God), when challenged by Satan or by the religious leaders, didn't tell them "I, as God, am telling you that you're wrong". Rather, He quoted from books in what we refer to as the Old Testament. That is, He considered the Old Testament as at least as authoritative as Himself! Why would Jesus do that, if He considered them flawed?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Void-uj7jd Which bit are you referring to? That a day is like a thousand years, or that a thousand years is like a day? The two actually cancel out, after all. But also, what does that have to do with Genesis? It's not talking about the days of creation. Do you apply that verse to the days and nights that Jesus was in the tomb? Perhaps that was actually 3000 years? Or the seven days that the Israelites under Joshua marched around Jericho? Did they actually march for 7000 years? Or any of numerous other references to days? Or maybe Jesus lived, died and rose again only two days ago, not two thousand years, if a thousand years is a day?
It doesn't say that a day is a thousand years, but that for God, a day is "as" (like) a thousand years, and a thousand years is "as" (like) a day, meaning that time makes no difference to God. And as I said, Genesis says that a day (directly in the context of the days of creation, unlike in 2 Peter), is an evening and a morning (which is why the Jewish day begins at sunset, not midnight). "And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@blackriver2531
"transphobia isn't having an irrational fear of transgender people at all so you look pretty stupid there, "
What's your evidence for that, given that a "phobia" means having an irrational fear? I'm not wrong, nor do I look stupid, just because you say so.
"you can't treat trans kids horribly and then say you don't hate trans kids."
But I'm not treating them horribly. I'm simply disagreeing with something. Disagreeing does not equate to being horrible. You're disagreeing with me. So you must be treating me horribly (including saying that I look pretty stupid). So I guess that means that you hate me? Or do different rules apply to you?
"At the very least you hate happy children..."
More utter and offensive nonsense.
"Factually speaking bulimia and being transgender have NOTHING in common."
Factually speaking, that is complete nonsense. And given that I've already pointed out one thing that they have in common, that you have not refuted, then you are simply repeating an already-debunked claim by simply asserting an opinion. That's not an argument, and shows a lack of logic.
"So you don't understand words, definitions, or logic. That sucks."
No, that does not follow from what you said. So is more evidence of treating me horribly, so more evidence (by your logic) that you hate me.
"also try googling..."
No. The person making the claim is the one that has the onus to back it up. It's not my job to find evidence supporting your claims.
"There is no study that shows transition harms people."
If the transition involves surgery, which means removing healthy body parts, I would call that harm.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Kerri-o3d
"It always amuses me when people defend the hosts of shows, HOSTS, not reporters."
And it always annoys me when people malign the hosts without providing good reasons. Yes, hosts, because these are opinion pieces, not news reports, where you'd expect reporters.
"And how do people get to be hosts - well, according to the opinions a host holds they will get the job or not,..."
Evidence please. As I've already pointed out (and you've ignored), they hold a variety of opinions.
"Do you think Sky employs it's hosts for their reporting skills?"
No, first because they are employed as commentators, not reporters.
Second, I think it's because of their knowledge of the topics and their ability to present them to the viewing public. Bolt worked for Bob Hawke, and became a journalist. Kenny worked for Alexander Downer. Credlin worked for Tony Abbott. and so on.
"LOL if you do, I can't help you."
You can't help with evidence for your claims? Then sorry, but those claims can then be dismissed as baseless.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@matthewwadwell6100
"if our culture is that weak - then it deserves to be destroyed."
Perhaps so. But it's that weak because we've allowed nonsense such as this. Successfully opposing it shows that we are not weak. Apparently you want us to be weak.
"Though surely, as our culture has survived for hundreds of years, the acceptance of trans people isn't going to destroy it?"
That's not a given, but the real point is that this is just one aspect of the war against the West. Yes, if we allow just this one and stop everything else, the West would probably survive. But why stop everything else and not this one? That seems very arbitrary. Besides, we are not going to stop all such undermining, but the more we stop the better, so we need to stop as much as we can.
"After all, our culture withstood women's voting, non-white people voting, etc - which were a LOT more destabilising than trans acceptance!"
Those changes were morally right and not opposed to the basis of Western Civilisation—they were in line with it actually. This is wrong and opposed to the basis of Western Civilisation.
"And I had a further look at the 2021 Olympics."
Have a look too at the recent winter Olympics.
"And to your point about mainstream media, I found that it was actually well covered"
Mainstream media will shout the greatness of it if that's the story they want to spin, but not about where a bloke pretending to be a woman denies the women a win.
"Well, my kids have been taught very little about trans/same sex/etc."
So they don't go to a government school? At least not a Victorian one?
"After all - if the law allows it, then there is nothing wrong with being trans."
That is illogical. By that logic, there is never a need for new laws. Being trans is pretending to be something you're not, and, worse, requiring others to support your delusion.
"Virtually ALL of the issues I have mentioned have NOT been discussed in parliament."
I'm not sure what you think the Australian government should to about the Russia/Ukraine affair (pass a law making it illegal?), but Morrison has spoken out against it. I'm also not sure what anti-discrimination bill you're referring to, but if it's the religious anti-discrimination bill it was discussed at some length. The treasurer has talked about federal debt, and there is a government body that looks at foreign ownership matters. You might have a point on ICAC, but that's one out of five issues you mentioned.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tonyboleno8191
"what does the bible have to say about the aborigines? or australia for that matter?"
From Acts 17: "The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth,..." The Bible recognises different nations and people groups, but not races, as we are all one race.
Of course, given that Australia (the country) didn't exist when the Bible was written, you'd not expect it to be mentioned by name.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"The mighty Americans are a manipulative myth,..."
America under the left, as currently, is not what it has been. But ignoring that detail, no, it's not a myth.
"...they have economic power that has had (and won’t last much longer)..."
It's not a given that it won't last. It sounds more like wishful thinking on your part. And they also have military power, and technological power.
"...they lack many positive attributes that the Soviets and post Soviets have still today over 3 decades later."
Of course America is not perfect, but what sort of attributes are you thinking of?
"Poor countries in Africa and Asia will still be poor,..."
Also not a given.
"The “majority” is not the west,..."
In numbers, no. But the West is the most successful civilisation the world has seen.
"...Africa and Arab countries are not counted in that “majority census” for some reason as if they weren’t people! "
What "majority census" are you talking about?
"...the west doesn’t care about it, there’s no interest as if that part of the world did not exist."
If there's no interest, why do we have so much concern about ethical sources of chocolate, coffee, and similar, and concern about exploitation of workers in such places, and so on?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@killbotone6210
"I know it's incredibly difficult for you to grasp sentences, so I'll be clear. I meant you. I was talking about Phillip Rayment. "
The problem is that I am not a dishonest debater. So that claim was itself dishonest, making you the one that it applies to.
"You can not value something in principle but not in practice. ... The same applies to other organizations like Christianity"
You're right about principle vs. practice. But Christianity is not an organisation. It would be better described as a movement, in which the people (generally speaking) strongly believe the principles.
"Ooh you're assuming they were acting against Christian values?"
No assumption. If they were doing things against what the Bible teaches, then they were.
"I'm talking about people who followed the same source you just quoted, and in putting those values into action, they killed and tortured an awful lot of people. "
So they killed people in following the Bible, which says that you should not kill? Clearly they are NOT putting those values into practice, but going against them!
"Yes,Phillip, we know that. That's never been part of the discussion. Why are you bringing it up? "
It WAS an implied part of the discussion, as I quoted just before my reply: "..our wonderful British friends who, according to posters here, were busy being benevolent souls,trotting around the globe writing wrongs..."
"We've been dealing specifically with the image of a World Fixer that the OP is portraying the Brittish Establishment as. Even today, nobody sells more weapons of war to S.Arabia than the Brits, so his claims, steeped in Colonial propaganda, are begging to be challenged."
His comment was specifically about abolishing slavery. Your comment leaves this out, and gives the impression that that they were trying to fix everything, or all sorts of things. What they do today—as your bring up—has no bearing on their abolition of slavery. (And are they selling the weapons for attack or defence? You don't mention, presumably because in your mind it makes no difference for your argument). And what is "Colonial propaganda" about it? He was merely pointing out a fact of history.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@daniangoodman-jones3931
"I believe evolution is a real mechanism that exists and drives genetic diversity and adaptation. I trust in the scientific method."
The scientific method contradicts evolution. Scientists support evolution because they have a philosophical commitment to only providing natural explanations (known as methodological naturalism ), which means that supernatural explanations such as God creating are ruled out a priori even if the evidence support them. That is unscientific.
"To acknowledge that is in no way a refutation of the existence, or not, of god. To assume one is mutually exclusive from the other is indicative of someone who has a narrow view of the world."
You're half right. One could imagine a god that created or used evolution. However, the God of the Bible tells us how He created, and it was not by evolution. So evolution and the biblical account are most definitely mutually exclusive.
"The existence of God is not a position one takes like on the affirmative or negative team in a debate."
I'm sure it's often been a debate position!
"Right and wrong are perspectives that only mean something if the subject has a set of values with which to grade against. ... You see, when people go and make their own set of values that are arbitrary and not Devine, we tend to get it wrong."
Correct. The question is, where do those values come from? God, or oneself? If it's oneself, then it's really just subjective opinion, and therefore no grounds for saying that something is right or wrong. All you're really saying is that you do or don't like it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@PR-pe9oc
"a murderer can kill a pregnant woman and be charge for the murder of the woman AND her unborn baby."
That depends on the jurisdiction, but yes, I believe that can happen in some places.
"Because it’s “her body her choice”? How ... up is that?"
Completely, given that it's not her body.
"...abortion clinics need to be outlawed and all shut down."
That would still leave it legal outside of such clinics. Abortion itself needs to be outlawed, and the clinic would close from a lack of business (or perhaps switch to actual health care).
"I would hope it would haunt them for life after watching it."
It should, and has in some cases.
"But, many liberals are thirsty for the blood of children and need those babies for their damn world controlling vaccines."
With a small exception, this issue is unrelated to vaccines, and cells from aborted babies are not used in those vaccines. Some vaccines have been tested and/or grown on human cell lines that originally came from a handful of aborted babies decades ago, which is wrong (although in at least one case it might have been a miscarriage), but they don't need a supply of dead babies for vaccines.
"Unfortunately, I don’t ever seeing irresponsible abortion going away."
I wouldn't rule it out, but yes, it's currently looking unlikely.
2
-
2
-
2
-
"actually, the most successful societies are those that have become secular."
The most successful societies are those that have a reformed Christian heritage. The fact that many of those have become "secular" doesn't mean that the secularity is the cause.
"In the west once we distanced ourselves from religion things dramatically improved for the individuals of those societies."
History says otherwise. It was Christianity that introduced public hospitals and many charities, that founded science, that introduced the university system and also universal education, that spread democracy, that twice abolished slavery, that raised the status of women, and promulgated the concept of human rights. Stark (see below) wrote
“Christianity created Western Civilization. Had the followers of Jesus remained an obscure Jewish sect, most of you would not have learned to read and the rest of you would be reading from hand copied scrolls. Without a theology committed to reason, progress, and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800: A world with many astrologers and alchemists but no scientists. A world of despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys, and pianos. A world where most infants do not live to the age of five and many women die in childbirth–a world truly living in "dark ages."
The modern world arose only in Christian societies. Not in Islam. Not in Asia. Not in a "secular" society–there having been none. And all the modernization that has since occurred outside Christendom was imported from the West, often brought by colonizers and missionaries.”
What did 'secularity' do?
"...not really, they are mostly rooted in the enlightenment philosophers who spent a lot of time thinking rationally about things..."
Yes, really. The enlightenment philosophers did not invent thinking rationally about things; Christians had been doing that for centuries (see Rodney Stark's The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success. ). Enlightenment philosophers thought themselves superior, and therefore supported slavery.
"...and distancing themselves from things like religion which was oppressive and dogmatic at the time."
And yet they had the freedom to be different. Not very oppressive.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ozziecoops
"The federal gov did not mandate the states did and industry. "
I think that the federal government did for staff in federally-controlled nursing homes, but otherwise, yes, it was the states.
"Section 109. When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid"
There was no law of the Commonwealth that the state laws were inconsistent with in this. Further, that provision is clearly designed to apply to laws that are the federal government's right to make, and there is nothing in the constitution that makes this a federal matter (beyond things related to immigration). (Admittedly, however, the High Court has apparently ruled the other way in some cases.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@peterremkes9376
"Deves is Australian and should use Australian data."
Why? She should not misrepresent overseas data as Australian, but I see no reason she can't cite overseas data.
"Australian numbers should be used and not UK/US data because the countries are just not compatible."
Not compatible? Or not comparable?
And why not? Sure, Australia might be different, but it would be more similar to the UK and US than most other countries.
"The UK used to be part of Europe too."
It still is. That it's not part of the European Union doesn't mean that it's not part of Europe. But that doesn't mean that it's the same as other European countries either. Australia's post-aboriginal settlement was originally primarily from the UK and therefore we have a lot of similarities. For example our court system is based on the UK's, but different to France's even though that's another European country.
"This discussion started with me saying that Deves compared trans people with sexual predators. No doubt there is a link for some but if you say something like that as an Australian wannabe politician you should back it up with Australian data, it is there. And also say that while there is a link not all trans people are criminals. It sounds so much better."
The problem I have with that paragraph is that what we know of what Deves said is from critics who have taken her out of context and have apparently misrepresented her. For all I know, she did say that not all trans people are criminals, but her critics are not likely to mention that bit, and it doesn't help their case.
"She may not agree with their lifestyle, it is there and it won't go away."
So you're saying that they'll never come to their senses? I hope for a better outcome than that.
"There is still free speech in this country, in spite of what some say,..."
Yes, but it is being restricted, despite what some say.
"No need to unnecessarily hurt people."
And yet that is what the trans activists are doing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@carlomariaromano4320 I did simplify the explanation a bit, but no, there are no "jet black" people, as there is no black colouring agent in their skin. It's merely a lot of melanin that makes them very dark brown.
But yes, 'white' people are a bit pinkish, because they have so little melanin that the red from the blood shows through and provides some pinkishness. But they are not 'white' The whitest people are albinos, who, because of a genetic defect, produce no melanin at all (or next to none). Normal 'white' people produce some, and melanin production is temporarily increased in response to sunlight, which is what causes tanning. Albinos can't tan.
You're right that the amount of melanin is not the only factor. And yes, it's genetics, which defines, among other things, the amount of melanin production. However, the genetic difference between different 'races' is smaller than the genetic differences within a 'race', there is so much overlap. The genetic differences are real, but trivial. It's just that we tend to notice differences.
"That said, there are many population that don't fit in the "black" or "white" category."
Which was the point of my original comment: we exist on a spectrum (sex doesn't, but skin tone does).
"Caucasian is a better term than white."
Perhaps so, but the point is that we are in groups that overlap in various ways. If you search for the article "A lady of distinction Anything different about this woman?" you'll see a picture of a very dark Mondari (Southern Sudan) woman with "asian" eyes.
2
-
2
-
@gg_rider
"CRT disagrees with you."
Yeah, I know. Obviously I'm not smart enough to accept their impeccable logic and evidence, because I'm a Christian, and we all know that Christianity is such a terrible scourge that laid the foundations of modern Western society (which is why it's so bad), introduced and/or promulgated such terrible concepts as public hospitals, universal education (we can't have the masses educated, can we?), freedoms and democracy (totalitarianism is obviously better), the science that they hate, equality of women (terrible), greedy, corrupt, capitalism (socialiams is clearly so much more successful), individual responsibility (but the collective is better), the abolition of slavery (we know that blacks aren't as smart, and need whites to support them) and so much more.
(For anybody reading this out of context, the paragraph above is sarcasm.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bertieborough
"an estimated three million Aboriginals in this country when our British ancestors arrived and declared that this country was unnhabited..."
Evidence for both claims please.
"(because the Blacks were not considered to be Human)"
The Christians (who were numerous) considered them human. The ones who considered them less evolved (i.e. the 'missing link' or close to it) were the evolutionists who came later (i.e. post 1859).
"...an estimated three million Aboriginals in this country when our British ancestors arrived and ... within a hundred years there were an estimated twenty to twenty-five thousand left alive."
Evidence for those estimates please.
"Even today there is an Indigenous population of less than a million..."
Yes, we've treated them so badly that their population has grown from 25,000 to nearly 1,000,000. Methinks that there is a problem with those claims.
"Some hero's we are."
Well, we brought civilisation, including the rule of law, technology including medicine, freedoms, and so forth. And their population has multiplied by around 40 times based on your figures. So yes, we could be called heroes.
2
-
@banta-pd8zj
"I started visiting these sites in the lead up to the referendum."
What sites?
"I was really shocked at the shallowness exhibited by lots of the followers of the no vote."
And I was horrified by the deliberate attempt to divide us by supposed race by the yes supporters.
"The lack of knowledge of traditional life."
By who? Aboriginal leaders such as Price? Or city-based academics?
"The validity of a people who were at the time of initial colonisation not technologically advanced."
What do you mean by their "validity"?
"The fact that British subjects could be hunted and removed as policy, even if unstated but tolerated."
Unstated policy? Isn't that an oxymoron? And what hunting and what removal?
"The misinformation was essentially total."
Evidence please. I'm sure that there was misinformation on both sides, but "essentially total"?
"The glee and triumph exhibited towards a people that clearly, obviously need assistance at losing the vote."
Yes, the glee and triumph that the racist proposal was defeated; not at people needing assistance, the support for which was clearly stated by the No side.
"The almost complete lack of anything positive to say of first peoples."
You must have been looking in the wrong place, and ignoring the Yes position that they can't be in a better place without non-aborigines helping them. Surely that's racist? Further, I've yet to have anyone be able to demonstrate that they were here "first", i.e. before anyone else (I'm not disputing that they were here before Europeans).
"The willingness to attribute corruption and a desire to pull everyone to their sub standard level."
What corruption? The well-documented examples of it? What about the willingness of the Yes side to ignore the corruption? And what "sub-standard level"?
"You can't see it?"
I can't see the merit in a racist proposal, nor the logic in claiming that they needed a voice when they already had the same voice everyone else had, no.
"I have no answer if what seems to me perfectly obvious evades you."
Then you have no answer to why the referendum was a good idea.
"I absolutely stand by everything I said."
Then you should be able to answer my challenges. And I stand by everything I said.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@AspenDarkfire
"oh really?"
Yes, really.
"EXACTLY how meny versions are there?"
I don't know. One site that I use for looking up verses in different versions lists about 30 different English versions, and I know that list is not comprehensive.
"That was some weak ... point scoring [nonsense], that had nothing to do with my point."
True, it wasn't a key point, just a secondary detail.
"they don't even say the same thing, in the same book. ...every edition of the bible is riddled with inconsistencies and self contradiction."
Evidence please. Of course with different translations there will be some minor differences, but not much of significance, and no contradictions other than a few minor details that can be put down to copyist errors.
"if god is all knowing , then he is "testing" humans, ..."
Don't believe what 16driver16 says about God testing humans.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@burglar42
"there is NO GODS!"
Well, there is one.
"just WEAKMINDED HUMANS NEEDING A CRUTCH TO GET THROUGH LIFE!!!"
So how is it that weak-minded humans needing a crutch managed to change the world for the better, introducing public hospitals, many charities, modern science, the university system, universal education, the abolition of slavery (twice), and more? Perhaps you've got a (very) distorted view of things. Meanwhile, atheists in power slaughtered millions of people in the 20th century. Perhaps they needed that "crutch".
"Basing your lives off a diary written centuries ago.."
It's non a diary, and what's wrong with it being written centuries ago? It appears that you have chronological snobbery.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@seaoftranquility7228
"The pertinent point I was making is that he has been a historically unpopular President from day one."
Only to the left. The fact that he got a record number of votes shows how popular he was.
"Even if you love him to death that fact is undeniable."
And yet I just denied it, with reason.
"His supporters like to say he must have been robbed because his rallies were so well attended ..."
That's another fact refuting your claim about being unpopular.
"... and no one came to Biden’s, very conveniently skipping the fact that his rallies were held in the middle of a pandemic and his top medical advisor told him it was a terrible idea and would lead to deaths, which it has."
Which has what to do with his popularity? And why does the left make a big deal about that but ignores the BLM and other demonstrations? And how many deaths? Very few, as far as I know.
"... the polls all had him losing in a landslide."
The same sort of polls that got it so wrong in 2016, in Brexit, and in the last Australian election? What about the poll that showed a lot of people—particularly Republicans—don't like telling pollsters who they support?
"Furthermore, why would they go to all the trouble of rigging the election but leaving all the down ballot votes for senate intact? Is it cos they love McConnell? No."
Because they were more concerned about the presidency itself?
"What Trump is suggesting, this widespread fraud, is just not feasible."
And yet there is evidence for it. Enough to change the result? I don't know. But the claims should be investigated.
"If it were at all possible to rig the election there would be no issue right now, cos Trump would’ve rigged it in a heartbeat."
That's projection. Just because the left would willingly do that doesn't mean that conservatives would. Conservatives respect the law.
"This is soooo DANGEROUS."
The left's vilification and lies and censorship are dangerous, I agree.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KT-et5vn You're incorrect (as was I in one detail). The earliest record of Christmas being celebrated on 25th December comes from as early as 202AD (i.e. not 400 AD as I thought), in Hippolytus of Rome's Commentary on Daniel. To quote a source, "But it wasn’t until AD 274, 72 years later, that Roman Emperor Aurelian proclaimed a celebration of Sol Invictus, and no clear evidence that this celebration on this date actually took place until AD 354."
There is apparently no connection to pagan or Christian origins of the Christmas tree. The Christma tree as such only originated during the reign of Queen Victoria, and there is no evidence of anything similar before the 15th century.
Jeremiah was not talking about Christmas trees. For one reason, as you mentioned, this was well before Christ, so obviously well before Christmas trees existed!
"The catholic church is full of paganism. It all goes back to babylon and the days of nimrod."
No, it goes back to the Christian church in Jerusalem. Yes, it went of the rails in various ways, but it was Christian in origin and still at least nominally so.
"Total fraud of a chuch full of blasphemy and idolatry."
No, not a total fraud.
1
-
1
-
@KT-et5vn
Simply repeating your claims when I have shown them to be false does not make them true.
"why is child abuse a common occurrence with catholic priests?"
"Common"? Despite the number of offenders, it's still the exception, not the rule. And it hasn't been limited to Catholic churches.
"Why has the catholic church murdered millions of Christians? "
What millions?
"Why did the pope support hitler and mussolini?"
I think it's disputed how much he actually did that, and there's certainly evidence of Catholics not supporting Hitler at least (I don't know about Mussolini).
"Why did the catholic church ban all bibles and murder a man who translated it to english?"
They didn't actually ban all BIbles (they still had their own copies), but yes, that is a fault; I have already agreed that they have done various things wrong.
"The answer is the catholic church is the church of satan himself."
Satan tries to turn all away from God. He does that through atheism, false religions such as Islam, and by trying to corrupt the true church. He's had some success in various Protestant denomination as well as non-Protestant churches. None of that means, however, that Catholicism is "the church of satan himself".
"Defending this harlot will not get you anywhere on judgement day."
Nothing except God's forgiveness will get me anywhere on judgement day. I'm not defending the Catholic church; I'm a Protestant who rejects Catholicism. I'm defending the truth. The Catholic church can be criticised in many ways, but not in some of the ways you do.
"She will not be able to save you."
Of course not. Only Jesus can save us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thescience5307
""Nah I'm just sick of Chyneez bots trying to rewrite history in order to divide our country."
Says someone trying to rewrite history!"
"You really don't understand this simple concept do you?"
I think I understand it better than you, actually.
"if China disappeared, what would happen to prices?"
That depends. If we manufactured the goods here in Australia instead of importing them from China, the prices would go up. Because the Australian workers get paid more. And because we'd be making more goods here, the Australian workers collectively would be earning more. So prices go up, but so does income. It's that last part that you missed.
"By pushing people into poverty,..."
You haven't shown that they were pushed.
"...they end up stealing so they can feed their family,..."
Not necessarily. They might beg, or someone else might help them out. But yes, some might steal. But that doesn't mean that they were "forced" to choose that option.
"..now the gov has excuse to arrest them in order to use their prison labor to build a new colony on land recently discovered (Australia)."
That assumes that that was the motive, which you haven't shown to be the case. And you haven't addressed my point that it wasn't the government that proposed sending them to Australia. In fact, the people who proposed sending them to Australia as a more humane outcome were the very same ones who fought to get slavery abolished. That kind of destroys your narrative.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
chris mclaughlin
"A country without religion is free. "
Free of discipline, free of human rights, free of freedom itself, etc. Western Civilization is based on Christianity. Atheist states such as the former Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba, and so on have been disasters. Muslim states are economic failures apart from oil.
"Theocratic states are the least free places on the planet."
You refer more strictly to cleriocracies (government by the clerics, or religious leaders, not God). Yes, you're correct about them, but that is just one religion.
"Religion is a tool of civilization to control the.minds of the population."
What's your evidence that that's all it ever is?
"Religion appeared with the first city states to promote loyalty to corrupt organizations."
Again, what's your actual hard evidence?
"The number one function of Religion is to justify abuses of the state and all religions have been used toward this end."
Again, evidence?
In fact Christianity has tempered abuses of the state, including Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan who forced Roman emperor Theodosius to back down over his slaughter of some citizens of Thessalonica, to the Magna Carta which reigned in the power of the English king on the grounds that even the king was subject to the laws of God. Even the vehemently anti-Christian Richard Dawkins lamented that the demise of Christianity might be a bad thing as it could be a bulwark against something worse.
Atheist regimes, on the other hand, have been guilty of the slaughter of millions and severe restrictions on people's liberty.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Genesis-007
"How high are your double standards..."
What double standards? You haven't shown that I have any.
"...knowing mainstream news media groups also went right ahead and published the same content,..."
First, where did I say that the mainstream media were not also at fault?
Second, REpublishing the information after Assange had already published it is not in the same league.
"let's see you answer that question, go ahead, champ ..."
Now you've seen it. Will you withdraw your claim of double standards?
"Wrong, they both published the same material, ..."
So? After Assange published it, it was no longer secret, was it? (To be clear, I don't mean that it was no longer classified as secret; but being in the public domain meant that it was no longer actually secret.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rayrussell6258
"you really don't understand how this works;"
I find that most people who reject preferential voting don't understand how it works.
"The ranked choice redistribution went to the opposing party's candidate they really didn't want to vote for,..."
So why did they vote for the opposing party's candidate as their second choice? Perhaps (as you indicate), because they actually wanted that other person as their second choice?
"But ranked choice has tons of other ways to be manipulated."
So does first past the post.
"Now in ranked choice, each voter gets 4 votes in Alaska."
Preferential voting gives you the opportunity to list your preferences for your one vote. You don't get four votes.
"...of course this farce vote only happened in Alaska..."
From your own description, it doesn't sound like a farce. Simply an outcome you didn't like.
"... because the voters for the candidate eliminated listed the Democrat,..."
In other words, they got the person that most voted for. As it should be. If they didn't want a Democrat, they should not have made a Democrat their second preference.
"...in that twisted ranked choice vote, they got suckered by the Democrats, ..."
People not understanding how it works does not make it twisted.
"...they did not get the most qualified person elected to represent the majority of Alaskans."
Irrelevant. The U.S. didn't get the most qualified person as president either, but that wasn't due to ranked voting. That can happen whichever system you use.
"Again, just another way to subvert the voters' real preference,..."
No, it's a way of giving them the majority's preference. First past the post is the one that doesn't guarantee that.
"Socialists LOVE the ranked choice system."
So do sensible people, such as this conservative. Because it's a fairer system.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ianenglish123
"...the power station fell into disrepair because it was not profitable enough for its owners to maintain it."
That's not clear. It's not profitable to maintain it if the maintenance (and running) costs exceed what you'll earn from it. But also, what is meant by "maintenance"? With any asset, you'll likely need to do three things to keep it going:
a) Regular maintenance so that it remains is good working order.
b) Repairs when something fails.
c) Refurbishment after a number of years in order to extend the life of the asset. It will deteriorate over time, and as it does, maintenance costs will gradually rise. Refurbishment will reset those regular maintenance costs to a lower level (although they will, as before, continue to rise as it further wears out).
I believe that the issue is really with the refurbishment costs. Is it worth spending the money on refurbishment if you don't expect the asset (the power station) to be required for that much longer? If it's not, then the maintenance costs will rise past the point that it's economical to continue to operate. THAT, I believe, is the issue here. If government policy was that we would continue to use coal for power for decades to come, it would be worth spending the money on refurbishment. If not, then it's not worth it.
"But its decline started long before Labor came into power."
True, but the Liberals and other parties (including activists and the mainstream media) were also supporting a move to renewables, and of course the owner has to weigh up spending the money with the real chance that Labor would get into power and make the very moves that they've been talking about for decades.
"Its more profit before people for the owners."
Businesses are there to make profits, which they do by providing something that the people need or want. So that's a false dichotomy.
"Let's assume that improving the plants carbon emissions through upgrades. Would the money be spent."
It would, if it was thought that that would result in making better profits. It wouldn't if that would cost more than it's worth doing, especially if the future life of the asset was going to be short, as with a move to renewables effectively forcing them out of business.
"That's what fully privatised power supplying has come to and was predicted years ago."
You asked a question, and then drew a conclusion on the basis of what you expected my answer would be. Your conclusion appears to be ideological, opposed to privatisation. A private business wants to produce profits, which means, in part, minimising costs. That is, operating more efficiently. A government enterprise does not have the same motive, which means that it's likely to operate inefficiently, thereby costing taxpayers more than necessary. Another part of a business' approach is providing what their customers (including potential customers) want, whereas a government enterprise will provide what the government wants, regardless of what the customers and potential customers might want.
"All power plants will become obsolete emissions or no emissions."
Only because of ideological government policy which is not in the interests of the population.
1
-
@ianenglish123
"...do you believe this station provided a reliable baseload as sky would have you believe."
In principle, a coal-fired power station provides reliable baseload power. Whether there was a problem with this particular station, is another matter, but if there was, the question again is whether that was due to the economics of maintaining/repairing it.
"...corporations aren't going to maintain them when the cost exceed profits."
But that brings us back to what I said before about their projected lifetime and government policies moving away from coal.
"It has to be profits before people for corporations,..."
I believe I have already addressed that.
"But this plant is being replaced with a battery installation and there's currently feasibility study for a pumped hydro station occurring nearby. Did Sky mention that, of course not."
Sky presenters have mentioned such things before, and explained how battery installations (at least) are not yet a viable option.
"So the demolition of a redundant plant with major grid infrastructure in place is a good thing."
Redundant? Or (supposedly) obsolete? But is it really obsolete, or is it's viability being undermined by government policies? That's the point. And given that renewables are more expensive and unreliable, then it's clearly not a good thing.
"Replacing a redundant plant with a large battery array with access to the grid and supplied by community solar, wind, industrial solar and probable reliable pumped hydro or base load is progress in a more sustainable direction. "
How is it progress to replace a cheap and reliable source of energy with a more expensive and less reliable source?
"...30 years ago in winter Lithgows air quality was disgusting and black soot covered everything. Health issues were significant."
So we shift those problems to China and third-world countries? Not the same problems, of course, but conditions for workers making solar panels and mining for the elements needed for batteries.
"Do Sky mention that of course not."
I wouldn't say "of course not", but no, I don't recall anyone mentioning that.
"So the Labor government is being vilified for progressive and sustainable policies."
Pollution can be cleaned up. We've been doing that for decades. The Labor government is being rightly criticised for regressive and expensive policies.
"...many would sooner trust Canavan despite his vested interest."
And many others would sooner trust the likes of Turnbull and Gore despite their vested interests. And what vested interests do the Sky presenters have?
"by the way I appreciate you comments are civil, unlike many Sky viewers."
Thank you. And I'll return the compliment, except modify it to say unlike many Sky critics.
"Clean water and air are most certainly in the interests of the people."
True. As is cheap and reliable power.
1
-
@ianenglish123
"you believe the misinformation sad to say."
Something you have yet to demonstrate.
"My local transfer station as small as it is has a section dedicated to recycling solar cells and batteries."
But what do they do with it? From the Sustainability Victoria site: "There are a number of solar panel recycling services available in Australia, however, at present they can only recycle and reclaim a small percentage: up to 17% of a panel by weight. A solar panel’s aluminium frame and junction box (also known as a terminal box) are the components that are most commonly or easily recycled.
"The remaining 83% of a solar panel’s materials (including glass, silicon and polymer back sheeting) are not currently recyclable in Australia."
Maybe you're the one who has been misinformed?
"You keep saying its cheap source but it's not and becoming more expensive and will continue to do so while coal and gas supplies are controlled by a few big corporations."
It's inherently cheaper; I'm not saying that it's cheaper at the moment. And are you claiming that government policies to move away from coal are having no effect on the prices? If so, please justify that.
"We have plenty of gas,.."
Then why are governments wanting to reserve supplies?
"... like in all industry it's retained to keep prices high."
The very principle of free enterprise without monopolies is that prices will be kept low because they compete with each other, and collusion between them to keep prices high is illegal. You'll have to do better than that.
"The Guardian has covered this story a number of times and it is factual."
The left-leaning Guardian is not a reliable source.
"Its not cheap in part because the supply is controlled."
By who? If you mean the government, then yes, that is the problem.
"It's not reliable because no company is going to maintain its generators even 20 years ago before renewables were being discussed."
Why not?
"Even the grid system is becoming redundant and no private company was going to spend the money upgrading it."
Not with current government policies, no. That's my point.
"The rot really started when the energy market was fully privatised."
Evidence please. I've already addressed the government vs. private issue, and you've not shown me to be wrong.
"Generators are breaking down and plants were closing long before renewables came along."
Of course. Nothing lasts forever, and eventually it needs to be replaced. That doesn't change the argument.
"At least with renewables energy can be captured and stored locally."
And much less efficiently. Electricity was being generated locally before the government formed the SEC and took over energy production.
"These types of technology are proven as with tidal, wave, hydrogen and pumped hydro."
"proven" in what sense? Small-scale experiments where cost is not an issue have been shown to work?
"The problem is the misinformation that's constantly produced by "corporate" news sponsored by "corporations" that profit from high gas prices.'
Or is the problem being the misinformation that's constantly being produced by left-leaning news outlets and politicians and people who benefit from the renewable industry? Simpy asserting that the problem is corporations is not an argument.
"Sky has said so itself."
What, exactly, did it say?
"Gina Reinhardt to name just one contributes to Sky. And who is investing millions in gas. Hmm."
Okay, so you get two innocent facts and suggest something sinister, but without evidence of any sinister intent. That's a common tactic of the left, because often they can't actually produce evidence.
"I will always call them Skyfools because there is rarely any unbiased or fully factual content in their stories."
Everyone has a bias; that in itself is not the problem. The problem is whether it's factual or balanced. Sky does a better job of that than the mainstream media. Don't believe me? Well why should I believe you when you make similar evidence-free assertions?
"Their formula for negative press is based on a simple psychological principle. It's stays in the mind longer because it's perceived as a potential threat."
Is that why the mainstream media harps on so much about the threat of climate change?
"Fox is the same in America and anything they say should be thoroughly and objectively scrutinised."
Why pick on them? Bias?
"The ABC is constantly vilified by Newscorp and Sky, this is nothing new it's been happening ever since it started broadcasting. Sky viewers believe ABC is leftist radical."
Because it is. Extreme left. That's one of the good things about Sky—it calls them out, with evidence.
"Yet on the brief yesterday they gave the shadow ministers plenty of time to speak, sell their policies they always do."
They do have some token opposing views. That doesn't compensate for all the bias that they have.
1
-
@ianenglish123
Edit: After posting this, I see that you've posted a second comment (not showing on the page). So if this comment doesn't take that into account, that's why.
"Solar Glass in recycled at least in NSW."
I provided you with a quote from a government source that said otherwise. Could you please do the same or equivalent, or am I just supposed to take your word for it?
"Secondly Rowan proudly announced Reinhardt as Big supporter of Sky as with a number of other Murdoch affiliates no doubt. So who do they represent. You answer that question."
Who does who represent? Who does Sky represent? Themselves. This is just more leftist suspicion—a wealthy person supports what Sky is doing, so Sky must be doing her bidding. That is a non-sequitur.
"If you truly believe that the ABC is "extreme left" than our conversation ends here,..."
Then I guess I get the last word, because you won't be replying.
"...it demonstrates that you clearly believe the corporate BS that Sky often blurts out ..."
I know that from the evidence I've seen and multiple sources, not just from Sky reports.
"...there's no point going on because you view will Always be scewed..."
According to you. You haven't shown that it's screwed; just that it's different to your, apparently infallible, view.
"...might as well believe what Trump or Putin says."
How does that follow? Oh, I know. Just stereotype me as believing different to you in every single case.
And of course that's still a silly claim, as clearly both people tell the truth at times, and don't tell the truth at other times. So why shouldn't I believe both at times?
1
-
1
-
@ianenglish123
"I sent you details ... I sent you an article ..."
Where? How?
And I thought you said that there was no point in going on? So why are you replying again?
"Blatant Lie and you don't bother to wonder why."
Because I have no reason to believe that it was a lie.
"Do they mention that Australia's manufacturing quarter cannot afford to operate profitably with the current price of gas on which they are dependent, is that mentioned, Nope."
Yes, I've seen that discussed.
"Sky Presenters keep telling its followers that Labor is not responding to the cost of power and when he does by capping prices, he is crucified."
Rightly so, as that's a bad (socialist) way of doing things.
"Fox and Trump is a typical example."
Of what? A Harvard study of media coverage of Trump's first 100 days in office showed that Fox was the only outlet (of the ones surveyed) that gave Trump balanced coverage (about 52% favourable, from memory), whilst others were very skewed against Trump (up to 70%-80% against Trump from memory).
"To Answer your Question Sky represents the Big Corporations and Governments..."
I didn't ask that question. Try reading my comment without your leftist glasses on. You asked me "who do they represent?". In return, I asked you who "they" was: "Who does who represent? Who does Sky represent?" I was asking you who "they" referred to. And, in case you meant Sky, I answered your question.
Meanwhile, what I did implicitly aske was your justification for claiming that Credlin knew she was wrong, which you need to do to substantiate a claim of her lying. But you haven't answered that! Instead, you've just made a whole lot more evidence-free accusations.
"I believe I've answered your question, with facts regarding Sky's lies and misinformation..."
You've answered some with evidence-free claims. I see no reason to consider them facts.
"Why wont Sky give Chris Bowen the same platform as they give Matt Canavan to give "in detail" Labors energy policy, they have one I've seen it."
How do you know they won't? Perhaps they've asked him and he's refused to come on. Again, suspicion or innuendo pretending to be serious discussion.
Most of the rest of your reply was just leftist rhetoric.
1
-
1
-
@ianenglish123
"google recycling solar panels, proof that Credlin lied. Of coarse you won't because it will affect your trust on presenters."
I DID Google essentially that (actually 'recycling solar panels australia'), which is where I found the source that I quoted to you, which reinforced my trust in the presenters!
"Fact is they lie and misinform their viewers, all the time."
Except that they didn't misinform. You misinformed me, claiming that they are recycled, whereas I found evidence (essentially the same way you now say I should!) because I AM interested in the evidence. I didn't need you to tell me to look; I can think of that for myself.
"It's why they don't want watching real news, why the create labels like lefty abc and so on. It's garbage."
The actual evidence I found shows you to be wrong. You claim counter-evidence, but you've not provided it (even if you did try), so my evidence is what I have to go on.
But if you want to try again, try the exact name of an article for me to search for. Despite your bigoted assumption that I wouldn't look, I will.
1
-
1
-
@ianenglish123
"There's probably a job waiting for you at Sky, they say a lot but overlook the facts."
Says the person overlooking facts!
"But I don't see any evidence from you that support your arguments, not one ..."
And yet I quoted you the following, from the Victorian government's Sustainability Victoria site:
-------------
"There are a number of solar panel recycling services available in Australia, however, at present they can only recycle and reclaim a small percentage: up to 17% of a panel by weight. A solar panel’s aluminium frame and junction box (also known as a terminal box) are the components that are most commonly or easily recycled.
"The remaining 83% of a solar panel’s materials (including glass, silicon and polymer back sheeting) are not currently recyclable in Australia."
-------------
"PV industries is the first of many companies that recycle solar installations."
Okay, I've looked them up, and now have a clearer picture of it. It seems to be a very new company trying to recycle them, but how much they have succeeded seems to be a different matter. One interesting comment in the FAQs on their site is that "The panels are transported to the PV Industries MRF, de-framed (if not already) and stored until our recycling plant is operational. " (my emphasis).
I tried to find out how long they've been going, and found a couple of other articles. One ("Solar Panel Recycling: Big Problem or Massive Opportunity?") less than six months ago is about a podcast (I didn't listen to that), but the summary said "Tim Dawson, co-founder and CEO of PV Industries is on a mission to ensure that solar panels can be 100% recycled. PV Industries has created a recycling line that can pull apart a solar panel into its raw components and then sell them to various industries for reuse. " So he's "on a mission" and "has created a recycling line", but the implication is that it's not really doing much yet.
Another article ("PV recycling: Has anyone worked out how to do it yet?") dates from ten months ago and says "PV Industries co-founder Timothy Dawson can’t share much detail about the separation process his company has settled on...". Note "has settled on", not "is using".
An article in The Canberra Times ("Australia's 100-million solar panel puzzle") less than three months ago quotes the the same Mr. Dawson: " 'Right now, most of those solar panels that reach end of life go to landfill,' Mr Dawson told a recent conference."
So even the co-founder of your example of a solar panel recycling industry supports what Credlin said! Not only have you completely failed, or refused, to show that Credlin knew she was wrong, you've actually shown that she was right!
I'm not the one overlooking facts. You are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RogueElementMkII
"Andrew Bolt here, is trying to stitch two separate issues together."
Two issues that are closely related.
"The Australian Govt wants to be able to fine social media giants, not you."
No, it wants to control what we say, with the method being to put the onus on the social media giants.
"I probably don't need to tell you why yours is hidden."
I wish someone would tell me why mine are hidden, because there seems to be little rhyme nor reason to some of it.
"I'd just continue to do what they're doing now, and block/hide comments they consider to be misinformation."
Then you would be part of the problem.
"It would probably just be another government department, using the exact same criteria the social media giants already use, to decide what is/isn't misinformation."
First, what criteria is that? Their "rules" are ambiguous, not to mention being enforced selectively.
Second, the American example was not of a government department setting some rules, but of the government 'reporting' posts that they didn't agree with to the social media companies to do something about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelsteven5558
"It is a prefix that denotes "opposite of'..."
It's probably used in a number of ways, but primarily it means "not" or "without".
"Atrans is the opposite meaning the belief there is no transgender."
I think that reference to "no transgender" is problematic. The concept exists, and people exist who claim to be transgender, but it's impossible to change your gender, so in that sense, there IS no transgender people; i.e. no people who have changed their sex.
"Therein lies the rub with those who do believe in transgender since, what the person is to them is irrelevant."
But although I would treat transgender people as people, I don't "believe in" transgender in the sense that I reject the "belief", i.e. the ideology.
But what is transgender? A belief that a male is a female or vice versa, or a claim that the male is a female or vice versa? I accept that the belief exists. I reject the claim, on the grounds that it's anti-scientific and anti-reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EonsEternity
"I dont remember the Good Samaritan being an arms dealer, nor a wallet, and definitely not a country."
Are you equating the United States with arms dealers?
The Good Samaritan was someone who generously helped someone else in trouble. Just like if someone attacked you, you'd like others to come to your aid instead of saying "how is that my problem?"
"so maybe live like it instead of asking for it, nor forcing others to do it."
I do live like it, and I'm not forcing others to do it. I'm pointing out that everyone, like the Good Samaritan, should choose to do it themselves instead of saying "not my problem". That attitude of helpfulness is one of the things that made the West great (with the U.S. being, of course, part of the West). It's why the West/Christianity founded public hospitals, many, many, charities, and abolished slavery. Because they cared for others.
1
-
@EonsEternity
"i agree its a good thing to live by, but for a person, not necessarily a country, ..."
Why not a country too?
"im not quite equating the U.S. as an arms dealer, but the fact remains we have provided weapons to countries before to provide an outcome we desired, to only be surprised when it ended up being a bad move."
But was that because you were providing arms, or because those cases have always bad moves?
"The good Samaritan did not provide weapons nor currency, as far as I remember."
You remember wrong. True, he didn't provide arms, but he did provide currency. After patching up the victim, he took the victim to an inn and paid the innkeeper to look after him, and told the innkeeper that when he returned he would reimburse him for any further expenses.
"On the flip side of that if you help people make war, youre only supporting more war."
Sure, if you help them make war. But if they are the victim, you help them stop the war, and not by having them give up. See also my final sentence below.
"We should act on potential energy instead, we are the biggest person in the room so we should be scolding warmongers or two countries fighting like a parent. Treat them like two children fighting,..."
But if one child started it and the other is defending himself, how is that fair? Where is the moral equivalence between the two? Yes, stop them fighting, and scold the one who started it. Don't treat them as equally at fault, or they'll disrespect you. And it's wrong.
"...we should make it clear to them they need to behave appropriately and peacefully, and resolve it diplomatically..."
Sure. If that's possible.
"as for money its mostly just we're blowing money on things outside of the country instead of focusing on home base first, ..."
Yes, you need to focus on home base first. You can't help others if you're down yourself. However, given the ridiculous things that previous administrations spent money on, it's not in evidence that this particular war is not something that you can't accommodate. That is, even though you shouldn't be sending money all over the place, it doesn't follow that you can't send some to actual good causes. You've heard of throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
"Give a man a fish or teach a man to fish?"
Good principle. But while you're teaching him how to fish, you also need to give him a fish, or he won't live long enough to learn how. That is, you need to do some of each.
"Are we going to just give them money or could we provide people jobs and help rebuild by providing jobs for that here in the case of natural disasters and such."
We're not talking about a natural disaster. Not much point in rebuilding while there is still a war destroying things. That needs to be stopped first.
"Reciprocal efforts to rebuild with kindness and learning rather than money throwing and sometimes laundering."
Yes, how the money is spent is very important. One of the problems with the Ukraine war seems to be that Ukraine has been given enough money and munitions to not be quickly defeated, but not enough to defeat the attacker, i.e. it's almost as though the gifts have been designed to maintain the war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alvinjohnson773
"...disappointed that you had to resort to using the tired excuse that "there are many with TDS"."
It's not merely an excuse when it's true.
"If this is how you are going to simply ignore criticisms of Trump with a facile comment..."
Turnbull's criticisms? Which ones are more than just jaundiced opinion, or observations that don't make his case? Okay, I've had another listen to it the first couple of minutes. About the first thing is that because Trump said some things similar to what Putin said, then Trump is "siding with" Putin. That's not good evidence for his claim.
Another was "He [Trump] does not believe in the international rules-based order. Trump believes that might is right."
It's not clear what he means by the first bit. Trump doesn't believe in submitting his sovereign country of the United States to something like the U.N. or an international court? What is wrong with that?
And the second sentence is an evidence-free assertion.
"Look at the way he's sought to bully Denmark or Canada or other countries".
"Bully" is a subjective term that he's chosen. He put pressure on Canada and Mexico to get them to control their borders better. What's wrong with that? As for Denmark, I know he's talked about getting control of Greenland, but I don't accept the term "bully" is reasonable. Again, jaundiced opinion by Turnbull.
That's only the first couple of minutes, but gives a taste of Turnbull's TDS. As I said, he was not at all convincing. If you want to mention some other criticisms, I'll try and address those. (I'm not, however, suggesting that Trump is faultless; perhaps you can come up with the odd one that stands.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrBadintentionss
"in the history of man, no god has ever been proven to exist. not a single one."
Evidence?
"you're playing the 'santa claus' card : 'prove he doesn't exist'."
No, I'm not. I'm playing the "show me the evidence of your claim" card. And you're trying to avoid having to provide evidence of your claim.
"there was zero understanding of homosexuality 2000 years ago."
Given that it had long before that existed, i.e. it was a known phenomenon, it's plainly false that there was zero understanding of it.
"when people are confronted with things they don't understand, their kneejerk reaction is to lash out, judge, and create distance from it."
Is that why you lash out at, judge, and create distance from Christians?
Besides, just because some do that doesn't mean that's the only reaction. You also get people rationally, calmly, and lovingly arguing against it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Evolution and creation is a silly debate, since evolution explains how not why."
Creation also explains how (God spoke it into existence), so you have a fail right there.
"They are not mutually exclusive, you can believe in both to an extent ..."
They are not mutually exclusive only if you have versions of each that are compatible. But evolution as understood by most scientists is necessarily naturalistic, without design, whereas creation is necessarily by design. Also, creation as described in the Bible (in six days, the earth before the sun, fruit trees before land animals, and much more) is absolutely incompatible with evolution.
"(majority of religious people believe in micro evolution for a start)."
Which is not actually evolution (the entire 'family tree' from the first organism to all that exist today), but just small changes without creating entirely new forms.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@simongross3122
"I think they were to Homo Sapiens what Donkeys are to Horses, or something like that."
The evidence indicates that they weren't as different as donkeys and horses, as mating donkeys and horses usually produces offspring that can't reproduce, yet we know from genetics that Neanderthals and other humans did successfully interbreed.
"Being able to interbreed doesn't make things the same species."
Half true. The basic principle of defining 'species' is the ability to interbreed. But yes, there are several different definitions, including ones that say things like the ability to interbreed in their natural environment.
But that variety of definitions is part of the issue—there isn't a clear, absolute, definition. It's somewhat of an artificial concept. So two different species might be that simply because scientists classify them differently, not necessarily because they are actually different in a material way.
"Anyway, it's complicated. And possibly our idea of "species" isn't quite right."
Which is what I've just suggested. In fact it's downright inconsistent at times. For example, I'd guarantee you that if we knew of domestic dogs only from fossils, Great Danes and Chihuahuas (to pick just two extreme cases) would be classified as different species. In fact, even if they were newly discovered today, they'd probably be classified as different species. But we don't do that, yet as you point out, we do classify lions and tigers as different.
As another example, how were Neanderthals any more different to other humans than pygmies and caucasians are? But nobody suggests that pygmies and caucasians are different species, nor even different subspecies.
The point is, humans and Neanderthals could interbreed, and classifying them differently is essentially an artificial distinction. Yes, I was being a bit cheeky declaring that they are the same species, but I was mostly objecting to you claiming that they are/were "completely different" species, or that they were different enough to warrant being classified differently.
In fact some scientists classify them as the same species, but keep a distinction by making them a different subspecies: Homo sapiens neanderthalensis vs. Homo sapiens sapiens.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@killbotone6210
"Ehhh no,dude...read it again..."
Okay, I have, in more detail. And my position stands. They basically repeated the methods of the previously-debunked study, albeit with some modifications.
"the population sample was 3000 random picks out of 88,000."
Yes, I know. I didn't say otherwise.
"...I also assume you mean support the consensus not climate change"
This discussion is about a consensus on climate change, right? I'm not sure what hair you're splitting there.
"Not "3000 supportive of climate change"."
I didn't say that they picked 3000 supporting of climate change. I said that they assumed that all the 3000 they selected were supporting of climate change unless they determined individual papers said otherwise. And I was correct. They rated those papers into seven categories ranging from "Explicit endorsement with quantification" to "Explicit rejection with quantification". The three rejection categories (Nos. 5, 6, and 7 in table 3) gave a total of four papers. However, category 4a was "No position", and it accounted for more than two-thirds of their sample. But to get their 99% figure, they included those as supportive!
"How exactly did they determine this?"
By searching for key words.
"Not 1 data point, my noob friend. Read it again."
I never said anything about one data point. Read my comment again.
"So 3rd time asking, ..."
My previous answer stands, but now with more detail to support it.
"Oh and don't forget to take into account the "bias in publishing" that must SURELY exist in your chosen Scientific Consensus....I mean it does exist right?"
Are you suggesting that there is a bias against publishing papers supporting the idea that human life begins at conception? I've seen no evidence of any such bias. If anything, I'd expect the bias to be the other way. That is, you're citing a paper supportive of the general political/media position on climate change, and I'm citing a paper that goes against the general political/media position on abortion. So what bias are you alleging? Or are you just grasping at straws?
"You're not just pretending the one you just so happen to accept is not corrupted by the same things you accuse this other Consensus of being, right?"
I'm not pretending anything. The study I referred to directly asked biologists what they thought, rather than figure it out from what papers did or did not say.
"Because that would be Massively hypocritical ... wouldn't it?"
It would. So just as well I'm not doing that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CptnKase
"and how do you suggest the government stops a riot? other than the police being empowered to do their job, and encourage education and services to stop racism and political ideology in either direction?"
Pardon? Why do you ask how they are supposed to do something when you then mention the most obvious ways that they could do something?
"Perhaps the media can play a part in that better than the government!!"
They can certainly play a part, yes.
"shame on kenny and on skynews for making things worse with an "us vs them mentality" "
First, what "us vs them mentality"? It's the protestors with the "us vs them mentality", which Sky is calling out. This appears to be a case of shooting the messenger.
Second, and given that, you didn't answer my question.
"yes the valence of the few is unacceptable (be it left wing, right wing, religion, country, what ever, in any setting)"
Please explain what you mean by that.
"...however this type of media reporting (and kelly/sky is notorious for this on the right side) is just making it worse with the lies and misrepresentations."
What lies and misrepresentations? You haven't shown any.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@braydenjohn1191
"I think we already do a good enough job with voting in this country, ..."
I thought so too. But what's wrong with doing a better job?
"...as I said earlier it’s a human right to vote, ..."
What makes it a human right? Actually, I disagree; it's a citizen's right, not a human right.
"if you put more rules in place that might mean less people do vote, or more people become disenfranchised by the democratic process."
Yes, there is that possibility. But you can also disenfranchise people by sending the message that fraud in voting is too easy. It's a balancing act, I guess.
"Again I’ll go back to my original point I don’t see evidence of massive voter fraud that would impact federal elections. "
Clearly you don't need massive voter fraud to impact federal elections. In a close race, just a little bit of fraud—which there is evidence for—could impact an election.
"This to me is a nonsense story, and that Alan seems to be riding the coattails of the Americans with this whole ID required."
What's wrong with following what Americans do if it's a good idea ? The fact that Americans talk about it doesn't make it wrong. Besides, lots of places have ID required to vote, not just parts of America.
Further, it seems to me that the opposition to it is following the inconsistent Democrats in America, who clearly oppose it for racist reasons and because they're worried about it negatively affecting their vote.
"Our system works fine as is in my opinion"
Again, why not make a good thing better? And what if others have different opinions?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mynamemylastname1835
"Great argument If you could [dis?]prove any evolutionary theory, not only could you make millions but you would receive a noble prize and acclaimed by all theists."
That's not in evidence. Why would an atheist accept an argument that disproved evolution? The point is that this is an ideological issue, not a scientific one.
"Don't you think Christians have tried?"
Yes. And they have succeeded. So why don't atheists accept this? Answer: Because they don't want there to be a God.*
"Quote "Chimpanzees now have to share the distinction of being our closest living relative in the animal kingdom. ... Ever since researchers sequenced the chimp genome in 2005, they have known that humans share about 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees, making them our closest living relatives.13 June 2012" "
That figure (which has been around since before the human and ape genomes were transcribed) has been debunked. The similarity is more like 85%.* But anti-creationists keep quoting that debunked figure. Why? Because they are committed to their faith in evolution.
"...but for the most part, it is culture that causes conflict such as religion."
Particularly atheistic religions. After all, the Bible teaches that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve, and all one in Christ Jesus. The atheist view, evolution, taught that some people are more evolved than others.* Until science showed that to be wrong.
What you have tried to do is explain why racism exists. But I didn't ask about that. I asked why evolution promoted it.* You've avoided answering that.
"Thankfully most of us have left the dark ages behind..."
So you don't know that the whole atheist idea of the 'dark ages' is rejected? Historians no longer accept that the term has any validity.*
"The Christians were taught to hate the pagans,..."
Nonsense. The Christians want, and have always wanted, to tell everyone the good news about Jesus. Why would you tell good news like that to people you hate? And by the way, you missed how atheists are taught to hate Christians.
"The prison population is mostly theists, the atheist per capital are much less."
A figure that I think comes from America, where most consider themselves Christians, but often in name only.
"Atheist ... countries are less violent and barbaric that theist countries."
Now that is flat-out wrong. The deadliest regimes in history have been the atheist regimes of Stalin, Mao, etc.*
"The people live longer in secular countries."
You mean countries that have secular governments (i.e. not controlled by the church) but which are historically Christian? Yes, true. Western Civilisation (the countries you would be referring to) are historically based on Christian standards and principles. It was Christians who founded public hospitals,* many charities, universal education, science,* and who spread democracy,* came up with Just War theory because violence was not acceptable without good reason.
Not only that, but scientific studies show that Christians (actually, 'religious people', but effectively meaning Christians) live, on average, seven years longer than others.*
"Anyway, it is good to talk without any violence or threats. Nice chatting, Peace."
And the same in return.
* everything with an asterisk I can readily back up with supporting citations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@patriot1724
"Religion" is a catch-all term for a wide variety of core beliefs, and the semantic range of the term can include atheist beliefs. To make a blanket statement like that about religion in general is baseless. Some religions are bad and some are not so bad, or even good.
"...I’m not saying there is no higher force but it if there was it would be inconceivable to me..."
That's not in evidence. We are made in God's image. That is, we are like Him in many ways. Therefore we can have some conception of what He is like.
"...and you especially someone from Ancient times..."
That's an atheistic view based on the evolutionary idea that people have grown smarter as they have evolved. On the contrary, being created in God's image, we were created perfect and have only deteriorated intellectually since (although accumulating knowledge at the same time).
"...religion is probably the worst things mankind has made..."
Well, yes, that's probably true of false religions, but Christianity, as I indicated, is based on evidence, which included the evidence that we were designed, by God, to believe in Him. Ergo, it's not man-made. Again, that idea comes from an atheist view.
"...it seeks to divide us and slow us down..."
False, at least as far as Christianity is concerned. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "slow us down", but Christianity introduced public hospitals, care for the poor, universal education, spread democracy, invented modern science, abolished slavery, and promoted the equality of all people. I'd hardly call that "slowing us down"!
"...we can see apes making there own religions based on trees with markings on them and the occasional rock thrown in..."
I have no idea what you are talking about here. Apes are not morally-aware creatures.
"... like Noah’s ark might of been a regional flood where he took his farm animals and family on his boat which to the local people would seem like each different animal on the earth because..."
No, that makes no sense. The flood covered the highest mountains and lasted a year, which in that region means that it would have been five kilometres deep, but somehow remaining regional? And why take birds, when they could simply fly to safety? In fact why not just move instead of build a boat? Plus there is evidence the world over of the flood.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@IngloriousGlueBombs
Okay, I retract my previous response. However, your question assumes that only the majors haven't taken a stand. To attempt an answer to your question, Scott Morrison, representing the federal coalition, not just himself, said that mandates should not be implemented. However, that was not really a strong stand, more an opinion, so I'm not hanging my hat on that.
Nevertheless, my point remains, that even if you're completely correct that neither of the majors took a stand, it doesn't follow that all of the non-majors are better. That is, some of the non-majors didn't take a stand either, or even endorsed mandates. How does it help to put them ahead of all of the majors?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@binmcbin1890
"you're doing thay thing again where you think if you ignore points they don't count lmao. "
No, I was ignoring nothing. I wasn't aware that they had explicitly claimed that, which is why I asked for evidence. That you use a legitimate question to make a false accusation against me does your objectivity no favours.
"Saying they might have been tired is a straight up ridiculous assumption and in no way proof."
That is a fallacious argument (so again, doing your credibility no good). I don't have to provide proof in order to show that your argument is open to question.
"if you've been paying attention you'd know acl is the reason is was shelved"
Paying attention to what? I have a life, and am not glued to whatever sources you must be.
"Yeah, it didn't claim what you thought it claimed... ie trash"
Again, your lack of objectivity is showing up. Your conclusion of "trash" simply doesn't follow from the premise.
"There are thousands of dates recorded that we don't celebrate idiot."
That doesn't mean that nobody did, and that doesn't make me an idiot. It does show you up as someone who engages in abusive ad hominems though.
"The point is you have no evidence Christmas was celebrated before sol invictus"
I have, actually: that quote. You've not shown me any solid evidence that it wasn't. Only that it wasn't a declared, formal, celebration.
"I see you never did look up what an argument of ignorance is ay ?"
I don't need to. I know what one is, and I wasn't making it.
"It's impossible to prove a negative..."
It's not, actually. It's impossible to prove a universal negative, but that very fact means that you can't claim that something isn't so, which is what you're doing. Your claiming that it wasn't celebrated earlier, and you can't use the apparent impossibility of proving that to argue that you don't have to.
"It's not on me to prove that your deranged statement with no proof is incorrect"
That's a strawman, because I never asked you to. I asked you to prove your claim that it wasn't celebrated earlier.
"...you still haven't learnt this very very simple logic fallacy. I learnt this in highscool.."
Perhaps you weren't paying attention and didn't learn it properly.
"How you didn't know alp pulled support shows how ignorant you are. "
This video has Andrew Bolt blaming Morrison for pulling the bill, and asking Abetz why. Neither Bolt nor Abetz made any mention of the ALP withdrawing support. You'd think Abetz would do so in order to deflect from Bolt blaming Morrison, if that was really the case. Where did you get the information that the ALP pulled support?
"I told you to do this last time and you straight up refused"
If I did, it was because I didn't need to, because I already know. And you have it wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Nathan-ry3yu
"I doubt any privet school would teach that sort of stuff anyway."
First, they were just examples to illustrate the point. Second, in the case of FGM which is common in man Muslim countries, I wouldn't assume that none did.
"All schools, privet or government has to stand by the education board code of conduct rules"
Which means that you were wrong to say that the government "shouldn't have any say." You've just agreed with me.
"But they cannot stop privet schools from teaching religious education."
But what does "religious education" mean? Religious education is about teaching religious views, but what happens when those religious views are ones that the government disagrees with? I've already experienced this at work (not government) where I was told that anyone who maligns* any religion, including Christianity, would be disciplined (*—I don't recall the exact word they used), and yet the same company taught things like evolution, and accepted homosexuality and the LGBT nonsense that contradicts what the Bible teaches. The point is, many people think that "religious views" are things like what happens in the afterlife, and have no bearing on current reality, so they say that they are not opposed to them, yet they oppose things that the religious teach, and often that will intrude into things like code of conduct rules.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ur__ghost
"You are definitely speaking with privilege."
What privilege is that? And what's your evidence that she is?
"Unlike you, people have weaker immune systems and do not have someone else to rely on."
Are you saying that she is not a person?
"There's men, women, and non binary people. Just bc you disagree with it doesn't make them disappear"
True (the second sentence). But just because you claim that doesn't make it true. And the first sentence is false. Both the creator and modern science agree that there are two sexes.
"People vary so much you can't just define them in those 2 categories."
You can choose to classify people in as many categories as you like. You can divide them by age, nationality, number of children, what jobs they do, how much they earn, or whatever. But if you categorise them by sex, there are only two categories.
"there's male and female in sex but not gender."
There is not male and female in gender??
"Gender is related to mentality and how you feel,..."
Yes, it's a matter of opinion. So why are others forced to accept those subjective opinions?
"...people differ so much there's bound to be someone who wants to be something that's not binary or opposite from their body."
What they want and what they actually are may therefore be two different things.
"He and she (and they sometimes) basically ment how you looked, because if you had long hair you were assumed to be a "she" and vice versa, so it basically was never used in the definitive context."
This is false. What you're really saying is that because long hair caused people to assume you were female, then in cases that they were actually males with long hair those people were mistaken. It doesn't mean that those males with long hair were actually female. Males remain males and females remain females, something that has it's physical basis in their DNA, and which cannot be changed.
1
-
@ur__ghost Numbering your points is a good idea that I should think to use more often myself.
1. I don't consider that to have been said in a judgmental and clueless manner, and don't see what that has to do with privilege.
2. You're right. I didn't really think that you didn't consider her a person. But the comment didn't make much sense anway, and/or presumes too much. But I wasn't really wanting to comment on her comment about covid; it's not something that I would have said.
3a. Yes, some people identify as being 'black' when they are not, or being older or younger than they really are. In all those cases the identification is wrong, so I'm not sure of your point.
3b. Yes, God is, by definition, the creator. But I'm not pushing anything onto you; I'm making a comment. I'm not trying to sell you on God; I'm simply using history and design as a basis for my comments. And if you're expecting me to leave God out of it, then you're 'pushing' your atheism onto me. So why the double standard?
3c. So you're saying that there are vast number of kinds of a particular made-up concept? What relevance does that have to the real world?
4. Numbering is good, as long as one can tell what it refers to. I don't know what you're referring to here. And I never said that you could define men and women on the basis of their job; I've always said that it's on the basis of their biology.
5. Again, you're right; I didn't think you meant that. It was, however, what you said, and that being the case, it was not clear what you did mean.
6a. You didn't call them opinions, but that's what they are.
6b. "No one's forcing anyone to accept anything..." That is so blatantly false I have to wonder how you could possibly believe that to be the case. Jordan Peterson came to prominence because he refused to accept his university employer requiring him to use the wrong pronouns. A father in Canada was last week jailed for not using the biologically-correct pronouns of his child. My employer requires me to use a trans person's preferred pronouns or fact the sack. They are just a few examples off the top of my head.
6c. What's the evidence of hate?
6d. "...or limit someone..." Like I am limited by my employer in what I can say? Again, why does this only work one way?
6e. "...people are going to get angry and DEFEND themselves." Like I am going to defend my right to use biologically-correct pronouns and argue the case that there are only two sexes (and that genders is a meaningless invention to get around that). So why is it okay for them to defend themselves but people who disagree with the trans agenda are criticised for it?
6f. I can identify as a four-year-old Asian girl, but it doesn't change the fact that I am an adult Australian man.
7. Being born a man or woman does define them as a man or a woman. Sure, it doesn't determine what jobs they will have, what clothes they will wear, what preferences they will have, but it does define them as being a man or a woman. Otherwise biological facts become meaningless.
8a. "Pronouns are based on personal preference" On the contrary, they are based on what sex you are. He, him, and his are used of males, and She, her and hers are used of females. Your claim is just factually wrong.
8b. But even if it was correct, my personal preference is to use biologically-correct pronouns when referring to people. So why is my preference not allowed? Again, double standards.
1
-
@ur__ghost
3a: You're correct, and as such have to fall back on gender being different to sex, which is an invention (in the worst sense of the word) that is meaningless.
3b: I didn't consider it rude; I'm used to comments like that. Apology accepted. Rather, I consider it useful to point out inconsistencies in people's arguments, which that was.
"that some people don't believe in god so the reasoning is meaningless to them". You're absolutely right. But part of my point is that what one believes about God will affect views on other things, such as transgenderism. In other words, it's an attempt to get the conversation away from superficial considerations and down to root causes.
4a. "I was referring to what стѣйшій Патріархъ керіллъ previously said". That would be in your comment before your previous comment, but in your previous comment, where you said "I don't know what you mean by this", you were referring to me; I didn't know which part of my comments you were referring to.
4b. "However I meant you cannot define women as the dishwasher and men the lumberjack" and "...previously said, "Men are masculine, strong and work, [snipped]"
I understand what you are getting at now. But to be fair, he didn't say that was a definition. He said " behaviours typically go hand in hand in every culture. Men are masculine...[snipped]"
6b. "Using the correct pronouns is easy..." I don't think so. For me to go against decades of correct use is not easy.
"and shows respect.". Being truthful with them shows respect.
"If a teacher (or other) does not respect a student (or person)..." The issue is not about whether one should be respectful (one should), but about what constitutes showing respect.
"It's harassment." No, it's being truthful, which can be done respectfully. Calling it harassment is merely an attempt to justify imposing a particular lie on people.
6e (new number). "Plus, teenagers with no income are left homeless because their parent refuses their identity (lgbt+)." First, one bad response (treating someone badly) does not justify another (forcing people to use incorrect pronouns). Second, while a child is living with their parents, their parents have a right to expect the child to follow their standards. The parents, not the children, are in charge.
6c. I know, you said "skipped some cuz idk how to respond". So you have no evidence of the hate you claimed. So why use the insulting term if you have no reason for using it?
6d. Doesn't change anything. The law in some places limits what critics of transgenderism can say. That my example was a (lawful) company policy doesn't change my point.
"Many countries it's legal to murder someone just for liking the same gender as themselves, or (not sure about this>) wanting to be a different gender."
Many? Yes, there are a few (probably not for "liking" but at least for acting on that desire). But if you're just talking about those sorts of countries, then that doesn't explain the anger from the transgender activists in the West, which I would have thought is what we were talking about.
8a. If he really is a guy, and is not deformed or had his testicles removed surgically, then yes, I AM sure. Why wouldn't I be? They are, of course, part of what being a man is.
"if someone dislikes the pronouns you refer to them as, they should be allowed to politely correct you"
But if I dislike the pronouns that they want me to refer to them by, why doesn't my preference count for my language? And if they want me to use pronouns that are incorrect, why shouldn't I be allowed to politely correct them? Yet again, this is an argument that is only used one way. And why should they be allowed to "correct" me when I'm not, in fact, incorrect?
8b. "Your "preference" hurts people." If you're talking about physical hurt, that's nonsense. If you're talking about hurt feelings, then they should learn to accept that not everyone agrees with them. And if you don't like that answer, then why don't you argue that their preference hurts me? Again, the argument is only used one way. That's hypocrisy.
"When someone refuses to see someone as something they are, they feel stuck and it hurts."
We're not talking about refusing to see someone as they are. We are talking about refusing to see someone as they are not. To put that completely differently, your statement is loaded, in that it assumes something (that a male can legitimately consider himself a female) that is the very point being contested. You (rightly) said that an argument based on God existing won't have any meaning for someone who doesn't believe in God, yet you are making an argument based on the idea that transgenderism is legitimate to someone who doesn't believe that.
"It's not that hard to ask "what're your pronouns?" "
It's pointless, if I can already tell what they are. And even the question is nonsensical. They are (in this case) pronouns that belong to the English language, not to that person. They are not "their" pronouns, but English pronouns. If we understand English, we know what the correct pronouns are. The question itself is pandering to nonsense.
I guess the numbering is not going too well.
1
-
@kiwi7872 So you're quoting three left-leaning sources as that is supposed to be definitive? Why?
"Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed."
That is, made-up.
"This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy,..."
Associated by who, and correctly or otherwise? The word "norms" kind of gives the game away. Sure, there are some characteristics that are more common in females than males, and some that are more common in males than females. But they are not definitive. So while some girls might like things that we typically associate with boys and vice versa, they don't mean that those persons are actually the other sex/gender. Because they are just norms, not infallible indicators.
"there are more than 2 genders (this one is from joshuakennon)"
Who is he that makes him an authority on this topic?
And I notice that in your quote of him, he doesn't name what those other genders are. Instead, he equivocates by switching to talking about chromosome abnormalities.
And that last point is the problem with SciAm too. They seem to think that genetic copying mistakes are definitive, rather than recognise them as the copying mistakes that they are.
The fact is that God created man (i.e. the man kind, or mankind ) male and female (Genesis 1:27). That's two sexes. But thanks to our rejection of Him, things have deteriorated since, so we are riddled with genetic copying mistakes (geneticists have counted about 100 or more being added for each generation), some of which involve additional chromosomes. But of course the religious views of SciAm and others (such as the view that we weren't created by God) colour their thinking.
1
-
@kiwi7872
"There is no such thing as left leaning sources..."
Yes, that is a known phenomenon where people of the left fail to realise their own bias, thinking that only other people have bias. As such, the claim is complete bunkum.
"...you say they are left leaning because it doen't fit your narrative..."
Not so. There are other claims that don't "fit my narrative" that I would not label as left-leaning.
"...if you will source some 'right leaning' sources, I'l be happy to debunk those)"
Of course. Because the left-leaning ones that you don't recognise as such reflect reality and everyone else is wrong. Not because of evidence, but because the left cannot be wrong.
"I have stated quotes from the literal world health organisation"
Yes, I saw that. That's why I dismissed that quote as being from a left-leaning organisation.
"...there is no such thing as chromosome abnormality..."
Because you say so? Or do you have some objective reason?
"...people who are intersex or androgynouse are not abnormal."
False in two respects. First, "abnormal" can simply mean different to normal, and it is simply a statistical fact that they are in a small minority, hence not "normal". Second, and if you want to use the word differently, their chromosomes are, as I mentioned, the result of a copying mistake. (And, I remind you, we all have copying mistakes, just not all the same copying mistakes).
"also don't use religion as a source for this (religion has biased sentiments)"
I wasn't using "religion" (depending on how you define that). I was using history and design. I was referring to how humans were designed, as related by historical records. But if you want to label that "religious", then your rejection of that can also be labelled "religious", which means that you're basing your rejection of my argument on your own "religious" views (that God did not create us that way, presumably).
"religion has biased sentiments"
We all have biases, including scientists. One common one in science is the bias that supernatural explanations must be rejected even if true.
"Give me sources that show there are only 2 genders..."
I already gave a source for there being only two genders. But your religious views caused you to dismiss that out of hand.
"...and that gender and sex are the same thing."
It's pretty obvious that it amounts to the same thing, when (a) we are expected to use sex-based pronouns as gender-based pronouns, and (b) we are expected to use "gender" to determine which sex-based team a sports person can play in or which sex-based toilets a person can use. It is blatantly obvious that "gender" is a replacement for "sex", with an invented, meaningless, distinction. I'm sure that I could find a source saying as much, but then you'd dismiss it as 'right-leaning' (which it no doubt would be), so I might as well just give you the logical argument above.
1
-
@kiwi7872 The source I mentioned is Genesis 1:27
From your previous comments I expected you to be atheist to some degree, so that's no surprise.
Most government bureaucracies are left-leaning, probably because the left, unlike conservatives, usually believes in big government, so left-leaning people go for government jobs. But in this case we are talking about the organisation that covered up the covid actions of communist China.
I don't follow what you're getting at with your comment about liberal views, and what distinction you might be trying to draw between liberalism and neo-liberalism.
Yes, I gathered that you don't think that people with more extra chromosomes (we all have more than two; the normal number (yes that word 'normal' is quite appropriate) is 46 (23 pairs)) are not abnormal, but that doesn't make it true. I meant no slur by the use of the word (they can't help how many chromosomes they have), but the simple fact is that 46 is normal in the sense of most common, but it's also the case that 46 is obviously how we were designed, and any more (or less) is not how we were designed. That could be analogous to a car that somehow (i.e. by accident) has an extra spare tyre (no much of a problem) or that somehow has square wheels (that is a problem). Things work best when they are as designed; when something has extra bits or missing bits (not by design), it typically causes problems.
I'm a Christian, and in line with that I'd be roughly Conservative politically, but I wouldn't consider myself fitting exactly with any particular political designation.
1
-
1
-
@ur__ghost "I said "all" things they're doing, like only looking at biased arguments that support themselves"
I'm not only looking at biased arguments that support my views. I also look at opposing views, to see what they have to say.
"(btw most of pro-trans that talk about real trans experience that I've seen look at both sides, and debunk your points, unlike anti-trans people who just seem baseless) "
Which is the complete opposite of my experience. Including in discussions with you.
"I say you have a superiority complex because I assume you feel you don't have the need to explain yourself when your response it just "you're wrong" or "that's false" or "that's made up" because you think your answer is right without knowing why"
I tend to only make those sort of comments without evidence or reason in response to someone else making assertions without evidence or reason. If they provide evidence or reason, I will in return. If they think it's okay to make bald claims, then why can't I do likewise?
"And I do not think I'm right, as I've stated I was never 100% sure about what I said..."
I never meant it in the sense of thinking I'm infallible. Rather, I sure enough I'm right to say what I say, which I presume is what you're doing too. If you're simply not that sure, then why make statements as though they are fact?
"however there's more evidence on the left side (that I can comprehend/take in) ..."
Well, that's what the left likes to think, but I beg to differ.
"so for now unless your side comes up with a convincing argument that's not exaggerated and doesn't dehumanize people, I'd rather be a left" "
In other words, unless my side does what your side often won't do, then you won't listen? It's the left that call us names, like transphobics, and worse, and tries to silence people on the other side rather than listen to them. That's why we have the term "cancel culture", because the left do this as a matter of routine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CliffBurton-py2jc Further, it's also based on a fallacy. Men and women typically or on average differ from each other (in ways other than the purely physical). But those differences are not defining ones, and there is a lot of overlap, with both men and women sharing the same characteristics to at lest some extent. Yet the trans activists treat them as defining. So if women typically take on more caring roles, for example, then a man that likes caring for others thinks that makes him a woman. (Yes, that's a gross simplification, but I'm illustrating the principle.) But caring for others is only typically done by women, not exclusively so. So a man that cares is not evidence at all of that man actually being a woman.
In fact, I'd like to know how to reconcile these two arguments, both put to me by the same person: a) Apart from some physical differences, there is no difference between men and women; b) a trans woman (for example) is a man who considers that he is really a woman in a man's body. But how can b) be true if a) is true? The two ideas are incompatible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dmarshall8366
"Do you have a Sky clip feed?"
Not off the top of my head, no. But within, say, the past week, I've heard both Bolt and Kenny express concerns about him, as well as Bolt's guest Greg Sheridan. Hold on... I've just seen YT offer me a new video titled "'Big chance' US presidential debate will decide the election: Andrew Bolt". So I've just watched it, and in that, Sheridan says that "Trump sometimes does himself a lot of harm in debates as well. I think the rules [of the debate] are going to be the same as they were last time, and that helped Trump because it meant that he couldn't, you know, bluster over the top of Biden ... it is strange how all senior American politicians have developed traits of personality that make them look like raving lunatics on air."
That doesn't sound at all like "fawning".
"of course, ABC is left of centre"
No, it's far left.
"but Sky Murdoch never ever moves from the right."
Nonsense. I've seen presenters and their interviewees support abortion, for example. And Kenny was well known for supporting the 'voice' referendum.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Pikaaaaaaachu
"At least 16,756 children have been killed, ..."
Okay, that's a big difference, and shows that you didn't know what you were talking about.
But you still haven't provided evidence for the figure.
"As for the evidence, have a simple internet search."
No. You made the claim, and it's your job to back it up. Not mine. It's not my job to find evidence for your claim.
Besides, I'm sure I'd find similar figures all over the internet, but it doesn't follow that they have any more evidence than your claim. I'd probably have to spend ages investigating each claim to find out what their evidence is. And that's your job, not mine.
"Regardless of the numbers, a single child's life is no one's to take."
Not in the sense of deliberately killing them for no good reason, which is why I oppose abortion (do you?). But we are not talking about deliberately taking children's lives, are we? We're talking about innocent victims of a war started by terrorists.
"Now imagine the thousands they've taken"
Why should I imagine your claim? Specially when you haven't provided evidence of it? Is that your evidence? Imagination?
Please justify the figure. And with hard facts, not just the claims of others.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mattgagnon1580
I'm a fast reader, so the time's not that much of an issue.
Yes, both women were (arguably) elected. They are also both women, both American, both adults, both in the U.S. Federal government, and both a lot of other things. But the relevant comparison is what ArdentWolf_42 pointed out (my bolding): "They are officially in that position, were elected to said position, but don’t perform in said position very well at all. "
When someone says "Calling X a Y is like calling Z a B", they are saying that both are not actually what their labels imply. So the point was about their poor performance, not about whether or not they were elected.
And, in my view, Ravin was spot on in that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@3dagedesign
"to prove that it was possible "
"Prove" in what way? Science doesn't do proofs. Criminal courts find the case 'proved' when the evidence is convincing to the judge or jurors "beyond reasonable doubt". Civil courts find the case 'proved' when the evidence is more convincing to judge or jurors than the evidence against. That last one would be the most appropriate analogy. To 'prove' this to an open-minded person, you only need to show it's more likely true than not.
"you need to show that it's possible to fit those species and feed them for that period of time,"
Which can be done by calculations, as was done in the book mentioned. You cannot do it with the real animals, as many are now extinct.
"You can calculate how many people would fit into a specific space,. but doing it shows that calculations based on the math, ignore the physical reality of people moving breathing, panicking etc. "
True, calculations can fail to take all factors into account. However, calculations can also take enough factors into account. It depends on how thorough you are.
"...animals nornally don't understanf why they're being confined,. which leads to more panic,..."
Which is why they panic so much in zoos. Oh, wait...
"...especially if they can see other animals which would normally eat them."
Two problems. First, the obvious solution to that is to separate them so that they can't see such other animals. Second, how many of the various kinds of animals were carnivores at that time? They were all created vegetarian, and while some may have become carnivorous, maybe there weren't that many?
"While It's possible to write a feasability study on riding unicorns,. it doesn't make it part of reality."
True. But if the question is how feasible it is to ride unicorns, then such a study would still be useful. Of course your unicorn question presupposes the non-existence of unicorns, unlike your questions which are meant to assess the likelihood of the existence of the ark.
"you can also write about how it could be potentially seaworthy,. that doesn't prove anything. "
That is false. It "proves" that any objection to the ark on the grounds of seaworthiness are baseless.
"Where did Noah get the penguins and polar bears from ?"
Didn't you watch the video? It helps if you don't show your ignorance by asking questions that have already been answered.
What makes you think there were penguins and polar bears on the ark? There would have been a pair of the bear kind, which includes polar, brown, grizzly, etc. And it was also pointed out that Noah didn't get the animals. God brought them to the ark.
1
-
@3dagedesign
"Does that include Koala,. "
Don't make the mistake of referring to the koala as a bear to an Aussie (which I am). A koala is not a bear.
"...are you claiming penguins as the source for all bird species,.. as you are with polar bear and other bear species ?"
First, "all bird species" is a MUCH bigger group that "bear species". You're making a huge leap to compare those to.
So no, I'm not suggesting that all bird species are descended from a single bird species.
"what other species are decended from Penguins,."
I didn't say that any species are. You have it back to front. You assume that penguins were on the ark and ask what species are descended from them. Rather, the ancestor of the penguins was on the ark, and your question should be what other species are descended from that ancestor.
However, I cannot answer that question, because I don't know the answer. I'm not sure if anyone does, because research into such things is limited by lack of funds and researchers. But I'd speculate that the 18 penguin species we have today may all be descended from the penguins on the ark.
1
-
1
-
@3dagedesign
"Can you show any evidence which supposrts yout notion that Noah, actually existed ?"
Yes. But some of it is that the flood actually happened, not specifically Noah. Here is a short list of items I can think of right at the moment.
* The Bible, a very reliable book of history (among other things) records the details.
* There are accounts of the flood and the family that survived it from around the world, just as you would expect if all people were descended from those on the ark. These aren't just accounts of a flood, but accounts that have some remarkable details in common with the account in Genesis, including why it happened, that the family that survived took animals with them, that there was a rainbow at the end, that a bird, sometimes specifically a raven, was sent out at the end, and so on.
* The genetics of humans are consistent with having gone through the genetic bottleneck of the flood.
* The ages listed for people before and after the flood are consistent with such a genetic bottleneck.
* There is geological evidence for the flood around the world, including massive sedimentation, multiple sedimentary layers (supposedly laid down tens of thousand or millions of years apart) being folded while still soft, adjacent sedimentary layers with no evidence of erosion between them showing that they were laid down in quick succession, planation surfaces, air gaps, underfit rivers, and much more.
* Lots of fossilisation of once-living creatures, including soft bodied ones (which Darwin said couldn't occur) showing that they were buried rapidly and deeply.
"or wasn't following the jewish god."
He was following the same God that the Jews worshipped, and that non-Christian (and Christian) Jews today worship. He's not the Jewish God, He's everyone's God. I said that Noah wasn't Jewish; I didn't say that he wasn't following the same God. The word "Jew" is derived from Judah, one of the sons of Jacob/Israel, who came many generations after Noah. There was no such thing as being Jewish in Noah's time. It's like referring to William the Conqueror as being Australian.
"why is Noah included in the torah, talmud, and the quran. isn;t this the Hebrew Bible ?"
The Quran is not, no. He's included because he's an important part of the history of all people.
"I'm mocking your ideas and beliefs because they are clearly wrong and clearly bad for people."
First, I wouldn't object to the mockery if you showed that the view is "clearly wrong", but you weren't doing that. You were mocking and misrepresenting. Second, what's your evidence that the view is "clearly wrong"? Third, how is it "clearly bad" for people, given that people who believed these ideas founded public hospitals and many charities, introduced universal education, twice abolished slavery, founded modern science, spread democracy, raised the status of women, and formed the basis of the most successful civilisation in history?
"you are ... simply decieved by others who find financial gain by doing so."
On the contrary, many of those in the creationist movement have left better-paying jobs to be involved in such organisations. Your claim of financial gain doesn't fit the facts.
"I'm not the exact mirror copy of either parent, and neither were they. that's how genetics works,. "
Exactly. That's why Noah's descendants wouldn't all look alike.
"...you're trying to use evolutionary variation to support the religious idea that everybody comes from Noah. "
Wrong on two counts. First, I'm trying to use genetics, not evolution, to show that all people can come from Noah. Second, I'm doing that to support the history of Noah. You seem to think that Christianity or Judaism wrote the Bible, rather than Judaism and Christianity being based on the recorded history of man's interaction with God, which record is the Bible.
"that's dishonest. since religions have tried to dismiss evolution or scientific thought and experimentation."
What's dishonest is your misrepresentation of the creationary view. Also, I'm not here to defend "religions", as that encompasses a very wide group of views that contradict each other in numerous ways. In the broadest sense of the word, it can include atheist views. I'm only going to defend Christianity, and Christianity most certainly does not "dismiss ... scientific thought and experimentation"—it started it! It was specifically Bible-believing Christians (who believed in creation and the flood) who founded science based on their Christian views.
Yes, Christians such as me will dismiss evolution, because it is contrary to the evidence.
"How would your theory work for the ancestry of an amazonian tribe found only a few years ago ? they have no hebrew history, no story of noah, no belief in jahovah.."
My "theory" doesn't require groups from around the world to have Hebrew history. Again, Noah was not a Hebrew. That name actually traces back to one of Noah's great-great-grandsons (Eber), and I'm not even sure that it applies to even all of Eber's descendants.
Also, are you sure that they have no story of Noah? Because as I said, lots of people from around the world do. With oral transmission in particular, lots of details get forgotten and other details, especially including names, get changed. What is telling, however, are the unlikely details that remain, such as the ravens mentioned above. But just as details are forgotten, so is the entire story at times. The absence of a flood account in one particular tribe is not a problem for what I'm saying.
Also, just as names get changed, they likely don't retain the name of God, and definitely not the name Jehovah, which is actually a corruption of the Hebrew Yahweh.
"Why do civilisations living in other parts of earth have no record of a global flood event."
Many do, as I've mentioned above.
"Why is there no geological evidence to support the notion of a Global flood."
There is plenty, as I've mentioned above.
"Why are animals found which are endemic to a small area and are substancially different to other animals of that species."
Because the genetics is designed to allow them to adapt to their circumstances.
"Why are some animals only found on some continents."
Either because they didn't go to those other places after they came off the ark, or because they've gone extinct in those other places.
"Why fdoes a god need Montey"
Money? He doesn't.
"A sensible person would realise that this is an impossible tale..."
What's impossible about it? And how does your claim fit with many sensible people accepting it as real?
"The only posssible source for any evidence to the Noah story can only be found in,.... the Noah story,.. it's a story in a book."
And yet that is not the only source. And the book you refer to is a reliable history book. Archeologist William F. Albright said that "There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of the Old Testament tradition."
1
-
@3dagedesign
"The Bible,. is NOT an accurate or reliable account of history,."
I have given you evidence otherwise. Your assertion to the contrary is without evidence and can therefore be dismissed.
"…name any historian who only references the bible,…"
I never claimed that the Bible was the only good source. So no, your question is irrelevant.
"…or any situation where the bible has been used to prove any historical event."
What do you mean by "prove" in this context? My claim is that the Bible has been "proved" (or shown ) to be accurate, not that it proves historical events, whatever you mean by that.
"Your claims that Religious groups were purely benificent…"
I never said that. You're straw-manning.
"…were the originators of education ..."
I said that Christianity (specifically, not "religious groups") was the originator of universal education. From an article in Psychology Today titled "A Brief History of Education":
"Much of the impetus for universal education came from the emerging Protestant religions. Martin Luther declared that salvation depends on each person's own reading of the Scriptures. A corollary, not lost on Luther, was that each person must learn to read and must also learn that the Scriptures represent absolute truths and that salvation depends on understanding those truths. Luther and other leaders of the Reformation promoted public education as Christian duty, to save souls from eternal damnation."…
"…and science is historically false…"
Not according to numerous scholars. Here's just one example, Loren Eiseley: "The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation … . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption."
"…before men of science provide proof for the earth orbiting the sun,. religions had the sun revolving around the earth."
False. The early scientists (who were Christians) had adopted an ancient Greek idea that the sun revolved around the earth, but other scientists (who were also Christians) challenged that idea and changed the scientific thinking.
"The Moses story exists in the hebrew bible,. transmitted by oral tradition which we know is not be a reliable or accurate method,."
First, what makes you think that it was transmitted orally? Second, in the past, oral transmission was often quite reliable.
"…the story only exists in the bible as a method for an all powerfull god to correct it's mistakes,. yet again."
What's your evidence for that claim?
"Your claim that there is a God has never been proved by anyone, anywhere, anytime,."
What's your evidence that He has never been proved by anyone, anywhere, anytime?
"…you have a flat earth (with angels at the four corners)…"
In the Bible? Where? Because I reject that the Bible claims that. Further, the church has never believed that, which surely they would have if the Bible taught that.
"The book which you claim only provides benefit,. details the rules god provides for slavery the aquisition of and the treatment of slaves…"
The Bible records the regulations provided to the fledgling Israelite nation to prevent mistreatment of people. What you refer to as "slavery" then was quite different to the race-based slavery of more recent times. And those regulations no longer apply. The sorts of claims that you are making around this have been answered many times over.
"This Bible continues to be the source for inhumanity, bigotry, racism, sexism, child abuse, slavery and warfare. (god is on our side)"
Completely false. Yes, anybody can misuse anything, including the Bible, to appear to justify something, but then the source is not the thing they use, but their own prejudices. The Bible does not even acknowledge races, protected women and led, as I said, to raising the status of women, condemned the harming of children, and only condones war where necessary. In fact it was Christians who developed Just War Theory and, as I pointed out, abolished slavery twice, and did this on the basis of biblical teaching.
"…why would women need lifting up in status) unless someone has already relegated them to a lower position,."
Of course they had already been relegated to a lower position! That's why Christians, following biblical teaching, lifted their status!
"Your Bible puts men first, because its written by men for men to control men who in turn have control over women."
What's your evidence that it was written only by men and not God, for men to control men, and for for men to have control over women?
"The tapdancing around the definition of jewish or hebrew to avoid the fact that Noah worshiped the God of the Bible…"
I didn't tapdance. I pointed out a clear distinction, which showed that your conflation of the two is incorrect.
"…a creation of jewish people of the middle east…"
What's your evidence for that?
"…highlights just how far you're willing to twist in order to accomodate your beliefs,."
Yet you've shown no twisting. All you've done is written a lot of evidence-free rhetoric from your own worldview.
"…you're unlikely to accept that they are false beliefs…"
True, because I have the evidence on my side. But if you're implying that I'm close-minded, then I could equally make the same accusation of you: you're unlikely to accept that your beliefs are false.
"…and in many cases simply impossible beliefs,…"
What's your evidence?
"…you mind is closed to alternatives which clearly provide evidence from multiple independent sources and reseachers from different diciplines of science,."
Your mind is closed to the biblical alternatives which has plenty of evidence from multiple independent sources and researchers from different disciplines of science. See, I can do that sort of evidence-free elephant-hurling too. It proves nothing.
"I don't accept the bible as a historical document or as accurate depiction,…"
Then you go against a lot of scholarship, including some that I have quoted to you.
"Your god demands money."
As do you. You expect to get paid, don't you? Oh, is that a reasonable demand?
"…whether in "charity donations" or in alms tax."
Well, you're not the only one who expects to get paid for your work.
"…churches collect money at every service,."
They have expenses. But unlike, say, the government, they survive on donations, not taxes (in most of the world at least).
"…they are among the wealthiest organisations on this planet,…"
Nonsense. Some old denominations have a lot of property that they have been given or otherwise acquired over the years, but in terms of liquid assets, they are generally rather poor. There would be exceptions, of course, but many churches struggle to even pay their pastors. I know, I've been a church treasurer (which was a volunteer position).
"…and also the most corrupt."
A huge over-generalisation, and one that I would reject as being generally the case.
"…their purpose is to spread the word, and help the poor,."
Yes. And that takes money (among other things).
"…they've had almost two thousand years,. but there are more poor now …"
Actually, poverty has dropped a lot over those 2000 years.
"…this is clearly the work of men, creating gods,. not the other way."
Your tirade is. But then your tirade goes against the scholarship (a bit of which I have provided) and the evidence.
1
-
@3dagedesign
"The name Yahweh is not the name of the hebrew god,. it's the Spoken sounds which represent the name god and when you Breath those sounds,. the actual word is JA HO VA,."
The actual word in the Hebrew is יְהֹוָה, which is transliterated into English as YHWH. But ancient Hebrew writing only had the consonants, so that doesn't provide the full pronunciation. Evidence of the way it was translated into other languages show that it was pronounced Yahweh. The name Jehovah came about from a mistranslation of the way the Jewish scribes added the vowel points for Adonai to YHWH, at a time when J was pronounced as a Y. For more details, find the article "Refuting Jehovah’s Witnesses’ errors" on the Creation Ministries website, or the article "Is God’s Name Yahweh or Jehovah?" on the Catholic website.
"…..but lets stick to the story of a guy selected by an all knowing god, to build a boat, (with no previous experience, and no testing )…"
The story you're making up? How do you know he had no previous experience? And why does it need testing when it's designed by an all-knowing God?
"…then fill it with a pair of each animal species, (or kind)…"
Not species, and not even all kinds. Just the air-breathing, land-dwelling kinds.
"…plus the food needed for a journey of an unknown length,…"
God knew how long it would be.
"Unless you're suggesting (without evidence) that the animals on this boat were substantially smaller and more timid than the animals currently present on earth,."
For the most part no. But the animals were to reproduce, so it is best to take young ones just entering the age where they could reproduce. And in the case of reptiles (including dinosaurs), that would mean that they would be small ones, as reptiles keep growing all their lives, and dinosaurs have a big growth spurt around that age.
"…then there are serious logistical issues with accomodation,…"
But you don't show any logistical issues. Rather, you make vague claims of problems, without actually providing any figures to show that it would not be possible. On the other hand, such issues have been studied in detail, and that study showed that the whole thing was feasible. See the book "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study" by John Woodmorappe.
"are you going to suggest that only one pretatory big cat pair were on the ark and all subsequent species derived from this pair ? you'd need to have evidence to show that is the case, and you don't."
I don't what? Have evidence? Then what is this paper: "The family of cats—delineation of the feline basic type", by Barnabas Pendragon and Niko Winkler? Sorry, but that is evidence that you claim doesn't exist, yet again showing your ignorance of the view that you argue against.
"The geological record does not show any indications of a global flood."
I have mentioned some of the evidence, so you're just in denial. Your mind is closed.
"The archeology of the middle east does not support the existence of the fictional biblical characters, such as Abraham,. Moses, or Noah."
Archaeology does not show evidence of individual people, except by finding documents with those names on them. Lack of such documents is an argument from silence. On the other hand, Archaeology does provide evidence consistent with those people. And you have not shown that they are fictional. Rather, you're using a common atheist tactic of not arguing rationally, but of loading your claims with your views. You could have claimed that "The archeology of the middle east does not support the existence of Abraham,. Moses, or Noah.", which would be an incorrect claim but at least a properly-put one. But instead you chose to label them as fictional, which is begging the question and showing your arrogance.
"You mentioned that animals are kept in zoo's,. that's true,. but they are under completely different conditions with keepers who are trained and experienced in working with those animals,."
So you're now moving the goalposts. You claimed that they would panic because of being confined. Not because of they way they were looked after. You just can't admit that you were wrong.
"As for the Bible,.. it's a compilation of books cannonised in 1962 by the vatican…"
Absolute nonsense. The canon has been accepted since the first century or thereabouts.
"…within the first pages makes it clear to the reader that the authorship of the gospels is unknown,…"
Where? Chapter and verse please.
Continued...
1
-
@3dagedesign
...continued
"…there are no original sciptures to verify that the stories have accurately been maintained."
There are no originals of almost any document from ancient history, but we don't write them off for that reason. And yet the Bible is about the best record we have, because there are so many copies, and scholars can use those to determine what the original would most likely have been like.
"…there is factual historical documentation to show that the religious organisation have repeatedly edited and removed sections of the bible."
Then provide that documentation, don't just make a sweeping claim. Because that claim of yours is false.
"…from the king james,..."And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree." "
First, that quote does not say that the earth is flat. So you were wrong there.
Second, the four corners of the earth is a figure of speech, and one that we still use today.
Third, this is from Revelations, much of which is apocalyptic language, which means that it's very symbolic, not literal.
So no, the Bible does not say that the earth is flat as you claimed.
"regarding Loren Eiseley: this act is an experimentation,.. it's not "faith" ...it's testing a hypothesis. "
You're doing two things wrong. First, you're changing the subject, because the issue is whether or not Christians founded science. Loren Eiseley says that they did, and you're not disputing that he said that. Instead, your diverting attention to whether or not he's correct. Your second error is in misreading what he's saying. He's not saying that science is faith. He's saying that science is based on faith, and he's correct in that. Yes, you experiment, but you do so in the faith that those experiments are going to yield results that you can rely on, and that your senses are correctly conveying the results to your brain, and things like that.
"it's not faith which assures success."
It is faith that science can even be done in the first place. For example, it's faith that the physical laws don't change. Sure, you could do an experiment and find that water boils at 100 degrees celsius, but what if that changed tomorrow? It would be a waste of time doing the experiments in the first place. Eiseley is correctly saying that what made science possible in the first place is the faith that God created a consistent universe in which He didn't change things like that on a whim.
Here's another quote from another scholar, Paul Davies: "In the ensuing three hundred years the theological dimension of science has faded [note that science began with a "theological dimension"]. People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given as brute facts. Nobody asks where they come from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd that there is rational basis to physical existence manifested as lawlike order in nature that is at least part comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological world view."
"Early christians certainly saw the benefit of early indoctrination,. teaching belief in blind faith, superstition and magic."
Utter nonsense, which I'm sure you cannot back up with evidence. Please do so if you think I'm wrong, or else admit that you are wrong.
"I said Religions had the sun orbiting the earth."
I know. And I responded to that claim, pointing out that you were wrong.
"it was transmitted orally because they did not have a written language."
What's your evidence for that?
"It's a bold assumption that oral transmission was better in the past,. that would need to be shown."
It has been shown. Historians accept that. Not that I'm particularly familiar with their reasoning.
"If any god had been proven,. there would be no debate, no discussion, and no other religions."
That doesn't follow. Lot's of things get proven, and yet there are still people who disagree. How many court cases have you heard of where people reject the decision?
"Slavery was different ? reallly? ."
Yes, really. I already said that.
"…would you be a slave under the terms given in the bible,."
Are you asking if I would be willing to be one at that time? Yes, I would, if the alternative was worse, which it often was.
"…is slavery a good thing at any time in history ?"
Again, that depends on what you mean by slavery. And that is one of the problems with the way you argue. I point out a distinction, you don't show that the distinction is false, but you then you ask a question that assumes no distinction. That is not an honest way to argue.
"those regulations DO indeed still apply,…"
What's your evidence?
"…they're written in the book."
Yes, they are recorded as some of the history in the book. That does not mean that they still apply.
"God is a fictional character. see above."
So, no evidence. Just using your viewpoint as if it counts as evidence. Sorry, it doesn't.
"The things which I accept to be true can be tested. and if shown to be false, I will change what I once accepted as truth."
Yeah, pull the other one. You believe that God doesn't exist. How do you test for that?
"The vatican is one of the richest organisations,."
In fixed assets (such as property), or liquid assets?
"…it has it's own Bank,."
Well, the Vatican is actually a country. So no matter how small, having its own bank is not unreasonable.
"…don't tell me they're all poor, ....you're making me teary."
I didn't tell you that. You're making stuff up again. But the vatican is not all religions, nor even all of Christianity. Not by a long shot.
"…pregnant (un-married) women (sinners) forced to have the child,…"
Instead of murdering it? You condone murder??
"…then the church arranges a good home, since the girl, un-married, has no financial ability to care for the child,."
You don't want the child to have a good home? What sort of monster are you?
"Religious organisations have been selling children for centuries."
I don't accept that, but again, I'm only defending one religion, and I'm defending the basis of that religion, the Bible. I'm not defending any wrong that an individual Christian or even Christian organisation does.
"…does this provide an example of the mercyful nature of the devine,."
Of course not, because that goes against what God says is right.
"…or how corrupting the power over people can be"
You're correct that power corrupts. And that was in fact one of the problems with the Catholic Church that led to the Reformation. But that's (mainly) on the Catholic Church at the time, not on all of Christianity nor even necessarily on the Catholic Church of today. Further, the church has actually been a moderating influence on rulers, from the kings of ancient Israel to Roman emperors to British kings, where in each case the 'church' has reigned in the power of the civil rulers. That's why we have the Magna Carta, for example.
I commend you on at least attempting answers to some of my questions, but I also note that you left a number unanswered. Why is that? Can't answer them? Have no evidence?
1
-
@3dagedesign
"…they can come up with an amazing amount of literal garbage."
That's just insult. Anybody can come up with an amazing amount of literal garbage. The fact that you pick out creationists specially shows your bigotry.
"…that's hilarious,."
And yet you don't point out anything wrong with it. Instead, you just mock this peer-reviewed scientific paper. Again, you're being intellectually dishonest.
"Archeological evidence can and Does indentify individuals,. that's how we know the names of people, like tutankamun."
I didn't say otherwise. So again, no actual rebuttal to what I said.
"…there is no evidence for the existence of a Moses character within the heirarchy of egypt,."
What's your evidence that there is no evidence? And you're flatly wrong in any case, as the Bible is evidence.
"…no heiroglyphs depict army's of "jewish slaves" constructing the pyranids,."
Given that they probably didn't construct the pyramids, that's hardly surprising.
"…no record of mass slave escape, or loosing an army in the red sea,."
Egyptian records tend to not record failures, only successes. So that's not surprising.
"…and no evidence in the red sea of a drowened army."
What evidence would you expect to find? Or is this just an argument from a lack of evidence?
"…no jewish or hebrew influence in the culture or artwork, which would be expected with the story depicted in the bible."
What's your evidence of no evidence? Because I know of evidence.
"If a heroic character only appears in one story,. in One book,. and no other historians or scribes of that period make any mention of this figure,. and in the story their actions are significant or even incredible,. (noteworthy) then we can assume that this may not be a real person but a manufactured hero figure. until more evidence is found."
Who are you talking about now? I've already mentioned other accounts of the flood and the family that survived it. If you're referring to Moses, then he IS recorded in more than one book. Joshua, a contemporary of Moses, also mentions him.
"…the foreword (that's where it states the authorship of the gospels is unknown)…"
Goodness! You're the one who needs to read more. The Bible doesn't have a foreword. Individual translations of the Bible mostly do, but they differ from translation to translation and are not part of the Bible.
"…perhaps you should read the rest of the book completely"
I've read it all, multiple times. I'm not the one who needs to read more.
I've seen your sort of approach many times. Make some criticisms. Have those criticisms rebutted or challenged. Ignore the rebuttals or challenges and toss out a swag of new criticisms. You have attempted some answers, but ignored many other rebuttals and challenges. That approach is not intellectually honest. How about sticking to the points already raised before raising new ones?
1
-
1
-
@EL_Duderino68
"Can you support that opinion?"
You've provided some support yourself. But I'll come back to that.
"Here is some info to support my opinion. I'd post a link but that mostly gets blocked."
That's okay. A direct quote is generally searchable with Google. Which tells me that you quoted a site that explicitly says, in big capital letters, that it "MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY".
Not that I think any of that is necessarily inaccurate, but it is likely to be an unbalanced description. Such as saying that it "rejects large parts of climate science"—I'm sure that it rejects climate alarmism, but whether or not that's actual (good) science is actually part of the disagreement, which your source takes an ideological view on.
"Do you disagree with any of that and if you do can you say why?"
I'm not sure of the question. Do I disagree with the description? As I've just said, it's not necessarily inaccurate. Or are you asking if I agree that it supports your opinion? In that case, yes, I disagree! On the contrary, it supports what I said! You yourself provided the support for my opinion!
Okay, the real issue here is whether those things it supports or not are good things. There are some that I may not have an opinion on, but for the ones I do, they are good things. Yes, it is conservative, and free markets, privatisation, criticising socialism, and repeal of section 18C are all good things.
"You mention workers getting paid, but the IPA wants to abolish the minimum wage..."
I've heard what seems to be a good argument for that, although that's something I'm more on the fence about. From memory, the argument is basically that having too high a minimum wage makes it harder for businesses to make a go of it, and if they therefore fail, the worker gets nothing because he's unemployed. So some wage is better than no wage. Plus, the more businesses make a go of it, the more jobs there will be, and the more people getting paid. And it should get to the point that there is more demand for workers than supply, which puts pressure on wages to go up. Which is a good thing, isn't it?
"...and further reduce workers' bargaining power."
Is that necessarily a bad thing? The implication is that you think it is, but what if it's the case that they already have too much power? But then we come back to the question of what's too much, which really gets back to ideology.
"Since March 2016 total profits by corporations have risen 157% while wages grew just 25%."
That doesn't answer my question.
"Do you see what's wrong with that?"
No. Not without you showing that a) profits were not already too low, or b) wages were not already high enough, or c) something else. The point is that you're contrasting two figures and suggesting that there is something wrong because... it seems it?
But even if there is something wrong, you need to see why it's happened. Is it, for example, because of governments favouring particular businesses (e.g. race-based ones), allowing them to charge what they like?
"Let me ask you Phil, is that what Jesus would want?"
Very good question. Try Matthew 20:1-16 or Matthew 25:14-30. They may surprise you.
1
-
@EL_Duderino68
"What’s going on? You previously posted better arguments."
Hey, I can't be fantastic all the time! :-)
"You never came back to anything that supports your opinion."
Not true. I said that your quote about the IPA supported my opinion. I explicitly said "On the contrary, it supports what I said!"
"Why would you even say that? It’s not true and you offer no factual information that it is. Again no support for your opinion just a fallacious statement."
It IS true. But note that I said that the site says that. I didn't say that the article you quoted from says that. It's on their 'Wikipedia:General disclaimer' page.
"Another opinion with nothing to back it up."
I make lots of claim of facts, and am prepared to back them up when challenged, but it would make responses far too long to back them all up when I make them, and many might well be accepted without being backed up, so it would also be a waste.
I also sometimes offer opinions, and being opinions, I make no promise of being able to back them up.
In this case, I am quite familiar with Wikipedia, including having been an editor there, so it's an informed opinion.
"Trying to conflate climate science with climate alarmism?"
Sort of, yes.
"That’s just a lazy strawman argument."
That climate 'science' is climate alarmism? That wasn't an argument, but a claim.
"…well Phil I’m sure you knew this at one time but (good) science is generally considered to be peer-reviewed science."
Yes, it was at one time. And probably still is much of the time. But not so much when ideology comes into the picture. As one person wrote, “If peer review is good at anything, it appears to be keeping unpopular ideas from being published.” That's about the shortest quote that I could give from an article with many quotes. See the peer-reviewed(!) paper "Creationism, science and peer review".
"Weasel words! You know that expression, correct?"
Yes. A definition from Oxford: "words or statements that are intentionally ambiguous or misleading."
My comment was not misleading. Ambiguity is appropriate when something is not clear. So no, not weasel words.
"More weasel words. [“There are some that I may not have an opinion on”]"
There are some that I'd have to think about my position on them before I could determine whether or not I held an opinion on them. I think my original comment was a reasonable and shorter way of saying that.
"You write you you “support conservative” (poor language there), so not progressive values?” You don’t support progress?"
I don't know what you're referring to there. The phrase "support conservative" is not in my previous comment.
In any case, what is progress? Getting better? Of course I support things getting better, but the values of "progressives" are the opposite.
"So no government regulation on monopolies, foreign ownership, collusion, truth in advertising, the requirement to provide factual information about your product or taxes?"
First, what is Britannica trying to say? Its definition starts with "an unregulated system of economic exchange,…", then goes on to list some "interventions by government". So does it mean totally unregulated, or unregulated insofar as those particular "interventions" are concerned? It finishes with saying that in a free market, those interventions "…either do not exist or are minimal. " (my emphasis). So, arguably, it's saying that certain types of regulations don't exist or are minimal. Yet your next line assumes none at all: "So no government regulation on…".
Of course what matters here is what the IPA's definition is (which I couldn't readily find) and what my definition is. I would go with the "minimal" one, and limit even that to exclude regulations around not lying, cheating, etc.
There remains, of course, the question of what "minimal" includes, which for space and time reasons I won't go into here, but the point is that it's not as unregulated as you imply. Britannica itself says "As the free market represents a benchmark that does not actually exist, modern societies can only approach or approximate this ideal of efficient resource allocation and can be described along a spectrum ranging from low to high amounts of regulation."
"Is the Labor government doing that in your opinion?"
Your question was whether or not I support the IPA criticising socialism. It was not about whether or not Labor are introducing socialism.
"You also want to repeal the Racial Discrimination Act."
I did not say that. The only reference was to section 18C of the act, not the entire act.
"More weasel words. [re minimum wage]"
No, simply stating that there is an argument to be made for abolishing the minimum wage, not that I agree with it.
"Really? I mean really?"
Yes, why not?
"Australia addressed this back in 1907 ..."
Okay, it addressed it. Was its conclusion therefore beyond being questioned? If not, your fact is pointless to this conversation.
"I’ll Move on to your Bible quotes:"
You asked if my views would be what Jesus want, as though they would not. But now you ignore that they apparently do, and try and dispute Jesus! If you don't agree with Him, why cite him in support?
"promotes unequal wages for the same job, "
No, it doesn't It promotes the idea of sticking to your agreements.
"Matthew 20:1-16 is basically a justification for trickle down economics."
I can't immediately see that, but so what? You say that as though that's a bad thing. Which you likely think it is, but unless you show that it is, that's not an argument.
"Phil, you seem to have morphed in to a far right wing supporter with no compassion for their fellow man…"
Me having a different view of what's best doesn't mean that I have no compassion. Your comment simply assumes that your view is correct.
"…but support for corporations…"
What's wrong with supporting businesses? They produce a lot of wealth and jobs.
"…and discrimination."
You've provided no evidence for that.
"What happened mate??"
I was taught well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EL_Duderino68
Reposting...
"What’s going on? You previously posted better arguments."
Hey, I can't be fantastic all the time! :-)
"You never came back to anything that supports your opinion."
Not true. I said that your quote about the IPA supported my opinion. I explicitly said "On the contrary, it supports what I said!"
"Why would you even say that? It’s not true and you offer no factual information that it is. Again no support for your opinion just a fallacious statement."
It IS true. But note that I said that the site says that. I didn't say that the article you quoted from says that. It's on their 'Wikipedia:General disclaimer' page.
"Another opinion with nothing to back it up."
I make lots of claim of facts, and am prepared to back them up when challenged, but it would make responses far too long to back them all up when I make them, and many might well be accepted without being backed up, so it would also be a waste.
I also sometimes offer opinions, and being opinions, I make no promise of being able to back them up.
In this case, I am quite familiar with Wikipedia, including having been an editor there, so it's an informed opinion.
"Trying to conflate climate science with climate alarmism?"
Sort of, yes.
"That’s just a lazy strawman argument."
That climate 'science' is climate alarmism? That wasn't an argument, but a claim.
"…well Phil I’m sure you knew this at one time but (good) science is generally considered to be peer-reviewed science."
Yes, it was at one time. And probably still is much of the time. But not so much when ideology comes into the picture. As one person wrote, “If peer review is good at anything, it appears to be keeping unpopular ideas from being published.” That's about the shortest quote that I could give from an article with many quotes. See the peer-reviewed(!) paper "Creationism, science and peer review".
"Weasel words! You know that expression, correct?"
Yes. A definition from Oxford: "words or statements that are intentionally ambiguous or misleading."
My comment was not misleading. Ambiguity is appropriate when something is not clear. So no, not weasel words.
"More weasel words. [“There are some that I may not have an opinion on”]"
There are some that I'd have to think about my position on them before I could determine whether or not I held an opinion on them. I think my original comment was a reasonable and shorter way of saying that.
"You write you you “support conservative” (poor language there), so not progressive values?” You don’t support progress?"
I don't know what you're referring to there. The phrase "support conservative" is not in my previous comment.
In any case, what is progress? Getting better? Of course I support things getting better, but the values of "progressives" are the opposite.
"So no government regulation on monopolies, foreign ownership, collusion, truth in advertising, the requirement to provide factual information about your product or taxes?"
First, what is Britannica trying to say? Its definition starts with "an unregulated system of economic exchange,…", then goes on to list some "interventions by government". So does it mean totally unregulated, or unregulated insofar as those particular "interventions" are concerned? It finishes with saying that in a free market, those interventions "…either do not exist or are minimal. " (my emphasis). So, arguably, it's saying that certain types of regulations don't exist or are minimal. Yet your next line assumes none at all: "So no government regulation on…".
Of course what matters here is what the IPA's definition is (which I couldn't readily find) and what my definition is. I would go with the "minimal" one, and limit even that to exclude regulations around not lying, cheating, etc.
There remains, of course, the question of what "minimal" includes, which for space and time reasons I won't go into here, but the point is that it's not as unregulated as you imply. Britannica itself says "As the free market represents a benchmark that does not actually exist, modern societies can only approach or approximate this ideal of efficient resource allocation and can be described along a spectrum ranging from low to high amounts of regulation."
"Is the Labor government doing that in your opinion?"
Your question was whether or not I support the IPA criticising socialism. It was not about whether or not Labor are introducing socialism.
"You also want to repeal the Racial Discrimination Act."
I did not say that. The only reference was to section 18C of the act, not the entire act.
"More weasel words. [re minimum wage]"
No, simply stating that there is an argument to be made for abolishing the minimum wage, not that I agree with it.
"Really? I mean really?"
Yes, why not?
"Australia addressed this back in 1907 ..."
Okay, it addressed it. Was its conclusion therefore beyond being questioned? If not, your fact is pointless to this conversation.
"I’ll Move on to your Bible quotes:"
You asked if my views would be what Jesus want, as though they would not. But now you ignore that they apparently do, and try and dispute Jesus! If you don't agree with Him, why cite him in support?
"promotes unequal wages for the same job, "
No, it doesn't It promotes the idea of sticking to your agreements.
"Matthew 20:1-16 is basically a justification for trickle down economics."
I can't immediately see that, but so what? You say that as though that's a bad thing. Which you likely think it is, but unless you show that it is, that's not an argument.
"Phil, you seem to have morphed in to a far right wing supporter with no compassion for their fellow man…"
Me having a different view of what's best doesn't mean that I have no compassion. Your comment simply assumes that your view is correct.
"…but support for corporations…"
What's wrong with supporting businesses? They produce a lot of wealth and jobs.
"…and discrimination."
You've provided no evidence for that.
"What happened mate??"
I was taught well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rosshitchen-ij6en
"Genocide is defined as the deliberate and systematic attempt to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group."
I didn't ask what it is, but evidence for it. And you didn't answer how it is worse.
"Amnesty UN and just about every other human rights body"
And where do they get their figures from? Besides, the two you mention have been shown to be biased and not credible.
"Apartheid is a system of institutionalized segregation and descrimination..."
Again, I didn't ask what it is.
"... which discriminates against the Palestinians in a wide range of ways. Israel also discriminates against Palestinian refugees in the diaspora and against its own Palestinian citizens."
That's repeating the claim, not evidence.
"Yea spyware."
I don't believe for a moment that that's all there is, and so what anyway? Most of not all countries have intelligence units, so that would be a legitimate contribution, yet you claimed no contribution.
"Lame excuse"
Is it wrong?
1
-
@rosshitchen-ij6en
"might as well go for the trifecta."
The trifecta of definitions even though I was asking for evidence? Why?
"Ethnic cleansing is a term used to describe the systematic forced removal, expulsion, or killing of people from a particular ethnic, religious, or cultural group from a specific area, with the goal of making the area ethnically homogeneous."
You mean like Gaza doesn't have a single Jew living there? Yes, that's an appropriate term for Hamas.
"Forcibly removing 2 million people, of which 90% were born in Gaza, ticks this box in my opinion."
And yet that only might qualify because they were already ethnically cleansed!
"I believe Hamas should be held to account for what they did on October 7th, not the entire population of Gaza."
The population of Gaza voted for Hamas, and surveys show that many if not most support Hamas. They are hardly the innocents civilians you pretend them to be.
However, that they are nominally civilians is why Israel goes to extraordinary lengths to not kill them, even though it's normal for civilians to be killed in war.
So after numerous posts, you've STILL not provided evidence of your claims. Presumably you don't have any.
1
-
1
-
@sixtus9559
"Government is above God, every government is, unless you're in a theocracy like Iran."
Simply false. God is over every government, whether they follow his standards or not.
"so when he puts governments down when they commit to sin, God needs to be on holiday since forever. "
You don't know that. Truth and life correctly said that God has the power, not that he always does so.
The Old Testament records times when God did just that, but often by indirect means. For all you know, He's behind more recent cases of government failing.
"Nations around the world are constantly committing war crimes, even those so "Christian" ones like Australia and especially America"
False. Sure, some nations do at times, but not "constantly" and not, generally speaking at least, Australia and America.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pwillis1589
No, not confirmation bias. As I said, words typically have a range of meanings, and dictionaries describe how they are actually used, including by atheists. So I clearly said that there were other meanings than the one I cited. The original definition, as I cited, was from the Old English. The other definitions are obviously extensions of the original one.
But further, we are talking about a being that is described as being the creator and supreme being. Regardless of the meaning of the word, most of the other 'gods' simply don't qualify for that role. Yes, there might be lots of claimants for 'god', but not for the creator of everything. They are relatively few in number.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hankshill71
"Who eroded it?,"
Deists and atheists, and in large part with claims of millions of years and of evolution. Sherwood Taylor, then the Curator of the Museum of the History of Science, Oxford, said in 1949: “… I myself have little doubt that in England it was geology [i.e. millions of years, denial of a world-wide flood, etc.] and the theory of evolution that changed us from a Christian to a pagan nation.”
"oh right that's antisemtism nevermind."
No, not them. People like James Hutton, Charles Lyell, Charles Darwin, Ernst Haeckel, John Draper, Andrew Dickson White, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@truthandlife4101
"I say No to all vaccines as the syringe is the devils fake immune system. God created us and I am not going to destroy what he created perfect"
If we are perfect, why do we get sick? Yes, were were created perfect, but then we rejected God (the Fall), and have been deteriorating since. Our bodies are no longer perfect, and although we can help our bodies with good hygiene, good nutrition, etc., we also need medical intervention at times. That's why one of the authors of the New Testament was a doctor.
"Murdered unborn babies are Sacrificed and their bodies are used in vaccines, MRC5 HEK296 PER C6..."
I don't believe that any have been killed for that purpose, and none of their bodies or parts thereof are used in the manufacture of vaccines. What is true is that some vaccines are grown on cultures based on cell lines originally taken from aborted babies. But to reject the use of those vaccines on the grounds of long-ago abortions is like rejecting other otherwise-good medical remedies on the basis that they were developed by the Nazis. Immoral origin, but not immoral to make use of now.
"...toxic materials do not belong in my body."
I don't know what you are referring to here, but many substances you probably ingest are toxic at some level, i.e. if you have too much of them. Many common medicines fall into this category, but actually do good if used on appropriate doses. Further, toxic substances can be good if combined with other things. Common salt, for example, which is vital for life, is the combination of two poisonous substances, sodium and chlorine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@truthandlife4101
"The words of the devil tells the truth Twisted and to Deceive and then it's a lie."
Of course. But that doesn't mean that everything you claim is of the devil actually is.
"Medical treatments were different in Biblical times."
Yes, thanks to science, founded by Christians, we've come up with better treatments since.
"Today medical is not to Cure it is about Treatments keep coming back Big Pharma"
As a blanket statement, that comment is ridiculous and without foundation. Unless, of course, you can provide strong evidence.
"Many medical conditions can be healed Natural "
And many can't. So your point is...?
"I am going to Correct you as you are Wrong about Aborted fetuses,"
And yet all you do is give more baseless claims.
"notice the abortion laws,"
What about the abortion laws support your claims? Nothing that I'm aware of.
"their tissue is used in Foods Soft drinks and All of the Vaccines."
Simply false, and I note that you don't supply evidence. Their tissue is not used in vaccines at all, let alone food and soft drinks.
"Human Cell Lines come from Murdered unborn babies torn apart ripped out of the Deceived girls womb for this evil purpose you call science."
Even that is not in evidence. One human cell line, as I mentioned above (HEK293) may have been from a miscarriage. I have my doubts that others (which I agree are from abortions) where the baby was "ripped apart". But whether you're correct on that or not, I'm certainly not defending the use of aborted babies.
And how is science evil? It is the study of God's creation in a systematic way. Sure, like any tool, it can be (and is) misused, but there is nothing inherently evil about it.
"Repent seek the truth Jesus Christ Salvation if you choose."
I already have. But it seems that this was the end of you supposedly showing me to be wrong, with nothing but further baseless claims. I am as opposed to abortion as you appear to be, but it does not follow that therefore the medical fraternity is evil and that the vaccines are evil.
"It is written in the bible, learn the word of God. Genesis 1:1 Revelation 22:13 ..."
And part of that includes not bearing false witness, which claims about all vaccines including tissue from abortions being used in vaccines are. If you haven't already read it, please also read the article I pointed Sanctify me to: "CMI, vaccines, and vaccination". It is written by Bible-believing scientists who are strongly opposed to abortion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jfkfitirjdjjsisieirirjfjdj5967
"oh of course it wasn’t stolen,silly me,we just handed it over to ya for free"
Why do you think that they are the only two options?
"... he did say don’t wear trousers,he didn’t say don’t dress like us..."
He actually said, "Stop cultural appropriation, stop wearing trousers.". That is, it's cultural appropriation to wear trousers as the 'white' people do. So clearly he was referring to not dressing like 'us'.
"are you like ten years old or something"
Of course not. I'm knowledgeable enough to know what cultural appropriation means, and to properly understand comments.
"it’s tribes not just one tribe,many tribes"
My mistake. I should have made it plural. But still not a nation.
"many tribes with borders,laws"
Where are the title deeds showing the borders? Where are the statutes showing the laws? Who made the laws, i.e a king, parliament, what?
"..and cultural wisdom makes us a nation".
What was the name of the supposed nation?
"sorry but you are not as clever as ya thinks,have nice day".
Thank you. I plan on having a nice day. But trying to insult my intelligence is not nice.
Who did you obtain the land from in the first place?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MikeOxlong-
I agree that the term is one of several similar terms, but they are all wrong. You say that they are "recognized internationally as ... definitive period[s] of time in the earth’s existence", and that is largely correct, but that's on the basis of rejecting the biblical account in favour of the ideas of man, and specifically the supposed evolutionary history of man.
So no, they didn't go "from very primitive use of stone tools to discovering fire and learning to hunt better (and thus make better tools), to eventually learning to harvest,...", because they were farmers from the very beginning (Adam and Eve), making musical instrument of bronze and iron soon after, but then came the confusion of languages at the tower of Babel, and different people (or family) groups were forced to move in a hurry. You know those disaster movies where civilisations are destroyed and the remaining humans have to struggle with 'primitive' equipment that they can hobble together? Or stories like Robinson Crusoe? It was like that. Rapidly moving away, they needed to find shelter quickly, and caves were an obvious choice until they could settle. Without much equipment, they had to make do with simple wooden and stone tools until they could settle, locate ore reserves, and re-learn how to smelt metals and forge better tools. So they were never 'cave people' and 'paleolithic' people etc. in any sense except a transitory regression from a 'more advanced' state. But some groups stayed near Babel, and didn't have to go through this, while others moved a relatively short distance away before they could settle, while others moved much further and it took generations until they could settle. So the rediscovery of their lost technology happened in different places at different times. Some, such as those who became the Australian aborigines, never recovered much of it.
But it's happened in more recent times too. The Mlabri people are a tribe in northern Thailand and western Laos who were discovered in 1936. They were found to be hunter-gatherers, and were considered to be 'relics of the stone age'. However, it turned out that the tribe was only a few hundred years old, apparently being founded by a young boy and girl who were banished from a nearby tribe of farmers. They didn't progress from hunter-gatherers to farmers. They regressed from farmers to hunter-gatherers because they were forced to leave the group and had to struggle to survive, just as the people who were forced to leave Babel.
But it's that false anti-biblical view that has undermined acceptance of the Bible, and that is what is tearing down everything about our culture.
1
-
@MikeOxlong-
"we shouldn’t be arguing about a book that’s been rewritten more times than I have fingers,"
Except that it hasn't.
It seems that your Christian education was ill-informed. There are many ill-informed Christians, but there are plenty of others able to answers questions. My own parents brought me up with plenty of evidence to support what I was being taught about the Bible, and never avoided answering questions. With one notable exception that I remember when I asked about dinosaurs, and Dad gave me a book to read (which thoroughly answered my question) rather than answer it himself. But note that. I have always been willing to question the claims, but believe the Bible because of the evidence supporting it.
"I am a firm believer however, that humanity has undergone numerous, cyclical habitations of our planet, with varying levels of success on the evolutionary scale."
So you've swallowed the atheist view, that doesn't fit the evidence very well.
"We’ve simply discovered and have hard evidence of this fact, ..."
We all have the same evidence; it's how we interpret it that differs. Evolutionists start with the premise that God didn't do it, and so end up with claims that are inconsistent and can be shown to be wrong. For example, a prime argument for evolution is the similarity of living things (which they take to mean common descent but could also be a common designer) and the hierarchical nature of living things, labelling many exceptions to that "convergent evolution", i.e. evidence that doesn't fit.
"This reality simply can’t be argued."
Simply false, as that "reality" is indeed argued quite extensively.
"...while many lessons have been learned from religion and the bible’s stories that’ve brought upon a positive light (and growth) to humanity via the enlightenment..."
Long before the so-called enlightenment, which actually ended up 'darkening' understanding.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@turnerfamilyinozi
"She was lying to you. Look up the 2 questions from the 1967 referendum."
No, she was not lying, although the situation was a bit more nuanced than her brief comment.
First, one of the questions is irrelevant to this discussion. It was about the balance of numbers in the Senate and the House of Representatives.
The second question was to change two parts of the constitution related to aborigines. One of these was section 51 (xxvi), which already gave the federal government "power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:- ... The people of any race, other than the aboriginal people in any State, for whom it is necessary to make special laws." (my bolding).
The change removed the section I bolded, the effect of which is obviously to allow the federal government to make special laws for aborigines, as Deves said.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gloriapascoe2614
"which judge are you talking about."
The one mentioned in the video. Didn't you watch it?
"Mark DREYFUSS QC ATTORNEY General presented the Voice document to the High Court to make sure that the VOICE was legal before albanese presented it to parliament."
The legality of the proposal is not in question. You're straw-manning.
"John Howard started this process in 2012, going through Abbott Turnball ... ."
Not this version of it, which is why the sensible Howard and Abbott are against it.
"This is a big deal."
We know. That's why we feel so strongly about it.
"The aboriginal peoples want recognition as the 1st nation peoples."
This is not simply about recognition, but about giving a special right to a particular group based on (part of) their ancestry, i.e. 'race'. As such, the proposal is racist.
Also, they were never "nations", but tribes, and despite asking numerous times, I've never seen the evidence that they were the first people here.
"They would like to bring issues themselves to parliament instead of Canberra officials telling communities where money should go."
Fair enough. But we'd all like that. Why give that special right to one group rather than everyone? That's is clearly discriminatory. So you not only support a racist proposal, but a discriminatory one.
"Maybe X-rays machines , education."
You're not aware that they've already been given a lot of that? Why do you need to have a 'voice' to give them what they've already been given a lot of?
"More cost-effective for this logical request."
There is nothing logical—or cost effective—about it.
"No campaign stop ... and lies."
Says the person telling untruths about the proposal!
1
-
1
-
@Monica-v3h
"There are other great things to do but you probably don't want to pay for all the birth control and it's not affordable to some etc etc."
Which is not justification for killing innocent humans.
"The point about killing other humans, you're joking right ..."
Not at all.
"...because people kill constantly for the good of this or that so don't be naive."
Utter nonsense. Yes, there are people who kill other humans, but they generally fall into the categories of murder (which is illegal), self-defence (so not an innocent person), war (like self-defence, but "self" is the country you're defending), or accidents. But no, people do not "kill constantly".
"it becomes more dangerous for the woman after 14 weeks."
So nothing changes with the baby, for which it is "dangerous" (fatal) both before and after 14 weeks.
"you know I don't believe you read my statement because I SAID girls-don't do it because you'll pay later..."
Yes, you said that, and I read that, but you also said that you were pro-choice, i.e. that you think it's okay to kill innocent unborn humans. That is what I was responding to.
"...but I'm pretty sure you're a bot."
You'd be as right about that as you are about it being okay to kill innocent humans.
1
-
Nick
"You're the one who made the argument that it goes against design and you're refusing to explain how that's a bad thing"
It should be self-evident that going against the design is a bad thing. If we are designed to work in a particular way, doing things a different way is inferior.
"...you originally pointed out that homosexuality is harmful because there is a higher chance of contracting some STDs, this is a case of you not understanding that people have a right to make their own choice, this does not affect you in any way."
First, people don't have an unlimited freedom to make their own choices. You implicitly acknowledge that by your reference to not affecting me.
Second, what is wrong with me being concerned with how it affects other people? If there is a danger somewhere that could affect others, but not me, does that mean I shouldn't care that it affects others?
Third, it does directly affect me when I'm forced to accept the choices of others. Such as being required to hire facilities to a homosexual group to promote their views, or when I'm being required to use a person's incorrect pronouns.
"You said that homosexuality is harmful because it spreads STDs, despite this only being an issue in the personal lives of homosexuals."
That it only affects them (which is not completely true) doesn't change that it's harmful. You asked why it's harmful, and your response now is that being harmful doesn't matter!
"So natural design wasn't designed by the designer?"
What do you mean by your term "natural design"? I never said that it wasn't designed by a designer. I said that was not my term. I have not said much about it beyond that.
"Yes, the bible is definitely the pinnacle of moral code with quotes such as Ephesians 6:5-8 “Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ” "
There are two problems here.
One, you're taking things out of the context of the times. The Christians who that was directed to had no ability to change the circumstances of the society. That is, they couldn't free the slaves. So the slaves had to remain slaves, and the best way to live with that was to be a good slave. But also, you didn't quote the rest of the advice, which includes "Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him." In other words, slave masters were to treat their slaves well, even as brothers. It is a fact of history that biblical teaching around slaves led to slavery being abolished.
Two, why do you think there is something wrong with the verse? By what standard—other than your own opinion—do you think that there's something wrong with that? The answer to that is that living in the West, which has been largely shaped by Christian views, you have adopted that standard from Christianity/the Bible. You only think it's wrong because of Christian views. If you lived in a historically non-Christian culture, you likely wouldn't see a problem with that verse.
"...but no verses that say that you shouldn't own slaves,..."
There are many verses that restrict owning slaves, and restrict how you treat them. For example, the old Mosaic Law (which applied only to the pre-Christian nation of Israel) said that you could not take slaves from your own people (i.e. they could only become slaves as payment for a debt), you had to offer them freedom after seven years, and you had to treat them well.
"... I'm assuming you support slavery, as going against the bible would be wrong, correct?"
That just shows your ignorance of the subject, which I have explained further above.
"Also please do me a favor and search up "How many people have been killed in the name of christianity"..."
That precise phrase? Okay, I did. Two matching hits only, both from discussion forums where the respondents offered their opinions, but no hard facts.
"Also, your STD argument holds little water"
Your argument is that homosexuals don't necessarily have a higher STD rate, but I never said that they did. I said—in response to your question asking what is harmful about homosexuality, remember—that "it has spread STDs and HIV,". I never said that the rate was higher than with heterosexuals. So your entire rebuttal is of a straw-man.
"So it seems that heterosexuals have a higher rate of catching some STDs, looks like we'll have to outlaw heterosexuality because it's harmful, following your absurd logic."
More misrepresentation. As I have already pointed out in a previous comment, my objection was not based on the harm, but on the design.
That design is also that sex is for use within marriage. The problem of STDs in heterosexual relationships is also a case of going against design.
I try and answer all your points and question. But I have asked many questions of you that you've not bothered answering. Why is that? In particular, I have pointed out that you have never justified your belief that there is nothing wrong with LGBT+. Why not?
"Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination."
So which of those rights was the ice hockey player violating, as you claimed?
"...what they're doing is not harming anyone, ..."
Already shown to be wrong.
"...what you're doing is advocating for an environment where systematic oppression can continue,..."
Where did she advocate for that? On the contrary, I believe that you think that will follow from what she suggests, but you haven't shown that, so you're attributing your own opinions to her.
"…all scientific data pointing to overpopulation being the main issue in the future?"
That supposed problem was claimed to have been a problem decades ago, but it never materialised. Science is not very reliable when it makes pronouncements about the future.
"The root cause of the systematic oppression of homosexuals doesn't have to be justified?"
What systematic oppression?
"…the LGBT has always lacked human rights."
Always? Let's see, according to your list:
* The right to life: They have that.
* The right to liberty: They have that.
* The right to freedom from slavery and torture: They have that.
* The right to freedom of opinion and expression: They have that. Nobody says that they can't express their opinions.
* The right to work and education: They have that.
So what humans rights have they always lacked?
"…homophobia is the direct cause of systematic oppression…"
What irrational fear of homosexuals or homosexuality would that be?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@macca2342
"But that is what my teenage kids believe,..."
So why don't you explain to them that a Christian pointing out the consequences of their sin is actually a loving thing to do, just like warning someone about to cross a busy road without looking is a loving thing to do? Why allow them to think badly of good people?
"... but you cannot tell others not to be that ..."
Why not? Are you accusing others of all having closed minds, unable to listen to reason and take facts on board? That sounds like a nasty thing to say.
"...do not get all surprised and shocked when people take offence..."
Oh don't worry. I'm not surprised. I'm quite familiar with the leftist ideology that brands anyone that doesn't agree with them as hateful or the like.
"...conversely you cannot dictate how people react they also have a right to speak as they please."
Yes, they do have that right. But they also have a responsibility to not falsely accuse others of things that aren't true, nor to malign them without good reason.
"And it's not for you to dictate what people should or should not think or believe."
Who's dictating? Not me. That was Rugby Australia doing that, but you're defending them! Why isn't that a double standard?
"The people that run Rugby Australia know that people do not tolerate that kind of speech that is why they reacted the way they did."
No, that is false. The people that run Ruby Australia know that the woke left do not tolerate Christian view. Many other people, however, do tolerate it if not actually support it. The problem is that many on the woke left live in a leftist bubble where all they hear are views that agree with their own, so they falsely think that everyone agrees with them. And then they (not me) are the ones surprised and shocked when someone actually dares to disagree with them. So they attempt to censor them, because they cannot stand opposing views being aired. And you're supporting that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@macca2342
"Mate we are coming from different places..."
Exactly. But you seem unable to justify your claims, and prefer to blame the victim.
"I am not religious..."
That depends on your definition of "religious". Many Christians argue that they are not religious too. But then there are also atheist religions, and the semantic range of the word can include atheist views.
But put it this way: you have an opinion on the existence of God. So do I. And yes, that means that we are coming from different places. What it doesn't mean, though, is that your position is somehow superior to what you term a "religious" view. On the contrary, atheists can produce no firm evidence for the non-existence of God, whereas Christians can cite a whole host of evidence for God's existence.
"...so save it for someone else."
Pardon? This suggests your position is superior. Why should I save it for someone else, when YOU are the one who decided to respond to my comment? Why shouldn't it be YOU who should "save it for someone else"? Unless you consider your view worth giving and mine not? You're welcome to, but you should back it up with rational argument, not excuses such as not being religious.
1
-
@macca2342
"What are you saying to people that makes them call you homophobic?"
The sorts of things I'm saying here to you.
"No one says that to me why you?"
Because you have "acceptable" views.
"Why do you defend Folaus's right to speak but not mine,..."
I haven't said you shouldn't speak. But I think you should stick to sober arguments, and not falsely accuse people regarding their motives, beliefs, etc. So why do you have the double standard?
"Why cant the people he comments on express their opinion?"
Again, I've never said that they can't. But they don't want to express their views. They want to impose their views. Folau didn't pick on any individual nor did he discriminate against anyone. But plenty of people picked on him personally, and tried to stop him expressing his views. But you're avoiding that double standard too.
"Let's agree he can say what he wants and they can say what they want."
Within reason (e.g. no vilification, slander, etc.), but yes, I'm happy too. Now tell Rugby Australia that, because they were the ones not letting him say what he wanted to. Fair enough?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@macca2342
To me, the ABC is living proof of how extremely left some people are. And, unlike Sky, they are required to be balanced.
I don't find the Faine example at all convincing. First, it relates to one interview when perhaps he was more balanced than the ABC is typically. Second, the far left, unlike conservatives, have a view that what they call the 'far right' doesn't even deserve to be heard. In other words, Conservatives might have complained that Faine was not balanced, while the far left might have complained that Faine even gave the conservative side a hearing. Third (related to the second), the left, unlike conservatives, tend to live in a bubble where they only hear views that agree with them, and are horrified at what other people actually believe, considering it extreme.
But the issue is, as much as anything, which is closer to reality, given that it not all just a matter of opinion. When you have the ABC trumpeting views that people can change their sex, that there are multiple sexes, that a communist dictatorship is a good thing (or at least no worse than a Western democracy), and so on, these are all things that are demonstrably false.
1
-
@macca2342
"Faine was not referring to one interview..."
Contrary to what you claimed? "John Faine... pointed out ... after an interview ..."
In any case, it's still one presenter, and it's not clear how often that was the case.
"if you right-wingers are OK with voices from the left getting airplay why are you trying to silence them?"
Who is trying to silence them? Not conservatives. We are asking for balance, not silence from the left.
"I watch a lot of ABC and I do not recall hearing the stuff you refer to, they may give a voice to people with these views..."
So you don't recall hearing it, but you do know that they air people saying these things? That's self-contradictory.
"...but they also give a voice to people that would disagree."
No, they don't. Well, beyond a token. One way that any media outlet can be biased, and this is the case with the ABC, is by being selective in what stories they tell or what voices they choose to air.
"Plenty of conservatives work at and have air time on the ABC..."
Name a few prominent ones.
"...you need to watch rather than rely on these Murdoch Sock Puppets for your information."
I have watched and do listen. I'm not relying on people that you falsely name-call.
"Murdoch sees the ABC as a competitor.."
Rightly so.
"...and uses his on-air puppets to attack them surely you see that."
No, I don't see that. I see various Sky presenters attacking the demonstrated bias at the ABC (i.e. they are not hollow claims, but claims made with evidence that they present), but I don't see that they are doing it because they are told to by Murdoch. That's without evidence.
1
-
1
-
@cherubycarilla7523
"Why would I believe in the "Bibble" or any of the other Middle Eastern, man-made religions."
Because the Bible (not scare-quoted, misspelled "Bibble") is not man-made.
"I have to say that I am totally with China on this one, ..."
So an atheist sides with the atheists. Not surprising.
"...religion is a dangerously false narrative..."
Including atheist religions such as the Marxism of the Chinese communists? Or only religions that you don't agree with. Besides you say "religion is ... a narrative", but in fact there are multiple religions with very different narratives, so you have no idea what you are talking about.
"...behind a huge amount of discrimination and injustice in the world."
True, in the case of many religions, including the atheist ones.
"God is not a real thing, no matter what you may believe."
What's your evidence? As I have plenty of evidence for God. Or is that your blind-faith position?
"It does not exist except in some peoples minds."
God is a person, not a things. But again, what's your evidence? Or do you have none.
"Those of us that actually do care about others will make this happen, we dont expect to be able to rely on the selfish."
Christians care about others because we are all made in the image of God. Why should atheists care about others? From their point of view, we are all just the accidental results of a long series of accidents. This atheistic attitude is why the Chinese communists killed millions, because they didn't care about others, only their own (selfish) desires.
1
-
@cherubycarilla7523
"what a self-deluded bunch you lot are."
Starting with an insult is not a good way to argue.
"B.T.W, Political ideologies are not religions, whatever you may see as similarities."
They are often based on religious views, however. I never said that they were the same thing.
"Religion introduces purely mythological or fantasy elements..."
You're still falling for the atheist trap of lumping all religions (except atheistic ones) in together, despite their vast differences, which I pointed out.
"... purely mythological or fantasy elements as the underlying structure,..."
Not in the case of Christianity.
"...to adjudicate through a mythological mouthpiece seems rather primitive."
Except it's not mythological. And I note that despite me explicitly asking for evidence of God's non-existence, you failed to provide any. Which implies that your belief is based on blind faith.
"We understand that man created God..."
Evidence? Because nobody that I've challenged on that has ever produced evidence of that.
"...at a time when he knew virtually nothing about anything from any kind of actual scientific position..."
Which is not the same as saying that they knew virtually nothing about anything. I'm at least pleased that you have high regard for the Christian invention of modern science, though.
"...but we have moved a long way from there by now and frankly, we do know better."
We know more, but not necessarily "better".
"Never heard anyone suggest God is a person before,..."
You've never heard anyone refer to God which "he" and "him" rather than "it"? Where have you been hiding?
"...which God, or whos God would you imagine is a person?"
There is only one God, because that refers to the creator and supreme being. Only one can be supreme.
"Hindu God, Muslim God, PNG natives God?"
Hinduism believes that everything is God, i.e. not an actual supreme being. Arguably, the Muslim God qualifies, but their description of Him is distorted to the point of unrecognizability. I'm not aware that the PNG natives have a belief in a supreme being. But of course the real answer is, the one that there is good evidence for. That's basic logic.
"Your generalising on the behavior of Atheists and Religeists is just generalising on human nature, there are those among all groups who are selfish and also those who are not."
You are the one who generalised about caring and selfish. I responded in kind regarding Christians. However, my reference to atheists was NOT generalising. Rather, it was a question about the basis for atheists caring. And you didn't answer the question.
"My comments about those of us who have a conscience or care is about those who agree on the climate agenda,..."
Yes, generalising, the very thing you had a go at me about.
"...nothing to do with whether they believe in god or not."
Again, my question was what basis does an atheist have for caring. I was not asking whether they care or not, but why they should.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"...but don’t lie. Christianity never supported universal rights,..."
Nonsense. Historian Tom Holland, for example, talking about the apostle Paul's letters in the New Testament (my bolding): “... compacted into this very very small amount of writing, was almost everything that explains the modern world [the Western world] but also the way that the West has moved on to shape concepts like international law, for instance, ... concepts of human rights, all these kinds of things. Ultimately they don’t go back to Greek philosophers; they don’t go back to Roman empiricism. They go back to Paul. Paul, really, his letters are, I think, are, along with the four gospels, the most influential, the most impactful, the most revolutionary writings that have emerged from the ancient world.”
"...it was only after we defanged Christianity by separating church and state..."
Separation of church and state was a Christian idea. For one, the Bible records how King David was the civil leader, and the prophets Samuel and Nathan were the spiritual leaders. For another, the United States has it because the 'non-conformist' (non-Anglican) Christians rejected the situation in England where the government and the Church of England were tied together.
"Look to Islamic countries if you want to see what countries based on religion are like."
Look to Marxist countries and the millions they killed if you want to see what countries based on atheism are like. And if you think that's not a fair way to look at things, show how it's fair to assume that all religions are like Islam.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chriswatson7965
" "And everyone has those" - er, no."
Do you believe that you are human? What do you believe a human is? What do you think of right and wrong? Do you believe that humans are animals or separate creations? What are your views on obeying the law? Unless you have no views at all on any of those questions, or many others, then you have such basic views.
"What is more that particular definition of religion is not the usual one,..."
True, but then most don't realise that the more normal definition would exclude various views that they would consider to be religions.
"...I argue you are using it merely for the purposes of excusing religious behaviour."
On the contrary, I use it to point out the hypocrisy if atheists claiming that their own views are not religious ones while categorising almost all others as religious, as though their own were in some special category. I have no need to excuse Christian behaviour, because there is nothing that needs excusing about it (ignoring some Christians who act against Christian teaching), and I have no desire to excuse the behaviour of other religions.
"Here's one from Wikipedia which I think is pretty good ..."
Yes, it's a bit broader than just belief in God, but it still restricts it to the supernatural and the like. But atheists also have behaviours and practices, morals, beliefs, worldviews, and (in some cases) organisations. On the other hand, another use of 'religion' involves commitment to rites and rituals, and on that definition many Christians reject that Christianity is a religion. So it really does get back to definitions.
"The US is nearly a theocracy,..."
Ridiculous. Yes, it has historically had a strong Christian underpinning, but it's always been a secular state, in the sense of the state and the church being separate. And that was not the source of my "definitions of atheism", but merely one example in support of the legitimacy of considering atheist views to be religious.
"I would argue that I don't have a religion of any sort, and that most of the people that I know don't have one either."
Yes, I know that atheists like to think that. I don't agree with them.
"No-one I know of has any fixed dogmatic beliefs that they base there life on..."
So you base your life on the Christian view? Of course not. You base your life on the dogmatic view that Christianity is false and that man is not beholden to God. Or are you going to contradict me on that last point?
"...and very few have behavioural practices that would be based on their beliefs."
So they don't have views about obeying the law, doing right by their fellow humans, looking after the planet, etc? I strongly suspect that they do.
"I like to think of myself as a good person, ..."
Please define "good". Because that implies a standard that you are measuring yourself against. From where does that standard come?
"...we live in a society whose very existence is based on such needs being met." Greed and self-promotion are not needs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Christmas is an unholy day, created by the Roman Catholic Church,..."
No, it is the celebration of the birth of Jesus, and has been recognised since at least about AD202.
"...a pagan cult, NEVER has it been Christian..."
It has developed various faults (false doctrines, etc.) over the centuries, but is still at least nominally Christian, and certainly started that way.
"...we are told NOT to keep certain days, or weeks or months or year ..."
You cited several verses, but not one that supported this claim.
"...but to keep the Word of God."
Celebrating Christmas is not at odds with that.
"Using the scripture to justify a fake day,..."
You haven't shown that it's fake.
"...that the word Christ and mass are smashed together,..."
Smashed? Don't you simply mean "joined"? And legitimately so?
"...claiming it to be when Jesus Christ was born, when the shepherds were out in the field, with their flocks, in mid-winter?"
Mid winter in bethlehem is not always that cold. They could easily have been out in the field then.
"Right, so, getting the date right, a specific day, on which they celebrate the birth of the Saviour of all mankind, the Son of God, the Lord God made flesh, by whom all things were created and exist, and getting it wrong, is not biggy to you, right?"
No, getting it wrong when we aren't told what date it was not not a biggie, as long as we don't claim that it's right. Just like the monarch's birthday holiday, as Unknown Kadath pointed out.
"...so you argue to have it when some pagans claim it is."
No, the date is actually thought to be the correct date. I mentioned that the celebration has been recognised since at least about AD202. That source mentioned the date being 25th December, and apparently this was because of an old belief that a prophet's life would begin and end on the same date, and as Jesus was thought to have died on 25th March, he would have been conceived on 25th March, and therefore born on 25th December. Whether this is correct or not,this is apparently the origin of the date. There is no known pagan festival on that date except for one that came later, likely as an attempt to replace the Christian celebration!
"Better question, is have you read the Authorised Bible from front to back, or at all?"
Why ask about a 400-year-old version when the language has changed so much in the meantime? There are plenty of good, faithful, and accurate modern versions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KurtBoulter
"Obviously a Catholic, "
And yet I'm not, and never have been. I suggest that your powers of deduction are lacking.
"...yet in ALL your words, not one line of scripture, NOT ONE."
Well, given that I was discussing an event that came about after the Bible was written, it wasn't particularly appropriate.
"The wisdom of the world is foolishness to God! (1 Corinthians 3:19-23)"
So you're claiming that everything that people discover that is not in the Bible is foolishness? Then I guess printing is foolishness too. And yet I expect that you have a printed Bible. My point is that you've not shown why those verses are relevant to anything I've said.
"All of your false claims, ..."
What false claims? You've not shown any of them to be false!
"...were, so you could uphold a pagan cult, created by a Roman Emperor, ..."
What's your evidence for that?
"Unlike assertions, I am not supposed to prove anything to you, ..."
Odd, because the very Scripture you subsequently quote contradicts you! "Prove all things;" What makes you think you don't have to prove your claims?
"...you have prove what was said to be false,..."
Which is what I tried to do with what you said which was false.
"The Roman Catholic Church has ALWAYS been a cult,..."
So when do you think that the Catholic church started? And what happened to the true church, in your view?
" ... the queen of heaven, Diana. (Jeremiah 7:18)"
The verse doesn't mention a name.
"Where is it, in scripture, that says we are to keep the birthday, of Christ on the 25th of December, or any day?"
Where did I claim that it did? Answer: I didn't. You made that up.
"...you dismiss the only pure Word of God in English,..."
What makes it the only pure one? For that matter, what makes is pure? It has known errors.
1
-
@pwillis1589
"A laughable excuse."
No, a valid explanation, and you've not shown otherwise.
"Your god is so pathetic and impotent it can even organise one accepted coherent message to all. "
An illogical claim. That He hasn't done that doesn't mean that He can't do that. There could be good reason for Him not doing that. Further, your claim makes little sense. Suppose that God has "organise[d] one accepted coherent message to all". What's to stop people deliberately distorting that message and others falling for the distortion?
Your next few sentences are baseless rhetoric that don't deserve a response.
"Name a eyewitness account."
Here are two: Matthew and John.
"You can't none exsist."
And yet I did because they do exist.
"You are lying and being deliberately misleading."
Says the person who has made no correct statements so far in this discussion, and who seems to think he understands my motive.
"Just saying there are contemporaneous accounts is idiotic with providing that source."
And yet I provided sources! Saying that there are no contemporaneous accounts without providing sources is better?
"You don't have one. You are lying."
And yet I provided some.
"Neither Josephus or Tactitus accounts of an alleged Jesus are contemporaneous."
Did you overlook my qualification "Depending on how precisely you're using that word,..."?
Contemporaneous: "existing at or occurring in the same period of time." Both Tacitus and lived in the same century as Jesus. I think it's legitimate to say that they lived in the "same period" of time. But if you mean "at the same time", then I agree that they were not that. So why did you ignore my qualification? So you could continue to vilify me?
"They were written in well after any life of Jesus. "
What do you mean by "well after"? Tacitus wrote about 80 years after, and Josephus about 60 years after. Compared to many ancient histories, that's actually quite close.
"Greek was the language of the disciplines."
Disciplines? Or disciples? If the latter, then I fail to see your point. The History dot com site says "In addition to Aramaic and Hebrew, Greek and Latin were also common in Jesus’ time. After Alexander the Great’s conquest of Mesopotamia and the rest of the Persian Empire in the fourth century B.C., Greek supplanted other tongues as the official language in much of the region. In the first century A.D., Judea was part of the eastern Roman Empire, which embraced Greek as its lingua franca and reserved Latin for legal and military matters."
"Once again so little evidence only a deluded believer could possibly conclude any certainty of any alleged jesus character."
And yet historians are adamant that He existed. Did you even bother looking at the evidence I referred you to? You're going against the scholarship.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dimercamparini
"not everybody on the planet thinks that a 1 minute zygote is already "life" or a "baby"."
Thanks to pro-abortion propaganda. But the science says otherwise. See the paper "Biologists' Consensus on 'When Life Begins' ". It says "Overall, 95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization..."
"...and at some point during it...a "baby" come to existance...but NOT from the very beginning".
That's semantics. At conception/fertilisation a new human life comes into existence. We don't call that human live "baby" for its entire existence. We call it a baby early on, a toddler later, then a child, then a teenager, and so on. So the specific label for that stage of life is not the relevant point. The relevant point is that it's a human life.
"in the first weeks of development that "thing" is just a "mass of cells"...so it can be terminated"
The "thing" that wrote that comment is also a "mass of cells", although notice that, for good reason, I don't describe either as "just" a mass of cells. So can you be terminated on those grounds?
"- after some point that termination is not possible anymore because it basically becomes "killing of a person" "
It is killing of a person right from the start of their life, but even ignoring that, it seems that you can't identify just when you think it becomes a person ("after some point"). And an accepted principle is, if you don't know it's human, don't take the chance. Think of someone hunting deer who seems movement and shoots, but it turns out to be a person. "I didn't realise that it was a person" is not an excuse. They have to be certain that it's not a human.
"Some ppl, who have very strict moral codes think that even the 1 cell from what the development start is a "baby"."
The moral code doesn't determine what it is. The moral code determines what you can do with it.
"most of the discussions about these themes is "ideological"...not based on actual science or rationality..."
Well, I've cited scientists above. Do you accept that?
"also usually "religious beliefs" comes into the discussion"
Of course. Science tells us what IS (e.g. that it's a human life), not what we OUGHT to do with a human life. That's not the area of science, but of morals, and that's where "religious beliefs" come in.
"...so yeah...it's hard to find some common ground on that."
True, because of those different religious beliefs (including atheist ones). But as discussed, part of it is correctly understanding the facts (e.g. that we are human from conception) that the pro-abortionists do their best to deny.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@foxfriendzanimaltown9859
"Oh you have got to be kidding,..."
Not at all.
"...just enter on YouTube "residential schools" you'll learn all about the murder, the genocide, the rape, the starvation and all the rest!"
First, you're now moving the goal post from "Catholic schools" to "residential schools". They are not the same thing, although there is some overlap.
Second, Those videos talk about schools in Canada, whereas the context here is Australia, and only a portion of those Canadian schools were run by the Catholic church (or any churches).
So you're focussing on one aspect of residential schools in Canada, and are generalising that to all Catholics schools, Canadian or not, and residential or not, and ignoring the good they the schools as a whole do.
1
-
1
-
@foxfriendzanimaltown9859
"...just like the global Catholic child sexual abuse, they're all alike, the same species everywhere,..."
I pointed out that you were over-generalising, so your justification for over-generalising is to continue to over-generalise! Claim dismissed as baseless.
"...a Nazi didn't have to wonder what was going on in another concentration camp in the next country, similar things to be expected of course,..."
Because what was going on in the camps was what was designed to go on in the camps. Schools are designed to teach, not abuse, so, unlike the campls, the abuse is not inherent to their purpose. So that's a false analogy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@superstormday0925
"as long as it depends on my body,and only my body, and cannot exist outside of my body, it is my choice,..."
Nope. It's still not your choice to kill the innocent human being.
"... and it is not yet a person. Period."
How so? It is a living human being. We have human rights, not person rights, if there is some kind of distinction that you haven't explained.
"No one else's business until they can take care of it."
It is everyone's business to defend defenceless human beings.
"And anyone unwilling to take care of it, has no moral right to make a choice over my body or decisions."
So you've already forgotten that it's not your body, but your baby's body?
"your body has no moral rights over my body."
According to what standard?
"I know EVERYONE is safer because of my decision"
Apart from your dead baby. And how is everyone else safer anyway?
"I will do everything in my power to help the women in your states find safe places to have their abortions."
A safe place to kill? What a bizarre concept.
"the person who's seed created an embryo was very violent, to me, to animals, etc."
That's tragic. But in what other case do we execute the offspring of a criminal for his parent's crime? Why should these cases be different?
"So yes, in actuality, I did believe it was possible that if a human was born from this, there was a true possibility of a violent person."
And yet violence is not an inherited trait.
"I meant that I'm responsible for my body, and no one should have to right to tell me what to do with my body,..."
But we DO have a right to defend the life in the body that a mother is carrying. Which, as I have pointed out, is a different body to the mother's body (unless the mother has four arms, two heads, two hearts, four lungs, two sets of DNA, etc. etc.)
"The fact that you can vote to have power over my body is morally and ethically wrong, and goes directly to my most basic rights."
Nonsense. ALL laws involve having power over somebody.
"And I'm still confused about why you asked about a black child..."
I believe that he was allowing for the option that you were entertaining racist ideas about black people being violent. After all, abortion was championed by the racist Margaret Sanger who saw it as a way of reducing the number of black babies born.
1
-
1
-
@superstormday0925
"violence can absolutely be genetic."
Evidence please.
"It's not a baby, until it's viable outside of the woman's body."
And yet a) "baby" is what it is commonly known as, and, regardless of labels, b) it IS a live human being.
"Her body doesn't become secondary just because some cells are growing in it."
Those "some cells" are a human being. Just as you are made up of "some cells".
"Until those cells can exist outside of her body, they aren't a separate life from her."
And yet the scientists (and the Bible) say otherwise.
"It's still just part of her body...."
So you do believe that a mother has four arms, four legs, two hearts, two heads, 20 toes, four eyes, etc.? Because the ones in her baby are hers, not the baby's?
Bizarre. Or making excuses, more likely.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@venividivici4567
"no good expecting a Trump hater to converse without using insults, it's their stock in trade."
I don't expect it, but I'll still call it out.
"America is not a democracy, ...[it is] a constitutional republic, not a democracy."
I've challenged Americans on this before, usually without getting sensible answers. The only sensible answer I got was that what you mean is that it's not a direct democracy, like the ancient Greeks had for a time. But it IS a representative democracy, which means that it IS a type of democracy, just as Australia is, even though it's a constitutional monarchy, not a republic. Claiming that it's not a democracy without explaining how you're using the term is quite misleading.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"What was Hamas primary objective for October 7th? It was to bring attention to the world of the situation of Gaza and how their struggles have been forgotten by the world and start an International discourse."
Nonsense. It was an attempt to wipe out the Jews. It's in their charter. You're defending terrorists.
"No sane person alive would support Hamas for what they did on October 7th, but why did they do it?"
Because they want to wipe out the Jews. It's in their charter.
"Israeli's say it's because they are inhumane, they want Israeli blood and it's the teachings of Islam"
The first two are obviously true.
"It's neither,..."
"neither" refers to two, but you listed three!
"if you research the history of Palestine and Israel you too will come to realize how the Palestinians were suffering for decades with no way for them to ask for help from the outside world."
More nonsense. Yes, the Palestinians have been suffering—at the hands of their own government! And they have been getting plenty of help from the outside world, which their own government has been commandeering so that they could attack Israel.
"Gaza is the worlds largest open air prison,..."
Fiction.
"...these people have no rights or privileges that any country would have such as airports, wharfs or a military, just to name a few."
More fiction. They do have a military—what do you think attacked Israel?
"How would you like it if the British decided to give away over half your countries land to another..."
Which they didn't do. It wasn't their country.
"People never get to hear both sides of the story because one side "Israel" has stronger ties to developed nations and censorship is very real."
And yet many journalists are citing claims from Hamas, so that's clearly false also.
"...what's the point of air-striking any structure above ground which may or may not even be ontop of the Hamas tunnel system?"
Because they are known to be on top of the tunnel system! Israel is not attacking indiscriminately; it's targeted on Hamas military locations.
"Clearly Israel doesn't place Palestinian lives and homes as the same value of an Israeli. ... in this day and age with all the resources at the IDFs disposal, all the advancement in technology and backing by the US, surely there was no better approach than to bombard Refugee Camps, Places of Worship, Apartments, Homes and Hospitals."
The IDF is warning Palestinian residents that there will be bombs falling where they are, so they need to flee. They even call them on the 'phone to warn them, and drop leaflets from aeroplanes to warn them. They are using a "better approach". Meanwhile, Hamas is telling the residents to stay put. Hamas wants the civilian deaths, to make Israel look bad.
"Israel claimed that Hamas uses Palestinian Civilians as "Human Shields"."
When Hamas puts it headquarters under hospitals and tells the residents to stay, then yes, that is using them as human shields.
"Interesting thing is, was the IDF thinking about the safety of their own Hostages when they were flattening Gaza?"
Of course. Which is why they haven't been bombing indiscriminately.
"Does the IDF take all Westerners as fools?"
No, only the ones taking Hamas' side.
"Are civilians being forced to stand in between the IDF and Hamas? This claim of "Human Shields" is totally absurd."
And yet it's true. Yes, it's absurd that Hamas is doing that, but that's what they are doing.
"Lately there's been reports that the IDF ran out of military targets after about 2 weeks into their campaign against Hamas and since then has relied on an AI algorithmic Program named "The Gospel" to find most probable locations of military targets."
Reports from where? Hamas propagandists?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MaiaPoet
"Religion can play a protective role in that it provides the same type of meaning that the gender ideology framework attempts to provide."
Depending on the religion (which includes both monotheistic religions such as Judaism and Christianity, and atheistic religions such as Marxism and Secular Humanism), it can provide more than that—it can provide a source of truth against the Marxist lies of gender ideology.
"However, if the religious attitudes are implemented in such a way that freedoms are constrained,..."
It is normal for freedoms to be constrained. Laws against robbery constrain people to not rob, for example. Assuming that the constraint has a valid basis, there is nothing in principle wrong with constraining freedoms.
"...or there are homophobic tendencies-..."
Although the word 'homophobic' has a legitimate use, a LOT of the time that 'homophobic' is used, it's used not of people who have an irrational fear of it (which is what the word means), but a rational disagreement with it.
"There have always been religious parents who hold anti-gay beliefs."
Which is perfectly legitimate, given that we were designed to be heterosexual.
"What is new- is a whole industry hell bent on medicalizing people’s shame around their same sex attraction."
Agreed. And I appreciated hearing your story.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@simonharris4873
"I did support my claims. You ignored it."
What support did I ignore? Because I reject that I did.
"The word God means "a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity." Nothing in that definiton says there can be only one."
In that definition, no. But then of course words typically have a range of definitions. Another definition of "god" is "a man who many people admire or copy" as in "He’s one of the gods of the fashion world." But clearly we are not talking about that meaning.
The word is Old English for "supreme being, deity" (see the Online Etymology Dictionary), and that is reflected in Merriam Webster's first meaning, "The supreme or ultimate reality". And of course we are talking about the potential alternatives to Yahweh who the Bible portrays as above all others. So even accepting (as I do) that the word "gods" are used of the Greek and Roman (and other) entities, they are not alternatives to the One who is above all others, as I pointed out with the mention of the Greek recognition of that.
"The bible called it a molten sea..."
In a translation dating from 400 years ago. Try checking a modern translation.
"It was describe in the bible as a circle, with a diameter of 10 cubits and a circumference of 30 cubits. That is only possible if PI = 3."
Only if you ignore rounding.
"10 cubit... 30 cubits... 2 digits of precision. You can call them significant digit if you want to play semantics, "
Not semantics at all. It's mathematics. From a university website: "If I quickly measure the width of a piece of notebook paper, I might get 220 mm (2 significant figures). ...In any measurement, the number of significant figures is critical."
"In any case, when all variable in an equation have 2 significant digits,..."
Which they don't. They have one.
"Sounds to me like you're saying the bible is open to interpretation."
Not at all. The Bible is accurate, but not exhaustive. And precision is not the same thing as accuracy.
"It must be, because 1 Kings 7-26 say it held 2000 baths, and 2 Chronicles 4-5 says 3000. So which is it? Because it can't be both."
Now you're bringing up a different objection, not interpretation, but consistency. In this one you have a better case than with the bogus pi claim. However, it's not conclusive that there is a contradiction.
There are at least three possible explanations of this:
a) That there was a copyists' error. Christians believe that the original text of the Bible was inerrant, but not all the copies. The copies are accepted as being extremely accurate copies, but not 100%. So this might be one of the exceptions. Also, as you may be aware, in Hebrew letters had numeric values (as in Roman numerals where X=10, for example), and the letters concerned here (ג and ב) can look similar ( although in modern use it depends on the typeface; the manuscripts were, of course, hand-written).
b) The Hebrew words used in the two passages are not the same, which leaves open the possibility that Kings is referring to the quantity at the time, not the capacity, while Chronicles is referring to the capacity.
c) The two passages were written at different times in history, and could be using different units of measurements, similar to how the English gallon is different to the American gallon.
The point is that it is not a conclusive contradiction, and neither is it a matter of interpretation.
"No comment on the other lies told by the bible which we now know to be false. How predictable."
True, I didn't comment on them, because I challenged you to provide evidence of them. Which you have (now repeatedly) failed to do.
1
-
@simonharris4873
"If you honestly think there's no evidence to prove..."
Most scientists don't think that you can "prove" that, given that science doesn't "prove" anything. From the Berkeley University website: "Journalists often write about “scientific proof” and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof — real, absolute proof — is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it."
"...no evidence ...that the earth isn't millions of years old,..."
Did I claim that? No, I did not. I know that there is evidence consistent with that view. Rather, I answered every one of your claims, and you are now inventing a reason to refuse to address my responses.
"You clearly lack the capacity for rational thought."
Says the person who is refusing to respond to the argument. Try looking in a mirror.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"...made using synthetic messenger RNA which depletes in effectiveness after a number of months thus everyone needs a booster shot."
That's incorrect. Yes, the mRNA degrades quickly (that's why it has to be deep frozen), but it on only lasts a matter of days, not months. The mRNA is not there to fight the virus, though. It's there to get your cells to create spike proteins like the virus has, and your immune system recognises those as something that shouldn't be there, and attacks it. In the process, though, your immune system 'remembers' the details of the spike protein, so that if and when you get the virus, which as the same spike protein, it will be ready for it, and be able to attack and destroy it quickly, rather than having to wait while it prepares the attack mechanism. It is this immune system 'memory' that fades over time, and why that, not the mRNA degradation, is why you need a booster.
"Once again its not Law they cant fine you or jail you for not taking the the vaccines."
Unless, of course, they pass a law to make you take it. But the law is probably not the problem; it's the ability of an employer to fire you and the ability of the government to get businesses to restrict what you can do that are the main problems.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davem3325
"make jesus appear on FOX NEWS tonight!"
Yeah, sure. I say that Jesus is God, the creator and ruler of the universe, but somehow you expect Him to take orders from me??? That's delusional.
"ULLAH is a "REAL" god,"
Evidence?
"so was zeus, thor, buddha, unicorns etc what makes your god real? "
For one, none of those even qualify for the title of Creator of the world and supreme being. Zeus and Thor were the offspring of other 'gods', Buddha was a man, and unicorns are not real.
"if i wrote a bible what would make my bible any less true than your bible?"
It's not my Bible. It's God's. So yes, yours would be less true.
And by the way, I see that you failed to prove that the accounts in the Bible are made up, and you also failed to provide a reasonable requirement of 'proof'.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davem3325
"I was taught NOT TO QUESTION anything said by religious teachers!! -"
Then you were taught badly, by people who didn't know or ignored what the Bible says. For example, Acts 17:11 says "Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." In other words, they were commended for questioning what even the apostle Paul told them. Telling people to not question what they are told is unbiblical.
In fact it's this sort of thing that led to the Protestant Reformation—because what the church was teaching didn't always align with what the Bible taught. And consequently, Protestants went to great efforts to have people read the Bible for themselves. As a result, they both translated them into the people's languages (you no longer had to read Latin to read the Bible) (and numerous Protestants died for the right to do that), and they introduced universal education, so that everyone was capable of reading it for themselves.
This led to a betterment of society and democracy too. As Indian scholar Vishal Mangalwadi writes,
"Almost every alehouse and tavern turned into a debating society. People started questioning and judging every tradition of the church and every decision of the king. People could question religious and political authorities because they now had in their hands the very Word of God. The Word of God was an authority higher than the authority of the church and the state combined. ...
"Alehouses became debating clubs as people interpreted and applied the Bible differently to the intellectual and social issues of the day. Some were content to let the church settle their disputes. Others realized that the only way to determine which interpretation was correct was to read the Bible with valid rules of interpretation. This was a bottom-up intellectual revolution. It infused the minds of all literate Englishmen—not just those in the universities—with a new logical bent. It took no time for that revolution to spread into other aspects of people's lives. Until that time, England was only a middling power. But once the English people began using logic to interpret the Bible, they acquired a skill that propelled their nation to the forefront of world politics, economics, and thought."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"they aren’t allowed to be discriminated against to get a job."
There is no law that says that you can't discriminate against people when hiring. What there is a law saying is that you can't discriminate on particular, specified, grounds, such as sex, religion, ethnicity, etc. But there is no law saying that you can't discriminate on the grounds of liking the colour blue, or preferring vanilla ice cream over chocolate, etc. And there is no law saying that you can't discriminate on the grounds of not being intelligent enough to tell difference between a man and a woman.
Not saying you'd get away with that; the media would persecute you, but legally, I think you'd probably be in the clear.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rexcowan9209
"Islamic migration is actually very low if you google the top ten countries that our immigration comes from."
Define "very low". That it's smaller than some other groups doesn't mean that it's low enough to not matter.
"Among refugees it is also low, just over half are Christian and Muslims about 30%."
Okay, so it's the second-largest group. But is that low enough to not matter?
"...further immigrants are actually from students, again not so many Muslims there."
Students can't be Muslims?
"Muslims are a smaller group than Indians or Chinese so a take over is unlikely, but they do cluster together."
Indians and Chinese are not Muslim? Perhaps not many of the Chinese, but nearly 15% of Indians are Muslims. And that assumes that the Indian immigrants are representative of the Indian population, which is not in evidence.
"If there is a Muslim party created it will get quite a bit of criticism, which is valid when its political, not so much when its religious unless done by someone who is fully informed about their religion."
In Islam, there's not really a difference. Their religion is intertwined with their politics.
"Despite that on a personal level I have found many very likeable people among Muslims."
Many Muslims are culturally Muslim, and not necessarily religiously Muslim. I know a Muslim, for example, who 'fasts' for Ramadan, and I think sends his kids to the mosque on Saturdays, but who is an atheist. Yes, the cultural Muslims are not the problem, but there are still plenty who are the problem.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@turnerfamilyinozi
"Prayer is very much something we can debate."
I didn't say that it's not possible to debate something about it.
"When you provide evidence that prayer works will can debate your claim."
Don't hold your breath. I've already pointed out the problem with empirical evidence, which it seems that you've just ignored.
"Given all of Trump's lies, criminal activities, sxual assaults, divorces, affairs, conviction of fraud, theft of government documents and his denial that he needs to ask god for forgiveness,..."
What "lies, criminal activities, sxual assaults, divorces, affairs, conviction of fraud, theft of government documents"? No, I'm not suggesting that he's never done any of those things, but such claims about him are both greatly exaggerated and ignores political convictions.
And what denial that he needs to ask God for forgiveness? Perhaps he's saying that he doesn't need to for particular things because he hasn't done those particular things?
"...I am gob smacked that any Christian could support him."
So you can't see why a Christian would support the lesser of two evils?
1
-
1
-
"You want evidence of Trump’s lies. Google‘Trump’s lies.’ But I doubt that you will do that."
Wrong again. I already have done that (several years ago), and most of the ones I looked at weren't actually lies. This is why I said "such claims about him are ... greatly exaggerated". Sure, there were probably some legitimate lies in that list, but it was mostly a hit job.
"I gave one lie and the best you can say is I don’t know."
I don't know what supposed lie you are talking about (assuming it wasn't in this thread, because I don't recall one in this thread), but ...
* I don't claim to know the answer to every claim of a lie he supposedly made.
* "one lie" is not evidence of lots of lying. Most politicians do it, so although that doesn't make it acceptable, it's hardly a reason to avoid voting for him in preference to another politician that also lies, is it?
* I didn't just ask for evidence of lies, but of all the claims you made. So you've picked on one of those claim, and one for which there almost certainly some evidence, and claim to have given me one example! That's a long, long, way from good evidence. Okay, you also wanted me to find a list of Trump's lies, but as I said, I've looked at such a list before, and it didn't hold water in the sense of showing lots of lies.
1
-
"... I voted yes today. It's not all about abortion it's about the trampling of people's rights."
You've contradicted yourself there. You voted to trample on the rights of the babies to have a life.
"Both are favorable to Ohioians because we don't need politicians in our private lives."
So politicians shouldn't make laws against, rape, murder, theft, etc., because that somehow involves the perpetrator's "private lives"?
"We refuse to listen to hypocrites."
Like yourself, who trampled on the babies' rights while claiming to not want to trample on people's rights?
"We are adults of voting age and know what's best for us regardless of your bull, Vivek."
Oh, okay. So what's "best for us" is to kill others. Okay, I've got that now.
"Supporting all ... religions,..."
Even bad ones?
"...and above all supporting laws and the US Constitution."
Have you not noticed that the U.S. Constitution says "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, ..."? Abortion deprives the baby of life!
"What the Supreme Court did was wrong ..."
Roe vs. Wade? How on earth was it wrong to overturn the evil decision?
"This is what happens when leaders pack the courts."
Make bad decisions like Roe vs. Wade? Trump didn't "pack the court". He merely appointed good judges who would properly interpret the constitution instead of activist judges like the ones that invented out of thin air a right to kill babies in the womb.
"It's also not a child's right to be abused when a piss-poor parent can't raise them."
Nobody is claiming that it is a child's right to be abused. That's a strawman argument. It IS a child's right to have a life, but you're happy to deprive them of that.
"Worry about yourself and stay out of other people's lives."
Just like people shouldn't object to rape, theft, etc., because that involves other people's lives? You're proposing anarchy.
"I'm a common sense person..."
Who approves of killing babies. Sorry, but that seems very far from common sense.
"In my opinion, it's safer to get controlled weed for the younger people."
So a dangerous drug is okay if it's controlled?
"It's too risky with alley weed. You just don't know what's in it and if it will kill you."
Well, you do know that it contains a dangerous drug. That ought to be enough.
"It's no different than alcohol, as far as I'm concerned."
That's no justification at all, comparing it to another dangerous, addictive, drug.
"I was 10-years old when I saw women fight for their rights back in 1973."
Clearly too young to realise that they were fighting for the "right" to kill their babies.
"I thought it was done and over with until Trump stacked the Supreme Court."
Already addressed, and that was one of the best things he did. The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it wrong, nor does it warrant describing it as "stacked".
"The Republican party joined the abortion bandwagon after 1973."
To their eternal shame. So your point is...?
"A party of freedom also means a party free to make your own choice."
Unless you're an unborn baby, right? Why don't you allow the baby to make its own choice? What was it you said about hypocrites?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ga6589
"No worries. This measure will not allow babies to be murdered."
Isaiah 5:20: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!"
You just said that a bill allowing babies to be killed in the womb will not allow babies to be murdered!
"It will protect a woman's right to bodily autonomy ..."
Unless that women is an unborn baby girl, right? You're don't allow the baby to have bodily autonomy. That's called a double standard.
"...and ensure that no one can be forced to use their body, at their own risk, to keep something else alive."
Nobody except a rapist is forcing her to be pregnant. But once she is, then it is wrong to kill her baby. Her body is designed to do just that. And the risk to her is minimal, and the risk to her of killing the baby is not zero either, and the "risk" to her baby is 100%.
"It's clear in multiple state votes that forced birth is not a winning strategy for the GOP."
It's a winning strategy for the baby, and the baby is more important than any party. You don't sacrifice innocent humans for the sake of a party. Well, you shouldn't at least.
"You are free to never have an abortion, but not free to tell women what to do with their bodies."
It's not their body! It's the baby's body! You're saying that the women are free to decide what to do with someone else's body.
"Yes, it is a woman's body..."
No, the baby is not part of the woman's body. It has it's own arms, legs, blood (often of a different to to it's mother's), brain, heart, brain, and DNA.
"...pregnancy and childbirth tax every single physiological system in it."
Her body is designed to give birth to babies! You might as well argue that breathing taxes her body too!
"NO one should be forced to use their body to keep something else alive,..."
That "something else" is her baby, a living human being. And nobody should be allowed to kill an innocent human being.
"...while risking their own health, life and well-being in the process."
Walking down the street, driving, living at home, etc., etc. all involve risk. It's a part of life. Yes, it's good to avoid unnecessary risk, but not at the expense of another's life.
"Doesn't matter if that something is an embryo or your grandmother."
It does, actually. That "embryo" (I notice how you avoid acknowledging its human-ness) has no other way of surviving.
"BTW, the GOP is all about states deciding about abortion. That's why they pushed for Roe to be overturned."
Most people pushed for it to be overturned because it's murder of an innocent. Being a state's right was an argument used, but it wasn't the prime motive.
"If you don't like it, you don't have to live in those states."
And yet I'm sure that if the state made, say, rape legal, you'd object rather than simply move states.
1
-
1
-
@eugenewood721
"If everyone, including a fetus, has equal rights."
Which they clearly do. A "fetus" is a living human being. Human beings have "human rights", not "adult rights" or "born rights", but human rights.
"Then no one, including a fetus, has the right to use anyone else’s body for anything, including survival, without that person’s expressed and continued consent. "
If everyone, including an unborn baby (your attempt to hide that it is a baby is deceptive) has equal rights, then nobody, including the mother, has the right to take the baby's life.
At best, you have a clash of rights, and have to decide which one takes precedence.
But you also ignore that a parent has an obligation to nurture their children. If you found a mother or father neglecting her/his toddler, would you say that's okay, because the toddler doesn't have the right to impose on his parent? No, you (or at least sensible people) would recognise the parent's obligation to their child.
Further, in your mind, killing the baby apparently does not qualify as using the baby's body for some purpose, such as not having to be pregnant while on holiday? Because the mother never gets the baby's consent, as you subsequently acknowledge.
"Legally and constitutionally, consent for anything can be rescinded at any point."
Not always.
"For example, a person can consent to sexual activity with someone, and at any point, rescind consent from continuing."
An example doesn't prove the universality of your claim. If, for example, a person agreed to provide a service for a year, then they can't rescind that "at any point". They are obliged to fulfil the requirement.
"Abortion, on the other hand, is a medical procedure, done with the expressed consent of the pregnant person."
But without any consent—even implied—of the person being killed. And calling it "a medical procedure" is deliberately misleading. You might as well call an execution "a medical procedure". Medical procedures are about helping a person, including saving their life. To call taking a life a "medical procedure" is a distortion.
"That response is what is called - deflections, projections, attempted insults and/or whataboutisms."
His last sentence was insult. The third was perhaps too. The rest was right on point.
"Morals are subjective, at best..."
Evidence please. As I Christian, I vehemently disagree.
"Exactly zero people in the entire history of the planet, ever(including yourself), share the same exact morals across the board."
The fact that many people reject valid objective morals doesn't mean that they are always subjective.
"As such, attempting to hold others accountable for your own personal subjective morals, or attempting to live up to the subjective morals of others, is a fools errand."
His (and mine) are not personal subjective morals. They are absolutes. And that is the basis on which things like laws against murder are jusitfied—they are absolutely wrong, not just subjective opinion.
"Our society is not based on your(or anyone else’s) personal subjective morals."
In some respect it is. Such as the personal subjective moral that it's okay to kill unborn babies.
"Instead, it is based on the law, as empowered by the constitution."
You have that back to front. The laws are based on the morals. Why do we make a law against something? Because we consider it to be morally wrong. Our societies are (mostly) based on morals, and laws (and constitutions) are enacted to formalise that.
" "Can a fetus give consent”, you ask? Easy answer - no, it can not."
So your claim that consent is required is shown to be something that you don't actually believe. It's also not absolutely true. It can give consent, when it's old enough. But instead of waiting for that consent, they discard the requirement for consent.
"It also can not survive on its own without using another person’s body for survival."
Your use of "using" is an attempt to make it sound immoral (your subjective opinion?), when the point is that the mother has an obligation to her own offspring.
"Do you support equal rights? Does a fetus having more or equal rights as anyone else? Why or why not? "
In my case, 1) yes, 2) the same.
"Do you believe that a pregnant person is should be required to gestate?"
A pregnant woman should have no right to kill her baby.
"Because There are zero laws(current or proposed) that require a pregnant person to gestate."
Still carrying on about the law rather than what's right. Your argument seems like "you can't change the law, because whatever the law says is the standard". If that was the case, laws would never get changed.
"I certainly have no presented any opinions."
False. You have presented the opinion that morals are subjective, for one.
For another, you have the implied the opinion that the law, and not what's right and wrong, is the important factor.
"I am merely stating facts, based on the law as empowered by the constitution."
What about the fact that the Constitution says "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, ..."?
"What is thus far indisputable legal and constitutional fact..."
Based on my previous line, I certainly DO dispute that your view is constitutional.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tonyduffy7441
"I was commenting on what I perceived was the the misuse of a word."
Fair enough. I'm a pedant too. And yet I didn't see you making any complaint about a number of people using a medical term ("fetus") in a non-medical discussion about babies being killed, because they want to pretend that it's not a baby.
"Go read a dictionary,..."
I frequently refer to dictionaries.
But further, in what way did I say you were actually wrong? I didn't. I didn't say that you were wrong in your definition. Rather, I was giving some context as to why the person who used the word was not really that wrong either. Infanticide does happen, legally, in some place. And, as I pointed out, there is only an arbitrary distinction between abortion and infanticide. Yes, there is technically a distinction, which you pointed out, but not a practical one.
1
-
@eugenewood721
Part 1 of 3
"you may have to go back to your own comment to gain the context of responses,..."
That factor is one of the reasons why I reply in the format that I do.
"at that point you will just be talking to hear yourself speak, but perhaps that is your goal."
No, it's not.
"A fetus is an embryo and/or an unborn offspring of a mammal(including human beings) - at least based on the official definition."
Yes, the word is not restricted to humans. But the context (this conversation) is that of humans.
"You are certainly free to opine a fetus to be anything else you choose..."
I didn't do that. The definition that you provide does not contradict my statement that a fetus is a living human being.
"The constitution does not expressly refer to “human rights”, ... instead simply “rights”."
I was using a more general and common term ("human rights"); not meaning to imply that the constitution used that term.
"Your concern for how complete strangers online refer to ..., simply to complain to that complete stranger about how it makes you feel, displays a victimhood mentality."
It's not about how it makes me feel. It's about how pro-abortionists use the term to hide the fact that they are talking about babies being killed.
"...refer to something that has zero affect on your life,..."
How society degrades itself does affect my life. This particular aspect of such degradation might not, but it's all part of the whole.
"There is exactly zero laws (current or proposed) and/or constitutional language that requires a pregnant person to gestate."
I have already addressed this.
"Yes, a mother, or any parent, has the right to choose to no longer care for their child after it is born."
Yes, they have the right to give up the child. They do not have the right to neglect or harm the child. There ARE laws about that.
"Currently, there are zero laws that require anyone to bo legally responsible for providing anything to a fetus, as such, it is legally and constitutionally impossible to “neglect” a fetus."
Which is why the law needs to be changed. Again, simply citing the law as though that's the arbiter of right and wrong ignores why laws are made.
"Incorrect. As there is exactly zero laws (current or proposed) and/or constitutional language the refers to abortion as “murder” or “killing a baby”. "
And yet what I said remains true, even if the current laws don't recognise that.
"Furthermore, neither the law nor the constitution, requires a fetuses consent for anything."
Again, a shortcoming of the law.
"I am simply stating what the law is."
False. As I have pointed out, you are not just doing that. You are also making out that the law is the ultimate arbiter of what is right and wrong.
"There is exactly zero legally binding contracts that does not include pre-agreed upon “outs” for either party, with various, if any, costs to either party for that “out”."
Costs are penalties for breaking the agreements. I don't accept that that contracts are not legally binding if there are not pre-agreed ways of getting out of it. Admittedly this may vary by jurisdiction, but I've never heard of that being a requirement for a legally-binding contract.
"...the pregnant person is not legally or constitutionally required to get the fetuses consent before aborting it."
But killing an innocent human remains wrong, regardless of what the law says. That is the point, and the one that you are avoiding/denying.
"Calling it a “medical procedure”, is using the actual legal/medical definition/terminology."
That doesn't change the fact that such a use is a distortion.
"His entire comment was deflections, projections, attempted insults and/or whataboutisms."
Repeating your claim does not make it any more true.
"The mere fact that you “disagree”, proves that morals are subjective."
No, it doesn't. I was disagreeing with your claim, not with a moral.
"As, any time there is a disagreement of “opinion”, ..."
What about a disagreement of a fact? That is, it's possible to disagree on things that are not mere subjective opinions.
"All morals are ultimately, opinions."
Again, repeating your claim does not make it any more true.
"For something to be “objective”, the same conclusion is reached no matter the observation."
No, for a moral to be objective, it has to be more than mere subjective opinion. That is, it has to come from beyond humans, i.e. from God.
"Yes, that is exactly what it means."
No, it's not. See my next point.
"As long as any number or any percentage of people disagree based on the same observation, the conclusions they respectively come to, are by definition, subjective."
So if people disagree on what 4+4 equals, then the people who thing that it equals 8 are (along with the rest) being subjective? False. It means that people who think it's anything but 8 are simply wrong. The problem is that you are ignoring one of my main themes, that all this is not simply about the law, but about what's right and what's wrong. That people can be wrong about facts doesn't make those facts subjective.
"You don’t speak for his morals."
And yet I did!
1
-
@eugenewood721
Part 2 of 3
"Simply because you read his comment, you believe you share the same morals as a complete stranger?"
In the context of which morals he cited, yes. I never claimed to have the same morals as him in every case.
"Absolutely no chance that you read in to it to too much and/or misinterpreted something he didn’t get across as clear as he wanted ..."
I'm not claiming to be infallible, if that's what you're trying to get at.
"Correction, it is “absolute” to you."
Correction: it is absolute because it comes from God. That makes it absolute for everyone, whether they recognise it or not.
"But as to society at large, your morals are subjective, based on the fact that they are not objectively held by every single person."
Again, that does not mean that they are subjective, and you are therefore just repeating yourself.
"Then are you saying that laws are based on what you believe is “absolute”?"
No, on what IS absolute.
"Because the law says the consent of fetuses before aborting them is not required."
First, I don't believe that it says any such thing. Rather, it fails to say that consent is required.
Second, I was generaling about why we have many of the laws we do. I was not saying that every single law is based on an absolute, nor that every single law gets it right.
"You are incorrect. Laws are not based on what is simply “right or wrong”. Because those are subjective opinions."
False. Some things are right or wrong regardless of opinions, just as 3+3=6 regardless of what people think it is.
"Laws are based on the constitution ..."
False. Laws have to not be inconsistent with the constitution, but are not based on it. For example, if legislators realise that some law against fraud has a loophole that allows fraud in certain narrow cases, they might legislate to change the law because they consider the fraud to be wrong. The constitution does not require them to make that change.
"Laws are also based on whether the conduct causes a violation of rights/protections of others."
Yes, because violating the rights of others is considered wrong.
"I have never met anyone with the personal subjective moral that it is okay to kill a baby."
You're defending the killing of babies, and you claim that all morals are subjective, so you're an example of what you deny exists.
"As per society and our objective laws, anyone whom kills a baby, is subject to be held accountable for various homicide related charges."
Unless the baby hasn't been born yet. And you know that.
"Our society, as per our objectives laws, do not refer to abortion as murder and/or killing a baby."
And yet, it IS a baby, and it IS killed, regardless of what the law says.
"Legally incorrect again. Our laws are based on the constitution rights and protections the constitution affords."
Already addressed above.
"...with all due respect, I am only concerned with the US on this specific issue, not other “societies”."
That doesn't change what's right and wrong.
"Our law does not expressly stated that murder is “right or wrong”. "
It doesn't have to state it for it to be the case.
"There are multiple legal/constitutional situations where a person is not held legally accountable for their killing someone, ..."
Why not? Might it be that such cases (e.g. self defence) are not considered wrong? Nothing you've said refutes my point that such laws are enacted on the basis of what is considered right or wrong.
"Incorrect, my claim that consent is required, is not about what I believe or not, it is what the law as empowered by the constitution, says."
You made a blanket statement about consent being required—you didn't qualify it as being required only where the law says it's required—then contradicted that by saying that consent is not required of a baby.
"Society is not based on my “beliefs”, it is based on the law as empowered by the constitution. And that is “absolutely” true."
Western Civilisation (which the U.S. is part of) is based on Christianity, with it's law-making God. (That law-making part is one of the reasons that Christianity founded science, because they expected that law-making God would have made laws for nature also, and they set out to discover them.) It is Christianity where Western Civilisation has, historically, got its morals from. And on the basis of those morals, made laws.
"A fetus can never give consent, because based on the definition, as a fetus is never born,"
A fetus, i.e. a living human being, will, however, be born and develop into an adult if allowed to, and be able to give consent. That it is not able to give consent at that time doesn't mean that it's incapable of giving consent. It's similar to a person raping an unconscious woman—that she is unable to give consent at that time does not excuse the rapist.
"I used the word “using” because it is the correct word grammatically, as I used it."
That is incorrect. It is a correct word grammatically, but not the correct word grammatically. That is, you could have described what happens in other ways, such as saying that a baby cannot survive without it's mother's nourishment. But you chose to word it the way you did, incorporating the word "using". My criticism stands.
"Again, quote the exact law that supports your claim ..."
I'm citing what's right and wrong, not laws. What's right and wrong trump laws.
"If both the fetus and the pregnant person have equal rights - they both have the right to end the relationship, without the consent of the other party. "
But not to kill the other party. Again, referring to killing as "ending the relationship" is deceptive.
"...the pregnant person is not violating any one’s constitutional rights by having an abortion."
Apart from the right to life. You missed that bit.
1
-
@eugenewood721
Part 3 of 3
"If a fetus has the right to live, it also has the responsibility to do so without the ability to require any other person against their will to help it."
Oh? Which law says that? On the contrary, you have switched from citing laws to citing your personal opinion.
"The law agrees with you about that. And the law does not define an abortion as “killing a baby”."
And yet that's exactly what it is.
"Instead it is based on the law."
And the law (which has to not be inconsistent with the constitution), is based on what is considered (rightly or wrongly) to be right and wrong.
"Yes or no - based only and entirely on the law(current or proposed) as empowered by the constitution."
That's asking me to answer with one hand tied behind my back, so to speak.
"Still carrying on about what you subjectively determine to be “what’s right”? "
No, about what is objectively right.
"Yes, laws can be changed, it happens all the time."
Of course. Which means that the law is not the ultimate arbiter of what is right and wrong.
"...every time the voters have been given a chance to vote, they have voted to either protect current abortion rights,... Seems like the vast majority of voters, when given the opportunity, disagree with your “morals” in this specific context."
I take it that your reference to the opportunity to vote is to vote on a particular law, as opposed to electing representatives? That may be so, but how often have they been given the opportunity, and what exact opportunities? Surveys, on the other hand, have shown that most people think current abortion laws should be more restrictive. Which contradicts your last sentence about the majority of voters.
"It’s not an opinion that morals are subjective, it is a fact"
That is also your subjective opinion, and contradicted by the existence of absolute morals handed down by God.
"The mere fact that we disagree about morals, by definition, makes the morals we disagree about - subjective."
No, it doesn't. That is a non-sequitur.
"Also, I “implied nothing” about the law being the “important factor”."
Nonsense. That's been the basis of almost your entire argument. You only cite laws and the constitution, not what's right and wrong.
"As far as our society is concerned, the law as empowered by the constitution is the “important factor” that society is based on."
So you now make your implication explicit! And yet you are wrong, as Western society is based on Christianity. To give just one quote in support, this is former Time journalist David Aikman:
“The eighteen American tourists visiting China weren’t expecting much from the evening’s lecture. They were already exhausted from a day of touring in Beijing. But what the speaker had to say astonished them.
“One of the things we were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world,” he said. “We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next, we focused on your economic system. But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West has been so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.”
This was not coming from some ultra-conservative think tank in Orange County, California or from Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. This was a scholar from China's premier academic research institute, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) in Beijing in 2002.”
"...the constitution ... does not expressly protect and afford those things to fetuses"
Still pretending that they are not humans, I see. Are not babies of citizens also citizens? There is nothing there to exclude pre-born babies, so that protection should include those babies also.
"Incorrect again. You have not “disputed my view as (sic; I said 'is') constitutional.” "
And yet I did.
"Try this if you believe my OP is not constitutional - without using morals ... as a qualifier ..."
No. I have every right to use morals as a qualifier. That's rather like asking me to say what the legal penalty is for driving over the speed limit without citing the law.
"Legally, consent for anything can be rescinded at any point."
You're repeating yourself again.
"...you have not done so based on credible, verifiable, quantitative and objective evidence."
Exodus 20:13: "You shall not murder." 'Murder' is not a reference to how the word is used in U.S. law; it's a reference to killing an innocent human being.
"Instead you have used just your subjective personal morals, opinions and feelings as a response ..."
That's false, as I have already pointed out. Repeating yourself does not make it any more true.
1
-
@alexwyatt2911
"The collective wisdom of the national and international medical communities is that access to abortion is essential healthcare."
First, I would not call supporting the killing of babies as "wisdom".
Second, you're likely citing majority opinion, ignoring that there is a lot of dissent on that.
Third, killing is clearly not health care.
"Additionally, national and international health and human rights organizations recognize access to abortion as a human right."
And yet killing an innocent human being has never been right. And again, you re over-generalising. And the position is hypocritical, as the baby is also a human, and yet they deny the baby those human rights.
"What in the world has led you to believe that your amateur bluster ..."
What "amateur bluster"? On the contrary, you are engaging in abusing as hominem, which is a logically fallacious argument. Stick the argument, not the person making it.
"...should supersede the human rights of other people..."
You have that back to front. I'm supporting the human right of being allowed to live. You're denying it.
"...as well as the wisdom, insight, and guidance of the above mentioned expert authorities?"
What makes the medical experts experts on what's right and wrong? And what about the other medical experts who disagree with you?
1
-
1
-
@alexwyatt2911
"...if access to safe abortion..."
That's an oxymoron. An abortion is, by definition, unsafe. The baby is deliberately killed.
"...wasn’t a human right (it is,..."
What on earth gives you the idea that killing a baby is a human right? That's evil.
"...the poor outcomes are enough to render abortion bans unacceptable."
What poor outcomes? Why is it unacceptable to ban the killing of babies?
"Abortion bans increase the rate of infant death,..."
Incredible! Abortion bans save the lives of infants. Abortion kills infants! That you have to twist something 180 degrees to make an argument shows that you have no argument. ("Infant: denoting something in an early stage of its development", which an unborn baby is.)
"Abortion bans increase the rate of ... maternal death, ..."
Evidence please. The rest of that sentence is just as problematic. You think that killing babies is a good way to avoid child abuse? Bizarre. And evil.
"If we care about the health, success, and wellbeing of individuals, families, and communities, then abortion bans cannot be implemented."
Only if you don't care about the health, success, and wellbeing of the babies killed.
"Of course, if the goal is to subjugate and punish girls, women, and pregnant people, ..."
Which it's not, so you're introducing a strawman.
"And I still can’t decide if it’s worse when pro-lifers are cognizant that subjugation and punishment is their real goal."
It is not their real goal. You're making things up. Again, an indication that you have not actual argument.
"Or if it’s worse that they’re ignorant of it because they have such little respect for this consequential subject matter that they’ve made zero effort to critically challenge their social conditioning and personal biases."
Sounds like you're talking about yourself there.
"And what of the people who didn’t vote for the fascist far-right legislators..."
What "fascist far-right legislators"? That you don't agree with them doesn't make them that. Rather, this sounds like name-calling, again, evidence of not having an actual argument.
1
-
@eugenewood721
"...your replies provided exactly zero to what you already stated previously..."
Huh? I don't understand that.
"...combined with a format that simply is far too annoying to engage with on social media. "
Frankly, when people don't quote what they are replying to, that often makes it hard to engage.
"To that, I ask, what is you ultimate goal here by continuing to repeat your same opinions to me?"
What is the goal of any debate? And why do you misrepresent argument as merely opinion?
"If you told me your opinion already, what do you gain personally from repeating it?"
No, I have given you a rational response. I I repeat that when you repeat your claims that I've already responded to. So what do you gain from repeating your own claims that I have addressed?
"I posted my comment to others, you chose to reply and give me your unsolicited subjective opinions, ..."
You mean like you gave them unsolicited opinions? And to take one example, how is a quote from an academic group merely a "subjective opinion"? Answer: it isn't. You're simply and falsely dismissing rational argument as subjective opinion.
"I continue to speak only about the constitution and the law, ..."
Which is part of the problem, as I have pointed out, and which you have not engaged with beyond dismissing my response.
"...you claim your opinions are not subjective, I provide definitions to prove otherwise - rinse and repeat."
I believe, rather, that I denied that my comments were mere opinions. And I don't recall you giving me any definitions.
"I have zero motivation and/or desire to debate your personal opinions."
What about debating my arguments? And answering my questions?
"...other than to point out that they are your opinions."
Other than to claim that they are opinions, ignoring that I have pointed out otherwise.
"I am more than willfully to stipulate that you have your own subjective personal opinions, morals, ethics, god(s), etc."
Yes, you "stipulate" that, but I have rejected that morals, ethics, and God are personal opinion. You keep repeating your claim that they are, but failing to show that your claim (your opinion ) is correct.
"...they are your subjective personal opinions nonetheless."
Again, you repeat yourself. They are not mere opinions, but claims based on evidence.
"Are you willing to stipulate that in this specific context, the law and the constitution that empowers it, is not based on your own subjective personal opinions, morals, ethics, god(s), etc?"
I never claimed that it was based on "subjective personal opinion, morals, ethics, god(s), etc." I claim that they are based on facts. But you keep rejecting that out of hand, by repeating your own opinions to the contrary.
"I am only willing to discuss this topic in terms of the law as empowered by the constitution."
Whilst ignoring the basis for the constitution and the law. That is, you are treating the constitution and the law as the ultimate authority, whilst I'm arguing that it's not the ultimate authority. And you refuse to address that, simply repeating your claim over and over.
All your other comments about abortion laws in the U.S. are simply you repeating your claims that I have already addressed.
"And before to answer that, ask yourself, and you sure you’re not “repeating yourself again”?"
If I did answer that, then yes, I would be repeating myself. Because I'd be answering a claim that you have repeated, and not addressed my answer. If you can repeat your claim, why shouldn't I repeat my response?
"The Bible gives instructions on abortions to determine if your wife is faithful,..."
No, it does not. Rather, it is a test that a jealous husband could get a priest to perform if the husband suspected unfaithfulness. Neither the husband nor the priest performed an abortion. Rather, the suggestion is that God might cause an abortion as a response to that test. However, there are two problems with this. First, as one commentator says (my bolding): "the rite protected women from husbands who were overly aggressive or hasty in their judgments. It offered a safe outlet for male jealousy and prevented emotional or physical abuse. It kept Israelites from visiting pagan temples. And it would have nearly always exonerated the woman in question." That is, no abortion.
The second problem is whether an abortion is even what is meant. The actual wording is unclear in its meaning, so some translators think that it's a euphemism for an abortion. But it's also translated as "your thigh fall away" and "cause your genital organs to shrink".
"...then speaks about god killing sons and first born children of an entire community, as revenge no less."
No, as punishment. And that has nothing to do with abortions.
1
-
@eugenewood721
"I will not entertain your interview format..."
But I have to entertain your format? I have to format my replies in a way that you prefer? What arrogance!
"...and continued use of your subjective personal opinions,..."
I've already answered this. Much of my response is NOT personal opinion. Why are you lying about that?
"As you are choosing to comment towards me in a manner I made clear I do not appreciate, respectfully, I will presume your comments to me to be simply you attempting to troll, ..."
GIven that I have explained why I use the style I do, for you to dismiss that and assume a bad motive is more evidence of your arrogance. And as such, your use of "respectfully" is clear incorrect. You are being quite disrespectful.
"Here is the promised response to your continued behaviors. A different response will come when your behavior changes. You are free to continue the aforementioned behaviors, but the conversation will not be able to move forward with me until then."
Will you also change your behaviour? In particular, stop repeating claims that I have already addressed?
The rest of your response was, yet again, a repeat which I have already answered and shown to be wrong. That's terrible behaviour on your part. If you don't change that behaviour, you are clearly attempting to troll. At least according to your logic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chaerviec4731
"The only fact is that a man named Jesus existed."
No, that's not the only fact. There are many other facts about Him too.
"None of his "godly powers" have ever or can ever be proven."
That's false. But it gets down to what you mean by "proven". Science doesn't do proofs, so if you're talking about scientific proofs, that's a pointless statement. In a criminal court case, the case is "proven" if the judge or jury are convinced by the evidence to a very high standard (i.e. beyond reasonable doubt), which is a bias in favour of letting the guilty go free rather than convict an innocent. In a civil court case, the case is "proven" if the judge or jury consider that the claim is more likely true than not.
Many, many people have been convinced by the evidence that Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead. Including many people who set out to show that the accounts were wrong (Lee Strobel, an investigative journalist being one example). For them, the claim was indeed proven.
True, it may not be possible to convince you, if your standard of 'proof' is unreasonably high (and therefore biased), but it doesn't follow from your inability to be convinced that it hasn't been or can't be proven.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pwillis1589
"The same reasoned approach to homosexuality, women's rights, blasphemy laws."
When you reason, you draw logical conclusions based on the evidence and your premises. You and I having different premises doesn't mean that one of us is not using reason.
"Modern science came out of the enlightenment 1700 years after the beginnings of Christianity."
Incorrect. Modern science began with the likes of Copernicus, Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, and others, well before the so-called Enlightenment and 1700.
"Christianity had nothing to do with it."
The scholarship disagrees with you. Just two examples:
Loren Eisely: "The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation … . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption."
Peter Harrison: "It is commonly supposed that when in the early modern period individuals began to look at the world in a different way, they could no longer believe what they read in the Bible. In this book I shall suggest that the reverse is the case: that when in the sixteenth century people began to read the Bible in a different way, they found themselves forced to jettison traditional conceptions of the world."
"Modern science evolved in spite of Christianity as it did in many other religious and non Christian cultures."
Except that it didn't.
Rodney Stark: "...theological assumptions unique to Christianity explain why science was born only in Christian Europe. Contrary to the received wisdom, religion and science not only were compatible; they were inseparable."
Rodney Stark: again "...progress was the product of observation and of trial and error but was lacking in explanations—in theorizing. Hence, the earlier technical innovations of Greco-Roman times, of Islam of China, ... do not constitute science..."
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnwilson2367
"I disagree with everything you said."
You disagree that we are heading towards the end of the century?
"Didn't serve the people?? You didn't explain how."
By being dictatorial.
"He followed medical advice..."
I'm sure he did. At times. But at other times he didn't. The CHO even admitted at one time that he didn't recommend the curfew, if I've remembered the correct thing. And what medical advice said that people couldn't go fishing or golfing alone?
Further, what medical advice? He's never told us what that advice was.
Finally, he shouldn't just blindly follow medical advice but also take other factors into account.
"and controlled covid "
Up to a point. But that doesn't prove your point. If you have termites in your house someone could come and burn the whole street to the ground and say "I controlled the termites". The problem is in how he did it.
"...and saved people's lives!"
And also cost lives. But again, at what cost? He could ban all cars and that would save 250 lives per year. But would that be reasonable?
"What do you consider "serving the people"??"
Allowing them to make their own decisions, for one. Not controlling them beyond administering justice (i.e. stopping people from deliberately harming others).
"AMA is leftwing?? Oh come on. Haha . Because they don't suit your view?"
No, because their views are left-wing. I don't label everything that I disagree with as left-wing.
"Epidemiologists have expressed reservations about Perrottet's early open up.."
All? Or ones that lean to the left?
"Common sense might tell you that there could be issues."
Of course. But that's like saying that people should stay at home because going outside has risks. The problem is that staying home also has risks. Many die from accidents in the home.
"NSW had high covid ."
When the delta strain hit.
"They also had no hard lockdowns ever."
Except for when the delta strain hit.
"NSW was given more Pfizer to control that. Not Victoria."
Yes, because more was obtained specifically for and because of NSW, at a time that Victoria was very low.
"Victoria had to wait. Evidenced by high vax no's in NSW."
And yet there was plenty of AZ available in Victoria.
"You simply want an earlier open up?"
For Victoria, yes. We've been locked down more than any other place in the world.
"Now my locality is locked down again likely becos of NSW and Gladys B loose handling."
You're in Victoria? Then it's because of decisions that the Victorian premier made. Yes, he made decisions based in part on circumstances, but the circumstances don't dictate his decisions; they are his decisions.
1
-
@pwillis1589
"Science predates any Judeo-Christian influence by 500 years with the Ancient Greeks"
First, I did say "modern" science. Second, not according to scholars, who attribute it to Christianity, and who say that what the ancient Greeks practiced did not amount to science. For example, Rodney Stark:
"..progress was the product of observation and of trial and error but was lacking in explanations—in theorizing. Hence, the earlier technical innovations of Greco-Roman times, of Islam of China, ... do not constitute science..."
Loren Eiseley:
"The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation … . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption."
"Oh I agree Christian scholarship believes everything is based on a God without a shred of evidence. "
There is plenty of evidence. And no, it's not just Christian scholarship. Eiseley was not a Christian, and Stark is questionable in that regard.
"Rodney Stark is a respected academic but I can't take a apologist for creationism seriously."
Why not? Besides, he's not an apologist for creationism.
"Using reason and logic to form an opinion is one thing, but taking the Ancient writings from a deeply flawed and contradictary text ..."
It's not deeply flawed nor contradictory. Unless you can show good evidence of that.
"...to believe there is god..."
You don't need to Bible to believe that God exists.
"...and what that God decides is moral, is dissolving one's personal responsibility."
Which clearly avoids the question I asked. How about answering it?
"The AMA are left wing? The AMA are one of the most conservative associations in the country."
I'll withdraw that comment, on the grounds that they may have changed. They used to e left-wing, or at least their leader was.
"Just guessing but would you be a neo-facist, alt-right, theocratic, ultranationalist kind a guy by any chance?"
Nope. Just a Bible-believing Christian.
1
-
1
-
@goldengun9970
"it shoukdn't even be called a translation."
The AV (KJV) shouldn't be called a translation? Why not?
"They purposefully change words as per their christian commentary and not do their best to translate the actual words."
Oh, you're talking about them (modern translations), not it (the AV). You're incorrect. There are different types of translations, from those that translate word-for-word to those that translate idea-for-idea. The latter are known as paraphrases, but they are still translations from one language (or more) to another.
And no, they change words in order to give a better understanding of the original, in part because the English words sometimes change meanings over time.
"If you want an english translation of the bible of the jews (seeing we are talking about jews here) you have many. you definetly wouldn't choose some christian translation"
Why not? It's the same Bible, apart from the New Testament.
"why not choose some muslim translation?"
Why not, if it does indeed aim to translate accurately. I doubt a Muslim translation would, however.
"Sure islam is a completely foreign religion to judaism but it is way way closer to judaism than christianity is..."
That's debatable, and subjective.
1
-
@goldengun9970
"no you can have endless separate commentaries explaining a translation for commentary purpose."
I'm not sure what you're getting at. A commentary is obviously going to explain things for the purposes of the commentary. It doesn't follow, if this is what you're claiming, that the translations are done to fit the commentary.
"...that is not debatable."
Why not?
"you have your complicated pagan foreign ideas of the son and trinity"
Nothing pagan about it.
"Ishmael was abrsham's son. God did here his and his mother's cries. Did make a covenant with him."
And that has what to do with Islam, which wasn't invented until around AD 600.
"Yet christians nothing. The6 have jews who committed vlasohemy, turned their back on their own religion, nation and God and started a heretic group (chrustianity)."
No, they didn't turn their back on God. They still worship the same God who created the world and talked to Abraham and all the rest. Muslims (just to illustrate) have the Qur'an and believe that the Bible is corrupted, so reject it in places. Christians completely accept the Tanakh as God's (uncorrupted) word.
"We don't have all tue pagan stuff you brought, no hell no anti christ, no satan that goes against God's will,..."
Much of the Christian understanding on Satan comes from the Old Testament/Tanakh.
But you're correct that the New Testament added a lot of new information; nobody denies that.
"Again i will tell you. Makes no sense to randomly say check out christian stuff on a video re jews and holocaust."
We were talking about the Bible, not a video. I agree that for some purposes, it would not be the best idea to advise checking out the Bible for something about the Jews, but the original comment was specifically about checking out the confusion of languages, which is in Genesis, which is the same as Genesis in the Tanakh. It makes no sense to object to that particular comment on the grounds that you did.
"Why check mention christian one when video was about jews and holocaust."
First, and most relevantly, because most people reading this would have access to a Bible more than a Jewish translation. Second, because, as I just mentioned, it was with particular reference to the Babel account (not the holocaust), for which the Bible is just as good a source, being the same document in that part.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pwillis1589
"Actually you are factually incorrect. On a whole range of independent measures i.e. life expectancy, wealth, education, quality of life, the more secular a society is the better off it is."
I have answered that claim of yours before.
"The US is neither particularly religious or secular."
It's rather both, actually.
"Compare one of the most secular countries in the world Sweden with one of the most religious Timor Leste..."
The best countries are the ones with a reformed Christian heritage. Sweden has that; Timor Leste, being mainly Catholic, doesn't.
"There is absolutely no advantage to being religious."
It depends on the religion. There is no advantage in being atheistic, but there is in being Christian, particularly reformed Christianity.
"So what then is the point of religious belief if your life is significantly worse?"
If it's biblical Christian belief, it's not worse.
"Compare The infant mortality rate of Pakistan with Denmark."
Again, it depends on the religion. One is historically Reformed Christian, the other is Islamic. Conflating wildly different religions (even if you exclude atheistic ones) it at least as bad a fallacy as cherry picking.
"Again take the 20 most religious countries and compare them to the 20 most secular countries ..."
...and you've find that the most secular countries are the ones with a reformed Christian heritage, and the most religious ones aren't.
"Again there is no value at all in religious belief."
And yet Christian belief has benefited the entire world, particularly the West.
"Also the mean average life expectancy in the US going backwards for the first time since WWII is directly related to deaths from Covid and has nothing to do with increased secularism."
It wouldn't surprise me if there is a relationship, actually.
1
-
@pwillis1589
"No you haven't answered it at all."
And yet I did.
"This religious history of a country is irrelevant."
Repeating your claim does not make it true.
"The data proves beyond doubt there is absolutely no advantage to religious belief whatsoever."
I recall giving you data that showed the opposite.
"What a stupid comment in reply to a statement that the US is neither particularly religious or secular by stating it is both."
No, it's not stupid, unless you're equating 'secular' with 'atheistic'. The U.S. is very "religious" (Christian) compared to most other countries. And yet it is also secular in that there is a separation of church and state.
Your next few lines were just more of your evidence-free assertions.
"Comparing two countries for infant mortality is not cherry picking..."
I didn't say it was. If you want an example of strawmanning, it's right there in your comment.
"Again anothrt strawman. Nobody is denying Christian history, "
On the contrary, many are. Not that I mentioned it in that context.
"...but it is irrelevant to current data."
Why? You haven't shown evidence that it is.
"Just a cursory look at the data on deaths in the US from covid shows the clear link with the drop in life expectancy,..."
I didn't say or suggest otherwise. It's a principle of science that correlation does not equate to causality. If A and B are correlated, there are at least three options:
1: A caused B.
2: B caused A.
3: Both A and B are caused by C, which has possibly not been recognised.
I'm not suggesting that a decrease in life expectancy is not related to covid, but one of the risk factors for covid being fatal was comorbidities, and possibly (remember I'm not making a claim, just stating that I'm not ruling out something) the prevalence of comorbidities is related to secularistic lifestyles.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrRedterrier
"If you want evidence perhaps be just be a little more critical rather than accept SKY muse or alt-right dogma..."
If I want evidence for a person's claims, it is not my job to go looking for it. The onus is on the person making the claims. If they can't provide it, their claims can be dismissed with just as little evidence.
Further, the fact that I am challenging you for evidence shows that I am critical and don't simply accept what people say.
And finally (for that part of your comment), your "alt-right dogma" shows your bias.
"...their accusations are not based on fact."
What's your evidence for that?
"As for racism - check the lack of diversity of presenters and there political background..."
First, you again try and put the onus on me to support your claim. YOU have the onus.
Second, what lack of diversity? And what about their political backgrounds? You mean like Bolt who once worked for the Labor party?
"As for 'Citizen' Murdoch he may find the 1.5 billion dollar lawsuit for spreading and maintaining Trump's big lie..."
What "big lie"? That Dominion's machines are open to fraud? I wonder why Dominion didn't sue CNN for similar claims they made in a documentary years ago?
"...the 'fist' he has used to screwed with democracy in UK, US and Oz."
Making further claims does not absolve you of the responsibility to provide evidence.
"As a '10 pound pom' I have seen the best and worst of British colonialism and its racist behaviour to the indigenous populations..."
Well, given your obvious bias, I'll take that with a grain of salt. (Which is not to say that behaviour against the indigenous population is without fault. It certainly is, thanks in part to another Charles: Darwin.)
1
-
@indiathylane2158
"It's deliberate biased political dogma."
A claim that you've not provided good evidence for.
"They shouldn't pick sides because stories should be presented without bias."
Why? Simply stating it does not make it so. You can't report everything, so you must be selective, and report the things that you (the station) thinks are important and relevant. But what is important and relevant will vary according to one's biases, and can be influenced by others. For example, if other outlets are presenting biased reports, you might consider it right to present the opposing bias, so that people can get both sides of a story.
"You claim you don't see Sky being biased (picking sides)..."
I claimed that the station doesn't have an obvious conservative bias, but that some individual presenters do, whilst others presenters are biased to the left. Which is evidence against the claim that the station has a deliberate bias.
"...then go on to claim mainstream sources are biased to the left."
Yes. What is inconsistent about that? It is logically possible for one station to be biased and another to not be.
"I assume you were joking when you said Sky were biased towards facts and evidence."
Not at all.
"We know they're not"
No, "We" do not know that. YOU think that, but fail to show it.
"Yes, Sky is vindictive, hateful and divisive."
Repeating the evidence-free claim does not make it any more true.
"Hatred and vindictiveness? Probably 50 clips about Harry &Meghan."
Well, if you're talking about hating lies and woke propaganda, then yes, they do hate that. But criticising such things in Harry and Meghan does not mean that they hate the couple, nor that they are being vindictive. This seems to be a difference between the left and the right—the left hates people who disagree with them, so they project that onto conservatives who criticise people, wrongly assuming that they therefore hate them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@indiathylane2158
"Nope, they found that."
So, what's the hard evidence?
"I know exactly what your point was, my "couldn't do both" comment was a little bit of what you've given others on this channel."
Yes, I do that, and I didn't fault you for asking that; I simply answered that, implicitly conceding that it was a valid question.
Unlike you not answering my question about what the hard evidence was.
"your usual (paraphrased)- "I don't accept point, do better", "I refute that argument, do better". "
On the other hand, no I don't do that. For example, I never say "I refute that argument". Rather, I provide evidence and/or reason to actually refute it.
1
-
1
-
@indiathylane2158
"42,041 Calls handled- evidence./25,964 Letters & emails received- evidence./8,013 Private sessions held- evidence./2,575 Referrals to authorities (including police)- evidence."
FALSE. Those calls, letters, etc. were NOT all evidence for the opinion that "Pell actively fought to keep abuse quiet, to protect perpetrators and to help silence witnesses and victims." Those figures are for the total enquiry, which, of course, was not just about Pell.
Which means that you have still not provided evidence by the Royal Commission for the claim.
Clearly you can't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@indiathylane2158
"You're doing it again. Denying all logic, facts, truth, proof, verification and reality. "
And there you are again, making up things about me. You haven't shown any of that to be true, and haven't even produced the evidence for your claim, despite being asked for it.
"I'm a catholic who will not tolerate any criticism of my faith, however mild and valid".
More invention. I am NOT Catholic, and I disagree with Catholicism, and with some of the things that Pell said. But when you can't produce a good argument, invent one, right?
What's your motive?
1
-
@indiathylane2158
"Where's your proof you're not a catholic? Evidence, facts, logic, substantiation, verification? "So, still no evidence"."
First, you've not even asked for evidence, so accusing me of not providing it when you've not even challenged the claim is just arrogance.
Second, you're the one that made the accusation about me. As such, you are the one who should produce evidence for your accusation.
Third, you've already got evidence, in the form of testimony from an expert—me. I know better than anyone else whether I am or not.
". Just opinion, it seems".
Whether or not I'm a Catholic is just my opinion? What a ridiculous comment.
"I might also research your claim Pell was first to introduce a "world first response to predators in the Catholic church"."
Feel free. It was called the Melbourne Response, and although it was criticised later, at the time it was done in conjunction with government officials and the police, with their support and approval.
"Either way, it doesn't look good for the church. If he was, far too little, far too late by a charlatan whose heart wasn't in it."
Now you're making a circular argument: You accuse Pell of being no good. I provide evidence that he was good, in that he founded the Melbourne Response. You say that the Melbourne Response couldn't have been very good because Pell wasn't good. Your conclusion is based on your premise—a classic circular argument.
"If it wasn't, again, far too late by an institution more interested in cloaking it than dealing with it."
If what wasn't? But yes, perhaps too many in the institution were more interested in cloaking it than dealing with it, but that's where Pell changed things. He became the Archbishop of Melbourne in July 1996. In October of that same year, he announced the Melbourne Response. That is, once he was in a position to do something, he did something. Yes, you could criticise the church for not doing something sooner, but not Pell, who did it essentially as soon as he had the power to do it.
1
-
@indiathylane2158
"You haven't defined your terms, "...introduced a world first response to predators in the Catholic church" could mean anything."
Nonsense. Sometimes wording is open to some interpretation, but it's extremely rarely open to any interpretation. Besides, I've since given you its name. Which bit do you think is so vague?
Just to emphasise the point, here are some of the things said about it:
* "In 1996, he launched the world's first compensation protocol for victims of clergy child abuse, the Melbourne Response. This marked progress from the earlier, obdurate church regimes, where no complaints were considered, and permitted survivors to make historic claims against deceased members of the clergy."—Australian Financial Review.
* "The Melbourne Response was world first innovation in dealing with the issue of clerical child abuse"—quoted by The Age.
* "In 1996, he launched the world's first compensation protocol for victims of clergy child abuse, the Melbourne Response,..."—Sydney Morning Herald
* "He deserves recognition for launching the world's first compensation scheme for victims of clergy child abuse, known as the Melbourne Response, ..."—The Age.
"I refuse to believe however repressive the church can be, there weren't individuals or groups who tried hard to curb and expose abuse before Pell. It beggars belief."
Perhaps there were those who tried something, but apparently with only local or limited success. But you yourself said that "...far too late by a charlatan whose heart wasn't in it. If it wasn't, again, far too late by an institution more interested in cloaking it than dealing with it.", implying that nothing had been done before him, but now that you're confronted with some evidence of what he did, you're trying to suggest that he couldn't have been the first. Which shows that you're determined not to give Pell any credit, because you've got a closed mind about Pell.
"Will read up on it sometime when I'm in the mood to be depressed and outraged."
As I said, a closed mind. You've already made your mind up before reading about it.
1
-
"No. It’s the latest stage of capitalism which is restoring the link between population size and economic power so the rise of China, India and others is waning the Wests power. In essence the West ascendency was always a temporary thing we just got used to it."
I think you mean sapping the West's power. The West's ascendency was not based primarily on capitalism. The West's ascendency is based on Christianity, which gave us so much, including freedom to use our capital (skills, money, property, etc.) as we chose (i.e. capitalism). It's Christianity that is under attack, along with much that Christianity gave us.
China, India, etc. have been becoming more powerful by adopting capitalism, although in the case of China, it's removing those freedoms, which will hurt it in the long run, but in the short term it makes them dangerous.
Here's an interesting story from former Time journalist David Aikman:
“The eighteen American tourists visiting China weren’t expecting much from the evening’s lecture. They were already exhausted from a day of touring in Beijing. But what the speaker had to say astonished them.
“One of the things we were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world,” he said. “We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next, we focused on your economic system. But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West has been so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.”
This was not coming from some ultra-conservative think tank in Orange County, California ... This was a scholar from China's premier academic research institute, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) in Beijing in 2002.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chlorine5795
"Well atleast "nature-worship" is better than stupid ... "jesus-worship"."
What's your reasoning and evidence for that? Jesus worship has given us freedoms, compassion for strangers, public hospitals and many charities, universal education, science, more democracy, the abolition of slavery, universities, elevated status of women, human rights, and more. What has nature worship given us?
So, to repeat, what's your reasoning and evidence for your claim that nature worship is better?
1
-
@chlorine5795
"Lol..none of the things you mentioned has been given to us by jesus worship...."
False.
From an article in the European Journal of Internal Medicine:
"The origins of the public hospital are evidenced in early Christian age, when the Christian message led people to assist the sick and the poor and to establish centers for such interventions, initially in the house of the bishop, then in monasteries and, finally, in autonomous buildings (the hospitals)."
Loren Eiseley: “The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation … . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.”
On compassion, see the video "Glen Scrivener: Compassion - How Christianity made our moral world • Unapologetic 2/4"
"If anything it has imepeded the growth of most of those things. "freedoms" ? "abolition of slavery" ? "elevated status of women" ? you must be kidding, right ?"
No, I'm not kidding.
It's well known that Britain abolished slavery thanks to the Christian politician William Wilberforce, backed by a group of Christians including John Newton, the author of the hymn Amazing Grace.
On freedom, see for example "The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success" by Rodney Stark.
I haven't included references for everything, but enough to show that you are wrong on your complete dismissal of the history.
So again, what has nature worship done that is better?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@musashidanmcgrath Many authorities attribute Western Civilisation to Christianity, although probably few if any would deny any role for Greco-Roman influences. One such authority is agnostic historian Tom Holland, who has studied Greco-Roman history extensively. But he has said,
----------
"In many ways I think particularly of Rome they do seem very like us, ... [Cicero] is a man who is worrying about property prices; he's worrying about the weather, he's [complaining] about people, so in all kinds of ways he seems very familiar.
"But the more you live in the minds of the Romans and I think even more the Greeks, the more alien they come to seem, the more frightening they come to seem. And what becomes most frightening really is a kind of quality of callousness that I think is terrifying because it is completely taken for granted. The kind of innocent quality about it. Nobody really questions it.
In the age of Cicero, Cicero’s great contemporary Caesar is, by some accounts, slaughtering a million Gauls and enslaving another million in the cause of boosting his political career, and far from feeling in any way embarrassed about this he’s kind of promoting it, and so when he holds his triumph, people are going through the streets of Rome carrying billboards boasting about how many people he’s killed. This is a really terrifyingly alien world, and the more you look at it, the more you realise that it is built on systematic exploitation. So the entire economy is founded on slave labour. The sexual economy is founded on the absolute right of free Roman males to have sex with anyone that they want any way that they like. And in almost every way this is a world that is unspeakably cruel, to our way of thinking.
"And so this worried me more and more, and it was kind of like I was thinking well I’m clearly not ... the heir of the Greeks and Romans in any way, really. ... And this is then enhanced for me by then writing a book about late antiquity and the emergence of Islam from the late religious context; ... and I began to realise actually that in almost every way I am Christian
"And I began to realise that actually, Paul although in many ways he seems a must less familiar figure than Cicero, ... what is it, ... seven letters that ... conventionally people ... absolutely accept—as Tom Wright was saying, this is not a very lengthy amount of writing, but compacted into this very very small amount of writing, was almost everything that explains the modern world [the Western world] but also the way that the West has moved on to shape concepts like international law, for instance, ... concepts of human rights, all these kinds of things. Ultimately they don’t go back to Greek philosophers; they don’t go back to Roman empiricism. They go back to Paul. Paul, really, his letters are, I think, are, along with the four gospels, the most influential, the most impactful, the most revolutionary writings that have emerged from the ancient world."
----------
YouTube comments sometimes don't allow links, but I'll put a link to that in a following comment, in the hope it will show up.
There are also many authorities who attribute the founding of science to Christianity (Dawkins included). For example, Loren Eiseley:
----------
"The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation … . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption."
----------
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@highpriestofgavinalmightyh1304
"I’m not attempting to put any time scale over another."
Clearly you are. You're applying the secular timescale over the biblical account that has a different timescale.
"I’m pointing out objective reality."
The secular timescale is not objective reality. It a priori rejects biblical history and events despite the evidence. That's not being objective.
"4500 years ago, all of the cultures of the world kept on trucking along like nothing ever happened."
4500 years ago according to the secular timescale. Repeating your claim does not make it any more true.
"We haven’t even gotten into the subject of zoology,…"
Well, you and I haven't, but such topics have been well-covered elsewhere, and yet you seem to be completely ignorant of them (from the creationist perspective, that is).
"Did koalas, kangaroos, and all of the various lethal animals of Australia paddle their way to the Middle East? What of the Americas? What of Japan and Pacific Islands?"
And that's a prime example of your ignorance. You don't know whether they had to come from those places. You're unaware that most likely those places didn't even exist before the flood.
"What I’m saying is that the biblical flood doesn’t fit in with any world events over the last 10,000 years."
Yes, you're saying that, but using the secular view as your reference point.
"We can go through the zoological record if you would like, we can go through written records from around the world if you would like, we can go through archaeological evidence if you would like, and we can go through geological records if you would like."
That's what you need to do. Because so far you're not citing evidence, but the secular view. You claim that certain things happened at times in the past, but you're simply making claims from the secular view, not citing evidence.
"No field of science corroborates a worldwide flood 4500 years ago."
What's your evidence?
"It doesn’t matter if you call that a “secular“ time scale or not."
Of course it matters. There are (at least) two claims about what and when things happened. One is the biblical one, and one is the secular one. If I don't call the latter one "secular", then you're not likely to which one I'm talking about.
"It’s the only time scale we lived in."
Nonsense. We have (at least) two contenders for what the correct timescale is, and you haven't shown that the secular one is the correct one.
"This truth is something that is objectively verifiable,…"
Not always. Some things might be true but we have no way of verifying them.
"…and isn’t merely an assertion based on nothing but here-say and tradition."
Of course an assertion is not necessarily the truth. Which is one reason why I reject your assertions. And of course I'm not claiming hearsay and tradition as a basis. I'm claiming reliable history as a basis.
"Positive claims require positive evidence."
All claims require evidence. Which is why I'm challenging you to provide evidence of your claims.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
According to an atheist. I don't see the logic. What is "extraordinary" is subjective. That adds nothing to the principle that all claims require evidence.
"Claims made without evidence can and will as easily be dismissed without evidence."
Of course. Which is why I'm giving you the opportunity to back your claims with evidence before dismissing them.
"There is no evidence of a worldwide flood 4500 years ago."
What's your evidence of that supposed lack of evidence?
"You would actually have to demonstrate that there was."
No, you made the claim of no evidence, so the onus is on you to provide the evidence to back your claim.
"That means that reality would have to comport to the story, and it doesn’t."
What's your evidence that it doesn't?
"Christians most certainly do claim that all languages spring forth at the Tower of Babel."
I know of no Christian who says that Esperanto, or even English, originated at the Tower of Babel. The ultimate ancestor of English, yes, but not English itself.
"…there was never a time where various Middle Eastern languages suddenly appeared in a single day. That never happened."
So you claimed. Repeating it does not make it true. So what's your evidence?
"You would have to demonstrate that it did."
You made the claim that it didn't. The onus is on you to provide evidence of that.
"When do you think the Tower of Babel story took place?"
About a century after the flood.
"The story serves more as an allegory…"
What's your evidence for that?
"Like the story of Noah’s ark, there is no historical support for the story as it is described in the Bible."
What's your evidence for that claim?
"On the topic of language, that is another indication that the world was not wiped out save for a handful of family members 4500 years ago."
How is that an indication? I can't see the logic.
"…there is no scenario that explains how every species on the planet would promulgate into every species we currently see, or even the sheer number of organisms alive today to include humans."
What's your evidence that there is no such scenario?
"Now, if you try to use the excuse of “microevolution“ [snipped]"
You've already said that, and I've already addressed it. You're again repeating yourself.
"Again, this is not a “secular worldview.“ It is an objective worldview."
That's your opinion. I don't share it.
"You’re regurgitating apologist talking points…"
You're regurgitating atheist talking points, including denying that your worldview is anything but objective.
"…I am able to scrutinize each and every one of them."
I'm mostly only responding to your talking points, so perhaps it would be better if you don't spray so many of them around. Then you wouldn't have so many to respond to. Notice that I'm responding to most of yours.
"Doubling down on bad arguments from frauds with overt financial interests in keeping Christians of the more fundamentalist variety scientifically illiterate doesn’t make said apologists’ arguments valid."
What's your evidence that there are financial interests here? And that creationists are scientifically illiterate? Remember, a claim without evidence can be dismissed, so I expect evidence.
"Yes, in fact many Christians do claim that every society have flood myths."
As opposed to 'many'? What's your evidence?
"…and those that do come from regions prone to flooding."
A claim that I challenged you to provide evidence of, but which you haven't. So I can dismiss that claim.
"That’s how we get overlap in mythological stories."
That's a possible way, but what's your evidence that that accounts for flood stories from around the world ?
"I repeated myself because another lacking argument had been repeated."
You haven't shown that it was lacking.
"Instead of getting upset,…"
What you describe as "getting upset" was me pointing out that you're repeating yourself.
"you should actually address it beyond “well that’s a secular timeline.” "
If you want more information about that response, you can ask for it. Simply repeating your claim does nothing (except waste time and effort).
"Not your mythology presented as literal events."
It's not mythology, and you haven't shown it is. Your argument here simply assumes that as a given. But that is what I'm challenging.
"…but don’t tell them it literally happened when we can demonstrate it didn’t."
Then demonstrate it. Because I've never seen it demonstrated. I've only seen claims based ultimately on naturalistic assumptions.
"In none of your reply did you refute anything I said."
That was not my goal. My goal was to challenge your claims that were made without evidence.
But in fact I did 'refute' a few points, such as claims of flood accounts not being of Noah's flood, of speciation requiring macroevolution, and that the Gilgamesh Epic was the predecessor of the Genesis account. By 'refute', I mean that I provide reason and cited evidence that you were wrong.
"I highly recommend everyone practice better scientific literacy."
As do I. Including on the philosophy of science, so you'll understand its limitations and the biases of those who practice it.
"That’s all I approached your mythology with, and it offends you. Odd."
Describing it as mythology without showing that it is, is what offends me. That is, the bald claims based in part on naturalism rather than rational, evidence-based argument, is what is offensive. That you expect me to simply accept your evidence-free claims is what's odd. Although not for an atheist—I've often seen them expect that.
1
-
@highpriestofgavinalmightyh1304
"You keep saying “secular timeline“ as if there are parallel timelines to debate. There aren’t. There is only the one—objective reality."
Of course there is only one correct one. But which one is that? Simply declaring that the one you believe is the correct one is arrogance.
"That doesn’t change because you stomp your feet and hold your breath."
That seems to be what you're doing. You're simply declaring that there is no other than the one you hold to.
"I’ve already discussed that there is no evidence for a worldwide flood 4500 years ago. You keep saying there’s evidence, and then never providing any."
You've already claimed that there is no evidence for the flood, but you never provide any evidence of that claim. You made the claim, so the onus is on you to support that claim with evidence. And yes, negative claims need evidence too. See more below.
"I can actually offer up the creationist perspective without strawmanning your position. I can almost guarantee you cannot do the same for me."
How about provide the evidence for your claims, instead of making up things about me?
"…in every one of them, the YEC is demonstrated to be ignorant on basic scientific concepts…"
What's your evidence for that claim? Given that many biblical creationists are scientists? And by the way, that is a positive claim.
"Christopher Hitchens versus William Craig, Sam Harris versus William Craig,…"
Craig isn't even a biblical creationist (YEC)! So much for your claim that "I can actually offer up the creationist perspective without strawmanning your position." If you don't even know who's a biblical creationist and who isn't, I doubt you could provide an accurate creationist perspective.
"You still didn’t answer my question: how did kangaroos and koalas get to Australia?"
You didn't ask that question. And you haven't answered my prior questions. Why should I answer yours when you won't answer mine?
"What evidence would you like me to cite?"
Evidence for your claims that I've challenged you on.
"YouTube … no longer allows the sharing of external links."
There's ways around that, such as giving an exact title to search for. And actually, I often see external links. But I do agree that it often blocks them. I think sometimes the site blocks the links. But it does seem very inconsistent.
"No, one could make a speculative claim without any evidence which is exactly what you are doing."
Completely false. I'm rejecting your claims without evidence until you provide evidence. But you seem to think that I have to provide evidence and you don't.
"I have made positive claims with positive evidence to corroborate them."
What about your negative claims? They need evidence too.
"You continue to bob and weave throughout this conversation as to avoid having to address anything I’ve mentioned directly (cultures and populations kept on trucking along 4500 years ago…"
On the contrary, I have challenged you to provide evidence for those claims. You have refused to do so.
"I in fact have followed up with your claims, and that’s how I reached the conclusions that I did."
Given that I challenged your claims after you had reached your conclusions and expressed them, that is clearly false.
"Yes, you are the one who would need to demonstrate that cultures and languages suddenly halted around the world approximately 4500 years ago, ..."
I don't have to demonstrate claims that I didn't make. You have to demonstrate claims that you did make.
"The ultimate ancestor of English did not come from the tower of Babel."
A claim that you have not provided evidence for, despite me challenging you to provide it. A claim that there is "no indication" of it is not evidence; it's an argument from a lack of evidence.
"You don’t have to prove negatives, amigo…"
You have to support your claims, whether positive or negative. That you think you can make whatever negative claims you like and are free from providing evidence in support of them is illogical and false.
"It’s positive claims that require positive evidence."
No, it's all claims that require evidence.
* From the YourLogicalFallacyIs site: "The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove." No mention there of only positive claims.
* From the Quora site, the answer that was best accepted for the question "Why do so many people think that negative claims lack a burden of proof?": Answer (my bolding): "Because of the myth of nothing. Nothing is a myth we tell ourselves so we can do math or have thoughts. Nothing is an axiom, a presupposition. To speak of nothing is to declare that nothing exists. To make a negative claim is to make the claim that the negative claim exists. Therefore, anyone making a negative claim is making a claim. He must either declare this claim to be an axiom, a presupposition or he must prove his claim on the basis of other things."
* From the wyzant Ask an Expert site, where a person asked in part (about a question of God's existence), "All claims of nonexistence can be reformulated into a claim of existence…", the response by a doctor of philosophy from UCSD was (my bolding again):
"I believe that you're right that any so called 'negative claim' can be translated into a positive one, and so if the burden of proof is on those making positive claims, then the burden of proof is also on those making negative ones because these claims can be translated into positive claims. This is probably the right result because it's not at all clear why those who deny God's existence are any less burdened by the need to offer support or reasons for their belief. The thesis that God exists and the thesis that he doesn't are both question-begging until some argument or justification is offered, so theists and atheists are equally under a burden to show that their belief is justified or is something that others should embrace. …we can see why those who make negative claims are just as much under a burden of proof as those who make positive claims --the mere negativity of their claims does not automatically render these claims correct or justified or something that people should embrace. For that we need argumentation/justification/evidence backing those claims."
What's your justification for saying that negative claims don't' require evidence?
But I'll give you a slight concession. You complain about not being able to provide links, and you mention particular debate videos. I will look at your videos if you give me an exact title that I look for, and if they are not very short videos, give me a timestamp of the place where the particular question is addressed. I'm not going to watch an entire long video that addresses a range of claims that we haven't discussed.
"faith (belief without evidence, or even in spite of evidence to the contrary)."
That is NOT what faith means the way it's used in in the Bible. On the contrary, 'faith' is trust based on evidence that the source is trustworthy.
"The evidence of financial interests surrounding YEC frauds would be the businesses run by Ken Ham, Kent Hovid, and others like Ray Comfort and his buddy Kirk Cameron."
What frauds?
"When you must sign a statement of faith to work for these organizations, those organizations are not seeking or promoting objective truth."
Unless, of course, the statement of faith requires the person signing them to be truthful.
"I could’ve easily done the same to you and pointed out you aren’t actually showing any evidence for anything you are saying. I didn’t, though, because I went into this conversation with the understanding that neither of us are able to share external links."
Evidence does not have to be in the form of external links. A clever person like you think you are should be able to get around that restriction. I know I can.
"Yes, I have shown that Noah’s flood is mythology."
You have done no such thing.
"You provided no reason and no evidence to suggest I was wrong."
I don't need to. I challenged you to provide evidence of your claim, and you've not done so. Your failure to do so does not make me right, but it does mean that your claims are baseless.
I've skipped a lot of your claims in your latest reply, because I'd clearly be wasting my time even further to challenge them when you're clearly not willing to back them up. You claim that you have, and yet you also claimed that, being negative claims, you didn't have to.
1
-
@highpriestofgavinalmightyh1304
"Those making a negative claim towards someone’s positive claim (a claim that lacks evidence in the first place) is not the claim requiring evidence."
I have quoted you multiple sources saying otherwise. Just giving me your opinion on that is not a rebuttal. As one of those quotes pointed out, a negative claim can be converted into a positive claim and vice versa, by rewording. That is, there is no real distinction between a negative and a positive claim. In fact, a claim of 'no evidence' is a positive claim that there is no evidence.
"I explained how with (and this is the important part) with my own evidenced-backed positive claims."
No, you did not. See more below on what you should (but didn't) do.
"You simply deny it, and that is the crux of your entire argument."
My prime argument is that you're not providing evidence for your claims. Your response is to simply assert that you have provided evidence. But where, for example, was your evidence in support of your claim that "No field of science corroborates a worldwide flood 4500 years ago."?
"When I object to one of your religious/superstitious/mythological speculations on the nature of reality, I follow up with explaining why, and specifically which field of scientific inquiry we can use to investigate your claims."
Mentioning a field of scientific enquiry is not evidence. Explaining why is not necessarily evidence either, it can be just rationalisation.
"Yes, in fact, civilizations around the world kept on trucking along 4500 years ago."
So you've claimed multiple times, but not provided evidence for, despite being challenged to do so.
"We can study their literature,..."
Yes, we can. But unless that literature has good chronological information, that's not evidence of when that literature was created.
"...we can study read their geography, ..."
Yes, but again, how does that geography show when the civilisation was there.
"...we can study their architecture and ruins, ..."
Still no evidence of when they built their architecture.
"...we can review all of the information that come from this studious approach"
Sure, but how does that give you a date on when it all happened?
"Similarly, we can track the zoological record through bones, fossils, and genetics."
You're still giving no evidence for the date of 4500 BC.
"You continue to claim that I am offering some weird alternative reality, but that would be you. "
Not "weird", but yes, it is an alternative to the biblical claim. The biblical claims is the older one, and the secular one is a challenge to it. The secular claim has become a lot more popular, but the biblical claim is still an alternative, and one that I have found to be closer to the evidence. Supporters of the secular claim typically resort to arguing that their claim fits the evidence, but without providing the evidence, or with other arguments that fail to actually support the claims.
"You have yet to demonstrate that there was ever a worldwide flood 4500 years ago."
True, because I have no onus to support claims that I didn't make. You have the onus to support your claims that it didn't happen.
"Again, I am fully aware that YouTube no longer allows us to share external links, ..."
I have already pointed out that that is not strictly true. Do you even read what I say?
"...but that is no reason for you to take on such an intellectually lazy position."
What intellectually lazy position? I can support my claims without providing links, if I choose to do so. You could also support your claims without providing links, and I've already given you a way to do so, and you have the onus to do so.
"You have skipped the claims in my latest reply, yet you are replying with all the same smarminess as if you had?"
I said that I would not challenge every claim, because it would be a waste of time while you don't respond to the challenges with evidence. And of course you haven't responded to everything I did say in my last response, so that's the pot calling the kettle black.
"Leftists do the exact same thing when I engage them on topics of personal finance and economics."
You're the one acting like a leftist by not providing evidence for your claims.
"That’s just you doubling down on your favorite brand of superstition while absolutely refusing to follow up."
You haven't shown that it's superstition, and you're refusing to show that it is. That problem is the one that I'm doubling down on.
----------------
How about we simplify this a bit? Pick a civilisation that you think was around 4500 years ago, and provide me with the actual evidence of it being there 4500 years ago. Not vague claims of the evidence supporting that date; not fields of study that supposedly provide that date, not links in case YouTube blocks, them, but actual reasons for that date, with, as appropriate, supporting article/paper titles and authors that I could search for.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Say, for instance, an adult's significant other dies 'much too yoiung' so s/he ends up with another partner / mate for the remainder of his / her existence. So, in the blissful afterlife where the streets are lined with gold, does the adult who had two spouses due to untimely death choose one mate over the other?"
There is no marriage in heaven. That takes care of your entire first paragraph.
"Then, the whole idea of forgiveness of sins is over-the-top complex. How do you suppose the soul of a victim of a school shooting responds in the Afterlife when s/he -- while rejoicing with his / her beloved grandparents, beloved best friend, beloved girl friend / boy friend and, perhaps and quite logical, beloved favorite teacher -- see the maniacal, mass murderer who's 'gotten a pass' because s/he begged for 'forgiveness of sins' and his / her plea was accepted by the Higher Being?"
Easily (once they are in heaven, if not before). They rejoice that, like all of us, their sins have been forgiven, and they are now good people. I have a lot of disagreement with Dawkins, but I would rejoice to see him in Heaven.
You see a maniacal mass murderer as being a terrible person (which he is; I'm not minimising that), but from God's perspective of absolute perfection, so are you (and I). We are all people who don't deserve heaven, but God grants His grace to us all, because none of us are capable of earning our way to heaven.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dianawilliams6700
"hurling insults, grievance politics and threats are not working for the democrats or Trump because insults aren’t solutions."
Sure, they are not "solutions", but clearly they are working for the Democrats.
"The thought that you’re going to use dysfunction to bring progress is absurd, or that you’re going to put out fire with gasoline."
I agree. And yet the left are doing just that. Why is why there is no progress.
"We do have to take a look at the political violence that plagued our nation with the blm riots and antifa and we also have to take a look at Jan 6."
The left are ignoring (even supporting) the political violence, and making a mountain out of a molehill with 6th January.
"You are bringing up major issues (biden laptop) that are now in jeopardy because of Trump’s ego."
Proper investigation may be in jeopardy, but then there's been plenty of opportunity for that which the left have been pretending is not an issue.
"Your calling foul when Trump is rightly criticized is a problem."
But is he rightly criticised? Or is he fairly criticised? I'm not calling foul on some criticism, but given how the left have been trying to bring him down with lies and other underhanded tactics, to make out that he is the main problem is not being at all fair to him.
"The suppression of truth will be the downfall of Trump and those that follow him."
And that's my point—the suppression of truth by the left is what is causing the downfall of Trump. Sure, he's assisting that to some extent, but he's not the main problem.
"These are not conspiracy theories or unfair attacks, this is Trump."
Why isn't it unfair attacks? I've pointed out that the bigger problem is the left, so to concentrate so much on Trump IS unfair.
"But he was advised many times and as usual he doesn’t believe he needs to listen."
Advised by who? There are many "advising" him with bad advice. Sure, there may also be some good advice he's not listening to as well, but my point is that the mere fact he's not listening to at least some of that advice doesn't mean much. But I'm not saying he's fault-free.
"Many agree with you about the impeachments, but goodness he’s possibly ruined the opportunity for us to address that."
Possibly. But again, is it necessarily just him that has ruined that? Did you find and watch that Tucker Carlson video? I said that Tucker laid the blame squarely on the mainstream media, but in fact he also put some of the blame on the Democrats changing election laws, citing Pennsylvania as an example. Did the Republican lose because of Trump, or for other reasons? Was Trump's endorsement of the Republican such a big negative factor that the voters chose a brain-damaged Democrat instead? That seems bizarre.
"You mentioning the left is far worse, I absolutely agree with you as do those who are finally speaking on these midterm antics."
And that is my point. I've already agreed that Trump could have handled things better. But to concentrate on him without focusing on the far worse antics of the left is, as I said, unfair.
"Lastly, those ridiculous numbers of Trump endorsed so many hundreds and only this small amount lost."
It wasn't that small amount. Without recalling the actual figures he cited, it might well have been a third or more that lost. But again, my point is, what are the actual true figures? You're claiming the opposite, but without actual figures or evidence.
1
-
@dianawilliams6700
"How do you consider poverty and crime “working” for democrats?"
I never said that they were. My comment was a response to your reference to "hurling insults, grievance politics and threats", not "poverty and crime" which wasn't mentioned. I said that those are working for the Democrats. They hurl insults at Republicans and Trump, they air grievances over how bad the "Maga" crowd is, and they threaten conservatives. That encourages their supporters to go out and vote for the Democrats.
"How is anything ever going to be addressed if our midterms are hijacked by Trump so we can’t address the blm, antifa and Jan 6? "
Why does 6th January even need to be addressed? You haven't explained that one yet. And your question is loaded, assuming that Trump is "hijacking" the election. That is the very point that we are discussing.
"With all due respect, you continue to divert with "the left is burning down the house with gasoline, so we should burn the house down too"."
I never said any such thing.
"Your answer and solution to everything is, "the left is doing it!"."
No, not to "everything". But yes, the left is the major problem. So I'm perfectly entitled to point that out.
"Instead of seeing the wisdom in leading by example,..."
You're making things up again. I never suggested otherwise.
"...you want a civil society without demanding integrity and civility from Trump. "
I want integrity and civility from all people, but the left are the main offenders of it, so concentrating on Trump as being the main problem is diverting attention from the actual main problem.
"No one is saying the left is right, ..."
The left do!
"...you can't address corruption if you don't have enough people in congress to call for the impeachments and hearings."
True. But there may be enough for that, and if there is not, then STILL the main cause of that is the left demonising and lying about conservatives and Trump. Just to pluck some figures out of the air, perhaps 90% of the problem is the left, and 10% is Trump. If Trump wasn't a problem at all, then maybe the election would have gone more in the Republican's favour. That is, perhaps the Republicans would have done better despite the 90% problem of the left. But to focus on the 10% and not the 90% is still unfair.
1
-
@dianawilliams6700
"hurling insults, threats and grievance politics is poor policy, poor strategy and poor governance."
You're repeating yourself. I've already answered that.
"...then I point to the resulting anarchy and poverty that results, you then say "I never said poverty and crime works"."
Sure, anarchy and poverty result, but so does getting re-elected. In that sense, it is working for them.
"Well which is it? Does grievance politics, insults, and threats work or not? "
At getting your supporters to get out and vote for you, yes.
"There could be some problems with election integrity, ..."
My main concern is the leftist propaganda, vilification, threats, insults, and claimed grievances, supported by the mainstream media. To my mind, that is the biggest problem. Election integrity is simply another factor. And my mention of Pennsylvania was with what could be called election manipulation rather than integrity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Job (a person who lived around 4,000 years ago) was beset by the loss of his wealth, his children, and his health, and was in great despair.
His so-called friends tried to explain to him that he must have done something wrong in order to suffer so much.
Finally God spoke to him. He told Job that it wasn't anything he did, but God didn't focus on Job's problems. Rather, He got Job to focus on something greater, taking his mind off his problems.
(You can read the story in the book of Job in the Bible.)
God also said "whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things." Dwelling on your problems is not helpful.
Unfortunately, today's society largely rejects such wisdom, thinking that mankind can improve itself without thought for God. And so the West is going downhill rapidly. The solution, however, is staring us in the face.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@spinafex5729
"Whose facts - the ABC's or Murdochs?"
Facts belong to everybody.
"The Murdoch media is continually sledging the ABC and I'm pointing out they have financial incentive to do so. Thats all I'm saying."
And the ABC is continually sledging Murdoch media, and they also have financial incentive to do so. But it doesn't' follow that either side is doing it for that reason.
Yet you're only talking about one side, and implying that they are doing so because of that potential incentive. And completely ignoring whether their claims are correct or not.
"...just the bleeding obvious fact that Murdoch would make more money if the ABC wasn't around."
I don't even consider that claim to be obvious. You're suggesting that the mainly left-wing listeners/watchers of the ABC would switch to Murdoch media if the ABC was no longer around? That seems quite unlikely. If anything, they would tend to switch to other of Murdoch's competitors.
Further, although many commenters say that the ABC should be abolished, I don't particularly recall Sky commentators saying that. Rather, they say that the ABC should be less biased, because they are required by legislation to be balanced. So if anything, their criticisms of the ABC would have the effect of making the ABC less biased. In which case, you might well find more conservatives listening to and watching the ABC, losing audience from the Murdoch outlets!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@redblaze8700
"ID is religious based,"
Of course. Science is religious-based, as pointed out in the video.
"...all advocates for it are religious."
As are opponents, even if they hold to an atheist religion.
"It was proven to be so in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case in 2005..."
Proven in the sense that the judge sided with that view. Not on the basis of the evidence, though.
"Also: if ID is correct, and biological evolution is false,..."
ID proponents are not biblical creationists. They tend to accept evolution, except for the naturalistic aspect of it.
"...then how can the vast majority of scientists support evolution?"
Easily. Some are atheists, and those have convinced the scientific establishment that creationism is unscientific (even though it's not) and have deceptively associated ID with creationism. Most scientists only get to hear one side of the story, and also, anyone who does start to accept creationism or ID is instantly ostracised if not actually actively discriminated against. So peer pressure is one very big factor.
"Even most scientists who identifies as religious accept evolution as a fact, which it is."
It's not a fact, and science is based on evidence, not popularity.
"This who subscribes to creationism/ID are a minority, ..."
A significant minority, nevertheless.
"... haven’t done any experiments or tests to prove it,"
Completely false. Many tests and experiments have been done. But the mainstream science community censors such research, so you don't get to hear much about it. However, it can be found if you look for it in the right places.
"most of those scientists are in field unrelated to evolution,"
As are most of the scientists you cite as being "the vast majority [who] support evolution". So your point is...? But then there are also those who are or have been in fields related to evolution.
"...including Meyer here who has PhD in philosophy of science,..."
Which seems a very appropriate field to be the presenter in this video.
1
-
@redblaze8700
1. I pointed out that the video says otherwise, and you haven't shown that to be wrong. You've simply asserted your belief.
Christianity is also about facts, and is supported by the evidence.
2. The evidence says otherwise.
3. Simply reasserting your belief does not make it so. ID does not accept a 'young' earth, nor the special creation of all kinds of living things. It is similar to biblical creationism only in the detail that there is evidence of design, but it is like mainstream science in it's acceptance of deep time and evolution.
"4. Science is not about popularity contests.
As I said.
"The reason why most scientists accepts evolution and reject creationism/design is because evolution follows the scientific method were you make an hypothesis and test it to see if the evidence supports it or not."
That's the claim, but in fact it rejects or explains away evidence that doesn't fit. For example, fossil pollen in the Precambrian, intact tissue and DNA from dinosaurs, and so on.
"ID/creationism doesn’t do that, because it is literally designed to be untestable."
What's your hard evidence of that claim. Because I completely reject the claim.
"If a scientist could disprove evolution and prove design/creation, then they would change science as we know it, and even be guaranteed a Nobel Prize."
Yes, it would change a lot of science if it was accepted, but ideology prevents it being accepted. And the Nobel Prize committee have already shown their bias against the creationary view, when they refused to award a prize to the inventor of MRI.
"And no, it’s not because of peer pressure. That’s just some conspiracy promoted by creationists because that’s all they have when they’re unable to prove their mythology."
No, it's well-documented fact. See, just for example, the book Slaughter of the Dissidents.
"And it’s not due to atheist-influence, because most people, including most scientists who accepts evolution as fact are still religious."
Yes, most are, but that doesn't mean that it's not due to atheist influence. A small groups of people can be quite influential despite their numbers.
"Even Charles Darwin remained a lifelong Christian."
Not more than nominally. He came to reject God, and his Christianity was probably only nominal in the first place.
5. See the Journal of Creation for example.
"6. Nearly 95 % of all scientists supports evolution as a fact."
Where does that figure come from? And the other 5% in America amounts to about 100,000 scientists. That's not a trivial number.
"But if you only count those in relevant field, like biologists, geologists, and paleontologist, you’ll get an impressive 99,85 %."
Again, where does that figure come from? Because I don't believe that there is any evidence for that.
"If someone disproved evolution then those numbers would be much lower."
Perhaps they are much lower. I don't believe your 99.85% figure has any basis.
"So I wouldn’t call creation/design-scientists a “a significant minority”."
If they amount to 5%, then it is a significant minority. And I believe that figure is actually significantly higher.
7. Philosophy of science can deal with how and why science is done, which is partly what this video is about, including that it is based on principles derived from Christianity. And you've shown no cherry-picking. Nor have you shown his arguments to be incorrect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@voiceofreason162
"not much of a rebuttal."
What isn't? My comment or the article I mentioned? And why isn't it? You didn't say.
"Skipping the "maybe they did" isn't research, it's an assumption."
Huh? My points was that regardless of whether adherents of Eshtar went door to door, that wasn't the origin of easter eggs. And that's not an assumption.
"the original Greek places Christ's death on Thursday, not Friday. And that is provable. "
Then please do so, although I don't know what that has to do with whether or not Easter is a pagan festival.
"You want the Greek, I'll show you."
Well, I don't want it in Greek, as I don't read Greek, but otherwise, yes, please show me.
1
-
1
-
You're right that a god could have used evolution, but, as you say, the real question is did God use evolution.
Copernicus and Galileo challenged geocentricity, but I think Kepler (contemporary with Galileo) rejected geocentricity, and Newton came later, after geocentricity had been discarded.
Yes, people found bits in the Bible that appeared to be consistent with geocentricity, but the idea was actually an ancient Greek one and didn't come from the Bible. That God created in six days is from the Bible and is explicit, repeated, and emphasised, so it's a very different case than reading geocentricity into the Bible.
Yes, Darwin may be Copernicus 2.0, but probably not in the way you mean.
Unlike Copernicus and Galileo, Darwin set out to reject the biblical account, and his observations did not refute the biblical account, but—again—an ancient Greek idea known as 'fixity of species', which said that God created all the different species in the different parts of the world where they are found today. That is what Darwin found evidence against. The Bible, on the other hand, says that the animals spread out from the ark (so not created where they are today) and (although it's not as obvious) indicates that creatures adapted into different varieties (even species, to use scientific terminology and classifications) since then. Darwin didn't find evidence against that.
"Science is to follow what's happening in nature and figure out the order of nature, patterns in nature."
True enough, but science involves observations, measurements, tests, and repeatability, which cannot be done on past events, so although it's great for discovering how things work, it's not great in determining how things came to be. Further, much of what scientists do in that area is done on the basis of methodological naturalism, a philosophical position which says that their explanations must be natural ones (i.e. exclude God as an explanation) even where the evidence supports God. As such, it is biased, and any conclusions that people draw that God didn't create are actually circular arguments.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tTtt-ho3tq
"Science did not show the Bible was wrong."
I agree. But many scientists and others will claim that it does, often indirectly by claiming that a competing view (e.g. evolution) is correct.
"But we may interpret it wrong. We're only humans. We make mistakes. We misinterprete. We misunderstand."
Yes! But we can also be willingly ignorant of the evidence consistent with the biblical account. In other words, we can interpret the evidence wrong, not just the Bible.
"So science may not correct him but may show some of misinterpretations of his words in the Bible..."
Or it may contradict it, as it does with the naturalistic view of the age of the world, etc.
"Danger is we tend to think his words are always correct..."
Because they are. So that's not a danger.
"...but what we mean is our interpretations of his word is always correct..."
That may be true in some cases, but not always.
"Then it becomes you're not criticizing what you interpreted but you're criticizing God ... himself."
My point is that what you appear to be saying is that if scientific claims disagree with the Bible, then they actually disagree with our interpretation of the Bible, not with God Himself. Yes, that can be true. But the problem is that you're claiming that if the scientific claims disagree with the Bible, we should re-examine our understanding of the Bible because the science is not wrong. Why not also re-examine our understanding of the science? After all, the Bible is not wrong.
"You're also right that science is consensus."
Not consensus.
"What do you mean by macro evolution?"
You used the term. I didn't. I said that there is no observed evidence of one thing evolving into something else. Such as a dinosaur into a bird. I wasn't talking about something giving birth to something else.
1
-
@tTtt-ho3tq You're not nobody. You're a person created in the image of God, and loved by that very same God, the creator of the universe.
"Having said so ... So what confirms what?"
That's the question, isn't it? Or, more accurately, which is the one to judge the other by? Do we judge the word of the infallible, omniscient, God by the ideas of fallen man, or vice versa? Yes, we have to be sure our interpretations or understandings are correct, but that applies in both cases.
"What makes you think the we the earth goes around the sun?"
Scientific observation.
"When his words say he stopped the sun in the middle of the sky for a whole day?"
Motion is relative to the observer. I've often been on a stationary train with another stationary train next to it. Then I see the other train starting to move. Except that I then realise that it's my train that's moving, not the other one. From the perspective of a person on Earth, the sun did stop. The moon also stopped. That's supports that it was actually the earth that stopped, not both the sun and the moon.
"When he says in his own words the earth is fixed and immovable?"
That passage uses the same words as other passages saying things like a righteous man is immovable, meaning that his righteousness is immovable, not that he physically cannot move. The Earth is fixed in its orbit.
"Science is consensus of interpretations of what's happening in nature."
Science is supposed to be about evidence, not consensus. But I'll ignore that for now.
"Consensus on our interpretations of what's happening in nature..."
The emphasis there needs to be on the (contracted) "IS". What IS happening in nature. Science involves observation, measurement, testing, and repeatability. You can do that on things in the present, but not things in the past.
"How old do you think the universe is? I'm sure you'd say it's 13.8 billion years old, right?"
No.
"So it's not you but how come there're so many Christians here in the US who believe it's less than 10,000 years old?"
Because the Bible shows that it's actually about 6,000 years old. That claim has been examined closely and there is no way to interpret it any differently without doing violence to the text. The top Hebrew scholars agree on that.
This gets back to what I just said about science. Science cannot observe, test, measure, nor repeat the past. "Age" is not a property that can be measured. Age determinations are made indirectly and (like all 'science' about the past) on the basis of methodological naturalism, as I pointed out in my first response to you. I'll give you a concrete example related to dating things. I don't know how well you know how carbon dating works, so I'll explain. Plants breathe in carbon dioxide, which of course is composed of carbon and oxygen. That carbon can be normal carbon (C12) or it can be C14, which is formed by nitrogen (N14) having been hit with a neutron. But over time, C14 decays back to N14. That decay rate has been measured.
C14 exists in the atmosphere in a known proportion, and so living things have that same proportion (plants pass it onto to animals and humans). When the living thing dies, the C14 to N14 decay continues, but no new C14 is being acquired, so the ratio of C14 to C12 changes. By measuring that ratio in a once-living thing, one can determine how long it is since it died. However, that determination relies on knowing what the original ratio was, and that is known to change over time. Thanks to the industrial revolution, for example, the ratio changed. So scientists have to draw up tables of what the ratio was at times in the past. This is done by finding something that was once living that we know independently when it died. An example is a piece of wood from a building that history tells us was built in, say, 1600.
If Noah's flood occurred, that would also have changed the C12:C14 ratio. So do those scientists drawing up that table account for that? Well, no. Because they don't believe it happened, they don't account for that change. But if it did happen, that would mean that all carbon dates from around and before that period would be wrong. So when a scientist says that carbon dating shows something to be 6,000 years old (and therefore older than the flood), that date is based on the assumption that the flood never happened. To then use such dates to show that the flood never happened becomes a circular argument, as I pointed out in my first reply.
I'll just make another point before I finish. When you are driving and come to an intersection with a stop sign, do you debate what that sign really means? No. You know, unequivocally, that it means that you have to stop your car. Yes, some writing can be ambiguous or vague, but other writing can be quite clear and explicit. You can't dismiss all apparent contradictions between the Bible and the claims of scientists as cases of interpreting the Bible wrong.
It's not a case of simply determining whether we have misunderstood clear statements in the Bible. It's a case of the supposed science being done on past events that cannot be observed, measured, tested, nor repeated, and done on the basis of a philosophical view that a priori rejects the Bible's claims. It is therefore not valid to judge our understanding of the Bible on the basis of such naturalistic science.
1
-
@tTtt-ho3tq
"Judge? We're talking about physical world. Physical things in nature. Nobody judging nobody here."
I'm not talking about moral judgment, but about judging the accuracy of something.
"Because your interpretation of the Bible is 6,000 years."
"There's on other way to interpret his words. Even the top Hebrew scholars agree on that."
No other way that has withstood scrutiny.
"And there's no physicist, no geologist, no chemist. no nuclear scientist."
What qualifications do they have to determine a correct understanding of the biblical text?
"Yet, the age of the universe or the earth there's no scientist or scientific data or observation."
Yes, because, as I said, there is no "age" attribute to observe or measure. It is simply not possible to observe or measure age.
"There's no need for them."
No, I didn't say that there is no need. I said that it's not possible.
"Just like that Islamic cleric in the video of kid's TV show. Because Allah told us."
Yes, except that God is reliable; Allah is fiction.
"Meaning I interpreted it so, thus God told us so."
No, the interpretation does not come first. God told us so, and we read what he wrote. Like the stop sign, it's quite clear.
"Wouldn't it be better to see what he created the way he did it, though? Isn't science to figure out that?"
First, science can't really do that, because, as I've pointed out, science can't observe, measure, test, nor repeat the past. Second, if you are going to use science to assist with that, you must not do it by first assuming that God didn't do it! Okay?
"It's not just carbon. There're other elements, too."
Yes, there are other decay chains that they use. Carbon dating was just an example of how naturalistic presuppositions affect the results.
"Noah's flood wouldn't affect nuclear half-life decay ..."
First, I wasn't talking about decay rates, but other assumptions, like starting values. These sorts of assumptions apply to all dating methods.
Second, what makes you think that? In fact there is good evidence of accelerated nuclear decay, likely associated with the flood. When Uranium decays into lead (one of the dating measure that is used), a byproduct is helium. Helium is such a small atom that it readily escapes the rock the uranium is in. So the more the uranium has decayed toward lead, the more helium has been produced, but the helium doesn't stay in the rock, so that cannot be measured. EXCEPT. They have measured it, and the amount of helium still there indicates that the rock is nowhere near as old as the uranium:lead ratio would suggest. When the results were plotted on a graph, it showed that the data lined up very well with a prediction of the rocks being 6000 years old, and vastly different to a prediction based on them being 1.5 billion years old. See the graph in the article "Helium evidence for a young world continues to confound critics".
1
-
1
-
@tTtt-ho3tq
"Did I say I'm not smart enough to read, comprehend and interpret his word properly."
You obviously understand English. So you can read and comprehend it well enough. And you don't need to interpret it. The meaning is obvious.
"I meant that amongst Muslims, there're some who say Allah designed and created nature with evolution by natural selection ..."
Okay. There are plenty of Christians who say the same thing, although to do so they are rejecting what the Bible clearly states. Some even admit that the Bible teaches six days but they don't believe that because of the supposed science. That is, they don't claim that the Bible can be interpreted to mean evolution and deep time; they simply say that it is wrong or not meant to be understood as what it's actually saying, or some other rationalisation.
"Then you said you don't need science when it comes to the age of the universe."
No, I did not say that you don't need science. I said that science cannot provide the answer.
"Because you sounded you know for sure just by reading the Bible."
I also pointed out that there are differences between the texts. If I said to you "the sun rises in the east and sets in the west" and "the earth moves relative to the sun", is that a contradiction? Well, superficially it appears to be. But we know that rising and setting is a reference to appearance whereas the earth moving relative to the sun is not a reference to appearance but is a truth claim. That is, the first is phenomenological language, while the latter is literal language. Language can be poetic, narrative, literal, metaphoric, euphemistic, etc. We generally understand the style of language used in any particular situation.
"We misinterprete. We're only humans. How can you be so sure. I don't understand you."
Let me put it this way. The Bible appears to say that the sun moves around the earth. But observation tells us that the earth goes around the sun, and the earth rotates on its axis. Can we reasonably conclude that we've misunderstood the Bible, and that it could allow for what observation tells us? Yes, because the reference to the sun standing still can be understood as the language of appearance, and the reference to the earth being immovable can be understood as not deviating from the way it was designed (to orbit the sun).
The Bible also appears to say that God created the world in six days. But 'science' (not observation) tells us that the world is much older and that life evolved from a universal common ancestor. So can we reasonably conclude that we've misunderstood the Bible, and that the world could be much older, and that life evolved? Well no, because we would then face the following insurmountable problems:
* The days are actually defined as being normal days (comprising an evening and a morning).
* The week is based on that creation week (Exodus 20:11); That basis is destroyed if we haven't understood it correctly.
* Jesus said that man was made at the beginning of creation, whereas in the mainstream view man came right near the end.
* God created Eve from Adam and Adam from the dust, not from an ape-like creature.
* God created plants before the sun and before land animals, contrary to the evolutionary view.
* God created man and the animals to be vegetarian.
* There was no death before Adam sinned. That is not only contrary to evolution, but a vital part of the gospel message.
* God created living things to reproduce 'after their kind', which is contrary to evolution which says that one kind can become another.
* God created the earth before the sun and the other stars.
* God created birds before land animals.
So unlike the 'fixed' earth that can reasonably be understood in a different way, the creation account cannot be reasonably understood in a different way. Trying to fit the creation account to the mainstream view creates a whole stack of problems.
Further, as I pointed out, a rotating, heliocentric earth is known from observation. The age of the earth and evolution have never been observed. They are beliefs based (in part) on a naturalistic view, which means that you can't use them to alter our understanding of the Bible without invoking some circular reasoning.
"The science on the age of the universe is huge."
And biased by methodological naturalism.
"Almost nobody in science community would disagree with with it."
What do you mean by "almost nobody"? 100 scientists? 500? what?
"Of course, they could be wrong and you might be right, though."
Rather, they might be wrong and God might be right. I'd take God's word over man's any day.
"But you're talking his words and they're talking empirical evidence."
No, I'm talking God's infallible words, and they're talking a philosophical position that was intended to replace the biblical view. That is, they started with that position and went looking for evidence to support it.
"Nuclear half-life decay is nuclear physics reactions, not chemical reactions."
Yes. So?
"They can't chemically process it."
If you mean that they can't alter the decay rate, that is incorrect. It has been altered, albeit by small amounts in limited circumstances.
"Oh, and I'm not smart enough to claim anything."
I'm not trying to be rude, but to partly agree with you, you're not smart enough to realise that saying that you're not smart enough to claim anything is a claim. So your comment contradicts itself.
"I've got a lots of questions, though."
Fair enough. So perhaps you should ask rather than argue.
"In Islam, they say in order to read the Quran and comprehend properly you must read it in its original ancient Arabic. ... So I heard."
Yes, I've heard that too. Christians believe that in order to understand the Bible to the fullest extent possible, you should understand the original languages (mainly Hebrew and Greek), but that you can still understand it quite well in whatever language it is translated into.
1
-
@tTtt-ho3tq
"That's what I mean. It may be obvious to you because you're much smarter than me."
No, it's obvious because the words have obvious meanings. Just like the stop sign I mentioned. (But see further comment below.)
"Especially I've no idea when it's literal or when it's not."
Do you have that same problem with everything you read, or just the creation account? Or just the Bible?
"I know what you mean by itself but in practice in reading the Bible that's when it comes hard."
Why? How is the Bible different to other writing?
"So I can't imagine how people could have read the Bible that God paused the sun in the middle of the sky not literally. It's not obvious."
I understand what you're getting at, but you're not doing the text justice. Is that mention of the sun standing still trying to tell about relative motions, or is it trying to tell us how the Israelites won a battle? Of course it's the latter. The reference is not a euphemism, nor a metaphor, nor any other figure of speech. It literally did stand still, from the perspective of the people who saw it. That doesn't mean that it stood still relative to the galaxy or anything else. To put it another way, phenomenological language is not non-literal language. It's literal, from a particular viewpoint.
"But still it's so obvious of his word that the age of the universe is young 6,000 years old."
In one sense you're correct, in that the Bible doesn't give a total with that (or similar) figure. However, it's obvious, if you read carefully, that it does give figures which anyone can add up to find out how long before, say, Abraham that creation occurred. In that sense it's obvious.
"Which would mean there's no ice ages to you."
Only if ice ages and the time between them was too long to fit in the available time. But then I've already pointed out that one can't measure age.
In fact, there is good physical evidence of an ice age. But only one. And in fact the flood helps explain it. If the earth cools, there is less evaporation and therefore precipitation and therefore ice on the land. If the earth heats, there is more evaporation and more precipitation on land, but it doesn't freeze. However, if you have a cool atmosphere (such as with lots of dust or ash in the atmosphere) and a warm ocean (from lots of volcanism), then you have a lot of evaporation and precipitation, which forms ice on the land. The flood provides just those conditions, which would produce an ice ages lasting about 500 years from soon after the flood.
"There wEre no cavemen either?"
There have always been people who live in caves. In Coober Pedy in South Australia, many of the homes are in man-made caves today. But those people who lived in caves were not primitive men, but simply people who, for whatever purpose, lived in caves either short term or long term.
"Did Adam & Eve lived in a cave first when they're thrown out of the Garden?"
Possibly, until they had time to build something.
"How did Adam know how to hunt for food?"
He was a vegetarian.
"Was it a stone age when they were out or bronze age?"
There was no such thing as a stone age or a bronze age. People were making tools and instruments from iron and bronze before the flood, but much of the technological knowhow of the time would have been lost in the flood. After God dispersed the people from Babel, whatever knowhow they might have regained since the flood would be largely lost again. They would have needed immediate shelter and food, so caves would be a good option for the shelter, and they'd need tools quickly, so would have made what they could out of sticks and stones. But after they'd had time to settle and establish themselves, they would have built homes, found ore deposits, and reinvented the technology required. This may have taken from years to generations, and it would have varied according to how long they were travelling away from Babel (around the world in some cases) and where they ended up. So they would have a period when they were living in caves, and a period when they were making tools of stone and later tools of bronze, etc. but they were just phases until they reestablished the knowledge and skills; not "ages" lasting thousands or hundreds of years as they slowly evolved.
"Many many questions when read it literally."
Where does the Bible mention a bronze age or an iron age? Many of your questions come not from reading it literally, but from trying to marry it to the secular view that you've learnt. Try and remember this: The biblical account and the secular view are competing stories about the past. They do not fit together. Read the Bible on its own merits, not by trying to fit it into the secular view of history.
"Maybe obvious to you but not easily obvious to me."
Because you're reading it through secular glasses.
"Is there free will in Heaven"
I think there'd have to be.
"How could we not to sin for ever with free will?"
I don't know the answer to that one, but I'm sure God could do it somehow. Perhaps (this is speculative) just being full time in God's presence makes it so that we have no desire to sin, even though we still could, in principle? I don't know.
"This is not what my saying so but God's saying so."
I'm not sure what you're asking, but the principle is that whatever God says is correct. I might be wrong how I understand God, but some things are quite clear (e.g. the stop sign) while other parts can be harder to follow.
"Im not well articulate either."
Is English not your first language?
1
-
@tTtt-ho3tq
"You've got the answer for almost everything."
It might seem like it, but no, I don't. However, this topic is one that I've been studying for much of my life.
"However, I'm interested in science, especially physics, so what they say is usually supported by facts in nature."
Yes, it is, as long as they are talking about things in the present that they can observe, measure, test, and repeat.
"But the way I understand it and what I see in nature usually agree with each other."
But again, you're seeing things in the present, not in the past. And it's the past where virtually all the disagreement is.
"I'm not sure if that's what secular means or through secular glasses, though."
I'm using the word 'secular' as a synonym for the way the world generally (as opposed to people who believe the Bible) sees things. But in particular, I'm referring to the scientists who work on the principle of methodological naturalism.
"You wouldn't say Copernicus, Galileo, Newton's view they saw through the secular glasses, would you?"
No, not at all. But again, they were doing their science on things they could observe, measure, test, and repeat, i.e. things in the present.
"In science, it's relative clearer what they don't understand yet or what they do,…"
I disagree, because the scientists rarely make a distinction between things that they study in the present and things that they pontificate about the past.
"Yet, there're so many different interpretations."
True, but why? Is it because the text is hard to understand, or is it because they are trying to marry the biblical account with the views of people who don't believe the Bible. Here's a quote from a theologian, James Montgomery Boice: "We have to admit here [concerning those who take the six days of Creation as literal days] that the exegetical basis of the creationists is strong. … In spite of the careful biblical and scientific research that has accumulated in support of the creationists’ view, there are problems that make the theory wrong to most (including many evangelical) scientists. … Data from various disciplines point to a very old earth and even older universe."
As you can see, the "different interpretation" comes from taking the (naturalistic) science into account, not from the text itself.
"Even in amongst Christians, some believe in Trinity, some don't."
That depends on how you define "Christian". Most Christians would say that if you don't believe Jesus is God, you're not a Christian. Those that deny the trinity are therefore not Christians, by definition.
"Some Christmas say it's 13.8± billion years from the BB,…"
Yes, but they don't get that from the Bible. So that's not really a different interpretation of the text, but a different view of history from extra-biblical sources.
"What I hate the most is saying this is not what my saying so but what God's … saying so. It's not true."
Again, I get back to my analogy with the stop sign. Some things are quite clear. And, as I've pointed out, some of the "different interpretations" are not based on what the Bible says. But it's not just me saying that. James Barr was Oriel Professor of the interpretation of the Holy Scripture at Oxford University, and he wrote that "… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story…"
So it's not just me saying that it's clear. It's the world's top experts on the language saying that this is the way it was meant to be understood.
"Would you kill someone if if God's telling you to do so? (You interpreted he's saying so)"
That's a silly question, because God telling me to kill someone would contradict God saying that we should not murder. So even if, for a moment, I thought God was saying that, I'd reject it as being from God because God doesn't contradict Himself.
"Didn't God tell Abraham to sacrifice his son? Yes. God stopped him just in time. But that's because Abraham was actually going to do it for real, wasn't it?"
Actually, Abraham had faith that it wouldn't happen. God had already told Abraham that Isaac would be the ancestor of many people, and Abraham told Isaac that God would supply the sacrifice. So Abraham trusted God that it would not happen, although he didn't know until the last moment how God would arrange that. (By the way, this was before God gave the ten commandments in which it says not to murder.)
"Everything and anything in nature by nature with the order of nature or without the order of nature is possible with God…"
One of the reasons that Christians started science is because they believed that God was a God of order and consistency, so would not (like the Greek 'gods') change things (like laws of nature) on a whim.
"…this annoys me that we won't sin once we're in Heaven even though we've still free will."
Yes there are some things that we'd love to know more about now, but we'll have to wait to find out.
"Everybody was in the Garden, including all animals, right?"
There were animals in the garden, but no reason to think all the animals were. And Adam and Eve were booted from the garden before they had children, so they were the only two people ever in the garden.
"So that means there's no BBQ in Heaven."
You can barbecue things other than meat! 😁 God gave us permission to eat meat after the flood, but yes, I expect that permission will be withdrawn in heaven.
"No sex in Heaven either?"
Well, no marriage, so unless sex outside marriage is okay in heaven, I guess you're correct!
1
-
@tTtt-ho3tq
The postulated planet was Vulcan, not Volcan.
"Actually everything we observe is pst in time."
By a fraction of a micro-second?
"It seems light travels instantaneous but it's not."
Actually, that is not certain. Find the video "Why No One Has Measured The Speed Of Light" by Veritasium.
However, this is all distraction. You could argue (although there are rebuttals) that you are observing the past when you observe stars explode, and that sort of thing. But we don't observe the past to see dinosaurs evolving into birds, etc.
"Jesus couldn't be God BEFORE he was crucified because if he was ... God doesn't die, does he?"
What is death? A cessation of brain activity? A cessation of biological life? Separation from God? The last one is known as spiritual death. Jesus died physically, and He was separated from God the father when He did. He didn't cease to exist, but then neither do humans when they die.
But Jesus must have been God before He was crucified, as Jesus is actually the creator of everything.
"So he joined his father after he was sacrificed and became one. I didn't know that. It makes sense, though."
God is the supreme being. There can be only one. Jesus becoming God doesn't work. Jesus is God, but per the concept of the trinity, God is three persons in one God.
"Did Jesus know he was going to scarified? Killed?"
Yes. He prayed about it before it happened.
"But also knew he's not gonna die anyways because he's God, too?"
He didn't cease to exist, but He did know that He would come back to life.
"…would you volunteer to be sacrificed too?"
I would hope so if the cause was good enough. Plenty of people have through history. Think of soldiers who threw themselves on grenades to protect their mates, for example.
"Vegetable BBQ? Are you ... it's like tofu bergers? To some it's ain't BBQ."
I was thinking more of sliced onion, eggs, etc. But vegetable patties are also another option.
"Is there alcohol in Heaven? What do you think?"
No reason for there to not be alcohol in heaven. It's a useful chemical. But why drink the poisonous drug? It does you no good.
"Canaanites? Didn't Morse told Israelites to wipe them out?"
I said that God said that we should not murder. Murder does not include self-defence or capital punishment. Both the latter, and former in the case of war, are functions of government, not individuals. Moses was the government, and killing people who were attacking them or defying God is not murder.
"God himself can kill, though. right?"
He made us, so He can destroy us. Murder is wrong because God delegated dominion over creation except for man to man. That is, as humans, all of God's creation is at our disposal to make use of (which does not mean to abuse). Except for other humans. We can't make use of them (except with their permission, such as hiring them). But God does have dominion over all of his creation, including man. He can do what He likes with us, because He owns us.
"Except Satan and demons, he didn't eliminate them with the flood. Because?"
I don't have a definite answer on that. But God didn't eliminate humanity at the flood either. Clearly God had a reason to not eliminate Satan and the demons at that time, but then why should He do that at that time anyway? The flood destroyed or damaged the physical creation; if God was to "eliminate" Satan, why wait until the flood? That doesn't seem a particularly appropriate time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Simon.the.Likeable
"Gaza can't be a country because it was seized from Egypt in 1967."
I asked for your definition of a country: No answer.
I pointed out that size is not what makes a country, and asked what your point was in mentioning the size: No answer.
I pointed out that you got the size wrong: No admission of your error.
And again you invoke a non sequitur that because an area was seized from Egypt around 60 years ago, it can't now be a country. The logic needs explaining.
"Glad you are consulting a verified reference source."
Of course I am. What about you? And as I mentioned, it wasn't 'Hasbara' I consulted, but again, no admission that your implication there was wrong.
"There was no "country," as in "countryside." "
Perhaps so, but that's not the way I was using the word.
"The Israeli government depend on that fact that Gazans voted the way they did."
Huh? How so?
"It took over 60 years of catastrophe to get the Palestinians to that stage."
What's your evidence for your implication that that was intentional?
"Your previous reply appeared to have no substance."
And it did, including pointing out a fault in your argument (no rebuttal, no admission) and that he was talking about the city, not the 'country' (still no rebuttal nor admission). You raised the "tirade" of Yoav Gallant, but when I pointed out problems with your argument, you completely ignored my argument and now argue that it had "no substance".
"...you say everyone who was cleared out of Southern Israel (...even the children?) were terrorists."
No, I did not say that. First I asked whether that's what you were referring to. I also explicitly asked what you meant by "Southern Israel" and "cleansed", but again, no answers.
Second, if they are going to clear out terrorists, are you suggesting that the children of terrorists should not go with their parents, but that Israel should keep them, taking them from their families? But I'd bet that will be yet another question that you won't answer. Instead, you'll quibble some detail and/or bring up new objections.
1
-
@Simon.the.Likeable
"OK, definition of a country would be a seat at the United Nations, not just an observer state."
That's fair enough, and I'll accept that by that definition, it's not a country. However, my point remains that there is a difference between the city of Gaza and the territory of Gaza (are you happy with calling it a territory?), and Yoav Gallant was talking about the former, not the latter.
"I agree with you size is not important,..."
And yet you twice made out that it was.
"My error kept you on your toes, didn't it?"
No, it just sidetracked the conversation.
"Gaza and the West Bank/Samaria are entities devised by Israel."
No, they are the consequence of Arab-Israeli wars, because the Arabs wouldn't accept the existence of Israel.
"They are quasi-states designed a holding pens for a population deemed to be disposable. That is Israeli logic and that is my evidence."
That's not evidence. That's a jaundiced opinion.
"Gallant's tirade is evidence before the ICJ in the terms to which I referred."
And yet, as I pointed out, that has nothing to do with the situation before the Hamas attack.
"No, I am saying it was racist to refer to all the Palestinians, even the children, who were removed from Southern Israel to Gaza as terrorists."
And yet I didn't, as I pointed out. So yet again, you've got things wrong, despite me already pointing out your error. Being charitable, that's sloppy.
"The Israelis have always had their goals..."
Shocking! How dare they have goals!
"...and play intentionally "by any means necessary" to achieve them."
Absolute nonsense, given the extreme lengths they go to in order to avoid civilian deaths.
"This is evidenced by the King David Hotel incident, Patria incident and USS Liberty incident."
The first two were before Israel existed as a modern nation. So you're citing militants as though they are representative of a democratic nation. The third was determined to be an error, and Israel accepted responsibility. Ergo, your evidence does not support your general claim.
And of course there are still questions that you haven't answered.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@quijybojanklebits8750
"yea because if not an adult needs 600 pounds of fresh vegetation per day"
Again, why conclude that it was an adult? What about young, but not baby, elephants?
"that's 180,000 lbs of feed for 2 adult elephants for 150days... and that's just elephants... The shear amount of feed necessary would be ridiculously impossible to keep especially since modern animal feed wasn't invented back then."
Around 370 days, actually. But quoting a few scary figures doesn't actually make your case. In fact Googling how much an adult elephant eats gives half the figure you quoted—300 lbs per day. Of course a young one would presumably be less, and one in captivity with not much activity less again. But regardless of the actual figure, you haven't compared that to the space available.
Further, you presume too much, again. Sure, they hadn't invented modern animal feed, but you don't know what they had invented, nor what resources they had available (e.g. more nutritious plants that didn't require as much of to feed and elephant).
"It is well known that some fish during the Cambrian Explosion, ..."
What's well known?
"...it's likey that salt water fish that lived near deltas of rivers adapted over millions of years to swim up stream to fresh water..."
Likely? So you're speculating now? And you're simply citing a competing view (the naturalistic one), not faulting the biblical account.
"If the entire earth was covered ( that's 30,000 feet higher to prior sea level) not only would cause the people on the boat to freeze..."
Nonsense. First, your figure is wrong, because you're addressing a strawman of your own invention, not what flood geologists argue for. When you argue against a view that you haven't bothered understanding, you only show your own ignorance. Second, you're wrong in that temperature is related to altitude above sea level. The ark was at sea level.
"...and suffocate..."
Similarly how thin the air is, is related to elevation above sea level. You really haven't thought through this properly, have you?
"Al of these problems are answered by the current models set fort by geological studies and the actual approximate age of the earth."
Again, two problems. First, no, current naturalistic models have not thought through the supposed problems with the biblical account. Second, again, you're simply citing a competing view, not evidence.
"Physics also dictates the impossibility of the flood due too how much the earth would heat up(likely enough to kill the occupants of the boat) ..."
Yet a moment ago you claimed that they would freeze! So which is it?
"The simple fact is it didn't happen..."
You're right. The simple fact is that it didn't happen the way you are telling the story. However, flood geologists don't accept your story.
"...your basically arguing jack and the beanstalk as fact to me."
Actually, I'm arguing from reliable history, supported by the actual scientific evidence (as opposed to the naturalistic views of scientists).
"everything in the flood myth has been refuted by numerous scholars and scientists."
A tactic known as elephant-hurling, claiming that a large body of information supports your case, but without showing that anything does. You could accuse Cosmic Treason of the same, except that you haven't bothered to find out what creationists actually believe, so yes, you should check out a decent creationist site first, to actually understand the view you're criticising.
If I said "Evolution couldn't have happened, as it's impossible for a pair of frogs to give birth to a snake", you'd rightly dismiss me as not actually understanding what evolution claims. Yet here you are doing the same sort of thing regarding the flood. As I said, showing your ignorance.
1
-
@quijybojanklebits8750
"the point of bringing up elephants of any size is the fact that they have to have had all large mammals on board plus water and feed, that's thousands of tons of different types of feed as not all annals eat the same food"
And my point is that you're hurling vague statements with few actual figures, and the figures you have provided are wrong. I heard years ago of a conversation between a creationist and a critic that went something like this:
Critic: Noah couldn't have fitted all the animals on the ark, could he?
Creationist: Oh? How many animals did he have to have on the ark?
Critic: I don't know. But they wouldn't have fitted, would they?
Creationist: Do you know how big the ark was?
Critic: No, but they wouldn't have fitted, would they?
Creationist: So you're claiming than an unknown number of animals wouldn't fit on an ark of unknown size? That's some interesting logic you have there.
And your argument is not much different to that.
"The Cambrian Explosion is a very well studied area of Paleontology, ..."
From a naturalist perspective.
"...the evolution of freshwater fish is "likely"(meaning from current understanding from fossil evidence) ..."
According to the naturalistic view. We are talking about the biblical account.
"...your semantic attack ..."
My response is logical, not semantic.
"...is the same as the idiots that say a theory isn't trustworthy because it's a theory."
No, it's not the same, and you haven't shown that it is.
"The only way to cover the entire earth with water (even 10000 years ago) would need the global water level to raise to 30,000 feet ..."
You haven't shown that. And again, you're arguing against a view that you simply do not understand. And you're repeating claims that I've already addressed.
"To say I don't know what I'm talking about is quite dismissive when I actually read much into the flood myth ..."
First, I say that because I am very familiar with the view and recognise that you're arguing against a different view, not the creationist one.
Second, yes, as you say, you're reading things into it. Things that aren't there.
"...and where it's potential origins seminate from, likely it's an old oral legend that many coastal people's developed during the end of the last ice age when an asteroid hit Greenland and caused many costal areas to become inundated with water, a good example being the doggerlands."
Oh? So what's your hard evidence for that being the origin?
"The funniest part to me is you think a wood framed boat could be built big enough to hold all of the materials necessary for the crew and animals to survive ..."
Because the issue has been studied extensively and the account has been shown to be feasible. But you're not aware of that, because you haven't actually looked into what the view says.
"...its common boating knowledge that wooden ships can only be so big and carry so much weight."
And yet boats have been built that big in the past. So "common knowledge" is wrong.
"You're claiming things that don't line up with reality in the slightest,..."
What's your evidence? All you've cited so far is a competing view, not hard evidence.
"...even your assertion that the geological age of the earth is wrong when it's been proven numerous times ..."
So why not provide that proof, instead of just allege it exists. And take into account the creationist arguments against the purported age.
"...alot of the sciences you refute are sciences that give you things like GPS (understanding of time dilation makes it work) ..."
Actually, there's a significant difference, between empirical science like that behind GPS, which involves observations, measurement, testing, and repeating, and claims about the past that cannot be observed, measured, tested, nor repeated. You're also obviously unfamiliar with the work of actual scientists—such as the one who designed the world's most accurate clocks for use in satellites—who are biblical creationists. Because they can quite comfortably do actual, empirical science (invented by creationists, incidentally) while still rejecting the naturalistic and biased 'science' purporting to tell us about past events.
"Curious are you a flat earther aswell as a religious zealot."
I go for what is supported by the evidence. Which means a round earth in this case. It's a pity that although you claim evidence, you don't actually cite any that supports your case over the biblical account.
1
-
@quijybojanklebits8750
"you keep pointing out this "naturalist perspective" "
No, I don't. I keep pointing out the naturalistIC perspective.
"a naturalist is a person who is an expert in natural history."
Yes, but I'm talking about people who take a naturalistIC view, i.e. the view that nature is all there is, and that there is no supernatural. (Or at least that it can't be considered by science.)
"Then you say the accounts I put forth are wrong ..."
Rather, I said that they are a competing view.
"...then cite the bible as the proof."
Again no. So that's nothing you've got right so far. I didn't cite it as proof. I pointed out that we are discussing the biblical account, and that citing a competing, non-biblical view as evidence that the biblical account is wrong, is illogical. It's like saying that my view (A) that the earth is round is wrong because the flat-earth view (B) says it's flat. That's arguing that A is wrong because B disagrees. But that can be turned the other way around: B is wrong because A disagrees. The issue is not that one view is wrong because the other view disagrees. The issue is which one does that actual evidence better support. You're repeatedly citing the naturalistic view, not actual evidence.
"That is a circular argument."
No, it's not. Your argument, on the other hand is, and I'll explain why. Most scientists work on the naturalistic view, which says that biblical explanations cannot be considered. So if you ask the question "what formed the Grand Canyon: a little bit of water over a lot of time (the naturalistic view) or a lot of water over a little bit of time (as a result of the God-initiated flood)", then that second view is not allowed to be considered because it's not naturalistic. That is, naturalistic science presupposes that God didn't do anything. If you therefore argue from that view that the flood is not the cause of, say, the geology, then you are actually making a circular argument, because that was the presumption that you started with.
"I can very well guess how many approximate animals the ark would need ..."
I'm sure that you could—guess! But what about a reasoned figure from evidence?
"...because just 2 of every large animal... elephants, oxen, giraffes, lions, bears, and hippos would need more food than the ship could carry, ..."
Ho hum. A vessel of unspecified size could not fit an unspecified amount of food and number of animals. Where did I hear that before?
"...remember it's a wooden ship which would be subject to how all wooden ships behave in the water. "
They float? Wooden ships don't all behave the same, because they are not all built in the same way.
"Wooden ships can only be so big due to flexion in the bow."
How big? And using what construction methods? And what timber, for that matter? Again, no specifics, just vague claims, ignoring the work that has been done to show that it's feasible, including by naval architects, who would know what they are talking about much better than you would.
"The shear amount of food isn't the only issue, ..."
You haven't shown that that's an issue to start with.
"...preditors need fresh meat ..."
Oh? So you're unfamiliar with the lion of modern times that wouldn't eat meat? And you've already forgotten the conversation about creatures today being more specialised. You're not learning, are you?
"...and there was no refrigeration in ancient times."
How do you know? You wouldn't be basing that comment on the naturalistic view again, would you?
1
-
1
-
@quijybojanklebits8750
"no wooden boats have never been built as big as is suggested by both biblical scholars and the ark encounter museum. "
Oh? You know about every big boat that's ever been built, do you? No, you're arguing from silence.
"Everything I claim something the way youbrefute it is by saying "no you're wrong" "
Well, given that you are wrong, and I explain why you're wrong, what's the problem with that? But no, I don't always say you're wrong. I often ask for your evidence, which is not forthcoming.
"from claiming that there's no way to know how high the water had to be yet we know the highest point on earth."
We know what the highest point is now. But what was it then?
"You say that the atmosphere is relative to sea level which is wrong, it's dictated by how close the atmosphere is to the earth,"
The bottom of the atmosphere is always on the surface of the earth, flood or no flood.
"...the further away the less pull the earth has ..."
It's right on the surface of the earth.
1
-
@quijybojanklebits8750
"here's the issue give me evidence there was a flood, you have the burden of proof not me."
Why do I have the burden of proof? The person with the burden of proof is the one making the claim. You're making the claims that the flood didn't exist, that the ark didn't happen, etc., and I have challenged you to provide evidence for those claims. Therefore, you have the burden of proof.
"the same flood that thes costal areas report, btw orally, is a result of sea level increase due to glaciers melting"
What's your evidence that such is the origin of those reports?
"(are you 10 years old I feel like I'm arguing with a kid)."
No, you're arguing with someone who understands logic and evidence. And understands the view that you disparage but don't understand.
"They'd obviously report a similar experience ..."
Not with the specific details that they often report, no.
"not all cultures have flood myths like most of asia."
You wouldn't expect every culture to remember the event. However, one site lists 55 flood legends from Asia. That includes one in which the flood was survived by a man named Nama and his three sons. At the end of the flood, Nama sent out a raven (which didn't return) and a dove, which returned with a twig. That's just one example (and not coastal) of specific details in common with the Genesis account that cannot be attributed to separate, local, flooding.
"Your narrative falls apart when you look at global culture not just the ones pertinent to the middle eastern cultures."
Simply false. The same site lists accounts from around the world, including over 30 from South America.
"you keep saying that the proof I give when I give evidence are naturalistic views,"
Because they are.
"they are the accepted views of all geologists."
No, they are the accepted views of most geologists, not all. And those geologists accept the principle of methodological naturalism which says that only natural explanations are allowed. The mere fact that the views are widely held does not make them true.
"Evolution is a fact, ..."
What's your evidence? Because I reject that it is. Although, perhaps you'd like to clarify what you mean by "evolution".
"There was never a global flood and there never was a guy that got swallowed by a fish/whale and survived."
There you go, making even more claims (or repeating the same ones), and yet still not providing evidence.
"The bible is full of fantastical [deleted]."
Again, what's your evidence? It's easy to make claims, but backing them up is another matter. And you have the onus to.
"The earth is billions of years old and life is also roughly a billion years old, all supported by data ..."
So you claim, but again, you're citing the naturalistic view, not actual evidence. What data?
"if you care to look again I'm not the one with the burden of proof,..."
Given that you are making the claims, you are in fact the one with the burden of proof.
"I say there was never a global flood ..."
Yes, you say it, but repeatedly fail to provide evidence of your claim.
1
-
1
-
@quijybojanklebits8750
"a negative claim is not a claim it is a refutation of a claim."
A negative claim is a claim (it's in the term!). And a claim is never a refutation. It can be a counterclaim, however.
"This is why the prosecutor in law has the burden of proof ..."
Not true. The prosecutor has the burden of proof a) because he's making the claim (the defendant is not accusing the prosecutor), and b) because the system is biased in favour of letting the guilty go free rather than punish the innocent. A better analogy would be a civil case where there is no bias—the case has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not 'beyond reasonable doubt'. But even then, the person bringing the case, i.e. making the claim, has to make their case first. That could even be a negative claim, such as the other party not providing a service that they undertook to provide.
"...its nearly impossible to prove a negative..."
That depends on the claim, but yes, you're basically right on that. But what that means is that you are making a claim that you now admit is almost impossible to prove! So why are you making the claim, knowing that you can't prove it? That's intellectually dishonest.
"You're asking me to prove that something didn't happen ..."
I'm asking you to provide evidence for your claim. That's it's a claim that you admit that you can't prove is your problem. If you know you can't support it, don't make the claim. That was the entire point of me asking for evidence—to highlight that you have none.
"...you can't provide evidence it has."
There's another claim. What's your evidence that I can't? Rather, I choose not to because it is not my responsibility to disprove a claim that you cannot provide evidence for in the first place. As a famous atheist said, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." You are asserting something without evidence, so I can dismiss it without evidence. I have no onus to provide evidence, unlike you who does have that onus.
"The fact that you don't get this tells leagues about how well you actually understand logical fallacies."
I appear to understand them much better than you.
"The burden of proof fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone tries to evade their burden of proof, by denying it, pretending to have fulfilled it, or shifting it to someone else."
Which is what you're attempting—to shift it to me.
"A negative claim never carries the burden of proof, and instead of arguing, look it up."
I have looked it up. From the Wyzant Ask an Expert site, we have this from a Philosophy tutor from UCSD: "...we can see why those who make negative claims are just as much under a burden of proof as those who make positive claims--the mere negativity of their claims does not automatically render these claims correct or justified or something that people should embrace. For that we need argumentation/justification/evidence backing those claims."
Your Wikipedia quote talks about what a negative claim is, but does not say that a person making a negative claim has no burden of proof. On the contrary, it actually mentions how people typically fulfill the burden of proof for a negative claim! That clearly implies that there is one. Your own source refutes you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dmarshall8366
"They should have done more due diligence..."
Why? By law, they are not allowed to discriminate against him for his religious views. I saw a reporter say that if the club had discovered this before they employed him, it could have all been avoided. Which means that if they'd done more due diligence, they could have discriminated against him without anyone finding out. Is that what you're endorsing?
"...he has no legal grounds to sue."
I'm no expert on that, but I suspect you're wrong.
"...their policy is in line with the AFL and all sporting bodies..."
How does that mean that he can't sue for discrimination?
"...in relation to gay rights"
Why do homosexuals have special rights in the first place? Why isn't that itself discriminatory?
"...he was the head of a church which clearly discriminates against gay people?"
Clearly? I've actually seen no evidence of it. I think you're making that up in order to defend the indefensible.
"It's like saying I am from the KKK but I am not a racist."
How is it like that? I fail to see the comparison. Racism is a viewpoint. Discrimination is an action.
"Yes and if any administrator attacking another religion openly would meet the same outcome."
What do you man by "openly"? Attacking the religion itself rather than someone holding the views of the religion? You seem to be drawing distinctions that don't exist.
"Neither Essendon or the AFL have vilified his religion..."
They have called his alleged religious views wrong. That amounts to the same thing. You seem to think it's only okay to be a Christian as long as you don't hold Christian views.
"...however his openly stated views are not compatable with those of the club or AFL."
Well the openly stated views of the club and the AFL are not compatible with their own policies! That is, they promote inclusiveness, then exclude someone with different views. That makes them hypocrites.
"He will not get anything and he will not sue."
Can I please borrow your crystal ball?
"His stated views on gay people..."
Actually, the views were stated in a sermon from years before he was there. He hasn't actually stated his views, from what I've seen.
"...are against the constitution of the Essendon Football club ..."
As I said, their own actions are against their own policies.
"He was the leader of an anri gay church,..."
I'm not sure that he is "the" leader, but so what? That would suggest that he's a moral person, which is surely a good thing for a CEO.
"same would have applied to anyone else in any CEO role in any company."
So you're claiming that every other company is as discriminatory against Christians as Essendon Football Club?
"Anyone thing this man could keep his job is delusional."
And yet I'm not delusional, so clearly you are incorrect.
"Best you come back with facts rather than making a fool of yourself."
You mean like you have? Made the fool bit, that is.
1
-
1
-
@dmarshall8366
"Why should gay people have the right not to be discriminated against? "
I never said that they shouldn't have that right. So I don't know why you're asking.
"Whole argument blown apart."
What argument? You've blown apart nothing.
"The Church in question which he headed up is anti abortion and anti gay."
As they should be. Your point...?
"I used the KKK example because if someone is seen to discriminate they are not suitable for a CEO role in any organisation."
The only discrimination here is by the club. You seem to be missing that point.
"If the KKK leader had never said he was against black people would that exonerate him?"
From what? If he hadn't discriminated against 'black' people, then you couldn't (rightly) accuse him of discrimination. Saying you don't agree with someone or something is not discrimination.
"Same applies for the leader of a church who heads an organisation which is clearly anti gay."
Yes, the same applies. As he hasn't discriminated, you can't accuse him of that.
"He will not sue, he has no case ..."
He has clearly been discriminated against.
"...yet more bigotry would come out."
From the club? They are the only ones so far (in this case) that have displayed bigotry. And yet you defend them!
"Not sure why I am bothering, this is over, he is done."
Yep. Crucified on the altar of left-wing identity politics activism. That is cause for condemnation of those who have "done" him. But you prefer to blame the victim.
"You should join that church, seems your own bigotry matches the profile."
What bigotry? I haven't displayed any.
"Essendon have done what any club would have done. "
So you've already claimed—that every other club would be as bigoted and discriminatory. Of course you haven't shown that to be the case.
"...not really a good fit having a homophobic CEO."
What homophobia? You haven't shown that he is homophobic. So that's just name-calling.
"Your true colours are showing and its clear you fully support his obvious bigotry."
Yet again, you're accusing of something you haven't shown to be the case. You don't like his supposed views, so you name-call him, but don't actually shown that he IS a bigot. The club, however, have it on open display.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Sorry, I don’t see where this pastors rights were violated."
He has the right to express his views. That was violated.
"If anyone breaks hate speech laws their gonna get arrested. "
Maybe so, but hate speech laws that label as hate view that one particular group doesn't like are wrong.
"There is no special treatment based on being a person who claims a faith."
That is not the issue. The issue is in stopping people doing something that is entirely okay to do.
"But come on you christians are supposed to be about 700 years more evolved than that other group, right?"
No. Evolution is an atheist myth.
"Do you have the right to free speech? Yes, you do."
No, that's been taken from us. This case is a blatant example of that.
"Are you absolved of the repercussions or responsibilities of exercising that free speech?"
What repercussions? The repercussions of the left being bigots? Why should we have to put up with that?
"Anyway, if gay marriage offends your religious tendencies,..."
The issue is not that it offends. The issue is that it's an oxymoron, as marriage is, by definition, a lifelong union between a man and a woman, and attempts to redefine it are attempts to oppose God.
"If someone tries to force you to have a gay marriage then I will fight by your side to protect your right to not do something that violates your faith."
What if someone forces me to accept the view that marriage can comprise two people of the same sex? Will you still stand with me?
"However if your suggesting two other people can’t do something as it is against your religion then sorry, your in the wrong there."
Being against a religion is not the issue. It's against they way we were designed and the way that we are supposed to be.
" Besides, with the sharp decline in us heterosexuals getting married, and the church losing all those delicious “married at the local church fees”..."
Oh please. I don't know of many churches who charge fees, at least beyond costs incurred and a nominal amount.
"Telling others to not do something because it is against his religion ..."
Again, the issue is that it's opposed to the way that we are designed to be.
"...and then enticing others to hatred publicly..."
That's not happening. You're fantasising.
1
-
@mushmouth789
"Philip Rayment thank you for taking the time to reply. It is ok for us to disagree on some issues and it is refreshing to have polite conversations with people with whom I disagree."
Thank you. I appreciate the comment and reciprocate.
I wasn't denying that there were repercussions. But some repercussions can't be avoided (like dying after being careless with a gun) while others are deliberately inflicted by other people for good or bad reasons. My concern was with repercussions that were deliberate but unwarranted, whereas most of your examples are of repercussions that were legitimate or unavoidable ones.
"The outrage by the shows host and guest is blatantly about a pastor being arrested, not what he was arrested for. "
I strongly disagree. The outrage was about him being arrested for no good reason.
"I’m sure if he looked hard enough he could have found something positive or loving to quote from his book,..."
He did. It's not loving to pretend that bad things are good by not mentioning that they are bad. He was providing people with truthful information because he wants to help them.
"When I read the new testament it wasn’t “let’s hate fags” typed over and over again."
True. But pointing out that homosexuality is wrong (which the NT does) does not mean that you're hating them. The opposite, actually.
"...through with he expressed his hate..."
What's your evidence that he was hating?
"They don’t have the right to say non-christians can’t do that stuff it violates my religion."
They don't. They say that nobody should do that stuff because it violates God's design and standards.
"(can one of the christian community clarify the section and exact quote - thanks)"
Your wording is close enough that you should easily be able to Google it, but you did ask nicely, so it's John 15:18, which, in the ESV, is translated as "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you."
"...so you guys are obsessed with being oppressed,..."
That does not follow.
"...but let’s be honest your not experiencing that in first world countries."
Utterly false. It's true that in first-world countries Christians are not being beheaded, but they are being taken to court, jailed, fired from their jobs, vilified, and otherwise discriminated against.
"...I meant socially not like darwin evolution."
No doubt. But the word gets overused and I don't consider it applicable in the way that you used it. Christians tended to only burn at the stake other Christians with whom they disagreed, and that was for a relatively short period of history. That is, it was more of an aberration than a slow gradual change from A to B.
"Have you ever watched a show called Machines Of Malice? The premise of the show shows how an invention has progressed humanity for example the wheel. Then the next segment of the show was have the church adopted that particular piece of technology to torture and or kill those they didn’t like."
Sound like fiction to me. Yes, Christians have adopted inventions by others, such as the printing press that they used to print Bibles and other literature then introduced universal education so that people could read it.
"Your definition of marriage is the christian definition and therefore only effects people of that faith..."
No, it's God's definition, and is applicable to everyone that God created.
"If your offended on behalf of your version of deity then that is on you."
Offence is not the problem (that is a left-wing invention). And it's not my version of God that is of concern. There is only one God, and if I have any misunderstanding of Him, I'm willing to be corrected. But as far as I'm aware, my understanding is completely in line with what God Himself teaches us about Himself in His book.
"That would be like me forcing you to be a life long student because Odin teaches that gathering knowledge is an absolute must."
Except that, unlike God, Odin doesn't have a say in this. (In fact, there is evidence that Odin was actually a descendant of Japeth, one of Noah's sons, in which case he was definitely no god.)
"I don’t have the right to force my religion onto others and neither do you."
Who's forcing? This is not about forcing, but about the right to speak. In fact Christianity is unlike a number of other religions in saying that you have to choose it; you can't be forced to adopt it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rayoscala3392
"I thought your "not being real" was substantiated."'
You hadn't even tried to substantiate it.
"I.E. The validity of the criminal charges against Trump."
Repeating leftist views does not mean that the charges are valid.
"The DOJ doesn't [mess] around."
And yet they've messed around the the Hunter Biden matter. So no, they do mess around.
"If they're investigating Trump to the extent that they are, then they already have him dead to rights."
And yet with Hunter Biden (at least), it's shown itself to be political.
"Which, by the way, he won't be able to do when he's charged with insurrection."
What insurrection? Some of the BML/Antifa antics were closer to an insurrection than anything Trump was involved with. Another example of the DoJ being political.
"Trump broke the law."
In what way?
"This is reality, not fabrication."
The insurrection charge is pure fabrication.
"Sooner or later, for him and those that think it's all a hoax, that reality will sink in."
Except that the insurrection stuff is, as I said, a fabrication.
"It's going to get rough. Brace yourself."
Against the Democrats, I trust. They are the ones in the wrong here (which is not to say that Trump is perfect).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pineapplepenumbra
"That means that YOU must believe that Slavery is fine, then."
That does not follow. He can still react to changed circumstances.
"It's like you've never read the bible. Its gods change name and nature."
Huh?
"How did the Dead Sea scrolls answer "all" the questions?"
They didn't. He exaggerated. They did, however, show how little the Bible had changed (and here "change" can include what we might today call typos; it's not restricted to substantive change).
"Here's what usually happens from here; I ask a series of questions and the religious person I am talking to ignores most of them, or calls them stupid (because either they don't understand them, or they do understand the implications if they answer, one way or another) or dance around with prevarications and mental gymnastics, and, when challenged, claim that they've already answered the questions, when they quite clearly haven't."
You know, I find that a lot from atheists and leftists. But I know that it does happen the other way too.
"They might even claim that I understand nothing of theology."
From what I've seen, you quite happily misrepresent what the Bible says, so that claim is probably close to the truth.
"Sometimes they call me stupid (something no truly intelligent person ever does), ..."
I've been on the receiving end of that a lot.
"There are some questions I have asked that no religious person has ever had the courage to answer."
Such as?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidenwah3413
"Imagine this scenario:
Labor stays where it is on the spectrum, centre left."
You've lost me right there, because Labor is a long way from centre left. They were centre left when they didn't support so-called same-sex marriage, the trans ideology, unreliable energy, and so on. As Elon Musk and others have said, they were centre-left, now they're right of centre, not because they changed their views, but because the left moved so far left it dragged the centre to the left of them.
"did what I think you would ideally see them do which is move further right after whats just happened."
You mean "back towards the right", not "further right".
"They sort thier [views] out and are now the new and improved,more right than ever, coalition."
More right than ever??
"They are the oppersition."
That's what they are at the moment. I thought you were going to get me to imagine something different.
"Considering we have a soft two party system and the two main players and now more polarised than ever:"
More fiction, given that in some ways they're further left than Labor.
"Do you think the system would break entirely? It's effectiveness would surely suffer right? When would either party ever make concessions to accomplish anything?"
Questions built on sand.
"Im curious about how you see our political landscape suffering or thriving as a result of what you seem to be suggesting."
It would thrive, as people would have a real choice and could vote for a party that doesn't deny science and pander to the woke nonsense.
"Long question but im curious about your opinion if you feel like sharing it."
I thought my view was already clear enough, which is why you were irrationally opposing it.
1
-
@davidenwah3413
"So needless to say as a consequence I don't actually know where our players sit in this arbitrary system because it's pointless to know."
I completely agree that you can't neatly put people into categories. People are far more complex than that. Nevertheless, such terms are not completely false, and are often useful starting points, as shown by your use in your questions. It's not "pointless" to know, even if it's a simplistic way to put it. And so I responded in the context of such terms.
"Put simply good ideas, good implementation and good redundancy are what make any system work."
True. But then people differ on what "good" means in this context.
"Considering we are talking about a governing system you will need to chose which ideas would best serve you. Thats it. No tribalism needed."
I don't consider myself tribalistic. Although politically I'd describe myself as conservative, I disagree with other conservatives on many details. I don't vote for the coalition first unless that is the only choice (i.e. there's nobody standing who is better).
"(We are also ignoring the coalitions storied history with corruption and synergistic relationship with newscorp and Fairfax that is parasitic to the majority of our nation out of convenience for this convo lol)"
But then you show a strong left-leaning bias yourself. You imply (whether you mean to or not) that the coalition uniquely has such problems and Labor doesn't. Further, I reject your caricature in any case. Fairfax have leant heavily to the left (i.e. against the coalition) for several decades. Newscorp also has aspects of its business that leans left, but other parts that are conservative. They are, therefore, the more balanced organisation. As for corruption and being parasitic, you've not shown either.
"So please forgive me, stop being defensive and just answer the question I know you understand."
You're criticising things that I agree with, but I'm not to defend that? And I am answering your questions.
"From what I read in your response what you actually want is the liberals to just go back to what you think they were before they did something wrong."
At the risk of oversimplifying it, yes.
"That is to suggest that it's business as usual and both the coalition and Labor wouldn't become more diametrically opposed as I suggested."
How does changing back to what they used to be but no longer are amount to "business as usual?
"Sorry man, you are intentionally aloof with your explanations and opinions ..."
No, I'm challenging your claims that don't reflect reality, and in the case of that last sentence appear to be self-contradictory.
"...so I have to keep confirming with you what it is you actually think and why."
I suggest that if you want more detail on that, you ask more specific questions than the broad-brush ones you've been asking so far.
1
-
1
-
@Opinionsrnotfacts574
"Your argument against MSM is supported by two presumed facts"
No, it's supported by a lot more than that, including another fact that I explicitly mentioned and which you have conveniently ignored.
"If not for these two claims you would be not so anti MSM."
So you presume to understand my motives, do you? You're quite wrong. I've seen problems with the MSM for decades. I also mentioned social media, which you have ignored.
"Consider a world where both of these claims are indeed factual - consider further that Trump is not a benevolent Billionaire who has decided in his 70's to become a servant of the people but a ruthless sociopathic narcissist who along with his children have decided that the Presidency is the best grift around."
Is this supposed to be a hypothetical (in which case what am I supposed to do with it), or is this a claim that you are making contrary to the evidence?
"In my world you are a blind fool,..."
And yet you haven't provided any evidence of that. It seems to be simply because you have a different view than me, and you must be right because you say so.
"In my world you are a blind fool, the MSM is the only thing standing between Trump and authoritarian rule..."
Well, it's just as well I don't live in your world. I live in the real world.
"Trump is more evil than Adolf Hitler. ..."
Because of all the Jews he killed, I guess. Oh wait—Trump didn't do that; he supported Israel. Maybe it's because of the wars he started. Oh wait, Trump didn't do that either; he arranged historic peace treaties instead.
Oh wait! I know why you think that! Because Hitler killed himself and Trump hasn't! Yep, that's probably it.
"So yes I think what you do is way worse than MSM."
And yet, you have provided no evidence of that whatsoever. Just jaundiced opinion.
"God bless you."
Says the person who demonises Trump despite him opposing abortion, supporting religious liberty, etc., unlike Biden who supports abortion and doesn't care much for religious liberty.
1
-
@Opinionsrnotfacts574
"...you in your infinite real world wisdom have decided that killing babies is far worse that Trump's crimes..."
Well, if you boil it down to those particular issues, then yes, killing people is far worse that what's alleged of Trump.
"...so you throw your weight behind Trump."
No, I simply pointed out that he is a better choice than Biden.
"Notwithstanding the fact that Roe v Wade was decided by SCOTUS in 1973 and Biden was not nor has he ever been on SCOTUS you blame Biden for US abortion legislation ..."
I didn't mention legislation. I said that Biden supported abortion. Not that he legislated for it. On the other hand, Trump reinstated the Mexico City policy that banned financial support for overseas abortions, and Biden reinstated it. So Biden's support was not just moral, but material.
"...while at the same time not attributing any blame whatsoever to Trump who for 4 years sat in the White House and never once lifted his finger to try and challenge Roe v Wade."
Apart from appointing some more good SCOTUS judges, you mean?
"... this contributed to her loss to Trump two months later. To this day no charges have been laid against Hillary for this crime."
The question is why not, and as far as I can tell, the answer is not because the story was fake.
"Hunter's laptop was almost an identically electorally affective news item that broke close to the 2020 election."
Except that it wasn't effective, thanks to censorship.
"MSN decided not to replicate their mistake made in 2016."
First, what made it a "mistake"? Second, was that the real reason, or was it because they favoured Biden. Third, one news outlet did carry it, and were censored by social media. So no, it was not just a case of not carrying it. It was a case of deliberately suppressing news favourable to Trump.
"GIven some 1.5 years later not a single charge against Hunter has been laid..."
Of course not—his dad is in the White House!
"I believe MSM made the right decision not to cover the Hunter story."
I believe that it was outright partisan censorship. If you think the MSM should be allowed to decide what they report, then that doesn't explain the censorship of the MSM source that chose to cover it.
1
-
"These journalists that know nothing about trains or railways found some random thing to clamp onto and start making outrage about."
True, but I'd add that this apparently started with the state(?) opposition.
"Also not all of our trains can run anywhere, the X'trapolis 1.0 cannot run passengers on Cragieburn/Upfield/Pakenham/Cranbourne/Sandringham."
Basically correct, but they were supposed to be able to, and could do so, with a bit of tweaking (in fact an X'trapolis did a test run to Sandringham in the early days, but everyone seems to have forgotten about that). And they have run (as test trains) on the Pakenham line.
"The Siemens cannot run passengers on any lines going through Burnley."
Bit again, they were supposed to be able to, but a stuff-up meant that they can't without shaving back some platforms.
"As a side note, the HCMT's can be reduced to 6-Carriage sets so that they can fit on other lines."
In theory, but Downer doesn't agree.
"They have different names because Metro Trains Melbourne and the 000 responders wanted them to be easily distinguishable."
I can understand the emergency services view, but what was Metro's objection (I don't think they had any say in it), and from a public information point of view, having the same names would have been better.
1
-
1
-
@smedleyfarnsworth263
"Then those planners need to be castigated/removed, it looks a lot like incompetence or whim to me."
Simply because you have a different opinion?
"What particulars would those be?"
Various. But one example is having the flexibility to run express Dandenong-line and Frankston-line trains on the same track, and stopping trains of both lines on the same track, as used to happen from Caulfield in. The problem is that every time you (say) run an express train from Dandenong up the Caulfield Through track, you've lost capacity for a train to Frankston, as they need to cross the route of each other to do that.
"Nice bit of deflection there, it is a short section of the total line NOW."
That's not deflection. That's simply stating how I believe the situation came to be. And IF they end up extending it, then it would have been a good idea to start with a shorter section. You shouldn't just think about now and ignore the future.
"So we just continue to make the difficulties worse."
In some ways, yes. But better in other ways. Not transposing trains that are on different lines goes some way toward preventing delays on one line knocking onto other lines (although drivers still swap lines, so it can still happen). It comes down to what the priorities are.
"Now how long has it been since the practice of detaching/attaching trains at Flinders Street was discontinued?"
I don't recall exactly, but I'd say five or six years. Although I was not talking about attaching/detaching at Flinders Street, but of running three-car trains to/from Flinders Street, as opposed to keeping them on local shuttles. That change was, I think a bit more recent.
"My comment still applies."
I wasn't suggesting otherwise.
"Southern Cross is far more important than a non city sporting area used only for short periods of the week."
Debatable, given how many people use Richmond for sport. Not that I've got figures, admittedly.
"There are many other projects that could have undertaken that would have given better results for less cost."
Perhaps, but I'd be interested to know what projects they might be.
"Oh dear I do apologize, I did not realise I was dealing with someone with such limited comprehension problems."
Or you could just admit that you used "loop" when you would have been better using "tunnel". Yes, perhaps he's nitpicking, but technically he was correct that you used the "wrong" (well, non-standard) term.
1
-
@smedleyfarnsworth263
"No, it is because it looks like incompetence."
Not to me. If it looks like it to you, it would seem to be because you have a different opinion.
"Flexibility is being able to run anything anywhere, a concept that seems to have been lost."
Your point? I said that sometimes it reduces capacity, and you asked for an example. I provided one. Unless you have a rebuttal, you could have simply left it at that, rather than trying to define what flexibility is.
"An even better idea would have been to not undertake it at all and not saddle the network with incompatible systems that will stay that way for the foreseeable future."
What makes it better? Your opinion?
"The priority is running a network that is flexible and can cope with operational problems in a timely and effective manner."
One way of doing that is transposals. But transposals can confuse and mislead passengers. So the passengers don't count? You seem to overlook that there are competing priorities. It can't be all things to all people.
"Not to be a monument to an ego."
Why do you think that it's a monument to an ego? You haven't shown that, and as I think I mentioned, the Metro Tunnel is something that has been devised by transport planners and supported by both sides of politics.
"There is no debate, Southern Cross is the most used."
Okay, fair point. However, let's recap. Your point was that the tunnel should serve Southern Cross, because of its importance. My counter to that was that it should arguable serve Richmond, because of its importance, citing how many people use it. You replied that Southern Cross is more important, which I questioned. But that was getting off track, because my original comment was not an attempt to say that Richmond was more important, just that it was also important, my point being that you can't have everything. How important does a place need to be in order to expect that it must be served? Clearly, that is a judgement call, i.e. a matter of opinion.
Thanks for the list of projects that you claim "would have given better results for less cost." The problem with at least a couple of them is that without the Metro Tunnel, or some other project that you haven't mentioned, they are not achievable without freeing up capacity in the city that the Metro Tunnel does. For example, how would you get all the airport services into the city without freeing up some capacity?
The suburban duplication projects that you mention (Lilydale, Upper Gully, Hurstbridge) are not going to give better results than the tunnel. They are worthwhile, but comparatively minor improvements. The Tunnel frees up capacity in the city that would allow for the airport and Wallan projects, at least.
The problem with the Rowville line is also one of capacity. Much as I'd also like to see that built, you don't have the capacity to run Rowville trains into the city, without building extra tracks, or perhaps having better signalling, such as CBTC. (I seem to recall that an earlier tunnel proposal was to take the tunnel to Caulfield or even Westall, which probably would have provided the capacity to do that.)
1
-
@smedleyfarnsworth263
"An opinion backed up by facts."
Lots of different opinions can be backed by facts. It doesn't change that they are opinions.
"You don’t understand the concept of flexibility?"
Of course I do. What makes you think otherwise?
"Yet again I have to try to get you to grasp the concept of flexibility and how incompatiblw systems hinder that."
No you don't. I understand flexibility. Again, what makes you think otherwise?
"Do you think passengeres do not have the mental capacitiy to cope with alterations?"
I never said that. Getting on a train at Southern Cross to go to Upfield in the evening peak, only to find that it then goes to Craigieburn instead, means the nuisance of having to get off it again, and wait for another. Or, if you miss noticing/hearing the change, you end up on the wrong line. That's nothing to do with the capacity to cope.
"You see there are things called announcement and visual displays to inform and guide them. The sort of things that have been done for decades."
I know. But people have been inconvenienced by that for decades too.
"A Daniel Andrews ego project, those planners would have been told what to design. "
That appears to be true of the Suburban Rail Loop, but not the Metro Tunnel, and you haven't provided any evidence of that, despite me asking.
"A lot of ducking and weaving there."
No, simply clarifying the point I was making.
"Richmond is well serverd now by two stations."
On two groups of lines (Richmond, not Jolimont, which I never mentioned). Southern Cross is well served by almost all lines. Again, you're being selective in what facts you base your opinions on.
"I pointed out how Southern Cross is the most used station out of the three snd is a hub."
Yes, you added in Jolimont as well, to make up the third. Of course Flinders Street is an even bigger hub.
"You asked for some ideas and I gave you some, ..."
I asked for the ideas that "would have given better results for less cost.". Those don't give better results, in my opinion, as I explained. Which means that I've still not heard from you what alternative projects "would have given better results for less cost."
"So you start pushing the tunnel as a solution."
No, not pushing it. Pointing out that the tunnel was designed to free up capacity explicitly to provide for other projects such as some of the ones you propose.
"As for the Airport line, nothing has been decieded about it as it can’t be built because the state is bankrupt."
Yes, the state is bankrupt (not technically, but...), although there was to be federal money involved. However, it simply doesn't follow from that that nothing has been decided about it. On the contrary, it was planned in detail and works were already started, including building trains for it, which we now have.
"Refer to my prior comment. But I am curious to know how this tunnel will free up capacity on the Burnley and Clffton Hill groups."
I didn't say that they would, did I? So that's a straw man.
"But you said the planners deceided that the current design was the one to go with."
What exactly did I say about that? Because I do recall saying that the plan was to do more, but it got cut back.
"...these are suggestions that you asked me for."
No, they are not. I asked for ones that "would have given better results for less cost." And I've explained why your suggestions do not fit that criterion.
"Now you are simply using them for a deflection to draw attention away from the deficiencies in the new tunnel design."
False. I'm pointing out that your argument is flawed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rattusfinkus
"Federal Building the Kurri Kurri Gas-fired power station"
Is that because other government 'green'-energy policies and subsidies for that have put the country's energy into a dangerous place?
"Capital investment in Hunter Valley coal railway network"
If the coal mines are needing more or better rail services, and the government owns the rail system, that is just a response to demand. Just like governments all over the country build roads used by various private businesses of all types.
"$50 million for the Meandu coal mine that feeds state-owned coal-fired power stations."
So they're spending money to get the coal that they need for their own power stations? How does that make it a subsidy?
"$2.8 billion committed to gas purchases for loss-making Power and Water Corporation."
Is that a government corporation? Since when is it a subsidy to purchase a product?
That's just a sample from your list, but the point is that what the climate change alarmists call a "subsidy" for fossil fuel is often just normal business that applies to many businesses. I've even heard of normal depreciation tax deductions in the fossil fuel industry being described as a "subsidy" even though it's something that applies to all businesses.
"State-owned port authorities allocated $31 million in 2021-22 and $179 million in capital works that at least partly benefit the oil and gas sector."
Again, not a subsidy to the fossil fuel industry, but simply government spending on government infrastructure that various businesses use, but because some of those businesses are fossil fuel industries, it's demonised as a "subsidy".
"Brown coal to hydrogen project received $13 million in state funding in 2021-22, part of $100 million committed from Victorian and Federal Governments."
Yes, because the green-left Victorian government is trying to move away from fossil fuels and saw this as a move in that direction, rather than using the massive brown coal reserves for producing electricity.
"$26 million for abandoned mine rehabilitation including coal mines in the Lower Hunter."
How is that a subsidy to the industry if the industry is no longer involved? Yet more grasping at straws to make a case.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bobhawke7373
"If you have faith that's all you should need. Stay out of politics."
You want us to leave politics to the atheists? Sorry, that's silly.
"Demons don't exist."
Evidence please.
"Neither does your God."
Evidence please. Because I know of plenty to say otherwise.
"Your bible is not a history book."
Except that it contains a lot of history. So you got that wrong too.
"Basing reality on fiction is ludicrous."
True. But then we are talking about accurate history here, not fiction.
"So if an opinion is led by religion. Don't expect reality to respect your stance."
For most religions, including atheistic ones, fair enough. But Christianity is based on reality.
"Please tell me one thing in the bible that has been verified using scientific method."
I tend disagree with Josh D on this, because science is a study of things in the present, not the past. But a lot of things have been verified by archaeology (which you might include as science). Like the existence of the Hittites, for one. But yes, even empirical science support some things. That humans exist in two sexes, that living things reproduce after their own kind, that living things are designed (they all have genetic information, which can only come from an intelligence), and much more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Finke.
"I asked you a direct question & was not interested in someone else's interpretation on what formed the basis of your thoughts ..."
Fair enough. But not everyone thinks like you did in this case, so although that's what you wanted, that's not reason to criticise him.
"I am 1st of all atheist & this gives me a great insight while standing on the outside & looking in..."
Outside of what? See my next point.
"...that the people of religion create against different denominations because their differing belief systems..."
Not all religions are theistic. There are atheistic religions too. You could instead call all of these worldviews. So yes, you're outside the Christian worldview, and I'm outside atheistic worldviews but you're inside the atheistic worldview. Being outside you can possibly see things that people inside can't, but then your impressions are coloured by your own atheistic views. One of those is, apparently, to see all religions as though they are basically the same except your own (given your reference to "people of religion").
And then there's the "friction" between an atheist worldview and a Christian worldview. Frictions don't just occur between different denominations of 'religion'.
"... their differing belief systems & the biggest bugbear is the individual "interpretation" of the written word drawn from the same book..."
There's your atheistic worldview colouring things. Not all theistic religions draw from the same book. Presumably you're now just talking about the Christian religion.
And I would dispute your claim in any case. Yes, there's some truth to it, but it's not that simple. Quite often the difference is not between interpretations of the Bible, but between other parts of their individual worldviews drawn from outside the Bible.
"...written by men..."
Pardon? There's your atheism showing again. The Bible claims to be (ultimately) authored by God, and millions of people believe that. You're of course welcome to dispute that, but can't simply state it as self-evident or widely accepted fact, and expect to be believed.
"... & therefore set boundaries as to what is permitted or accepted in this country ..."
I think your sentence was so long that you forgot to make it clear. And I'd point out that there would be far more agreement than disagreement between Christian denominations about what's acceptable. Differences are almost always more obvious than similarities.
"Over time we will see your traditional Christian values diminish due to becoming a minority as other religions will overtake ..."
I'm sure that you don't own a crystal ball, nor do you know an omniscient God, so I'll take that prediction with a grain of salt, specially given that God has reversed trends before.
"...which is why I agree with suzannestrong9748's comment ..."
So you can answer the question too. Should there only be atheist parties?
"...this whole religion in politics scenario causes friction..."
False. Different views cause friction. Whether they are religious views, economic views, atheist views, whatever.
"...by the segregation of your earlier comments above with "The West is built around Christianity. Islam is opposed to Christianity" "
Segregation??
There is a problem with me stating facts?
"but ... reality is that what you're not saying is Christianity is opposed to Islam ..."
Yes, Christianity opposes Islam. I have no problem stating that, but it wasn't relevant to my comments. But what's your point? That we should throw away the Christian heritage that made the West great and has done so much good for the world? Doesn't it make far more sense to stick with what's right and what works?
1
-
@Finke.
"you have read between the lines of my comments & already placed your views right where I had quietly predicted ... "
Presumably because your intent was clear.
"The position I had made regarding Christianity becoming a minority in this country would be driven by the multicultural population growth which practice alternative religions ... "
And your prediction was entirely reasonable, IF you first assume that God won't intervene and change things. Some of those "multicultural" people might already be Christians, and others might become Christians. Why do you think that Christianity has spread around the world? It's not simply by Christians having lots of kids. Most of it is by conversion, which still happens.
"That is where politics will become driven by religious views ... & that is taking place now as we speak ..."
And always has been.
"... as for your question regarding only atheist parties ... if you don't involve religious parties there is no atheist party ... "
False. Payman has never said (and I think has denied) that she is starting an overtly Muslim party. Rather, we expect her party will be implicitly Islamic. In the same way, I was talking about parties that are implicitly atheist. As most parties are. Okay, they may have people who are atheist and Christian and Muslim in them, but some promote atheistic views more than others. Further, atheists often tell me (wrongly) that atheism is simply a lack of belief in God. Similarly, a party that is not overtly religious could, with the same logic, be said to be atheistic. There is no such thing as a neutral view.
"Regarding the Bible being authored by God ... which version of the Bible are you referring to as there are many ..."
More atheistic bunkum. There are numerous translations of the Bible, but for the most part, they are all the same Bible, not different versions.
"all were written by mans hand by mans languages, "
Repeating your claim does not make it any more true.
"... that's why there are so many versions & so many interpretations"
But there aren't many versions beyond different translations. And different interpretations are either trivial in the sense that they make no difference to the basic message, or they are based in part on trying to incorporate worldly views.
"there was a reason why the old testament was rewritten to the new"
Goodness! You know nothing! (It seems.) The Old was NOT rewritten to the New! They are two separate parts of the same Bible. Obviously you've never read one.
"you will note I use "interpretations" a lot because I hear so many ..."
Such as...?
"The law in this country as you would well know doesn't allow discrimination against religious beliefs ... "
Thanks to Christianity.
"My position of being non theist is to be neutral ... "
No such thing, when it comes to such beliefs.
"one doesn't have to be religious to do what's right & to make things work ..."
True. But one has to believe in God to have a basis for knowing what's right. Otherwise, what's "right" comes down to your opinion. And in most cases, atheists have unconsciously adopted their beliefs in what's right and wrong from the historically-Christian Western societies that they were raised in.
1
-
"The moral cowardice of leaders reflects the moral cowardice of the majority of the public in the West."
There's truth in that. However, I think that we can equally say, the moral cowardice of of the majority of the public reflects the moral cowardice of the leaders in the West. After all, if the politicians aren't going to stand up for what's right, why would the voters?
As one commentator put it:
"One of the most pervasive themes in the Bible is the power of leaders, for good or ill, to shape people. So pervasive is this theme is that it has nearly proverbial status: As the king goes, so goes the people. We see it over and over in Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles. Think Deborah, Gideon, Eli, Samuel, David, Solomon, Ahab, and Zedekiah. In Scripture we read a typical statement like the one regarding Asa on the influencing power of the King/President,
“He did evil in the eyes of the LORD, walking in the ways of Jeroboam and his sin, which he had caused Israel to commit” (1 Kgs 15.34)."
1
-
@seekrengr751
"God's original intention was for Himself to be the leader..."
Before the Fall? Yes, I expect so.
"...only when the people clamored for a king did He give them one."
First, God gave them leaders before that, including Moses, Joshua, and various judges.
Second, that's a common view, and one which I used to hold. However, there is reason to think otherwise. God had promised Abraham and Jacob that their descendants would include kings (Genesis 17:6, 17:16, 35:11), and the law given to Moses gave job requirements for a king for when Israel got one (Deuteronomy 17:14-20).
Under this view, the problem with the Israelites asking for a king was their motive, not the fact that they asked.
"Modern nations with self-government (of the people, by the people, and for the people) are NOT supposed to "follow the leader", they are supposed to follow right principles given by Him."
Part of the history of Christianity has been God's people reminding the leaders that they too are to obey God; they are not a law unto themselves. At least to that extent I certainly agree with you.
"I'm sure a similar statement could be made for the numerous other nations governed by any of the other parliamentary forms of self-government, where "leaders" are rightfully intended to be servant administrators, not "kings". "
Agreed.
"They are not supposed to "rule", nor are they supposed to provide a moral compass (which they clearly don't)."
On that latter point, I disagree. They most certainly should provide a moral compass, in the sense that they, like everyone else but more so, should be an example to others. Perhaps you mean that our moral compass should be Jesus, which I'd agree with, but leaders should also reflect the same moral compass.
I was relating what happens in practice (that people will be influenced by their leaders), not trying to prescribe what should happen (that all should be influenced primarily by God).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ChickSage
"I composed a response but it wont post so IDk"
Yeah, I've often had that problem.
I presume you mean that it will post, but then gets either hidden or deleted. I think the only times I've ever had a reply not post at all, it was because the reply exceeded a word/character limit, but it needs to be more than around 8,000 characters for that to happen. Most of the time its simply hidden after posting, and can be seen if you have a link to the actual post. However, you can't post such links! But hidden posts can still be found in your comment history (do you know how to find that?). I have sometimes successfully reposted replies that have been hidden the first time. At other times I can repost comments by breaking them up, changing some wording, etc. It can get tedious trying to find something that works, but it's often an option if you're prepared to put in the effort.
One reply I had trouble with, I managed to get posted by changing a personal name in it! The name was the male one from the nursery rhyme of two people who went to the top of a hill to get a bucket of water! I changed the name to a different name, and the post was accepted! Bizarre!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@redlightmax
"Yes - just because something's traditional doesn't automatically make it positive."
True, but neither does it automatically make it negative, yet you treat it as though that does make it negative.
"Same-sex marriage being banned used to be traditional, but we changed that because we live in the 21st century, not the middle ages."
True. But then the Middle Ages had it right, and we have it wrong. Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron, because marriage is, by definition and design, the lifelong union of a man and a woman.
"Conservatives try to stop the world from changing, ..."
Only in bad ways.
"...but the world changes anyway ..."
Which conservative applaud, if it's a good, well-considered, change.
"that's why conservatives always lose in the long run."
Except that they don't. Conservatism is still strong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@adrianthom2073
"your definition of marriage comes from the Bible."
Yes, the Bible, which was from God, the One who invented marriage, so that make it the correct definition.
"And the Bible definition of marriage is wrong."
Because...? Simply because of your (incorrect) idea on the chronology?
"Marriage is a tradition that is far older than the Bible, and this tradition was hijacked by Christianity."
You claimed that my definition came from the Bible. Yes, that is correct. But that doesn't mean that it didn't come from God, before the Bible. The Bible simply records what God said and did, including what He did in creating and defining marriage.
"...this tradition was hijacked by Christianity."
What's your evidence for that? The Bible does, of course, predate what is known as Christianity.
"...the Bible is a book of fables, myths and fairytales."
The book that many archaeologists, historians, and scientists say conform to the facts? What's your evidence for that?
1
-
@adrianthom2073
"how do you know the Bible is from God?"
It claims to be, it is endorsed by God Himself (a.k.a. Jesus), it contains information that only God would know, and despite it being 'ghost-written' by multiple human authors from three continents and various backgrounds over a period of at least 1,500 years, it has a consistent theme and message throughout.
"How can marriage come from Yahweh or the Bible when the tradition of marriage predates the Abrahamic religion?"
By realising that your concept of "the Abrahamic religion" is incorrect. Christianity is following Christ, with "christ" being the Greek word for the Hebrew "Messiah", that Judaism knew was coming. So Christianity is the continuation of Judaism. But Judaism is the worship of the creator, the God of Abraham, Noah, and Adam (among others, of course). As such, it actually originates with God and Adam and Eve. And it was with Adam and Eve that marriage originated.
1
-
1
-
@adrianthom2073
"What is your evidence that Adam and Eve existed? …. The Bible"
Primarily, yes. Genetic evidence is consistent with that.
"According to our current understanding of Evolution,..."
We are talking about the biblical account here, not a competing view. I know what that competing view says, but ...
"...that is the evidence Adam and Eve never existed. "
... a competing view is not evidence. If it was, then the biblical view would be evidence that evolution is wrong.
"We humans are great apes and share a common ancestor with not only all apes but all species on this planet."
According to that competing, naturalistic, view. But I don't accept naturalism, which is contradicted by the evidence.
"Are you able to provide evidence of any kind popping into existence ..."
What sort of evidence do you think I should be able to provide of any living thing "popping into existence" at the time of creation? Video?
"...that does not share a common ancestor with another kind?"
Yes. And I believe that I already have, although it's not in this thread. Genetics shows that living things reproduce "after their kind" (to use the biblical term), such as dogs giving birth to dogs, not cats. Of course that's a very simplistic description, and a lot more detail could be provided, but we know how new life is formed, and it can only be as a copy (not an exact copy) of its parents. More precisely, it's based on half the existing genetic information from each parent; with no new genetic information involved. Therefore, dogs can only produce other dogs—they cannot become something else. (Of course we might call their offspring something else, such as when have dogs, dingoes, and wolves—all the same kind (canine) but we give them different names.
Not only that, but scientists, despite looking, have been completely unable to find evidence of living things generating brand-new genetic information, such as would be required for, say, reptile lungs to evolve into bird lungs.
"You made the claim that marriage comes from the Bible,..."
No, I said it comes from God. We learn that from the Bible, but it didn't "come from" the Bible.
"...but unable to provide any country that follow biblical law regarding marriage."
And you were unable to show the relevance of that. Perhaps I need to qualify that I'm referring to a country following the biblical definition exactly. That is, many countries have laws around marriage that are based on the biblical definition, but have fiddled with them to a greater or lesser extent.
"Many countries now allow same sex couples to marry."
Which is a contradiction in terms, as marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman.
"The Bible does not endorse..."
True.
"...and in fact states that homosexuals are to be killed."
False.
"The writings of the Old Testament are my evidence that the Messiah it prophesied is not Jesus. It descriptions of the Messiah do not match Jesus."
Repeating your claim is not an argument. You need to, for example, show how the descriptions don't match Jesus. And I've heard stories of Jews who were not that familiar with the Tanakh (Old Testament) and were shown by Christians that Isaiah in the OT prophesied about Jesus in chapter 53, and could not believe it, so went and got their own copy of the Tanakh to check it out, because the description matched so well. (Of course they found that the same description was in the Tanakh, and Christians hadn't faked it after all.)
1
-
@adrianthom2073
" how is genetics consistent of an Adam and Eve ...?
Find the article "Adam, Eve and Noah vs Modern Genetics" by Dr. Robert Carter.
"...when genetics show all life on this planet shares a common ancestor?"
How does it supposedly show that? No, that is a naturalistic interpretation of the evidence.
"The Bible is not evidence for anything."
Why not? (Your analogy is invalid.)
"Claiming the Bible to be evidence for events in the Bible is no different to saying the Lord of The Rings books is evidence for all the events in Lord of The Rings."
The Lord of the Rings is known fiction (we know who wrote it and when and why, and nobody claims it to be reality), whereas the Bible claims to be history and the known history is consistent with it. Why did you use a known work of fiction rather than a known book of history in your analogy? Because the analogy in the latter case would not support your point.
"A competing view is evidence when the competing view is supported by evidence."
No, the evidence is evidence. Not the competing view. Cite the evidence, not the view. But note also that evidence can be understood in different ways by different people. For example, in the Oscar Pistorius trial, scientists working for both the prosecution and the defence gave different explanations of the same evidence. So not only do you have to cite the actual evidence, you have to show how it is consistent with the naturalistic view and inconsistent with the creationary view. Can you do that?
"The claims made in the Bible have no supporting evidence."
And yet I have given you some. So again, you're simply in denial.
"Your understanding of logic and reason in extremely misguided."
Says a person who doesn't understand the difference between a view and evidence and who says that I haven't given evidence that I have in fact given. And who repeats claims that I've already shown to be wrong.
"Sorry but your understanding of Evolution is completely wrong."
And yet you've pointed out no error in it.
"You may want to educate yourself on the subject instead of watching Kent Hovind videos on Evolution"
I've rarely watched a Kent Hovind video. I educate myself on the topic from scientists who were taught evolution and in some cases even taught it themselves, including one or two I can think of who wrote textbooks for it. On the other hand, you might want to educate yourself on the subject of creation instead of just watching anti-creationist videos.
"Biblical Marriage tradition is between a man and a woman."
God-designed marriage is between a man and a woman.
"But the concept of Marriage predates the Bible..."
Yet again, repeating your claim that I have already answered and you have not refuted does not constitute and argument.
"many cultures marriage allowed same sex marriage."
Not that it's relevant, but I don't believe that's accurate. What cultures?
1
-
1
-
@adrianthom2073
"genetics show all life on this planet shares a common ancestor?"
Genetics does not show that. This is an example of where you need to distinguish between the evidence and the interpretation of the evidence, or the conclusion you draw from the evidence. Genetics shows that all life uses the coding system we call DNA. It also shows various other similarities between different living things. But why are they similar? The naturalistic conclusion is because they share a common ancestor. That is, the common ancestor bit is a deduction from the evidence. But it could also be explained by all life having a common designer, who used the same design principles for all life. Just like a Volkswagen Beetle, a cheap family car, and a Porsche, a powerful sports car, both have air–cooled, flat, horizontally–opposed, 4–cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities, because they both had the same designer, Ferdinand Porsche.
So no, genetics does not show what you claimed.
"The Bible is not evidence for anything. Claiming the Bible to be evidence for events in the Bible is no different to saying the Lord of The Rings books is evidence for all the events in Lord of The Rings."
Actually, most of your post you have already posted before, and I have answered it. Including this bad analogy with the Lord of the Rings books. Repeating your claims that I have refuted is not an argument. And yet you accuse me of not understanding logic!
"Sorry but your understanding of Evolution is completely wrong."
You haven't shown it to be wrong. That's argument by assertions. A logical fallacy. From someone who claims that I don't understand logic.
"You do understand that people who wrote the New Testament had copies of the Old Testament? Not hard when writing the New Testament to make prophecies look to be fulfilled..."
Oh? Really? So when the OT says that he would be born of a virgin, how do they arrange that so it's fulfilled?
"...yet the Old Testament still fails this."
And yet you don't say how it allegedly fails. More argument by assertion.
"Both works the Old and New Testament are fiction."
A claim you keep making, but keep failing to show.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GragoryBell89
"hey, you dont need to get an abortion if you dont want. that's the beauty of having a choice."
So will you support giving the baby a choice? I didn't think so, so your claim is vacuous.
"no one is favouring abortion over birth control options."
By promoting abortion (yes, promoting it) when there are birth control options available, then yes, they are favouring it.
"planned parenthood, which teaches sex education and distributes birth control for free to schools keeps getting shut down"
Because they kill babies, and they can't survive without doing that. And other sources can provide sex education and the pill.
"more conservative areas pushing abstinence as a birth control, which is proven to be the most ineffective birth control method because you can't stop horny teenagers from having sex."
So it's actually only ineffective because people are not using it! Wow! Who would have thought? Which would be down to all the media pushing of extra-marital sex. And false, you can stop teenagers doing it if you educate them properly.
"you're completely misunderstanding the issue."
No, he's not the one misunderstanding it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@turnerfamilyinozi
"Though you refused to check out the distance..."
I didn't refuse. I asked for clarification about the route. You provided that, but also provided the answer at the same time.
"...and made many excuses not to,..."
False. My request for clarification was totally justified; it wasn't merely an excuse. You're not arguing in good faith.
"...you now know it."
So? It's not relevant.
"I have read the account but don't believe it, ..."
Not believing it is different to pretending that it doesn't even provide a reason.
"As I have pointed out there is no record of it outside the bible ..."
So there's apparently no record of it apart from the widely-available record of it in a proven-reliable source. Ummm, so what?
"...Jewish archeologists have found no evidence of 2m people wandering around the Sinai only a few thousand years ago."
So your argument is a lack of evidence? You should know that that's non a strong argument.
"So tell me, do you believe the story is factual and if so why?"
Yes, because it is recorded in a reliable source.
"I think you find that all the answers are there. Will you respond to them?"
Of course. See above. But what about you answering my question above: Why do you think that they were lost?
Actually, I have some more questions:
* Do you believe that the Israelites were in Egypt at one stage? If not, why not?
* Do you believe that they left Egypt and settled in Canaan, conquering cities there? If not, why not?
1
-
1
-
@simonharris4873
"Just don't engage with flat earthers like Phil."
More name-calling, where there should be rational and civil debate.
"they'll lead you round in circles with their cherry picked data, the source of which is aways highly questionable."
A throw-away line without basis, and at least I sometimes give sources, but I rarely get them in return.
"...only to completely ignore it and then shift the goalposts, rendering it moot and making you start again."
What utter nonsense. Moving the goalposts is something turnerfamilyinozi is guilty of. In another thread, he asked for evidence of the Israelites being slaves in Egypt, and when I provided some, his answer was "Yet according to the Bible 600,000 men ... fled Egypt.", which doesn't refute my answer, but simply moves the goalposts to another claim.
"He loves making you go to all the effort of constructing a valid argument,..."
It seems you don't know what a valid argument looks like.
"Anyone who takes the bible as literally a Phil does would have to be a flat earther."
Anyone who thinks that would have to be an atheist, given that they're the ones that made up that myth solely in order to discredit Christians. (And here's one of those "highly questionable" sources for you: See "The Myth of the Flat Earth" by Professor of History Jeffrey Burton Russell on the website of the American Scientific Affiliation, and please, tell me how that source is "highly questionable".)
"That is a fair call."
Utter nonsense, and showing your ignorance.
1
-
1
-
@indiathylane2158
"PJ barely responds."
Nonsense. I respond a lot.
"They have to control all aspects of the conversation."
More nonsense. I have no control over what people responding to me say.
"You answer my questions, now, but I'll ignore yours."
You know, the Bible wars against people who call black white. That is what you're doing here. I do NOT ignore people's questions, but they frequently ignore mine. YouTube didn't notify me of these responses, but turnerfamilyinozi challenged me on another thread why I hadn't answered his (baseless) question about being a flat earther, so I went looking and found the additional responses here. But on that other thread, I also pointed out that he hadn't answered a number of mine, which he had an onus to answer as they were about things he'd claimed or said. So it's actually the complete opposite of what you've just claimed.
"In fact they barely contribute opinion or fact; instead constantly demand you defend yours. "
There is some truth to that. Because I rarely make claims that need to be defended, whereas they do, so they get more challenges.
"It's ego, power and dogma-driven."
No, it's truth-driven. Unless of course you produce actual evidence for your abusive ad hominem claim about me. See, there's me requiring you to answer for your claim, because you have an onus to do that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@turnerfamilyinozi
"You could always show where I am wrong. But you won't will you?"
I'd first challenge you to support your claims.
"Remember that the ancient Greeks were not Christians."
Unfortunately for them. But I'm not sure how that relates to your question.
"Why Christianity?"
Because it's the basis of a) Western Civilisation, b) and therefore the country of Australia, and c) the most successful and beneficial civilisation that has existed.
"According to the 2016 census only 52% of Australian residents claim to be Christian. Which is down on the 2011 census."
That the left have managed to marginalise Christianity is all the more reason to teach students about all it has done.
"Have a think about all the advancements in science before before Western culture or Christianity even existed."
What advancements in science? It was Christians who invented science. Yes, there were advancements before, including by the Chinese and the Greeks, but they don't constitute science according to numerous scholars.
But there's another aspect that you've overlooked. Christianity is not really as recent as you think. Christianity is based on Jesus Christ, the messiah that Judaism expected, so Christianity is really a continuation of Judaism (you've heard the term 'Judeo-Christian?). And Judaism is the worship of the creator God, known (among others) to Moses, Abraham, Noah, and Adam. So Christianity really traces all the way back to the beginning. And therefore all people in history have their ancestry in people who knew God, and have often recorded some aspect of that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robertholland7558
"it is a fact, whether you realise and accept it or not!"
Because you say so?
"Hittites? Sorry never heard of those."
That's your problem. The point is that the Bible recorded their existence, and their existence has also been found by archeologists, so your claim that "There is not one ounce of truth in the Bible!" is false.
"Jesus might have lived,..."
In which case the Bible is again correct on that point, so again your claim is false.
"...but he did not write the Bible!"
Did I claim that He did? No. So that's a strawman.
"Christianity gave birth to Western democracy? The Greeks did, centuries before Jesus and Christianity!"
I said Western Civilisation, not Western democracy, and pointed you to evidence. Did you look at that, or ignore it? And Western democracy is different to Greek democracy in any case.
"Yes I return the Falou offensive straight back at him, and I will retract and apologise as soon a Falou does. again, ..."
But still with no evidence that he did anything wrong.
"Jesus would have never ever uttered such words,..."
How would you know? They are in the Bible.
"they are Falou’s words, his vile disgusting interpretation!"
No, he was (a bit loosely) quoting the Bible. Again, you are wrong.
1
-
@robertholland7558
"you keep saying I am wrong, without any evidence."
Yes, I do, because you provide no evidence. I, on the other hand, provided some evidence.
"If you do not believe my truth, facts, do your own research!"
It is not my job to find evidence to support your claims. That's your job. I have done my own research, which is why I've given you evidence.
"Clearly it is pointless to continue, so as I suggested let’s agree to disagree."
It's pointless as long as you continue to ignore evidence and make baseless accusations. Agreeing to disagree implies that this is just a matter of opinion, which it's not.
"To be clear I disagree with your argument, that is different to stating they are wrong,..."
That depends on whether you present it as merely opinion, or whether you express it as a truth claim. You're doing the latter.
"if you happen to meet Falou, tell him to apologise, ..."
For what? He's done nothing wrong! If you happen to meet anyone on the RUA board, please ask them to apologise for discriminating against him.
"I certainly would, and likely get the same “the Bible says” response!"
Because it's true.
"The Bible does not say any such thing,..."
Not really correct. His text was from the Bible; the image was not his, but basically covered things that the Bible talks about.
"...burn the darn vile evil disgusting book!"
That book provided the basis for Western Civilisation, as you'd know if you'd bothered to research, including the very video I pointed you to on that topic.
1
-
1
-
@robertholland7558
"as opposed to your blind faith in your religion?"
It's not blind faith. Christianity is evidence-based.
"We clearly disagree, just agree with this..."
Yes, I agree that we disagree. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.
"...stop your pointless argument!"
What makes it pointless? I see a point in correcting your ignorance.
"...the Bible is nothing but a set of fictional stories, ..."
I've already shown you otherwise. But here's more. William F. Albright, a well-known archaeologist, said "There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of the Old Testament tradition." Or another well-known archaeologist, Edward Musgrave Blaiklock: "Near Eastern archaeology has demonstrated the historical and geographical reliability of the Bible in many important areas. By clarifying the objectivity and factual accuracy of biblical authors, archaeology also helps correct the view that the Bible is avowedly partisan and subjective. It is now known, for instance, that, along with the Hittites, Hebrew scribes were the best historians in the entire ancient Near East, despite contrary propaganda that emerged from Assyria, Egypt, and elsewhere."
"The origins of the Bible are still cloaked in mystery."
Not so.
"When was it written?"
Over a period of at least 1500 years, from around 1500 BC or earlier to about AD 90.
"Who wrote it?"
Numerous people, including a prince and national leader, a king, prophets, a doctor, and others.
"And how reliable is it as an historical record?"
See the quotes above. Here's another, from Sir William Ramsay, a sceptic of the Bible who went to the middle east to research the issue, and changed his mind on the basis of the evidence: "Luke is a historian of the first rank ; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy ; he is possessed of the true historic sense ; ... In short, this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians"
1
-
@robertholland7558
"religions are NOT evidence based, or there not be so many of them!"
I never claimed that "religions" are evidence based. I said that Christianity is evidence based.
"From the little research I did it clear that the origins of the Bible is at best sketchy, still definitely not being consensual ."
It's definitely not agreed on by all, as there will always be atheists who will disagree if they can. But that does not mean that it's "at best sketchy". A lot IS known.
"Faith, is by its nature, blind."
Most words have a range of meanings. Yes, there is a definition of 'faith' that is loved by atheists that means that. But that's not the only definition, and NOT the one used by the Bible. So no, you are wrong on that claim.
"Your so-called “evidence “ is anything but, it is pure conjecture, ..."
What's your evidence of that?
"...but it certainly is not “exclusive gospel” by which one should life. "
Again, what's your evidence of that?
"But feel to continue your pointless argument,..."
Pointless because you'll not agree despite the evidence? After all, I've given you evidence that you have completely ignored.
"...but quoting religion and the Bible, ..."
You're completely unable to understand English, you're quite careless in reading, or you're lying, because the only quotes I gave you were from archaeologists, not from 'religion' nor from the Bible.
"...so narrow minded and restrictive."
Says the person who claims various things without evidence and ignores the evidence that he is given.
1
-
1
-
@robertholland7558
"what evidence have you provided that God exist?"
As I said, as much evidence that you have provided that He doesn't exist (which is none).
"I have tried reading many versions but those paragraphs markings are just to confusing."
You have trouble with paragraphs? Where and when did you learn English?
"That you never heard the saying religion is for cowards demonstrates how narrow minded your religious believe system makes you."
That conclusion simply does not follow from the premise.
"Unlike religion that is just a made up explanation of that which we do not understand, ..."
Not in the case of Christianity (nor Judaism). As I said, it is based on evidence. Or perhaps you can provide evidence that it's just made up? Otherwise I'll think that that comment is just made up because you don't understand it.
"And yes one can lump all religions, just as one can lump all poisons, they all kill, some slowly some quick, some painful, some painless."
Just because you can lump all X together doesn't mean you can lump all Y together. But sure, you can lump all religions together in very specific circumstances in which the differences don't matter. That's not the case here.
"Just like religions they al brainwash, the all seek power and control, all have weird and wonderful “ sacrificial rituals” practices"
Evidence?
1
-
@robertholland7558
"awesome so you agree neither of us have provided “ none” evidence either way."
Yes, I agree that I have not provided any. However, that does not mean that I can't.
"But something must be proven to exist for it to exist."
So before Pluto was proven to exist, it didn't exist? That's nonsense. Things can exist without being proven to exist.
"The Bible is just a book, like millions of other books."
Millions of Christians disagree, so what's your evidence for that?
"Those that follow it are nothing but subhumans, for real humans do not follow, nor lead, they are side by side!"
How do you define "real humans"? Besides, humans treating other humans as inferior has been around for a very long time, while it is the Bible that has taught us that we are all equal. So you are actually invoking a biblical principle in order to denigrate those that follow the Bible!
"He would not allow you to follow him in his footsteps, he carried you, because you fell short of being human enough to keep walking beside him!"
That's a bizarre claim. In fact the (fictional) story is that he carried you because you were not able, as a human (made in the image of God) to do it by yourself. Yes, we are less than Jesus, because Jesus is God. That does not mean that we are subhuman.
"That also means he was not a leader!"
He was a servant leader. That is, someone who leads by serving the people he leads. Much business management is actually done that way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RowleyBQC
"The existence of God is unfalsifiable,..."
As is His non-existence, but you made that claim anyway.
"...meaning that it is impossible to prove that he doesn't exist ..."
So you admit that you made a claim that you can't back up? How is that intellectually honest?
"...on one hand there is no one definition for God..."
We are talking about the God described in the Bible. So that narrows the question down sufficiently.
"...no evidence to either prove or deny "it's" existence."
What's your evidence that there is no such evidence? Because I know of plenty.
"Ah, so since St Nicholas became the basis for Santa, Arnold Schwarzenegger became the Terminator, does that mean the Terminator is real?"
Given that I didn't claim Santa as we know him is real (my point was just that, unlike the others you mentioned, there was some basis for him), then that's not a valid analogy. And it's also not valid in the sense that one is based (albeit loosely) on a historical character, and the other is an actor playing a known fictional character.
"You did say you had evidence of God's existence though, I'm intrigued by this, please, you have the floor, present your evidence..."
I challenged you first, so you have the onus to support your claim first. If you can provide evidence, or if you retract your claim on the grounds that you have no evidence, I'd be happy to then present mine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marcelocoelho4107
"you accuse others of "lumping all religions in together, despite their vast differences" and yet try to somehow standardize atheism?"
I was "standardizing" it? How?
"Please keep in mind, atheism isn't a set of dogmas or beliefs one subscribes too like religion, ..."
I disagree. But see below.
"... it's the lack of said dogmas and beliefs, so there isn't anything "according to atheism"..."
On the contrary, according to atheism, God doesn't exist. (If you think He might exist but aren't sure, that agnosticism.) And other beliefs necessarily flow from that. For example, the world was not created by God. People were not created by God. And so on. Further, moral standards—right and wrong—don't come from God, and therefore moral standards become, ultimately, a matter of opinion. These are all atheist beliefs (even if the last one is not well known).
"atheists will in fact often disagree with each other, ..."
As will Christians.
"...simply because we do not have some common shared belief set we all subscribe to"
You're making the very argument that you're criticising me over, but on a different scale. I wasn't complaining about people lumping all Christians in together, but all religions, because "we do not have some common shared belief set we all subscribe to". Even within Christianity, you have Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestant, and within Protestantism you have various different groups. What all those have in common is belief in God as described in the Bible. Sure, atheists don't agree on everything either, but they do have in common a belief in no God.
1
-
@Sly News
"yes a bbc article can say that and Hindus can still be the most persecuted religion globally."
That's theoretically possible, yes? But what's your evidence to counter the research?
"So yes a small amount of Christians are getting very persecuted in some parts of the world, specifically the Middle East. But outside of there they got it pretty good."
The article doesn't say that. It says that Christianity faces being wiped out there, but doesn't say that it's "pretty good" everywhere else. According to research by Open Doors, the top ten countries where Christians face the most persecution are, in order, North Korea, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Pakistan, Eritrea, Yemen, Iran, Nigeria, and India. (See the article "The 50 Countries Where It’s Most Dangerous to Follow Jesus in 2021")
"That doesn’t change from the fact that on a global scale Hindus are the most persecuted religion in the world."
What's your evidence for that "fact"?
"I didn’t say 2 different places or if I did I meant things."
That was a copy/paste quote, but I took it to mean 'things' anyway.
"It is illegal to refuse service based of ones personal views."
What law is that?
"At least in most first world countries. It’s part of the policy of retail in Australia."
Policy? Or Law? What law(s)?
"If you advertise you will provide a service, example ‘ice cakes and write a personal message’ then you are required to do so."
You may be right, but then this case was not in Oz, and apparently in the UK (a first world country) it's not the law.
"...the Woolworths store will still need to provide that service, whether it is by getting another staff member to do it or a manager. "
What law is that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marcelocoelho4107
"That is a matter of perspective really, if you consider believing gods exist as a fact, so atheists indeed "believe" it doesn't,..."
It's not clear what you're saying, but there is only one God. An atheist believes God doesn't exist just as I believe that fairies don't exist.
"... if you start from the perspective that all the evidence points that gods don't exist, then to consider their existence is a "belief",..."
If you start from the perspective that all the evidence points to God not existing, then you believe that God doesn't exist.
"keep in mind that one doesn't chose to "join" atheism, at least in my case, i just started questioning the "common" wisdom passed through my family and reached my own conclusions based on the available evidence."
All you're saying, I think, is that atheism is not an organised religion. But it's still something that you came to believe.
"Again, not "beliefs", there is simply what the geological and fossil evidence shows us,..."
So you believe. But in fact the geological and fossil evidence doesn't show that at all. The geological and fossil evidence just is, and we all try and explain how that came to be in some way. You believe that it came about naturally, whereas I believe that the supernatural was involved. Early geologists saw the rocks and explained them as the product of Noah's Flood. Later geologists who didn't believe in a personal God chose to believe that they occurred through processes we see happening today. The actual evidence doesn't say anything. (That's not to deny that some evidence is more consistent with one view or the other.)
"...and commonly accepted conclusions derived from then."
Not universally accepted, and of course being the majority view doesn't make it right.
"...morals are also partly determined by cultural norms, what is considered right or wrong varies greatly all over the world,..."
True enough. But my point is that if morals don't come from God, they are a matter of opinion. So all you're saying is that some people's morals don't come from God, but from cultural norm. However, that cultural norm is either from God or it's from opinion.
"...and again I'm seeing a common bias here, keep in mind that the Abrahamic God is not the only one that people believe,..."
Of course not.
"...and in fact, Abrahamic religions have very low presence in places like Japan, if we assume that morals come from God as a fact, Japan would have none, which isn't the case."
Actually, that's a non-sequitur, because you've assumed that because most Japanese people today don't believe in God (i.e. the one, true God), then God has not influenced their thinking at all. However, everybody, including the Japanese, have descended from Adam and Eve and from Noah and his family. So you haven't eliminated the possibility that the Japanese cultural morals didn't originally derive from God.
"Yes, but all of then share a core set of beliefs,..."
As do atheists: That there is no God, and other beliefs that flow from that.
"...take for example the twitter crazies, more commonly know as "sjw", they are technically atheists, but my opinion of them is that they are insane, atheism is just a catch-all group for those that don't believe in gods, like your example, it would be the same as me saying that ALL religions share the same beliefs, ..."
I think you are arguing over a matter of degree. My point in my last comment is that beliefs within Christianity vary by X amount, whereas beliefs within 'religion' varies by Y amount, where Y is much larger than X. You're arguing that the differences within the atheism camp are closer to Y than X. That is of course something that can't be measured, so is a matter of judgment. I readily acknowledge that views within atheism have a fair range, whatever that range actually is.
However, let's look at it this way, assuming that it was possible to measure such things. Suppose that all Christians varied in their beliefs by 20%. That is, they agree on 80% of what they believe, and disagree on the other 20%.
Extending this (and still inventing figures), suppose instead of looking at Christians, we look at monotheists, and found that the disagreement figure was 35%. Then we look at all 'theistic' religions (as an atheist might describe that, including pantheistic and polytheistic views), and the figure jumps to 50%. If we add in atheistic religions/views, is the figure going to increase? I'm not sure that it would, at least by much. The point is that all, or at least most, religions/worldviews/philosophies fall somewhere into one of the following: pantheism (all is god); polytheism (many gods), monotheism (one God), or atheism (no God). Atheists tread the first three as 'religion' and separate out their own as non-religion, even though the 'religion' category encompasses everything except their own views. But further, do atheists really think that things like Scientology, Confucianism, Mary Baker Eddy's so-called Christian Science (which is neither), and Zen Buddhism are not religions? I think that they include those things into the 'religion' category, but very conveniently exclude 'standard' atheism. As such, it's really just special pleading.
1
-
@Sly News
"you do realise all Catholics are in that count right as well."
Yes. How does that change anything?
"You are the extremely biased Christian here, ..."
Biased in a good way or a bad way? If the latter, how so?
"...with so much loyalty to your religion flavouring your point of view."
Absolutely! I'm glad you noticed! The Bible teaches us to be honest, that evidence is important, and to check claims that are made even by our own side. So yes, my Christianity does flavour my point of view. Atheism, on the other hand, does not teach any of that (which is not to deny that many atheists will do that anyway), so they are free to slaughter millions (as Stalin, Mao, and others did) and lie (e.g. the lie that Christians used to believe in a flat earth), etc. So does your atheism flavour your point of view?
"Also like I said, literally in the article that you use to support the Christian persecution argument it literally says in ‘Muslim majority countries’..."
As I said, the BBC article I mentioned did not have the word "Muslim" in it. Which article are you talking about?
"...seeing most Christians ... live in a western countries founded by said religion."
I gave you figures suggesting otherwise.
"It can be stated yes outside of the few countries that they are killed, harassed, tortured in the vast majority aren’t persecuted."
Actually, you've just moved the goal posts. Outside those that are killed, harassed, and tortured, many other are still persecuted, albeit in less-violent ways. Jonathan Fox did a study of religious discrimination and an article on his research said that "...Western democracies such as France, Germany and Switzerland engage in more government-based religious discrimination than many countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America." That's apparently not talking about Christians in particular, but it's talking about Western countries in particular.
But apart from that, I'm not claiming that a majority of all Christians are persecuted; just that it's the most persecuted religion. I've offered evidence of that, which you've tried to minimise, but you've not offered evidence that Hinduism is more persecuted. Another report says that "almost 340 million Christians around the world—or 1 out of every 8—live in a country where they suffer some form of persecution, such as arbitrary arrest, violence, a full range of human rights violations and even murder."
1
-
1
-
@Sly News
"so you randomly quoted countries and numbers. While ignore like the 900million in Europe."
False. I quoted the top ten countries. Nothing random about that. Europe is not a country. Further, your 900 million figure is incorrect. The current population of Europe is about 750 million, and of that about 76% are Christians, which comes to about 570 million.
"also you know your “genocide’ is just mass migration btw."
First, that is patently false. They are two different things. The article says that the first causes the second, not that the first IS the second. Second, I wasn't making a point about genocide, so your comment is not only wrong, but irrelevant.
"idk how my atheism could be effecting my point of view."
I pointed out how it could be. If you still don't know, it means that you didn't read what I said.
"If anything I could be the most impartial about who is the most persecuted."
Yes, you could be. And you also might not be. I'm at least presenting figures and conclusions of studies. You're not (or are getting them wrong).
"Christians aren’t that persecuted in the grand scheme of things."
Authorities say otherwise, and you're not offering evidence to refute that.
"The figures you have literally do support my argument."
That depends on your argument, which you've shifted on.
"You listed like 1 billion Christians mostly in first world countries..."
Your claim was "first world western countries". This is an example of you shifting your argument. It's hard to argue against a moving target like that. My figures did NOT support that claim. What do you consider "first world"? One source I found said that "There is no universal way to define a first-world country." So without defining what you mean, you're making a claim that could mean almost anything.
"...and forgot the other billion also in first world countries that are Catholics."
I forgot nothing. I listed the top ten countries for Christians, which includes Catholics.
"Just because they don’t make the top 10 doesn’t mean they don’t all as up."
I never said that they did. But you claimed that "1.5 billion of them live in the first world western countries", which would leave 700 million in other countries, yet I showed that just in the top ten countries there were 625 million in countries that are not "first world western countries", which strongly indicates that your claim is false. Of course, you are now changing your claim.
"Second off whether you believe in higher power has zero to do with how evil you are ."
Evidence?
"Yes Stalin and mao may have been atheist. But literally every other tyrant in history believed in a higher power so that’s a null point."
No, it's not a null point. And I wasn't talking about just any "higher power", but specifically about God/Jesus. Christians who are tyrants are acting inconsistently with Christianity/the Bible, because it teaches that people should not be tyrants. Stalin and Mao were acting consistently with atheism, because it has no such teaching. Instead, it teaches that right and wrong is down to human opinion. Their opinion was that it was okay to slaughter millions.
"Ghengis khan was a spiritual man, killed millions."
He wasn't a Christian. Some say he was a Tengrist, while another source says that he was a deist. Perhaps he was both. A deist is a bit like an atheist—he believes that there is a God that created, but then had nothing further to do with His creation. That is, the Deist god is not a personal god like that of the Bible; so he sets no standards of right and wrong. If anything Genghis Khan tends to support my case.
"So stop playing the victim like some sjw."
I'm just giving you the evidence that I'm aware of. You're not giving any evidence to support your basic claims.
"Yes Christians are persecuted. No they are not the most persecuted. Not even top 5."
Not according to the studies that I've referred to. And you haven't presented any evidence that they are wrong. You're just nibbling around the edges.
"Why are you even arguing with me."
In order to correct the misinformation you're presenting. Why are you arguing with me?
"Save yourself some time and just google most persecuted religion and read."
I did. And I told you what it said. For some reason you're not taking your own advice.
"let’s just agree to disagree."
You can stop arguing any time you like, and I'll stop too. But if agreeing to disagree implies that we are both unable to show the other to be wrong, then I can't agree to that. I have presented evidence, and you have not successfully countered it.
"Conversation like this are best done in person, way to much writing for a smart phone."
They aren't the only options. I use a desktop computer.
"Especially when I can’t read it as I’m replying to you as to make sure I got everything."
And yet you keep missing my requests for evidence for your claims. Funny about that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Sly News
"... second least in fact."
That's a misleading claim, given that in that list it is the fourth most, apart from various other smaller religions that were lumped together in "Other" and "Folk Religions". If each religion was listed separately, Christians would be fourth on a much longer list.
But how relevant is this list to the original claim? Yes, Jews top the list, with 99% of Jews living in countries where they are harassed. But Jews make up 0.2% of the world population, so that's still a quite small figure.
But you have made something of a case (finally). I guess it depends on how you define "the most persecuted". By sheer numbers, by percent of the group that is harassed, by percent living in countries where they are harassed (which doesn't mean that 99% of Jews are harassed), or what.
The same article (assuming I found the same one you were looking at) said that Christians were harrassed in more countries (128) than any other religious group (next was Muslims at 125 and Jews at 74).
Back to relevancy: The claim was that Christians were the most discriminated-against religious group; it was not that more Christians lived in countries where discrimination occurs. So you're still trying to refute the original claim by making different claims, i.e. claims about different things.
"also while we are on the subject of proof."
We weren't. I was asking for evidence, not proof.
"You have not shown me one ounce of proof supporting your view that Christians are the most persecuted religion."
I have given you evidence. That is just blatantly false.
"You had one bbc article that talked about how persecuted Christians are in Muslim majority countries."
False. As I have said at least twice before, the article did not even contain the word Muslim. It was not about that.
"Then proceeded to use your lawyer speak to poke wholes in my statements,..."
What "lawyer speak"? I was just using rational argument.
1
-
1
-
@elemar5
"I did not make any claims."
You made some implied claims (i.e. in the form of loaded questions or opinion) and some actual claims.
Here are the claims you made:
* (implied) "Islam, Buddhism and many other religions" have "The same evidence", and "people of other religions have just as much evidence for their beliefs as you do have for yours"
* (implied) That God is a "fictional character".
* "You have not provided any evidence,..."
* "you are repeating the hearsay you have been indoctrinated with"
* "You have not provided any concrete evidence..."
* "...and continue to put the onus on me"
There were more, but they are perhaps the main ones. The main one of concern here is your claim that I have not provided any evidence. That is, literally, a claim of yours, that you have not provided any evidence for.
But even that is not too much of an issue to me. My main point is that I have provide some basic evidence of my claim, and you first simply denied it, then, although implicitly acknowledging it, still ignored it.
So no, I'm not mental.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelirish1445
"Don’t you find it sad that there are so many 1000s of churches with different interpretations ..."
No. First, as I said, there are thousands of different church organisations, not necessarily having different interpretations. Those figures that are around that I presume you are referring to count the Victorian Baptists as separate to the New South Wales Baptists, because they are different organisations. It doesn't mean that they have different interpretations. Also, the Wesleyan Methodists believe pretty much the same as the (former) Methodists, but the latter had a church heirarchy where everything was controlled from the top while the latter is more like the Baptists in being an association of independently-governed churches. It's not a difference in biblical interpretation, but a difference in how best to organised the group. Another example is when a mission group, such as the Anglican's Church Missionary Society might go and start churches in another country, and when there are enough of them to stand on their own feet, those churches become a national church in their own right, rather than being part of the CMS. And by the way, those figures also count the Australian Catholics as separate to the American Catholics, as, again, they are separate organisations.
Second, it reduces the likelihood that any one church will become drunk on power, as happened to the Catholic Church, as power corrupts.
Third, people have different preferences, so it gives people a wider choice of worship styles and the like.
That's not to deny that there are some different interpretations of biblical teaching.
"and what egos that created them stroking ego breaking away, "
They were not all created by egos.
"...and then there is the tax free donation that go to luxury cars and sometimes private jets, ..."
And the Catholic priests who abused children, but you would object to me generalising that to all of them. Yet that is what you're doing.
"or all the [nonsense] about wealth in the original church the art and buildings belong to all including yourself."
I never mentioned the wealth of the church being an issue. In fact I have defended churches—including Catholic ones—on the grounds that much of that is in fixed assets that cost money to maintain, and that many priests and ministers are actually poorly paid because of a lack of income.
I don't see how those artworks and buildings belong to me, though.
1
-
@michaelirish1445
"The Art and wealth, you own it because the wealth of the church is for service, the art is public not a self centred private collection..."
This is a minor quibble, not a major issue, but what does it mean to "own" something? It means that I can made decisions about what happens to it and how it is used. I can't do that with the church's collections. I have no say in it.
"He left after realizing that all his other Baptist Pastors had and preached their own take and in conclusion they were head Pope of there small church, ..."
It's not clear how you are using the word "Pope" in this context. The Oxford dictionary defines it as "The Bishop of Rome as head of the Roman Catholic Church." Clearly that could not possibly apply to Baptist pastors. If you're using the word to refer to someone who is the head of the (local) church and who has the sole authority to interpret the Bible, or something along that line, then that is contrary to my experience. The pastor is under the authority of the church leadership and members.
"... Australia, US etc are the same interpretation,..."
Yes, that was my point. Same interpretation, but different organisations, so counted separately in that number of thousands. The number, therefore, does not represent that many different interpretations.
"Regarding Monsters/podophiles. ... and obviously it should be utterly 0%."
Obviously. And the same applies to Protestant pastors who have their own jets, etc. That's my point—if you want to criticise the churches generally, you don't pick on the bad ones as if they are typical. As you did.
"The fact is all other Churches and boy scouts etc had a much higher rate..."
I don't believe that is a fact at all. And although I've looked and found an article about JWs on this, it didn't compare it to Catholics to confirm your claim. But again, I'm not trying to say that Catholics are/were worse. All I'm saying is that you don't judge the church on the actions of the bad apples in it.
"Personally I simply don't see the other churches getting there hands involved in these things..."
I'll grant you that Catholics have been very strong on these issues, and many liberal mainline Protestant churches haven't been. But other Protestant churches have also been quite strong on it. It's not all a one-way street. And some (definitely not all) of those Protestant churches have been much better than the Catholic church on sticking to the Bible's account of creation.
"Love to hear your feed back."
Well, now you have it!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Wolfways
"Of course Zimmermann's books would claim that, he's a christian."
And Christians are liars, right? On the contrary, Christians take seriously the instructions and examples in the Bible to tell the truth, to check that claims are correct, to base their views on evidence, etc. Yes, it's true that not all Christians live up to what the Bible says, but in general they do. Atheists, on the other hand, although manyindividual ones might be as honest as anyone else (having been raised in a historically-Christian culture), have no basis for being honest, and many aren't, sometimes inventing faults in Christians, such as the entire furphy about Christians once believing in a flat earth.
"Of course Zimmermann's books would claim that, he's a christian."
And of course you would reject that, being opposed to Christianity. If you can invent an ulterior motive in him, I can do it in you.
"Of course Zimmermann's books would claim that, he's a christian."
He is, as I mentioned, also a legal scholar who has studied the situation. Why do you focus on the Christian aspect and ignore the legal expertise aspect?
"No, they were based on the ever changing culture and christians take the credit."
Evidence please.
"It's not like new laws just popped out of nowhere. If laws were based on the bible the west would be in a much worse situation."
How does that follow? On the contrary, here's Tom Holland, a non-Christian historian, talking about the letters of the Apostle Paul in the New Testament:
“... compacted into this very very small amount of writing, was almost everything that explains the modern world [the Western world] but also the way that the West has moved on to shape concepts like international law, for instance, ... concepts of human rights, all these kinds of things. Ultimately they don’t go back to Greek philosophers; they don’t go back to Roman empiricism. They go back to Paul. Paul, really, his letters are, I think, are, along with the four gospels, the most influential, the most impactful, the most revolutionary writings that have emerged from the ancient world.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
TheRedMenace12
"It was Moses who took down the Ten Commandments, not Jesus."
"took down"? God Himself wrote the Ten Commandments; they weren't dictated to Moses.
And Jesus is God, so you seem to be splitting hairs.
"The Ten Commandments are part of the Old Covenant in christianity. Jesus preached love, tolerance, and humility."
Jesus also taught that (for example), hating your brother violated the command against murder, and lusting after a woman violated the law against adultery. You seem to be cherry-picking. Also, where did Jesus explicitly teach tolerance? (I'll accept that He taught it by example; is that what you meant?)
"You won't find maga wanting to post that anywhere."
Maga? Maga is not a person who posts things.
"Maybe you'll catch on someday, but not by worshiping Trump."
Where did he worship Trump? And could you perhaps be conflating support with worship?
"Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. No apology."
Where did he walk like a duck? That is, where did he act like he was worshipping Trump?
"Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck."
"walks like a duck..."
"walks like a duck..."
Repeats like a parrot.
"Anyone reading the comments will see you back maga. I have nothing to prove to you."
I can't. Which is why I've challenged you on it. You do have the burden of proof.
"To suggest Jesus was intolerant is blasphemy."
It depends on what He is intolerant of. He is certainly intolerant of sin, but tolerates sinner.
"But, so is worshiping Trump over God."
But who is doing that? It seems to be in your imagination.
"Not the hate and vengeance of the false prophet Trump."
What hate and vengeance? And what make him a prophet, false or otherwise? It seems that you are the one with hate—for Trump.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chinaskee1015
"God is not a trinity."
And yet the Bible says otherwise, which makes you wrong.
"This is just more of what Paul told all the Greeks..."
No, Jesus Himself claimed to be God. Which would be where Paul got it from.
"This is ... what Paul told all the Greeks ... in order to convert them to his new religion."
What's your evidence for that being his motive?
"Most of what you know of Christianity comes from Paul, not Jesus."
But Paul got it from Jesus' disciples, who got it from Jesus Himself.
"He preached his new religion to uneducated Jews..."
Evidence of it being only uneducated Jews please (and if you're saying that it was both educated and uneducated Jews, your point crumbles).
"...as a way of getting revenge on the Jewish community who had made a pariah of him for carrying out arrest warrants for people who were essentially 1st Century "Jews for Jesus." "
Again, please provide evidence of that being his motive.
"For starters I don't even know if there is a hell, having never been there before."
By that logic, I don't even know if there is an America, having never been there before. But in each case, I do have it from authoritative sources that it exists.
"And , if there is, I don't think anybody is going to hell for lying, since it isn't a capital crime."
According to who? You? The Bible clearly says that lying IS a capital crime: "The wages of sin is death".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@UncleSamuelGATA
"Also, separation of Church and State is a must."
But what do you mean by that? The idea of church state separation came about because in England the state controlled the church. It was never meant to say that the state should have nothing to do with theistic religion.
"Possible,..."
More than possible. See for example Augusto Zimmerman's Christian Foundations of the Common Law volume 2: The United States.
"...but irrelevant since ... they are found in almost every country's laws."
Evidence please. Christianity is the basis of Western Civilisation, so you'd expect other Western countries to have similar laws. But Christianity has also influenced other countries too, so perhaps many of the countries got those similar laws ultimately from Christianity.
"And that's before you get into the fact that much of the Bible are just rehashed stories from things that came before it."
Evidence please. Including that those things that "came before it" actually do predate them being in the Bible.
"...the thing is much of what people say the Bible dislikes Jesus displayed no such dislike himself."
Examples/evidence please.
"And yet many of those that claim to be Christian support things that Jesus was actually against and or didn't seem to care about one way or the other."
The operative word there is "claim".
"Not for trump supporters it doesn't."
Evidence please. I will accept that for some Trump supporters it does, but for many others it doesn't.
"That's why they claim God chose him despite him saying he doesn't need God and couldn't recite a single thing from the Bible."
That's not an argument. In the Old Testament God also chose non-Jews to do things.
"Jesus lead by example. He was tolerant."
He was tolerant of some people who didn't know any better, but He was not tolerant of sin, and not tolerant of the religious leaders who should have known better.
"You're one of the first I've seen to claim Jesus wasn't about tolerance."
Perhaps that indicates your limited exposure to such things. Yes, He did display tolerance in many situations, but it doesn't follow that He was "about" tolerance.
"Even if this is true (and it may not be) ..."
Again, see Augusto Zimmerman. It essentially is true.
"... it wouldn't make a difference since commandments like "Thou shall not kill" are practically universal in laws even before the popularity of Christianity as well as in other countries that weren't Christian."
This is false. For just one example, historian Tom Holland has said that “In the age of Cicero, Cicero’s great contemporary Caesar is, by some accounts, slaughtering a million Gauls and enslaving another million in the cause of boosting his political career, and far from feeling in any way embarrassed about this he’s kind of promoting it, and so when he holds his triumph, people are going through the streets of Rome carrying billboards boasting about how many people he’s killed.”
"That sounds confusing and or different from what others, who intend to agree with you, have said."
It might sound confusing, but it's not.
"... you could be interpreting the Bible incorrectly in this regard."
Theoretically possible, but if so, millions have got it wrong, and you haven't shown that he/they have.
"This is one of the reasons no religion should be the center of a nation."
That doesn't follow. And if not for Christianity, the world wouldn't have many of the good things that it does have. Which kind of contradicts your non-sequitur opinion.
"And there's faiths that say the same thing about you."
So? It doesn't mean that they are equally-valid/correct claims. Otherwise you could respond to someone saying that the earth is round by pointing out that there are people who claim that it's flat.
"Some of those being a different denomination of Christianity."
For the most part, that's false. Yes, different denominations vary in many ways, some of which involve things like the structure of the church government, but they are largely in agreement on the fundamental points, which what he was referring to is an example of.
"How can you say with absolute certainty that your chosen faith, and your chosen interpretations of it, are 100% correct?"
How can you say with absolute certainty that your given name is actually your name? We are convinced of things on the basis of the evidence being very strong, as in the case in question.
"Which part of Judeo-Christian beliefs is freedom of speech?"
The part about us having free will and all being equal under God. If anyone is free to speak, then we must all be.
"What about no religion being enforced ..."
Belief in God is something that you have to choose to accept; ergo, it can't be enforced.
"... nor disparaged against?"
No, that's not there, but then where is it in U.S. law? And if it is there, why is Christianity often disparaged?
"How about the laws that are the same virtually everywhere, even in places that aren't Judeo-Christian in origin and or existed before the Christianity became popular?"
Already answered above. Except that I noticed how you switched from Judeo-Christian to Christianity there.
"No it isn't. This is objectively false given many of the stories are actually remixes of stories told long before Christianity even existed."
First, that's illogical, because nobody claims that many of the stories don't predate Christianity. Beyond that point, what's your evidence? Because many such claims I've seen turn out to be false.
"Even the Christmas we celebrate today is actually a Pagan holiday and not actually when Jesus was born."
And that's an example of such false claims. No, it's not of pagan origin. What's your evidence that 25th December is not when Jesus was born? The earliest known reference to Jesus' birth being on 25th December was in about 200 AD in Hippolytus of Rome's Commentary on Daniel. The earliest known reference to a pagan festival on that date is about 75 years later (a proclamation), and the earliest known evidence of the pagan festival actually being celebrated on that date comes another 80 years after that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TheRedMenace12
"If public schools teach religion at all, they should make it a broad survey including more than Christianity."
You say what you think should happen, but you don't make a case as to why, let alone do you address the argument I made.
It seems that you are basing your opinion on an atheistic view that all religions are of equal value, a view that is clearly at odds with reality.
"Nearly a quarter of the world's population is atheist (China) and another quarter Hindu (India)."
Not that such figures are relevant to this issue, but according to figures I've found, atheists worldwide account for between half and one billion people, which is around one sixteenth to one eighth of the world's population, and around one billion Hindus, i.e. around one eighth.
But then many atheists are in countries where it is/was essentially illegal to be anything else, so if you have to force people to accept it, what does that say about its merits?
"If your church is responsible for Australian morals,..."
A claim I never made nor even hinted at. In fact a completely ridiculous claim given that there's no way one church in one suburb could possibly do that.
"If your church produced good witnesses, you wouldn't need to try to take over the public domain."
I never said that we were trying to. I was arguing about your attempted justification of non-Christians controlling the public domain! You're attempting to find fault with me for supposedly doing what you yourself are doing! Doesn't that make you a hypocrite? Or sorry, perhaps it's just double standards.
"Modern Australia is based on criminals and punishment. Nothing to do with Christianity."
False. If your "modern" Australia refers to British settlement with penal colonies, that did have a lot to do with Christianity. One of the reasons that that began is because of Christians in Britain (the so-called Clapham Sect, of which slave abolitionist William Wilberforce was a member) who encouraged the government to send criminals to Australia as a more humane alternative to housing them in overcrowded and rotting prison hulks on the rivers in Britain. A church minister accompanied the First Fleet bringing the first prisoners and settlers, so that it could start with a Christian foundation.
1
-
1
-
@jasonaltig985
"my “excuse” is apparently having a higher standard of evidence then yourself."
Yes, and given your lack of evidence for that claim, I'll treat it as an excuse, and not a reason.
"If he has provided such evidence please provide your finest example."
That's up to you. No, not to find the evidence, but to decide which is the "finest" example. My point (as I alluded to previously, but I'll expand on now), is that many people have been convinced by the evidence, which couldn't happen if there wasn't sufficient evidence! One example is investigative reporter Lee Strobel, an atheist whose wife became a Christian, so he set out to show that she was wrong, by using his investigative experience to discover and study the evidence. And ended up becoming a Christian because of the evidence. Other examples I can think of off the top of my head include J. Warner Wallace and Josh McDowell. So clearly there is enough evidence to convince even some sceptics. What will convince you, however, I can't tell—so that's up to you. But the point is, your implied claim that there is insufficient evidence is shown to be wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dianeallen5803
"No, a political entity can't be both a republic and a democracy."
And yet it can, and the U.S. is. See more below.
"By definition, a republic is a representative form of government."
Yes. According to Oxford, "a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch."
"In a democracy, the people govern, not their representatives. "
That's a true or direct democracy like they had in ancient Greece. Most if not all democracies today are representative democracies. Including Australia which is also a representative form of government, but is a constitutional monarchy.
Oxford again (my bolding): "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. "
What form of government a country has is a lot more complex than you might think. Have a read of the article "Republic Countries 2024" at WorldPopulationReview. After explaining different forms of government, it includes this statement: "Like many other nations, the U.S. is considered a hybrid government and is simultaneously a constitutional republic, a representative democracy, and a democratic republic."
1
-
@simonharris4873
"You'd rather you child be taught that evolution is a myth?"
Why not? It IS a myth. Or perhaps you can cite your best evidence for it?
"Religion is belief without evidence."
In the case of Christianity, you are flatly wrong. Maybe in the case of atheists religions you'd be right.
"Evolution is supported by a plethora of evidence,..."
Then cite your best example. By the way, that's called 'elephant hurling', it's the fallacy of claiming there's a lot of evidence but not citing any.
"...so no, it's not a religion."
Wrong, according to atheist/evolutionist Michael Ruse:
“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—...—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
“… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.”
"Nobody should have the tight to teach that which can so easily be demonstrated to be false."
I agree, which is why they should stop teaching evolution. For one, there is no known mechanism for evolution to generate new genetic information, and the only thing suggested, mutations, demonstrably does not do that (in any worthwhile sense); rather, it destroys information. The actual evidence is against evolution.
"Ok flat earther, what ever you say."
Name-calling is the best response you have? You can't actually show that you're right? (Well, of course not, but you'd think you'd at least try.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Tony-ci7ys
"Darwin claimed his theory isn't even against religious view,…"
Actually, he knew the effect it would have on religious views.
"…every priest I personally know has actually always claimedevolution is of course true."
So, you know a limited number of priests, and those you know reject what God told us.
"IDK where these lazy guys get their delusions about religious stupidity from. Only protestants do such things, catholicism has always been based on realism."
What religious stupidity? You've not shown that it's stupid. And no, catholicism has not always been based on realism. The fact that much of it accepts evolution shows otherwise.
"Every catholic priest I know would literally tell you that Genesis is "a fairy tale" - I've been hearing this in multiple churches since my childhood from many of them."
Then you should ditch those priests that don't accept what the Bible says.
"Because that is what it is - its author never claimed Creation story to be the truth."
On the contrary, the language is that of narrative, and the top experts in Hebrew agree that it was meant to be taken as read. Not to mention Jesus and the New Testament authors accepted it as history.
"So you seem pretty hilarious to me like those guys that claim Bible teaches that Babylonian tower event was the one that multiplied languages... no."
Except of course it does.
"There are plenty of languages mentioned before this event in the Bible."
Where? I don't know of one place.
"So to conclude, the best question here would sound like: IS GENDER IDEOLOGY IN ACCORDANCE WITH EVOLUTION?"
Given that evolution is the atheist's origin myth, why is that even a relevant question?
1
-
1
-
@Daniel31216
"How can you say evolution is a myth?"
Because it is.
"All scientific theories are based on the things we observe."
Which rules out evolution as a scientific theory. Goo-to-you evolution has never been observed.
"How can you just say it’s a myth without disproving the evidence?"
It's been shown to be faulty over and over. What do you think is the best evidence for it?
"Obviously a dog won’t produce a non-dog. That’s not how evolution works."
And yet evolution claims just that sort of thing, such as dinosaurs becoming birds.
"Evolution is when a population gains a random mutation. Not an individual animal."
First, it's the individuals in that population that have mutations. Second, evolution requires a lot more than just mutations.
"And through natural selection, that mutation will determine how the species evolves."
Natural selection simply selects. It's role is to eliminate less-fit individuals. It doesn't explain where you get the supposed more-fit individuals (or populations) from.
"If it was a mutation that helped the species, than the individuals with that mutation will have a better chance at life and the ones without it will die off."
The only mutations that help the species are ones that cause a deterioration, such as beetles on windy islands losing the ability to grow wings. But they remain beetles and don't become anything else, and in a different environment they will be worse off.
"Which is why evolution is a theory and not a proven fact."
Agreed. A theory is an explanation of how something works. But it first has to work. Evolution doesn't.
"And there is plenty of evidence of mutations that happen in different animals."
True. And the vast majority of those mutations are bad ones. They don't produce new things, except in extremely trivial amounts which are swamped by the bad ones.
"For example, random parts that serve no purpose in some animals, that have a purpose in other animals."
Apart from duplicating something that already exists (which of course has a purpose), what evidence is there of this ever happening?
"And this can also be observed in fossils…"
No fossil shows this happening. They are inanimate.
"…that contain these random parts that link to different species."
Such as? And how is that "link" shown, or is it simply assumed due to similarity?
"This is evidence that points towards these animals having a similar ancestor."
And this is one of the problems with the claims of evolution having evidence. Sure, similarity is evidence consistent with a common ancestor. But it is also evidence consistent with a common designer. So, sans further evidence, it is not evidence that supports evolution over creation. And yet evolutionists frequently make this logical fallacy.
"It just takes the stuff we can see and makes the best possible theory about why it happened."
"Best" is a matter of opinion. And given that the scientists a priori rule out any explanations involving the supernatural, it's not scientific. You can't claim one explanation as "best" when you haven't even considered the alternative. That's a circular argument.
"…we’re always looking for the best possible answer."
The best possible naturalistic answer. Which may not be the best answer at all.
"Dogs did evolve from non-dogs, but non dogs did give birth to a non-dog. That was the argument you made, which is absolutely nonsense."
No, that is a misrepresentation of what he described your argument to be.
"Like I said, evolution is random mutations and natural selection. Not animals give birth to different animals."
But if dinosaurs only gave birth to dinosaurs, where did birds come from? Yes, I know that the change was supposedly gradual, but you must at some point say that a dinosaur gave birth to a non-dinosaur, even if you can't identify that point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@simonharris4873
"The bible says the earth is flat. It's quite clear on that." and "Daniel 4:10-11 and Matthew 4:8 would not be possible unless the earth were flat."
So, in essence, you lied. In neither of those passages does it "say" that the earth is flat, let alone being "clear" about it. This sort of intellectual bankruptcy is why many critics don't even deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt.
As Luum81 correctly pointed out, the first one is part of a dream. It is not meant to be teaching anything about the earth. Further, it's the dream of a pagan king. So at most, you could argue that the pagan king thought the earth was flat. But that's not the end of the problems. The references to the earth in that passage can equally be translated "land". It may not even be referring to the entire planet.
You're on slightly more solid ground with the Matthew reference, but Luum81's answer to that still demolishes your claim.
"Why would the devil need to take Jesus to the top of a high mount to show him this?"
It says that he did take Him. It doesn't say that he needed to.
"Why does the bible say that the earth is fixed firm in so many places? Chronicles 16:30, …"
Chronicles is a poetic passage, and says that the earth "cannot be moved", not that it is "fixed firm". For one, that could imply that it cannot be moved by anyone trying to move it. But also, why take it to refer to physical movement? Why do we say that a person cannot be moved in their opinion of something? That's not a physical restriction. The earth cannot be moved off its orbit, perhaps.
"Sounds a like like flat earther talk to me."
Sounds like a critic scraping the bottom of the barrel to find something, anything, to fault.
"So you're saying the bible is open to interpretation?"
In some places, and to a limited extent. Yes. Just like carefully-written laws can be open to interpretation, but judges don't normally allow that to stop them having an understanding of what the law means.
"In context, the earth being set on its foundations, it's pretty clear what it means."
Again, you're taking a poetic passage as though it's narrative. Poetry can make correct statements, but any time you find yourself quoting poetry as if its literal fact, you need to justify that.
"Poetry? LOL. That's a good one."
And completely accurate. "Psalms" is a word meaning songs. Poetry that is sung. There is also poetry in other parts of the Bible. A modern translation will clearly show that by how the passage is laid out.
"Either it's open to interpretation, or it's not. If it is, then nothing it says can be taken literally."
That is a non-sequitur. See my comment above about laws.
"So either it says the earth is flat,…"
Which it clearly doesn't.
"The bible contains errors and contradictions."
And yet virtually every such claim I've seen fails to withstand scrutiny.
"Why do you think it claims PI = 3?"
First, it does no such thing. It makes no reference to pi, and makes no attempt to teach the ratio between a diameter and a circumference. Besides, why do you think it's wrong? What do you think the value of pi is, if it's not 3?
"Let's start with the CMBR. Your turn. please give us some factual evidence for the creation as described in Genesis."
The universe exists. Thanks to the Second Law, it has not existed forever. Therefore it had a beginning, prior to which it didn't exist. Nothing can create itself, so logically, the entire natural universe must have been caused by something non-natural, or supernatural. Or do you want to reject the principle of cause and effect and propose that the universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere?
"Big bang theory predicted it [the CMBR], then it was discovered."
In fact there were numerous predictions, and when it was discovered, it happened to be close to one of those predictions.
"Suffice to say, the only people who disagree with this are doing so from a religious standpoint, not a scientific standpoint."
The only people who agree with this are doing so from a naturalistic standpoint, not a scientific standpoint, given that science works on the principle of cause and effect.
"Catholicism... Realism? Galileo might disagree with you there."
No, he wouldn't. He was, after all, a Catholic, and many in the Catholic church and universities supported him.
"First, how is denying the earth orbiting the sun an example of a realist?"
Who denies that?
"I've provided examples for my claims."
And they've been shot down.
"…there is zero evidence for God."
Evidence please. And I'd be sure that I've asked you that before, and got nothing in return.
"It doesn't matter "exactly" how it went."
It does, actually.
"They tried him for heresy, ordered him to stop making his scientifically based claims, and threatened him with the death penalty."
He actually had little evidence for his claims (even though he turned out to be right). And his views were accepted by many scientists in the church, but disputed by others. The trial came about because he offended the pope (effectively calling him a simpleton), even though the pope had been a supporter of his. His scientific views were the excuse, not the cause.
"None of these people did what Jesus would have done,…"
How so?
"…so to say they were asked for being Christian isn't being very honest, is it."
It's being quite honest.
"Especially when they weren't fired for being Christian, they were fired for vilifying others with their offensive behaviour."
Well, at least in one case, what was claimed to be offensive behaviour. It wasn't. In Thorburn's case, it was nothing he did at all. It was the fact that he was associated with a church that taught (Christian) things that some people didn't agree with. Yes, it was "offensive" because some are offended by the truth. Offensiveness should not even be a reason.
"I know he would tell you to take the plank of wood out of your eye."
What plank? She's right.
"What he's not known for doing is vilifying people who were minding their own business and causing harm to nobody, the way your examples did."
Thorburn didn't. Folau was answering a question he was asked. So no, you're wrong yet again. (I don't recall Higgs.)
"They were just vilifying people who weren't harming anyone."
False again. You're trying to excuse anti-Christian bigotry with invention.
" "Faith" means belief without evidence. That was Jane's point."
False, as I'm sure I would have told you before. That is one meaning of it, but not the meaning that the Bible uses. That atheists have to be so intellectually bankrupt to make such arguments does them no credit.
"The dictionary defines faith as "strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof." "
"The" dictionary? There's more than one, you know. Googling attributes this to Oxford, but like all dictionaries, multiple meanings will be listed for words. Oxford (online) gives as its first meaning "trust in somebody’s ability or knowledge; trust that somebody/something will do what has been promised". Nothing there about a lack of proof. It's second meaning is "strong religious belief". Again, nothing about a lack of proof.
Collins' first meaning is "If you have faith in someone or something, you feel confident about their ability or goodness." Nothing there about a lack of proof.
Wiktionary's first meaning is "A trust or confidence in the intentions or abilities of a person, object, or ideal from prior empirical evidence." That contradicts your claim.
"Any other questions?"
Yes. When are you going to back your claims with credible evidence?
continued...
1
-
@simonharris4873
... continued:
"That's why you have an imaginary friend, and claim he built the universe."
What's your evidence for Him being imaginary, and that He didn't create the universe?
"You yourself have provided several quotes in which the bible says the earth is a flat, 2D construct."
No, he didn't. He provided several quotes which you chose to interpret that way. Visually, a sphere appears from any particular direction as a circle.
"There is no "scientific view of creation". Science completely disputes creation as described in the bible."
No, some scientists do, because they presuppose naturalism (which presupposition is unscientific).
"There haven't been any comments "in refutation to" me which I have failed to address."
But you failed to address them adequately. The refutations stand.
"I've made many claims. And supported them."
You've not adequately supported them, and not supported some at all.
"But they're also taught that they shouldn't be kind to certain people, as per this story."
Nonsense.
"BTW, genesis is refuted by far more evidence than it's supported by."
Evidence for that claim please.
"I'd choose one that leans towards acceptance and science over hatred and myth any day."
Which means choosing a good Christian one.
"There is not evidence of a creator, that's the point."
I still want your evidence for that claim.
"The evidence refutes the bible's account."
What evidence?
"According to the bible, Christ was accepting of everyone."
Yes, whilst disagreeing with their wrong beliefs.
"So too should schools who bare his name."
They do.
"They're using the name of your Lord, all the while ignoring his teaching."
What teaching?
"It takes less faith to believe that the universe appeared out of nothing than it does to believe that god appeared out of nothing."
Well, it's just as well that Christians don't believe that about God.
"The former has a plethora of evidence to support it,…"
Such as?
"Telling other people what they can and can't say and do... How very religious of you. Your church would be so proud."
That's what the Left does.
"Nobody ever sees a miracle which doesn't have a scientific explanation."
Evidence please.
"And even if they did, how is that evidence of you God any more than it is a flying spaghetti monster?"
God exists. The FSM doesn't.
"You could prove my comment incorrect by proving evidence of the existence of God. But you don't have any,…"
What's your evidence that he doesn't have any?
"Science doesn't base it's conclusions on assumptions,…"
True. But scientists do, when they assume methodological naturalism.
"…religion does that."
Well, many do, including atheists ones. Including the assumptions that you can lump all religions in together, despite their vast differences. Christianity doesn't.
"The fact the you need to classify evolution as a "view", rather than a very well established scientific theory, supported by a substantial amount of evidence, says far more about the type of education you received."
True. It says that he was taught well.
"Why would God not know the difference?"
You haven't shown that he didn't. The point (whether correct or not) is that at the time that the Bible made reference to the circle of the earth, the language (which would be Hebrew, not Greek) didn't have separate word for sphere, with the word for circle encompassing that. That a later and different language had a separate word is irrelevant.
"Even if you were right, that's not the win you think it is. It merely leads to the question "How many other times does the bible say one thing, be means something else?" "
That's not the claim. The claim is that it meant that in the original language at the time it was written.
"Isn't Hebrew the divine language?"
I don't know. Is it?
"BTW, evolution has been observed."
Tell Dawkins. He says that "Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening." Which means that we see things that he thinks are the result of evolution, but it's never been seen actually happening.
"Where did God come from?"
He didn't. He has no beginning. He is outside of time, and just is.
"What makes you think you'll be one of the 144,000 souls to make it to heaven? You know the bible does specify that limit, right?"
Nope.
"The bible doesn't say that. It just says there will be 144,000 going to heaven, the rest will stay here."
Evidence please. Revelation 7 says "And I heard the number of the sealed, 144,000, sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel: ... After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, ..." So the 144,000 were just some of them.
"Did he love all those innocent children who didn't make it onto the ark?"
Yes. Christians generally believe that young children who die go to heaven.
"But the universe was created several billions of years before the earth was."
Evidence please. You're citing the competing, naturalistic, view, not the evidence.
"If the stars were created in the 4th day, we wouldn't be able to see most of them for millions of years, that's how long it would take for the light to reach us."
For one possibility, see the Veritasium video, "Why No One Has Measured The Speed Of Light"
"How was there any light on the first day of god didn't create the sun until the 4th day?"
What on earth makes you think that God is incapable of creating light without the sun? Goodness! Even we humans can create light without the sun, in multiple ways (flame, electric filament, LEDs, chemically, etc.). Of course God could also.
"There are so many errors in those first couple of verses, how could you possibly take it seriously?"
What errors? Nothing you've mentioned is actually an error, and you've not shown it to be.
"Also, if they all died in the flood, then why are they still existing in Numbers 13:32–33, after the flood?"
champthomas is wrong if he is claiming what you think he's claiming, but the supposed nephilim after the flood are unrelated to the pre-flood ones.
"Ah yes, playing the man rather than the ball. I see what you did there. I'm not falling for that."
No, he's making a valid logical point.
"The acceptance of people's gender identity would have a massive positive impact on their lives."
How does believing a lie do that?
"Why would the church be so against that?"
Because it's a lie. Duh!
"Why are they so full of hate?"
What hate? Hate is not the same as disagreement.
"That is their driving force, profit."
Nonsense, given that many in Christian ministry do so voluntarily or for a pittance.
"Nothing. I suppose that's quite fitting. You don't actually have any, that's why it's called "faith"."
What's your evidence that he has none? And why do you continue to misuse the word 'faith'?
"Imagine believing in an imaginary friend, then pretending like you were capable of rational thought."
Given that people who believe in God are often quite rational (including inventing modern science), then perhaps that shows that the friend is not imaginary.
"But the horizon is not a circle, it's flat."
Not so, if you are looking at the ocean. It's an arc.
"When you look at the horizon, every point is at the same elevation."
And on a spherical earth, that portion you see will be an arc.
"Really. They make it quite clear that you shouldn't be worshipping Jesus at all."
Only if Jesus isn't God. But He is God. Ergo, you are wrong.
"It has been directly observed."
That depends on how you define 'evolution'. But see my quote from Dawkins above.
"Which is n more than I can say about your god."
False. People saw Jesus.
1
-
1
-
@Mothobius
"Species are just a man made term to categorize things."
I know. I didn't dispute that point.
"A life form is truly just a life form."
But there are many different kinds of life forms.
"So things don't just randomly become new species."
The evolutionary process is a random one. There is nothing guiding it.
"You hear about the wolves are are starting to adapt to marine hunting? Like 80% of their diet is shellfish and other marine animals. Over a long period of time if the earth still holds up they could potentially see marine predatory canines that live on coasts. That's what evolution is."
But they are still wolves. But sure, if you want to define that as evolution, then every creationist is an evolutionist, because they all believe that can happen. And in fact we've seen that sort of thing happen, often to the surprise of evolutionists that it can happy so quickly.
But that is not what evolutionists typically mean by evolution. They mean that all life comes from a single common ancestor. That means that along the way, they didn't just change their diet a bit. They gained completely new features. The original supposed one-celled creature didn't have limbs, hair, blood, skin, eyes, lungs, a stomach, a kidney, etc. etc. All those things had to come about by processes that a) are claimed to be random (i.e. mutations) and b) require adding new genetic information for those new features. And yet not only has that never been observed, we actually observe the opposite: mutations damaging and destroying that information. Hence, for example, you might get a beetle that no longer has wings, or a fish that no longer has eyes. But a process (as we observe) that removes information is the opposite of what is required by evolution, which requires that living things gain information. In fact, every single observation of an information generation involves an intelligence.
"Evolution is only false if you don't know how it works."
No, it's false because I know how it doesn't work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mothobius
"The same way anything gains a feature."
So you have no idea, I take it. Because living things don't gain features. It simply does not happen.
"That certain trait does better."
The question is about where the trait comes from in the first place. Yes, natural selection will tend to favour certain traits, but those traits have to exist in in order to be favoured. Where do they come from?
"Over time more and more individuals with said feature or trait breed and it becomes stronger and more relevant."
Again, where does that trait come from in the first place?
"Evolution is only silly if you think it's silly"
Well, I think it's silly, so therefore, according to you, it is silly. But seriously, it's silly (in part) because it can't explain how those new features/traits arise in the first place. And you have just demonstrated that, by failing to explain that very thing that I asked you to explain. You explained how it would spread through a population once it exists, but not how it came to exist.
1
-
@Mothobius
"well explain to me in a scientific way why evolution is false."
So you're conceding that you can't show why it's true?
"Prove good points ..."
I've already given you good points: mutations don't generate new features. And novel information (of which genetic information is one type) only comes from an intelligence.
"...using scientific study"
Why? This is a claim about what happened in the past. As such, the most appropriate discipline is history, not science. And the reliable history in the Bible absolutely rules out evolution (not enough time, contrary the origin of death, and contrary to the order things were created in).
Science involves observation, measurement, testing, and repeatability. Science cannot observe the past, nor measure it, nor test it, nor (in most cases) repeat it. That doesn't mean that science can't say anything about the past, but it does mean that its ability to do so is rather limited.
People used to think that maggots spontaneously arose from non-life (rotting meat), but the scientist Redi showed that to be wrong. Then they thought that microbial life spontaneously arose from non-life, but the creationary scientist Louis Pasteur showed that to be wrong. Now they think that life spontaneously arose from non-life in the distant past where, conveniently, nobody can check! So they've tried to recreate the conditions in the laboratory to see if they can get life to spontaneously arise from non-life, and have been utterly unable to, despite typically creating ideal conditions that wouldn't have occurred naturally in any case. And while spontaneous generation is not the same as Darwinian evolution, it's all part of the same naturalistic paradigm.
But if you want some scientific material on it, check out Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome by John Sanford, the geneticist who invented the gene gun, or Darwin's Black Box by Dr Michael Behe (or any number of other books and papers).
1
-
@Nonreligeousthiestic
"That the oldest iterations of the faith did not and do not teach a young earth."
Then you should have had no trouble producing the evidence. You made the claim, so that's your responsibility, not mine. But you failed to do so, and therefore your claim can be dismissed as baseless.
"Are you thick?"
I'm not the one with evidence-free assertions. So no.
"And you don't know why you can't claim sola scriptura for the early church?"
No, I don't. I know that the reformers taught sola scriptura, rejecting the Catholic teaching, but it does not follow that the early church didn't accept it.
"Because the bible as we know it today wasn't even compiled?"
First, I guess it depends on how early you are referring to. The canon of the New Testament was essentially complete within a hundred years or so of Christ, I believe. That's still early. Second, we are talking about stuff in Genesis, which of course was complete.
"I didn't ask for a current doctrine I aske for ANY doctrine. There isn't any."
Jesus and the New Testament authors accepted it. Doesn't that count as doctrine? I've already pointed out that Augustine accepted it. Why doesn't that count? Despite me mentioning him several times now, you've not disputed that even once.
"Ancient philosophers and some theologians did hit on the ancient age of the earth and that there was an evolutionary type process going on centuries before the modern scientific method."
Repeating your claim does not make it true. It suggests that you are thick (sorry, but you get what you gave). I asked for evidence, and you've provide none. Your claims are dismissed as baseless.
Having said that, I didn't actually dispute the philosophers. I know that the ancient Greeks had some evolutionary-type ideas. And there may have been the very rare theologian (i.e. exception to the rule). But as a group, theologians didn't, and you've failed to provide any evidence, despite being challenged to do so.
Despite me giving you one example and you not giving me any, here's another: Origen said that "the Mosaic account of the creation ... teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old.” So now it's two-zero, in my favour. You're losing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iainrae6159
"You assert your God of choice is real. Any evidence for this claim ?"
Of course. And I'm also happy to list some of that evidence, if you will first answer my question of what's odd about it. All you've done so far is provide some specious claims that don't address that question.
"As long as organized religion gets tax exemption,..."
As do most non-profit organisations. So what's the problem?
"...as unelected clerics in law making positions, as in the UK,..."
And unelected non-clerics, and (as far as the West is concerned), I think that's about the only place that happens.
"...has pressure groups influencing government policy..."
What's wrong with that? There are all sorts of such pressure groups, including atheists ones. Why single out Christian/theistic ones?
"...then we sceptics will speak out. "
I know. But what good reasons do you have for speaking out against something good, and something that has proved to be very beneficial?
"Freedom from religion is all we ask."
Christianity is not imposed on you. So you're asking for freedom from even hearing about it, which seems very selfish and arrogant. And almost certainly a double standard, unless you also want freedom from atheistic views.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bradguzman5525
"We've misinterpreted the context of biblical passages in the past."
True. But some of that was clearly through misuse or eisegesis, and it doesn't follow that everything is therefore ambiguous or unclear.
"The history of Christianity and large elements of the Hebrew Scriptures evince beliefs in a God who seem to bless a great many things we would deem today as sinful. Incest, polygamy, genocide, slavery, just to name a few. And divorce, which was considered to be a sin back then, is not today."
Incest takes a bit of explaining. There are three issues with it: a) the 'yuck' factor, b) the abuse factor (e.g. father imposing on his daughter), and c) the genetic problem. We can dismiss a) as purely subjective. We can dismiss b) as not being a factor in the biblical instances that you would be referring to. Which leaves c). However, the genetic problem is do to the fact that each child gets two copies of each gene (with some exceptions), one from each parent, and that when one copy is defective, the good one can often be used instead. And that when two closely-related people mate, their offspring are much more likely to inherit the same genetic defect in both copies. However, when people were first created, they had no genetic defects. Those defects accumulated over time (they are accumulating today at the rate of about 100 new ones each generation). So, to start with, there was no genetic problem, and so c) can be dismissed as well. God banned close marriages at the time of Moses, so it must have started to be an issue by about then.
I essentially reject the genocide one. The only authorised killings of groups of people were because of extreme wickedness.
Polygamy was never endorsed, except perhaps as a less-than-ideal solution to a particular problem.
Slavery was not blessed, but regulated. And it was quite different to relatively-modern race-based slavery.
"And divorce, which was considered to be a sin back then, is not today."
What makes you think it's not today?
"Extensive research has shown us we have yet got it wrong again. The context of homosexuality in the Bible has to do with lust, not love."
Lust would have been a factor, but the main problem is that we were created to be heterosexual, and homosexuality rejects that.
"...the text prohibits a "sexual" relationship between a “man” (ish in Hebrew) and a male (zachar in Hebrew), not between an “ish” and another “ish"."
uhhh, okay.
"In ancient Greek culture, in that world, there was a popular and common social custom of men of a certain class socializing with younger males – in a context where mentoring, socializing, partying, and sexual activities would or could occur between the two groups."
Of what relevance is a later Greek culture to the Israelites?
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, the Bible does not command that we kill homosexuals. Nor adulterers, and so on.
Rather, the Bible records the laws that God gave to the pre-Christian nation of Israel. With Christ, those laws no longer apply. Of course that doesn't mean, for example, that homosexuality is okay, because homosexuality wasn't wrong just because a law said so, but because God designed us to be heterosexual. So it's still wrong, but those laws are no longer applicable.
But even with those laws, there was no demand that a rape victim marry her attacker. In that society, a rape victim would not likely get a husband, and there was no social support for single women. So the attacker was sentenced to marry his victim; that is, to support her for the rest of her life. The sentence was on him, making him provide for his victim.
The Bible regulated something that was known as slavery, but which was rather unlike more modern, race-based slavery. And in the new Testament, it put the worth of slaves as people on an equal footing with other people. Biblical principles actually led to Christianity twice abolishing slavery.
God did order nations punished for their wickedness, because He is a just God.
God destroyed all the world's population of people and air-breathing land animals except those on the ark. If he'd kept the babies alive, they would have died of neglect. There is reason to believe that God takes babies straight to heaven, so they were far better off dead than suffering from neglect on a flood-ravaged earth.
Western Society is based on Christianity, as numerous scholars have pointed out. It is a better place because of the Bible and Christianity. Christianity started public hospitals and many charities, started universal education to provide literacy, raised the status of women, abolished slavery as mentioned, spread democracy, founded modern science, and much more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@prayerpower1585
"There is an automatic assumption that the baby should have more rights than the mother when we talk about the child's right to life while in the womb."
That makes no sense, because nobody arguing for the baby's right to life is arguing that it ought to be at the expense of the mother's life. It's not either/or, but both.
"(Fetus and baby mean the same thing.)"
I know. That's my point. As I asked, why use a medical term in a non-medical forum? Typically it's done to disguise the fact that we are talking about babies. So why not just use normal language and refer to it as a baby?
"No one has or will ever have the right to live in their mother's womb, that is a privilege not a right."
First, that is the way that things were designed to work. So no, I don't accept that it's not a right.
Second, a "privilege" is "A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group." (my bolding) You're making a difference where one doesn't exist.
Third, it would probably be wise to remember that the mother was herself granted that "privilege", so it would seem churlish to then deny it to your own offspring.
"Right to life begins when dependence on another human beings body for life ends."
So a newborn still suckling has no right to life? On the contrary, the right to life is granted to humans because they are humans, not humans with certain characteristics because they have those characteristics.
"...the child has no right to live there."
And yet a privilege is a right. Besides, where else can it have its right to live?
"This is like trying to legislate love."
Love is an act, not merely an emotion. So, theoretically, you could legislate love!
"I would even go as far as saying that the child is a child even before conception."
Before it exists? That's bizarre.
"But it does not therefore follow that the child has a right to live in his/her mother's womb."
It does, actually, because that's exactly what the womb was designed for.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Isn't it a little odd when a pro-abortionist describes a procedure designed to be fatal as "safe"?
"Isn't it a little contradictory when pro life proponents claim they have the moral right to prevent women from [killing their babies] and at the same time they'll tell you that contraceptives are the answer to unwanted pregnancies."
I see nothing contradictory in that.
"An abortion prevents a child being born and contraceptives do exactly the same thing..."
No, an abortion kills a child, and a contraceptive prevents a child being created in the first place. As such, your subsequent comments are built on a fiction.
"...but you don't see these God freaks ..."
Okay, so you're not wanting a sensible conversation, but instead an opportunity to name-call.
"The main body of the anti termination movement is the churches and the God botherers..."
So, more name-calling.
"...who believe they have the right to stick their beaks into other peoples business and control the way they live."
You mean like all the politicians who pass laws that restrict people's business and control the say they live? Like making theft, rape, fraud, murder, and so on illegal? You're right! They should not do that! They're sticking "their beak into other peoples business and control the way they live." How dare they!
"For anybody who feels that an unwanted pregnancy will ruin their lives and are being told that they must endure childbirth and all that it entails for the next 20 years of their lives they should respond with WALK A MILE IN MY SHOES."
You mean like the millions of women around the world who get pregnant and "endure childbirth and all that it entails for the next 20 years of their lives"? I think they have walked that mile. So your point is...?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Vote Early Vic
"Why didn't you say so."
I did.
"It also teaches that you should mind your own business..."
No, it does not. You're making things up. It actually says to tell people the good news and to influence the nations.
And consequently, the world is much better off. As sociologist Rodney Stark wrote, “Christianity created Western Civilization. Had the followers of Jesus remained an obscure Jewish sect, most of you would not have learned to read and the rest of you would be reading from hand copied scrolls. Without a theology committed to reason, progress, and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800: A world with many astrologers and alchemists but no scientists. A world of despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys, and pianos. A world where most infants do not live to the age of five and many women die in childbirth–a world truly living in "dark ages."
The modern world arose only in Christian societies. Not in Islam. Not in Asia. Not in a "secular" society–there having been none. And all the modernization that has since occurred outside Christendom was imported from the West, often brought by colonizers and missionaries.”
You should be thanking Christians for doing so much good in the world.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dobr4481
"Yes, let's all follow the non judgmental, humane & compassionate Bible to the letter."
You're misrepresenting it.
First, that is part of the Mosaic Law that was given to the pre-Christian nation of Israel. It is not applicable any longer.
Second, that was a restriction applicable in a very specific case.
Third, it was clearly done to make a point about the holiness of God.
Fourth, you are taking it out of context, in that there are plenty of other places where the Bible demonstrates and supports being compassionate and humane.
Fifth, judgement against evil is part of the Bible; nobody says that the Bible is non-judgemental.
"The blind, lame, blemished & disfigured have no place in Australia."
Totally false, and completely unsupportable on the basis of those versus. You're showing your ignorance and making things up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pwillis1589
"No it is not broken as clearly demonstrated with the data compiled since 2004 when trans athletes were first allowed to compete at Olympic level."
A break may not have immediate consequences, but that doesn't mean that it's not broken.
"Your reply is a strawman."
How so?
"If it is about a level playing field then let each individual sporting body decide for themselves, after all they should be the experts in their sport."
I've already addressed that.
"Yes you are correct in the eventual fall of western civilisation started by allowing trans athletes to compete, ..."
I didn't say that was the start of it. Rather, it's just one more scuffle in a big war.
"...but I think it really started when we let women play sport,..."
What sort of challenge was that to the values of Western Civilisation? On the contrary, that simply continued a process in the West of raising the status of women. This trans nonsense is doing the opposite, by undermining the status of women.
"Nope the science and data refers to achievement in sport not what sex you are."
Yes, science might support your claims about the number of so-called trans people who have won in Olympic matches, but science doesn't support that men can become women and vice versa, which is the basis for allowing men to participate in women's sports in the first place.
"No you think it's unfair, each sport has the expertise to decide for themselves how they wish to conduct and rule their sport, and most have."
But do they have the gumption and fortitude to stand up to the trans lobby? That's the real question.
"They continue to amend and evolve these rules and guidelines and attempt to treat competing individuals respectively."
No, not to treat individuals respectfully, but to bow to the demands of the trans lobby. And in doing so, treat women disrespectfully by allowing men to compete against them in a sport that is supposed to be for women.
"No problems I can see."
Then change your glasses.
"I'm not excluding anyone."
Unless you're the one making the rules, I never thought you were. But you're defending the views of those who would exclude women from winning by allowing men to compete against them.
1
-
@pwillis1589
"I specifically limited my data and evidence to the Olympics..."
This issue is not specifically about the Olympics. So without suggesting that this was your motive, what you've done is look at a subset of the evidence that supports your point of view. But the Olympics is not necessarily representative of the whole.
"You provide no evidence of a problem..."
False. I pointed out what the problem was: men participating in sports intended for women.
"...and suggest it is broken which it clearly isn't as my data proves,..."
Your data shows no such thing. I'll give you an analogy. Someone has the bright idea to change the traffic lights at cross roads to show green on both cross-routes at the same time. Despite the obvious danger in doing this, thanks to low traffic levels and on-the-ball drivers, no accidents result in the next few weeks. So you cite this lack of accidents as evidence that there is no actual problem.
"...then attempted to raise issues outside of Olympic sport. That's a strawman."
It's a strawman to your selective choice of data, but not to the actual issue under discussion, which is not only not restricted to the Olympics, I'm not sure that it applies to the Olympics at all! As such, it is you who has constructed a straw-man.
"You may have attempted to address a level playing field, but failed miserably with your point."
A claim that I utterly reject as baseless.
"I was taking the ... by suggesting letting women play was the beginning of the downfall of western civilisation..."
And yet it is part of that attempt.
"I mean really."
Yes, really.
"Never said or suggested males can become females or visa versa, another strawman."
You never explicitly said that, but that is the basis for having men compete in women's sports—because they have supposedly become women. So no, not a strawman.
"Clearly the issue for you has nothing to do with the fairness for women it is all to do with the "trans lobby", ..."
The issue for me is what's right and wrong. Part of what's right is fairness for all people, including women. The trans lobby are wrong.
"As for the rest of your reply your problems are clearly not with the fairness of sport for women but with your idealogical views on transgenderism."
It's all one and the same. And my views on transgenderism are based on design and history, not merely ideology.
1
-
@pwillis1589
"No my comment was specifically in relation to transgender and Olympic sport and was deliberate in its narrow nature."
Yes, I acknowledged that (apart from the deliberate bit), and explained why being so narrow was a straw-man tactic.
"I mentioned nothing about men participating in women's sport, ..."
That's what this debate is about! Men (claiming to be women), participating in women's sport.
"...whatever a women's sport is anyway."
Are you another one who can't define what a woman is? Or is it the word "sport" that you can't define?
"Your analogy is completely false as in my case the data encompasses 18 years of high intense Olympic competition and 5 Olympic games."
How does that make my analogy false?
"In fact your analogy is totally ludicrous and dismissed as such."
And yet you don't explain why, other than your comment above that doesn't explain it either.
"Once again I just commented on one narrow absolutely factual data set of Olympic competition and transgender results."
Yes, selective data, which you now acknowledge was done deliberately.
"Once again, I repeat, for the umpteenth time, you can't change biological sex and nobody has ever suggested otherwise."
The trans activists suggest that all the time.
"You continually accuse me of this and it is an absolute strawman."
I have already explained why it's relevant, and you haven't addressed that.
"Finally you go off on your religous rant about right and wrong and design and history which is all coloured by your ideological bent."
No, you are incorrect. My 'ideological bent' is coloured by design and history. And I didn't mention religion.
"I commented on transgender results in 18 years of Olympic history a 5 Olympic games, that's all."
In the context of a discussion about various sports within Australia and in support of your opposition to that.
"She is well qualified to make decisions about transgender guidelines in Olympic sport,..."
What makes her well-qualified to make decisions about a delusion?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vasilabyss6387
"It wasn't your land in the first place to “settle” in Australia."
A rather silly comment, as settling, in this context, means to go somewhere that is not your place and set up residence there.
"can Russia, China, or the USA “settle” on that “free land” you are calling it, and ship you back where you came from?"
It was "free land". It no longer is. So no.
"And you found a way to back up your claim by using brutal force against the indigenous people, right?"
Wrong.
"Between 1910 and 1970, government policies of assimilation led to between 10 and 33 percent of Aboriginal Australian children being forcibly removed from their homes. These “Stolen Generations”..."
False. There was no "stolen generation".
"you haven't used any force against the indigenous people, but your ancestors did,..."
As far as I know, none of my ancestors did. My family goes back about five or six generations in Australia.
"give them their dignity back, give them free housing, and jobs, give them high-ranking governmental positions"
You get dignity by earning something, not by being given it.
"So, that's what you're calling the invasion, settlement?"
No, I'm denying that it was an invasion.
"When did the UK change the meaning of the word invasion into settlement?"
It didn't. When did you change the meaning of the word 'invasion'?
Merriam-Webster: "to enter for conquest or plunder".
Oxford: "An instance of invading a country or region with an armed force."
Collins: "If there is an invasion of a country, a foreign army enters it by force."
The UK did not enter this country by force, and not for conquest or plunder.
"How many indigenous people around the world did you murder with your colonial “settlements?”"
First, we are talking about Australia. Second, I didn't murder anybody.
"Did you also “settle” in India and “borrowed” $45 trillion?"
No, I did neither. According to the UK National Archives website, "The British were able to take control of India mainly because India was not united. The British signed treaties and made military and trading alliances with many of the independent states that made up India." That's just one line of the article, and I'm not claiming that's the whole story.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oldgolfer7435
"It is more realistic to believe that there was a bronze age that most of the delusional writings of the bible.."
The bit I've bolded in your comment is opinion, not fact, and opinion based on your anti-biblical prejudices. You've provided no rationale for it, so nobody needs to take your opinion seriously.
And what is your evidence that the writings of the Bible are "delusional"? And how would "delusional" writings prompt people to do so much good in the world, including founding science?
"The Romans had as much consideration for the people as Putin has."
I never said that every person in the world has been changed for the better. But historian Tom Holland, who studied the Romans and used to admire them, said this about them:
"But the more you live in the minds of the Romans and I think even more the Greeks, the more alien they come to seem, the more frightening they come to seem. And what becomes most frightening really is a kind of quality of callousness that I think is terrifying because it is completely taken for granted. The kind of innocent quality about it. Nobody really questions it.
In the age of Cicero, Cicero’s great contemporary Caesar is, by some accounts, slaughtering a million Gauls and enslaving another million in the cause of boosting his political career, and far from feeling in any way embarrassed about this he’s kind of promoting it, and so when he holds his triumph, people are going through the streets of Rome carrying billboards boasting about how many people he’s killed. This is a really terrifyingly alien world, and the more you look at it, the more you realise that it is built on systematic exploitation. So the entire economy is founded on slave labour. The sexual economy is founded on the absolute right of free Roman males to have sex with anyone that they want any way that they like. And in almost every way this is a world that is unspeakably cruel, to our way of thinking."
I don't think anyone would say that even Putin is that bad. But the point is, that was considered normal and acceptable. What Putin is doing today is not, by most people.
So why have things changed? Holland again: "...compacted into this very very small amount of writing, [the letters of the apostle Paul in the New Testament] was almost everything that explains the modern world [the Western world] but also the way that the West has moved on to shape concepts like international law, for instance, ... concepts of human rights, all these kinds of things. Ultimately they don’t go back to Greek philosophers; they don’t go back to Roman empiricism. They go back to Paul. Paul, really, his letters are, I think, are, along with the four gospels, the most influential, the most impactful, the most revolutionary writings that have emerged from the ancient world.”
1
-
@oldgolfer7435
"If no one need take my opinions seriously why go to the lengths you have to try any prove your point."
For one, to support why your opinions are wrong.
"If God is the almighty being you say he is why not settle the issue once and for all,..."
He did. He died and rose again.
"...instead of having a bevy of delusional shepherds and camel riders air their superstitions in a book called the bible."
The shepherds and magi did not write any part of the Bible. That part of the Bible was written by people who witnessed the events or who interviewed those who witnessed the events. Plus which you've not provided any evidence that they were delusional.
"The book has actually be re written, bits added and deleted to suit the power of the church."
Evidence please, because that is factually incorrect.
"Is he playing games..."
No.
"...inventing hell. What a sadist!"
If He was a sadist, why would He sacrifice Himself for the people He created and who turned on Him?
And hell is what you want. That is, God has provided all that is good, including nature, friends, and so on. If you don't want God in your life, then He has promised to give you want you want and leave you alone. But without God and all He has provided, then you'll find that life is, quite literally, hell. You don't like that? Then don't reject God. Simple.
"I know you will have a complicated answer to this logic question, ..."
There was little logical about your questions. They were more a case of "I don't understand how this could be" type of questions. Plus some false assertions.
"...convoluted and unbelievable to anyone that can think for themselves."
No, just to people who have closed their mind to the possibility that the Bible could be right.
By the way, I noticed that your reply has done two things:
1. Completely failed to justify your claims that I challenged around why you think the writings are delusional.
2. Completely ignored my response to your specific points, like you're trying to change the subject. Instead you bring up new objections.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@studyhardplayhard
"i was severely hit as punishment and discipline when i was a kid, ..."
I'm sorry to hear that.
"i guess everyone is different."
Definitely. In particular for this case, parents can be different. In your case, did you, as I mentioned, know that they were doing it because they cared for you? Or did you believe that they had a different motive? There is a difference between a justified smack for punishment, and an unjustified beating. And by that I mean two things, that it be justified (i.e. you have actually done something wrong that you knew was wrong), and that it be a smack done in love, not a beating done in anger.
And I note that you didn't actually answer my questions. Unless your personal anecdote was meant as evidence for your claim that if you need to do it, you aren't doing it right. A single anecdote is not evidence of that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@antontsau
Thanks for the detailed reply.
"With this scheme (and current rates) 100+60 tax will be 2* (80K tax) = 2*16.5K = 33K, 100+0 tax - 2* (50K tax) = 2*(6.5K) = 13K. 20K difference."
One problem I see (and I've seen it with others), is that you're looking only at the tax, not what you keep. Using your figures:
100+60 income - 33K tax = 127K you take home.
100+0 income - 13K tax = 87K you take home.
That makes you 40K better off.
Which is the better outcome?
But also, your figures are incorrect. 100K and 60K are both on the same tax rate ($4,288+30c in the dollar over 45K). 100+60 has tax of $29,576. 80+80 has tax of $29,576. If, of course, the two figures were in different tax rates, the two cases would not be the same, but my first objection would probably still stand.
"Awesome plan, clearly announcing that to get 2nd income is BAAAAD, is TAAAXED,... "
Well of course it's taxed! But so is the first income. That doesn't make it "BAAAAD".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CalBart42
"Their rights are being respected... no one is going to dock their pay for not playing... "
They aren't? I was under the impression that they would have their pay docked. But even so, their right to play without endorsing sin was not respected.
"there is 2 Authors of the Bible that were against homosexuality"
Well, one ultimate one—God.
"Moses who created the law when they were wandering in the desert... "
The law that God gave Him for the pre-Christian nation of Israel. Cruz Later is correct that the Mosaic Law was fulfilled with Jesus. (Although I don't agree with him about the Catholicism parts.)
"Paul was against SEX full stop."
Nonsense.
"why do you think God didnt put it into the 10 commandments?"
Perhaps (a) because the Ten Commandments were not the entire body of the law, and (b) perhaps because the people were already well aware of God's hatred of that, having destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah a few generations earlier for that sin.
"why did Jesus not say a word about it?"
He did. He condemned sexual immorality, which His Jewish audience would understand as including homosexuality. So He didn't need to make that explicit. Paul, however, was often writing to a non-Jewish audience, where he needed to be more explicit.
"if the new covenant did away with the old why do Christians cast away it all except for Homosexuality"
I reject that it's only homosexuality. But the point is that the Mosaic Law is not the only source of God's feeling on things. God created us heterosexual (man and woman, not man and man) and I already mentioned Sodom and Gomorrah. The Mosaic Law itself and its specific penalties no longer apply, but God's opposition to homosexuality, adultery, and many other things still does.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@roddymac998
"No other religious body comes under scrutiny really? All religions do."
First, he said "such scrutiny", not "[any] scrutiny".
Second, it's patently false that all religions come under the same level of scrutiny. For one, it's acknowledged that Christians are discriminated against more than any other religion.
Third, I don't see atheist religions such as Marxism and Secular Humanism coming under the same scrutiny as Christianity (at least from those criticising Christianity).
Fourth, when people criticise "religion", they normally have Christianity in mind.
"or a bunch of Catholic priest touching up alter boys for decades. Surely that needs condemned too?"
Of course that needs condemning. But you also need to keep in mind that we reject that sort of practice because of Christianity.
"I'm afraid religion isn't as simple as we all think..."
Well, it's certainly not as simply as you think, when you're happy to lump them all in together, despite their widely-different views. I will not defend 'religion', because many religions are indefensible. But I will defend Christianity.
"...and everyone of them has stuff to condemn ..."
Evidence please. That is, evidence that Christianity has something to condemn. But to be clear, I mean what the Bible teaches, not what some Christians have done.
"Religion is divisive..."
Anywhere there are differing views (religion, which cars are best, sports, politics, etc.) is divisive. Duh!
"Religion is ... open to any amount of interpretation from people."
Evidence please (in the case of Christianity).
"Should all be banned."
Please define "religion". A broad definition of the word refers to the set of core beliefs on which you base your life. How do you ban that? A different definition is that it involves rites and rituals, and on that basis many Christians deny that Christianity is a religion.
And that does ban include atheistic religions, and 'green' religions?
"Behind every war is religion."
Not according to the three-volume Encyclopedia of Wars, which documented that only seven percent of wars had a religious basis (and more than half of those involve one particular religion, and not Christianity).
"Top 3 reasons for war on any sight u go to in world..economic gain religion and territory gain. "
Evidence please. I have cited a source that says otherwise.
"So please refrain from insulting people you don't know online.that just tells me ur true intellect."
I agree that we should stick to facts and avoid insult. On the other hand, his insult was to suggest that you should read more, and given your responses, he does appear to have a point.
1
-
@paulrichards6894
"think you"ll find you are homophobic"
I think you'll find that you accuse someone of having an irrational fear simply because you don't agree with what they say.
"between 6-10% are born gay..."
There is no good evidence for anyone being born homosexual, despite many people looking. Or perhaps you can produce evidence to show that I'm wrong?
"...its completly natural..."
On the contrary, we were designed to be heterosexual.
"...if you do believe in the absurdity of a god..."
What is absurd about believing in God? First, most people do. Second, that includes many very intelligent people. Third, it was such people who invented science.
"...then surely he must be responsible unless you think being gay is a life choice??"
No, that simply doesn't follow, and that you don't realise this shows that you've never even looked at the argument closely (or are deliberately misrepresenting it). For one thing, God created us heterosexual and without any disease or fault or sin, but then we rejected God, which led to everything (including people) deteriorating from it's/their initial perfect state. So even if one was born homosexual, it doesn't mean that God did that. Second, given that there is no good evidence of being born that way, it sort of follows that it IS a choice. Although of course propaganda, conditioning, etc. might influence that choice. And even if it wasn't a choice, choosing to act on it IS a choice.
"and einstein thought a personel god silly"
And Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Pasteur, and many others thought otherwise. Your point....?
"if you think there is god then you must think god inflicted him with his terrible disease..."
Not at all, as I described above.
"...but you think this god is loving..."
Because He is. Despite us rejecting Him, He provided, very sacrificially, a way for us to be reunited with Him, because He loves us.
"plenty of wars have been over religion....even the 2nd WW was religiously motivated"
The three-volume Encyclopedia of Wars documents that only seven percent of all wars were religious. And one of the key factors in WWII was the anti-Christian concept of evolution beloved by atheists—widely accepted in Germany at the time—and how it taught that some people are more evolved than others.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stephaniefarrant
"no. Things exist,..."
Yes, but how did they come to exist? They didn't always exist.
"...your limited mindset tells you the only way YOU can understand that is if a magical being created it."
Actually, it's logic that if something exists and has not always existed, then there must be a cause for it. And in the case of the natural universe, that cause must be something outside the natural universe, i.e. a supernatural cause.
And misrepresenting such views as being "magical" is to mock, not debate.
"Just because that's how far your imagination goes, that doesn't make it true."
But it's not just his imagination! It's the evidence.
"I don't know how certain things came to exist, therefore God."
It seems your argument is "I don't know how certain things came to exist, but it can't be God". What's your evidence?
"Try again. And at least pretend to have an actual argument. Please."
Good advice. You should take it.
"I know you theists just love to 'interpret' words,..."
Like you atheists love to misinterpret arguments, such as calling God "magical"? Pot, meet kettle.
"...try sticking to reality as often as you can."
We do. But what about you?
"Wouldn't want you to turn into one of those theists who murder their whole family because God told them to."
Clearly you don't believe that, given that you don't believe in God. So God couldn't have told them that. And that's the point—you're citing rare cases of somebody with a delusion as evidence that believing in God is a delusion. That's a non-sequitur.
"Keeping your head at least a little in the real world should help prevent that."
And that real world has God. So you should take your own advice.
1
-
@stephaniefarrant
"I'm not reading all that."
Short attention span?
"What you then do, however, for no reason that makes sense, is assume there's a who to explain the how."
That's not explaining how. That's your avoiding the question.
"... despite the fact there has never, in over 100,000 of human history, been one piece of evidence produced that proves there's any kind of thinking entity behind the creation of the universe."
Well I know of plenty, so what's your evidence for that claim of no evidence? After all, to assert that there is no evidence would suggest that you're omniscient regarding possible evidence.
"All you've got is, well humans make things, and we didn't make trees, therefore a supernatural, better version of us must have created the trees."
False. That's no all I've got. In fact I gave you one bit of what I've got, and you're waved it away without showing that it's wrong.
Now, instead of making up stuff about how I think, how about answering the question?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mouldycheese28
"They are the most important ppl when it comes to this issue yes,..."
Given how this is affecting women, why are they the most important people?
"... it's difficult to come to some solution if they're saying/wanting different things."
No, it's not difficult. Men play in men's competitions and women play in women's competitions. So-called 'trans women' are men so they play in the men's competitions. See, that's easy.
"And honestly friend I have a trans buddy..."
Male or female?
"... who literally says he wants fair inclusion in sports."
If your friend is a female, then that's not surprising, as there's no way she could compete in men's competitions.
If your friend is a male and he's meaning separate competitions, then okay, he's trying to be fair. But then how many people will bother watching sports involving such a small group of people? How much will be the prize money or the kudos or whatever? Would he still think that's "fair"?
"Take Blaire White for instance, she..."
White is a male. The correct pronoun is "he".
"Do her opinions not matter? "
I'm not saying that we shouldn't listen to all opinions, but if he and you don't understand something as basic as what sex one is, why should we give any weight to such opinions?
1
-
@TheNerd-Y
"I was talking about the concept of whether trans ppl should compete at all,..."
Okay, but I've never seen anybody suggest otherwise.
"If we're talking about real trans ppl,..."
You mean ones who really think that they are what they're not, as opposed to people just pretending?
"...it's not their fault,..."
What's not their fault, and why isn't it? Sure, they really do have gender dysphoria, but they are not really the other sex. That decision to act on their dysphoria is something of their own making.
"There should be ways we can tell if someone is actually trans or not so we can accept them into sports."
What do you mean by "actually trans"? Nobody is "actually" the other sex.
"The thing is, trans women are socially women but biologically men,..."
No, 'trans women' are men who incorrectly think and claim that they are women.
"...it'll likely trigger their dysphoria if they're placed in men's teams."
You don't solve an problem by pretending that it's not a problem. The problem is that they think that they are something that they are not. Okay, so they need counselling or something, but they don't need their delusion affirmed by agreeing that they don't belong in the men's teams.
"Again, if they genuinely suffer from gender dysphoria, it's more complicated than that."
No, it's not. That is, how to treat the issue may be complicated, but in principle the solution is simple: accept reality.
"...there are real trans ppl who should get equality."
They have equality. They have the same rights as everyone else (if not more). 'Trans women' (i.e. men) have the same rights as every other man to take part on men's competitions.
"The deluded ones are those who believe in gender ideology such as being 'non-binary' 'gender fluid' etc."
And those men who think that they are women, and vice versa, which is all part of the gender ideology.
"Yes, but they're TRANS women still."
Which means that they are men.
"They may be biological men,..."
The word "biological" is redundant. They are men. Period.
"...they live socially as women due to their gender dysphoria."
Yes, but that needs to be fixed. They need to accept reality. Their thinking should reflect reality, whereas they are trying to change reality to reflect their delusion.
"I agree we should not accept false statements that trans women are women, no they're TRANS women."
Let me rephrase that: "I agree we should not accept false statements that trans women are women, no they're men. " See the difference?
"I hope what I've said makes more sense lol"
Unfortunately, you're still trying to some extent to affirm their delusion that they are not what they actually are.
Take care.
1
-
@mouldycheese28
"No it's not that easy, as trans people are trans."
Which means what? Is that like saying that tall people are tall? Or is it saying that trans women are not men? The former says nothing, and the latter is false.
"Biologically different yes, but they have a condition that affects them greatly. You've got to respect that."
True. Just as anorexics have a condition that affects them greatly. But you don't solve that by agreeing with their delusion.
"it's a trans guy if you must know"
So your friend is a woman.
" "Male or female" - does it matter?"
Yes, it does. For the immediate reason that I didn't know what to refer to her as. And secondly because there are fundamental differences between men and women.
"No, she's a TRANS WOMAN."
Which means that he is a man. A male, as I said.
"Socially she's a 'she'."
Socially he thinks that, and acts as if, he is a she. But he isn't.
"She fully passes as a woman in society, so I'll respect her thank you."
So he deceives people into thinking he's something he's not? I'll respect him as a person, but won't affirm him as being something he's not.
"You obviously haven't watched any of her videos."
No, I haven't watched any of his videos.
"I recommend it, you might like her!"
Yes, I might like him. But I would always have that problem that he is presenting himself as something he's not, and apparently because he really is deluded as to what he is.
"She makes a lot of excellent points imo"
Perhaps he does, but there's a credibility problem if he can't tell the difference between something as basic as men and women.
1
-
@mouldycheese28
"Nothing I've said is false lol, "
Other than referring to males as females and vice versa.
"...trans women are trans women, not women. There's a difference..."
Of course there is a difference. 'Trans women' are men, not women. But so many trans activists pretend that there is no difference, or at least not a relevant one. Such as pretending that a 'trans woman' should be referred to as a 'her' or 'she'. That's a pretence that there is little to no difference.
"...it's actually disrespectful of you to dismiss their condition like this."
It's not disrespectful to tell the truth. Lying is disrespectful.
"Their "delusion" cannot be fixed unlike anorexics."
Why is 'delusion' in scare quotes? It's an accurate word. And what's the evidence that it can't be fixed? I don't believe that anorexism can be "fixed" easily either, but at least people try and they don't pretend that it doesn't need fixing.
"My friend is a TRANS GUY. Please respect that"
Which means that she is a woman. Please respect the truth.
"Refer to him as a 'he' if you wish to be respectful."
How is endorsing a falsehood being respectful?
"Means a trans woman. We're going round in circles now cos you're obviously not trying to understand anything, you're simply going off on one."
You're incorrect that I don't understand. I do. But I disagree. Don't confuse disagreement with a lack of understanding.
"She's not being deceptive oh my word"
Presenting himself something that's he's not is being deceptive.
"That's fine, you can believe what you want, do what you want."
What I want is to be truthful and believe true things. You're trying to convince me of something that is false.
"I just think she deserves to be respected. Respect is something you earn. She's earned it."
Respect is something I give people because they are people. And because I believe in giving people respect, I believe in speaking the truth. But again, you're confusing disagreement with having a lack of respect.
"If you want to be more open minded and see things from a trans woman's point of view, I'd recommend you do."
I certainly want to be open-minded. But not so open that I accept falsehoods. You insist that a 'trans woman' is different to a woman, but given that there's only two sexes, that means that a 'trans woman' is a man. But you reject that too. So how many sexes do you think there are?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@espenc04
"when the constitution list life, liberty and property as equals."
1) It doesn't say that they are equals. In fact you could argue that it lists them in order of importance.
2) If they are equals, then life is equal to liberty, and therefore liberty does not trump life.
3) I asked you where it says "One person right to life ends when it infringes on another's right to liberty." You've not shown where, because it doesn't.
The constitution says that "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" IF killing the baby was to take precedence over the mother's right to "liberty", it should be the result of a court case that determines that it's necessary. Because that's what the constitution requires.
"Pregnancy damages the body so badly, that we can see the scars on thousands year old skeletons."
And yet you don't say how or provide any evidence.
"Be your logic the body is 'designed' to die, so we should stop treating illnesses."
What logic? I made a statement; I didn't provide the logic. And no, it is NOT designed to die. Death is a failure to keep living, not a design feature.
"The body was not designed..."
Except that it was, and shows that in numerous ways.
"...if it was then pregnancy would a curse."
That makes no sense, and without pregnancy, there would be no reproduction, and therefore no more humans. Your comment is bizarre.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@turnerfamilyinozi
"Are you applauding Biden’s reduction of drug prices?"
No real opinion; I haven't seen much on that, but that may be one of his better results.
"Are you happy with the Chips Act?"
Why was it necessary? Because government policies (over many years) made it uneconomical to manufacture in the U.S.? It makes me think of the situation here in Oz where government policies have forced power prices up, so now they spend money compensating people for making the prices higher! It's like we are supposed to be grateful that they hand out a bit of money after making us spend so much more.
"What about the rise in wage growth?"
That should be natural based on demand, not government controlled.
"Are you disappointed that he achieved a moderate gun control bill?"
I haven't looked into how that works. I'm not in favour of the guns, but both sides make some silly arguments. I am inclined to think that the problem is not the guns per se, but the way society has become. John Adams said "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other". Thomas Jefferson said "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."
The problem is that Christianity is now , and lawlessness is on the increase (especially in Democrat-led places), so more and more laws (e.g. gun laws) are put in place to control the populace as they have less and less self-control.
"Just maybe before you make claims against someone you should do some fact checking."
What makes you think that I didn't?
"Oh yeah can you please give the scientific reason why are climate is changing so rapidly?"
That's a loaded question, assuming that it changing unusually rapidly.
"How has the deficit gone under Biden?"
As far as I know, it has increased.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EL_Duderino68
"The only one I see is "Wasn't he talking about FOX, not Sky, and wasn't that in a defamation case?" I answered that, you didn't like my answer."
No, you didn't answer either part of that question. You said that Fox and Sky both have the same owner, implying that it doesn't matter, but that's not an answer to the question.
"The fact that you wrote you, don't expect to "to make any factual arguments supporting particular policies" in this thread seems to end the debate."
You've now also not answered my question "So what? It doesn't follow that comments he made about Fox also apply to Sky, does it?"
And there was a question in another thread that I reminded you about, twice I think, that I never saw an answer to.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EL_Duderino68
"I'm still not sure what questions you want me to answer. Sorry. Could you restate them?"
If you answered them when I asked them, you shouldn't have this problem. But here goes:
You said, "This is not a news channel, Murdoch made that point in a definition case. It's an entertainment channel."
So I asked,
1) "Wasn't he talking about FOX, not Sky,...", and
2) "wasn't that in a defamation case?"
In reply to my question 1), you wrote "Sky News Australia is owned by News Corp Australia, a part of the Murdoch empire, same people who own Fox News in the US." So I asked,
3) "I know. So what? It doesn't follow that comments he made about Fox also apply to Sky, does it?"
"Would you like me to start with a position/question?"
You can start with a question.
1
-
1
-
@EL_Duderino68
"As far as the rules go, I suggest not using logical fallacies."
That should be a given, but see below.
"Please feel free to suggest others."
Formal debates typically have a time limit for each debater, but that's not realistic for a written debate. A word limit might be a viable alternative. Formal debates typically have one side presenting a case, then the other side presenting their case, then each has (typically) less time to respond to the other's case, then each has a short time to provide a summary. Then the debate is over. Is that the sort of thing you have in mind?
Formal debates have a moderator. What happens if one of us goes over the word limit (if we make that a rule)? What happens if one of us says that the other has used a logical fallacy?
"My suggestion for the resolution is: "Human-caused climate change is an existential challenge for human civilisation" "
Not my preferred topic, but, subject to what rules we come up with, I'll accept it if you really want to do that topic. If you have another topic in mind, you could suggest that as an alternative.
1
-
@EL_Duderino68
"I'm sure you will get back to me in your own time."
I've been a bit busy, sorry.
"I'm happy for there to be no word limits."
YT imposes one, of about 8000 words I think.
"... we get 3 responses each? Normally that would be 6 people but we can't really organise that."
I'm fairly open, but I do want clarity. Normally when there are multiple people, I think I'm right in saying that each presents their own argument, with that argument not being a response to the other side, but simply an argument for or against the proposition. Those arguments would have been prepared before the debate, so apart from any last-minute tweaking, are not responses to an argument from the other side. That's not really practicable here.
Or do you mean that we each present an argument, and then we have three more responses to the other one of us?
"There's no moderator or judge so no one gets declared the winner."
I don't think a moderator declares a winner in any case. Usually when a winner is declared, it's by a vote of the audience.
"What do you say?"
A few things:
* Where should we do this? It's off-topic for this thread, started by a third party. It's not really reasonable to do it here. Further, even doing it on YT has potential problems.
* I've been thinking about your proposed resolution. I'm willing to take that one on. If I pick one, it would probably be something I'm particularly knowledgeable on, such as the existence of God, the problems with evolution and/or dating methods, or the impact of Christianity. But you proposed this, so unless you want to go with one of my topics, I'm happy to stick with the one you proposed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KDSima
"I was pretty clear."
The only response from you (that YouTube has notified me of or let me see) was to ask if I was an evangelical Christian. So no, unless there is a hidden/deleted response, you haven't responded to my comments.
"Yes, for Evangelical evangelizing is a primary belief."
So their beliefs are part of the problem you have with them!
"I wish Evangelical people were less obtrusive."
Well I wish atheistic views promoted by the Left in the mainstream media, the education system, sporting bodies, governments, and corporations were "less obtrusive" too, but we can't always have things the way we'd like.
"U think I am going to hell."
If you've not made Jesus Lord (or don't in future do that), then yes, you are.
"I frankly don’t c how Conservative Evangelicals are Christians."
Why don't you see how that is? Evangelicals base their beliefs on biblical teaching more than other Christians.
"But….in my mind religion should stay out of government."
And leave the field free for atheists and agnostics? That seems very self-serving, and is clearly unfair and undemocratic. You're basically saying that theistic worldviews should stay out of government, but atheistic worldviews are okay.
Further, Christians in government have done a massive amount of good in the world. Common law is based on the Bible.
"Perhaps u will notice, my problem is not w/Jesus, the word, or Christian churches."
It seems that your problem is not with people who call themselves 'Christian', but with actual Christians who believe what the Bible says.
"My issue is with a number Christians who believe they are the only ones who have a relationship with Christ."
Christians are the only ones with have a relationship with Christ. Having that relationship is what makes the Christian! Or are you talking about a subset of Christians? Evangelical Christians don't say that they are the only ones who have a relationship with Christ.
"I raised my children in an SDA Church, and school."
I would call many SDA people evangelicals, at least here in Australia. Perhaps technically they are not, but effectively they are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maddhatter6938
"Freedom of speech does not refer to PRIVATE companies. Twitter and Facebook can censor whatever they want since it’s THEIR platform"
In a sense, yes. But when those private companies become so powerful that they can silence the person that is supposedly the world's most powerful, that becomes a problem. And part of the reason they can do that is because they are supposed to not act like publishers, but are acting like publishers.
The U.S. broke up some large companies in the past because they had too much power for what were essentially public utilities, and the same should, arguably, apply here.
"The only election fraud committed was by republicans."
Evidence? The left certainly manipulated the election, even if it's not technically fraud.
"Every court case Trump has started has been laughed out of court."
Simply not true, but that's also an admission that they didn't actually look at the evidence.
"Trump is a corrupt fascist..."
Not in evidence, so that amounts to name-calling, which is not an argument.
"...your web of [deleted] conspiracy theories like QAnon have convinced you otherwise."
No, actual evidence from multiple reliable sources has convinced me otherwise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maddhatter6938
"Twitter and Facebook obviously haven’t silenced the US president because I can still watch his speeches on YouTube and read about him on Quora."
Typical pro-censorship thinking: it's not banned everywhere, so it's not restricted at all. Sorry, doesn't wash.
"Also if the US president invites an attack on the Capitol building..."
Which he didn't do. So your point is...?
"Not requiring signature checks isn’t rigging, it’s just plain logic."
Then why do the laws require it? And no, it's not logical to not check that a person is who they claim to be. Why have signatures in the first place if you're not going to check them? If a bank paid someone some of your money because they didn't check the signature on a cheque you wrote, I think you'd have a different view.
"Signature verification takes hours in court cases and you’re expecting workers to just eyeball check the signatures in a matter of seconds?"
That is the requirement of the law, and no, whether with cheques or other signatures, nobody is requiring that hours be spent on each one.
"Furthermore electronic signature verification is ripe for error so no, this isn’t rigging, it’s again just an example of the democrats doing the logical thing."
No, it's an example of election rigging. I almost can't believe that you're saying that not checking signatures is the right thing to do.
"Reality supports the democrats."
And yet the case you just presented makes no sense whatsoever.
"Twitter and Facebook haven’t put disclaimers on demonstrably true statements,..."
And yet I have seen Facebook (I don't use Twitter) do just that.
"A YouTube video isn’t evidence of anything full stop."
Of course not. But it can contain evidence. A bit of paper isn't evidence of anything either. Unless, for example, it contains a signed contract or a last will and testament. Then it IS evidence.
"...you shouldn’t take my word for anything, fact check everything."
I don't take your word for anything, if for no other reason that it's clearly false. And I do fact check things I see (not "everything" literally; that's impossible). You have no basis for impugning my integrity by suggesting otherwise.
"Where does reality not support the democrats?"
Where do I start?
"Drug legalisation, check."
How is legalising a dangerous substance an example of reality supporting the Democrats?
"Universal healthcare, check."
That's not reality; that's an opinion about what's good.
"Getting the pandemic under control, check."
And yet it's not under control, is it? Or so we keep being told. And that's particularly so in Democrat-run states (and the states are the ones making most of the decisions). So thanks for the example that disproves your claim.
"Higher taxes on the upper class? Check."
Again, that's an opinion about what's good, not an example of reality. And it's a hypocritical one, with the Democrats supposedly wanting equality, but treating some taxpayers differently to others, i.e. unequally.
"The democrats want to fix all of the stupid [deleted] that makes the US suck compared to other countries."
First, it's not in evidence that it does suck compared to other countries. Second, the problems that it does have are mostly because of such leftist thinking.
1
-
1
-
@maddhatter6938
"I support private companies’ right to remove content from their platform as they see fit, especially if that content is false or incites violence."
And in fact I do too. But we are not talking about that. We are talking about a supposedly-neutral platform removing content in a biased way, and that is not necessarily false and not inciting violence.
And I support them doing that consistently, not inconsistently as they are doing.
"I interpreted Trump’s tweets as directly inciting the attack on the Capitol but I guess we disagree on that. "
No, I agree with you. I agree that you interpreted them that way, because of your anti-Trump bias. But even Twitter didn't claim that he called for it. They claimed that others could interpret it that way, not that it actually did. So you support them removing content that some people might take in the wrong way for no good reason?
"So your solution is to force companies to allow people to use THEIR servers and THEIR platform?"
Not necessarily. These companies are protected by section 230 that removes from them any liability for things that others say on their platforms, because they are supposedly open channels, similar to sending a message through the post or calling someone on the 'phone. Would you agree with the postal service refusing to deliver mail that they didn't agree with? Or should they be "forced" to take all mail (apart from objectively-dangerous mail) simply because that's supposedly the service that they provide?
But sure, if they declare up front (not after the fact) that they only want leftist views, that would be their right, and I would support them in that.
"This is just as backwards as forcing a family business to cater to a gay wedding, you can’t force private enterprises to provide a service. "
And yet in that very case, that's what the left, i.e. including the Democrats, wanted. So because they refused to provide that "service", they were prosecuted and put out of business. But when it comes to social media discrimination against things that they don't agree with, all of a sudden they support discrimination. As has been said before, the only standards the left has is double standards.
"...but in all seriousness, deep down that’s what I believe."
Despite the evidence. I responded to your examples, and forgot to include my own, the anti-reality/anti-scientific nonsense about there being more than two sexes and people being able to change their sex. Talk about not being in line with reality!
"I was pointing out how verifying signatures on ballots is simply not practical,..."
The only reason it wasn't practicable was because the Democrats changed the rules to have mass mail-in voting, which was itself an attempt to skew the election outcome. So no, I don't accept that rationale.
"Again, you CANNOT verify a signature in a matter of seconds or minutes, it’s not possible."
One or two seconds, maybe not. But ten or fifteen? Why not? People do it all the time. Goodness, I've done it myself, when someone's paid by credit card (not EFTPOS) and I have to check their signature. So apparently I can do the impossible, it seems. And I'm not even a trained professional.
"...if that’s what the law is then the law should change. "
Then get the law changed. Until it is, breaking it (in a case like this) allows for ballot fraud.
"The idea that the democrats voided signature verification to rig the election is garbage, it’s simply a measure of practicality."
That's not in evidence.
"Your soon to be ex-president..."
He's not mine. I'm not American.
"...repeatedly told lies about the pandemic which contributed to why the US currently sucks compared to other countries."
What lies? Sure, he downplayed it a bit to avoid panic, and he made perhaps-unrealistic (in hindsight at least) predictions about how it would pan out, but what "lies"?
And what contribution did the Democrats make in downplaying it? Like Pelosi (I think it was) contradicting Trump's advice by encouraging people to attend Chinese New Year celebrations? And the Democrats demonising Trump as racist because he stopped people flying in from China? That all goes to undermine the message that Trump was giving.
"Democrats run states are struggling more because they’ve got higher population densities."
So the governor of New York sending elderly people with the virus to nursing homes, where it spread further, didn't contribute to it? And the afore-mentioned undermining of Trump's messages by Democrats didn't contribute either? Sure.
1
-
1
-
@doccarter5283
"You mean like the evidence free claims of election fraud?"
There is evidence for that. But it also depends on what you mean by "election fraud". If you mean fraudulent ballots, there is some evidence of that, but perhaps not much. If you mean election manipulation, there is very good evidence of that.
"Trump tried to get 11,000 extra votes from the Georgian Secretary of State."
He tried to get the Secretary to properly investigate the claims, which, if they turned out to be true, would have given Trump those extra votes. Nothing wrong with that.
"Trump has been telling his minions the Election was stolen..."
His "minions"? You mean the voters.
"...and that they must fight for democracy and never give up. "
Yes. So? Don't you think democracy is worth fighting for?
"What else could that possibly mean?"
It means exactly what it says, fighting for democracy. That can be done in various ways, such as changing laws, enforcing laws, countering propaganda, etc. your point...?
"During the ensuing riot he told his minions "we love you..." ..."
There's that derogatory term "minions" again. What's wrong with loving your supporters? Nothing, I would think, unless it's Trump doing it.
"...and was reported as being "...delighted..." by the riot..."
"Reported". Was that anonymous (you didn't say who it was) report accurately representing Trump? I would expect that Trump was delighted by the rally turnout. The size of which, it seems, the MSM doesn't want to report.
"You can only bury your head for so long,..."
Oh I don't know. I've seen some leftist heads buried so deep that it would take ages to come out, even if they wanted to.
"...regardless of how stubbornly you refuse to admit he incited the riot when he actually said to march on Capitol Hill..."
And that there shows the fallacy of your argument. Marching on Capitol Hill is NOT synonymous with rioting. The fact that you have to conflate the two to make your case shows that you don't have a case.
"...you cannot get passed the fact that no evidence of significant federal election fraud was found or presented by the Trump Campaign or it's allies."
But is it a fact? Just because your ignorant of it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. But see also my first response in this reply.
"That ship has sailed."
What ship? I know that there is no way now that Trump will be president from January 20th, but that doesn't change the fact that he lost it due to election interference and manipulation, even if not outright fraud.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@doccarter5283
"What do I mean by election fraud? It's pretty blatantly obvious what I mean. It's only been world news for the last couple of months."
Yes, but that "world news", or Trump, has used the term very loosely, which is why I couldn't be sure what you were referring to. I pointed out two different ways the term could be used, but you chose to insult me rather than simply answer the question.
"The 61 court cases failed."
Trump did not bring 61 cases, and not all cases failed.
"There has been no evidence supporting significant voter fraud."
If you are using the term the way Trump was, very loosely, then this is simply false.
"Evidence for manipulation of the election? What does that even mean?"
I gave you examples, so please don't play dumb.
"Encouraging mail in voting during a pandemic? Big deal."
That is not what happened. The mail-in voting that most states had provision for was where voters could request a mail ballot paper if they could provide reason for doing so. What happened was that some states sent out, unsolicited, mail-in ballot papers to all registered voters, despite some of their voter rolls being hopelessly out of date and incorrect. Therefore many homes received multiple ballot papers for people who no longer lived there (had died or moved). That is making fraud much easier, especially if you then suspend the checking of signatures! Further, the CDC told people that it was safe to go and vote in person, which should have been obvious anyway, given that people were still able to safely visit shopping centres and the like. So the implication is that this was a political move.
"This is not relevant. So that can be kicked as well."
Not only that, but in some cases that was done illegally, as it is up to the state legislators to change rules, and these decisions were made by others. So no, that evidence stands.
"Trump knew full well there were no extra votes..."
You can read his mind?
"he was told so several times in no uncertain terms."
And he was also told that there were extra votes, which there was prima facie evidence for.
"He kept trying after that and therefore he was involved in attempted election fraud. Simple."
A faulty conclusion based on faulty premises.
"When I say minions, I mean minions. The ones who believe everything he says and even twist meanings and outright lie to defend him. A bit like yourself right now."
Oh, that handful of people. So not the vast majority of his supporters. And no, that does not describe me. You say that you only mean that subset, but seem assign that description baselessly (with me being evidence of that).
"Of course democracy is worth fighting for. Again an attempt at side stepping my obvious meaning."
Of course your obvious meaning was that if Trump is trying every legal means to fix an apparent problem with the outcome, that is somehow undermining democracy. As opposed to the actual attempts by the Democrats and their supporters (including most of the MSM) to remove Trump from office on false charges.
"The election was stolen so fight against the results. A child could understand it and clearly a bunch of them did. See Capitol Hill attack."
You just agreed that democracy is worth fighting for. Did you therefore mean that it was okay to use violence and to storm the Capitol to do so? If not, then no, the Capitol invasion was not what should have been "understood" by anyone, child or otherwise. You are twisting words to assign blame where it doesn't exist.
"There's my clear and obvious point."
Yes, it's clear and obvious that it's okay to fight for democracy, except that if Trump says that, that's somehow incitement to riot. In other words, the point is clearly and obviously fallacious.
"Saying his supporters (his minions) are patriots and "you are special and we love you" during a riot is clearly condonement. Don't be wilfully ignorant (again)."
Again, you are using a derogatory term much more widely that you claimed to be meaning, and it seems that you are the wilfully ignorant one to think that those comments were directed exclusively to the relative few who stormed the building rather than the far greater numbers of people who simply turned up for the rally.
"I said Trump was delighted by the riot. You even quoted this."
I quote you so that it was clear what I was questioning. So what?
"And then you try changing it to the size of the "rally"? It was a riot. You stuffed up there. Changing my words and the situation. Poor form."
On the contrary, I believe that you changed his reference to being delighted by the rally to being delighted by the riot. The poor form is yours, given that you've not provided any further evidence to address my questioning of it.
"Telling people to march on Capitol Hill along with the aforementioned comments is clearly inciting a riot."
Simply false. Marching is not synonymous with rioting, as I have pointed out, and you have not refuted, preferring instead to simply repeat the false claim.
"If you think there is evidence for significant voter fraud, then I suggest you present it because nobody else has been able to in 61 court cases including in the Republican loaded Supreme court. If you cannot (and you cannot) then my point stands."
Simply not true. As I said, some cases were upheld. And some were withdrawn for various reasons, including that Trump got what he wanted without the case having to proceed. In many other cases, the court declined to take on the case, so didn't even look at the evidence. And of course a lot of that election manipulation was not illegal (e.g. Twitter blocking the Hunter Biden story). So no, your point doesn't stand.
"The ship has sailed that states the election was stolen. Obviously."
The passage of time can restrict outcomes (such as whether or not Trump can still be president), but not the facts of history (whether or not the election was stolen. Obviously.
"Do tell me what else I was talking about in that context. That's right, you knew exactly what I meant and all the side stepping and strawman points in the world won't save you here."
It seems that what you were talking about was simply illogical (the passage of time cannot change history), so I was taking a more favourable view of your comments that you were referring to the passage of time removing possible outcomes. Sorry for being magnanimous.
"If you can present evidence, solid evidence of electoral interference or manipulation that has significantly (remember that word?) altered the election, then I'm sure Trump would love to hear from you."
Evidence has been presented, which of course Trump and anybody not wedded to the MSM is aware of, but you want to argue away with fallacious arguments, such as taking evidence to court of non-crimes and of taking evidence to courts that don't want to hear the cases.
1
-
@doccarter5283
"If the Hunter Biden story was true and there is evidence to support this, feel free to present said evidence and receive your promotion to head of the FBI. "
Present it to the group that tried to bring him down?
And they already have the evidence anyway. Further, the issue is more of a political one, of things like Joe claiming to not know of his son's business dealings when he actually did. Further, Hunter is still being investigated for his own actions.
"Trump is no victim."
So the president that the left has been trying to bring down on fallacious grounds for four years is not a victim? Because only the left can have victims?
"He picks on others and has been called up on it several times. "
Unlike the left that has been picking on Trump for four years, I suppose.
"He stuffed up the pandemic response big time, ..."
How did he do that, given that the states had the responsibility for attacking it?
"...he endangered the environment and the world."
Not in evidence, and contrary to some of the evidence.
"The Doomsday Clock went into the seconds because of him."
Because of the first president for some time to not start any new wars? Pull the other one.
"And I'm not of either wing. I don't do mob mentality."
And yet you're repeating all the left's anti-Trump talking points.
"The guy was a stuff up before he stepped into office and so he copped it."
No, he copped it because he didn't fit the mould.
"All famous people cop flack, he just whined more."
Most famous people don't cop the sort of flack that he copped.
"He caused strife in the ME with his pulling out of the Iran Nuclear Deal..."
He pulled out of a bad deal, and arranged treaties between several ME countries, but somehow caused strife? That makes no sense.
"...and illegally placing the embassy in Jerusalem, destroying almost all future peaceful resolution to the Palestine-Israel problem."
What was illegal about it, given that I seem to recall that it was actually already policy that previous administrations didn't have the guts to carry out. And how does that undermine future resolutions when the real problem is the Palestinians refusal to accept Israel's right to exist, and appeasement has repeatedly failed to get anywhere?
"...as well as his pulling out of the Paris Accord."
And how is that a bad move?
"He spoke of Mexicans as rapists and thieves,..."
That is a straight-out lie, promulgated by the left mob, which you claim to not blindly follow.
"The Caravan of refugees as illegal immigrants before they'd reached the border, terrorists and child traffickers.
"
Are you seriously arguing the technicality that people planning on entering the country illegally are not illegal immigrants because they haven't yet committed that crime?
"How much more racist can one get?"
Oh, how about as racist as the left, that accuses 'whites' of being racist simply by being 'white', among other things? (Ignoring that the question was based on a lie.)
"You've got no evidence for your claims."
Simply false.
"Want me to start providing mine? No worries, but first you must concede that point."
You won't provide evidence until I tell a lie by saying that I have none of my own? That's bizarre, illogical, and shows no desire for rational discussion.
1
-
1
-
@geryleier4577 "Of course there is a logical contradiction."
No, that's not a logical contradiction. The contradiction you're claiming is a contradiction between the claim and the evidence, not a logical contradiction.
But the word "proof" is a problem. Both sides can provide evidence, but science doesn't do proofs, and history (which that book is) is not really studiable by empirical science.
"Your argument only works if you make the presupption that god exists."
If you're referring to my particular claim of contrasting the infallible God and fallible man, then yes, that's correct. But then your argument only works if you presuppose that God doesn't exist (or doesn't get involved or similar). So both of use are working from presuppositions. Why is yours correct?
"If you look first what you can proof and what not, you will come to another conclusion."
Again, that word "proof". But no, suppositions come first. In fact science depends on Christian suppositions. Loren Eiseley: "The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation … . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption."
So if you presuppose no God, you can't do science except by adopting essentially Christian ideas for no good reason, in which case you've lost the very argument you're trying to make before you even start.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EL_Duderino68
"They come from the physical reality of the universe."
Sorry, are you saying that the universe created the physical laws? Because I thought you were saying that the laws (somehow) created the universe. So which is it? (And what's your evidence?)
"Really, why are you so committed to the belief that a conscious being created them..."
Because it's the only explanation that makes sense.
"...and needs be worshiped by humans?"
Because He made us.
"It makes no sense to me."
And yet you've pointed out nothing nonsensical about it.
"What created that being?"
Nothing. He is eternal, outside of time. He didn't have a beginning. Therefore, you don't need anything to create Him. As such, that was not even a valid question.
"Also, why in all the trillions of planets in the universe is ours so pivotal?"
Because He chose that to be the case. And therefore this was the first one He made.
"Surely even you can see that makes no sense."
No, I cannot. It makes complete sense, unless you first presume that God didn't do it.
"Also, evolution is not chance ,"
According to many evolutionists, it is. The famous evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould, for example, said that if you reran evolution, it would turn out differently. Because how it turns out is a matter of chance.
"...it is a mathematical model you can reproduce on the device you are posting from."
Actually, I can't. Not unless I inject design into that model on that intelligently-designed device. Or perhaps you'd like to explain how I could?
1
-
@EL_Duderino68
"Our planet that we call the earth was not the first planet in the universe, you know that right? "
No, I don't know that. What I do know, however, is that you don't know how to think rationally. We have two competing views here:
1) That God created. With Earth being the first planet created.
2) That everything came about naturalistically. With Earth coming late in the process.
Your argument is that 1) is wrong because 2) is right! You are not judging the claim on its merits, but on how well it fits with a competing view that you prefer! That's not a rational way to decide between the two views, is it?
"Also, why is god a he?"
Ask Him. That's what He identifies as. Actually, I suspect it's because "he" is the generic term, and "she" is the specific or generalised term. That is, all "she's" are also "he's" but not all "he's" are also "she's". To put it another way, "she" is a subset of "he". And that is the way that the English language was long used. Which explains why a "chairman" doesn't have to be male—it's the "man" (i.e. member of the group known as mankind ) chairing a meeting or etc. That's why there have been organisations where the woman in charge is referred to as "Madam Chairman". It's feminism, I believe, that taught us to think that "man" referred only to males. The historical record says that God created "man" in both male and female forms.
"It would make more sense for god to be she wouldn't it?"
No, because that would exclude half the population.
"Females give birth creating new life right?"
No. New life is created when the sperm and the egg come together (which there is biological consensus of). That takes both sexes.
"Do you know the oldest continuing civilization on Earth? It's indigenous Australians."
According to view No.2. But we are supposedly discussing view No.1. Did you know that, according to the "indigenous" (i.e. aboriginal; I'm also indigenous in that I was born here) Australians' own oral histories, they were created? So why do you impose view No.2 on them?
"Their culture has continued for over 60.000 years."
According to view No. 2. Not No.1. You're disrespecting the aborigines' own oral histories.
"I Guess Jesus and God just didn't care to turn up in all that time."
You're judging view No.1 by how well it fits with No.2. Which makes no sense, given that they are competing views. Of course they are not going to agree! Duh!
"C'mon you must see what you are saying is farcical."
I don't judge the merits of a view on whether or not you agree with it. And you've provided no reason (only alternative views) for me to think that it's wrong.
"What about the other intelligent animals?"
Those other animals that get online and have esoteric debates about how they came to be? That run organisations and produce manuals and novels? That run schools to teach their young? Sorry, I'm not aware of any. Are you talking about fairies or leprechauns or something? I don't believe in them.
"whales, dolphins, elephants, and crows don't get a god too?"
They do! They were also made by God, and therefore owe their very existence to Him. However, they do not have eternal souls and are not moral creatures made in the image of God. They are in a completely different category to humans.
"Why not? Because of some stuff by a few guys 2000 years ago? "
Umm, no. Because of how and why they were made well before that.
"Do you follow all the edicts of the bible?"
I attempt to follow all the principles and edicts that the Bible says we should follow. But not all the ones it records. For example, it records that Nebuchadnezzar issued an edict that all the people had to bow down and worship an idol he created. I don't follow that. It also records a body of laws made for the ancient (pre-Christian) nation of Israel. Given that I'm post-Christ and not a member of that former nation, I don't follow those laws either.
"And which bible because there are many."
Yes, there are French Bibles and German Bibles, and Spanish Bibles and... in fact there are complete Bibles in over 700 languages and another 1000 languages have at least part of the Bible. In English alone, there are many translations, with one in 17th-century English still being very well known. But there are also more recent translations, because a) the English language changes over time, b) we learn more about what some ancient words meant, and c) there is no one right way to translate from one language to another. In addition, there are even American English and British English versions of translations. There are also word-for-word translations and thought-for-thought translations. (To illustrate that, I have a funny story about translations of 1 Samuel 24:3 if you're interested. Although it may not appear to be funny to an American or even a younger Australian. I don't know where you are in that sense.) But apart from those differences, they all say essentially the same thing. Me? I prefer a modern British-English translation.
"So do you believe in evolution Phill?"
No, I go with the evidence.
"So it's down to chance, not God?"
No, evolution is down to chance. But evolution is wrong, in part because chance is not up to the job.
"You are hilarious, yo you can't seem to decide which argument you want to pursue."
Actually, I'm only pursuing the ones that you raise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EL_Duderino68
"I think scientists should work on empirical evidence..."
So do I.
"...not faith in a sky fairy."
Agreed. I never even mentioned a sky fairy. You made that up.
"You disagree."
Nope. You made that up.
"Fine, may your god strike me down right now for being an apostate..."
Why should He do that? He has no desire to harm you.
"...or give me a vision of his/her/its kindness?"
That was done 2000 years ago. It's in the historical record. Why should He do it again specifically for you when you already won't believe that He's already done it?
"If your god was omnipotent he could do that, right?"
Correct.
"Proves you wrong."
No, it absolutely does not. I agree that He "could" do that, but you made no attempt whatsoever to show that He would or should do that. Just because He can doesn't mean that He will. For starters, He is in charge, not you. So He doesn't allow you to treat Him as being at your command like you'd treat a genie.
Now, how about you get serious for a moment? A few comments back you attempted to show that the Bible was wrong by showing that it disagreed with the view that you held. I pointed out that simply showing that it doesn't agree with a competing view is not a rational way to argue. I went through most of your claims and addressed each one.
You responded by saying "before I answer your questions I have to ask, will you accept peer-reviewed science or not?"
I told you that I would, as long as it was actually science and not naturalism, as most scientists hold to. In return, I challenged you as to whether you would accept peer-reviewed science. I also asked you a couple of questions about your comments.
So your next reply should have been to actually address what I had previously said, as you said you would. And to answer my questions about your comments. But instead, you ignore all that—including making no reference to the naturalism of most scientists—and accuse me of disagreeing with using empirical evidence! I never even hinted that I would do that. In fact I pointed out that the naturalistic scientists are the ones who would do that, implying that I wouldn't. A creationary scientists can consider whether the evidence for a particular event supports the even being caused by God, or supports it occurring naturally. A naturalistic scientist has a priori ruled out the first option, and can only consider the second option. Which one is being more reasonable? Which one is more open to the empirical (and other) evidence?
You didn't even answer the questions I asked.
All of this shows that you're not actually interested in a rational debate, but just with pushing your own views, including a distorted view of what I think.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EL_Duderino68
"I guess Martin Luther did not create the Protestant Church then..."
Not really, no. If anything, that was the Catholic Church that created the Protestant Church. Luther didn't break away from Catholicism. He questioned some aspects of it, and the Catholic Church kicked him out. Protestantism is more of a movement that Luther was an early part of, but he didn't create a brand new church organisation (not to start with at least), just as Henry didn't really create one either.
"What about the Greek Orthodox Church (with different beliefs and practices)?"
What about it? It wasn't a brand new church either, but the result of a split.
"They are new churches but were not created?"
No, they were splits from existing churches.
"Just to refresh your memory this video is about the Anglican Church changing or maybe you would call it "breaking away""
I'd definitely call it a break away. That's explicitly what the pastor in question has done—broken away from the Anglican denomination.
"Do you have a problem with "breaking away"?"
It depends on the motive and result. I'm not supporting Henry's motive, although the result was good. I do support this pastor's motive.
"All the other "breaking aways" involved changes in church doctrine didn't they?"
No. And in the current case, the break away was not changing church doctrine; it was restoring it. He broke away because the denomination was changing church doctrine.
"What particular changes are you most resentful of in the Anglican Church?"
I don't have a list.
"What question would you like me to answer my friend?"
Ones I've asked previously about your claims. Looking back through the discussion, I see these that I don't think you ever answered.
* "What's your evidence?" (That "plenty of religions have multiple gods...")
* "Then how does anything exist?"
* "How do you know you don't need Him? [God]"
* "How do you know that [God is] not responsible for your very being?"
* "Who or what caused you to have the ability to have innate empathy?"
* "So where did those scientific constants come from?"
* "And how do scientific constants create the universe, life, etc.?"
* "Sorry, are you saying that the universe created the physical laws? Because I thought you were saying that the laws (somehow) created the universe. So which is it? (And what's your evidence?)"
* "Did you know that, according to the "indigenous" ... Australians' own oral histories, they were created? So why do you impose view No.2 [evolution] on them?"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Pocrocket54
"like there would be any?"
Why wouldn't there be, if they are affirming it? The fact that there isn't any destroys your claim.
"They didn’t even admit it was going/is still going on."
Because they weren't affirming it.
"By just moving the priests and not holding them accountable, allowed the SA to carry on."
So you're agreeing with my comment that it was the wrong response.
"Unless you’re telling me that the higher ups in the church are so totally stupid, they thought it would stop, Is that what you’re saying?"
Perhaps, yes. I believe they thought that by breaking the relationships, and perhaps by monitoring more closely (which perhaps they failed to do), it would stop. You said that there were "No ... repercussions for those priests or nuns,...", and yet moving them was a repercussion, that the higher-ups presumably figured would cause it to stop.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@apan990
"cheers sherlock, thats why i wrote theres been LIKE 2 abuse cases, and not there have ONLY been 2 abuse cases, which implies that the definitive number is not exactly known because there well could be some unknown cases but it is still very, very, very low especially when compared to the west."
My point (in my earlier post) was that non-Western countries might have so many cases because they've found more, not because more exist. That is, there might be a more concerted effort in the West to discover such cases. I'm not therefore saying that your "2" might in fact be three or four, but it might be 2000, for all you know, because they haven't been looking for them (if in fact that or similar is the case; perhaps you could show that I'm wrong there?).
"...its no surprise all the degeneracy we see in todays world always comes from the west, ..."
I would not agree with that at all, unless, perhaps, you're talking about particular types of degeneracy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@drewsale7288
"Search "Murdoch tells Trump he will not back fresh White House bid - report" ... It's all there."
Okay, that's not bad, albeit circumstantial, evidence.
To respond to that, I'd make the following points:
* The article is from a left-wing (biased) source.
* The article is not quoting Murdoch, but an unnamed News Corp source.
* That is about Murdoch not backing someone. You could infer that he would back Trump in different circumstances, but that is an inference, not a fact.
* A stronger argument is the second claim in the positive that they would back DeSantis.
* That claim is, however, "reportedly" the case. That's even less certain than the News Corp verbatim quote.
* And for what it's worth, that was attributed to Lachlan, not Rupert.
* It doesn't follow that the reported comment (if true) would include outlets outside the U.S.
* Nothing is said about how DeSantis would be backed. With editorials? With every presenter being told to toe the line? With selective news stories? We don't know how.
* Bolt has previously reported how Murdoch has given him a free hand.
* This has also been seen in action, when Murdoch capitulated to the global warming alarmism, Bolt continued to criticise it, overtly (but politely) disagreeing with his boss.
So although that is reasonably-good circumstantial evidence to support your claim, it's hardly conclusive, and doesn't fit with other evidence.
In a court case, both sides have and present evidence. It's up to the judge or jury to decide which side's evidence is more convincing.
Just for the record, I often ask people for evidence of their claims. I rarely get anyone providing evidence. Even though I've critiqued the evidence you've provided, at least you did provide some that I can't simply wave away. For that you should be commended.
"I can't provide the link on this device for some reason."
I've given up trying to provide links (on a PC) because it often means that the comment is deleted or hidden. It's probably not your device specifically.
1
-
1
-
@fundsonly
I agree in principle with what you said, but where did you get those figures from? According to the ATO tax rates schedule, someone on $50K would pay $6,717, which is just under 14% (not much difference than your figures). Someone on $180K would pay $51,667, or just under 29%. And the highest tax bracket pays $51,667 plus 45c in the dollar, which would only amount to 44% overall if their income was close to $3M. For someone on $250K, they'd be paying under 34%.
That doesn't take into account the Medicare levy and perhaps some other things, but your figures appear to be too high.
But yes, it should be lower tax for all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Mr. Dawkins is part of that by standing by watching but doing nothing."
Dawkins, who is opposed to and has written against creationary views, refuses to debate scientists who are creationists. He is not merely "doing nothing", but is doing the sort of thing that he doesn't like.
"...instead of confusing science with the emotion of Religion. Science is one thing and Religion is totally different..."
They are different, but it was Christianity that founded modern science, and it is Christian views which still give it a basis. For example, see this quote from (non-Christian) Loren Eiseley:
“The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation … . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.”
"...some of the greatest scientific minds believe in a higher power even though they can't prove it ..."
"Proof" is enough evidence to convince you. Many scientists and other have "proved" it, in the sense that the evidence convinced them, even though they were often opposed to the idea in the first place.
"...so who makes shit up? Cosmologists do."
“ ‘Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science,’ says James Gunn of Princeton University, co-founder of the Sloan survey. ‘A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.’ ”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@It's time – 2022
"Any particular reason/s why? "
Because she makes sense and understands reality.
"For example, why do we need more bigots?"
We don't. Just like we don't need people who name-call for no valid reason.
"Are there not enough LNP party members in government already?"
Not good ones, no.
"Bigot – a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group (Oxford)."
Appears to fit you perfectly, with your completely unreasonable view that a so-called transgender woman, i.e. a man, should compete in women's sports. But not to Katherine, whose views on this are quite reasonable.
"In reality, I'm just an average Australian voter who doe not like to see people marginalised based purely on their sexuality and/or gender."
Nobody's marginalising them. They are quite free to compete in the sport of their (actual) sex.
On the other hand, I do not like to see people marginalised based on their completely reasonable views that there are two sexes and that one cannot change their sex.
"...the following is quite informative: Trans Girls Belong on Girls’ Sports Teams - There is no scientific case for excluding them"
"Informative" is not the word I'd use. "Biased" would be much more accurate. For one, its argument completely ignores—or even implicitly denies—the reason that there are separate sports for men and women in the first place.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@abrahamthebewildered1448
"You're saying "God," but which god?"
For the principle of where we get morals from, it doesn't really matter. But there is only one God, i.e. supreme being/creator, although there are multiple claimants for that title.
"Which I don't for a second believe there is ..."
Then why does anything exist? Everything just popped into existence out of nothing for no reason?
"(Out of all the gods in the 3000+ religions on Earth)"
Not all religions have a god or gods. And most of them don't qualify as God, i.e. the supreme being and creator. So actually there's only a very small handful in the shortlist.
"As for my stance, I already made it clear that morality is derived from empathy."
Yes, that is your opinion, but what grounds does anyone have to impose their opinion on others?
"I don't want people stealing my things, thus I don't steal other people's things."
But if they think stealing is okay, then whose opinion should apply?
"This is all very easily explained by the evolution of society."
Is it? How? Many societies have had views contrary to that.
"You however keep insisting that God is where morality is derived from."
That's not accurate. I insist that a) God is the only basis for morals that we can expect others to observe (we can't expect them to observe our opinions), and b) God is, historically, where a lot of our morals (particularly in Western Civilisation) has come from. That doesn't exclude other sources; it's just that the other sources are not good ones.
"Since you capitalized the "G," I assume you mean Yahweh, but what about Allah? Is Allah immoral? If so, who decides?"
If two people go to court with competing claims about something, what does the judge do? Shrug his shoulders and ask "who decides?"? Of course not. He examines the evidence and determines which person has the better case. The same applies here. Look at the evidence and decide which makes the most sense. Of if you don't want to, don't go around saying that one can't tell.
"This is why I called you arrogant."
I'd suggest that the arrogant one is the one who has not examined the evidence and therefore assumes, without knowing, that others have no basis for their claims.
"If I made incorrect assumptions about your stance, I apologize , but I strongly suspect I didn't."
And yet I have pointed out how you have, so it appears that you are being arrogant about that too.
1
-
@tessijordan5862
"I haven't had religion for a very long time, just my moral values, and I''ve been doing just fine."
Meaning that you haven't had a monotheistic religion for a long time. You have a personal set of beliefs upon which you base your life, and "a set of beliefs on which you base your life" is one of the meanings of the word "religion".
"I assume that the world would be just fine too, ..."
The evidence says otherwise. Places that have lost Christianity have gone backward.
"...if we all acted like adults who cared about each other."
Perhaps so, but why should we do that? Author Roy Hattersley wrote (my bolding) “I’m an atheist. But I can only look with amazement at the devotion of the Salvation Army workers. I’ve been out with them on the streets and the way they work amongst the people, the most deprived and disadvantaged and sometimes pretty repugnant characters. But they look after them as best they can. I don’t believe they would do that were it not for the religious impulse. I often say I never hear of atheist organizations taking food to the poor. You don’t hear of ‘Atheist Aid’ rather like Christian aid, and, I think, despite my inability to believe myself, I’m deeply impressed by what belief does for people like the Salvation Army.” Yes, IF we call cared... but if we don't have God setting the example, why would we all care?
"How about you dedicate some time to understanding the underlying issues of suicide ..."
In Australia, youth suicide went up as attendance at Sunday School went down. Which is more depressing? Being taught that you are a child of the king of kings, being made in the image of God, and loved by Him and special to Him? Or being taught that you are the result of a lot of accidents of nature and that you "live on an insignificant planet ... in some forgotten corner of the universe" (atheist Carl Sagan), that you are "a bit of pollution...completely irrelevant" (atheist physicist Laurence Krauss), or that you are "a bit of slime on the planet" (atheist Oxford professor Peter Atkins)?
"instead of just assuming that religion would fix them?"
Who is assuming? Christianity has "fixed" many, many things. The story is told of a street preacher challenged to a debate by an atheist:
"Before the crowd of 300 or 400 people, he accepted the challenge—adding, however, that he had one condition. The atheist must present at least two bona fide witnesses who had been saved from lives of disgrace and degradation by their belief, while he would provide no less than 100 who had been saved from the same state by the gospel of Christ. Hurriedly the atheist declined the terms and left, to the delight of the crowd."
Christianity has the runs on the board.
1
-
@abrahamthebewildered1448
"Yea, but the idea that there is only one god is your assumption."
No, it's not an assumption. There can, logically, be only one supreme being. More than one and neither/none would be supreme. Also, living things have a lot in common, such as use of the DNA code, which implies a single creator. Of course the Bible, which has proven to be a reliable source, also teaches that there is only one God.
"As for the rest of what you said, I'm not discussing it here."
You're good at avoiding the issue, aren't you? I'm only responding to things that you have raised.
"Bottom line, believe what you want, and extend the same courtesy to others."
Hey, I'm not forcing my beliefs on anyone. But if you can comment and make incorrect claims, I'm entitled to comment in return and challenge you on them. If you refuse to address the issues you raise, that's your problem.
"Beyond that, the economic model to aspire to is the capitalist, which is the most fair..."
Agreed. And that was a product of Christianity (see Rodney Stark, The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success.
"Oh, and for the last part of what you wrote, you literally just affirmed my original assumption."
Umm, no, I denied it.
"You just said that there is only one god, which is an arrogant proclamation to make."
How is it arrogant to make an evidence-based statement? Again, the arrogance is in asserting what you don't have reason to assert.
"Maybe there is one, maybe there are several, or maybe there are none."
Your ignorance of which it is is not reason to accuse me of arrogance.
"The evidence thus far points to there being none."
What evidence? I've mentioned evidence to the contrary. You're refusing to address that evidence, but continue to assert your own opinion.
"When there is strong evidence that there is a god(Or gods) then I'll have no choice but to accept it as truth."
Then you have no choice, because there IS strong evidence, as I have touched on.
"You'll no doubt want me to elaborate on this, ..."
Of course. You made the claims, so you have an onus to back them up when challenged.
"I'd discuss it IRL, face to face, but not like this."
Then why did you raise the issue in this forum? Why isn't it arrogant to make claims in an on-line public forum and then refuse to support them?
1
-
@abrahamthebewildered1448
"No, I just don't have 10 hours to keep going back and forth with you refuting all the fallacious arguments you're making; ..."
If you don't have time to substantiate your claims, then you should not be making the claims in the first place. Such as your claim that I'm making fallacious arguments.
"If I make a point, like how the most successful systems developed were in fact not a products of Christianity but products of societies that existed hundred, and in some cases over a thousand years before the Christian society, then you'll come up with some nonsense to refute it, that's logically flawed, or untrue."
Again, you're making a claim—that I'll respond with nonsense—that you are not prepared to support with evidence. Making a claim that you know you're not prepared to support is, umm, arrogant?
"For example, if anything, Modern Western government and society was based on the Roman Empire, which incorporated elements from the even more ancient Greeks, ..."
I'm sure that there are elements of Western society that does trace back to those societies, but there are numerous scholars who say that the main influence is Christianity. Unlike you I won't just make claims and refuse to support them—I'll support them with evidence. In fact, I already have, such as with my citation of Tom Holland. Did you even look at that video? From your lack of response on that, it appears that you haven't, which means that I'm citing authoritative sources and you're waving them away with the excuse that you don't have the time to respond and with 'elephant hurling', that there is this large body of evidence that supposedly supports you view, but which you don't provide. If you don't have time, fair enough. But if you don't have time to defend your position, then I suggest that you shouldn't keep pushing your position. That suggests that we should believe you just because you say so, which is surely arrogant?
1
-
@tessijordan5862
"I do have a personal spirituality, not one imposed on me by an external source."
God doesn't impose a religion on us. He offers us a way to be reconciled to Him. It is our choice whether or not we accept that offer. If we don't, then He will permanently leave us to our ourselves. Of course, given that God has provided everything* that is good (including friends), being without Him and what he's provided will be (literally) hell.
"Such a big difference in how things work when you live by your own values."
True. But how is that necessarily a good thing? After all, people like Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and many others did just that. Serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer lived by his own values too. He said "If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway."
"I really don''t need to convince you of anything."
True, you don't. But if you make a claim and can't back it up, then nobody needs to take any notice of you either.
"Just like I've been doing all this time right up until you felt like I owe something to you. Which I don't."
Well, in a civil conversation, you kind of do owe the people you're making claims to some reason to accept those claims. But sure, if you just want to make bald assertions with nothing to back them, you're free to do that. And others are free to question your reasoning and to highlight that they are nothing but bald assertions.
*—You've probably heard this joke, but it highlights this point nicely. Here's a version I found on the internet:
-----
"There’s an old joke about human arrogance. One day a group of scientists got together and decided that humanity had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him. The scientist walked up to God and said, “God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We’re to the point where we can clone people, manipulate atoms, build molecules, fly through space, and do many other miraculous things. So why don’t you just go away and mind your own business from now on?”
"God listened very patiently and kindly to the man. After the scientist was done talking, God said, “Very well. How about this? Before I go, let’s say we have a human-making contest.” To which the scientist replied, “Okay, we can handle that!”
“But,” God added, “we’re going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam.”
"The scientist nodded, “Sure, no problem” and bent down and picked up a handful of dirt. God wagged a finger at him and said, “Uh, uh, uh. Put that down. You go find your own dirt.” "
-----
1
-
@mariahewitt9787
"Benjamin Netanyahu told his Likud colleagues. "Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian State, has to support bolstering Hamas, and transferring money to Hamas. This is part of our strategy, to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza, from the West Bank " "
The Guardian quotes that in an article titled "Warning: Benjamin Netanyahu is walking right into Hamas’s trap", saying that "In March 2019, Netanyahu told his Likud colleagues: “Anyone who wants..." But it supports that claim with a link to a Vox article which says "These exact comments have not yet been confirmed by other sources."
And a JNS article titled "The myth that Israel/Netanyahu created/funded Hamas" says "Social media has passed around a claim taken from an article in the ultra-left Haaretz about Netanyahu funding Hamas. ... The actual source is supposedly the biography of Haim Ramon, who had not served in the government since 2009, and certainly not in the Likud.
Ramon, a leftist politician, had been convicted of sexual harassment, partially ending his political career. He certainly had not been a Likud member and was not attending any such meetings, raising serious credibility issues regarding the quote."
So the authenticity of the quote is, at least, in question. But of course Hamas was around well before 2019. Even IF Netanyahu did something inadvertently that encouraged or strengthened Hamas, they were already a problem, and it is with them that the real blame lies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Pemalite
"I don't need evidence to discard your God claim... The burden of proof lays upon you to prove your God exists."
No, the burden of proof always lays on the one making the claim. You made the claim, so you have the burden of evidence. It seems that you have none, in which case your claim was made on blind faith.
"Otherwise I can assert that the flying spaghetti monster is a real thing... And you would be obligated to believe it unless you can prove otherwise."
False, because your posing a straw-man. I never said that we are obliged to believe things that have no evidence. My point was that we can't reject claims simply because they (supposedly) have no evidence. We could simply leave the question open. In the case of the FSM, we know that it was an invention, because we know how the idea came about. In the case of God, we have evidence.
"If you can prove without a doubt that the Bible is 100% accurate and your God exists..."
What do you mean by "prove"? Scientific proof? No such thing. Mathematical proof? Not applicable here. Logical proof? Easy, but it depends on whether one accepts the premises. Criminal trial level of proof (beyond reasonable doubt)? I believe that's possible. Civil trial level of proof (more probable than not)? Absolutely, if one is open-minded enough to consider the evidence, which as I have pointed out, is considerable.
"You will be the first person to do so in thousands of years since the Middle-Eastern Abrahamic religions rose to prominence."
Given my question above about what is meant by 'proof', my own definition is "sufficient evidence to cause one to accept/believe the claim". If that is what is meant by 'proof', then the fact is that it has been proved to many people, including many who have set out to prove it wrong and have ended up accepting the claim as true, because the evidence was sufficient to convince them.
"But that isn't going to happen..."
As I've said, it's already happened many times.
"Because you are one of those theistic loonies."
So not only do you have no evidence of your claim, you resort to insult to compensate for your lack of evidence.
"Mate. Your arguments are a joke."
On the contrary, it is you who has denied your own thinking. To paraphrase you, "There is zero evidence for your claim that there no evidence that God exists. - And thus I can discard your claim of no evidence with equally as much evidence."
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paulchilds9137
"phil, i thought god was composed of father, son and holy ghost."
God is not composed of parts. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all the one God, albeit in three persons. Yes, it's a concept that's hard to understand because we have nothing to relate it to, but that's what God is.
"So that is pantheism?"
Actually, what you're trying to say is polytheism, i.e. multiple gods (which God isn't). Pantheism is the idea that everything is god, i.e. including nature, us, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@redrooster5444
"Alcohol is more dangerous than all but heroin, and that is only because of unknown strength."
I'm not sure that's the case, but it's hardly a vindication of the other drugs.
"The only danger in MDMA is the impurities it is cut with, same is true of almost all "illegal" or "Controlled" drugs such as Cocaine, speed, uppers, downers etc.."
I believe that the evidence says otherwise.
"And Cannabis has not harmed or killed one person in over 6,000 years of recorded use,..."
Pull the other one.
"It also replaces cotton with its huge unecological thirst for water and herbicides and replaced paper cellulose, removing the need to cut down trees."
We are, of course, talking about its use as a drug.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@madeleinebray5205
"We were told repeatedly by our Health Ministers, Premiers, medical personnel, etc, that we all had to have the jab to stop transmission."
I don't recall exactly what they said, but okay. My point remains, however, that that claim was not made in this video.
"Just because this Collignon bloke does a bait and switch..."
Making a different claim is not a "bait and switch".
You're being quite unreasonable.
* During the pandemic, the authorities told us stuff that wasn't always true, such as 'the vaccine will stop transmission'.
* During the pandemic, this doctor was critical of those falsehoods.
* This doctor is saying that although it didn't stop transmission, it did reduce it.
* You are falsely accusing this doctor of "bait and switch" and "changing" the claim to "reduce".
In other words, you're criticising him as though he was the one who was misleading us. You're blaming the wrong person.
So my point remains, that you've shown no evidence of a lie in this video. You can't blame this doctor for what someone else said.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sweeney4727
"ok but u cant change chromosomes even with trans people"
I never said you could. Before you edited your post, you, however, indicated that that was possible. I challenged you on that, and then you conceded that it was not possible. So I don't know why you're continuing to argue something that I agree with.
"and thats legit the definition of a transphobe"
No, that's name-calling. First, a phobia is an irrational fear. So no, it doesn't simply means someone who disagrees.
Second, if all you're saying is that I disagree with transgenderism, then why not just say that, instead of using a term that is derogatory?
"look up the definition lol "Phobe doesn't always mean "Fear" but dislike or something else"
Yes, the term can be used more loosely, but a) it doesn't simply mean disagreement, and b) 'transphobia' is taking its cue from 'homophobia', a word coined in order to denigrate those who reject homosexuality. The origins of the term are in trying to denigrate. Ergo, you are, as I said, name-calling.
IDAHOBIT day is an "International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia". So are you trying to say that IDAHOBIT is a day against people even disagreeing with transgenderism (etc.)? Why?
No, clearly transphobia is supposed to be wrong. To claim that even disagreeing is wrong is bigotry.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gregdavis5342
"The laptop has been known to be fake since the week the story broke."
Thought to be fake by the left. Shown to be real.
"In fact the reporters who wrote the story knew it was fake BEFORE the story broke - that's why they refused to sign their names to it."
Evidence please.
"what insider trading?"
The insider trading that Paul Pelosi is alleged to have been involved in with his wife's inside information.
"No it wasn't reported everywhere,..."
You're correct, of course, because "everywhere" is rather comprehensive. But it was widely reported by non-left sources. Here's a quote from a Canadian source:
"It was the uncanny over-performance of Pelosi's own stock portfolio that drew attention to potential insider trading by Congress, back in 2021. ... With a congressional salary of $223,500 a year, she was somehow worth an estimated at $120 million. Confronted about her seemingly uncanny business sense that month, Pelosi argued the US has a free-market economy and that members of Congress "should be able to participate" in.
"Moreover, she said, it was her husband Paul - in the headlines recently for different reasons - who was handling all the stock trades in the family, and she knew nothing about it whatsoever. President Joe Biden said much the same thing when asked about the business dealings of his son Hunter. The American press took them both at their word and probed no further."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Religion has held back the human race for far too long."
Which religions? Other than atheist ones, I mean?
"We should discrimination against religion it's in everyone's best interest."
Not Christianity. It has the runs on the board, in founding public hospitals, many charities, the university system, modern science, and universal education, plus spreading democracy, twice abolishing slavery, raising the status of women, and supporting the concept of human rights.
What has atheism done? Apart from slaughter literally millions of people in the 20th century (Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot, etc.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@charlesbrightman4237
"Modern science claims energy cannot be created nor destroyed,"
The 1st Law of Thermodynamics, concerned with what nature is capable of doing.
"...hence energy is eternally existent."
Only if nature is all there is.
"...so an absolute somethingness always existed, most probably being energy itself."
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says otherwise. It says that all the energy is being used up, that the universe is running down. But the energy is not all used up yet; the universe has not fully run down. Therefore it has not been around forever. There was a beginning.
"'a' is true, is it not? 'b' is true, is it not? If 'a' and 'b' are true, then no creator is needed in 'c'."
Given that 'a' and 'b' are not true, the conclusion is baseless.
"The universe ALWAYS existed in some form and NEVER had a beginning."
And yet, according to the views of one of the leading Big Bang theorists, "The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere. How is that possible? Ask Alan Guth. His theory of inflation helps explain everything."
"For those who claim God actually exists (besides as a concept), consider the following:"
I believe that I have pointed out the fallacies in your argument before.
"That [energy being eternal] is a fundamental belief in modern science."
No, it's not. The 2nd Law denies it.
"Where did the stuff that made up energy come from?"
It wasn't stuff. It was God.
"What laws of nature were in existence to allow this to occur?"
The laws of nature are descriptive, not prescriptive. They explain how the physical world works; they don't prescribe how it's allowed to work.
"A third option: Something ALWAYS existed and never had a beginning."
Ruled out by the 2nd Law. That's why science moved away from the Steady State model (the universe always existed) to the Big Bang model (it had a beginning).
"where did your 'creator' come from"
He had no beginning, so He didn't 'come from' anywhere. You're asking a nonsense question, like who is the bachelor married to.
"I can show how 'a' can be really true, but nobody as of yet has been able to show me how 'b' can be really true."
Jesus showed that. And you haven't shown that it can't be.
"The singular big bang, like the creation account in the Bible, are both fairy tales for various reasons."
What makes the history of the Bible a fairy tale?
1
-
1
-
@matthewlane
"Sure, kinda like it's only logical the Earth is flat, because if it were round everything would fall off."
He said that it's logical, but he wasn't presenting the logic. The logic for there being a creator is actually quite good. Just for starters, the principle of cause and effect requires that the universe—which had a beginning—had a cause. But the cause must be outside the (natural) universe. Ergo, the cause must be super-natural.
"It's not from nothing, it's from something that doesn't exist within our universe anymore..."
What makes you think it doesn't exist within our universe anymore? God does still exist here.
"Everything we have now was created by changes in energy,..."
What's the evidence for that?
"Ther'es no point of reference for the colour blue in a red uinverse, ..."
Why do you think that's a good analogy? If God created, and if we are made in His image and meant to understand His creation, then the analogy fails.
"No, those are just the only two options your limited red man mind can concieve of."
You haven't provided a third, and I don't believe that there can be one. Your suggestion attempts to explain where 'everything' comes from, by suggesting something prior to this universe. But that hypothetical prior thing is still part of the 'everything', so is not a third option.
"A third option: Something ALWAYS existed and never had a beginning."
That was the Steady State model that science has rejected, thanks to the 2nd Law. And if it was, it would be part of 'everything'.
"Otherwise also, where did your 'creator' come from..."
He didn't. Unlike the material universe which the 2nd law says can't have existed forever, God is spirit, existing outside of time (time being part of what He created), so is not subject to the 2nd law. As such God, unlike matter/energy, is eternal, so didn't 'come from' anywhere.
"... and made up from what, with what laws of nature?"
God made the laws of nature. He is not subject to them, not being part of nature.
1
-
1
-
@charlesbrightman4237
"Please prove otherwise. Speculation is one thing, having proof is another."
I don't need to. You're the one who made the claim that assumes that nature is all there is. I only need to point out the fact that you haven't shown that nature is all there is to show that your idea has a flaw.
"NO, you haven't. You only think you did in your own mind, but you didn't in actual reality."
I maintain that I have, and that you only think I'm wrong in your own mind, not in reality.
"Okay, where did God come from?"
I've already answered that in my previous reply to you.
"if God can truly eternally exist somehow, someway, then why couldn't energy eternally exist somehow, someway?"
I didn't say that energy couldn't eternally exist. I said that according to the 2nd law, the energy available for use runs down, and that it hasn't all run down, so it hasn't been around forever. But the 2nd law applies to physical things in time, not to God, a non-physical being, outside of time.
"Again, you claim that 'b' in my God analysis is really true, and yet deny that 'a' is really true."
Sorry, I'm not clear which 'a' and 'b' you are referring to there. In my previous comment I did say "Given that 'a' and 'b' are not true...", but perhaps they are a different 'a' and 'b'?
"ONLY in your own mind, but in reality 'space' and 'energy' are one and the same."
No, not only in his mind. In the minds of scientists around the world.
"AND, 'if' you say that 'space' and 'energy' are two different things, then I ask you, "What exactly is 'space'?" "
Space is the area that contains energy.
"God does not actually exist except for as a concept alone. I cannot currently prove more. And neither can apparently anybody else either."
Except that others have.
"Especially those who claim a magical sky daddy truly exists with no actual factual evidence that such an actual entity actually factually exists."
Well, it's just as well that Christians make no reference to a magical sky daddy with no evidence then, isn't it? Instead, they talk about God, and provide factual evidence of His existence.
1
-
@matthewlane
"No it really isn't."
What's your evidence?
"No actually it doesn't. It only requires that the current configuration of our universe was caused by an effect."
Why is that all it requires? You've simply asserted that the universe itself doesn't need a cause, for no apparent reason.
"A creator is not required, only a cause."
True, insofar as that particular argument goes, but I didn't stop there.
"Nope, just before the current configuration of the universe."
I'm not sure how that makes sense. The cause of the current configuration must be outside the current configuration, but the cause of the universe in toto must be outside the universe in toto.
"It hasn't been."
The Steady State model has been rejected by most scientists.
"You can't reject it until you can demonstrate it is false."
It was shown to be false by the 2nd Law.
"Since we can't falsify the universe prior to the big bang, we can't demonstrate it's wrong & so can't discard it."
What universe prior to the Big Bang? The Big Bang is purportedly the beginning of the universe.
"There are no laws of nature hun, just the laws of physics,"
The laws of nature = the laws of physics. You're either arguing semantics or trying to claim that they are two different things.
"They aren't prescriptive, they are descriptive."
True. But I understood you to believe otherwise with your question "... and made up from what, with what laws of nature?"
"No, they don't."
Yes, they do.
"they've simply concocted a story to explain something they didn't understand...."
What's your evidence for that?
"Because that's all religion is: susperstitious humans anthropomorphising natural forces they can't explain."
What's your evidence for that being the case with Christianity?
And what's your evidence that I asked you about previously which you haven't supplied?
1
-
@matthewlane
"Reality is the evidence."
Well, given that reality is on my side, you obviously have no evidence.
"Because that's how a cause & an effect work."
Not an answer.
"A cause does not require a creator, only a cause."
A cause does not require a cause. An effect requires a cause. But not just any cause—it has to be a sufficient cause. So my question stands.
"We already know what the cause of our universe is, it was the big bang."
First, that is not something we "know", but something that some people believe. Second, the Big Bang was the supposed mechanism, not the cause. To put it another way, what caused the Big Bang?
"No it's just true."
Yes, it's true that I didn't stop there. So you've failed address the rest of my argument.
"In fact of all the things humans have erver discovered the cause of, the amount of times "god dunnit" was the answer remains at zero."
What about the things that they haven't discovered the cause of, and which couldn't occur naturally? After all, the things that humans have discovered the cause of must, almost by definition, be restricted to the things that God didn't cause, given that the things He caused were before humans could observe their origin.
"Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it simply changes."
You haven't shown that it can't be created. And you're ignoring the 2nd Law.
"Correct. But that doesn't mean that you get ot isnert your god claim in to that."
Who or what else is outside of the universe in toto?
"Doesn't matter."
First you claimed that it hadn't been rejected, then you claim that it doesn't matter that it has! So it doesn't matter that you were wrong?
"Science isn't a religion,…"
I never claimed nor implied otherwise.
"…it doesn't matter what scientists reject, only what scientists can demonstrate."
Why they reject them might matter though. And scientists can't demonstrate the Big Bang or deep time.
"Its not."
Bald denials are not a rebuttal.
"The energy that changed to become the universe."
What energy? Scientists haven't demonstrated any such energy, and yet you said that only what scientists can demonstrate matters.
"But not necassirly the beginning of the energy that became the universe,…"
What energy that became the universe?
"…because energy cannot be created or destroyed,…"
I've already rebutted that. I pointed out that it cannot be created or destroyed naturally. There is no evidence that it can't be created supernaturally.
"The fact that every single story concocted by every single religion has completely failed to accurately depict the fundemetal forces of the universe, while they all do exactly that."
So your evidence is another assertion. What's your evidence for that ?
"Those humans then becamse superstitious about things they couldn't understand & so they came up with anthropomorphised reasons why things happen."
Evidence? Because that sounds very much like "evolution dunnit".
"And heck, it's not like we don't have contemporary examples, like the Cargo Cults thast formed around the existance of cargo planes."
Good point. But certainly not conclusive. You might as well argue that there are no genuine $20 bills because we have examples of people faking $20 bills.
"End of the day religion really is nothing more than a complicated way of pleading with thunderstorms."
Which religions? They are not all the same, you know.
"It's the case for every reliigion mate, yours is no different, as much as you want to believe otherwise."
In other words, you have no evidence. Thanks for that tacit admission.
"If we were to delete all of human excellence & reset it back to barbarism, 10,000 years from now we'd have rediscovered all the science we have now."
What's your evidence for that?
"But we would never again have christianity..."
Again, what's your evidence?
"…& we'd have some guy, just like you, thinking his religion was the exception."
And we'd have some guy, just like you, making generalisations without actually making a specific argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pwillis1589
"Yes I understand you presuppose a god from your imagination ..."
That's your imagination. God doesn't come from my imagination.
"I make no claim other than I don't know."
Which is a claim.
"I see no evidence of a god is not a claim of knowledge."
Well, it is, actually. But if you qualify it, as here, as merely what you're aware of, that is information about your knowledge, not about God's existence.
But the point is I didn't (originally at least) challenge you on that. I challenged you on your claims about the Big Bang. For some unknown reason, instead of defending those claims, you pretended that I was challenging you about God.
"I'm happy receiving my spiritual advice from the pixies in the top end of my backyard. You presuppose a god same thing."
No, not the same thing. There is much, and well-known, evidence for God.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danturnbull337
"All religions are targets becouse they don't make sence in this world..."
Christianity does. Or perhaps you can produce evidence to prove me wrong?
"We need to evolve away from stupid beliefs and take our reality head on .."
Christianity is not a stupid belief, and you haven't even attempted to show that it is. Christianity has given the world a lot of good things, including science, which seems a bit at odds with your claim that it's a stupid belief.
"Otherwise these religions will kill each other and all people are affected..."
Evidence please. That Christianity will do that.
"Ban all religions....2023..."
Including atheistic religions? And then what will people believe?
"I simply don't value opinion's that stem from anyone that believes in invisible friends..."
You have to see the friend to believe in them? Well, I guess I can decide to not believe in you, because I can't see you.
"Got any tangible evidence..."
Yes, plenty.
"And no...the trees...animals...anything on earth or the stars are not your tangible evidence.."
Why not? How does anything at all exist without God? The idea that the universe just popped into existence out of nothing is not credible. Every action needs a cause (a basic scientific principle), so the beginning of the universe needed a cause, and given that 'universe' refers to the entire physical existence, the cause must be non-physical, or spiritual, or supernatural.
How come the universe appears to be 'fine tuned', with very precise values for things, such as the strong and weak nuclear forces. The combination of those values are required for the universe to exist at all, and the odds of them occurring by chance is zero. So who fine-tuned the universe?
Where did the genetic information in trees and animals come from? Scientists have been unable to identify any natural process that can generate that information, and every single example we have of meaningful information (i.e. not just noise) came from an intelligence. Therefore, genetic information coming from an intelligence is the only rational position to take. But the only intelligence before there was life is God.
Jesus' life, death, and resurrection is also evidence of God.
So, I've provided evidence. It's your turn to provide evidence for your claims that I have challenged you on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kelly_Kapowski
"Garbage. It’s all been explained to you by me and others numerous times in the Sky News Comments."
Like you, they've thrown around insult, rejected what I said out of hand, but not actually shown that what I've said is wrong. You are repeating the same sorts of arguments. "You argue like a child" is an abusive ad hominem, which is a logical fallacy. You need to address my arguments, not attack me.
"You dismiss any medical science, sociology or gender studies you disagree with."
Any that I dismiss is because they are based on an ideology that doesn't withstand scrutiny. I'm sure I've quoted to you before from a gender studies academic who has admitted that everybody in the field is simply making it up.
"Meanwhile, every single one of your erroneous claims about trans and gay people are based entirely on rhetoric or irrational religious doctrine. "
So you claim, but you've not shown that the religious doctrine is irrational. So yet again, you're resorting to insult, not argument. Further, you are incorrect. I'm basing it on history and design, not religious doctrine.
"Provide mainstream medical science to back your claims, otherwise they are worthless."
You mean like the science that only acknowledges two sexes? And that says that sex is based on the chromosomes, which nobody can change? I've mentioned such mainstream science before.
"You’re so cringeworthy, at this point you might as well be a satire account."
Another abusive ad hominem. That you resort to that so frequently shows that you are unable to actually show that I'm wrong.
"Why are there no dinosaurs in the bible?"
What's your evidence is that there are no dinosaurs (mentioned) in the Bible?
1
-
@Kelly_Kapowski
Congratulations on not resorting to abusive ad hominem this time (mostly at least).
1. So what sexes are there than male and female?
2. Yes, you can construct things such as gender. There's no real basis for it in reality though. The other things you mentioned are things that God created or endorsed (if you substitute Christianity for the over-generalisation of 'religion'). Gender is not.
3. Yes, there is a spectrum of sexual orientation as well. It still goes against how we were designed.
4. True.
5 (first). Not all experts in the field accept all those points.
5 (second). Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, said this (my bolding):
"The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability —not the validity—of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."
I'm not saying that peer review is pointless or useless. But when it comes to a faddish issue like transgenderism, peer review works to exclude alternative views. See also this from Professor Evelleen Richards from the UNSW:
"Science...is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as “truth”? is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment in time … it is very difficult for people who are pushing claims that contradict the paradigm to get a hearing. They’ll find it difficult to [get] research grants; they’ll find it hard to get their research published; they’ll, in fact, find it very hard."
And that applies here. Researchers who come to contrary conclusions on the transgender issue find it hard to get published.
6. Gender studies are made up. As I mentioned last time, I'm sure I've quoted this to you before, but here it is again, from Christopher Dummitt, an academic in that field: "The problem is: I was wrong. Or, to be a bit more accurate, I got things partly right. But then, for the rest, I basically just made it up. In my defence, I wasn’t alone. Everyone was (and is) making it up. That’s how the gender-studies field works."
7. So what? I don't dispute that peer-reviewed studies have been conducted. Many of them are not very rigorous, however (self-selected participants, relying on memories, excluding people who had died, etc.)
7. I stated that it can be effective. Not that it "is" effective. The American Psychiatric Association was infiltrated by trans-agenda supporters and has no credibility in this area.
"...states ”is a practice that is not supported by credible evidence..."
A common tactic. Don't study the effectiveness of X, then declare that there is no evidence in support of X. I notice that they're not saying (in that quote) that the practice has been shown to be ineffective.
"...and has been disavowed by behavioral health experts worldwide"
Which is the woke thing to do. It just shows their bias.
"It’s also banned in about 60 countries and territories."
For being ineffective? Why? Or for being harmful? Such therapies are banned in the state of Victoria, which has included prayer in the ban. What studies were done to show that prayer is harmful? This just goes to show that the ban is not evidence-based, but ideological.
"Feel free to provide any mainstream peer reviewed science to prove me wrong."
I need to show mainstream peer-reviewed science that there are only two sexes? Seriously? Or are you talking about the ideological issue that has infested the naturalist science? Given my quotes above about peer review, they are hard to come by.
"But remember “I don’t believe in science” isn’t evidence."
I don't make that claim. So that's a straw-man (another logical fallacy). I DO believe in the Christian invention of science, when not done on an assumption of naturalism or other ideology.
So where's your evidence of dinosaurs not being mentioned in the Bible? Don't you have any?
1
-
@Kelly_Kapowski
1. Nope. Intersex is not another sex. There are two sexes. Period.
2. I never said that. You're making that up.
"Absolutely no different from someone saying language or religion isn’t real. "
Since when? I have been asking for evidence. That is what matters here. Clearly there is evidence that languages exist, and whether you believe it or not, there is plenty of evidence for God.
3. "...has no relation to facts." What's your evidence that design has no relation to facts? I reject your claim that design is a reference to religion. The religion that you refer to (Christianity) is based on the facts. The facts are not based on the religion. But this is your beliefs about religion showing. You reject what I'm saying on the basis that my comments are based on my (religious) beliefs, but yours are based on your (presumably) atheistic beliefs. You're doing what you accuse me of.
5: " No one said all experts in those fields agree." You said "Mainstream medical science accepts..." as though that was the consensus. "The vast majority of mainstream medical science supports trans people and transitions." As I said, due to ideology.
5 (2): "This is word salad aiming to obfuscate ..." And with that, you dismiss what the scientists I quoted have said about the limits of peer review. Because, presumably, to quote you, “I don’t agree with it so I’m going to dismiss it".
"...yet another instance of you saying “I don’t agree with it so I’m going to dismiss it or label it biased.” I quoted authorities on the matter. You know, scientists, the sort of people you have been citing.
"The process of peer-reviewing is the most robust system we have..."
And yet it is prone to bias and groupthink, as those scientists I quoted pointed out.
"The very nature of the peer-review system strongly limits bias."
I don't think you understand peer review as well as you think you do.
6. "...another example of you dismissing something because you don’t agree with it while providing no evidence to support."
Given that I did provide evidence in support, that is a straight-out falsehood.
"The testimony of one person doesn’t mean a single thing. It’s not a pattern."
The testimony of one person involved in the field does mean something. And for what it's worth, that expert said that it IS a pattern. In fact he gave evidence of that, in that none of his peers pointed out that he had not addressed contrary published views on the topic.
"The quote you referenced was from a publication that also prints articles about Phrenology, so it’s integrity is less than zero."
This is a guilt-by-association tactic, plus being of questionable accuracy (your comment, that is). Yes, it has apparently printed the occasional article about phrenology (but then plenty of publications have), and there are claims that they have been supportive of phrenology. But has it really? You've heard lines like "The opinions of the authors are not necessarily shared by this publication"? Perhaps the "problem" with Quillette is that it's prepared to publish a variety of views rather than conform to groupthink. I also notice that Quillette interviewed prominent sceptic Michael Shermer (so I suppose he has no integrity either), and in that interview the interviewer—a Quillette staff member, not just an "author" that wrote something in their publication—referred to phrenology as a "reviled idea". Also, the interview was partly about the sort of stuff that Scientific American was publishing, such as claiming that rejecting evolution could be equated to white supremacy. He also pointed out that a lot of "black" Americans reject evolution, which, by the way, was responsible for a lot of racism. So I guess Scientific American and evolution have zero credibility too.
But as I said, this is all a guilt-by-association argument. Quillette may have been happy to publish Dummitt's article, but it remains Dummitt's article. You can't dismiss it that way just because you don't agree with it. (Drat! There I go quoting you again!)
7. Yes, I have read some. Of course it's not just my opinion. And yes, I want to reject them, as you want to accept them, but I don't do so without reason.
8. Would it be allowed to be published?
"The only reason it’s not banned in all states and territories in Australia is the ACL’s ..."
I don't believe that they have that much power. Perhaps if their influence is effective, it might be because they can make a good case. But if they have that much influence, why is it banned in any state?
"...persistent interference in politics."
So various lobby groups can try and influence the government, but if a Christian group does it, it's "interference"? Your bigotry is showing.
"Something they have no business doing."
That presupposes that it's not a moral and ideological issue, but I maintain that it IS a moral and theological issue. So they have every business lobbying on this issue.
"There is zero evidence outside church rhetoric it can change a person’s sexuality."
Except that there is. And you ignored my point about prayer.
"A person’s sexual orientation cannot be changed."
Except that it has happened.
"The implication is that their orientation is “incorrect” and that is rubbish which is not supported by any medical science."
Science is about facts. Right and wrong is the domain of God. It IS incorrect, because it goes against the way that God designed us. That your (presumably) atheist beliefs won't let you accept that is not evidence.
"Do you support the idea of heterosexual conversion therapy?”
Of course not. That would be morally wrong, because we were designed to be heterosexual.
"Almost all of your arguments amount to “I don’t agree” ... "
Blatantly false, especially given that I have provided you with quotes from experts.
"...or “because god”. Weak."
"Because God" is actually the strongest of reasons. You only consider it weak because of your own atheistic views.
9. I've read it several times. Try Job 40:15ff. It describes a creature that matches no other creature than a sauropod dinosaur.
1
-
@Kelly_Kapowski
1. The onus was on you to provide evidence of another sex. You have not done so.
2. That's a non-sequitur. Just because one social construct is not real doesn't mean that another one isn't. Some claims need evidence, whereas others need logic. But to clarify, what I pointed out that I never said was that "any social constructs you disagree with or go against your religion are “not real”." I never said that.
3. 'Design' is a term widely used in many fields, including medicine. (Or do you think things like MRI machines are not designed?). But you're right, it's not used (much) in biology, but that's because of the philosophical position of methodological naturalism, a position that says that you have to exclude explanations involving God even where the evidence points to God. That's ideological. Further, 'intelligent design' is a scientific, not religious, term. You've swallowed the anti-God views of people opposed to it. You accuse me of no evidence, but I explicitly asked you for evidence of your claim, and yet you have provided none. Instead you cited an opinion on what ID is and denied that design is a real thing.
5. False. It wasn't simply "dismissed". My response gave reasons which you have ignored.
5 (2). I'm not claiming that there is a better system. Peer review is, in principle a good system, and works well when it's used properly. However, it can be easily misused, which is what I was pointing out. So simply citing "peer review" as though that settles the case is not sufficient.
6. "Publishing law"? What's that? "pseudoscience" is a real thing, but what counts as pseudoscience can be hotly disputed. I don't agree with phrenology, but if someone wants to argue for it, they should be allowed to, rather than having it rejected by putting a label on it. You're trying to dismiss an entire journal on the basis of it allegedly publishing something that you (and I) disagree with. That's a huge overreach, and ignores my comments about Shermer and Scientific American.
7. "surely you have mainstream peer reviewed data to support your claim."—Why would you say "surely" when I've shown that the system is stacked against such views?
8. "Speaking of pseudoscience - I asked you to provide evidence that CT works and again you failed." You didn't just ask for evidence. You asked for a particular type of evidence that I'd already pointed out was an unreasonable request.
"The onus is on you to retort with evidence, not imply some nefarious ideological censorship."
False. The onus is on you to show that what you ask for is a reasonable request. Such 'censorship' in various fields has been well documented. That you ask for something without showing that it's a reasonable request puts no onus on me.
"CT is an exclusively religious practice." What's your evidence of that? In fact, my understanding is that the only real basis for objection to CT is some old (basically no longer used) practices that were done in mainstream medicine. Everything else—including prayer—is then lumped in with that by using a guilt-by-association tactic. To clarify, CT has involved practices A, B, C, D, E, and F. A and B were shown to be ineffective and harmful. So, for ideological reasons, A, B, C, D, E, and F have all been banned, despite no evidence against C, D, E, and F. (And I note that you have yet to provide the requested evidence that prayer is harmful.)
" ‘Prayer’ is entirely esoteric." Utter nonsense. It is extremely well known.
"Feel free to provide data which measures the effectiveness of prayer."
Again, the onus is on you to show why it is banned, i.e. why it is harmful. You're not only failing to do that, but trying to push the onus back onto me.
"Moralising in the name of religion is not evidence."
I didn't claim that it's evidence. I pointed out that it's appropriate to "moralise", as you misleadingly put it, when it is a moral issue. And I'm not talking about religion, but about God's standards. "Religion" is far too broad a category, encompassing a wide variety of often conflicting beliefs, including atheist ones in the broadest use of the term. I'm not arguing from "religion", but from facts of design and history. That you choose in your atheistic views to label such arguments as "religious" does not make them so, and it not grounds for ignoring or dismissing the arguments.
" Morally - Nebulous and subjective." To an atheist, yes, because an atheist has no absolute grounds for saying that anything is morally wrong, including, say, torturing babies. To a Christian, however, it is not nebulous and subjective. Murder is wrong because God has not given us the right to kill other humans (except in limited circumstances). So this is you arguing on the basis of your atheistic views.
" Designed - Theology". False. Things are designed all the time. It's a real thing. Even people such as Lenski who purported to show an evolutionary change in bacteria design their experiments. There is clear evidence of design in living things, despite the ideological denials of that. Even ardent atheist evolutionists such as Dawkins admit that design is apparent. It's just that he dismisses that is is real because he is an atheist who thinks he can explain it without design.
"Provide mainstream peer reviewed evidence supporting this statement." Again, you're asking for something unreasonable. You're asking for scientific evidence supporting a moral view. This is the philosophy/religion of scientism, the view that science can explain everything.
"The ACL literally just ordered the Liberal Government to tank their own Religious Discrimination bill..."
Evidence?
"all the Parliamentary transcripts are public"
Then you should have no problem pointing me to the actual transcript that shows that.
"...and have repeatedly blocked Conversion Therapy bans in various states. They have plenty of power. "
Repeating your claim without evidence does not make it any more true.
"Only if you want to hide reason and evidence behind theology."
Not at all. Theology is based on evidence and reason. Despite what atheists think on the matter. (Again, you're basing your claims on an atheistic view, essentially doing what you accuse me of doing.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RaiderWolf-yd6nm
"You don't know who the God of Israel is?"
Do you not know what quote marks (") are? You use quote marks (not italics—they have different purposes) to indicate a quote! I do know who the God of Israel is; I was quoting someone else asking which God.
"The Romans were the Jewish people's religious leaders?"
No, and I didn't say that they were.
"He said:
"'With some of them, such as some of the religious leadership' ... their ruling class then, just as it is today." "
Again, you're confused because you seem to not understand quote marks. The relevant parts of the conversation were this:
Him: "Christ certainly had very unpleasant dealings with those scumbags."
Me: "With some of them, such as some of the religious leadership of His earthly time."
Him: "their ruling class then, just as it is today."
Me: "the rulers at the time were actually the Romans. Which is why I narrowed it down to the religious leaders."
So he was equating the religious leaders with the rulers. I was saying that no, the rulers were the Romans, not the religious leaders.
If you want to point out errors in other people's comments, that's fine. But if you do, please make sure it's not you getting it wrong! And please learn about quote marks.
"Who is? Be specific please."
Where there is no name that someone is replying to, it usually means that they are replying to the opening comment. So in this case, he would have been referring to macca777.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@haraldwolte3745
Yes, you're right. That one is short and directly on topic. And makes no sense. Almost nothing in that video made any sense. It would take pages of words to respond to it all, which is of course impracticable here, but one of the early problems I had was that he constructs a straw-man by saying that by being literal people are inferring a "neutral description of reality that doesn't already have value or meaning". That is bizarre. By saying that something is literal, people are merely saying that it's true rather than a metaphor.
Merriam Webster: "adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression"; "free from exaggeration or embellishment".
Oxford: "Taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory."; "Free from exaggeration or distortion."
Nothing there about not having value or meaning.
Admittedly he did go on to say something like there being no distinction between being true and being metaphorical, but that again makes no sense. It's like saying that there is no difference between being single and being married. Words start to lose all meaning.
At another point he says that it's not practicable to have accuracy, because accuracy can have a tremendous amount of detail. But that's precision, or level of detail, not accuracy. Again, he's constructing a strawman by changing the meaning of words.
So again, that didn't do anything to convince me of your position. The opposite, if anything.
The question is not whether something is without meaning (as he wrongly claims people mean by 'literal'). On the contrary, it's all about meaning. Such as, why does death exist? Is it because God created a good (without fault) world than then started to deteriorate because of man's sin, or is it because that's how evolution works? If it's because that's how evolution works, then the meaning of the claim that death is the wages of sin is lost, because death was around before sin.
This points to the whole reason that creationists exist. It's not that we want to argue semantics about an unimportant topic about God's mechanism for creation. On the contrary, that would not be worth all the time and effort put into it. It's because evolution means that death is a natural part of life and not the penalty for sin that Jesus came to pay. The meaning is, in that sense, the most important thing. But the meaning is dependent on the actual. If it didn't actually happen the way Genesis says, then the meaning changes.
1
-
@haraldwolte3745
"But the problem can be summed up by noting that you adhere to a philosophically Modernist position,..."
I do? Wikipedia defines "Modernism" as "both a philosophical and arts movement that arose from broad transformations in Western society during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The movement reflected a desire for the creation of new forms of art, philosophy, and social organization which reflected the newly emerging industrial world, including features such as urbanization, new technologies, and war."
Is that what you're claiming I'm holding to? If so, why?
"where Pageau has reacted to and responded to Post Modern ideas."
By rejecting them or endorsing them?
"...those Post Modern critiques are valid in some ways, ..."
Critiques of Post Modernism, or by Post Modernism? I'm not sure which you're getting at.
"This includes refutation of the correspondence theory of truth. "
The view that "truth" corresponds to facts?
"It comes down to your Metaphysics, ie what is Reality. The Modernist would tap on a table and say "this is real", "stuff", "matter", "things"."
I would not try and define reality simply by giving examples of it. Examples are not a definition.
"Whereas Pageau would say that any "object" that we recognize is actually just pattern matching that occurs in our mind."
Recognition of something is done by a mechanism in our mind involving the process of pattern matching, but to say that any object is "just" pattern matching suggests confusing the object with the process of recognising the object.
"Obsession with material "matter" and "objects" is characteristic of the Modernist philosophical position, ..."
I'm not sure what you're meaning by "obsession". Recognising that matter and objects (I'm not sure why they are in quotes) are real is not the same as obsessing over them.
"Creationism emerged from Christians who absorbed those Philosophical ideas, and responded to them."
Creationism is the belief that God created, or more typically, the belief that God created over a period of six days as described in the Bible. It takes the Bible, not Modernism, as its source. And that view has been around for millennia longer than Modernism.
"Pageau offers a Christian response that not only makes sense of this new Philosophical understanding, but also finds that the Bible actually offers us a coherent narrative that's not available elsewhere."
But one that appears to downplay if not reject what the Bible actually says. So what makes it a "Christian" response?
"If you're still scratching your head, [snipped]"
I've had a read of Neitzsche's essay and watched the videos. I disagree with them. What is a metaphor? Sadler says that it's "something in place of another", with a transfer of meaning. But if everything is a metaphor, then what is the meaning? It seems circular. But he gives the example of "I am a bear if I have not had my coffee in the morning. I'm not literally a bear...". So he's acknowledging both a metaphorical and a literal meaning. But the metaphorical meaning relies on there being a literal meaning. Without the literal meaning, the metaphorical use is meaningless. This is what breaks the circularity.
With that in mind, Neitzsche's use of the word "metaphor" for words is, I believe, wrong. Word are symbols to represent something, not metaphors where a different concept is used to convey an aspect of a meaning.
I found this bit by Neitzsche to be rather bizarre:
"Every concept arises from the equation of unequal things. Just as it is certain that one leaf is never totally the same as another, so it is certain that the concept "leaf" is formed by arbitrarily discarding these individual differences and by forgetting the distinguishing aspects. This awakens the idea that, in addition to the leaves, there exists in nature the "leaf": the original model according to which all the leaves were perhaps woven, sketched, measured, colored, curled, and painted—but by incompetent hands, so that no specimen has turned out to be a correct, trustworthy, and faithful likeness of the original model."
What is "arbitrary" about discarding the individual differences to get at the core of what a leaf is?
And where does he get the idea that descendants of the original leaf are supposed to be "correct, trustworthy, and faithful likeness[es] of the original model"?
So yes, I'm still scratching my head as to why any of this is supposed to make sense.
1
-
@haraldwolte3745
So you didn't directly answer my questions, but I can infer from your comments that you have no basis for thinking I adhere to Modernism, and that you hold to some form of Postmodernism, perhaps even to the point of being Post-Truth.
"Modernist thinking is so ingrained in our culture, it is invisible like the water that fish swim in."
In some respects, perhaps. But Postmodernism and Post-truth have taken it over a lot.
"I think you can be a good Christian and be Modernist, Post Modern or traditional at the end of the day."
Well, Christians can still be Christian while holding some weird and even contradictory ideas. Whether that means that they can be "good" Christians might be debatable. If you go as far as rejecting truth, then you reject Jesus, as He is the truth.
"...my confident belief that Modernism is not true, and will eventually fade away."
It won't fade away. It will be (or has been) replaced by even worse ideas. Which I fear is what you're doing.
"And no, it's got nothing to do with the period of art of the same name."
Okay, but a) you didn't say what it is, and b) the definition I cited was not limited to art.
I watched the start of the debate, but they were both coming from wrong perspectives, so it wasn't very helpful. The atheist was obviously coming from a wrong perspective, but not just because of rejecting the existence of God, but also his acceptance of evolution. But then Pageau was not much better. I don't like it when people talk about "religion" as though it is one fairly-homogenous concept, because it in fact encompasses a very wide spectrum of views, and using the broadest definition of 'religion', that includes atheist views. But that's a common fault and not my main issue.
The following is a quote from Pageau that I think illustrates a fundamental problem with his thinking.
"...a lot of the stories in Scripture, instead of thinking that they are descriptions of scientific things, they are descriptions of the human experience, then a lot of them make more sense. Even the creation narrative in Scripture like, if you look at the creation narrative, obviously to think that that's a technical description of how things came about is—you have to be insane, like you have to be kind of whacked out, because it's like so grass came before the sun like I don't see how that in terms of scientific description is possible."
First, some relevant points:
* They are not meant as scientific descriptions, but simply historical descriptions. They described what happened in layman's terms, not in scientific terms. Similarly, creationists don't think that it's "a technical description of how things came about". That's a straw-man.
* Most of the creation account of Genesis 1 is presented as a what happened before mankind was created, and as such, cannot be a "description of the human experience".
* What is not possible about grass coming before the sun? First, light already existed. Second, the grass was around for only one day before the sun in any case.
The problem is that Pageau is knocking down a straw-man. He's trying to explain a conundrum that is of his own making. He has first accepted the naturalistic view espoused by most scientists, and therefore rejected the creation account as an actual historical account, realises that the creation account makes no sense within that view, so tries to make sense of it by thinking of it in terms of metaphor. But there is no need to do that if he simply takes it as written, which is what Jesus and the other biblical authors did. So he's actually rejecting not just the creation account, but Jesus' acceptance of it.
I also watched the Hofstadter talk, and found it interesting, and I could relate to a lot of it. I've also imagined how one might explain all sorts of things to a person from the past. Such as a mobile 'phone. You'd have to explain electricity and radio waves for starters, and just that would take some doing. I also am one who closely observes my own thinking, as he said he does.
But the analogies he talked about still had origins in something real. And many of the derived terms that came about due to analogies also refer to real things. So you still need real things as a starting point.
"God, through Jesus, is the only source of meaning and truth,..."
Of course. And that reinforces my point.
"Things in your mind like "objects" and "facts" are boundaries drawn by your mind around a chaotic sea of data, they are far less concrete than you think."
No, they are not always boundaries draw by our minds. Many are things described by God. God said that He made the sun, and fish, and humans, and the moon, and the seas, and so on. These are real things, defined by God. They are not mental boundaries around a chaotic sea of data.
1
-
@haraldwolte3745
"The Hofstader video and Neitzsche's essay both show the same thing. It's turtles all the way down."
That's where I disagree. Yes, they might imply or even claim that, but they don't show that. Further, I pointed out that, with the example of the bear, that that makes no sense. The metaphorical use of "bear" is dependent on the real bear.
"There's no objective solidity at the base."
Then there is no objective solidity to your comments. They mean nothing, if there is no objective solidity somewhere there. It's like the old example of a person saying "there is no absolute truth", while they treat that claim as absolute truth. It contradicts itself.
"In a nutshell, it's the "view from nowhere"."
I'm not sure what that means, but given that my views are from somewhere, then I'm not a Modernist.
"The idea that it is possible to be "objective"."
So your view is not objectively true?
"This idea seems to have gained prominence after The Enlightenment, and it is basically a move towards the rejection of God."
Your description of "like a camera in a film ... without bias" appears to be a strawman, and I don't see what that has to do with the rejection of God. Further, those who reject God clearly have bias; they are most definitely not being objective.
"In the beginning, Christians could say that God created this objective reality, and that it provided solid ground where we could debate with non believers."
And they still can.
"But right from the beginning, it undermined Christianity because it implies that there is some kind of outside Universe that God is just an actor within."
How does it imply that? I don't see how that follows.
"There is NO objectivity or truth outside of God, and even if we are Christian, it is a false hope to think that those things are solid and graspable."
Jesus is truth. We are supposed to tell the truth. Therefore, there is also truth 'outside' of God, i.e. in God's creation.
"...it is a false hope to think that those things are solid and graspable."
So God didn't create solid and graspable things? What's your rationale for that?
"This is not Post-Truth,..."
And yet your comments indicate otherwise.
"... its a recognition that Jesus is Truth, and that the idea that Truth is an exterior objective thing is a false hope from The Enlightenment."
But what does that mean? Yes, Jesus is truth. But does that mean that it's not true that Jesus rose from the dead? That He was born to a virgin? That he was born in Bethlehem? You seem to be saying that Jesus is truth, but nothing else is. Which seems to be post-truth with Jesus added as an exception.
"Your complaint about Pageau and Scientific biblical claims vs "Historical" claims is just a switch in terms."
No, it's a change of concepts. One refers to a record of what happened, and the other to a detailed, technical, description of something.
"The very idea of "history" as a series of "facts" along a timeline is just exactly the same Modernist concept."
How can that be the case when that idea preceded Modernism?
"...we can see that a series of true facts can be presented in a way that is completely misleading."
They can be presented in a way that is completely misleading but they can also be presented in a way that is accurate. So your point is not made.
"Objects and Facts are boundaries drawn by our minds around a chaotic sea of data."
I've already addressed this.
"If those boundaries are made using the Logos, they are indeed aligned with Reality, and they are useful and true."
I don't know what you mean by "using the Logos". And we are made in God's image so why can't we say things that are true?
"If worldly ideologies are used to draw those boundaries, they are harmful and misleading."
But what if they're done from a Christian perspective?
“In Genesis, the process of naming the animals is the exact thing I'm talking about here.”
That event that had man creating names for the hard facts that God created? That’s what I’m talking about. That is real, factual, objects, not metaphors.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@adrianthom2073
"Think of the fact that most of these men and women believe in God,"
So, again quoting an atheist as though he is an authority on God!
The claim is not in evidence. And the relevance is not given.
"And their prayers will not be answered."
He doesn't know that. The answer might be "no".
"Any God who would allow children by the millions to suffer and die in this way, and their parents to grieve in this way, either can do nothing to help them, or doesn’t care to. "
Or was asked not to, and He obliged. Humanity rejected God, so He withdrew and allowed things to continue without His complete involvement, which means that things deteriorated, and disease, suffering, death, and natural disasters came into existence. Blaming God for our own error is irrational.
"He is therefore either impotent or evil."
And yet He created everything (so not impotent) and offered to pay the price for our evil. Which makes Him the opposite of evil. Besides, without God, how do you even define "evil"?
"on Dr. Craig’s view, most of these people ... will be going to Hell because they’re praying to the wrong God."
No, because they have rejected God and not taken up His offer of forgiveness.
"Ok, through no fault of their own, ..."
That's not in evidence. We have all sinned.
"Ok, in Dr. Craig’s universe, no matter how good these people are,..."
But they are not "good". Like all of us, they are sinners.
"Now, is there the slightest evidence for this? No."
Actually, yes. But Harris pretends that there isn't any.
"Ok, so God created the cultural isolation of the Hindus,..."
Nope.
"your run-of-the-mill serial killer ... need only come to God, come to Jesus, on Death Row, and ... he’s going to spend an eternity in Heaven after death, ok."
Yes! We don't have to earn our way into heaven. It's a free gift from God open to all of us (including those Hindus). Isn't that a great offer?
"This vision of life has absolutely nothing to do with moral accountability."
On the contrary, it's all about moral accountability. We sin, and the consequences of that must be paid. But—here's the great part—God has paid it for us! That is how it is accounted for.
"...you forgot you have bias as well."
No, I'm aware of that. But some biases are good ones to have, such as a bias towards wanting evidence.
"You think God is good yet reject all the harm, suffering and evil he allows and even commands."
What harm, suffering and evil? He doesn't command any. He does allow it for good reasons, including allowing for us to have free will.
"If your god is all loving, all powerful and all good as many Christians claim. Then why does evil and suffering exist in this world."
The fact that you (apparently) have no idea shows that you don't know the first thing about Christianity. It exists because we misused the free will He gave us to reject Him. This is known as "the Fall". And so bad things exist.
"Your god is either impotent or evil."
He is neither, and the argument from Harris is full of holes.
"Marxism is not an Atheist view."
Lenin: “The philosophical basis of Marxism, as Marx and Engels repeatedly declared, is dialectical materialism, ...—a materialism which is absolutely atheistic and positively hostile to all religion.”
"No one in the works has ever died because of Atheism.!"
Nonsense. Marxism alone has slaughtered millions, in fact more than any other religion.
"Atheism has no doctrine to follow it is just the rejection of the claims a God exist."
No, it's not just that. Reject that God exists, and you also reject that the world was created, that humans were created in God's image, and that God has not set rules and standards by which we must abide (among many other things). So if you're an atheist, you have no basis for thinking that it's wrong to kill other humans, beyond subjective opinion. And if you're in a position of power and are a tyrant, then why not slaughter whoever you like? Christianity, on the other hand, has a history of restricting the power of rulers, on the grounds that the rulers too are subject to God's standards. Even Dawkins seems to agree that Christianity has done this, saying that “I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse.”. So atheism removes restrictions on what people think are acceptable, and thereby permits all sorts of atrocities.
1
-
@someguy5438
"it rose 20 c.m since 1901. You can't argue with hard measurements, but you can deny it."
It seems that you are correct and Ben Cubitt was wrong. But a couple of bits of advice:
1) If the claim is actually beyond dispute, as it apparently is in this case, it would help you convince sceptics by citing a sceptic who agrees. One of the main sceptics of the climate alarmism is Judith Curry, and she agrees that the sea levels have risen. What she doesn't agree on, however, is that this is due to anthropogenic global warming.
2) You need to do more than simply cite a fact. You also need to show how it's relevant to the argument.
"It's funny that you have no idea how the science is done but you feel confident to [deleted] on it."
Given all the misinformation from the climate alarmists, that is understandable. Think of ClimateGate, the hockey stick graph, Flannery's claims about not filling dams, etc. Also think, as mentioned in this video, of the motives behind the alarmism. It's been admitted that it's basically to bring in socialism.
"Now we use satellites that are accurate to within a fraction of a m.m."
I'm not dismissing this claim completely, but I do find it hard to believe that they are that accurate when it comes to something like water that is not dead still.
"science is interesting, you should take the time to learn about it."
True, it IS interesting. And people should take time to learn about the history and philosophy of it too, including that it was founded by Christians who believed what the Bible taught about Noah's Flood, and that science still relies on a Christian understanding of reality.
"It's always the science deniers that have the weakest grasp on how science is actually done."
I'm not sure that I've ever come across a science denier. I see that term from people who have blind faith in science, failing to understand the limitations of it, and they tend to use the term against people who don't deny the science, but who have a different view of what the science actually says. In other words, it's inaccurate name-calling.
"salt water flowed through the pyrimids? What in the world makes you think that? Let me guess, Noah's flood? [deleted] priceless. What were the pyrimads clad in? Limestone. What is limestone created from? Limestone, a sedimentary rock, ..."
I can't see Bob Smith's comment that you are replying to. But I agree that salt water didn't flow through the pyramids. However, Noah's flood was a real event, for which there is plenty of evidence. Including the limestone and other sedimentary rock that the pyramids are made of, being a product of Noah's flood.
1
-
1
-
@100percentSNAFU
"A spoon, or anything for that matter, is indeed very complex if you break it down to the molecular level."
Not particularly, assuming a metal spoon. The molecules are arranged according to the laws of physics, and are relatively uniform. What's not arranged according to the laws of physics is the spoon shape itself. That's the bit that is (somewhat) complex, not being a natural shape, but having a particular shape designed to be able to hold a liquid, plus also a handle with which to manipulate the spoon comfortably in a human hand.
"Or, maybe, "There is no spoon" "
Well, I only need to look in my cutlery draw to prove that one wrong!
1
-
@pope9187
"…surely it is saying something about science."
I think you are confused about what science is. It's the study of creation; or the study of things in the world. The Bible is not performing a study, it's recording historical events. Yes, it's a literal account of what happened, not a scientific study of those events.
"I mean, as far as I’m aware it’s actually mainstream Biblical scholarship to regard at least Genesis 1-11 as more of a cultural mythology."
Many Christians do see it that way, but Jesus didn't. I'll stick with what Jesus thought.
"After all, there are literally two accounts of human creation,…"
No, there is not. There is one account that starts with an overview, then focuses in on man.
"…with the account of Adam and Eve reading very clearly as figurative…"
And yet the experts disagree. James Barr, Oriel Professor of the interpretation of the Holy Scripture at Oxford, said "… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience, the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story, and that Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark."
"…the name adam literally just means “human”…"
Which is what you'd expect. God had just created various kinds of creatures, such as the cat kind, and the elephant kind and the frog kind, and then made a kind in His own image, which He called "man" (hence 'man-kind'). So that's what he was known as: man, or Adam. That is, being the prototype, his name was the name for the kind.
"Even fundamentalist Christian apologists like William Lane Craig has conceded that these accounts from Genesis are not just straightforward history."
Craig has compromised with naturalistic science. Barr, by the way, is no fundamentalist. And as I said Jesus believed them to be straightforward history. In fact he quoted from both of the "two accounts" as though they were one, and history.
"…it does require methodological naturalism—the key word there is methodological."
And yet you don't give a good reason why, nor do you address why it should prioritise natural over correct. See my next comment.
"That is until we have a reliable methodology for investigating non-natural or supernatural or immaterial claims, which we currently do not have."
Not having a method for studying the supernatural is no reason to say that the explanations must be natural. That simply doesn't follow. And your claim is wrong in any case. We can investigate claims that involve the supernatural. In fact some critics claim that this is possible and has been done, even if they contradict themselves. Philosopher P. Quinn wrote: "In a recent collection of essays, Stephen Jay Gould claims that “‘Scientific creationism’ is a self-contradictory phrase precisely because it cannot be falsified”…Ironically, in the next sentence Gould goes on to contradict himself by asserting that “the individual claims are easy enough to refute with a bit of research.” Indeed, some of them are! But since they are so easily refuted by research, they are after all falsifiable and, hence, testable. This glaring inconsistency is the tip-off to the fact that talk about testability and falsifiability functions as verbal abuse and not as a serious objection in Gould’s anti-creationist polemics."
"That’s why ID is an “unapproved” science,…"
Given that ID doesn't make claims about the supernatural, that's a false claim. And given that I have given an example of how it could be falsified (which you've ignored), that's another reason it's a false claim.
"…not because scientists are all mean atheists that don’t want to acknowledge the possibility of a creator or designer (though some may be)…"
I literally said "Not that all those scientists are atheists, ..."
"…but because it legit doesn’t offer any coherent mechanism for the how and when supernatural intervention took place in the history of the evolution of life,…"
Why does it have to? Why isn't simply showing evidence of design enough?
"…and because such a thing is not at all verifiable or falsifiable."
You asked for something that could disprove ID. I provided it. You have ignored that and repeated your claim. That is not honest. It shows that your mind is made up and no evidence will change it. Okay, maybe you just missed it, but if that's the case it means that given that you challenged me on it then repeated the claim without checking that I'd answered the challenge, you're negligent.
"…if there is a God who made the universe and everything in it, there’s just no way that the human sciences of cosmology or biology or chemistry is going to be able to detect and say anything conclusively about that God or the nature of that God or how that God interacts with the world or any other such thing."
And yet those human scientists do just that—they claim, with certainty, that God didn't do any such thing.
"…science is the study of the natural world and is never going to be a study (or should not be regarded as such) which affirms nor denies those beliefs."
And yet those scientists do deny those beliefs. With vigor. If they actually remained agnostic on it, I wouldn't be complaining about it.
I notice that you failed to address my evidence that evolution is unfalsifiable and is contrary to the evidence. And yet you dismiss ID on essentially those grounds.
1
-
@pope9187
"it is most definitely not a literal, historical account,…"
Definitely? Why not?
"…or if a literal account it’s not at all accurate."
Ah, that's why. It can't be because you think it's inaccurate. That's not really a reason.
"…in the second one man os made first, then all the animals,…"
In English, the first mention normally says "then", which makes the order explicit. But that word is generally not present in the second mention, so the order has to be inferred.
I think this is a case of first assuming that they are different accounts, then looking for differences. If you assume that they are the one account, then you read that second mention of making the animals in the context of the first mention, and take it to be a reference to the animals already made. A number of translations do it this way, saying things like (my emphasis): "Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; "
"(is this supposed to be a literal historical account as well, a female made from a rib?)"
Why not? If God can do anything, including making a man from the dirt, making a woman from the man's rib would be a walk in the park. But also, the marrow of the rib bone is a good source of the DNA that God might have based Eve on. Plus, Adam's rib would grow back; taking a part from almost anywhere else would have left Adam with a defect for the rest of his life.
"Like are we to take all of it as literal? Even the part about the sky being a solid firmament which has windows open up when it’s time to rain?"
A 'firmament' is an old English word which doesn't mean something solid. But the Bible does use metaphors, phenomenological language, and other figures of speech, just as we do today, so not everything should be taken literally. But just as you read a news story today and it says that a person "passed away" rather than died, you know what should be taken literally and what is a euphemism, for example.
"…just look up Hebrew Bible cosmology and tell me that that’s an accurate representation of the world."
The Bible's cosmology is accurate, but is your understanding of the biblical cosmology accurate?
Regarding Barr, criticisms of the creation account fall into two categories: 1) it's wrong, and 2) It's not meant to be taken literally, but is poetry, metaphor, or etc. Your objection ("the account of Adam and Eve reading very clearly as figurative") falls into the second of those categories, so I provided Barr's quote that also addresses the second of those categories—he is an expert on the language and is saying that the language indicates that it's indented to be understood 'literally'. So not figuratively, for example. He's not saying whether it's correct. I would only use "compromised" in relation to someone who claims to believe the Bible but doesn't believe part of it because they think that the mainstream view is correct. I don't know if Barr claims to believe the Bible, so I wouldn't use the word 'compromised' of him.
"…literary scholars generally accept the fact that Genesis and various other early books of the Hebrew Bible where redacted and smoothed out by multiple Hebrew authors over a period of time, each if whom had varying agendas…"
Like who? Are you talking about the long-discredited Documentary Hypothesis? On the contrary, the Israelites treated the text with such great reverence as God's word that they would not dare alter it, and went to great lengths to ensure that they didn't accidentally do so.
"…do you literally regard like the genealogy accounts from the Gospels (two different genealogies btw) as accurate and that in accordance with the genealogy that traces back to Adam that the earth is about 6,000 years old?"
I'm not sure precisely what you are asking there. Everyone has multiple 'genealogies'—that's why they are known as family trees rather than family lines. So Jesus had one via Joseph and one via Mary. Two different ones are therefore not an issue. Secondly, it's not those that one uses to determine the age of the earth, as they don't include chronological information, unlike the genealogies in Genesis and other places. Third, Matthew was writing for Jews, and his genealogy is known to (probably deliberately) omit a few people. His purpose was apparently to show that Jesus was legally a descendant of King David. Luke was writing mainly to non-Jews, and his purpose was apparently to show to non-Jews that Jesus was a descendant of Adam.
"And that human beings in earlier times were able to live upward of 900 years?"
Humans were designed to live forever, so 900 years is rather short. So yes, I believe that.
"I mean, this is clearly not historically accurate,…"
Why not? Because it doesn't fit with your expectations?
"And to keep it short, I don’t have time to respond to everything, ..."
Understandable, but by doing so you've avoided addressing some key questions and points I made, in particular, why science should prioritise natural explanations over correct explanations, and the evidence that evolution is unfalsifiable. I'd like both of those addressed.
"…we already have a mechanism which demonstrates this, it’s evolution by natural selection."
First, I was referring to individual claims that the ID people (or creationists) put up as to how particular things (such as the blood clotting mechanism) could not occur naturally, not how variety in living things could occur naturally. Second, no, evolution doesn't demonstrate this at all. Natural selection only selects. It doesn't create new organs, processes, etc. And mutations, supposedly the thing that generates the novelty that natural selection then selects, only destroys genetic information; it doesn't create it. So no, evolution completely fails as a mechanism. Richard Dawkins was once asked to provide an example of a mechanism that generates that new information, and was unable to provide even one example.
"…the difference between “showing evidence of design,” which you’re suggesting ID is doing, and merely claiming design, which is what ID is actually doing."
Blatantly false. It's showing evidence of things that cannot be explained naturally. That is actual evidence of design.
1
-
1
-
@pope9187
"I said it’s not at all accurate—yeah, that’s me saying that if you regard this story as literal, that’s wrong because it is not historically accurate."
Which was not the actual claim that you made (which was of it being figurative). But also, you haven't shown that it's not accurate. What's your evidence? By the way, a competing view is not evidence.
"I’m sure plenty of Romans took the Aeneid to be historically accurate, or plenty of Hindus have taken the Mahabharata to be historically accurate, and yet I don’t think that’s actually the case based on the historical record, least of all because of the highly literary and fantastical elements found in these texts."
A reason that doesn't apply in the case of the Bible. Except for your subjective opinion of what's "fantastical".
"I mean if I told you that the Mahabharata or the Bhagavad Gita was literal history, what kind mental gymnastics (which we be highly favorable to myself) could I not say that could not be said of the Genesis account of creation?"
I'm not familiar with those documents, so I couldn't provide specifics. But you've already mentioned the literary style, which doesn't apply in Genesis.
"I mean, do we have any historical evidence independent of the Bible that would support the creation account from Genesis?"
Yes, depending on just what you mean by that. There are, for example, stories from cultures from all around the world that agree with Genesis in various specific details (despite also having difference which can be attributed to the accounts being corrupted over time). For example, there is an Australian Aboriginal story that agrees on about a dozen details, including that the first woman was tempted to eat the produce of the tree that they'd been told they couldn't eat from.
"For goodness sake, the story includes a talking snake, this is a definitional hallmark of a fable."
No, it doesn't. It includes an incident in which Satan spoke through a snake on one occasion. There is nothing there to suggest that there was a snake that was in the habit of talking.
"We can twist and turn and say “well God can do anything, so he can make a woman from a rib”…"
Except that no twisting and turning is needed. That is simply a logical statement.
"We can say “well, if God wanted to allow Muhammad to fly to Medina from Mecca, that could very well have happened,” but that provides absolutely no evidence that would affirm that account as being true at all."
Yes, we could say that, and yes, that fact (that God could have) doesn't mean that it did happen. But then nobody claims that it did. If someone did claim that, we couldn't rule it out on the grounds that it's not possible. Which is what you're trying to do.
"And no, I never said anything about the documentary hypothesis,…"
That's okay. It was a question asking you after all.
"…but this still entails the fact that multiple writers contributed to the compilation of the Pentateuch,…"
Fact? What's factual about it? (I do, however, accept that claim in a very limited way.)
"…a view which is even more so discredited than the documentary hypothesis."
As I said, I accept that claim in a very limited way, but in what way is it discredited?
"…both Luke and Matthew purport to record the genealogy of the line of Joseph, one claiming that Joseph’s father is Heli, another claiming his father is Jacob…"
See the article "The genealogies of Jesus" by Lita Sanders.
"my real question was about the fact that if we were to add up all of the alleged ages of the people named in the genealogy given in Luke, we’d find that they only add up to about 6,000 years."
Luke doesn't give ages. And of course that 6,000 year period includes the 2,000 years since then!
"If we are to literally and historically regard Adam as an actual historical figure and the first human in existence, would this mean that the earth (or at least the human race) is only about 6,000 years old as well,..."
Using the ages given in the Genesis and other genealogies, then yes. Which is where that figure comes from.
"in spite of the scientific data which would contradict this."
There is no scientific data contradicting this. There is a competing view (the naturalistic one) that contradicts this. But a competing view is not scientific data nor evidence.
"So no, it’s not that the Genesis account doesn’t fit with my “expectations,” it doesn’t fit with any objectively verifiable historical or scientific account."
It doesn't fit with your expectations, because your expectations are based on that competing view. There is no objectively verifiable historical or scientific evidence that disagrees.
"I reject the idea of early humans living for over 900 years as the Bible records (which I would take more a a motif that is used to honor the reign of one’s purported ancestors)…"
How do you then explain the ages when they had their children? And why reject it in the first place other than it not meeting your competing-view-based expectations?
"…there’s simply no good reason to suspect this as being true…"
Other than it being recorded in a proven-reliable historical document, claimed, believed, and supported as being authored by God Himself.
"…but the question is whether this did historically occur,…"
Yes, you're right. That is the question.
"…and I see no evidence that would support such an extraordinary claim."
What, other than your (competing-view-based) expectations make it extraordinary? But there IS evidence, of the Bible itself, in the form of agreement in various details from other cultures, in support from genetics which fits with the biblical account (see the video"Origins: Noah’s Flood Genetics" or the article "Adam, Eve and Noah vs Modern Genetics" by Robert Carter), in geological evidence, and so on. Yes, those things are also explained by the competing view, so the question comes down to which view makes the most sense of the evidence, but my point at the moment is that there IS evidence.
"And I have already explained this 3 times now, ..."
And I have challenged it three times.
"...science is the study of the natural world and therefore it can only operate within a framework of methodological naturalism…"
You're still avoiding a direct answer to my questions. You could for example, say that 'science can only study the natural, but should not be dogmatic that the natural explanations are the correct ones', but then you'd have to concede that scientists are not doing that, and so are being deceptive. The point is, though, that you are avoiding the critical questions.
"…science is literally incapable of verifying supernatural claims."
Despite me providing evidence that that is a false claim? You've ignored the quote from Quinn. Why?
"If you want to invent or provide us with a study or a methodology that can coherently and concisely investigate the supernatural,…"
It seems that you're still failing to see the distinction that I made. In your previous sentence, you said that "science is literally incapable of verifying supernatural claims ", but you justify that by saying that it can't "investigate the supernatural ".
The supernatural can't be studied by science, but claims that involve a supernatural element potentially can be.
"And I’ve already given an example of how evolution can be falsified."
And I've shown it to be baseless. So you are simply repeating a refuted claim.
"I’ve also said that our understanding and our models will alter in accordance with the data—this has certainly occurred,…"
I never suggested otherwise. Particular details will be altered, but the overall claim is sacrosanct; it's not allowed to be falsified.
"And you’ve literally just proved that ID is in fact just an argument from ignorance, because to say “this cannot be (or rather, is not currently able to be) explained naturally”…"
So now you're inventing quotes from me? I did not say "is not currently able to be". That was you. I said "cannot be". My basis was that it's not from ignorance, but from knowledge.
"At this point, I think we’re very clearly not going to see eye to eye,…"
Really? 😛
"I still appreciate your perspective and your good mannered nature,…"
Thank you. And I hope you had a happy Christmas too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@turnerfamilyinozi
"How did the people who lived before him (your ancestors) cope?"
There were no people before Jesus. He created them, albeit some time before he lived on earth in human form.
: "In the beginning was the Word [i.e. Jesus], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. , and without him was not any thing made that was made."
: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For , in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And , and in him all things hold together."
"You obviously don't know much about Jesus"
Says the person who doesn't know that there were no people before Jesus.
"But Adam and Eve existed before Jesus, or don't you believe the Old Testament?"
Again, no. Jesus created Adam and Eve.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stephendoherty981
"But you said that it's not a given they are the best to provide aid. Who would have more experience and would do a better job?"
Almost any other aid agency that doesn't have Hamas people embedded in it.
"They are by far the biggest agency dealing with Palestinian refugees."
Perhaps so, but that's not what you previously claimed. So that seems a tacit admission that your previous claim was wrong, despite you describing my comment as nonsense.
"Utter tosh! The land of Palestine is ancient ."
Not utter tosh at all. There is no country called Palestine. Yes, the land is as old as almost any other land in the world. So what?
"It had a thriving community of 1200 villages and towns all doing business with each other before they were violently displaced."
How were they "violently" displaced?
"Also, Israel re-establishing itself???? Its founders had no connections with those lands. Ben Gurion was born in Poland,..."
Jews came from there, having been dispersed from there by the Romans 2000 years ago, as I'm sure you're aware. And you're applying a double standard. You said that Palestine is ancient, but are using that as an argument for the current people living there, and those people are not ancient. That is, you're invoking ancestry for the Palestinians, whilst denying it for the Jews.
" 'Israel isn't trying to destroy UNRWA' "
You're now inventing a quote. I never said that, although I can see why you think that. I rejected your claim that "Israel is trying to destroy it...", thinking that "it" was Palestine. Yes, perhaps Israel IS trying to destroy UNRWA, given that UNRWA has been supporting Hamas.
"It hates its 'Right of Return' for Palestinians which would mean a one or two state solution that Netanyahu abhors."
The Palestinians are the ones who don't want a two-state solution, which has been offered to them a number of times, but which they always reject.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrBadintentionss
"you can't produce "evidence" on something that has never been proven to exist, "
Nonsense. In order to prove it exists, you need to produce evidence. That is, evidence comes before the proof, whereas you're claiming that you need the proof before the evidence.
Besides, God has been proven to exist.
"and no, you can't reference a (heavily edited) book written by men..."
What about one written by God, which the Bible claims to be?
And what's wrong with referencing one written by men anyway? That's done all the time in all sorts of contexts.
And what's your evidence that it was "heavily edited"? Because I reject that claim.
"... which was written at a time when gods were regularly conjured."
Does that mean that all books of the time are suspect just because of the time? That's illogical.
"people make computers,"
Yes, computers don't occur naturally. Neither do living things (to start with). You need God. And that is in fact one bit of very strong evidence for God.
"just like they make gods"
Just because they might make gods doesn't mean that every claim about God is man-made. That, again, is illogical.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@veganath
"there are literally hundreds of deemed imaginary friends are you telling us some are not imaginary, ..."
Of course. The existence of fake anythings (banknotes, handbags, jewellery, gods, etc.) doesn't mean that there are not genuine ones. In fact, people don't forge copies of things that don't exist, so the existence of fakes suggests that there is a genuine one.
"if so which ones & why?"
God (Yahweh/Jesus), because He is real. And the evidence supports that.
"Here is a sampling to get you started: Allah, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Quan Yin, Garnesha, Rama, Krishna, Hanuman, Yahweh, Amaterasu, Ahura Mazda, Ekankar, Elohim, Aphrodite, Zeus, Apollo...etc"
A sampling of imaginary friends? What's your evidence that they are all imaginary? And what's your evidence that some are not different ones, but different names for the same one(s)?
1
-
1
-
@veganath
"Theists always ask this question,..."
Perhaps because it's a valid question!
"Theists claim their God the creator to be omniscient, your God would know exactly what evidence would convince me,..."
True. But it was me asking, and I'm not God, and therefore not omniscient. So I'd like an answer.
"...that he doesn't furnish said evidence means he is either not omniscient or simply is unwilling to manifest the requisite evidence."
That's two possibilities. But other possibilities are that your standard of evidence is unreasonable, or that he has provided the evidence but you're ignorant of it, or have unreasonably rejected it.
"Does the God you worship allow beautiful humans(we were all babies at one time) to be incinerated for an infinite duration as per verses in the Bible?"
I believe (along with many other Christians) that the references to fire are a figure of speech. What He does is allow people who don't want Him to continue to exist without Him. But given that existence without God and all that He has provided (including friends, intelligence, etc. etc.) would be hell. In other words, you get what you ask for.
I note that you didn't answer why you consider human life beautiful.
1
-
@veganath
"...slavery [is] a consequence of abject fear of scarcity & a lack of nurturing of values that promote well-being, e.g. love, kindness, compassion, then I recommend nurturing such values in the context of leveraging science to create veritable abundance, ...".
First, science is a description of what is, not what ought to be. Slavery was abolished by Christian views on what's right and wrong. And on the grounds of compassion for strangers, a Christian concept.
Second, science is a product of Christianity.
Third, capitalism (the freedom to use your own capital, such as money and skills) is also a product of Christianity.
When Christianity abolished slavery the second time, it had already developed science and capitalism, so perhaps that made it easier to do (although it wasn't easy, with slave owners being very opposed to it. William Wilberforce didn't see the goal reached until about the end of his life, having fought for it most of his life).
I'm not sure when Christianity abolished it the first time, but it was much earlier, and not by edict (law) (although some Popes did issue some edicts), but mainly because people realised that owning slaves was incompatible with being Christian, as they believed that slaves were fellow humans and equal under God. I'm reasonably sure it was before either science or capitalism was developed. In other words, before the "requirements" that you suggest are needed, had come about.
"...today we have good reason to be very optimistic for the future, more so than at any time in our history, i.e. making any need for slavery of humans, animals, obsolete."
I disagree. Yes, we have the technology, but not the ethics. Even though the West is very wealthy, and much of the rest of the world is a lot wealthier than it was, slavery in some of those places is still found simply because of the depravity of some people. And with Christianity being under widespread and relentless attack in the West, the West will lose that basis of compassion and ethics, and revert to a more violent and less compassionate society.
"...beauty is subjective(i.e. our science is insufficient) I like to use the term to help illicit feelings of love, kindness, compassion in myself & others,..."
I used to consider beauty subjective ("beauty is in the eye of the beholder"), but now I'm not so sure. But regardless of that, it seems that you don't consider human life to be necessarily beautiful, but call it that anyway because doing so will produce a benefit that you desire (good feelings).
You still haven't answered what sort of evidence you would consider "merit worthy". There is little point in me offering evidence that God is real if there's a real likelihood that you'll dismiss it on the grounds of not being "merit worthy".
1
-
@veganath
"slavery of horses for transportation was made obsolete thanks to ICE, i.e. cars"
I'm quite sure that you would have realised that I was talking about people. And how do you justify describing employing horses for transportation as slavery? In fact, some of the same people who got slavery abolished in England also founded the RSPCA.
"as I said I think most people do not associate humans & their life as inherently beautiful which is why I emphasize it."
But I asked why you consider it beautiful in the first place, and your answer simply explained why you describe it as beautiful, implying that you don't actually think that it IS beautiful.
As for what evidence would be merit worthy all I can say is that ALL the purported evidence presented to date do not meet my criteria,..."
So you can't actually say what your standard of evidence is! Then how on earth can you know if any particular bit of evidence meets that standard???
"...clearly we have very different standards of what constitutes merit worthy"
That implies that your standard is so strict that you must not believe any ancient history, given that the evidence that God is real is much stronger than any of that.
"...you speak as though Christianity has a monopoly on compassion & ethics."
First, I said "that ... compassion", not just "compassion", referring to my earlier reference to "compassion for strangers", which IS a Christian thing.
Second, I'm not claiming that only Christianity can have or endorse compassion for strangers and ethics. Rather, I'm claiming that in practice, it is Christianity that has taught that compassion and the particular ethics that it has, and done so on the basis of biblical teaching. So yes, other beliefs can in principle, have compassion for strangers and what I'll refer to as Christian ethics, but that doesn't mean that they will, and if they don't have that biblical foundation, they probably won't.
1
-
@veganath
"my conviction[deeming humans beautiful] is based on love for myself & those in my immediacy, family, community, nation, world."
Yes, not on you actually thinking that they are beautiful. But I remind you I was just asking for your rationale, not disagreeing with you.
"I contend that if you want to make slavery of humans obsolete then we have no choice but to give the focus of our intelligence to the sciences that will make it obsolete,..."
I've already answered that, including pointing out that science won't do that. It may help the process, but science doesn't tell us what ought to be, only what is.
"...of course this has to be done in the context of wisdom inherent in nurturing values such as love, compassion & kindness, value that promote the flourishing of mutual well-being."
It's that wisdom and values which is the key point, and which (in practice) come from Christianity.
"before Christianity there was the Vedic scriptures(between 500BC -2500BC in the sanscrit language)..."
I said that Christianity has taught that compassion. I didn't say that it invented it. Christianity is the fulfilment of Judaism, which is the worship of the creator God, going back to the times of Abraham, Noah, and Adam. As such, nothing is older.
"...in which it describes one who is a devotee of God as being not envious but is a kind friend to all living entities(strangers both human & non-human)"
And yet those texts are the basis of Hinduism, which treats women as less than worthless and cows as better than women, and divides people up into different castes. So that thought was not applied/taught in practice.
"at a foundational level i.e. the bare minimum, the evidence would need to be scientific,..."
And therein lies a problem, as science can only observe and measure the natural, not the supernatural. So your standard of evidence ("merit worthy") is totally inappropriate, and therefore possibly prejudiced. Also, it can only observe and measure in the present, which means, as I said previously, you'd have to reject almost all of ancient history.
"...however such an extraordinary claim I would require extraordinary evidence,..."
I would suggest that deeming the claim to be "extraordinary" is itself a prejudice, i.e. you prejudging the matter before considering the evidence. So again, your standard is unrealistic.
"...hence any ability on my part to be more precise."
But you have now answered my question (and shown your standard to be quite unreasonable).
"As I said my priority is HOW what you believe informs your morality."
Yes, that's fair enough, but it doesn't justify calling God imaginary on the basis of an unreasonable and seemingly prejudiced basis.
1
-
@veganath
"as I said to be able to give more evidence for the manifestation of feelings of what we subjectively deem 'love' our science would need to exceed what it is today."
That doesn't change the situation now, and it seems that you're into scientism, the belief that science can answer everything.
"please read Sam Harris' book 'The MoraI Landscape' to get some insight into sciences potential for 'ought' you may be wrong & I believe you are."
I don't intend to read an entire book like that by an atheist without having better evidence that it would be worth reading. I'm happy to read an on-line article, though. One commentator wrote this of Harris' book: "Harris equates goodness with human flourishing. But he also admits that if it’s possible rapists, liars, and thieves can flourish as much as ‘saints’, so his ‘moral’ landscape would just be a continuum of well-being. He contradicts himself! The good can’t be identical to human flourishing if rapists could possibly flourish as much as humanitarians! And this is supposed to be a replacement for God as a transcendent source of morality? I don’t think so"
"similar to the distortions of Christianity over time Hinduism has experienced the same distortions."
How is it a distortion? You don't say. You don't point out anything incorrect in what I said.
"what would you call claiming an entity exists with the following attributes omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence other than 'extraordinary' ?"
Sensible. Because you need such an entity to explain the universe, life, etc.
"again you underestimate the potential of science,..."
At that point, I wasn't discussing potential, but methodology.
"I would say our science as it is today is insufficient, please be patient & not be tempted to make claims without merit worthy evidence."
Ha! You're living in the hope that one day science will be able to do more, but make that claim without any evidence at all!
"I would like to explore morality as informed by your religion,..."
A good start would be to understand that I'm not informed by my religion (Christianity), but by God.
"...speaks volumes to the value lsIam ascribes to human life & well-being..."
I wouldn't be surprised, knowing a bit about that religion.
"Question to help me evaluate the value xtianity ascribes to human life: Does the God you worship allow the 6urning of beautiful humans for an infinite duration as per verses in the Bible?
I have already answered that in this thread, three days ago. But here it is again for you (slightly edited):
I believe (along with many other Christians) that the references to fire are a figure of speech. What He does is allow people who don't want Him, to continue to exist without Him. But existence without God and all that He has provided (including friends, intelligence, etc. etc.) would be hell. In other words, you get what you ask for.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Matt
"None of which can be found in Christian doctrine."
He was quoting things found in Christian doctrine!
"I do know because I used to be a bible believing born again Christian until I saw the light ..."
Give that Jesus is the light, that's a contradiction.
"I’ve been exactly where you are."
Speaking for myself, I very much doubt it.
"that’s the standard defensive position. “You were never truly saved if you left.” "
That doesn't make it wrong (not that I'm claiming it's right, either). On the other hand, it's been said that when friends abandon you, they were probably not really friends in the first place. This could be similar.
"A reading of the New Testament without the chronic confirmation bias Christians have would reveal the toxicity of Christian doctrine."
Evidence?
"You were suckered in to a simplistic, baseless view of life at 17,..."
What's your evidence that he was suckered, that it was simplistic, and that it's baseless?
"Why don’t we talk about truth: you are not “saved”."
What makes that the truth?
"You’ve just fallen for a very popular myth with absolutely no evidence for it"
What's your evidence that there is no evidence for it?
"Trust me, I’ve been where you are."
Why should I trust you when you say things that I know to be false?
"It’s a historically inaccurate, scientifically illiterate collection of stolen myths and primitive ideas."
What's your evidence for all of that?
"No circular reasoning of justifying the bible in the basis of the bible is going to impress any critical thinker."
He wasn't trying to justify the Bible. He was justifying his comments.
"Morality is innate."
Then why do different cultures have different morals?
"the bible is full of absolute moral atrocities."
Yes, it records the moral atrocities that various people did. So what?
1
-
@MrBadintentionss
"values don't need christianity,"
No, they need God, if you want them based on more than just opinion.
"all you need is a moral compass and balance in your life."
What tells that compass where to point?
"a book that promotes ignorance ..."
What book is that?
"it doesn't matter where it came from, it only matters where people get it from now."
And where is that?
"don't forget that the homophobia, for example, that is rife in christians"
Not in my experience. I know plenty of Christians who disagree with homosexuality (because God does), but none that have an irrational fear of it.
"ignoring them because it contradicts what someone wrote in a book thousands of years ago is where the problems start."
What life experiences do they ignore? And that "someone" was God, Who knows everything. Further, being old doesn't make it wrong. That's just chronological snobbery.
"homosexuals know their life is normal for them, with or without the bible's blessings,"
The issue is not normality, but the way we were designed.
"you choose to embrace the views of men who wrote in a book thousands of years ago when there was zero understanding of homosexuality,"
No, the views of God. And even with men, they understood homosexuality back then.
"everything in the bible are words written by men."
What's your evidence that it is merely the words of men, and not of God, as it claims and which many have believed? Simply claiming something that many disagree with and which is not self-evident is not an argument.
"the men who wrote the bible are simply projecting their own moral code. nothing more, ..."
Evidence?
"...and choose instead to blindly follow what is written in the bible, ..."
What makes you think we are following it blindly?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@markandrews1219 Well, I didn't say that it was only killings. And you were referring to Christianity, but now extend that to various religions, which I'm not defending. It also overlooks the enormous good that Christianity has done, from founding charities, starting public hospitals, inventing modern science, spreading democracy, founding universal education, teaching the equality of all people, and so on. Christianity is literally the foundation of Western Civilisation. The left with their atheism, wokeness, etc. will be its undoing.
Mao was a bad one, but worse would be the slaughter of millions more by abortionists.
1
-
@Walt-ib6nx
"Conservatives hate everybody who isn't exactly like them..."
Nonsense. Conservatives hate nonsense and idiocy, not the people practicing that.
The left, however, appear to hate, often violently, people who disagree with them.
"...shield their hate with a dusty book and a God that says to "love everyone"."
That "dusty book" has done more good in the world than any other factor. And yes, God wants us to love every person, but hate evil, which this nonsense is. That's why the phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin" exists. But the left pretends that the hate is against the person, not the sin, seemingly because they project their own attitude onto conservatives.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@souptec
"If you want to hold on to British heritage and symbols instead of developing a truly Australian identity then that's your prerogative."
Did I say I wanted to? No, I didn't. You asked why it had the British flag, and I explained.
But further, you say that if I want to, that's my prerogative. By extension, that was also the prerogative of the people involved in designing and accepting the flag. So what's your point?
"The governing system in Australia is based on the Westminster System and has changed over the years."
It's still essentially the same system.
"With the King of England being able to sack Australian governments make us still not really Australian with regards to governing our own affairs."
First, although technically he might be able to, in practice he's not going to. Second, your conclusion that it makes us not really Australian is a non-sequitur—it doesn't follow from your premise. And we DO govern our own affairs. Third, why not think of it as a safety valve?
"IT will take a complete cut from England before we can say we a Australian."
False. We can—and DO—say that already. What you mean is that it will take a complete cut from England before you are willing to say that. But most of the rest of us can happily say that now.
"There is nothing wrong with having any kind of heritage ..."
So why question the flag?
"...we have more than just a British heritage including Asian ,European and Irish."
True. But then not all cultures are 'created' equal. So that may or may not be a good thing.
"To have a truly Australian identity we have to develop our system and symbols and culture ..."
So we have to discard good systems and symbols and culture just so that we can say that we are Australian. That's nonsense. And of course we already have developed some differences.
"...instead of hanging onto unnecessary cultural baggage."
You wanting us to be different doesn't make British culture unnecessary. The Western culture (of which British culture is a prime example) has produced a lot of good in the world. We discard that at our peril.
1
-
@souptec
"Not likely to sack a government.? It has happened already ."
False. The only government sacked was sacked by the governor general, an Australian appointed by an Australian Prime Minister.
"For all intent and purpose Britain is a foreign country and that means a foreign head of state can sack our government and has."
Except that they never have.
"You suggestion that not all cultures are equal shows your arrogant and elitist attitude toward other peoples."
How so? And how is that not simply a statement of fact?
"An attitude not willing to accept or understand anything other that what is known."
Absolute nonsense that you simply invented. An a criticism of me rather than my argument, the abusive ad hominem fallacy.
"Probably a racist as well."
A baseless and despicable charge which I utterly reject and for which you should apologise.
"The British culture has produced a lot of good things but also bad things your elitist attitude being one for a start. "
So the first 'bad' thing you mention is one invented in your own imagination!
"The British in Ireland is a good example of bad British culture/attitude which destroyed the people of Ireland who were treated as less than human..."
A claim which I very much doubt, and which cannot be taken credibly given your next claim.
"...as were the Aboriginals,..."
Sure, some people—especially including evolutionists—did treat them as less than human. But British law made it a capital offense to murder an aborigine, which would hardly be the case if they were considered less than human.
"... as with all British (European) colonization."
Evidence please. In fact the opposite appears to be the case, at least from Britain.
"Of course good or bad is in the eye of the beholder..."
No, some things are absolutely good or bad.
"...no change for the sake of no change is just a reflection of insecurity and selfishness and can only lead to stagnation and devolvement of the culture."
Then it's just as well that I don't have the attitude of no change for the sake of no change, isn't it?
"Removal of the negative of British legacy from our institution will make a more distinctive Australian identity with all other cultures having their influence."
Which, overall, is likely to be a negative, despite your wishful thinking.
1
-
@souptec
"The Governor General is the Kings representative in Australia and takes council from the King in case of action needed."
Yes, and quite likely the GG did discuss the matter with the Queen at the time. However, it was the GG's initiative and action. So my point stands.
"Therefore this is a case of political interference from a foreign county's head of state."
False. That simply does not follow from your previous statement. That she had no objection to the GG's decision does not make it interferences. (Further, she was also Australia's monarch, so your reference to "a foreign country" is misleading if not deceptive.)
"You may consider that from a subjective point of view that all culture are not equal but it is hardly a statement of fact."
Nonsense. Some cultures have abolished slavery. Others haven't. Some are democratic. Others aren't. Some give women equal rights. Others don't. One culture founded public hospitals, universal education, the university system, and science. None of the others did.
"Your choice of words imply you are racist and I will not apologize."
How do they imply that? I have never said anything disparaging or favourable on the basis of supposed race. You should still apologise.
"Your ignorance of the British in Ireland and Australia seems to imply a head in the sand approach to history."
What ignorance. You haven't shown any.
"I suggest you do some research on the unofficial actions of the British settlers in Australia and how the governments turned a blind eye to the treatment of Aboriginals."
Why? I'm already aware of that, and made mention of the unofficial actions of some settlers regarding aborigines in my previous comment. And my comment did not exclude how at times the governments (also made up of settlers) turned a blind eye to it.
"Your denial or ignorance of these subjects is not uncommon but expected."
And yet in my supposed denial or ignorance, I made mention of it! Perhaps you should learn how to read.
"No such thing as absolutes, ..."
Evidence please.
"...again this concept stems for an inability to see the whole picture."
Evidence please.
"There are negative sides to everything,..."
Evidence please. And examples of negatives will not show that everything has a negative.
"...the objective for society is to recognizing them and to replace them with a better option..."
If there are no absolutes, then how do you determine what is "better"? You need an absolute standard by which to make that judgement.
"You last line indicates a fear of change..."
False (illogical). It indicates a fear of change for the worse, not a fear of change itself.
"...and cynical attitude towards any potential positive outcome."
Again illogical. It indicates a cynical attitude towards what appears to be the likely negative outcome.
"Cynicism never did anything to enhance the human experience."
So why were you cynical when you said (my bolding) "Your denial or ignorance of these subjects is ... expected."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@veemiles8774
"some still live in the colonial era."
Well, you seem to think so. Perhaps you do?
"...the one I learnt about stated there was war on this land - white against black."
Then you were taught incorrectly. Yes, there were some small battles, but nothing approaching a "war".
"And if you bothered to learn anything about ancient history, you would know that the Australian 1st Nation people are one of the oldest cultures on this planet."
According to some Westerners. The aboriginal dreamtime stories don't put a timescale on it, and their stories don't fit with those Western ones.
"I’d say after 60,000yrs of occupation on this land then they have every right to make a claim to have a voice in parliament."
I don't accept the 60,000 years figure, but that's beside the point here, because they already have a voice in parliament, so your comment is a straw-man.
"You really need to get out more and expand your horizons, ...'
Oh, my horizons go way beyond yours, I'd say. You appear to be locked into standard leftist thinking. I'm not.
"...sky tv certainly won’t educate you."
And yet it (among others) does. So that proves you wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andhewonders
"I guess that is what a person that has no manners would think,..."
That this is a public space? Or that you are espousing your beliefs? Why would either only be thought by a person without manners?
"...a public space has rules, that's a fact,..."
Is it? It's public. As far as I know people can do almost anything there that they are allowed to do in non-public places. (There will be some exceptions, typically around common decency.)
"...these rules are created by governments and therefore a general rules of society,..."
So what are the rules relevant to this particular case?
"As for this being a public space I don't think you've thought it through, this is Social Media, you can choose to be here or not be here,..."
Yes, this is social media, open to the public, hence a public space. People can choose to be or not be in public spaces.
"when you are walking down the street and someone is babbling on right where your appointment is, you can't escape it..."
Yes you can. Stop listening. Walk a different way. Or do you expect everyone in public spaces to remain silent?
"Think before you comment please."
I always do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cobar5342
"I am Down Under..."
Me too.
"... simply cannot understand why he is left in his position."
For one, because it's apparently Biden's choice, nobody else's, technically at least. For another, Biden beat Trump last time, so they figure he can do it again. For a third, there's not much of a talent pool in the Democrat camp. Kamala would be no better. Newsome would be terrible in his own way. If Trump wasn't in the race you'd have DeSantis and Ramaswamy and perhaps a couple of other good choices, but the Democrats don't really have any other good choices.
"Who is going to vote for a demented man?"
The left will vote for him, because (a) the mainstream media has failed to show much of Biden's condition, so many people are unaware of how bad he is, and (b) they've been told that Trump will destroy democracy, so for them, Biden is the better (or least-worst) choice.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tonygrowley5275 You've attempted to provide evidence that the church is a weapon of control, but have not attempted to show that it is created by men.
As for your evidence of control, you have little idea what you are talking about. They are not told "exactly" how to behave; it's like going to school (which happens five days a week for about six hours a day, much more than one to three hours a week going to church): you are taught things, which you can then choose whether or not to follow. Nobody is "coerced" into giving money to the church. And there's nothing wrong with giving money: the church has legitimate expenses they need to cover and do legitimate things with that money.
On the other hands, you are "coerced" into paying for that schooling (which is often opposed to Christianity in some ways), in the form of taxes. You have no choice about that (and that is, loosely, based on a percentage of your income).
So do you similarly complain about schools? Or only churches, which are completely voluntary to attend anyway?
In summary, your evidence to the first part of your claim does not support it, and you've provided no evidence whatsoever of the second part of your claim.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EL_Duderino68
"It's still in the bible, isn't it?"
Further on this point. This suggests that you think that the Bible is a list of rules to follow. It's not.
It's the story of God's relationship to man. The Bible is a collection of books recording that relationship at various times and with various people. As such, much of it is history. The history of God's creation of the universe, Earth, and mankind, of mankind sinning, and God's attempts to continue the relationship despite mankind often rejecting Him. That history includes some songs, some laws applicable to a particular nation, some preaching by God's prophets (preachers), four biographies of Jesus, and a history of the early Christian movement. The Bible also has some non-history books, such as the Psalms (songs), some sayings (Proverbs) and some letters with teaching material (much of the New Testament).
It's actually very short on rules that we must follow. For example, it says that we Christians should get baptised, but doesn't make that a requirement to be saved. It says that we should dress modestly, but doesn't spell out what is modest and what isn't.
Of course there are some principles in there that do guide what we must do. So it doesn't say that slavery is banned, but does teach that we are all equal, and all made in the image of God, which principles are incompatible with the slavery of the Roman world and the post-'enlightenment' world, and is why Christianity twice abolished slavery.
1
-
@EL_Duderino68
"How can I be wrong about my questions? It answers that can be wrong, right?"
Sure, answers can be wrong. But loaded questions can also be wrong. The classic "have you stopped beating your wife" assumes that the person has already been beating their wife. Your questions are clearly not aimed at learning, but at making a point, and are similarly loaded.
Your question "do you ever eat shellfish or wear clothes made with nylon and cotton?" assumes that the Bible teaches that you shouldn't do those things. Ergo, the question is loaded, and the assumption is wrong. So the question is wrong.
Your question "It's still in the bible, isn't it? I guess you just get to pick and choose" assumes that the only reason to observe one rule and not another is purely arbitrary and inconsistent, rather than there being a good, non-arbitrary, reason. So again, the question is wrong.
"Not at all, I used to love your entertaining comments."
Well, given that my comments are primarily meant to educate and correct, that you describe them as "entertaining" suggests that you're not being serious.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EL_Duderino68
"The appropriateness of something can be subjective because it often depends on individual perspectives, cultural norms, personal beliefs, and situational context."
Yes, it can be subjective, but you've not shown that it need be, nor that it was in this case.
"What you write is not real debating."
And yet you don't say why, apart from an evidence-free reference to logical fallacies.
"I don't think you really understand the logical fallacies that are traditionally excluded from logical debate. "
No, I understand that, which is why I avoid them. And yet again, you've not shown that I have included logical fallacies. On the other hand, one logical fallacy is the ad hominem, which you are engaging in here.
"I'm glad you have conceded you are entertaining me."
I didn't concede that. The "also" was not a reference to entertaining you, but to celebrating Christmas; it was a counter to your "instead".
Rather, I suspect that your entertainment is self-created amusement in trolling me rather than addressing the substance of the debate, which is about what the Bible teaches.
1
-
@EL_Duderino68
"I'm disappointed you would try and wriggle out of what you wrote. "
I'm not wiggling out of anything. I was simply explaining what I wrote. I concede that it would have been easy to misunderstand, but a misunderstanding it was.
"You write "No, I'm also here, and debating you." You know what "also" means."
Yes, I know what "also" means. I was saying that I was also here in contrast to your claim that I am instead here. You do know the difference between instead and also? I was correcting your use of instead.
I'll put it this way, bolding a couple of your words:
" Instead, you're here entertaining me"
My reply had two word stressed:
"No, I'm also here, and debating you." Each stressed (italicised) word was a counter to your two words that I have bolded.
"There is no substance in your debate. It's based on faith at its base, not logic."
An evidence-free and reason-free dismissal of my comments. What is not logical about it?
"Faith is the antithesis of reason."
As I have almost certainly explained to you before, biblically, faith means trust in a trustworthy person, i.e. someone that the evidence shows to be worthy of our trust. It's only antithetical if you substitute a different meaning of the word, as you have done here.
"Why are you commenting to me? I'd really like to know? Are you a warrior for your faith?"
Two reasons. One is that I'm following the example of the Apostle Paul who said that "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God," The other is so that others reading this won't be led astray by your comments.
"In your religion, I'd think that you are committing the first deadly sin of Pride."
Still with the ad hominems.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"God created humanity in his own image, which means God is both man and women aka a Transgender."
A transgender person is someone who (supposedly) changes genders; not someone who is both.
And God is not physical. He does not have physical traits of different sexes. The reference to His image would be referring to things like having free will, the ability to think, plan, communicate with language, love, etc.
"So God created a Woman from Adams Rib, the First Transgender LGBGQT person on the Planet ."
Again, Eve did not change genders.
"don’t make excuses for his error."
What error?
"Please I’ve done the background work, that is the end of the subject."
Oh, so for some reason you have the final word on the subject? It cannot be debated or disputed? Do you claim to be infallible?
"...go listen to Christopher Hitchens, he has the best answers for you."
He's an atheist. Why should I take him seriously on a topic like this?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BUD8302
"churches are private institutions, not part of government. So there is no reason why they should receive government funds."
I never said that they should. I said that IF you provide funds to charities or other organisations, then not providing them to charities run by churches simply because they are churches is discrimination.
"Notice that it's the Pentecostal church, so of course Morrison was going to give money towards it."
Why "of course"? You didn't rebut my argument as to why he wouldn't.
"The only charities that Pentecostal churches run are charities to fund themselves, ..."
On the face of it, that's completely false. So what's your evidence?
"And I am not anti-christian,..."
When you misrepresent Christians and imply that they shouldn't get funds that similar organisations get, just because they are churches, then it suggests that you are anti-Christian.
"Do you honestly believe that the 1 million dollars they received was for charity?"
What one million? You claimed that there was half a million for JobKeeper, which is obviously for staff, not charity. You've shown no evidence of another half million.
"This is from The Guardian:"
So you don't have a reliable source?
"wealthy Pentecostal church was handed $660,000 in jobkeeper payments"
As were many other businesses, and all for good reasons. Nothing improper here.
"and later posted a 3,620% increase in profit"
That is nonsense, as a church is a non-profit organisation. It's possible that it had a big increase in the difference between income and expenses, but in a non-profit organisation, that is not a "profit". Calling it that is an attempt to smear.
"and a $1.2m increase in revenue."
Well, obviously, if you get more money for whatever reason it will result in an increase in revenue. Again, nothing improper there.
"Hope Unlimited church,..."
And yes, I noticed that you keep switching churches. You originally claimed that Morrison gave to "his" church, then it was about the W.A. church, and now it's about a third church! You can't even keep your story straight!
"What do you think about that?"
I think your anti-Christian bias is showing.
I note that the Guardian article also says this:
"The ABC has previously reported that about 3,500 religious entities were given $627m in jobkeeper payments until March, when the scheme ended. It reported that dozens of the country’s biggest churches and religious groups did so while remaining in surplus."
What that doesn't say is that the same applied to many businesses. What it also doesn't say is that it might be considered unfair to provide payments to some and not others. It's the old story of why should you pay to support poorly-performing businesses or other organisations but not pay the same to well-performing entities? Isn't that unfair discrimination? Of course this case is special in that the payments were to compensate for the effects of government decisions. But is that reason to discriminate? Anyway, the argument has been made that businesses that didn't need the money should (voluntarily) pay it back, and that same argument could apply to churches. But as even the Guardian article says, they "were eligible for jobkeeper, if they forecasted a decline ... in revenue" (my bolding). So it was perfectly legitimate to receive the money. The only question is whether they should return it if their forecast turned out to be wrong. But the Guardian article seems to ignore that point, and just talks about what they received.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@godamid4889
" "JobKeeper wasted $40 billion, not $27 billion, but who’s counting?" AFR, Oct 12 2021"
First, I never claimed that it was all done in the best way it could have been.
Second, I have never accepted the premise that if everyone has to suffer, you only help those who are less efficient, and those who have done well can just suffer without help. That is, if both big and small businesses are being hit financially by the lockdowns, why only help the small ones? That the big ones might be able to survive anyway is no reason to allow them to suffer.
Third, that article is not exactly impartial and objective.
"You need to get out more and stop watching pro Liberal propaganda."
What propaganda? I get my information from a variety of sources, and can distinguish evidence-supported claims from opinion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
She's wrong on prohibition, and it's not comparable to Covid, in that the lockdowns here are driven by the government, while prohibition was driven by grass-roots campaigns. Various U.S. states had prohibition for many years before public pressure caused it to become national by means of an amendment to the constitution, and rather than costing a lot, it was very beneficial on society, with prisons being closed for lack of prisoners, crime down in most areas (but up in cases of the speakeasies, etc.) hotels business boosted because they were now safe for families, school shoes sales up because the father's wages weren't spent at the pub on the way home, etc. And that was all despite poor enforcement. It wasn't a crime to produce alcohol, so the police couldn't get involved. It was against the tax regulations, which is why enforcement was in the charge of the tax officers (that's what Eliot Ness was: a tax official, who eventually got Al Capone convicted on tax charges).
It was stopped mainly by the rich and powerful who wanted to shift some of their tax burden onto the population buying alcohol, and, because they owned the mass media, they instituted a propaganda campaign against prohibition (the mainstream media's been at this misinformation stuff for a long time), eventually getting it lifted nationally (although it continued in some states until the 1960s).
It was loosely similar here, where some Melbourne suburbs were 'dry' suburbs, where the residents got to vote on liquor licences, until the governments unilaterally ended it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@avacado3034
"That is not what Atheists "believe". "
Oh, they do believe in God?
"We don't know for sure that there is no God."
First, that's an agnostic.
Second, that's a largely-meaningless description. If you really felt that you didn't know for sure, you'd take precautions in cause you were wrong. But you don't. So effectively, if not technically, you believe in no God.
"Same as we can't prove with certainty that there is no giant teapot hurtling through the universe."
And yet if you were planning a space mission, you'd not bother watching out for that teapot, because you're convinced it's not worth worrying about. Again, affectively that's belief in no teapot.
"It's more likely than not there is no Gawd,..."
What's your evidence?
"obsessed with gay sex watching people have gay sex looking down on us"
Oh, that God. I don't believe that there's any evidence for a being like that either. That's one of your imagination, not the one described in the Bible, which is what I was talking about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joeyjohnson4826
"so you only don't steal because it's illegal?"
In my case, no, but for many people, yes. That and the odds of getting caught.
"You only don't drive on the other side of the road because it's illegal?"
There is nothing inherently wrong with driving on a particular side of the road. In some countries we drive on the left and in other countries we drive on the right. I drive on the left because that's the law here. And I do that even when there is no oncoming traffic, because that's the law.
"You can insult yourself that way if you want to I would not steal whether it was legal or not..."
But many people will. There are plenty of people who will fail to report income on their taxes, or take a towel from a hotel, or other similar theft. And although those examples are illegal, why not, if it's allowed? At least that's the way many people think.
"Laws are only created society can punish those that do."
So you're saying that when something is made illegal, the incidence of it doesn't drop at all? Do you have evidence for that?
"there's a difference between morality and law you cannot legislate morality. But many laws come from morality."
Yes, many (most) laws come from morality. Which means that legislating morality is exactly what those laws are doing.
1
-
@joeyjohnson4826
"Prohibition in the United States is one such failure ..."
It was actually quite successful.
"Overnight it made people into criminals that were not before..."
It didn't, actually. The laws around prohibition were tax laws, not criminal laws. Elliot Ness was a tax agent, not a policeman or detective.
"...it did nothing but exacerbate the situation..."
On the contrary, sales of school shoes went up (the fathers were bringing their wages home instead of drinking them away), hotel business went up (families felt safer going there), prisons were closed from lack of prisoners, and so on.
"We were smart enough to repeal it."
It was repealed thanks to the propaganda of the mainstream media that demonised it, and the effects of that are still being felt today, such as in your comment that it was a failure. Prohibition was already in place in many states before it was put into the constitution, and people already saw the benefits of it. After it came in, public support for it went up, as people realised the benefits of it. But then some wealthy business owners with ties to the newspapers decided that it should be repealed so that it could be taxed and thereby lessen their own tax burden.
"Same thing with gun laws for 150 years I can own those guns now overnight you want to turn me into a criminal and you expect me to just comply to your demands?"
False. I didn't propose making them illegal. You're making that up.
"Understand yet"
I understand that you misunderstand various things, including where I'm coming from.
1
-
@joeyjohnson4826
"prohibition was a complete disaster it caused the crime rate to triple"
No it wasn't and no it didn't.
"it made Al Capone really rich with illegally illicit bootleg booze."
Yes, a few people benefited from it in that sort of way, but they were the exceptions to the rule.
"It turned ordinary people into criminals that were going to speakeasies."
Ordinary people who obeyed the law didn't go to speakeasies.
"It took 80 year old family businesses and shut them down."
Drug-pushing ones? As I pointed out, it actually helped many businesses.
"And no way was it a success it was an absolutely [deleted] disaster."
Except that it wasn't, as I said.
"It was such a failure they repealed it as soon as they [deleted] could."
Again, false. The 18th amendment was passed at the start of 1919, and the 21st at the end of 1933. That's 15 years.
"The crime rate was cut in half by simply repealing it."
Again, false. Much crime was caused by people under the influence of alcohol. As I said, they were closing prisons for lack of prisoners after the 18th amendment came in.
"In what way was it a [deleted] success?"
I've already said. Didn't you read my comment?
"Alcohol tobacco and firearms, it expanded the power of the FBI to unprecedented levels of federal police force which is against the Constitution."
I doubt that, given that it was actually quite poorly enforced.
"The Goodman committed murder on a massive scale which is illegal."
Murder on a massive scale is illegal, is it? I wouldn't have known! Who or what is "The Goodman"?
"Are you telling me if the gun would have been illegal that he would have been like ... I want to kill people but you know guns are illegal I can't get it."
I'm telling you that if guns were illegal, they'd be harder to get, and therefore fewer people would have them. That does not mean that I thing banning them is a practicable solution, however. Clearly it is not.
"You want to live in a nanny state."
Nope. You assume too much.
"Put the very thing you turned for for protection is more dangerous than anything and that is government."
It shouldn't be, if it actually carried out the will of the people and if the people didn't swallow the propaganda of the mainstream media and others with bad agendas. What you should be looking at is worldviews, not so much governments. John Adams said "Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by … morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition … Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other". The problem is the worldviews that people have today. Yes, some of that is promulgated by government, but where do the people in government get that from?
"You are wrong. You've given no examples to prove otherwise"
You say that you're losing respect for me, and yet you're claiming that I haven't provided information that I did in fact provide! Try checking your own integrity first.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joeyjohnson4826
"the state is there to preserve my rights."
I won't disagree, at the moment at least.
"If it exists beyond that it is tyrannical..."
I don't see that that necessarily follows.
"I'm going to quote a great man one more time maybe try reading it. Government in it's best form is but a necessary evil and it's worst one it's intolerable."
I don't consider the atheist Thomas Paine "a great man". And given that God ordains government, it's not in and of itself an evil.
"If they infringe on trying to protect me from me or trying to protect me from other people they are now encroaching on my rights inevitably."
Which is not necessarily wrong.
"They will encroach on my rights in the name of public safety, they will encroach on my rights in the name of law. It is tyrannical."
It doesn't help that you're not giving examples. In the name of public safety, they restrict you to driving on a particular side of the road. Is than an encroachment on your rights? Is that tyrannical?
"The state does not exist to take care of me..."
In the sense of provide for you, yes, I agree.
"the state does not exist to protect me. A true free state only exists to ensure my freedoms remain intact."
How does/should it ensure that your freedoms remain intact? Are you free if you get attacked and maimed by someone? Why shouldn't the state protect you from things like that? I would argue that that is the main reason to have a government—to defend the people as a whole (i.e. the country) with a military, and to protect individuals, with police. Most of the rest that they do probably doesn't need to be done by the government.
"Since government is run by things that are not Angels, called men."
That's why we have democracies rather than absolute monarchies and dictatorships. A very great man said "Where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety." Democracies compensate for man's failings.
"A well-regulated militia is the best last resort to prevent them from doing what they have done throughout history."
Yes, that's an American view. But what makes it the "best" last resort?
"I do not need a nanny state to hold my hand and protect me."
A nanny state is "a government that tries to give too much advice or make too many laws about how people should live their lives,...". You're using the term as though it refers to a government that gives any advice or makes almost any laws.
"This is called enlightenment philosophy... Man existed without government ,Man created government."
Not according to God. "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God,..."
"If government lives outside the laws of nature, i as a free man having the right to defend my property to pursue property..."
If a government lives outside the laws of God you have that right. Which is why we have the democracy that we have. Because Christians told the rulers that they also had to obey God; they were not supreme. Bishop Ambrose did that with Theodosius, and the bishops in England did that with the monarch at the time, giving us the Magna Carta, one of the most foundational legal documents in the English-speaking world (including America).
"I don't know what's so hard to understand?"
Why do you think I don't understand? Or are you confusing my disagreement with me not understanding?
"Not my opinion these ideas are hundreds of years old."
If age makes them right, then what I said trumps what you said, as I am quoting even older sources.
"And the natural world with no laws and no government I would have a right to pursue a meal, and then if neighboring humans decided to come steal that meal under natural rights of law as a human being would have the right to defend what is mine."
With no laws and no governments, where do rights come from? What are "natural rights"? A human invention? No, we have always had God's laws. They apply to all of mankind, including rulers and people in government. We are free by virtue of being under God's law, which gives us much freedom (but not the freedom to harm other people, for instance, which is partly why we have freedom in the first place. That is, no laws actually results in no freedom). But governments must also follow God's law, and the problem is that many governments don't in many ways. Including allowing the murder of unborn children, failing to restrict others from impinging too much on our rights, supporting LGBT+ nonsense, keeping good teaching out of schools and allowing bad teaching into schools, teaching people to rely on the government for support, and so on.
"Since the right to defend one's property is ingrained within human nature ,within the natural Rights of Man, no government has the right to take away my tools of doing so."
As long as those tools are used properly and do not create too much of a danger to others.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Bork_Cruk
"Well millions of people believe different religions that you claim are false, so clearly you can’t use the fact that millions of people believe something as evidence."
Then it's just as well I didn't do that, isn't it? Rather, I asked the commenter to explain why millions of intelligent people believe in God.
"You’re the one making the claim he exists, the burden of proof is on you."
False. kermitthehermit9588 make the claim that He doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on him.
"No one founded science, science is a method."
A method founded by Christians. That it's a method doesn't mean that nobody founded that method. Loren Eiseley is but one of many authorities I could cite:
“The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation … . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@binmcbin1890
"lmao you really are plainly a fool and i think its obvious you know so deep down."
More insult instead of rational argument.
"There is a reason he ran from the question, he was absolutely suggesting non Christians were stealing the tradition of marriage."
Except that he wasn't.
"see how i asked?"
Yes, you asked, but I pointed out that the answer was obvious.
"lol theres a reason he wont answer."
Because the answer was obvious?
"remember last time we interacted and you were adamant that energy policy should be in the constitution?"
I remember that interaction and your misrepresentation of what I said. I NEVER said that it should be in the constitution, let alone being adamant about it. What I said was that a provision about energy (I never mentioned policy; that was your doing) could be in the constitution. You never showed that it couldn't be.
"intellectual cowards are not to be taken seriously, they should only be mocked."
And yet I'm not mocking you.
" "god created marriage" lmao you actually believe that dont you?"
Of course. Because it's true. And mocking doesn't disprove that. If you're going to mock, you do that after proving your point. Not instead of.
"there are cases of marriages thousands of years before your god was invented."
What is your evidence that He was invented?
"The bible doesnt really explain marriage and the modern day version of marriage isnt in the bible or wouldnt be recognised by Christians 1000 years ago."
Mark 10:6-8: "But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” "
"so yes, maybe a god did invent marriage, but it certainly wasn't a christian one!"
Because it's not a Christian one. God didn't invent a Christian marriage. Christians follow a God-invented marriage. You have it back to front.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aaronfranklin6863
"...now he can't be God because who was he praying to,..."
God the Father. But even if it was to Himself, so what? You've never talked to yourself?
"...why does he say to follow the laws and commands of God,..."
Because we should!
"...the bible tells us he was a man approved of by God..."
Yes, He came to us in human form, i.e. as a man. And clearly, approved by God (Himself).
"...like the other prophets,..."
I don't know that it says that, but even if it does, so what? He was like the other prophets in some ways, but obviously not in every way, just like all the other prophets differed from each other.
"...he says he n God are one ..."
Correct
"...not specifically that he is God, ..."
False. He makes it clear that He IS God Himself. For one, by forgiving sins, which the Jews knew only God could do. Which is why some of them wanted to stone Him, for claiming to be God!
Secondly, you yourself previously admitted that the Bible does say that! You said that "...the biggest lie [in the Bible] is that Jesus is God..." You admit that the Bible says that, yet now you deny that it does!
"...a man and woman are considered one when married yet aren't literally one,..."
They are literally one couple. My point being, like yours, that "one" can be understood in different ways. And God is three in one, so one God, but three persons, of which Jesus is one.
"many texts leads ya to know that he isn't the almighty"
No, they've never led me to know that. What texts are you talking about?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@growlkitty
"If Catholics are Christians then Christians would also have to be, Catholic's!"
Nonsense. That's like saying that if parrots are birds, then birds have to be parrots. One is a subset of the other.
"The various and many protestant denominations that exist today either profess Christ and deny the law,..."
Are you saying that they don't follow the Mosaic Law, given for the pre-Christian nation of Israel? Are you saying that animal sacrifice—that was part of the Mosaic Law—is still required?
"...they say Jesus from their lips, but their hearts are far from Him..."
Arrant nonsense. Sure true for some, but not the group as a whole.
"the Holy Bible is a Christian book."
The Holy Bible is God's book, and as such, Christians follow it. You could argue that the New Testament is a product of Christianity, but not the Old Testament (unless you want to argue that Christianity preceded Christ, which is actually an argument you could sort of make).
"Sunday keeping is a Catholic institution and not biblical at all!"
Worshipping on Sundays was instituted in the early (pre-Catholic) church.
"Neither is ... Easter, Christmas, ..."
Easter and Christmas are celebrated by Catholics and non-Catholics alike. It is not something taught in the Bible, but neither is there anything against it.
"Nobody knows anything about this topic because nobody uses Scripture as their source guide!"
Nobody? Again, nonsense. Although you're right that plenty of (especially non-Christians) don't.
"True Christianity isn't, "defined." "
All words have definitions. Otherwise they are meaningless.
"It is irrelevant how someone defines Christianity, or what they call themselves; "you will know them from their fruits..." "
You're right to the extent that wrong definitions are irrelevant, and what they call themselves is irrelevant if it's not true (like a man calling himself a woman). And yes, you will know they by their fruits. But you'll know them as what? As Christians! So what IS a Christian? Again, the word is meaningless if it doesn't have a definition.
"Christianity is a lifestyle, not a definition..."
Yes, you can call it a lifestyle, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have a definition. If it doesn't have a definition, what are you talking about when you refer to Christians? Without a definition, you can't explain what you're talking about.
"...a definition which is the same as an opinion."
No, a definition is not an opinion. A definition is what you find in a dictionary. It's a convention on what a particular sequence of letters mean. What I cited was a widely-accepted convention, i.e. a widely-accepted definition. I never claimed that it was the only possible definition, by the way.
Most of the rest of what you said in various comments I do agree with.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wildboy3937
"your god proofs was only written in a book, "
No, it was recorded in multiple books by multiple eye witnesses.
"that book portray your god as Vengefull, Cruel, Insecure, Child killer, Sexist,"
Actually (and contrary to your caricature), it portrays Him as compassionate, forgiving, opposed to child killing, and treating women equally with men.
"and yea bible was the one whos real because it says it is."
Plenty of others say that it's real, including archaeologists, historians, and scientists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"WOW , PEOPLE ARE SO HOMOPHOBIC,..."
Who's homophobic (in this discussion)? That is, who has an irrational fear of homosexuals/homosexuality? I've seen no evidence of that.
"...AND SOMEBODY GAY JUST IT IS JUST BORN THIS WAY..."
Evidence of being born that way please. Further, even IF they are born that way, they still have a choice on whether or not to act that way.
"...BESIDES THE SCHOOL SEEMS NOT TO CARE HOW THEY ARE AFFECTING THE GAY KIDS BY TELLING THEM THEY ARE UNWORTHY..."
On the contrary, the school seems very much to care how they would be affecting the homosexual kids by endorsing their immorality.
And where did they tell them that they were unworthy.
"...BUT OF COURSE DOES NOT TELL THIS TO THE STRAIGHT KIDS"
Because there's nothing with with being 'straight'! Duh!
"WELL YOU CLEARLY DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE GAY KIDS WHO ARE UNCOMFORTABLE BY YOUR [nonsense]."
What nonsense? You haven't shown that it IS nonsense.
"YOUR [bad] FEELINGS ARE NOT A JUSTIFICATION TO DISCRIMINATE OTHERS ..."
What bad feelings? You haven't shown that they are bad feelings. Simply declaring them to be does not make it so. And there's nothing wrong with discriminating against bad things.
"..., YOUUU DESERVEEE TO BE DISCRIMINATEDDD."
Well, actually, I am discriminated against by people like you, because of the Christian beliefs I hold and espouse. So would you please say that I should not be? That I should be allowed to express my views without penalty?
"OF COURSE THEY ARE"
No, you need evidence; you can't simply declare it to be so.
"I AGREE NO ONE IS BORN STRAIGHT, ..."
History, supported by science, says that we were designed to be heterosexual. So no, you're simply wrong.
"EVERY TIME THE STRAIGHT TRA"U"SH , TRIES TO SHAME ANYBODY GAY, ..."
Who's trying to shame them? Rational disagreement is not an attempt to shame, and for you to misrepresent people so shows that you don't have an argument.
"WHICH IS SUPREME ARROGANCE, "
What is? Declaring others to be wrong without providing evidence, and misrepresenting them? Then why are you doing it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@keithammleter3824
"It is utter nonsense, and I explained why in another thread."
So you should be able to in this thread as well. I can't see another thread with your name on it and I scrolled a fair way.
"Before Philip arrived in command of Bristish navy warships and transports, the only people living in Australia were the indigenous people. Within a few decades, most of the inhabitants were English, and the indigenous had absolutely no say in the matter."
How does that equate to an invasion? The aborigines settled here, and later the British also settled here. That does not equate to an invasion.
"You must be an ignorant American or something. If you lived in Australia you would not be so ridiculous as to make such a claim as "there was no invasion.""
You must live in a leftist bubble to think that. I'm born and bred Australian, and I'm by no means the only one who rejects the claim of 'invasion'.
"It you look at Australia's oldest government buildings, it is remarkable how well built they are, yet were designed and constructed by convicts."
Yes, I know.
"The reason is that the British didn't just randomly pluck people out of their jails and send them to Australia."
What's your evidence for that being the reason?
"Not after the invasion, with the invasion."
What invasion? Apart from your claim to have shown this video to be "utter nonsense" somewhere else, you've not shown that there was an invasion.
1
-
@keithammleter3824
"You are being silly."
Nope.
"Look up the meaning of invasion and invade in any good dictionary. The dictionary will tell you it is an occupation of a territory against the wishes of the indigenous people, particularly when they are not consulted and/or the rights and privileges the indigenous had are ignored, cancelled or overrode. This is exactly what happened."
No, it's not. The aborigines gained rights and privileges; their existing ones were not ignored, etc.
"Your comment "the aborigines settled here, and later the British also settled here" would be valid if they both arrived at the same time or settled in geographically separate areas, but that is not what happened."
Those requirements are not necessary for it to be valid. Besides, what do you mean by "geographically separate areas"? Different countries? Different states? Different towns? Different streets? Different blocks of land?
"The aborigines arrived in Australia first, at least 40,000 years prior to the British..."
How long before is irrelevant, but your figure is based on naturalism, a philosophy that is bereft of evidence and which I don't hold to.
"...and occupied the entire land area."
Again, what does that mean? Every square foot? Every acre? What?
"It's pretty much self evident the British took care to send the trades the colony would need, comprising people that weren't too bad in character."
So you don't have any actual evidence, just inference. You may be right, but without evidence, I'm not going to assume you're right.
"To quickly find a thread I started,..."
With the number of comments, it's not that quick, but okay, I'll have another look.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lj3276 I didn't say that I voted for them. I said that I voted in referendums. So I know that referendums were held. But just a moment, and I'll look them up...
Probably the first referendum I would have voted in would have been the one in May 1977. That had four questions, of which three were carried. Then December 1984, which had two questions, which were not carried. September 1988 had four questions, none of which got through. And November 1999 had two, which also both failed.
Before that, there was one in 1906 that passed, 1910 that partially passed, 1911 that failed, 1913 that failed, 1919 and another in 1926 that both failed, 1928 that passed, 1937 that failed, 1944 that failed, 1946 that was partially carried, 1948 that failed, 19 51 that failed, 1967 that partially passed, and 1973 and 1974 that both failed
Of course that information was dead easy to find.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ianveal4690
"basically all aboriginal languages were discouraged or forbidden. Christian missionaries in particular made the English language the official language."
That's far too black-and-white. That might have been the case sometimes, but not always. According to one source I found, a librarian in the NSW State Library’s Indigenous engagement branch said that "people in community told us that some people were arrested for speaking language,”. Missionaries don't arrest people
But also, the first translation of a book of the Bible into an aboriginal language finished in 1831, and other languages have followed since. Christians have been translating Bibles into people's own languages for centuries, and there are now Bibles or parts thereof in over 3,400 languages around the world, far more than any other book. The Bible is what has preserved languages in some cases.
"Aboriginal children being taken from their families and brought up by missionaries or non-aboriginal families was supposed to facilitate the use of the English language and Christian beliefs by aboriginal children to eventually, eradicate aboriginal languages, customs, beliefs and identity."
Children were generally only take from their families for the sake of the safety of the children, i.e. where they were being abused or abandoned.
"That's what I meant by lumped together in the interests of eventually breeding languages and culture out of existence."
However, your claim was that this was a prime cause of the attitudes towards aborigines. Instead, it rather sounds like this (to the extent that it did happen) was a symptom of the attitude.
1
-
1
-
@alfrede.neuman9082
"Please don’t talk to me in that tone of voice; ..."
A tone of sticking to facts and logic? Why not?
"YOU might consider yourself a filthy sinner, but I have to much respect for human dignity (which I realise your cult does not place any value in) to apply that myself."
That I'm a sinner (I didn't use the word 'filthy'; you made that up) is a statement of fact. Further, I don't belong to a cult. You made that up too. It's also false that my beliefs do not place any value in human dignity. That's another invention.
If you want evidence of denying human dignity, here are some examples, but from atheists:
Bill Nye:
"I’m insignificant. … I am just another speck of sand. And the earth really in the cosmic scheme of things is another speck. And the sun an unremarkable star. … And the galaxy is a speck. I’m a speck on a speck orbiting a speck among other specks among still other specks in the middle of specklessness. I suck"
Professor Peter Atkins:
"As for human beings, we’re just slime on a planet.."
Professor Susan Blackmore:
“In the end nothing matters … If you really think about evolution and why we human beings are here, you have to come to the conclusion that we're here for absolutely no reason at all.”
In contrast, Christian professor John Lennox:
“If you want to have a massive reason why human beings are special, here it is: God became one.”
It's more than that though. People are the only creatures created in God's image. That makes us extremely special, and with great dignity. That we are also sinners doesn't contradict that.
"By the way, just how [bad] is your religion that a man that covered up pe do ph1lia can simply say a Hail Mary and trot merrily off to Heaven??"
First, because he can't just say that. He has to actually repent of his sin and make Jesus Lord. Second, because the punishment stands—but Jesus took it for us. Third, because even something as terrible as this is insignificant compared to the worst crime of all—rejecting our fantastic and perfect maker.
By what standard to you judge this crime as wrong in the first place? If it's not for God's standards, it's just a matter of human opinion. Historically, you only think it's a bad thing because of the Christian teaching that it's bad. Atheism provides no basis for thinking it's a bad thing.
1
-
@alfrede.neuman9082
"Wow, even for a theist, ..."
There's bias right there.
"...there are a LOT of strawman arguments, a curious combination of breathtaking ignorance AND arrogance, and just plain [nonsense]. I shall unpack:"
And yet you start in with your own illogical responses, sidetracks, and disrespect.
"... if you can’t prove the existence of god, you cannot prove that all morality comes from her."
That's Him, not her, as I'm sure you well know. And even apart from that, you're not correct. How would one prove that God exists? In part, by showing that God's existence is required, and the existence of absolute morals could be one way to do that. Your argument is like saying that you can't prove that stone tools found on an archaeological site were made by humans without showing that there were humans there. The fact that stone tools were found there demonstrates that humans were there!
Besides, God's existence has been "proved" many times over.
"...why exactly is it Yahweh and not Buddha, Horus, Thor or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? "
"God" refers to the supreme being and creator. Buddha is not a God, neither Horus nor Thor were supreme beings or the creator (they were both the offspring of others), and of course the Flying Spaghetti Monster is known invention. So of the names you mentioned, Yahweh is the only one that even gets to the starting blocks, and therefore wins by default.
"Your cult is no more or less ludicrous than theirs, and yours isn’t even a majority in this country anymore."
Continued insult is not an argument.
"...christianity IS directly linked to just about every single shameful, disgusting and sickening policy in this country’s history, ..."
That's a weasel statement. It's "linked" in what way? That some Christians or people who were only nominally Christians supported bad things? Or that other Christians opposed bad things? Your claim is too vague to be meaningful.
"...ranging from the white Australia policy, stolen generation, opposing women’s suffrage and indigenous suffrage, ..."
The Woman's Christian Temperance Union supported women's suffrage. Ignoring that Bolt has shown that there was no "stolen generation", Christians were amongst those who most strongly supported and protected indigenous people (meanwhile, many bad attitudes towards aborigines were fostered by the anti-biblical view of evolution). I know of no evidence of Christians generally supporting either of the other two you mentioned.
"...as well as decriminalising consenting homosexuality, euthanasia and much more besides. "
Here you base the sentiment of your argument not on things we'd agree on, but on your own worldview. Yes, Christians opposed those things because they are wrong, and should be opposed.
"But I digress;..."
Yes, that was my point. You lambasted me for what I chose to talk about, but here you are doing similar.
"...your [nonsense] that atheists can’t have morality without god also fails practically."
I made no such claim.
"Morality is literally nothing more than a socially constructed survival guide."
Evidence please.
"For example, a clan of early Homo sapiens wondering the savannah probably would not get very far if they set about arbitrarily killing their own kin."
Perhaps so, but that's not evidence for your claim.
"This the same reason why wolf packs don’t randomly kill their members, and ants are able to build colonies."
Or perhaps they were designed that way. Simply providing an example of how you think it happened does not make it true and is not evidence.
"We know of no known society, species, culture or group, however remote or untouched by civilisation that condones arbitrarily killing its own membership."
That's a very low bar, and again a weasel statement. What about killing members of other societies for no good reason, albeit not "arbitrarily"? In ancient Rome, the leaders would boast about how many they had killed. In some tribal groups, cannibalism was practised. In some tribes in Iran Jaya the highest achievement of a man was to befriend a member of a neighbouring tribe and then kill and eat him. In India, it used to be common practice to burn newly-widowed women alive on their husband's funeral pyre. Some people group would sacrifice their own children to their 'gods'. Roman Emperor Theodosius ordered the slaughter of 7,000 men, women, and children of his own citizens as punishment for an earlier uprising. They're just examples I can think of off the top of my head. Sure, none were "arbitrary"—they had reasons of some sort—but they were other people, not just animals, and in some cases people in their own group. (And in most of those cases, Christians worked to stop those sorts of things happening.)
Continued...
1
-
@alfrede.neuman9082
YT is censoring my attempt to continue, so some of this will be out of order. ...continued.
"This is the hubris of Christians like you - you presume that you people “own” morality."
No, we know that God (not us) owns morality, while you "presume" that God doesn't exist and that we simply want to repress people.
"You also have the barefaced arrogance to assume that the universe “owes” you a purpose."
I did not argue that. I pointed out that your claim that we deny human dignity is the opposite of the truth. But instead of addressing that, you've taken one thing out of context and made it into something I wasn't arguing.
"...we, like all lifeforms ARE just sacks of sentient carbon and water."
Except that we are not. Again, you're trying to justify your position by quoting not evidence, but your own view.
"Human dignity is (like christian morality) a recent invention,..."
No, it's not recent at all. That, again, is just your view.
"...but unlike Christianity, has actually advanced humanity’s progress."
You don't know history. Christianity founded public hospitals and many charities, introduced the university system and universal education, advanced human rights, twice abolished slavery, founded modern science, spread democracy, raised the status of women, opposed tyrants, and much more. Sociologist Rodney Stark wrote that “Christianity created Western Civilization. Had the followers of Jesus remained an obscure Jewish sect, most of you would not have learned to read and the rest of you would be reading from hand copied scrolls. Without a theology committed to reason, progress, and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800: A world with many astrologers and alchemists but no scientists. A world of despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys, and pianos. A world where most infants do not live to the age of five and many women die in childbirth–a world truly living in "dark ages."
"The modern world arose only in Christian societies. Not in Islam. Not in Asia. Not in a "secular" society–there having been none. And all the modernization that has since occurred outside Christendom was imported from the West, often brought by colonizers and missionaries.”
"When I asserted that your cult doesn’t value this, I was thinking of Yahweh’s fetish for genocide, genitals (both in general and their mutilation for his pleasure), human sacrifice, and plagues."
Oh dear. More twisting the truth 180 degrees. God has no fetish for genocide, nor in mutilation of genitals, opposes human sacrifice, and has no fetish for plagues. In a few cases there you're twisting punishments for evil into fetishes.
"He spends a good portion of his time in the bible brutally murdering millions of humans in fits of deranged wrath."
Except that He doesn't.
"All of this is why I find it quaint that you still believe in fairy tales like the bible."
You've not shown any of it is fairy tales. On the contrary, a good bit of is supported by external evidence.
"My bible sits firmly in the “fiction” section of my library."
Well, I guess you're no scholar. To quote just one example, Israeli archaeologist, Dr Eilat Mazar said that “I work with the Bible in one hand and the tools of excavation in the other, and I try to consider everything.”
"But on the INCREDIBLY unlikely chance that there is a god, ..."
What makes it incredibly unlikely? If you want "incredibly unlikely", take this example from mathematician astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who (quoting an article about this) "calculated the odds against a simple functioning protein molecule originating by chance in some primordial soup as being the same as if you filled the whole solar system shoulder-to-shoulder with blind men and their Rubik’s cubes, then expected them all to get the right solution at the same time." The fact that life exists requires that God exists.
"...just a small revenge on him for his countless crimes."
Not only have you not shown any crimes; you've not explained your basis for right and wrong, and therefore for saying that anything is a crime.
1
-
@alfrede.neuman9082
Narrowing down to a smaller chunk:
By contrast, the deeply repressed Christian attitude to sex..."
Calling it "deeply repressed" is just to denigrate it. It's not an argument.
"...is NOT shared by MANY other cultures and religions, who actively celebrate it."
{In an attempt to stop YT censoring, I've substitute R for the crime starting with that letter, and K the word referring to taking a life.}
True. Like (again) in ancient Roman where, citing historian Tom Holland, "The sexual economy is founded on the absolute right of free Roman males to have sex with anyone that they want any way that they like." We of course would call much of that 'R'. But hey, if you think R is okay, I can understand where you're coming from. After all, the book A Natural History Of R: Biological Bases Of [removed to appease YT] argues that R is to be expected on the basis of our alleged evolutionary heritage. So by your reasoning that morals come from our evolution, R must be okay.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tonefilter9480
"...so is refusing to see what Murdoch Media really is, a propaganda tool."
I'm not refusing anything. Well, I guess I am. I'm refusing to accept claims that don't have the evidence to support them.
"The ABC is a somewhat reliable news outlet, whereas Murdoch Media is entirely biased."
You got the ABC and Murdoch Media mixed up there. And that's ironic, given that Murdoch is allowed to be biased, whereas the ABC is required to be balanced.
"I too would rather the ABC kept a tighter line, but its hardy a problem like Sky and Fox and the Australian, Herlsd Sun etc"
On the contrary, it's a massive problem.
The other bothersome thing is how various people, such as yourself, make your case by citing your own opinions, as though they are accepted or self-evidently true. They are not. You've said nothing here to actually convince anyone who is not already convinced.
1
-
1
-
@tonefilter9480
"it doesnt say “balanced” fool."
Don't you realise that insulting someone is not a good way to convince?
"It simply attempts to quantify negative v positive."
And the result was that positive and negative were closely balanced.
"Not every politician is entitled to equal positive and negative - it depends on what they actually do."
True. But so often the argument that Fox favours conservatives is simply that favouring one side is bad, without any justification that favouring one side might actually be a good thing. So when I point out that Fox is balanced, then the argument changes to whether that's a good thing or not!
"As per the quite I gave you, no President in history was so inept in first 100 days,.."
So because some anti-Trumpers have that opinion, therefore it's true? Absolute and utter nonsense.
"...and yet Fox’s coverage was more positive than negative..."
So you still haven't read it, despite chiding me for supposedly not reading it? It was actually slightly more negative than positive.
So why can't I claim that he was actually a very good president, and the other media outlets were far more negative than positive? Why can't I claim that?
"I mean, that tells you the story. Case closed."
No, your case is full of holes.
"I mean you embarrass yourself even more, you still didn’t read it, just looked at the pretty pictures"
No, you're the one who should be (or are) embarrassed:
* The fact that I looked at the figure does NOT mean that I looked at ONLY that. That conclusion is simply illogical. Aren't you embarrassed to be so illogical?
* The fact that you denied it said what the figure shows is your error that I called you one, but which you haven't acknowledged nor refuted. That suggests that you are embarrassed, and don't want to admit it.
* I pointed out that the opinion you cited does not refute the evidence I cited, and you haven't either refuted me on that nor acknowledged that, indicating that you are embarrassed to be caught out on that.
1
-
1
-
@tonefilter9480
"You really are deluded about Trump."
So, starting off with insult again. You're trying to downgrade your credibility, aren't you?
"Most of the Court judgments discussed the lack of evidence of alleged fraud."
You mean the ones that actually happened?
"You obviously haven’t read them, you merely repeat the “spin”."
I can't read everything, and I am relying on other sources, in particular a legal source that seems to me to quite fair.
"These were interlocutory injunction cases where there is never a “trial” but a hearing in affidavit evidence, the evidence was rubbish and found to be such,…"
In some cases, yes.
"…in top of that there were other legal reasons to dismiss, such as laches, standing and more."
In which cases the evidence was not investigated, as I said. Thanks for confirming that.
Yes, there were various legal excuses used. Texas brought a case which the courts rejected for lack of standing, so Trump brought the case, which was rejected because they said he should have brought it sooner. It seems that any excuse will do. There were other cases where Trump or whoever was told that it was too late, yet it takes time to gather evidence. Also, perhaps rightly, they declined some cases not on the grounds that they were without merit or standing, but on the grounds that the remedy Trump was asking for seemed to them to be unreasonable, not because he didn't have a case.
"The SCOTUS was majority GOP appointments and they still declined these dumb cases."
That they rejected them seemed to be a case of the court wanting to avoid the issue, not because they were dumb.
"You have been overwhelmed by right wing talking points, whereas I just go by the primary source evidence, Mueller, Court documents filed and things Trump said and did."
You're correct that I often don't read the primary documents, as I don't have time for that. But I sometimes do (including the record of Trump's call with the Ukrainian president), and I don't just swallow "right wing talking points" uncritically.
"Saying Mike Lindell has a business doesn’t mean he ain’t crazy, he may not have been years ago but he is now."
My argument was that someone "crazy" like that is not likely to have been as successful in business as he has been. But yes, that he has become crazy since is logically an option. However, although I'm sceptical of some of the things he talks about, I don't believe he's yet been shown to be wrong. Because of that scepticism, I don't follow him closely, and didn't watch nor read much about his symposium.
"Read Mueller Report then you can discuss his willingness to accept Russian Interference."
Given that it's 448 pages long, I plan on reading it. Is there are particular section that you think I should look at? But in any case, is "interference" only a problem if Russia does it? What if Americans do it? Because local interference didn't seem to cause any concern.
"The Democrats are very very far away from Marxism."
No, they are heavily influenced by it. The whole LGBT+ stuff and CRT that they support is straight out of Marxist thinking.
"You have been sucked into conspiracy thinking."
No, not conspiracies. I attribute it to atheistic thinking. The Democrats, on the other hand, are into conspiracy thinking with their claims about Trump collusion and similar.
"... the slide of GOP into Qanon and Trump worship is ludicrous."
From what I can tell, Qanon is a minor irrelevance that the left make a big deal about. And yes, there is some Trump worship, but most of it is simply supporting a good president who has been grossly and maliciously maligned.
"But people who outright lie and fabricate are clearly worse."
Like Biden? Agreed.
"Trump is a known shyster, Trump University is a clear example."
I didn't like Trump before he was president; I only changed my mind when I saw that he was doing good. I figure he must have changed. (Other conservatives had the same change of heart.) I'm unaware of the issue with Trump university.
"His use of pardons for cronies was unprecedented."
Examples? Because recent previous presidents have pardoned people like terrorists, so it would be hard for Trump to trump that (pun intended).
"…you are beyond that, you are sucked right into the “Dems want communism” fantasy."
But is it a fantasy? A number of them have explicitly supported its seemingly-benign facade of socialism, while others have implicitly supported those ones, they support Marxist views as I have mentioned, and at times they are acting in a quite totalitarian manner.
"You believe what you want to be true, I just look at facts. "
As do I, despite your beliefs.
"You see conspiracy everywhere it seems."
You're fantasizing.
"No I don’t respond to everything you say, because it is unnecessary. You can’t be helped and so its a waste of time."
So your false presumption and low opinion of me justifies you not even trying? That's an excuse to get you off the hook. not a valid reason.
"For you politics is football, you barrack for a team."
No, I don't. I support whoever is closest to being reasonable.
"Biden has screwed up enough already, ... But Trump is, without doubt, mentally ill."
Your criticism of Biden and others does suggest that you're not what you accuse me of (barracking for a particular team), but given that Trump passing a cognitive test that Biden would clearly fail, neither do you appear to be particularly objective in implying that Trump is worse than Biden.
1
-
@tonefilter9480
"CRT is not marxism, Critical Theory has marxist roots but CRT only adopts some techniques of Critical Theory."
I said that it's "straight out of Marxist thinking". You have just effectively confirmed that.
"To say it means anyone who subscribes to it is marxist would indicate you only know it by its strawman version…"
Then it's just as well I didn't say that, isn't it. Rather, I said that "they are heavily influenced by it."
"As for the Courts didn’t investigate the evidence, that’s not correct,…"
I said that they didn't in some cases. And you agreed that they didn't take on some cases for reasons other than evidence. So you agreed with that. I think you're now claiming that they did give it some consideration, but they obviously didn't actually test it in court.
"Many of the cases concerned voting rule changes implemented a year or more prior to election. The courts clearly said, you can’t wait until after an election and then choose to challenge the rules where you had an opportunity to do so prior for the reason that legitimate voters relied on the rules when voting."
Yes, that was the case in some of the cases, but then in some cases also they wouldn't allow a case before the election because no consequences had been shown. But further, I mentioned that they hadn't taken them on those grounds not as evidence of them being unreasonable, but as evidence that they therefore hadn't investigated the evidence.
"Had Trump won there would not have been a challenge by him or GOP to rules and that is the point, to sit back and wait to see results is not conscionable."
That's not in evidence, and although it doesn't directly refute your point, Trump was warning that this would be an issue before the election. He wasn't simply sitting back and waiting to see.
"Trump didnt so much good, other than give tax breaks to the very wealthy."
There was a lot more than that. But did he in fact do what you claim? He did give tax breaks to businesses, because that helps everyone.
"His economy was really the result of 8 years of quantitative easing after 2008. You pump money in, it has a stimulating effect."
The critics always say that it was due to someone or something else, but take credit if it happened during their term. I'm not saying you're wrong, but from what I've heard, you are, and I consider my variety of sources to be sufficiently credible to accept that.
"What wow factor things did he do?"
Moved the American embassy in Israel and arranged peace treaties in the Middle East, to mention two. But then what you might consider to be a "wow factor" might differ from what others think.
"But it is he who did a deal with Taliban and released 5000 of them and thereby nobbled the Afghan Govt leading to their collapse. So, Biden inherited that situation."
On the other hand, I think there's a lot of merit in the argument that when he said that he would hit them so hard if they reneged, they would have been afraid to renege. But with Biden, they knew he was weak.
"…but in reality the Pentagon is who should have had a better plan."
Apparently there is some evidence that Biden overrode them, but then the top military officials seem more concerned with being woke than winning wars.
"You said no one has disproved Lindell. Well, isn’t he the one alleging something and refuses to produce evidence. How can anyone disprove what he won’t articulate and provide evidence of? That’s just silly to say."
No, it's not silly, but it would mean that he doesn't have a lot of credibility. But it's not as though he hasn't released any evidence; he has related a number of things.
"You asked “What about other internal collusion”. Well, where is the evidence of it?"
Searching the conversation with you, no, I did not ask that. Are you referring to my question about American intereference?
"Allowing flexible voting during a pandemic can’t be it."
Breaking the laws around voting counts, especially when the authorities (CDC?) said that voting was safe.
"…in case of Michigan and some others was done by GOP who controlled the state not democrats…"
Yes, some of the skullduggery was done by Republicans (or RINOs). That doesn't make it legitimate.
"Each and every claim has been debunked."
Breaking the voting laws hasn't been debunked, your comments were only an attempt to rationalise (which confirms that it happened). What about the claim that social media censored stories about Hunter Biden's laptop? What about the first baseless impeachment of Trump? What about the incessant anti-Trump attacks from most of the mainstream media? What about the other social media censorship?
"As for Biden’s mental competence - the debates put an end to that speculation."
How so? It's normal for people with dementia to have good days. The evidence of him being coherent at times does not negate the problems at other times.
"I mean the latest is he fell asleep meeting Israel rep - however full video shows its [deleted] - they produced an edited version to make it look that way. It is all political theater and outright misinformation."
I'm not convinced that he fell asleep, but neither am I convinced that he didn't. I don't find the debunking to be as convincing as it claims to be. That he looked up soon after doesn't mean that he didn't nod off a bit. The debunkings claim that the original claim is false, and yet the original claim was that he "appeared" to fall asleep. Which is probably an accurate statement.
And given that looking up soon afterward doesn't refute the claim, I don't consider the claim that the video was edited to make it look that way to have any merit.
"The election was monitored not only by the cyber security dept set up by Trump himself but also international monitors from Europe etc."
The cyber security unit, if I'm referring to the right thing, was only concerned with foreign electronic interference, not all interferences. Admittedly that might be a reasonable argument against (some of?) Lindell's claims, but not against all claims around the election. And why would international monitors be monitoring the U.S. elections in anything more than a superficial way?
"The fraud allegation is, in fact, a big lie."
I wasn't putting up the fraud argument because although I don't believe for a moment that it's been shown to be a lie (in all respects), I also don't consider most of those claims (specifically about fraud) to be proven.
"Qanon was initially small but it merged into other conspiracies and anti-vaxxers…"
It was initially small and made big by the left highlighting it.
"…and christian madness…"
What are you referring to there?
"Without a coherent, united and rational USA the geopolitics of our world are very dangerous."
Of course, but which is the rational side here? Or more to the point, how is the Trump side not rational (ignoring the fact that every side has some nutters as supporters).
"Trump is mentally ill via sociapathy and narcissism. He is all about him."
Not in evidence.
"He has weakened the USA and its alliances and undermined the democratic process because gullible people believe his lies and no longer trust elections."
What lies? I'm sure, like most politicians, he has lied at times, but more than others? I've seen no evidence of that. On the other hand, plenty of vilification and lying has been done against him. For just one example, the clearly-false claims that he never condemned white supremacists. Or the lie that he instigated an insurrection on the Capitol? (Although admittedly that was after the election, but then they won't let that die even though he's no longer the president, they hate him so much.)
"Notice how the Myanmar military coup adopted his playbook “election was fraudulent and so we takeover” - therein lies the danger."
Of course there is a danger is falsely claiming that an election was fraudulent. Just as there is a danger in denying it when it is fraudulent.
"What would have happened had GOP had majority in both houses on Jan 6? They would have had the power to overturn the election."
They had the power anyway. Pence could have refused to accept contested votes. But he didn't.
"This playbook is now established ."
It was already established. The Democrats and their supporters had previously claimed rigged elections, including rigged Dominion voting machines. CNN had some years previously aired an 'expose' of the Dominion voting machines and how they couldn't be trusted. Claims very similar to Sydney Powell's.
"If Dems hold both houses in 2024, they can just use those numbers to install a Democrat President regardless of the election outcome."
You're not being fair. The Republicans were not trying to overturn what they considered to be a fair election. Their concern was that it was rigged. They failed to convince enough people in time, so handed over power as required. To suggest that they would simply ignore an election result that they knew was legitimate is scurrilous.
"Dangerous precedent that has the US Republic now in jeopardy. Trump and his sycophants have done this. And for that they should never be forgiven."
A completely biased and ridiculous claim, without sufficient merit. And targeting the wrong side given what the Democrats have done to damage democracy.
1
-
@tonefilter9480
I don't recall for certain where I heard that, but it was probably on the show I mentioned run by a lawyer, that being on the channel "Robert Gruler Esq. Live". The daily (weekdays) shows go for around an hour, so that's an impracticable volume to search to find an answer.
However, I have investigated and found the following:
* First, it is simply false that Trump decided to "sit back and wait to see results is not conscionable." Trump or the Republican party commenced legal proceeding on this topic on 1st July, 7th August, 18th August, and 28th September.
* The first of those seems to meet the claim I related (I didn't look at the others). The case was dismissed for lack of standing in that Trump had not shown that he suffered harm (of course, given that the election hadn't yet happened) nor that harm was "certainly impending", again difficult to show before the election. The other reason for dismissal was that it supposedly "failed on its merits", because it wasn't the job of the court to decide the matter.
The case is "Donald J. Trump for President v. Boockvar", Case 2:20-cv-00966-NR
You might well reply that the decision of the court was reasonable. And legally perhaps so. But the point remains that Trump tried to fix things before the election, contrary to your claim.
I think I hinted at this, but I'll state it more clearly, that I get the impression that Trump didn't handle at least some of those cases very well. But my point stands that election officials sometimes broke the law in regards to the election, and that is just one of the various ways that it was manipulated.
1
-
@tonefilter9480 You asked for evidence of a claim, and I supplied evidence. So now it's your turn. Who are those 63 judges who disagreed and where did they disagree?
The problem with the claim about extraordinary claims is that it begs the question of whether the claim is extraordinary. (That's not to deny that claims need sufficient evidence.)
I have given you some specifics. I gave you a specific example of social media censorship, which you have not responded to. I gave you specifics on Fox being balanced. You disputed that one, but it turned out I was correct, so you changed the argument to whether the balance was warranted. And you pick on some other claims where I didn't give specifics. On one of those (Trump supposedly waiting to see the election results before filing court cases), I showed you were wrong. So you moved onto something else.
I agree in principle that I need to back up my claims when challenged to do so, and have attempted that. I was actually considering withdrawing the claim about courts rejecting pre-election cases not on the grounds of being wrong, but on the grounds of me not being able to find the evidence (with the limited time I have), except that I did find an example.
It's time for you to come to the party with some of your claims, and also to stop with the nastiness. I've called you on that before, and you responded that "I was a little narky, its true - and perhaps facetious.", which was quite an understatement. I did give you the benefit of the doubt that it was an apology of sorts, but here you are again, now accusing me of being a racist with bad motives. (" Doesn’t matter does it, because it is just cover to institute voter suppression to stop the dirty coloured people voting for the marxists.")
1
-
@tonefilter9480
"Your claim is clearly extraordinary,…"
And yet you don't explain why. I consider being extraordinary to be subjective.
"…you don’t understand what begging the question means."
Again, you don't show that I don't understand. I maintain that I do know what it means.
"You are now hiding from your own assertion…"
No, I'm simply not allowing you to get away with challenging me while you're not supporting your own claims.
"…you make an ambit claims that the election was fraudulent…"
I said 'rigged' or 'manipulated', not fraudulent.
"You put up one case you said showed Trump was prevented from contesting voting rules prior to election and I disproved it."
I didn't see any disproof from you. Possibly a post you made was hidden from me; that happens at times.
"…people like you are all over the internet spewing the BIG LIE - fraud this, integrity that blah blah but never able to supply anything credible in support of that assertion when challenged."
And yet I have supplied something in support, so you're incorrect there.
"You have become, in effect, a tool of your Trumo/GOP masters…"
They are not my masters. I respect your right to challenge my claims, but I don't accept that you have any right to denigrate me and, frankly, make up things about me. Which is what you're doing.
"Just google election law cases and you will find them all. But here is one list that will get you started:"
I've already looked at such lists. That one is out of date and most cases (in that list at the time it was written) were either withdrawn or still pending.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@masonhunter2921
"That phrase was written by Jefferson, who ... was a deist who did not believe in answered prayer, the diviniyu of Christ, or an afterlife."
Although that's likely true, apparently Jefferson never called himself a deist, insisting that he was a Christian. The only point I'm making here is that your claim about his is not certain, but questionable.
"...Jefferson, who spoke of “Nature’s God” as the creator."
Can I have a reference for that not being God? Few people denied that God was, at minimum, the creator, even if they didn't accept a lot of the rest. The Declaration's introduction refers to "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,". It's not apparent from that that "Nature's God" is not the God who created nature. It's not saying that Nature is God, but that Nature has a God. Further, how can nature endow people "with certain unalienable Rights"?
"TJ :”But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” "
That he wasn't concerned about someone having a different view doesn't mean that He didn't believe that God was the creator.
"Or two of each of the 700,000 species of insects, or polar bears from 7000 miles away."
So you're as ignorant on the topic as Watchful12.
First, what went on the ark was pairs of the different kinds of creatures, not different species (a more modern concept that is not the same thing; just to give you a rough idea, a kind may be roughly equivalent to a family ). This would also explain polar bears: a pair of the bear kind (which includes polar bears, brown bears, grizzly bears, etc.) would have been on the ark. Those different species are variations on the kinds that were on the ark.
Second, what the flood destroyed was "Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life ..." (Genesis 7:22) Insects don't have nostrils, and didn't need to be on the ark. They could have survived on things like floating mats of vegetation.
Third, Noah didn't have to get creatures from 7,000 miles away. God brought the creatures to Noah.
Fourth, we have no idea of the pre-flood location of different kinds of animals. Kangaroos, for instance, may have existed in the vicinity of the ark before the flood. Perhaps none of them had to come a great distance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@poutine57
"ok, so prove to me that god exists. I'm waiting.............I don't believe it, that's all."
First, I'll point out that I'm not sure that I actually claimed that God exists. If I didn't, I have no burden of proof.
Second, "burden of proof" means the responsibility to provide evidence. "Proof" is when someone is convinced by the evidence. I don't know what it will take to convince you, and it's entirely possible that you will be close-minded and not accept any evidence. Your "I don't believe it" suggests that you're prejudging it before you've even seen the evidence. So I can provide evidence, but "proof" is up to you.
Third, there is so much evidence that entire books have been written about it, so I can't provide it all here. However, I'll list a few of the types of evidence that are available. You can always ask for more detail on particular items.
* The fact that anything exists at all. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that the universe is running down. But it hasn't completely run down yet, which means that it had a beginning, as most scientists now accept. But how did it start? It can't start itself, because then it would have to exist before it began to exist. That, of course, is illogical. So the cause must be something outside the natural universe, i.e. supernatural.
* The obvious "fine tuning" of the universe. There are numerous values of physical properties such as the gravitational constant, the strong and weak nuclear forces, etc. which have to be very precisely set in order for the universe to exist. Even if, somehow, a universe could pop into existence out of nothing, the odds of those values all being 'just right' for the universe to exist are astronomically small. That is, it's effectively impossible. So the supernatural cause must also be intelligent.
* The obvious design of living things, thanks to the genetic information that they carry. Information (as opposed to noise) cannot simply occur naturally. All information comes from a mind. Yet living things carry enormous amounts of information, and have obviously done so before there were minds on this planet, let alone minds able to come up with the extraordinary complexity of the genetic code. Secular scientists have no idea where this information could come from, both for the first living thing, and for all the new information that must have come since (according to their view). For example, a single-celled creature such as a bacteria has no information for arms, lungs, hair, eyes, brain cells, blood, fur, and so on. All that information must have come from somewhere, and as I said, information only comes from a mind/intelligence.
* Jesus was a person who lived 2000 years ago, who was born miraculously, who claimed to be God come to reconcile with humans, who was executed, and who showed He was God by returning from the dead, as documented in multiple eyewitness and other very close accounts.
Now, I have provided evidence for your challenge, but you have yet to provide evidence for mine. Why is that?
I asked for evidence that Trump was not a Christian.
I also asked why it is a problem that Mike Johnson espouses the view that underlies Western Civilisation and which has made it great.
Am I going to get answers, or is it only me who has to support my claims?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@typingcat
"I said, I had not watched the video because it was too long, ..."
I know. I read your comment. Unlike you, I don't respond to things I haven't seen.
"I did not criticise the content of the video, but the story of Noah and the Arc."
That's "ark", not "arc". But you didn't clearly say that. You said (my bolding) that "The video is too long to watch, so I didn't, but this used to be a target of mockery ..." How was I to know that "this" was the story of Noah's ark and not the recreation of the ark shown in the video? Besides, my point was that the video explains Noah's ark, the thing that you have now clarified that you were questioning. Further, my point was a general one about understanding any claim before criticising it. YOu don't need to watch this video to do that. There are plenty of other sources.
"...maybe if there is nothing but plants, lions might try to eat grass in a desperate attempt before starving to death,..."
Or they might quite happily eat grass. Search for the article "The lion that wouldn’t eat meat" by David Catchpoole.
"I was talking about AFTER the flood was over"
Yes, I got that.
"...all the prey species were released with the lions."
How do you know that Noah simply let them go immediately? Perhaps he released the carnivores first, and waited until they were well away before releasing the other animals? Or vice versa. Perhaps the carnivores ate carrion from the animals killed in the flood.
"I do not think animals like lions could survive two years with only plant food. They need meat."
Typically they do (the one I mentioned above wasn't typical). Today. But they were originally vegetarian, and you don't know how many might have become carnivorous by the time of the flood. Or perhaps they were only omnivorous.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@55Porter
"so then, if all of them found another job there would be no one left to bring you your food that you feel entitled to have brought to you,..."
Wrong, for more than one reason.
* First, I've never had food delivered. I don't feel entitled to do that at all. Prior to Covid or thereabouts, very little food delivery was done, and we survived.
* Second, if all of them found another job, either DoorDash would be out of business, or they'd realise that they have to start paying them better.
"...and you'd have to get it yourself."
Yes. So? I do anyway.
"Do you understand the concept of independent contractors?"
I believe that I do. But independent contractors are hired to do a job. In this case, they are hired by DoorDash, not by the customer. The customer enters into an agreement with DoorDash—not the delivery person—to have the food delivered. Once that contract is made, then DoorDash has a responsibility to deliver it, and in a timely manner. If DoorDash then allows their hired contractors to not deliver the food in a timely manner (or at all?), then there is a problem. Granted, the problem is apparently with DoorDash rather than the contractors, but then that's why Matt Walsh criticised the company for having such a bizarre arrangement.
The customer is paying DoorDash to deliver, and the delivery person is ostensibly being paid by DoorDash. From the customer's point of view, that should be the end of the matter.
"Do you consider yourself a conservative capitalist who thinks people should be FREE to try to make as much as they feel they are worth for the services they provide?"
Sure.
"Or maybe you're a communist who thinks people should be FORCED to provide very convenient services to you for extremely low pay?"
Where have I even hinted as such a thing?
"did you even watch the video? 🤦♂ He calls them employees at the 2:50 mark."
Yes, I watched it twice, the second time being to check for that. But yes, I stand corrected. He does indirectly call them employees just after 2:50. I probably missed it because it was an indirect reference.
"All of this demonstrates that he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about on this issue. "
No, it means that he got that detail wrong.
"He clearly doesn't understand the idea of the FREEDOM of independent contractors who depreciate their own vehicles to choose whether or not it's worth it to bring him his precious Big Mac."
Yes, perhaps he doesn't understand the silly arrangement that DoorDash has in hiring (as contractors) people to deliver things, without requiring them to deliver things! I mean, if you hire someone to do a job, then they ought to be expected to do that job. Of course they also ought to pay them appropriately to do the job too.
"I’ve tried to find another job this past year after losing my job bc of the lockdowns."
I'm sorry to hear that.
"DD is the last resort for a lot of people who lost their jobs bc of the pandemic or for college students."
Okay, but that doesn't justify charging the customer for a service, and then not delivering it in a timely manner (or at all?) unless they pay extra.
"Would you rather for people to go on welfare?"
No, I'd rather that the company pay a reasonable amount, rather than expect the customer to pay twice.
1
-
@danieldaniels7571
"...they also need to pay the driver."
According to who? The drivers? The customer has an arrangement with DoorDash, not the driver.
"I think the problem here is the people ordering the food don't understand that the drivers are independent contractors working for them, not for DoorDash."
In a sense, yes, but then why should the customer understand that? As I've now said repeatedly, the arrangement is between the customer and DoorDash, not the driver. So a) why should the customer be expected to understand that, and b) why should that be the arrangement? Simply being an independent contractor doesn't imply that. When I had my home renovated, I engaged a builder. He then engaged a plumber, an electrician, and a cabinet maker—all independent contractors—to do the parts of the renovation that involved those aspects. I engaged the builder, and the builder engaged those contractors. I paid the builder, and he paid the contractors.
"It would be helpful if DoorDash called their tips bids, because that's what they are; bids for delivery services."
So it seems, but a) I wouldn't describe it as "helpful", but as necessary, and b) then that's not very customer friendly way to do business, having to pay two different entities for the one delivery. That would be like me paying both the builder and the electrician for the electrical work.
"And like anything else sold on a bidding system, the people providing the service will choose to provide the service to the highest budder."
Things sold on a bidding system have a deadline for bids before people start bidding, so the bidders will know when bids need to be in by, and will then know when they've won or not. The current DoorDash arrangement appears to not be like that (you'll find out when you've won when the food turns up, or when the bid is accepted; you won't know if it's not accepted, I gather), and that seems a very unsuitable method to use for food deliveries.
1
-
1
-
@jumpmasterpadre9335
"This is a nice and substantive reply and I appreciate it."
And I feel the same way in return.
"It is simply and logically inarguable/undisputed that most - if not all - states have violence in their history."
It's not logically inarguable, but in practice, yes, one would be extremely unlikely to find a state that doesn't have violence in its history.
"…an inept attempt to advance the failed philosophy of William of Ockham."
He was responsible for the principle known as Ockham's Razor, but what was his philosophy that you're referring to?
"My contention lies in the fact that violence by definition is the use of force to comply or submit an unwilling populace to conditions established outside of their approval, etc."
I consider that definition too broad for general use. Violence is normally considered to be doing someone physical injury (or death), and perhaps only unjustified injury. The definition you provide could include laws which are enforced by means of fines and/or imprisonment that do no physical injury.
"This is not how states exist."
The problem I have with that statement is that it's ambiguous. Why does America exist? Because (simplistically) people founded it. But that only explains why it began to exist, not why it still exists. Your explanation regarding a willing populace seems to apply more to the latter: why it continues to exist. At least that's the point your reference to Marxism is making of it.
"Western Civilization was not established by and through violence."
That's simplistic, as I'm sure that there would have been some violence involved somewhere along the line. But yes, in principle and mostly in practice, I can agree with that.
"Protestantism did NOT ADVANCE society further."
And yet numerous scholars would disagree with you. In fact you appear to disagree a bit, saying that "...many good things that have come out of Protestantism...". It was Protestants who abolished slavery (while acknowledging that popes had previously made moves in that direction). It was Protestants who spread democracy to various places (see the paper The Missionary Roots of Liberal Democracy by Robert Woodberry). It was Protestants who introduced universal education because they (unlike Catholics) wanted everybody to be able to read the Bible for themselves.
"…the roots of Western Civilization’s current demise are contained wholly within the tenets of Protestantism: essentially that “I” determine my own faith, belief and practice of religion."
I consider that claim to be simplistic, arbitrary, and wrong. It is simplistic in claiming that it's "wholly" because of that, when obviously there were other factors involved, including rebellion against God by atheists. It's arbitrary in selecting the Protestant stress of individual responsibility because one could equally make the case that it's due to the "Catholic" (i.e. pre-Protestant) belief in free will, which is the principle that we all have the capability of choosing things for ourselves. It's wrong in implying that Protestantism is a free-for-all where it's totally up to us, whereas Protestants give priority to what the Bible teaches, not what we want to believe for ourselves. It's also questionable in that a significant factor in Western Civilisation is capitalism, a system that is based on personal freedom to do what we want with our own capital, and yet the early development of capitalism occurred before the Reformation.
"Thus, there are literally thousands of denominations - nearly all of which claim their own authority and adhere to their own tenets."
That is a common anti-Christian or anti-Protestant claim, but is largely baseless. First, the statistic that is often cited is not denominations per se, but organisations. So the Victorian Baptists and New South Wales Baptists are counted as two, because they are different organisations. And by the same token, the Australian Catholic Church and the New Zealand Catholic Church are two different organisations, so are counted as two, not one. Second, it does not follow that they disagree on anything. They are simply different organisations, not necessarily disagreeing. Third, some of the disagreement that does exist is over church government and secondary issues, not over doctrine, especially of primary issues. So the Wesleyans and the Methodists, for example, might have the same doctrines, but the Wesleyans believe in local churches appointing their pastors whereas the Methodist pastors were appointed by the hierarchy. Fourth, many of those organisations were national ones. That is, missionaries from one or more denominational or non-denominational missions might start churches in a particular country, but when the churches in that country are strong enough, they form their own national church organisation(s) rather than be branches of the foreign ones that planted them. Again, not necessarily any doctrinal differences. Fifth, they don't claim their "own" authority, but consider the Bible to be their authority. Sixth, although they might have different (secondary) doctrinal views (e.g. baptism by full immersion or sprinkling), they don't consider adherents of other denominations to not be Christian. They recognise that not all people believe the same thing and accept that there are different views.
In summary, the supposed thousands of denominations, and the implied lack of agreement between them all, is largely misleading nonsense. (None of that is to deny that there are a relatively small number of exclusive groups that are the exceptions to the rule.)
"Martin Luther was a not by any account a holy man concerned with following God’s law."
Contrary to your subsequent claim of that being apparent from the supposed evidence, I would say that that is a baseless claim.
"The Enlightenment contained within it the very seeds of our current demise - this is historical fact and has been stated by our very Founding Fathers."
That may well be so, but the so-called Enlightenment was taken over by atheists, and that is where the blame lies.
"The Catholic Church, beginning with the writing of Saint Augustine and early Monasticism established by Saint Benedict is the very foundation and skeletal-musculature from which our history has enjoyed the greatest fruits."
No, the Bible is. Which was the Catholic church's basis. Agnostic historian Tom Holland attributes it primarily to the writings of Paul (although of course Paul based it on Jesus and the then Scriptures, along with teaching from Peter and the other elders in the church). See the YouTube video "Tom Holland tells NT Wright: Why I changed my mind about Christianity"
"From this we have: [snipped]"
Yes, but all that shows is what I've already acknowledged, that "…the Catholic Church created much of the basis for Western Civilisation…"
"…hospitals,…"
As a Protestant, I would say that (public) hospitals were started by the early church (true), before it could be legitimately called the "Catholic" (capital C) church. Certainly before it could be called the "Roman" Catholic Church, i.e. before the east/west split.
"Just War - not the ridiculous abuses of the M-I complex we know today,..."
I can't think what "M-I" refers to, but one of the lines of argument you're taking is drawing a distinction between Catholicism and post-modernism or post-Christianity, not between Catholicism and Protestantism. On those sorts of issues, Protestants are on the same side as Catholics. This modern stuff is not from Protestantism, but from Marxism, a form of atheism.
"When the “I” is THE authority,…"
Which it's not (in Protestantism).
"…and the “I” determines Scriptural interpretation and thus application,…"
And that's not accurate either. Protestantism rejects the idea that Scripture can only be properly understood by the pope and his priests. One defining distinction is sola scriptura, that the Bible, not the church, is the authority (so not "I" either). The Bible is God's infallible Word; the church is composed of fallible humans. It does not say that interpretation is individual so much as not being the exclusive property of the (one) church. It's more of a checks-and-balances type thing, where if the church states one thing, others are allowed to challenge it. That is, challenge that the church's interpretation is an accurate one. But the same applies to Protestant churches—they can be challenged as well. Of course any such challenge must be based in Scripture, not on one's personal beliefs.
"However, Our Lord has promised that the Church will endure, as it has for over 2000 years since Matthew 16:13-20."
Well true, but we would differ on whether "the Church" is the Catholic Church or the entire body of Christians (again, pointing to a unity, even if that's in a diversity of organisations and of secondary views).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"...If you're religious yourself, the very bible..."
Not every religion respects or believes the Bible. That's your first fallacy.
"...the very bible has a story where a wife conceives outside her marriage. In that scenario, they deemed it permissible and righteous to give the woman a poison potion that would initiate a miscarriage."
Are you talking about Number 5? The potion was not a poison, and only about one translation refers to a miscarriage.
"Why would God sanction such...adultery?"
Huh? This was a response to adultery, which was not sanctioned.
"The bible has all sorts of nifty lore that permits slavery, genocide and incest to name a few."
More fallacies. It restricted and regulated indentured servitude (different to modern slavery); genocide was only a punishment for sin, and the permitted incest was between consenting adults at a time when there would not be deformed offspring.
"Trick is, ya gotta read it all and comprehend it, not just go on the bible school or church's translation of it."
Yes, you've got to read it in context and comprehend it, not just go on the atheists' distortion of it, as you seem to be doing.
"I wonder if in 2K years a space traveler will come across a Harry Potter book and think we were naive enough to believe that was true."
Only if they don't bother with looking for evidence of it being true. Which the Bible has plenty of.
"Religious text would be great if Jesus or God actually authored it...problem is, one didn't."
Actually Jesus/God is the ultimate author of it. He used human writers, just like a celebrity might use a professional writer to write his AUTObiography, but God is still the author.
"Just some stories by folk captured at a time in which they had little understanding of the world or the things in it."
What's your evidence that they had little understanding of the world or the things in it? Most of it is eyewitness testimony, i.e. relating what they actually observed happening.
"I appreciate the principles in Aesops fables and find merit in places I can apply the point being made. Do I think they occurred...nope."
Does Aesop have any supporting evidence for his fables? Then that's not a valid comparison with the Bible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mw8308
"carbon dioxide, monoxide, methane, micro plastics, plenty of harmful chemicals in food, water, haircare, etc."
I think some of them are overstated, but true up to a point.
"I hope you're doing the most to reduce self-harm done to yourself."
Of course. Well, perhaps not "the most", but I do try. Including never having smoked nor drunk.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@peterstafford4426
"Trump did nothing right ..."
Utterly false. He made America self-sufficient on fuel, supported the right to life and religious liberty, got the economy doing better before covid interrupted that, reacted promptly to the covid thread, fast-tracked the production of vaccines against covid, helped 'black' people, and much more.
"unless you want the USA to be right wing ... country."
There's something wrong with that? What?
"...unless you want the USA to be ... fascist country."
You have no basis for saying that it would be fascist under Trump. That's just left-wing lies.
"There are millions of Americans on the right who want that."
Yeah, pull the other one.
"I bet you are one of them."
Well, no, because a) the "fascist" part was fiction, and b) I'm not an American.
1
-
1
-
@algurevich9141
"Moses was bronze age..."
According to this video, which adopts a secular view of such things, as I've explained in a separate comment.
"Even if Moses never existed, which can be proven with reasonable certainty,..."
Oh? How can it be so proven?
"...it should not affect your faith. Faith needs no proof."
Incorrect. You're referring to the atheist's blind faith. Biblically, faith is based on evidence. For example, we have evidence of God being trustworthy, so we have faith that what God tells us, that we can't check for ourselves, is also correct. It's just like you sitting on a chair. You don't stress-test it before sitting on it, because you know that chairs don't normally collapse under your weight. So because you have this evidence of what chairs normally do, you have faith that this one will hold you. The Apostle Paul himself said that if we didn't have the evidence of Jesus' resurrection, then our "faith" would be in vain.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joshkay411
"of course a persons health can be negatively effected by non physical things,"
Thanks for implicitly conceding that your argument, which was based on that, fails.
"I would argue that the huge majority of these negative effects are caused by the societal ostracisation of the transgender community, caused by people like yourself, and not caused by the gender affirming surgery itself."
And I would argue differently, that is is caused by people continually telling the transgender community that they are ostracised. The fact that people disagree with transgenderism as being not reality-based (as I do) does not mean that I ostracise the people themselves. That they keep being told that lie is probably a big part of the problem.
"of course there will be individuals who regret their decisions regarding surgery, as there are with every single major surgical procedure one can undertake, "
Generally that's not true with necessary surgery, only optional surgery. Why regret what was necessary?
"but it is a long and complicated process to undergo a lifestyle change like gender affirmation, needing a specialist diagnosis for gender dysphoria,"
I guess that's why you now have doctors and others affirming people's choices the moment that they see them, including having laws against trying to tell them that they don't need to change, as pointed out in the video.
"...so there would be plenty of time for the majority of people that have second thoughts to change their mind."
But why would they change their mind if they are prevented from hearing any view other than that they should go ahead with it?
"it would be because of the existing biases and pressures from the society in which they exist, that cause the transgender community to have such high suicide rates,"
No, it would not be that, by itself at least. The mainstream media, social media, governments, education system, and most politicians all affirm transgender people. The most-discriminated-against religious group in the world is Christianity, but you don't see Christians committing suicide at anything like the rates of people with gender dysphoria. There's obviously another factor in play, which in my opinion is likely to be the cognitive dissonance of believing that they are something that they aren't.
"...with 41% of transgender people experiencing a hate crime in 2018..."
I'll give that figure some credence when I'm convinced that "hate crime" doesn't include people simply disagreeing with them.
"It would be wrong to blame the suicide rate on sexual affirmation surgery."
Given that the high suicide rate is apparent before surgery, I'll agree with you on that point. But then I think his point was that it doesn't go down after surgery.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Eve25525
Given that I provided a verbatim quote, it should have been easy enough to Google, but it was Christopher Dummitt, in "Confessions of a Social Constructionist", Quillette, 17th September 2019.
There is another comment above with sources for a different claim.
"I meant they are valid as in they ARE the gender that they say they are."
So a 'transgender woman' is actually a 'transgender woman'? That says nothing. Or a 'transgender woman' is actually a woman? That is simply false. The whole point of someone calling themselves a 'transgender woman' is because they are a actually a man. Else they would simply be called a woman.
"They can’t change the sex they were BORN AS..."
They weren't "born as" a sex. Their sex began when they were conceived and continues until they die. The very thought that they were "born as" a particular sex and are now something different is fiction.
"...they can get gender affirming surgery..."
Translation: they can have their body mutilated to look like something that they are not.
"And how do you know that academic wasn’t making that statement up?"
In one sense, I don't. But then why would he make up the idea that he was a fraud? Plus which, it fits with the whole transgender nonsense anyway, with activists claiming that people can change the sex, and simultaneously claiming that it's actually gender, not sex, even though it is clearly used as a synonym for sex. And also claiming that there is no difference between men and women, but men can think/claim that they are women (or vice versa) on the ground that there is a difference between the two. The whole movement is anti-scientific, anti-Christian, self-contradictory, and totalitarian in the way that they expect others to agree with them.
1
-
@Eve25525
"Gender and sex are different..."
Yes, I know. Sex is based on biology and gender is an invention. And yet, gender is used as a substitute for sex, requiring others to use sex-based pronouns, expecting to use sex-based toilets and changing rooms, expecting to play in sex-based sports, changing sex on birth certificates, and changing one's body to have the sex-based appearance of someone of the opposite sex. In other words, gender=sex.
"... but for trans people they don’t."
I'm aware of that too. Their invented gender doesn't align with reality.
"Trans women are called trans women because they were assigned male at birth..."
That's another invention. That is simply false. I was not assigned 'male' at birth. I was simply male since conception, which my parents discovered (not "assigned") when I was born. When we adopted my sister, my parents did not ask the orphanage for a baby that my parents then assigned to be a girl. They asked for a girl.
"... but they are still women"
More invention. They are still the men that they have always been.
"It is an adjective, like saying a tall woman or a short woman they are not any less of a woman because they are trans."
Again, false. When you add an adjective, you don't change the noun. 'Transgender woman' is changing the noun from man to woman. If you want to describe the man with an adjective, you'd call him an effeminate man, not a transgender woman.
"Trans people get surgery so that they FEEL LESS DYSPHORIA."
I'm not disputing that's their reason.
"How does what trans people do with their own bodies affect you?"
Part of making an argument is getting your facts straight. I've shown that you haven't. Another part is to address the actual issue, not a straw-man version of it. The thing that affects me is not what they do with their bodies, but with their expectation, insistence, and even requirement by law, that everyone else has to accept their false claims and support them by allowing them to use the wrong toilets and changing rooms, using the wrong pronouns, etc. So they are not actually just keeping it to themselves, but affecting a lot of other people.
"Also cisgender people may get similar surgeries done if they have damage to that area but people don’t seem to have a problem with that."
That's because you're comparing chalk and cheese. One is fixing something that's broken (a good thing) and the other is breaking somethin that's working (a bad thing).
"The high suicide rate in this example may be because of all the discrimination they see against transgender people on the internet [snipped]"
As I commented above to a different person, the mainstream media, social media, governments, education system, and most politicians all affirm transgender people. The most-discriminated-against religious group in the world is Christianity, but you don't see Christians committing suicide at anything like the rates of people with gender dysphoria. There's obviously another factor in play, which in my opinion is likely to be the cognitive dissonance of believing that they are something that they aren't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jessicali8594 Calling me naive for no apparent reason? Sure, I've had much harsher insults, but...
And what were you trying to say? Okay, I'll tell you what I think. Your first ellipsis I assume refers to the second world war, although it could be the holocaust, I guess. The second ellipsis refers to Israel. However, I don't see what simply stating those (probable) facts has to do with my comment, or why that supposedly makes me naive.
Secondly, I don't know what community you are referring to that's outstripping the other one. Nor what that has to do with my comment.
Okay, I just realised, perhaps you were agreeing with me and referring to the other commenter as naive??
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Healhtyour
"...the God of Christianity and Islam is clearly different, ok,"
There is only one God, agreed? So either it's the same God, or one is a false god. Both believe God to be the creator and the supreme being, which is the definition of the word "god".
I prefer to put it this way. Suppose that a friend asks you if you know the doctor who lives at No. 1 Main Street. You do; you're a patient of his. Your friend says that the doctor is a fat mean bloke who hardly gives you the time of day, who charges high prices, who gives bad advice, and who spends most of his time on the golf course. You disagree; you say that he's not overweight, is very kind, spends good time with his patients, charges very little, gives good advice, and doesn't play golf.
Are you talking about the same doctor? Well, yes, you're both talking about the doctor that lives at No. 1 Main Street. But you have such different perceptions of him that you'd be right to say "that's not the doctor I know".
I'd rather not get into a debate about whether the Muslim God and the Judeo-Christian God is the same God or not. The point is, we each have such different perceptions of Him that we can legitimately say "that's not the God I know".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EL_Duderino68
"I'm disappointed you would try and wriggle out of what you wrote. "
I'm not wiggling out of anything. I was simply explaining what I wrote. I concede that it would have been easy to misunderstand, but a misunderstanding it was.
"You write "No, I'm also here, and debating you." You know what "also" means."
Yes, I know what "also" means. I was saying that I was also here in contrast to your claim that I am instead here. You do know the difference between instead and also? I was correcting your use of instead.
I'll put it this way, bolding a couple of your words:
" Instead, you're here entertaining me"
My reply had two words stressed:
"No, I'm also here, and debating you." Each stressed (italicised) word was a counter to your two words that I have bolded.
"There is no substance in your debate. It's based on faith at its base, not logic."
An evidence-free and reason-free dismissal of my comments. What is not logical about it?
"Faith is the antithesis of reason."
As I have almost certainly explained to you before, biblically, faith means trust in a trustworthy person, i.e. someone that the evidence shows to be worthy of our trust. It's only antithetical if you substitute a different meaning of the word, as you have done here.
"Why are you commenting to me? I'd really like to know? Are you a warrior for your faith?"
Two reasons. One is that I'm following the example of the Apostle Paul who said that "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God," The other is so that others reading this won't be led astray by your comments.
"In your religion, I'd think that you are committing the first deadly sin of Pride."
Still with the ad hominems.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mickowens9839
"Well to answer your question, It seem that way to me reading all these comments."
Given that I'd say very few, if any, have indicated what they would do if Albo went to the U.S., that seems like nothing more than your jaundiced opinion of others.
"8 years ago (roughly) we had a guy leading Australia and he went over to America to say hi to the newly crowned prince (Trump) to sure up a deal for swapping humans we both had locked up for trying to get into our respective countries. Trump snubbed him, as in didn`t bother meeting him, cancelled the deal."
Turnbull called Trump on the 'phone about that deal. Trump wasn't happy with the deal (made with Obama), but reluctantly went ahead with it. And Turnbull did later meet with Trump; I found no reference to Trump refusing to meet with him.
"The media and Voters said how much he wasted and how he shouldn`t have bothered going there."
The "media and Voters"? That's a very vague group, and may not relate to the commenters here. You seem to be grasping at straws. Also, you're talking about two different matters. Part of my point was that Albo has been criticised for some of his trips, but not for others. The purpose of the trip is relevant.
"Now the current elected PM is being set apon by these same people for not bothering Trump..."
You haven't shown that it's the same people.
"There how`s that for answering your Question."
At least you tried, I'll grant you that. It wasn't convincing, though.
"We been doing their bidding these past 4 years, ridding our neighbours of Chinese deals, signing up to AUKUS,..."
Signing up to AUKUS was Australia's initiative. They did our bidding, if you want to put it in those terms. And I think at least some of our responses to China were also our own initiatives.
"...in fact the previous guys did deals with France that cost us 600million after they cancelled, ..."
Yes, they were bad deals, done by the left (i.e. Turnbull).
"O maybe you think Australia was the only country hurt by Russian Sanctions, global pandemic & constant wars??"
No, but the problems were not solely due to those things. They were also a consequence of the mad dash to renewables, that increased power prices (and consequently the prices of many goods). Blaming it all on external factors is a denial of reality.
"Sorry but the current Gov`t has done more than expected ..."
As in we are paying more than expected (promised) for electricity. Yes, you can blame them for that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bshrful
"THE FACT THAT YOU DO NOT LIKE HOMOSEUALITY DOES NOT MAKE IT WRONG,..."
True. But then I never said that it was wrong because I didn't like it, did I?
"...YES IT IS AWFUL TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST KIDS AT SCHOOL,..."
That depends on whether the discrimination has a good or a bad basis. If one child passes his exams and another doesn't, you discriminate against the second one by not giving him a pass mark. Is that "awful"?
"...YOU HAVE TO THINK HOW YOU MAKE THEM FEEL,..."
I don't make them feel anything. They do that to themselves. They are the ones in control of their feelings, not me.
"HOMOSEXUAL KIDS HAVE FEELINGS TOO"
Of course. All people do.
"HOMISEZUALITY IS NOT WRONG, ..."
We were designed to be heterosexual, and God condemns homosexuality. Ergo, it IS wrong.
"IT IS ALSO NOT A CHOICE,"
Evidence please. First, scientists have been unable to find a gene that makes you homosexual. Second, even if the feelings are not a choice, acting on them is.
"...HETEROSUXUALS DO NTO CHOOSE TO BE HETEROSEXUALS ..."
No, they are designed to be heterosexual. Similar to how a train does not choose to run on rails. It's designed to run on rails.
"YOU JUST USE RELIGION TO TRY TO HATE ON HOMOSEXUALS, "
No, I don't. I use history and design to point out that it is wrong. I do not "hate" on it. I disagree with it. You're misrepresenting me.
"YOU LIVE IN A COUNTRY IN WHICH EVERYBODY CAN HAVE DIFFERENT RELIGIONS."
So? That doesn't make all those religions good or right. They disagree so much that only one can be right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@simonharris4873
"Rubbish, the Hindus have many Gods, ..."
So you missed the bit about God being the supreme being, and only one can be supreme?
"...so did the Greeks and Romans."
Again, no. Yes, they had many "gods", but they were all the offspring of other "gods"; none of them were supreme; were the creator. The Greeks recognised this, and erected a statue to "the unknown god", the One that they were not familiar with, but Who must be above all the other gods.
"No, you just denied it, but I've claymore down that you're doing so."
Claymore????
Yes, I denied it, pointing out that hate and disagreement are not the same thing (an actual fact), and you have not shown that I treat them the same. I challenged you to provide evidence, and you've provided absolutely none. As this is about my attitude, I, not you, am the expert on this, and your lack of evidence to the contrary means that my testimony stands.
"Your entire line of argument is evidence you do not understand that passage. If you understood it, we wouldn't be having this discussion."
A non-answer. It explains nothing, so does not qualify as evidence.
1
-
@simonharris4873
"Who says any of them are supreme?"
That's what the word means. If you're asking if there is one supreme vs. none supreme, that's a different question.
"Besides, most pizza shops I've been to sell a supreme pizza."
Misusing the word? But how does that contradict the meaning?
"Australia has several "supreme" courts, ..."
Technically, no, it doesn't. Those Supreme courts are state courts, and are supreme in those states. They are not federal courts.
"Maybe "supreme" doesn't mean what you think it does."
Merriam-Webster: "highest in rank or authority"
Oxford: "highest in rank or position"
Collins: " Supreme is used in the title of a person or an official group to indicate that they are at the highest level in a particular organization or system."
Cambridge: "having the highest rank, level, or importance:"
No, it means what I think it means.
"But at least you admitted there are many gods, that's a start."
There are many fictional entities which are referred to as 'gods', but there is only one God.
"Apologies, auto-type on my phone sometimes inserts the strangest words."
So you're not going to tell me what the word should have been?
"Let's just say you feel very very strongly that people who are minding their own business and causing you no harm, should live their lives the way you want them to, not the way they want to."
That would be false, as I have already pointed out to you. Repeating it does not magically make it true. They should live their lives the way God designed them to do. What I want is irrelevant.
"And all because your imaginary friend told you so."
What imaginary friend? I don't have one, and you've not shown that I do nor that God is imaginary. If you want a sensible conversation, try being sensible.
"That fact you even ask means you simply don't understand it."
Perhaps so, but you haven't shown that, have you? So why should I simply accept your bald assertion?
"You'd know that the passage means to worry about your own short comings, and let others worry about theirs."
Except that it doesn't mean that at all. It says to not be a hypocrite by criticising someone for a fault that you also have. The last verse you cited says "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. " That is, it says that you can worry about others' shortcomings, as long as you're not being a hypocrite in doing so. It is you who didn't understand it.
"I don't remember Jesus taking issue with gay people."
Of course not. He objects to the sin, not the people.
But Jesus is God, and He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of that sin. Also, Jesus made a general statement that covers homosexuality: "But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person." (from Matthew 15) His hearers would never have thought that sexual immorality doesn't include homosexuality.
"Why do so many of his followers think it so important, that they'll spend hours on the internet arguing about it,..."
Ummm, because it IS important? Because God considers it so bad that he considers it an abomination. And because society is pushing it so hard today. If it wasn't being pushed, you'd not find the pushback that you cite.
"...all the while kidding themselves that their actions aren't driven by hate?"
You have provided no evidence whatsoever that I nor they are driven by hate. That is just you inventing false motives, because without them, your argument is weak.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@missJolie85
"Actually you can be as offended as you like."
And suffer the consequences.
"Nobody has ever said you have to agree or even LIKE transgender people"
What makes you think that? I have been told that I'm not allowed to share my views with my work colleagues, simply for questioning some trans claims. I believe that counts as saying that I have to agree. In fact, I've been threatened with the sack for expressing my views, even in a so-called "safe space" to do so!
"You guys are such drama queens for real."
Denigrating people fighting evil does not make us drama queens.
"...you will still legally be able to hate if that's what you are into."
This is not about hate, but about disagreement. The very fact that you misrepresent it like that shows that you're not being honest.
"You would need to take it pretty far for it to be a criminal offense, ... "
For one thing, it's not just about it being a criminal offence, but about it possibly being a criminal offence. There are many cases of people being taken to court, requiring them to spend time, money, effort, and worry to prepare their defence, only to have the case dropped because it would probably have failed anyway. This has a chilling effect on people speaking freely.
"...and why would you even want to act like that?"
We want to tell the truth and protect people. What's wrong with acting like that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aidenaune7008
"when I say proof, I mean the literal definition."
Like (Oxford): 1. Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
1.1 The spoken or written evidence in a trial.
1.2 The action or process of establishing the truth of a statement.
1.3 A series of stages in the resolution of a mathematical or philosophical problem.
Which one of those?
"proof is something that cannot be refuted in any way."
Oh, not a literal definition! Is there such a thing? I pointed out that criminal trial proof—the sort of proof used to sentence people to death at times—is not absolute, but merely 'beyond reasonable doubt'. You're talking about something beyond any doubt, which is probably non-existent.
"evidence is not proof, evidence only points in a direction, and evidence alone, no matter how much there is, will never guarantee the thing it points to."
I agree. So I take it that the answer to my question is that you're not denying that there is evidence for God, just not something that leaves no room at all for doubt. I can accept that, at least on the grounds that there is probably no such thing.
"the story of Adam and Eve is just that, a story, like most of the bible. the bible isn't a history book,..."
On the contrary, a large part of it is history. The history of God's relationship to man, starting with creation, the flood, Babel, the relationship with Adam and the subsequent founding and history of the Israelite nation, and the history of Jesus' birth, preaching, miracles, death, and resurrection, to give a very brief overview.
"it is a book of lessons and teachings with some historical truths mixed in"
It's largely a book of history, including the historical accounts of the teaching that God gave through prophets and others.
"plenty of things occur in the bible that do not line up with reality, ..."
Like what?
"should we believe God changed reality for absolutely no reason?"
I'm not saying that He changed reality; that was your idea. Unless you are talking about miracles where He intervened in nature.
"or that the people who passed these stories down orally and later wrote them down changed the stories slightly each time in order to better convey the message that it was supposed to have."
What makes you think that they were passed down orally? Your misleading reference does not mention that.
"...God made our universe to look like one without him in it."
He did? How? What's your evidence for that?
"... if God was proven to exist, then people would never sin, they would never do wrong, they would do exactly as God wishes they would"
So you're saying that God's existence wasn't "proven" to Adam and Eve? Please explain that one.
"there is no proof of God's existence in our universe,"
There's no proof for anything in our universe, according to your extreme definition. In fact there's no proof that there even IS a universe; we might be in the Matrix by your definition.
"... this must mean there has to be a logical, atheistic, explanation for everything's existence, specifically pit there by God himself."
You've now switched from talking about (absolute) proof to 'explanation'. If there is no absolute proof for God, then there is also no absolute proof for any atheistic explanation. This is smelling like a double standard. And if it looks like God wasn't involved, why claim that God put "a logical, atheistic, explanation for everything's existence" there? Are you claiming that God set out to deliberately deceive us?
But also, if God wanted us to believe that there are logical, atheistic, explanations, why did He tell us He did it? Why not, at the very least, remain silent on that? And why did the Psalmist write "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands" if the creation is supposed to look like God didn't make it?
"Jesus did refer to many of the events as if they or something similar did happen, this does not mean the whole old testament is true down to the last word,"
He didn't just refer to many of the events as though true. He treated the Scripture as though it was authoritative. Even in talking with Satan, who knew who He was, Jesus didn't refute Satan by saying "But I, God, say this..."; He cited the Scripture, without reservation. He treated it as though the whole thing was true. Including the creation account.
"especially since it was written by humans."
Under the 'inspiration' of God, i.e. they wrote what God wanted written, with His authority and accuracy, although with their words.
"science isn't religious or irreligious, it is a process."
Yes, but one based on a Christian worldview.
"it is the people who use this process that are religious or irreligious, and they are more likely to be irreligious and as such gravitate towards the no God origin in their conclusions."
Definitely! But that is the problem. It's not just that atheists use it to argue for no God, but that mainstream scientists adopt a philosophical principle of naturalism, that says that explanations involving God must be rejected even if the evidence supports them. In that sense, naturalistic science (as opposed to true science) is explicitly irreligious, to use your word.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elenawalker3746
"...we just voted NO to the Voice but all the State Governments are bringing in unconstitutional treaties against the will of the people..."
Yes, it's clearly against the will of the people. But no, it's not unconstitutional. Quite the opposite in fact, as the federal government didn't even need a referendum to introduce the 'voice'—they already had the power to do it!
"Australians voted NO to both proposals therefore, the States have NO authority to institute councils ..."
That's nonsense. The referenda you refer to were not on whether we should have local councils or whether they should be funded, but whether the responsibility for them should be transferred from the states to the federal government. THAT is what was rejected.
"The Commonwealth of Australian Constitution of Australia 1901, Section 109 “ When a law of a State is inconsistent with the Commonwealth, the later shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, by invalid”."
Although I believe that the High Court has interpreted it the way you think at times, it was clearly not to be used that broadly. The constitution set out what powers were to be transferred from the states to the commonwealth (e.g. maintaining the military; entering into international treaties). Understanding section 109 as widely as you do would basically mean that the commonwealth has total authority to do what they like, regardless of what the states think, which was clearly not the intention of the constitution.
"...set them up as businesses with ABNs, this was illegal without any Constitutional authority..."
False. The states have the authority to do things that are not specifically allocated to the commonwealth.
"If a State Government tries to establish a Local Government (ABN Company), that ABN is automatically regarded as a private corporation and it, therefore cannot be Government."
Evidence please for the bit that I've bolded.
"Departments of State Governments cannot govern us, cannot create Laws (Local Laws) "
Except that they can, on the authority of the state government.
"Fair Work Act Sec 35 …. “ If you have an ABN and you employ people, you are a Company”."
I've just had a look at that section, and it doesn't say that.
"Therefore, the States have NO authority to institute councils as a third layer of government and are invalid/unlawful."
That simply does not follow from your premise.
"Former Attorney General Robert McClelland also confirmed this in a letter he sent to a member of the public dated 10 June 2010, regarding the 1988 referendum as to the lawful existence of 'local government' and wrote….. "The Constitution does not currently recognise local government." "
That does not confirm that at all.
"In 2015, a High Court Australia decision 11 …” If you have an ABN and provide services for money, you are a Trading Company” That cannot be changed or over-ruled by any Statute of Act."
Evidence please. And High Court decisions can be overridden by legislation, as long as the legislation doesn't conflict with the constitution.
"They are all corrupt parasites and the only way to solve it is for the Governor General to dismiss our unlawful parliaments."
They are not unlawful. Your argument is riddled with fallacies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@3xist 3volve 3lucidate
"While we are on the subject, there is no god."
Evidence? Or is that your blind faith position?
"Over one third of all Australians now share this view..."
So? The majority (which this isn't) isn't always right.
"I'll believe in the existence of a god when I am presented with evidence for the same."
No you won't. Here's evidence: Jesus, who claimed to be God, rose from the dead to prove His claim.
So do you now believe? Or do you not believe the evidence that you asked for? (I could provide a lot more.)
"As we become a more (secular, universally) educated society, we become less religious."
No, we've just switched to the atheistic religious views taught in secular universities.
"This is happening across the world, not just here, in Australia."
Actually Christianity is growing in leaps and bounds in many places.
"Atheism is not a religion."
Marxism, Secular Humanism, Confucianism, Zen Buddhism, Scientology, Mary Baker Eddy's Christian Science, and others are all atheistic religions.
"It is not defined as a religion in any of the authoritative texts on the subject."
The U.S. Supreme court declared it to be a religion. The founding document of Secular Humanism described itself as a secular religion.
"I know some religionists like to throw it out there as a religion, but it's simply not possible."
And yet I have given examples of atheistic religions.
"Atheism is the view that without evidence there can not be a god."
No, atheism is the view that there is no God. Evidence to the contrary is ignored or rejected, as you will reject the evidence I provided in this response, refuting your own claim that you will believe if you are given evidence.
1
-
1
-
@3xist 3volve 3lucidate
"Nice Gish Gallop."
More attempt to malign rather than address the claims.
"You're making the claim, you provide the evidence."
More atheist 'logic'. No, you made the claim that there is no God. I asked for evidence for your claim. Clearly you can't support your own claim.
"Fairy tales about talking snakes and burning bushes don't cut it."
What talking snakes and burning bushes?
"The one third claim is a conservative enumeration, based on our census data. Other credible metrics put it at over one half, and rapidly growing."
So? I didn't dispute the figures.
"The decline in religiosity/rise in secular and universal education metric is well documented. Christianity is only growing (slowly) in those regions of the world where secular, universal and free education is lacking (eg. some nations of Africa)."
You mean where they are not indoctrinated with atheist views?
"Oxford definition of religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."
That's one of three definitions. It also has "A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance." But also the Merriam-Webster has a definition of "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" And you haven't addressed the examples of atheistic religions that I provided.
"The US Supreme Court was biased when it made that declaration."
And yet it made it, refuting your claim. And you haven't shown bias. Christians believe in the truth, so being Christian doesn't automatically mean that they made a decision out of bias.
"Your so-called atheistic religions claim is moot."
And yet my examples stand unrefuted.
"You propose to tell an atheist what atheism is?"
Yes. Why not? You tell religious people what religion is.
"Atheists invariably hold the view that without evidence there can not be a god."
I have often heard atheists claim that there is no evidence, but I've never heard them include a (supposed) lack of evidence as part of the definition.
"Back to the evidence thing."
The evidence you haven't provided for your claim?
"What is it with you mob, your love for the circular argument is tiring."
What's tiring is claims of circular arguments, when no circular argument has been made.
"Evidence must be presented in a form that can be examined via the scientific method."
Why? Scientific evidence is not the only form of evidence.
"Failing to provide said evidence automatically forfeits the game. There is no god."
Then your game is forfeit, because you failed to provide evidence for your claim of no god.
"Without evidence to the contrary, there is no god."
That's illogical. But then what can I expect from an atheist?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@3xist 3volve 3lucidate
"With regard to the former, I provided a standard one (Oxford: ...) earlier, but that didn't suit our friend because it did not fit with his/her/their own narrative."
And I provided another (Merriam-Webster), but that doesn't suit you because it did not fit with your narrative. But I also provided examples of atheist religions which you failed to refute, so I made the stronger case.
"Likewise, what constitutes evidence. Once again, I offered a standard (scientific method) definition, but it didn't suit his/her/their own narrative, either."
I correctly pointed out that scientific evidence is not the only sort of evidence. A large part of all the evidence presented in a court, for example, is not scientific evidence. So saying that scientific evidence is the only evidence you will accept is again done just to suit your narrative (or out of ignorance).
"Now you pipe in with your, give me proof whine."
It's not a whine. Apart from substituting 'evidence' for 'proof' (which he also did), it's a legitimate request.
"I know the santa clause phenomenon does not exist because according to the laws of physics, it is not possible for a single (albeit supposedly rather bulky) entity to exist in a great many places around the globe at any given single point in time."
In other words, you know Santa Claus doesn't exist because you have evidence. So where's your evidence that God doesn't exist?
"Exchange santa clause with god."
Yes. Do. So where's your evidence against God's existence like you provided evidence against Santa's existence?
"With regard to proof and your, don’t say the if I don’t see it, I don’t believe it quip."
I believe that he was referring to your comment, albeit paraphrasing: "Without evidence to the contrary, there is no god."
"we are never going to agree on the non existence of a god, because we can't even agree on the terms of a debate. "
Well, yes, if you're going to pretend that scientific evidence is the only sort of evidence and that an atheist view that described itself as a religion isn't one... that is, if you're going to ignore evidence that you are given, then I guess it will be hard to debate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@heatchills4093
"I've been watching this issue for about 2 decades now, and I've never seen a coherent case being made."
Perhaps you've been looking in the wrong place, or perhaps you see coherence as incoherence.
"It's all just this same tactic over and over again; incite outrage by talking about the issue in a flabbergasted tone."
And yet I've seen it argued many times that a problem with euthanasia is the slippery slope, that it starts out just being for very limited cases (e.g. adults of sound mind who are in pain and no hope of recovery), then becomes for more and more cases (e.g. people with dementia, without pain, and even children), and another problem being people feeling pressured (even if nobody is pressuring them), such as thinking "I'm a burden to my family, they'd be better of if I was dead), and even being pressured.
"The closest thing I ever hear to a coherent argument is "God says 'No!'"; ..."
Just "close to"? It's completely coherent.
"...which would be fine, except for a little something called the 1st Amendment, ., which defends peoples' right to not be bound to adhering to the religious constraints of other people."
Two problems with this:
1) The First Amendment applies only to the United States.
2) ALL laws are based on what society or its leaders consider right and wrong, and what is right and wrong comes from God, or else it's just a matter of opinion, which gives us no grounds to impose those opinions on others. Why do we have laws against murder? Because (in principle) God says that murder is wrong, and (in practice) Western Civilisations laws are, historically, based on the Bible.
Yes, the First Amendment allows people to follow whatever religion they like, but does not excuse them from following the laws of the land, which can be, and often are, based on religious views.
1
-
@heatchills4093
"Regarding the supremacy of the bible as the origin of law: ... The bible - and its root, the torah - did not invent a public aversion to murder."
I didn't claim that it did. I said that the Bible was the basis of many Western laws, but I also said that what is right and wrong comes from God. See my next point.
"Murder has generally been taboo throughout human history, all across the globe; even in cultures that had not been in contact with the bible."
I'd like to see evidence of that. But even to the extent that it's true, it doesn't make your case because_every_ culture's history has God in their history, even if that's as far back as Noah. But as for that evidence, here's some counter evidence, from historian Tom Holland:
"In the age of Cicero, Cicero’s great contemporary Caesar is, by some accounts, slaughtering a million Gauls and enslaving another million in the cause of boosting his political career, and far from feeling in any way embarrassed about this he’s kind of promoting it, and so when he holds his triumph, people are going through the streets of Rome carrying billboards boasting about how many people he’s killed. This is a really terrifyingly alien world, and the more you look at it, the more you realise that it is built on systematic exploitation. So the entire economy is founded on slave labour. The sexual economy is founded on the absolute right of free Roman males to have sex with anyone that they want any way that they like. And in almost every way this is a world that is unspeakably cruel, to our way of thinking."
Holland goes on to explain that it was Christianity that changed things for the better.
"Our modern societies criminalize murder because the vast majority of people want to be protected from murderers, and hence, by will of democracy, laws against murder exist."
Except that, historically, those laws came from the Bible (1), and democracies, although not invented by Christians, have mainly been adopted in Christian countries, or because of Christian missionaries.(2) You failed to mention non-democracies, such as the atheistic regimes in the USSR and China (among others) where the rulers thought nothing of murdering millions of people.
(1) See the three-volume work by legal expert Augusto Zimmerman: "Christian Foundations of the Common Law: England/United States/Australia" respectively.
(2) See the paper "The Missionary Roots of Liberal Democracy" by Robert D. Woodberry.
"Biblical law often closely mirrors modern legalities ..."
Yes, because the Bible is where they came from.
"But just because a law is in the bible doesn't make it right,..."
On the contrary, because the Bible comes from God, it does make it right, assuming that it's still applicable! (The Mosaic Law no longer applies, even though many of the principles do.)
"...nor is it the principal reason why it is is still maintained in modern legal systems."
It's maintained because Western Civilisation is based on Christianity, and getting rid of that is a long, slow, (and bad) process. For example, one of the authors of the academic book "A Natural History Of Rape: Biological Bases Of Sexual Coercion" admits that there is no non-Christian basis for opposing rape, and to quote from an article about it, "The book argues that rape is to be expected on the basis of our alleged evolutionary heritage." and "...rape might be an adaptation. There might have been selection favouring males who raped under some circumstances in the past." Given that, rape could be seen as a good thing. So why do we still have laws against it? Because society has not yet completely ditched its Christian values.
"Many people regard the bible and god as works of fiction,..."
Yes, they do, but they are wrong. It has proven to contain a very reliable history.
"...even if certain elements of it - such as criminalizing murder - can be thoroughly justified through independent rationale."
How can such elements be justified independently? As I said, if the standards don't come from God, then they amount to nothing more than opinions.
"ther biblical laws, such as forcing women to marry their rapists,..."
There is no such law in the Bible. In the society of that time, men were the breadwinners, so women had to have a man support them. When young, that was their father. When adult, that was a husband. If a woman was raped, she was effectively unmarriageable. She was not forced to marry her rapist. The rapist's punishment was to support his victim for the rest of her life, by marrying her, although she was, in principle, free to decline.
"...or the persecution of homosexuals"
What persecution? Does criminalising rape amount to persecution of rapists? No, of course not. Neither does criminalising homosexuals. We were designed to be heterosexual, and therefore (and as explicitly stated by God), homosexuality is wrong.
"...the persecution of homosexuals is now generally seen as terrible legal structure in most western democracies."
Because they are abandoning the values and standards of Christianity. That is not a good thing. Further, I notice that you said that it's "generally seen" as terrible, but didn't actually provide a reason. That is, it was just an opinion, as I have pointed out, and opinion is not a valid basis to restrict other people.
"If you want to prove that something is morally wrong, you have to do better than "God says 'No!'". "
Why? Why are the standards and values of the highest authority in the universe—that created the universe and us—not good enough? What else could possibly supersede His standards? Further, if you want to claim that some things are wrong without God, then you have to do better than to simply state that they are wrong.
"Because we've come far enough to realize that god gets it wrong at least as often as he gets it right."
An evidence-free assertion, based on your opinion that disagrees with God, a faulty reading of the Bible, and lousy logic (how could God possibly get it wrong when He is the highest possible authority?).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@veganath
"so you would be claiming that you are an adherent of Islam, this is exactly the claim they sincerely make?"
That's a non-sequitur. Just because they claim that doesn't mean that they are the only ones who claim that.
"Here are some verses from your Bible that give insight into the value your God ascribe to humans,..."
You can always distort by being selective and taking things out of context.
"...keep in mind beautiful humans that are allegedly created by your God sick and commanded under threat of eternal unimaginable suffer to heal ourselves."
That sentence doesn't make much sense. What do you mean by "created... sick"?
"Revelation 21:8"
That is not a comment about the value that God ascribes to humans.
"Matthew 25:46"
How does that support your claim? Unless you are ignoring the second part?
"Psalm 9:17"
Again, not a comment about the value that God ascribes to humans. Rather, it's highlighting that God rejects wrongdoing.
"2 Thessalonians 1:9"
More of the same. And as I said, you are being selective. Here's a different view, from Oxford professor John Lennox: "one of the most powerful arguments for human beings are special is that God became one". That is what God thinks about humans.
"So for a transgression in this FINITE life your God deems those who transgress him deserve an INFINITE duration of unimaginable suffering"
First, we are talking about transgressions against an infinite God. Such a transgression is infinitely bad. Second, one way of looking at this is to see it as simply getting what you ask for. That is, you want existence to be without God, so He grants you your desire. The problem is that existence without God is hell.
" Would you condone or condemn your God for making me & millions of other beautiful humans suffer unimaginably for an infinite duration? "
God is good and knows best. Further, by what standard do you judge whether God's actions are reasonable or not? If you don't get your standards from God, then ultimately they are just a matter of your opinion, and therefore are not a basis for judging the claims made in the Bible.
1
-
1
-
@veganath
"sorry for the late reply."
Ditto.
"would it be reasonable to claim that the degree of suffering i.e. "existence without God is Hell" is the same experience as stated in the Bible "...they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur.""
Yes.
"Additional I have to insist on an answer to this question I put to you previously"
It is not for me to condone or condemn God. That would imply that I have some right to do that. But, as I pointed out, God is good and knows best.
"...as opposed to the Biblical depiction of human well being in the original Biblical Garden of Eden..."
Okay. I'll come back to that in a moment.
"...your God punished humans for the sins of our ancestors!!"
Please try and represent the case accurately. He's not my God. He's everyone's God.
And no, we are punished for our own sin.
"...keep in mind beautiful humans that are allegedly created by your God sick and commanded under threat of eternal unimaginable suffer to heal ourselves."
I left my initial response to that unfinished. I was also going to ask what you were referring to regarding healing ourselves. God created us perfect. We (mankind) sinned. That sin is inherited by all us descendants. We are not told to "heal ourselves" in the sense of reversing that sin state. Rather, God Himself offered to take that from us (forgiveness).
"an INFINITE duration of unimaginable suffering equivalent to being incinerated in a fiery lake of burning sulfur speaks volumes about the value your God ascribes to humans especially their potential for suffering."
Only in the sense that He considers us responsible beings, which is a high view of us. You don't punish idiots, but responsible people who know better. And again, you're ignoring the second part.
"...you would simply consider them as unwell and seek to help them."
I would consider them as sinful and discipline them. That's not saying what form that discipline would take, and yes, the point of discipline is to help them.
Q3. But what if they continued to reject your advice and discipline and continued to do the wrong thing?
"Q2"
Of course not.
"If so as any reasonable compassionate human would then that is an example of the standard by which I judge any & ALL moral agents, ..."
True—that is an example of your judgment. It doesn't explain what your standard is, which was my question. I'll elaborate. You asked if I "Do" condemn the ISIS people, but not why I would condemn them. I would condemn them because they had no right to inflict that on a fellow human being (because God never gave us that right). I would also condemn them if their actions were far less painful, such a simply a punch in the stomach. The issue is not how painful it is, but whether they have the right to do it in the first place. And God has that right. He made us, and it is His right to do with us as He pleases. As such, the analogy between God and ISIS is not there.
"Can we agree to preface questions we require answer to with a 'Qn' where 'n' is an integer?"
Okay.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@trumplost3631
"he is [gratuitous swearing deleted] GOD… he supposedly was writing to humans and he didn’t tell them “knock off that slavery stuff” "
And if He did? Do you think that they would have complied? Sometimes you need to work tactfully. Besides, that's not the entire story, and it's a matter of history that slavery was abolished—twice—by people who took God's teaching seriously. In fact that is now why we now consider slavery to be such a bad thing.
"...he just said 'just don’t be a absolutely horrible slave owner' "
No, He did not "just" do that. He said (to summarise) to treat them like a family member, and free them after a number of years. I also pointed out that it was indentured servitude, different to the modern idea of slavery. In the culture of the time, it was a way to pay off debt: work for the person you owe money to. Also, you were not allowed to simply make someone a slave because you could. Person-stealing was against God's law. The "slavery" was somewhat akin to national service, where you are required to serve in the military for a number of years, except that you couldn't become a "slave" simply by having your name pulled out of a hat.
"But even I would’ve have said no person should own another person…"
What do you mean by "own"? Can parents "own" their children? My point is, the only thing that seems to be wrong with "owning" a person is how you treat them (including what freedoms you give them). A parent can be considered to "own" their children, and therefore control what they do and where they can go, but must not mistreat them. An employer can do similar during work hours. Being a slave is not the same, but it's closer to being quantitatively different than qualitatively different.
"...don’t tell me god didn’t think humans could do that… he was perfectly fine with banning mixed fabrics and tattoos."
Some of what He did along those lines was as illustrations of things; i.e. to teach them a truth. And in one sense we are all either slaves of God or of evil.
"And about the flood. He is still [bad]. I could come up with 9999999999 different ideas to stop evil than killing people."
But which would be the best solution? Taking into account everything, including how people in future will understand that God is a God of righteous judgment, and many other things. You, unlike God, are not omniscient, and would not be able to determine the best solution out of those 9999999999+ different ideas.
"Like… your stupid."
Well, at least I know how to spell "you're"! No, I'm not stupid. I just see things different you with your anti-God bias.
1
-
@trumplost3631
"morality evolved as early humans worked together."
Evidence please. Because all I know of are 'just so' stories.
"Our ancestors that had more affinity to develop social bonds had a higher chance of survival and past along those genes."
That sounds like one of those 'just so' stories.
But further, does it make sense? Rape could, perhaps, be considered moral because a man gets to spread his genes more. In fact two academics, Craig Palmer and Randy Thornhill, wrote a book titled, "A Natural History Of Rape: Biological Bases Of Sexual Coercion". They argue that rape is to be expected on the basis of our alleged evolutionary heritage. So, it seems, that by your "logic" (or just-so story), rape is a good thing. But one of the authors (when interviewed) tried to get out of that by saying that "What was favoured by natural selection is no more likely to be considered good or bad. You can’t just make the assumption that if something is natural, favoured by evolution, that therefore it is good. That is the naturalistic fallacy." That kind of contradicts your claim/story.
In fact Richard Dawkins said similar when put to him that: "...ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we've evolved five fingers rather than six.", he replied "You could say that, yeah."
So what you're saying is that 'morality' is nothing more than what works best, and has nothing to do with actual right and wrong?
"It spread throughout the human population to a point that is represents a the vast majority of the human population."
Again, what's your evidence? Historian Tom Holland points out that "the entire [Roman] economy is founded on slave labour. The sexual economy is founded on the absolute right of free Roman males to have sex with anyone that they want any way that they like." So when did we "evolve" these better morals? Only in the last 2000 years? Hmmm. According to Holland, it was Christian teaching that changed things. (See the video clip "Tom Holland tells NT Wright: Why I changed my mind about Christianity".)
"Morality is a human made construct."
Again, what's your evidence? Another 'just so' story?
"Is a killer whale “evil” for eating a baby seal."
No. Because, unlike humans, whales were not created as moral beings. You're right that morality is a human thing, but not that it's a human invention.
"We care for each other cuz it helps secure our survival."
How does that explain those that don't care for each other, and yet still survive?
"The morality argument is actually an incredibly weak argument for god."
I'm not talking about "morality", but absolute morality, i.e. something other than our opinion.
"...you would STILL need to prove that objective morality DOES exist ..."
Most people already believe that it does. That is, that there are some things that are right or wrong regardless of human opinion.
"...and that it comes from a god."
Where else could it come from, if human opinion is ruled out?
"Then prove that it’s the gods you believe in."
There is only one God. And history has shown that it's the God described in the Bible (see the video clip of Holland).
"Good luck."
I don't need luck. I have evidence.
1
-
@trumplost3631
"Animals evolve social bonds or lose them to fit into their environment better."
I don't dispute that they can adapt to their environment. But that doesn't demonstrate that they can gain completely new functions.
"Modern day dogs literally have a mutation in their code that makes them more docile..."
True. But a mutation is a loss of genetic information, whereas to have goo-to-you evolution, you need gains of genetic information.
"It’s an either or fallacy."
That's only a fallacy where there are other alternatives. What other alternatives are there?
"The butler had to be the murderer because who else could have done it."
If there was only the butler and gardner as possibilities, and the gardner is ruled out, then it must be the butler. What is fallacious about that?
"Objective morality does not exist."
What's your evidence for that?
"You saying people believe objective morality is real does nothing to validate it."
True. I didn't mean to claim that it exists because most believe that it does. But that most believe it does means that you need to do more than just assert that it doesn't. You need to produce good evidence.
"You need to provide evidence for an objective morality existing."
That is, in part, what this discussion is attempting to do.
"Helping each other secures your survival with early humans."
I've already addressed that. That may be true, but doesn't show that that is where morality comes from.
"1) modern society is not as dependent on social bonds as they used to."
Evidence please.
"You don’t need to tackle down a mammoth to eat anymore."
You never did need to.
"2) the affinity for social bonds as a means for survival spreading throughout the population does not lead to 100% of the population carrying those genes. ... Your argument is literally “the white bunnies didn’t evolve cuz 1 out of 135 bunnies are still brown” which is retarded."
No, that's not my argument, but you do still have a valid point. Yes, I'll concede the point that you probably could get a few exceptions to the rule, but it still sounds like a 'just-so' story. It seems good, but that doesn't make it true.
"Most of the human population will agree on right and wrong due to have some level of the same evolved social ideas."
Evidence please, because I've already given you evidence to the contrary. Different societies have quite different ideas of right and wrong.
"A killer whale is not evil cuz it was not created as a moral being and humans are. There is another assertion. You can’t just assert that."
And you can't just assert that it's the same as humans, which is what you implicitly did. You argued from your worldview, without evidence, so I responded from mine, with just as much evidence as you provided.
"you said it didn’t evolve cuz Roman’s used slave labor and that’s immoral."
That's a distorted version of what I said.
"Yes. Il clarify. Evolving social bond within your tribe has high chances of survival. However, those outside your sect with whom you do not have social bonds with do not increase your survival."
Your clarification fails to address the point. What the Romans did was not just with people outside their 'tribe'. The bigger part of my quote from Holland said that "The sexual economy is founded on the absolute right of free Roman males to have sex with anyone that they want any way that they like." Anyone. Not just outside their 'tribe'. There exists a copy of a letter from a soldier away at the war writing home to his dear, pregnant wife. He says that if the child is boy, to look after it. If it's a girl, throw it out. How's that for caring? How's that anything to do with another 'tribe'? It was Christianity that changed all that.
"I don’t think you understand what evolution is."
I think I do, as I have been learning about it in considerable detail for decades. But one of the problems is that the word can mean a number of different things.
"Evolution is just if you passed along your genes."
No, that's (designed) reproduction.
"Anything that makes you likely to live to that gets passed along."
You're now talking about natural selection, which is not evolution.
"Morality is just a human invention..."
So you keep claiming, but failing to demonstrate.
"...which why we literally have morale debates as our society becomes more and more evolved."
Evidence that that's why, and that we evolved, please. You're still arguing from your worldview, not evidence.
"We have retards being “pro-life” today."
Name-calling is not part of a civil, rational, argument. And what is wrong with being pro-life?
"We had retards in the past basing slavery off the Bible as morale."
Well, we had people who wrongly used the Bible to support slavery, but that doesn't mean that they were 'retards'.
"The Bible being one of humans first attempt at philosophy."
Another evidence-free assertion.
"We thought giving black people 3/5 of personhood was the right thing to do."
Who is "we", and why are the thoughts of such people relevant to this discussion?
"Nothing I have said is one of those just say it is stories."
That's 'just so', per Kipling. And it's a claim that you have yet to demonstrate.
"Coming from someone with no evidence but a book written 2000 years ago by goat herders who thought the earth radius was 5 miles is actually funny tho."
More evidence-free assertions!
* What is your evidence that I have no evidence other than the Bible?
* What is your evidence that it was written 2000 years ago?
* What is your evidence that it was written (solely or mainly) by goat herders?
* What is your evidence that they thought the earth's radius was five miles (were you actually serious about that one??)?
And while I'm at it, what about all the other questions I asked that you've not answered?
"you need to learn logic and reason. You need to go pick up a logic and reasoning 101 book. Your arguments are full of fallacies."
Says the person who accuses me of simply asserting, but makes many evidence-free assertions himself, and has not shown any fallacies of mine (other than an error).
1
-
1
-
@trumplost3631
"I’m not going to attempt to defend anything to anyone who will have strong convictions about a topic they know nothing about."
You've not shown that I know nothing about it. Even IF I was wrong on the gene mutations (I'm not), that doesn't mean I'm ignorant about everything else.
"Then when you explain why what they are saying is a fallacy they just say another fallacy. "
Sure, construct a straw-man to demolish. You haven't shown that that is what has happened here.
"You did what? Did 500 hours of biased research..."
No, a lot more than that of research on both sides of the topic. For example, I have read both Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth and the rebuttal The greatest Hoax on Earth? Can you say that?
"...your suddenly smarter than 200 years of multiple different fields of science?"
Another straw-man.
"Millions of scientists across generations in completely different sciences all converging on evolution independently of each other."
Straw-man nonsense. Very few of them came up with evolution independently. They have mostly been taught it and believe what they are taught. In documented cases, they have been mocked, ridiculed, or pressured into accepting it or they are fired, blackbanned, or potentially refused qualifications.
"Massive amounts of peer reviews trying to discredit the assertions evolution makes."
Evolution does not make assertions. Scientists do. And yes, there are many who try and discredit particular assertions of other scientists, but (generally) not evolution itself. They almost certainly wouldn't get published if they did (also documented).
"Science doesn’t care if evolution is true or not."
Most scientists do, however.
"Just think about that. 200+ years of scientists trying to falsify evolution and it still stands."
Pull the other one. Name me one modern scientist who has tried to falsify it and has been shown to be wrong, rather than censored or similar.
"But you watched Kent hovind say some uniformed dumb [stuff] so you know more."
I've hardly watched Hovind. You're making things up again.
"...you LITERALLY said gene mutation can not add information…"
I actually said that a mutation "is a loss of information", not that it cannot add information. The subtle difference is that my wording is a generalisation, not an absolute.
I also said that I could cite scientists to support that claim, and indeed I already I cited Dawkins being unable to give an example of an information-gaining mutation. (The actual question was "Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?". He fell silent, then asked for the camera to be turned off, apparently while he tried to think of an example. When he did respond, his response didn't provide any examples. He was asked by others later about this, and given space to write a response. His response still didn't provide any examples.)
Following is a quote from Cornell University geneticist John Sanford (inventor of the 'gene gun'), in his book Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome. It includes a mutation-frequency-distribution graph (based on a paper by Motoo Kimura) that shows a curve that I'd describe as similar to a hyperbolic curve. The Y axis has zero at the bottom, and the X axis has zero in the centre. The curve rises slowly from near the bottom left to rapidly near the top centre. It does not, however, touch zero on either X or Y axes. (I hope that's a sufficiently-accurate and clear description, given that I can't post images here.) Sanford says:
----------
"As can be seen from Kimura's curve, most mutations are negative, and pile up steeply near the zero mark, as we have been saying. In other words, they are deleterious and overwhelmingly nearly neutral. Kimura is famous for showing that there is a "zone of near-neutrality" (shown here as a box). Kimura calls near-neutral mutations "effectively neutral", meaning that they are so subtle that they are not subject to selection. However, we can see that Kimura does not show any mutations as being absolutely neutral. His curve approaches, but does not reach, the zero-impact point.
...
"In Kimura's figure, he does not show any mutations to the right of zero, i.e., there are zero beneficial mutations shown. He obviously considered beneficial mutations so rare as to be outside of consideration."
----------
(Italics are Sanford's)
So I have defended my claim with some evidence. It's now up to you to defend your counter-claim.
"you clearly don’t understand what a gene mutation is…."
A gene mutation is a "copying mistake" that occurs when the DNA is copied. Just like a random substitution of a letter in an English text will (statistically) corrupt, not enhance, the text, a copying mistake in the genome will generally damage, not add to, the genetic information of the genome.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mistaman4638
"love how you need to explain what he was saying, "
I can't say the same for how you ignore the evidence I give you and keep repeating your claim.
"also you can buy some slaves, "
That's a whole other topic, and no, that no longer applies, because it only applied to the Israelite nation before Christ. I'm not Israelite, and I live after Christ.
"Have 1000s more Redickuls bible verses."
You have no ridiculous Bible verses. Yes, you have a lot more false claims of them, but they have been debunked over and over.
"You should learn your history.."
I do. You should learn from the scholarship on this. The Bible is reliable history. For example, from famous archaeologist William F. Albright: "The excessive scepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, certain phases of which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@earl12121
"In certain environments, permeation with mineral-charged water causes phosphate minerals to form in soft tissues, preserving those soft tissues in organisms that fossilize in those environments (Schweitzer et al., 2007)"
Yes, that's how fossils form. So what?
"See how I referenced a study at the end there."
Yes. Very good.
"I don't just spout random gibberish from Christian websites lol"
And neither do I.
"I mean ven logically just think about the Bible's claims that he loves everyone so much, but he won't hesitate sending someone to burn for ETERNITY because they said Jesus's name in an angry manner,..."
Thinking logically, I realise that you're misrepresenting the Bible. If it was actually true that he wouldn't "hesitate sending someone to burn for ETERNITY", then He wouldn't have provided a way to avoid that, which is what He did in taking our punishment on Himself. You wouldn't condemn a judge by saying that he wouldn't hesitate to impose the maximum fine on a criminal if the judge then paid the fine for the criminal, would you? That would show the judge's love, just as Jesus' sacrifice of Himself shows His love. That is logical.
"... or didn't believe his claims even though no-one has seen or heard him."
Lots of people have seen and heard Him. You've never heard of Jesus?
"Or the fact that he thinks saying his name in vein is worse than rape, because the 10 commandments are the biggest sins apparently."
Why do you think rape is wrong? After all, two academics wrote a book A Natural History Of Rape: Biological Bases Of Sexual Coercion, about which an article says that "The book argues that rape is to be expected on the basis of our alleged evolutionary heritage." Okay, so if rape is a natural thing, what's wrong with it? An interviewer asked Richard Dawkins, "Okay, but ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we've evolved five fingers rather than six.", to which Dawkins replied "You could say that, yeah." So, on that basis, you can't say that rape is wrong. So why is it wrong? It's wrong because it's against God's design and standards. But if you don't first accept that God is Lord, you have no good basis for saying that rape is wrong. Ergo, taking God's name in vain IS worse than rape, because without the former, you have no basis for condemning the latter.
"Or the fact that he's watched every child that has ever been raped, while doing nothing."
What's the evidence that He's always done nothing? And why should He intervene if we, as a society, have told Him that we don't want Him?
"Or that he doesn't even show himself, ..."
Except that He has.
"another one is that the bible seems to think that the earth is stationary and the sun and planets revolve around it."
"seems to"? You don't even cite where it supposedly "seems to".
"This is obviously wrong."
You do know that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, don't you? Multiple sources will even tell us what time of the day the sun will rise and set. But doesn't that mean that the sun does rotate around the earth? Or is it that we express it that way because that's the way it appears even though we know that's just from our earth-based perspective, and that it really is that the earth goes around the sun? Of course it's the latter. But why couldn't the Bible be doing the same thing? Simply describing phenomena from our perspective, rather than giving a scientific description? There's even a technical term for this: phenomenological language. But of course if you want to find whatever fault you can in the Bible, even scraping the bottom of the barrel like that, you're not being intellectually honest. Ergo, it's you, not the Bible, that is wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Cent51
"Ah yes, you must provide the eveidence argument..."
Huh? What "evidence argument"? I made a request for evidence supporting your claim. You've not provided it.
"...before your small mind will think past itself.. "
Instead, you resort to insult.
"If you have not been paying attention, [snipped]"
Oh, but I have been paying attention, and I already know all those points that you mentioned. But they are not evidence for your claim about Bolt and Sky.
"But you want recipts, guess your small mind will have to maybe try and find it yourself, ..."
The onus is on you. And insults are not the way to do that.
"I am not playing silly [deleted] with a twit who got no concept of what actaully happening.. "
Except that I do have a concept. I accept what you said about Trump and Biden, but that has nothing to do with Bolt and Sky, which is what your claim was about.
So are you going to provide evidence, or just continue to insult?
1
-
@dianawilliams6700
"Blame Trump for being a wrecking ball for progress, ..."
How was he that?
"Please tell Trump this isn’t 2015, insult politics, threats, and grievance politics AREN’T working."
And yet it was working for the Democrats. They have threatened Trump with everything they can think of, and grieved of the supposed insurrection.
"But I know you won’t direct truth in Trump’s direction..."
Trump was massively and unjustly vilified and demonised. But he didn't help himself with harping on about his loss in the 2020 election. He was robbed of that by election manipulation (e.g. the Hunter Biden laptop story), and I believe there should be a reckoning on that, but I think he would have been better to keep quiet about that until the Republicans had the power to do something about that.
"Looking back to 2015, Trump will ruin good policies because of his mouth and pride."
As I said above, he hasn't helped himself. But to criticise him while not also criticising the left for their baseless conspiracy theories, fake impeachments, biased media coverage, and so on is partisan and unfair.
"Trump will hand 2024 to the dems the same way he handed these midterms because he is a magnet for democrats"
Anybody who seriously disagrees with the Democrats is a magnet for the democrats. If it wasn't Trump it would be someone else. Yes, Trump had his faults, but the left is far, far, worse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GenerationX1984 The experts disagree with you. Not only on who started it, but why they started it: because of Christian principles. Further, it's not correct that all European gentiles were Christians (although most were nominally at least), but it's also the case that most outside of Europe were not Christians, yet they didn't start science.
Loren Eiseley: "The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation … . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption."
Rodney Stark: "..theological assumptions unique to Christianity explain why science was born only in Christian Europe. Contrary to the received wisdom, religion and science not only were compatible; they were inseparable."
Paul Davies: "In the ensuing three hundred years, the theological dimension of science has faded [note that science began with a "theological dimension"]. People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature- the laws of physics - are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they come from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is rational basis to physical existence manifested as lawlike order in nature that is at least part comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological world view."
Stark also explains why it wasn't the Greeks: "technical progress ... was mere empiricism ... that is, progress was the product of observation and of trial and error but was lacking in explanations—in theorizing. Hence the earlier technical innovations of Greco-Roman times, of Islam, of China ... do not constitute science ..."
"Christians today are actually a thorn in the side of science."
Not true. Atheists are, because they adopt a naturalistic view that a priori rules out explanations that involve the supernatural even where the evidence supports it. That's hardly scientific.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamonit7169
"I'll take FPTP any day of the week "
I wouldn't. If you have two conservatives (A and B) and one 'progressive' (C) standing, and they each respectively get 25%, 35%, and 40% of the vote, then under first past the post, C wins, even those 60% don't want him. Under preferential voting, nobody wins until they get more than 50% of the vote. So A (with the smallest vote) is eliminated and the second preferences of those votes reallocated, being picked up by B. B now has 60% of the vote, a clear majority, so wins. A much fairer system.
It's similar to the way some others places do it, but quicker. In some places without preferential voting, A would be eliminated and the people would have to vote a second time, but only out of B and C. Preferential voting is the same in principle, except that the second vote is recorded at the same time as the first vote, as a second preference.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@theylied1776
"The word (Covenant) is Aramaic/Hebrew, it's from the Tora/Bibie."
Not according to Etymology Online (a source that I trust). It says that the word comes from Latin, and that the Hebrew is berith. Specifically, it says:
---------------------
c. 1300, covenaunt, "mutual compact to do or not do something, a contract," from Old French covenant, convenant "agreement, pact, promise" (12c.), originally present participle of covenir "agree, meet," from Latin convenire "come together, unite; be suitable, agree," from com- "together" (see com- ) + venire "to come," from a suffixed form of PIE root *gwa- "to go, come."
In law, "a promise made by deed" (late 14c.). Applied in Scripture to God's arrangements with man as a translation of Latin testamentum, Greek diatheke, both rendering Hebrew berith (though testament also is used for the same word in different places). Meaning "solemn agreement between members of a church" is from 1630s; specifically those of the Scottish Presbyterians in 1638 and 1643 (see covenanter ).
---------------------
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@theylied1776
"You're still not understanding."
No, I'm still not agreeing. That's not the same thing.
"The first use of the word (covenant) was from Hebrew to Greek, Greek to Latin translation/interpretation."
I think you're now talking about the origin of the concept, which is different to your previous claims in this thread. I pointed out that the English word covenant traces back to the Latin convenire, and that the Hebrew equivalent was berith.
I never said anything about the origin of the concept. But you said that the word has a "religious definition", which is correct, but I pointed out that it was not "inherently religious", as it is also used in law. You now seem to be arguing that the concept has a religious origin, which is not a point that we've yet discussed, and for all I know that might be true. But that's not what you previously claimed, and therefore not what I was disagreeing with.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The right wing are braindead, ..."
Says someone who is about to be shown up.
"If abortion was illegal it would still happen,..."
Of course. Just like murders, rapes, thefts, frauds, burglaries, etc. still happen, despite being illegal. But we don't say that they shouldn't be illegal, and we don't pretend that such laws make no difference.
"it would be unsafe and cause more deaths to woman."
More deaths than the millions of babies who are killed by abortion? Seriously, a pro-abortionist claiming that banning abortions are 'unsafe' when every single abortion is unsafe for the baby (and sometimes for the mother), is an example of self-blindness.
"...why not just make it safe so woman do not die doing it illegally?"
See my previous line. Abortions are, by definition, unsafe.
But also, doing it illegally doesn't particularly make it unsafe for the mothers. Abortions were unsafe for mothers before antibiotics, but became a lot safer for the mothers when antibiotics became available even though it was still illegal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@troig43
"'Religion is indeed, the self consciousness and self esteem of a man who has either not yet won through to himself
or has already lost himself again' - Karl Marx"
What makes you think he's any sort of authority? And what about atheist religions?
"Snakes can't talk..."
Yes, we all know that. Which makes that one occasion remarkable.
"No. First you have to prove that a god exists."
"Proof" involves sufficient evidence for one to accept the claim. But that also requires that one is open-minded enough to accept the evidence. So while I can't guarantee that you'll be convinced, evidence is plentiful. That you seem unaware of this demonstrates your ignorance. The following are simply a few sample dot-points, not full explanations.
* The fact that anything exists at all is good evidence. The alternative (naturalistic/materialist/atheist) view is that nothing became everything for no reason, contrary the principle of cause and effect.
* The evidence of "fine tuning" in the universe—such as the precise values of the weak and strong nuclear forces—defies claims of these arising by chance, leaving an intelligent designer as the only rational option.
* The enormous amount of genetic information in living things cannot have come about by chance, and is therefore further strong evidence of an intelligent designer.
* The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ showed that He is God, able to conquer even death.
"Quoting bible verse does not prove a god."
Unless it's in a hidden post, I can't see where He did that. Which suggests you're answering a straw-man. Further, I notice that you didn't respond to the sources that Maria Hewitt posted.
"Abiogenesis..."
Citing fiction does not prove that God did not do it. Scientists have been spectacularly unable to find a process of abiogenesis that actually works, despite decades of trying.
"...millions of years of evolution ..."
More fiction. Nobody has ever observed one kind of creature change into a different kind of creature. Nobody has even observed a process that adds new genetic information to living things in anything remotely like the quantities required.
"here we are."
Yes, here we are, even though abiogenesis doesn't work and neither does goo-to-you evolution. So what does that tell you? Or at least what would it tell an open-minded person?
"The fossil record proves evolution."
How does it do that? On the contrary, it defies the evolutionary hypothesis, as it fails to show one kind changing into another kind; it fails to show the finely-graduated sequence that Darwin said should be found (i.e. a falsified prediction), and it shows fossils in rocks that are conventionally dated to periods of history that they are not supposed to exist, such as pollen in the Precambrian.
"Science wins...every time."
That methodology founded by creationists? Yes, it does if done properly, but naturalistic science is biased in favour of naturalistic explanations, which don't win every time. As such, arguing from naturalistic science is an exercise in circular reasoning.
1
-
@troig43
"Atheism is not a religion,..."
I didn't say it was. Any more than theism is a religion. Rather, both are categories of religions. Athiest religions include Marxism, Confucianism, Scientology, and Secular Humanism.
"...the same way 'off' on a TV set is not a channel."
Not, not in the same way. A religion is the way that one sees the world and how one lives by that. That applies to atheists as well. You could substitute "worldview" if you prefer. Both atheists and Christians (as well as followers of other religions) have worldviews.
"Did you know that every atom, molecule, neutron, proton, and quark inside your body was once inside a star?"
No, I did not. I don't accept fiction as reality.
And I notice that you failed to address everything else in my previous comment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blacklotus108
"so here is my understanding and u can again show me where I’m wrong. The old laws for Christian’s had a lot of horrible things in them..."
I guess that depends on what you consider to be "horrible".
"Ok so I’ll ignore the issues in the text as u have more knowledge on them than me and know the loopholes."
What "loopholes"? You can't just label something you don't like as a "loophole".
"if this is the viewpoint of Jesus and Christianity u have why should I or anyone else follow it?"
Follow the viewpoint? Because it's true.
"So this guy a thousand years ago died for my sins..."
"this guy" is God, come to earth in a human form. And it was about 2000 years ago.
"...I’m not gonna worship him for it..."
Well, that's your choice, but why not? Worship is gratitude, but you don't seem to have gratitude for what He did for you. That's called being ungrateful.
"I mean god in the Bible planned to kill his son in this brutal fashion anyways right?"
Jesus' role in relationship with God the father is to have some of the characteristics of a son and heir, but keep in mind that Jesus IS God. So it wasn't as though God killed his offspring—it was that God sacrificed Himself for your sake.
As for the brutality, I think that was partly to illustrate to people just how much of sacrifice He made. I think in many ways, the most brutal part was the emotional part. Here we have an all-powerful, all-loving, being, who left his perfect existence to come and live with people in a world that was deteriorating, being rejected by many of those very people who owe their very existence to Him, including some of his own followers being ashamed to be associated with him.
There is another reason, best illustrated by a story I heard a long time ago. In the story, a judge has a case come before him involving a friend of his. There is no other judge available, so he can't recuse himself from the case. He finds that this friend is guilty of the crime, which carries a penalty of a fine. If he sentences his friend to a small fine, he will be accused of bias in favour of his friend. If he sentences his friend to pay the maximum allowed fine, that is also unreasonable, as his friend's crime was not a serious one, and he would normally set an intermediate one in similar cases. Further, he knows that his friend would be unable to pay the maximum fine. So what he does is set the maximum fine, then pay it himself.
God did similar. If he sentenced Jesus to a lesser penalty, He could be accused of going soft on His 'son' because it IS His 'son'. So Jesus pays the greatest possible penalty, a gruesome, torturous, death, a crucifixion still today being considered one of the most painful and humiliating (the nakedness) deaths of all time.
"Let’s say Jesus didn’t die for my sins oh no! Who will forgive my sins now?!?!"
Nobody. You would have to pay the penalty yourself.
"It’s easy but it will sound radical to you, I will forgive my own sins."
You can't. Forgiveness involves forgiving the person who has wronged you. You cannot forgive yourself (in the context we are discussing here) for wrong that you have done to others. And sin is wronging God (and possibly other people as well). So it needs to be God forgiving you.
"I did wrong in the past as long as it did not effect others ..."
It did affect others. All sin affects God. If it doesn't, then it's not a sin.
"I see religions like this as being more about FEAR of what will happen if u leave the church and FEAR of gods wrath if u leave him."
Christianity is not primarily about fear. Do you follow the road rules because it's the right thing to do, or because of fear of the consequences of breaking them? Most do it for the former reason. Some, who don't care about what's right, do it out of fear of being caught and punished. Most Christians follow God because it's the right thing to do, although some might do it out of fear of the consequences.
Also, in one sense, God doesn't punish you for leaving Him. He has given you the choice to do that. If you don't want God, He will allow you to live for eternity without Him. The problem is, living without God (and all the things that He has provided, including friends), would be hell! In other words, be careful what you wish for. You mightn't like it.
"In this aspect modern Christianity seems to continue to worship the god of the Old Testament don’t u think?"
The God of the Old Testament is the same as the God of the New Testament. There is no difference.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davehill584
"blind faith beliefs. That's funny coming from a christian."
No, it's not. The definition of 'faith' beloved by atheists is not the definition used in the Bible, which is one of trust in a proven trustworthy person. It is intellectually dishonest to apply the wrong definition.
"There's a cool video on YouTube that runs the maths of the ark passed the viewer."
So, still no evidence, I see. A claim that there is evidence out there is not evidence. If you want to actually name the video, I can check out your supposed evidence, but until then, you still have no evidence for your claim about the ark. I could equally claim that there is a book that runs through the maths of the ark (which there is). But you wouldn't accept that claim without specifics, I'm sure.
Neither do you have any evidence for your claim that there is no genuine evidence to support Christianity.
"Makes a lot more sense than your circular argument."
What circular argument? I haven't made one, and you haven't shown that I've made one. That's just another baseless allegation.
You're really not good in the evidence department, are you?
1
-
@davehill584
"good to see removed your last daft comment."
I haven't removed anything, and none of my comments were daft. It's likely that YouTube has hidden it, as it did with your comment with the video link, which I could only see in the notifications.
"So, the ark. Do the verifiable maths and science mean lees than your faith?"
Most of the maths in the video actually supports the case, and the science is biased, as I'll explain below.
Regarding your link...
First, the video is not a sober look at the ark, but a mocking one, so clearly biased. Second, although it doesn't materially affect the argument, the video wasted time talking about the various sizes of the cubit, which are well known and don't materially affect the argument.
The arguments can be summarised as follows:
* The ark would not survive the rough seas.
There was no maths nor science here. Only sound bites and bald assertions. Naval architects have shown that it could survive the rough seas. Find the peer-reviewed paper "Safety investigation of Noah's Ark in a seaway".
The video gave the Wyoming as an example of how a wooden ark would fail, but omitted to point out (although the information was there) that it lasted for 15 years, whereas Noah's ark only had to last one year.
* The ark would not be big enough for all the animals.
In fact, and surprisingly, the video pointed out that the biblical "kind" could refer to the family, and that if that was the case, it was big enough for all the animals! People who have studied this have long said that the "kind" refers to something akin to the family, so the maths supports the account. It then tries to obfuscate by saying, in effect, "but what if it's species?", and then proceeds to waste time on the maths of that.
* Many more creatures would be needed to prevent inbreeding.
First, the argument then becomes not whether the ark was big enough for the creatures stated to be on the ark, but whether it would be big enough for all the creatures the presenter claimed would need to be on the ark. So it's not actually a debunking of the capacity of the ark.
Second, it ignores the genetic arguments long put forward by people who study the ark account. Inbreeding is a problem because of the high likelihood that the offspring of two closely-related parents will pass on the same defective genes. But this early in history, with God creating creatures without any defects, there would be very few defective genes, so inbreeding is not the problem it would be today.
* There would not be enough food for the animals.
This argument assumes the number of creatures of species, not families, (a critical point the video fails to point out) so is a straw-man argument.
So, in summary:
* The first objection has no maths nor science that shows it to be wrong.
* The second objection has maths that supports the account as viable.
* The third objection gets the genetics wrong, so is really a strawman argument. Actually, it's effectively also a circular argument in that it assumes a non-biblical history of growth of mutations to argue that the biblical history is wrong.
* The fourth objection is a straw-man by assuming the wrong figure of the number of creatures on board.
So, your evidence score is 1 source of evidence, 0 evidence that passes scrutiny.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@franktully3065
"Few Nations use it..."
That's their loss, and not a reason to consider it inferior.
"At the very least, preferential voting should be optional."
Perhaps, but that's a separate issue.
"As matters stand, in order to cast a valid vote those of us opposed to this very undemocratic method of electing our representatives..."
But it's NOT undemocratic! It is a more democratic method than First Past the Post. See more below.
"...forced to also vote for people whom we despise..."
No, you are forced to say that you want them even less than others that you do want. That doesn't mean that you're voting "for" them. You're not. You're voting against them.
"And if it's such a great system why have we had such abysmally underperforming governments?"
For reasons other than the voting system. Other countries also have abysmally underperforming governments too, that don't have preferential voting.
Suppose you have three candidates, two being conservatives (C1 and C2) and one being of the left (L). 60% of voters want a conservative, but 35% want C1 and 25% want C2. This leaves 40% wanting L.
Under First Past the Post, nobody has a majority (i.e. more than 50%), but L wins, even though 60% of the voters want one of the conservatives.
How is that democratic?
Under Preferential voting, nobody has a majority of the votes, so the candidate with the least votes (C2) has his voters' second preferences counted instead. As those conservative voters' second preference was C1 (in this simplified scenario), this means that C1 now has 60% of the votes and wins.
Clearly that is a more democratic outcome than First Past the Post.
1
-
@franktully3065
"Which part of "NEVER" don't you understand?"
The bit about why that must apply.
"Glibly dismissing this coerced aspect indicates a serious misunderstanding of democratic basics."
I didn't glibly dismiss it. You are claiming that you're forced to "vote for" them. You're not. You're forced to vote. By putting them low on the preferences, you're voting against them.
"But you, on the other hand, insist others must also do what you do."
No, I'm not. First, I haven't said that voting must be compulsory. I've pointed out that that's a separate matter. Second, I'm pointing out that you're not voting for them, but against them. Third, one form of preferential voting used in some cases (e.g. Australian Senate) only requires you to vote for a specified minimum number of candidates, so you don't have to provide any preference for those you don't want.
Fourth, you are insisting that others must also do it your way. I'll give you an example. Suppose you're a conservative and there are three candidates, one conservative (C) and two on the Left (L1 and L2). You want to be able to only vote for C and not "vote for" either L1 or L2. But what if I also want C, but feel that IF C doesn't get enough votes, I'd rather have L1 than the even worse L2. Under First Past the Post, I cannot do that! You're deprived me of my right to do that. Not only that, but why wouldn't you want to have a say on that too?
"If you personally, want to preference some other candidates who's stopping you? Certainly not me."
False. If we have First Past the Post as you prefer, YOU are stopping me from giving preferences to other candidates if my first preference doesn't give enough votes.
"Compulsory preferential voting unreasonably coerces all those wanting to elect only their preferred candidate and who would never, ever under ANY circumstances, voluntarily elect others listed on the ballot to unwillingly elect such people."
No, you're not electing others. In fact your not electing anyone—you're voting for/against them. As such, why is it unreasonable? If a candidate that you despise wins, it's not because you voted for them—you didn't. It's because enough others did.
"Pretending this is somehow more democratic is patently false."
What pretending? I gave you an example of how it works, which you've completely ignored.
1
-
@franktully3065
I'm sure I've answered this, but the answer has disappeared.
"Which part of "NEVER" don't you understand?"
The bit about why it should be never.
"Have you heard of the popular saying: "No means no"?"
Of course. But why No in the first place?
"Glibly dismissing this coerced aspect indicates a serious misunderstanding of democratic basics."
I was only arguing about the preferential part, not the compulsory part, as I have already pointed out.
"If you personally, want to preference some other candidates who's stopping you? Certainly not me."
Actually, it IS you, if you had your way of abolishing preferential voting.
"But you, on the other hand, insist others must also do what you do. "
No more than you are insisting that others must also do what you wish to do.
"Pretending this is somehow more democratic is patently false."
And yet I have given you an example of how it is, and how first past the post is not, and you've not even attempted to show anything wrong with my example. A bald assertion of me being wrong doesn't carry any weight.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stevehewitt1151
"You are completely missing my point"
In fact I answered your point, and you've now made a slightly different point. So it's not easy to get your point if you keep changing it.
" - If I vote for A I want my vote to go to A, not to B or C or D."
If you vote for A, it will go to A. I've already pointed that out.
"I resent having to give an alternative to A."
Yes, but why?
"If I want B to get my vote, I'll vote for B."
I'll repeat what I wrote above to another commenter:
---------
Suppose you have three candidates, two being conservatives (C1 and C2) and one being of the left (L). 60% of voters want a conservative, but 35% want C1 and 25% want C2. This leaves 40% wanting L.
Under First Past the Post, nobody has a majority (i.e. more than 50%), but L wins, even though 60% of the voters want one of the conservatives.
How is that democratic?
Under Preferential voting, nobody has a majority of the votes, so the candidate with the least votes (C2) has his voters' second preferences counted instead. As those conservative voters' second preference was C1 (in this simplified scenario), this means that C1 now has 60% of the votes and wins.
Clearly that is a more democratic outcome than First Past the Post.
---------
I understand that you don't want to do things that way, but we don't always get to do what we want, and you've not shown why preferential voting is a bad thing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Fails to actually show evidence. That's rich."
Okay, given that you're interested in the evidence, there is the scientific evidence that the universe could not have been around forever, meaning that it had a beginning, the principle of cause and effect, which says that the universe could not create itself, the evidence of design in the universe (including the 'fine tuning' and the information in living things), and the evidence of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. There is also the supporting evidence of all the good that Christianity has done around the world. Of course that's only a summary overview, as it would take many books to go into it in detail, but then those books are available. But please feel free to ask for more detail on any of those things I've mentioned.
"Okay, what history? What testimony? What prophecy?"
The history recorded in the Bible of God's interaction with man. And being His record, that makes it His testimony. Also, the Bible has a reasonable amount of prophecy of future events which have happened, although that last one is not one that I'm expert in.
"Okay, so then every religion should have tangible proof to back up their stance then, yet I fail to see it."
In the case of Christianity, then clearly the problem is when people are not even aware that there is evidence, let alone looking for it.
"I love when cultists try to convince people they're not in a cult."
I don't like it when people think that simply by declaring that someone is in a cult shows that they must be.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@garytate8284
"What have the democrats done to change freedom of your body?"
I didn't say that they had. So that's not a question I have to answer.
"No. I shouldn't have an opinion..."
And yet you do. So you are still a hypocrite.
"...and neither should you."
Given that I've already given you reasons why I should, you're simply repeating yourself without addressing the rebuttal.
"...males shouldn't be dictating how women look after their bodies and the choices they make."
As I said, that's sexist and discriminatory and illogical. You haven't addressed any of those points. By your apparent logic, a woman can "dictate" how another woman looks after her body and the choices she makes because, well, she's also a woman! How does that make sense? You could argue that nobody has the right to dictate what another does, but that is not your argument. Your argument is that males can't do that for females. Bizarre.
Further, we already accept that we can limit the choices of others. What if that woman wanted to kill her toddler? Are you saying that, as a male, I cannot "dictate" that she cannot make that choice? Please answer that question, and then explain why a person two years younger than a toddler is a different case.
"And no, the unborn baby has no rights until separate from the mother."
Why not? You have human rights for being human, not for attaining a particular stage of development.
"Until then, it's the woman's body..."
That is a complete lie. Does a woman have four arms, four legs, two hearts, two brains, four eyes, two heads, 40 fingers and toes, and so on? No, of course not. The baby is a distinct human being with it's own arms, legs, heart, brain, eyes, head, fingers and toes, blood type, and DNA. IT IS NOT THE WOMAN'S BODY. The fact that the pro-abortion lobby has to resort to such utter lies shows how intellectually bankrupt it is.
"The is nothing anywhere that states that it is anything but that case."
Apart from reality. Deal with it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Also it’s freedom from religion."
No, it's freedom OF religion. And that comes from Christianity, which teaches that you have to make a decision to repent and believe. That is, it's about what you think, not what you do. Therefore it can't be forced. Although of course some Christians get this wrong, in principle Christians don't force people to believe because a forced belief is not a genuine belief. Therefore it's a Christian thing to allow freedom of religion. Those founding fathers had Christian views.
As for the supposed different marriage laws, you misrepresent them.
For example, you are quoting the old Mosaic law which the Bible teaches is no longer to be applied, and in the Old Testament times, a raped woman would not be wanted for marriage and could not survive on her own, so the rapist's sentence was to provide for her as a husband should for his wife. He was the one punished, not her.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@weblightstudio8215 Pentecostalism is not a cult, if for no other reason than Pentecostalism is a movement containing various different groups.
And the experts disagree with you on civilisation. Yes, Jesus was Jewish, but that doesn't refute that Christianity was the basis of Western Civilisation.
Rodney Stark:
"Christianity created Western Civilization. Had the followers of Jesus remained an obscure Jewish sect, most of you would not have learned to read and the rest of you would be reading from hand copied scrolls. Without a theology committed to reason, progress, and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800: A world with many astrologers and alchemists but no scientists. A world of despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys, and pianos. A world where most infants do not live to the age of five and many women die in childbirth—a world truly living in "dark ages."
"The modern world arose only in Christian societies. Not in Islam. Not in Asia. Not in a "secular" society–there having been none. And all the modernization that has since occurred outside Christendom was imported from the West, often brought by colonizers and missionaries."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexchristopher221
"Jesus founded one visible hierarchical Church..."
Which subsequently split, as I said.
"Denominations are ... the result of ... schism."
As I said.
"Denominations are ... the result of heresy ..."
Yep. That's why the event that brought in Protestantism was called the Reformation, because the Catholic Church had become so corrupt it needed reforming. But they wouldn't reform (particularly at the time) and so there was a schism.
"The Eastern churches that are not in communion with the Roman Pontiff and the Vicar of Christ are in schism, viz., outside the one true Church."
Why isn't it the case that the Western Church is the one outside the one true church?
"Protestantism is a heresy."
What is heretical about it? What does Protestantism teach that is contrary to the Bible?
"This revolutionary movement that was started by rebel Catholics ..."
Started by a practising Catholic who challenged some of the heretical teachings of the church, but found that the church wouldn't reform and pushed him out.
"There is no unity of faith in Protestantism."
No less so than there is unity of faith between Protestants and Catholics. If Catholics can refuse to recognise the validity of Protestants, it's hypocritical to point at Protestants and accuse them of not being united.
"It's a divided body of disparate religious persuasions and practices."
The church is divided. Between Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants (among others). Again, to accuse others of being divided as though that in itself is a problem comes back on Catholics as well, as they are divided from others.
"BTW, the Catholic Church in Australia is not a different denomination from the Catholic Church in Canada."
I never claimed it was. I said that they were separate organisations just as the Victorian Baptists and the New South Wales Baptists (same denomination: Baptist) are separate organisations. Those figures claiming that there are many thousands of different 'denominations' are actually counting organisations, not denominations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pwillis1589
"Being realistic is expecting to see some evidence. You are obviously happy with unsubstantiated rumour."
You're right, and the people claiming that the vote was rigged or whatever should provide evidence, which they've not done in this thread.
However, I agree with their stance. Not only were there many anomalies with the election, including changing rules around voting (which could be called rigging), although those anomalies were never shown to have changed the outcome (assuming they were even investigated in the first place), the thing that really does amount to rigging, or election manipulation, was the biased reporting and censorship of the mainstream and social media, with the classic example being the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop news. A survey showed that if people had been aware of that before the election, they would have changed their vote in sufficient numbers to have changed the outcome. And that's just one example of the election manipulation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dominickefrim3088
"and in case you are wondering... yes. I have a higher education in civics than high school."
I wasn't wondering. Although now that you mention it...
"You don't know squat about what the difference is, or you wouldn't claim they are the same genius..."
And you don't seem to understand English, given that I've already agreed that they are not synonymous.
"in a constitutional republic our rights are protected by the constitution."
The same applies in a constitutional monarchy like Australia, also a democracy. But given that virtually every current country, republic or otherwise, has a constitution, that's a fairly meaningless distinction.
"No matter how the mob rules those rights cannot be voted out."
Ignoring activist judges, but yes, I agree. Because of the constitution, not because of it being called a republic.
"In a democracy the mob rules,..."
In a pure or direct or true democracy that's the case. Not in a representative democracy that has a constitution. Do you understand the difference between a pure democracy, as they had in ancient Greece, and a representative democracy that is, I think, the only form of democracy you'll find today?
Here are some sources for you:
* Britannica: "At the end of the 18th century, the history of the terms whose literal meaning is “rule by the people”— democracy and republic —left the answer unclear. ... for Madison, democracy meant direct democracy, and republic meant representative government.
"Even among his contemporaries, Madison’s refusal to apply the term democracy to representative governments, even those based on broad electorates, was aberrant. ... At the Virginia ratifying convention some months later, John Marshall, the future chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, declared that the “Constitution provided for ‘a well regulated democracy’ where no king, or president, could undermine representative government.”"
* World Atlas: "The United States is a democracy, but it is not a true democracy. Instead, it is a representative democracy."
* World Population Review: "Like many other nations, the U.S. is considered a hybrid government and is simultaneously a constitutional republic, a representative democracy, and a democratic republic."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@carcusminsden1310
"next you’ll be asking me to define woman"
Perhaps I should, but had no intention of doing that. The difference, however, is that 'man' and 'woman' are clearly defined, and a binary option. 'Black' is not so clearly defined. Nobody is black (the colour). And nobody is white (the colour). Rather, we all have a brown colouring agent (melanin) in our skin (and other places), and how much melanin we have determines the shade of our skin, ranging from light brown* to dark brown. (* people with very little melanin are a bit pinkish, because the red blood shows through.) So nobody is actually 'black' and nobody is actually 'white', and everybody falls on a spectrum between light brown and dark brown. Therefore the request to "Please define 'black' " is a valid question. From what we can determine, Jesus was not at the darkest end of that spectrum. But then he was likely not at the lightest end either. Hence my question. Can you please answer it now?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Aaronwhatnow
"you can't prove a negative. "
Not true. What you mean is that you can't prove a universal negative. But yes, that means that you can't prove God's non-existence. So why do so many atheists claim with certainty that He doesn't exist?
"You have to prove the positive. The ball is in your court."
The person making the claim has to support his claim. In this particular thread, that was Emperor Dalek claiming a negative.
"So give as something besides the bible"
Are you arbitrarily rejecting evidence that you don't like?
"so I'll just wait for the proof of God. I'll take the bible as a start but I would need more than one book as a reference"
I've given you some evidence in another thread on this page, if I'm not confusing you with someone else. And the Bible IS more than one book.
"I've looked and all the evidence or lack of it is making the non-existent of God the higher probability "
What lack of evidence? You've not shown that there is a lack of evidence.
"faith is the lack of evidence."
No, it's not. Like most words, 'faith' has more than one meaning. One, beloved by atheists, is the one you've cited. However, the one used by the Bible is trust, based on evidence. You're wrongly ascribing the atheist meaning to Christians.
"I'll believe when I have evidence."
I'll expect you to start believing, in that case.
"If the dead rise ... and told me of heaven And God then I'll be more Inclined to believe in God."
And yet, Jesus did just that. So why do you still resist?
"I'm asking for proof besides a book written by man."
What's your evidence that it was written (only) by man? Christians have always believed it to have been written by God, as it claims. You appear to be prejudging.
"I can't. We just don't know what wads before the big bang."
There was nothing, according to many scientists. Discover magazine, summarising the views of leading Big Bang theorist Alan Guth: "The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere."
Yet nothing can't create anything.
"The the absence of knowledge doesn't mean God."
Knowledge of absence (of a natural origin) kind of does mean God. If the natural can't explain it, then it must be the super-natural.
"I'm asking what evidence the religious have for believing is was God."
The impossibility of the natural, for one.
"going to need more then Jesus as the Jews and Muslims of the time just saw him as other prophet of their lord."
Not true. For one, there was no such thing as Muslims of the time. They came 600 years later. For another, the (non-believing) Jews didn't see him as another prophet; they despised him for claiming to BE God.
"Where's you proof that the rest of the bible is true?"
All over the place. That's such a broad question it can't have a simple answer.
"The great flood."
Massive sedimentation all around the world. Including many rock formations that have no time break between them. Billions of living things buried in those rock layers, which normal processes couldn't produce. Air gaps. Quickly-formed canyons, marine fossils on high mountains, and much more. Also, accounts of the flood from people groups all around the world.
"Earth and everything made in 6 days."
Radio-carbon dates that show that coal and diamonds are not as old as claimed, massive quantities of design in living things.
"The garden"
No external evidence of that, and you'd not expect it, given that the flood would have destroyed it.
"all of us coming from Adam and Eve."
The genetics show that we are all descended from one man and from one woman, defying evolutionists' expectations. More genetics is quite consistent with us all descending from Noah and his family.
"Where is the proof of that?"
The evidence of that is readily available for those willing to look for it. Or even those asking nicely for it without first showing their close-mindedness by asserting that it doesn't exist.
"how do I know the guy came back from the dead if only the bible said he came back form the dead?"
How do you know something happened if only the multiples sources documenting it said that it happened? Is that your question?
1
-
@emperordalektardis
"If you have read my post carefully (which you didn't) you will find that at no stage did I claim there is no evidence for God."
That was the clear implication of your comments, but yes, I will concede that you did not explicitly claim that. However, reading your post carefully, you didn't claim that the Christian didn't present any such evidence, but that he had no such evidence. So my challenge stands.
"And as for demanding evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt - think about it. What you appear to be advocating is for evidence that can be reasonably doubted."
What I am referring to is evidence that is more probably true than not. That is, more like a civil court case than a (biased) criminal court case. What's wrong with that?
"You really, really need to start thinking reasonably and logically."
I am.
"noticed that you didn't present any independently verifiable evidence that God exists."
In my reply to you? No, I didn't because you had not challenged me to support any claim I had made (which I hadn't in any case).
"If you have some, present it, ..."
You first. You made the opening claim, which I challenged, and you have not supported. Until you support your claim (or retract it), I have no obligation to support my claims. And by the way, in response to you at least, I made no such claims anyway. Which means that you didn't carefully read what I wrote!
1
-
@emperordalektardis
"STILL no evidence on your part."
So your reading comprehension is lacking? You seem to think that if I don't supply evidence, it MUST be because I can't. However, as I pointed out, "Until you support your claim (or retract it), I have no obligation to support my claims.". So there is a reason other than not having any, for not supplying evidence. Secondly, I also pointed out that "I made no such claims anyway".
Further, I notice that there is still no evidence on your part to the prior claim that you did make! So here we have a double standard, where you don't have to provide evidence of a claim you made, but I'm expected to provide evidence of a claim I didn't make!
"If you claim God exists then the burden of proof lies entirely on you."
As I said, I didn't make that claim, to you at least. So clearly you have a problem with understanding English, and, hypocritically, you're someone who accused me of not reading your post carefully!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@credenza1
"My point is that in doing so he does Indigenous people a double disservice - falsifying their history and judging their culture as deficient and in need of re-framing."
True, he is falsifying their history.
On your second point (which is something you infer of him), your argument relies on the concept that no culture is better than any other. But unless you have no standards by which to judge that, then that simply doesn't follow. If, for example, you judge it on success, then Western culture is far better, as it has been more successful (rule of law, technology, compassion for others, freedoms, etc. etc.).
If you adopt a standard like that, then it's true that their culture is deficient. Which then raises the question as to why that's the case, the answer to which may be not what most might assume.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@willdevine8266
"What left wing views are being pushed by educators?"
LGBT, imaginary racism, climate change alarmism, the role of governments, etc.
"No, these "speakers" arent conservatives. people like ben shapiro or stephen crowder who are incredibly popular commentators are openly fascist."
That's just you name-calling. Or can you actually, objectively, justify those claims?
"In the real world, Liberals, aka the democrats, are conservative."
Funny man.
"Most people have liberal world views. individual freedom and equality is something important to the overwhelming majority."
Yes, individual freedom and equality are important to most. But not to the left who push group ideology (e.g. you're an oppressor because you're white/male etc.) and who push "equity", which rejects equality of opportunity in favour of equality of outcomes.
"generally to come to a position on a topic requires someone to analyse multiple points of view. "conservatives" don't do this because they generally view things from a perspective of objective truth ..."
Yes, they come from the perspective of objective truth and therefore analyse multiple points of view in order to determine what that truth is. The left comes to a position on a topic partly by supporting the view of "what's true for you", not objective truth. They claim to follow the science, but ignore any evidence that doesn't fit their views.
"I've had my mind changed on subjects multiple times."
As have I. Because I go with the evidence.
"the things needed to change my mind, like tangible evidence, doesn't exist in the conservative world view."
Complete and utter baloney. As a conservative and a Christian, I have very often asked people on the left for evidence, and they rarely provide any.
1
-
@willdevine8266
"I'm going to do my best here to try to break down some of these issues that you would consider left wing."
Good. Getting down to specifics can only help.
"the reason why people on the left support the LGBT community…"
Okay. Before going further, let's recap. You said that people "aren't 'turned to the left' through education". I said that they are if it's a left-wing education. You questioned what that is, as though you didn't recognise the concept. I said that it's education that pushes left-wing views. You asked what left-wing views are being taught. I gave LGBT as an example.
So rather than dispute what I said, you tacitly agree that I was right and attempt to justify it.
"…because of the liberal view that everyone deserves equal rights."
They already had equal rights. The LGBT push is to force acceptance of the views and to push for special LGBT-specific rights.
"…marriage for example was a right not extended to the LGBT community…"
This is another lie of the left. No LGBT person was denied the right to marry. They were as entitled as everybody else to form a life-long union with a person who a) is not closely related, b) is of sufficient age, c) is not already married, and d) is not of the same sex. Those rules applied equally to everybody. It was not a matter of equal rights. It was a matter of wanting to change the definition, which they had no authority to do.
"…if you support equal rights, you support the LGBT community."
I support equal rights. That is, regardless of your views and lifestyle choices, the individuals have the same rights as everybody else. I support LGBT people's rights to safety, respect (as people), etc. I don't agree with their views, and I especially don't agree with their push to legitimise their illegitimate choices.
"If you want some people to NOT have equal rights because of who they are, you're a bigot by definition."
Then I guess I'm not a bigot.
"I'm going to make the assumption that by "imaginary racism" you are referring to the existence of systemic racism."
No, I'm referring to the myth that systemic racism even exists (in Australia at least). Yes, there are individual cases of racism, but it's not systemic. That's another lie of the left that is taught in the secular education system.
"For the record systemic racism is a provable fact to the point where if you want to study anything even relating to social science, understanding the impact of systemic racism on different demographics is paramount to understanding why groups are impacted differently in different socioeconomic conditions."
So it's a fact because it's important to understand why it exists? That's not evidence that it exists.
"The existence and impact of systemic racism has been proven time and time again by rigorous academic study…"
It's been debunked time and time again.
"…not whether or not it exists. that debate has been over for decades."
That's another lie of the left. Debate is not over just because everyone on the left agrees with it.
"This is similar to the systemic racism thing i mentioned earlier."
True. Another lie.
"if you actually have an understanding on how the academic community comes to conclusions on things, the way research is conducted, …"
I have an idea how it is supposed to happen, and also an idea of how it actually happens in some areas. Here is an example from the LGBT arena. The author is Christopher Dummit, who was a gender studies researcher. (The bolding is mine.)
------
"The problem is: I was wrong. Or, to be a bit more accurate, I got things partly right. But then, for the rest, I basically just made it up.
"In my defence, I wasn’t alone. Everyone was (and is) making it up. That’s how the gender-studies field works.
…
"I never engaged—at least not seriously—with anyone who suggested otherwise. And no one, at any point of my graduate studies, or in peer review, ever did suggest otherwise—except in conversations, usually outside of academia. And so I was never forced to confront alternative, biologically oriented explanations that were at least as plausible as the hypothesis that I’d dressed up with the air of certainty. Steven Pinker’s critique of social constructionism, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, was published in 2002 before I finished my PhD and before I published my book. Yet I hadn’t even heard of it, and no one ever suggested I might need to deal with its arguments and evidence. That alone should tell you a lot about the silo we all inhabited."
------
Continued...
1
-
@willdevine8266
...continued.
"…what types of evidence are valid vs invalid, what strong evidence is, etc. there is no conclusion that you can come to based on scientific evidence that suggests anything other than climate change is real, …"
And yet there are qualified scientists who do come to different conclusions.
"usually people's ideas on what the role of government is stems from their world view and since education tends to guide people towards liberal world views, that forms their belief in what governments should do."
Education tends to guide people towards liberal worldviews because the teachers have these left-wing views, and yes, that informs their beliefs—and their students' beliefs—on the role of government. The left thinks it's government's role to take care of everything. The other end of the spectrum thinks that the government should provide national defence, policing, and perhaps not too much more, and that individuals are responsible to take care of themselves (to perhaps oversimplify).
"There numerous examples of these conservative commentators being openly fascist."
And yet you show none.
"Shapiro has written articles where he is openly racist towards arabs and muslims."
So no actual evidence, despite you claiming that there are numerous examples. That's a fail.
"Shapiro consistently advocates for removing policies that actively make the country better according to all reliable sources, such as increasing the rate of immigration."
A loaded comment. "All reliable sources" sounds like a euphemism for left-wing sources. That's another non-example. Another fail.
"Shapiro actively misrepresents or ignores facts to push an agenda."
Another evidence-free claim. You're not good on actual evidence, are you?
"5. “They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest.” Check. I think this is pretty self explanatory."
Given no context of who "they" are, no, that's not self-explanatory. But searching where Shapiro said that, I find that, contrary to appearances, you've not quoted Shapiro at all on what a fascist is. It looks like you've copied from Quora (but added your own claims of just how that fits Shapiro). The "they" is "American fascists"!
So you've fallen for the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Bad people eat breakfast. Shapiro eats breakfast. Therefore Shapiro is a bad person.
This is because the source of the quotes (Henry Wallace) is not defining a fascist, but describing some of the actions of a fascist. The problem is that non-fascists might do the same things.
"…we can do a checklist on what an american fascist is. let's use ben shapiro…:"
I inferred from that that you were quoting Shapiro on what a fascist is, and attempting to show that he fit his own description. If I accepted Shapiro as being a knowledgeable conservative commentator, I couldn't reject his descriptions of a fascist. But in fact the descriptions are those of Henry Wallace, a leftist! A good dictionary definition would have been a better starting point.
"Democrats are neoliberals, ..."
I haven't yet found a formal name for the fallacy of repeating your claim as if to show that your claim is true.
"Equity means you gain equality of outcomes through equality of opportunity."
What if equality of outcomes comes from an inequality of opportunity? Or if an equality of opportunity leads to an inequality of outcomes? If an equality of opportunity leads in some cases to an inequality of outcomes, which one do you do away with? Because nobody is arguing that an equality of opportunity must not be allowed to result in an inequality of outcomes.
"the idea is that being white gives you an innate advantage over people of other races because the system was skewed in your favor for centuries."
Yet "the system" was controlled by those "white" people, which means that they oppressed the others. That's the way the argument goes.
"there is no such thing as objective truth."
So that statement is not objectively true? I love it when people make self-contradictory statements!
"there is no "the truth"."
So that statement is not the truth either! You've done it again!
"this is really the root cause of a lot of conflict."
Yes, this nonsense about no objective truth IS the cause of a lot of conflict.
"you for example believe in an objective truth, so you'll naturally reject any kind of evidence that doesn't support your objective truth."
Complete and utter nonsense. Because I believe in objective truth, I will reject things that the evidence shows to be wrong. I won't reject the evidence! (Of course it has to actually be evidence, not just claims.)
"…there are facts that are objectively true, but this doesnt mean that there is a single objective truth."
Who said anything about a single objective truth? I certainly didn't.
"I'd love to hear an example of a topic where you had your mind changed and what evidence lead you to changing your mind."
One that I recall wasn't a change of mind on evidence so much as on an explanation that made more sense. Having thought about it quite a bit, I used to think that a marriage wasn't a marriage until it was consummated. Then I was told that a marriage was a marriage based on a public declaration of commitment. I could instantly see the sense in that, and changed my mind without hesitation.
"…your entire belief system is rooted in believing in something without the need for tangible evidence."
The fallacy of that claim is that it's a strawman. It is simply false that Christianity "is rooted in believing in something without the need for tangible evidence." It actually teaches the opposite. All you're doing is quoting atheist myth.
Do you know why I like specifics? Because they are easier to prove wrong! (If they are wrong of course, but I'm talking about many arguments from leftists and atheists.)
1
-
@willdevine8266
"none of what you're describing are inherently left wing views."
They are views that the left wing holds and which conservatives don't hold (or tend not to), and you've argued that the left hold them because of their views, yet somehow you pretend that they are not "inherently" left wing views! How does that work?
"there are also people that arent left wing that support them."
I could almost say that if they support them, they are left wing. But that is a bit simplistic. Let's just say that the more you support them, the more you are left wing, allowing for some more centrists positions to also include some supporters.
"if you don't believe people in the LGBT community should be allowed to marry whoever they like, as you are, you're a bigot."
So does that mean that you're also a bigot, or do you think that they should be able to marry minors, marry people already married (i.e. bigamy), and marry close relatives (e.g. brother/sister or mother/son etc.)?
"Give me one study that debunks the existence of systemic racism."
I don't actually know of any off the top of my head. My basis for saying that was that I've not seen any sign of it, despite various claim that turn out to be false.
"even people like Ben Shapiro admit that systemic racism exists."
Where does he say that? I recall him saying the opposite, although what I've been able to find now has him saying that it depends on how it is defined.
"saying systemic racism isn't real is just you openly admitting that you're comfortable being intellectually dishonest."
Or that I sincerely believe it, but you'd rather invent bad motive.
"I think it's really interesting that you have chosen to ignore EVERY other gender studies professor and focus on the ONE that seems to conform with your views."
You apparently ignore that the one I cited says that they are "all" the same. Further, he gives an example to support the claim.
"the example you have given is also an interview, conducted by a magazine which is a perfect example of what would NOT be considered "good evidence" from an academic perspective."
The genetic fallacy of impugning the source in order to justify dismissing the evidence.
"your lack of ability to understand what would be considered good evidence, like a meta analysis, vs a magazine interview again shows your lack of formal education. "
Says the person who gives Shapiro as an example, but does not cite a single thing he says, let alone provide any sources. I gave an actual quote with a name, allowing you to check it out for yourself. You gave me nothing similar for Shapiro.
"500 qualified scientists saying "this is what we think" vs 1 qualified scientist saying "this is what I think" would lead a rational person to side with the 500 scientists."
You ignore the relevance of a whistleblower. 500 gender studies researchers saying that gender studies are legitimate is only to be expected and carries little weight. A gender studies researcher saying that the entire field is making things up carries significant weight.
"I literally broke down an example of Ben Shapiro being a fascist."
With no actual quotes, citations, or references.
"if you're expecting me to provide sources for every single thing i type out in a youtube comment you're beyond ridiculous."
If you think me asking for evidence means you have to provide sources for "every single thing" you type, you're attacking a strawman.
And if you think that not providing any sources or even verbatim quotes that I can search for amounts to providing evidence, you're the one with the problem.
"If you want sources for specific things you can look them up yourself."
Sure. If I know exactly what to look for. But as I said, you didn't give anything to go on.
"Watch Shapiro's BBC interview with British conservative Andrew Neil for examples of his open racism."
Okay, I will, as long as it's not too long. Otherwise I'd expect information on where in it to look. Hang on... Okay, found it, and watched it, as it was only 16 minutes long. I saw no racism. The only thing that came close was an old tweeted reference to Arabs which Shapiro said was meant to be a reference to Hamas and Palestinians who support Hamas. Hamas is not a race. Neither is Palestinian. And from that interview (as Shapiro himself correctly noted), Neil did not come over as a conservative. So again, your evidence doesn't stack up.
"Neo-liberalism is a conservative ideology. this is basic political science."
"Honestly, it's very obvious you arent someone with any form of academic background."
Address my arguments, not what you think my background is. That's mere ad hominem, as was much of the rest of that paragraph.
"you literally talk about objective truth then say there are multiple objective truths."
Yes, there are multiple things that are objectively true. What's wrong with that?
"I'm glad that im not like you and am very grateful for the opportunities i had through academia to develop my own world view."
Is that what your education taught you to think?
1
-
@willdevine8266
"They aren't political views or opinions."
Because you say so?
"I don't think you understand what a bigot is."
I asked a question based on your definition. I notice that you didn't answer it. Why not?
"bigot = i want some people to have more rights than other people."
And you want special LGBT rights, correct? So that makes you a bigot, right?
"In his video debunking systemic racism..."
So you now say that he rejects it? That was a quick change of tune!
"...gives two seperate definitions of systemic racism and says one exists while the other doesnt. that means he admits that some form of systemic racism does exist."
So which video is this? Again, you don't give specifics. If it's the video "Ben Shapiro DEBUNKS Viral 'Systemic Racism Explained' Video", then no, he does not say that one exists and the other doesn't. Or is it the video "Does Systemic Racism Exist in the United States Today? Ben Shapiro and Dr. Walter Williams Discuss"? In that he does say that it's true that past racism is still having an effect, but denies that the other definition is true.
"you can't sincerely believe something without producing evidence..."
I encounter lots of people who do that! Including someone named Will Devine.
"...evidence that systemic racism is not causing any issues in society. "
Systemic racism can't cause any issues in society if it doesn't exist.
"...you're believing in something with no evidence."
I'm believing in the non-existence of something because I've seen no evidence of it, and have seen claims that fail to check out. Of course if you can produce some good evidence that it does exist, that is something that I will have to consider.
"again, a magazine interview is not academic evidence."
Neither is anything you're telling me, but you still expect me to count it as evidence. So that's just an excuse.
"why would 1 person saying something carry more weight than 500 people saying something."
For the reason I gave. Why did you ignore that bit?
"Andrew Niel is quite literally a long serving member of the British conservative party."
I explicitly said that I was only making an assessment on the basis of that interview. Perhaps he is conservative in other ways. Also, I've had American conservatives tell me that I'm not a conservative because I'm not as conservative as them. It seems to mean different things in different places. But there is also a problem with many in conservative parties not being that conservative.
"If you can't see why Shapiro's tweet is racist, you're understanding of racism is severely lacking."
Argument by insult. Therefore not an argument. And you haven't even bothered trying to show how that makes him racist.
"you havn't really made arguments. you're just disagreeing."
The onus is on you to defend your claims that I challenged. Not on me to refute them.
"You can't have multiple different objective truths. then they arent objectively true."
Nonsense. Is it objectively true that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius in the air pressure at sea level? It is objectively true that Australia and Canada are two different countries? How does one being objectively true mean that the other one can't be?
"There is a difference between being taught what to think vs being taught how to think."
I know. That was the point of my comment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@turnerfamilyinozi
"She wasn't debating."
Not in the sense of taking part in a formal debate. But in the sense that she was giving one side of an argument (the other side having already had plenty of airtime, then she was.
"Why did you god supposedly make homosexual animals including humans."
What makes you think He did?
"You could also google 'evolution observed in real time'."
I could. And to humour you I did. The first two links that came up were a) to a Harvard Gazette article about Lenski's experiment, and b) a Business Insider article "12 examples of evolution happening right now"
The problem is, what do you/they/I mean by "evolution"? What creationists disagree with is primarily goo-to-you evolution, as in the evolutionary 'family tree' from a single-celled organism to the range of living things we have today. What is sometimes cited as 'evolution' is a change in frequency of alleles. The latter IS observed, and accepted by creationists. If accepting that means that you believe in evolution, then every creationist is an evolutionist! But clearly that's not what the disagreement is about.
In Lenski's experiment, an already-existing ability to digest citrate in limited circumstances became an ability to digest it in more circumstances, but at the same time a reduced ability to digest glucose. This is not the sort of change that supports goo-to-you evolution.
The other article was no better.
* Adaptation of bedbugs, but no evidence that they have acquired novel abilities.
* Two species of mouse mating and the offspring supposedly gaining a resistance to warfarin, an ability that the article admits one of the parent species already had. So no evidence there of evolution.
* Acquiring genes from their food, but no evidence of creating novel genes.
* Variation in dogs, but they are still dogs, there's no evidence of creating novel genes.
* Dogs reverting to being closer to their wolf-like ancestors, but again no evidence of creating novel genes.
* The peppered moth claims which a) have long been shown to be nothing more than a change in population levels, and b) were claimed as evidence of evolution using staged photographs.
* A hybrid of the coyote and wolf, with no evidence of creating novel genes.
* Bacteria supposedly gaining resistance to antibiotics, when it's already known that some of the populatino already have the resistance, so when the antibiotics kill the non-resistant ones, only the resistant ones remain. Again, not only no evidence of creating novel genes, but actual evidence that the resistance already existed.
* Fish that supposedly gained resistance to a poison, but as even the article mentions, some already had the resistance, so this is the same non-argument as the bacteria.
* Cane toads that adapated to their environment, but with no evidence of creating novel genes.
* A worm that also supposedly gained resistance, to a pesticide, but no evidence that some didn't already have that resistance.
* An example of supposed DEvoloution, i.e. losing traits. You don't go from a single cell to complex creatures by losing traits.
So no, no actual evidence of evolution being "observed in real time" in either of those articles.
And by the way, this is pretty basic stuff, so if you're unaware of what the creationists are actually claiming, then you're arguing from a position of ignorance. Before you try to take down a view, you really need to understand what that view actually is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
One reason to keep the states is so that we can have 'competition' (for good government) in the country. If the one state government now does something we don't like, we can point to another state and say "see, they can succeed without doing that", whereas if there is only one government, that can't happen.
The U.S. is a good example, where we can point to, say, Florida to show that what California, for example, is doing, is not the only way to go.
1
-
1
-
@canoecide728
"Calling for celibacy is insane."
Why's that? It's an option, and one that a lot of people take.
"Homosexual relationships don't harm anyone."
Evidence please.
"There's no reason not to have sex just because it isn't straight sex,..."
Apart from it being immoral, because it's against the way that we are designed.
"...if two people are in a relationship in there own home there's no feasible way that could cause harm."
Even if they somehow manage to keep it completely private, it's self-harm to go against the way that they were designed to be.
"Gender is, by definition different from biological sex ..."
Yes, one is biological and the other is imaginary. And yes, I know that it is defined that way. But then that definition is ignored. If they are different, then why can you change your sex on your birth certificate to match your supposed gender? Why do people want to play in sports designated for the other sex based on their gender? Why do people want to use toilets designed for the other sex based on their gender? Why do they expect people to use sex-based pronouns to fit their gender? Yes, it's defined differently, but treated as the same thing. The very argument is deceptive.
"If you want to dig your head in the sand and ignore the definition ..."
I'm not digging my head into the sand. I'm pointing out that the definition is deceptive, because most people—including ones who spout the definition—don't actually abide by it.
"...but don't dig your toes into the ground when people use the correct form."
They are not using the correct form when they ignore their own definition!
1
-
@canoecide728
"It is not my burden to provide evidence against the harms of homosexuality,..."
Incorrect. It IS your burden to provide evidence for a claim that you have made, and you made that claim.
"...it is up to you to show me evidence that it is."
Only if I made the claim that it is, and I am challenged on that claim. But you have not met the prior challenge to support your claim.
"If we are designed that way then why are people gay?"
If planes are designed to fly, why do they sometimes crash? Answer: Sometimes things go wrong. People are designed to see colours, but I have a problem distinguishing some colours, as I have the common fault of being red/green colourblind.
"Surely if there is some design ... then why can people choose to be LGBTQ+?"
Because people have free will. We are also supposed to be caring and not hurt others, but some people are uncaring and do hurt others anyway, because they have the ability to do what they are not supposed to do.
"...(which I don't believe is true, we are a product of our own evolution)
Except that we are not. Evolution requires massive amounts of new genetic information to go from a single-celled creature to the humans (and all the other living things), and not only is there no known mechanism for doing that, we have observed that the information degrades, i.e. goes in the opposite direction to what evolution requires. This is consistent with an original good design that is deteriorating.
"Here in WA you cannot change your sex, you can get a different "Gender Recognition Certificate" that officially recognises you as a trans person but your birth SEX still remains the same."
That may be the case in WA, but in some other places, including Victoria, you can change your sex on your birth certificate. So my question stands.
"Because why not?"
Because, according to you, sex and gender are different, and the sport is based on sex.
"At that level the difference in performance between biological men and women is so little that its nigh on inexistent when hormones and such are factored in."
That's nonsense. There are many examples of biological men of average ability winning women's competitions. But it also avoids the question: if sex and gender are different, why are they treated the same when it comes to sport?
"There exists a false narrative in which there is this idea of a massive burly 6"7 man with false eyelashes going into these poor dainty little women's sports and messing them up."
I've never heard that narrative in those precise (strawman?) terms. But there ARE accounts of men (complete with male genitals) going into women's changing rooms and the women having to see them naked, and having to be naked in front of them. That is not a false narrative.
"At the top levels of sports its someone of any height who has been taking hormone blockers to reduce any hormones that would give them an advantage."
In many cases there is no requirement to take hormone blockers in order to participate. Further, that doesn't change that they have the bodies (skeletal structure, etc.) of men. And again, this is you trying to justify equating gender with sex: the competitions remain women's competitions, and they are biologically not women, but you think that doesn't matter, even though you claim that sex and gender are different.
"There are no trans people going transitioning to get an advantage so they can win there sport."
I don't know most of their motives, so I can't say for sure that's incorrect, but there have been many claims of that being their motive, so can you please provide evidence that it never is? Further, it still avoids the key point that you claim that gender and sex are different, but your example is of people acting as though they are the same.
"The toilets are based for the other gender, ..."
No, they are based on the other SEX! That's my point. But, here you go, trying to justify why sex and gender are two different things by citing an example of people equating them!
"...they want to use toilets because using the other bathroom may make them uncomfortable."
Oh, the poor diddums. What about the people they make uncomfortable by doing that?
"They may have gone through gender reassignment surgery ..."
That might justify this one a bit. But many others haven't, so that answer doesn't work for the majority. Further, if gender and sex are different, why change the appearance of their sex in the first place? It's as though they think that gender and sex must align, contradicting your claim that they are considered two different things!
"...and will, for all intents and purposes be their chosen gender."
Huh? According to you they already were their chosen gender, because gender is not the same as sex. What you really mean there is that, they will, for all intents and purposes, be their chosen sex. But of course that means that you're treating them as the same thing, despite claiming that they are different.
"They are defined differently and treated differently."
False. I have shown that they are treated the same, and some of your responses show you treating them the same, as I have documented above.
"Sex is ONLY what you are assigned at birth, ..."
That is a flat out lie. Sex is NOT "assigned at birth". Sex is determined at conception, based on chromosomes. It used to be that the sex became known at birth, but with the invention of ultrasound technology, we can now determine it well before birth. The claim that sex is assigned at birth is complete and utter nonsense, and one of the stupidest and most blatant lies of the trans lobby. Perhaps they are working on the principle of "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
"...gender is everything else which, as far as most reasonable people are concerned you can choose to change."
Yes, people can choose to change various characteristics about themselves, but no, gender is not everything else. There are many, many examples of women being different to men (on average) in numerous ways. One example is that when navigating in a car, men tend to use maps and women tend to use landmarks. But there will be men who prefer landmarks and women who use maps. That does not mean that those men are female gender nor that the women are male gender. It's just that those differences are on average.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@killbotone6210
"There are many."
Name some ...
"Take your pick from over 100 other Religons and countless Secular Ethics. It's really easy."
... and show how they are superior.
"God/s."
No, God, singular. There can only be one supreme being. More than one and neither/none is supreme.
"Australias was the English version of whats commonly referred to as Christianity although it's a form of Protestant Christianity that allows sex before marriage, divorce and abortion."
Biblical Protestant Christianity does not endorse any of those things. You are probably confused by people who call themselves Christian but who don't follow Christ's teaching properly.
"Who is my enemy??"
Anyone who attacks you, and that may not be physically.
"Which version of a God are you talking about??"
Which claimant for the title? The God of the Bible.
"There's about 140 last time I checked. Probably more now."
And yet I've only heard of a handful. Many claimants for the title don't qualify. None of the known Greek 'gods' for instance was ever considered the supreme one. In fact they had a statue "to the unknown God" because they realised that there logically must be one greater than all the ones they knew.
"Everything that happens happens with your version of a God/s say so."
It's not clear what you're trying to say there, but it doesn't sound right.
"So are you saying all humans born before the Bible was written are now in hell because they never learned about your version of a God? Wow."
I'm not sure what Jill is saying, but no. People knew about God before the Bible was complete.
"But that's not your God,Jill. That was done by a different God. A loving God."
I don't know what your reasoning is there, but the one God, who is loving, is the One who created the world. Jill is correct on that.
"Then why does he choose to give babies cancer?"
He doesn't. And this shows major ignorance of Christianity and what the Bible teaches. God created a world without death, suffering disease, etc. But man rejected God, so God withdrew somewhat, and as a consequence, things began to run down. And with that deterioration death and suffering and disease have come in. Including cancer. But that was not the way God created things to be.
1
-
@jillstevenson9585
"Yes, all religions appear to have a common base value system and God."
No, they don't. There are, for example, atheist religions.
"Which one was Australia built on?"
I realise that your question is rhetorical, but Christianity.
"And before colonisation, who was BAAIMEE?"
An aboriginal name for the creator.
"Allah Muslim"
Allah is actually the Arabic name for God, but as the Quran was written in Arabic, it, and therefore Muslims, use that name.
"That's a really hard question.."
Not really. God created a good world, but it's been corrupted by The Fall. Cancer is not God's doing, but the result of sin. He was blaming the wrong thing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oliverbranok9898
"..not that's as unscientific as it gets, testing takes years, ..."
That doesn't change the vaccines are, in principle, good things. That criticism can only be lodged against very new ones, such as the covid ones. I was referring to vaccines in general.
"...testing takes years, ..."
Vaccines are required to go through several rounds of testing. The first and second rounds were completed before they were made available. The third round is basically a long-term round. That one was not completed at the time (but since has been), but the vaccines had passed the first and second rounds of testing. Claims that the vaccines were "untested" were simply false. What would have been accurate is to say that they were not fully tested. And that, I agree, is one reason to not force people to take them. But the risk run by releasing them before the final stage was considered lesser than the risk of people dying in the meantime.
"...the fact that they are keeping what's inside the vaxx a secret,..."
I'm not sure that's correct. We actually have a fairly good idea of what's in them.
"...not to mention that you had to sign a no liability clause, what, that didn't make you think."
No, because that sort of thing is fairly routine. Freeing the companies of liability only applies, I believe, to the risk of a small percentage of the population having a bad reaction. It would not absolve them of negligence or malfeasance. All drugs can have side effects, even fatal. When you have an operation under anaesthetic, there is a (very small) risk that you won't wake up. It happens.
"Now add to that the large number of adverse effects, ..."
That there is a large number is disputed.
"...and I know a few personally,..."
You need proper studies, not anecdotal evidence, for this sort of thing.
"You are a fool."
No, I'm not. I believe that a lot of the government hype of the disease (and to a much smaller extent, the vaccine) was fake news (e.g., "it doesn't discriminate", when it was well known to affect some people more than others), but then a lot of the opposition to it was also fake news, with some really bizarre conspiracy theories out there. I made a carefully-considered decision, being careful to not believe everything I heard (from both sides), and being careful to take notice of reliable sources.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@toddsmith7199
"Relentless daily barrage of lies during Covid to justify lockdowns,..."
I don't agree. Yes, there were a lot of lies around covid (from both sides of the debate), but the lockdowns were done by the states, not (for the most part at least) by the federal government. Morrison set up a special cabinet with state representative, and then felt obliged to support those states' decisions, but the lies were mostly not coming from him.
"...vaccine passports,..."
If you're talking about vaccine certificates required to visit some businesses, then again that was the states. If you're talking about not being able to leave the country, then Morrison is the one to blame there.
"...an unprecedented amount of money money printing that has left us in a state of Stagflation that will last untill the end of the decade."
It's reasonable to spend more money to fight an emergency. When you're fighting a bushfire, for example, you don't stop to think about how much water you're using. So I give him some leeway there. Further, a lot of that money was to help people adversely affected by state (not federal) decisions.
"He wasn't remotely conservative at all."
If that was true, he would have gone along with the ALP that wanted him to spend even more money. So no, I don't agree on that either.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ProfoundThinker-c5z
"Can you point me to a positive US intervention that outweighs the impact of the 2003 U.S-led invasion of Iraq,..."
I said that it wasn't all disastrous. I made no claim about outweighing anything.
"The main point of the parable is that those who you would expect to stop and help did not, and that an individual that you would not expect to help did."
Not so. The parable was in response to a question to Jesus about who one's neighbour is, because Jesus said to love your neighbour as yourself. Helping someone you don't like was an example of loving your neighbour as yourself. That is the main point.
"In this case, as the cries for US intervention demonstrate, there is still an expectation that the US will intervene."
I'm not arguing whether it's right to expect US intervention. I'm saying that it's right for the US to help where it can.
"An intervention by Israel, for example, would be more consistent with the parable."
Again, I'm not arguing that it being right to help applies only to the U.S. It applies to all of us, but including the U.S.
"Help your own citizens first before you help the rest of the world."
Growing up, I was taught that the way to have JOY was to put
J esus first,
O thers second, and
Y ourself last.
Obviously, however, you can only help others if you're in a fit state to do so, and in that sense, I agree with helping your own citizens first. But that shouldn't stop you also helping others.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The problem with many of these people who are standing up and saying that we need to preserve what made the West great is that they don't themselves know what that is. Sociologist Rodney Stark:
“Christianity created Western Civilization. Had the followers of Jesus remained an obscure Jewish sect, most of you would not have learned to read and the rest of you would be reading from hand copied scrolls. Without a theology committed to reason, progress, and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800: A world with many astrologers and alchemists but no scientists. A world of despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys, and pianos. A world where most infants do not live to the age of five and many women die in childbirth–a world truly living in "dark ages." ”
And yet we have atheists, such a Rita at least, saying that we should preserve what made the West great! I love the desire. But how can they possibly succeed when they don't understand the problem?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MayYourGodGoWithYou
"Nothing to do with religion, as far as I can find out it was almost certainly influenced by the opportunity to make money,..."
Sorry, what specifically is "it"? The first abolition of slavery? The second abolition of slavery? The return of it by atheists? You've no been clear. Further, I didn't mention "religion". That's a term that, even as used by atheists, covers a very wide range of theistic views, and strictly speaking, can also include other (i.e. atheistic) views such as Secular Humanism and Marxism. I did make reference to Christianity (which many Christians reject as being a religion), the only religion to have twice abolished slavery (Jeremiah J. Johnstone, Unimaginable, p.182-183).
"Given slavery was definitely still in existence prior to William's declaration ..."
Which William are you referring to there?
1
-
@petegarnett7731
"William Wilberforce was one of the many that later worked to abolish slavery throughout the rest of the world."
And in Britain. Slavery had been effectively abolished in Christian Europe much earlier than than Wilberforce. Sociologist/historian Rodney Stark:
“Slavery ended in medieval Europe only because the church extended its sacraments to all slaves and them managed to impose a ban on the enslavement of Christians (and of Jews). Within the context of medieval Europe, that prohibition was effectively a rule of universal abolution”
But in the so-called 'enlightenment', atheist views arise that allowed slavery to return, and in 1772 there were said to be 14,000 slaves in England. From a biography of Wilberforce:
"The case [in 1772] concerned an African man name Somerset who had been brought from Virginia to London as a slave and who now ... was demanding his freedom. The judge, one Lord Mansfield, didn't want to rule on the case, because he knew what its implications would be. The nature of the case was such that if Mansfield declared this fellow free on English soil, the fourteen thousand other slaves in England would effectively be legally freed too..."
Wilberforce's first legislative success was to stop the slave trade, which was enforced by the Royal Navy being given orders to declare any slave ship as a pirate ship. So yes, he did cause it to be stopped in various other countries (but not the entire world). His second success, shortly before he died, was to have slavery itself made illegal, thereby freeing the slaves. And yes, I believe that this did include the entire British Commonwealth (so again, including England, but not the entire world).
1
-
@MayYourGodGoWithYou
"Nobody else abolished slavery in the 11th C as far as I know..."
Perhaps not, but that was not the issue (and see further below). Slavery returned during the so-called 'enlightenment' and was (again) abolished by Wilberforce (with a team of people behind him). And he did so on explicitly Christian grounds.
But the history of slavery is not black and white. First, there are shifting definitions of what constitutes slavery. Second, there were decrees that were not always followed, at least fully. Third, slavery might wane and grow in different periods for a number of reasons.
I cited Jeremiah J. Johnstone before, but now I'll give you a quote from him:
"William banned the slave trade and in some cases freed slaves, to the extent that by the end of his reign their number had fallen by 25 per cent.
...
"...as far back as our available sources take us, philosophers, politicians, and playwrights expressed racist opinions and dogmas. But starting in the fourth century, widespread racism ended for hundreds of years. Why was this?
"That's when the Christian movement emerged as a dominant cultural force in the Roman Empire, and the bold socio-theological statement "There is neither Jew nor Greek"[ref: Galatians 3:28] took hold. Unfortunately, racist ideology, and with it justification for slavery in the West, reemerged in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries."
Then there's Rodney Stark ( The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success, Random House, 2005, p.29):
“Slavery ended in medieval Europe only because the church extended its sacraments to all slaves and then managed to impose a ban on the enslavement of Christians (and of Jews). Within the context of medieval Europe, that prohibition was effectively a rule of universal abolution”
It's also the case that a number of popes condemned slavery, although how successful they were in stopping it might be another matter. This is from a online article:
"For 500 years, through pope after pope, the Church has set forth a consistent, clear and unwavering denunciation of slavery. It amounts to a striking record of leadership in social justice, yet one that is known to few people, both within and outside of the Church.
"In his new book, "The Popes and Slavery" ... Father Joel Panzer pulls together-for the first time -a fascinating account of this history. From Pope Eugene IV in 1435 protesting the capturing for slavery of natives of the Canary Islands, through Leo XIII urging Brazilian bishops to work for the abolition of slavery, popes have stood together, reinforcing the condemnations issued by their predecessors.
"They march through the centuries- Paul III, Gregory XIV, Urban VIII, Innocent XI-issuing 10 documents in all. Their opposition was so strong that several imposed excommunication on those who would not desist from the sale and oppression of human beings.
...
"Adding to the problem was that these teachings were often misinterpreted, willfully misunderstood or ignored. "Again and again, they [bishops, priests and religious orders] simply were not teaching what the popes taught," Father Panzer explained." (square brackets in original)
This is from someone on an online forum citing a book on the topic:
"The book to consult is David Pelteret's Slavery in Early Medieval England
"Pelteret does an excellent job of really deeply digging into what defines a slave as a slave and the ways in which the various legal, economic, political, religious, and social circumstances behind slavery changed between the ninth and the twelfth century.
"Obviously the Norman Conquest (as I noted above) had a major impact on all of these circumstances, but it was by no means the sole actor in the shift from Anglo-Saxon slavery to Anglo-Norman/English medieval servility.
"Already before the appearance of the Normans we can observe a slow growth of manorial practice in England with the attendant servility that comes with it (things like work obligations). Freemen were becoming tied to the land and at the same time we see an ongoing interest in manumission (freeing of slaves) brought about probably both for economic (for instance it is cheaper to let serfs feed themselves and support their own family on land that you own than to provide for them actively) and religious reasons (i.e. it is spiritually beneficial to free slaves).
"It is also worth noting that as England became more and more unified and "pacified" the central producer of new slaves, i.e. warfare and conflict, thus also began to wane.
"What the Norman Conquest does is effectively speed up a process that was already taking place as England became more and more influenced by Roman (i.e. continental) law and by continental land holding practices. The institution of entirely new land holding practices and legal practices per-force across the whole of England rapidly transformed the already waning practice of slavery. As Pelteret puts it, it was a "shock to the body politic." By the year 1200 slavery was essentially gone in England, though of course servility continued."
A BBC History page says "William banned the slave trade and in some cases freed slaves, to the extent that by the end of his reign their number had fallen by 25 per cent."
I'm not arguing that William the Conqueror (a Christian) was not a factor in that long ongoing process. But he was not the only one, and there was more slavery after his time.
1
-
1
-
@purplepoppyz
"chattel slavery was always illegal in the UK."
And yet there were slaves. Okay, maybe there's some nuance there, say around the type of slavery, but it did exist, as I have already documented.
"the ruling by Mansfield was an important case that showed that chattel slavery was illegal in the UK and that no one could be taken out of the UK as a possession."
According to an article "THE SOMERSET V STEWART CASE", "Mansfield tried various ways to avoid hearing the case. Initially, he tried to persuade Steuart to free Somerset, as had happened on similar occasions, but Steuart refused. The West Indian planters who financed the defence also refused all offers to settle out of court. As a last resort Mansfield tried to persuade Somerset’s godmother to buy him, but she refused on principle. Resigned to the case proceeding and aware of its potential impact, Mansfield declared, ‘if the parties will have judgment, fiat Justitia ruat coelum [let justice be done though the heavens fall]’."
"Somerset’s case was immediately seen as a test of the legality of slavery in England,..."
I'm not arguing that it was completely legal. I'm pointing out that slavery did exist in England at the time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@purplepoppyz
"It was not only not completely legal, it was 100 % illegal."
And yet ...
a) My main point was that it existed, legal or not.
b) I cited a source that said that there was legal ambiguity.
"The case proved that point which is why it was such a landmark case."
You're really saying that the case removed that ambiguity. And while I'm not saying it didn't, I repeat from the quote, "Mansfield, didn't want to rule on the case, because he knew what its implications would be." He is also said to have tried to limit his ruling just to Somerset.
"You do know the difference between chattel slavery and things such as indentured servitude etc?"
Yes.
"This nonsense about the Irish being slaves is just that, nonsense."
I'm not surprised.
"It was not legal to kill an irish worker nor to sell their children. You reduce what chattel slavery was when claiming that."
Then it's just as well that I didn't claim that, isn't it?
"I find it interesting that all the focus is on British empire and slavery but no interest in the Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch etc empires."
That may be just where this particular conversation has gone given events in the news, etc.
"The Catholic Church was up to its neck in colonising etc but strangely rarely mentioned."
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Colonisation is done by nations, not churches. And various popes, at least in the last 500 years, rejected slavery, even if locally those edicts weren't always followed.
"Of course the slavery by Arabs, Africans, Barbary pirates etc also receives little attention 🤔 Chattel slavery that is going on today, such as in Mauritania in Northwest Africa, also receives no attention."
True.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, there are some historical accounts that tell it like it was. But the other side of the coin is as Louisa Watt said, and also how much of a positive influence the Bible has been on the world. It was people who read (and believed) the Bible who founded public hospitals, many charities, universal education, the university system, and science, and who spread democracy, promoted human rights, twice abolished slavery, and elevated the status of women. Banning it in schools is a terrible over-reaction, if anything helping to justify anti-biblical attitudes such as the Marxist nonsense that has lead to having sexualising influences in schools.
1
-
The problem goes back further. Capitalism is a consequence of freedom, which is a result of Christianity. Christianity is the basis of Western Civilisation, as many scholars have concluded (ask me for evidence if you don't believe me). Christianity has been under attack for the last few centuries, and that attack is increasing. In the West, we've recently(?) got to the point where the Christian message has been sufficiently undermined that the anti-Christian forces are are now in ascendancy, and so we have all these anti-Christian/Western messages dominating.
Christians don't believe in forcing Christianity on people (we can't; Christianity is about what we think, not how we act), but we also don't believe in suppressing it, but what we are seeing is the consequence of many forces in the media, the education system, governments, etc. suppressing Christian views.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@daanper8994
"It's Far worse than every porn ever producted"
And yet you don't say why the book that inspired public hospitals, many charities, compassion for strangers, the abolition of slavery, universal education, the university system, science, the elevation of women, the spread of democracy, and much more is somehow worse. Like Killbotone, you're being disingenuous in making a claim without providing any evidence to back it up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davem3325
"NO, The commenter stated that jesus loves all, BUT his dad "god" is famous for being the world worst murderer"
Only in the minds of atheists. He wasn't the world's worst murderer. (And Jesus IS God.)
"what about the millions children in poverty? why doesn't he send them food and shelter?"
Why should He? He's not responsible for their poverty. Humans are. Humans who have told God that we don't want him. And yet, God does help, often working through people, and there are many Christians and Christian organisations (far more than the odd atheist groups) that do just the sort of thing you mention.
"it doesn't matter if jesarse loves anything, the fact is, he does noting to help anyone!"
What is your evidence that He does nothing? There's an old story about a bloke whose house was surrounded by flood waters. So he prayed to God to save him. Soon after, another person came by on a horse, wading through the water, and offered to take the bloke to safety, but he declined, as he trusted God to save him. The flood waters were continuing to rise, and a while after, rescuers came by in a boat, and told him to get in, but again he declined, as he trusted God to save him. With the flood getting deeper, he climbed onto the roof of his house. A little while later a helicopter arrived overhead and they lowered a ladder for him to climb, but he refused for the same reason. The waters rose more, and he drowned. Arriving in heaven, he challenged God: "I trusted you to save me, but you didn't. You let me drown". God replied, "I sent a man on a horse, rescuers in a boat, and a helicopter. What else did you want me to do?"
As I mentioned, God's people are doing a lot for those children. So what is your evidence that God is doing nothing?
"maybe a few, but its NOT JESUS that feeds them its PEOPLE!"
Which, as I've pointed out, doesn't mean that Jesus isn't behind it. Author Roy Hattersley wrote a biography of the Booths, who founded the Salvation Army (one of those many Christian groups helping others). He said (my emphases),
“I’m an atheist. But I can only look with amazement at the devotion of the Salvation Army workers. I’ve been out with them on the streets and the way they work amongst the people, the most deprived and disadvantaged and sometimes pretty repugnant characters. But they look after them as best they can. I don’t believe they would do that were it not for the religious impulse. I often say I never hear of atheist organizations taking food to the poor. You don’t hear of ‘Atheist Aid’ rather like Christian aid, and, I think, despite my inability to believe myself, I’m deeply impressed by what belief does for people like the Salvation Army.”
So your turn. Where's your evidence that God is "doing noting (sic) to help anyone"?
1
-
@davem3325
"starving children around the world who prey to their imaginary god and get nothing in return."
First, that's a sweeping generalisation. Second, that does not mean that He's doing nothing.
"which god, there are over 2000 of them?"
No, there can only be one supreme being and creator of the universe. Yes, there might be lots of claimaints, but most don't actually fit the requirement. Thor, for example, was the offspring of other 'gods', so was not supreme.
"you still provide no proof"
Of what?
"... you can NEVER prove you imaginary god exists!"
NOBODY can prove that something imaginary exists! But then God is not imaginary, and many people have proved His existence.
What is your evidence that nobody can prove that God exists?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sumduma55
"lol.. a hypothesis is an inference."
Yeah. What was I thinking? I even looked it up to check, but must have confused it with a different word.
"However, if they are not testable, they simply aren't scientific."
I don't disagree. That's one reason to reject the naturalistic view, evolution.
"Scientifically speaking though. A devolution of information as stated within your context can be explained without the existence of any God."
A "devolution" of information??
"Virus for instance can inject their own DNA code affecting new states of DNA."
What does "affecting new states of DNA" mean? Yes, viruses can inject their own DNA, but that is existing information, not new information.
"...it us an example of a mechanism available to negate the necessity of a higher power."
I said that information only comes from an intelligence. The scientists working on covid have intelligence.
"I'm simply keeping science and philosophy separate as they should be."
Science is based on philosophy. I agree that they are not the same thing, though.
"...the scientific process requires the ability to test."
I never suggested otherwise.
"The actions of a supernatural being cannot really be tested."
The results often can be though. So if, hypothetically, God created a great flood that natural forces could not initiate, you can test for the existence of that flood.
1
-
@jimkettles2134
"as disgusting as your comment sounds..."
It doesn't sound disgusting. And certainly not as disgusting as killing innocent babies.
"you haven't explained trauma, life threatening injuries ... "
I didn't respond to the bit because I wasn't sure what you meant by it. The word is used for a wide variety of situations.
"if giving birth is liable to kill mother and visa versa."
What is "visa versa (sic)" in this case?
But to answer your question, that is the only situation in which it's acceptable to end the life of the baby, on the grounds that (a) one of them is going to die anyway, so it's not a question of taking a life, but of which one is taken, and (b) it would often be the case that it's not possible to save the baby at the expense of the mother, as if the mother dies the baby will die too.
However, the goal here is not to kill the baby, but to save the mother's life, the death of the baby being an unavoidable consequence of that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pants15
A Bible verse could well be a good idea here. Perhaps Acts 17:26: "he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth," or Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[a] nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." But I don't see that the OP's verse is relevant here.
"that people are being used to enact a seemingly all powerful deities will,"
He IS all powerful, else He wouldn't be God.
"in this act of genocide and worse infanticide are they not committing as or more evil acts than those they kill?"
If you don't accept God, then on what basis do you call something "more evil"? Your opinion?
"Then theres also the flawed morality of sins of the father..."
Or the flawed understanding of that. A lot of the grief we endure is a consequence of actions rather than directed. So many believe that the verses you're referring to are indicating that the children, grandchildren, etc. of a sinner will suffer the consequences of the sin. Other verses say that it really depends on who is sinning. For example, in Ezekial 18:19-20 it says "When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."
" then theres the ridiculous command that the animals need to die too."
And yet you don't say why it's ridiculous or appear to show any understanding of the reasoning behind it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bobhawke7373
"Yeah fact changes as you uncover fact."
Nope. Facts never change.
"Don't you believe the earth was created 6000 years ago..."
Yes, because I go with the evidence.
"..or some nonsense?"
No, I don't believe the nonsense that you do.
"We used to know the indigenous had been here at least 40,000 years."
Rather, most people used to believe that. And then it was 50,000 years, and then 60,000 years, or whatever the numerous ages were. The facts didn't change. The claims did.
"Kind of like how we now know of the internal combustion engine and the wheel but not that long ago you we had to walk. We discovered something."
Except that we didn't "discover" the internal combustion engine and the wheel. We invented them. So you're right. It's just like that—we invented those ages too! 😝
"And what do you care anyway?"
Because I care for the truth. But actually, that was a passing comment, and not the main point of my reply, yet that's the only bit you responded to for some reason.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@harrisonw6065
Sorry to hear that it's totally gone (I gather).
I'm not looking for criticism of a PragerU video. I know that there's plenty of criticism out there. But from what I've seen, it's mostly just people disagreeing because they have a different worldview.
My challenge was because you claimed that one could find multiple errors in "any" PragerU video. So the other videos critical of individual PragerU videos would not prove that point.
Even if there's a good reason why you're currently unable to support your claim, the point is that your claim, at this point, has no evidence to support it.
The notification (which, interestingly I can still see even though the comment is gone), finishes with this: "firstly, the statement by Dennis Prager that for all of history fathers have been regarded as being vital to ". That's where it finishes. So while I don't really know what you were going to say, I'll reply with three increasingly-relevant points.
Firstly, he actually says "all of recorded history", but that's arguably irrelevant, as if it's not recorded then it's not history. But possibly it's relevant to your claim.
Secondly, he didn't make a dogmatic claim. He says the explanation of why they are necessary " would have been regarded as, well, unnecessary". Clearly this is meant as a reasonable conclusion, not a empirically-demonstrable one.
Thirdly, your objection might very well depend on your view of history. While I can't speak for Prager, in my case my understanding of history likely differs dramatically from yours. My evidence-based understanding is that God created Adam and Eve, and we are all descended from them. So in that view, I'd argue that Prager is correct. You, on the other hand, presumably believe that we evolved from lower animals, and that 'history' (albeit not recorded) goes back much, much, further in time. This view is based not primarily on evidence (although evidence is interpreted to fit it), but on the philosophy of naturalism that underlies a lot of modern education (including a lot of history and science).
So is Prager demonstrably wrong, or is he basing his comment on a different understanding of history? Could you actually show him to be wrong, or would you be simply basing your objections on a different worldview?
Or have I gone in a completely different direction from what you tried posting? That's possible too.
1
-
@harrisonw6065
I reject your claim that "in most cases" men haven't been around to father their children, for several reasons.
1) Many of the men fighting battles would be younger men, often unmarried and without children.
2) In the case of tribes, the fighting men would not be fighting far from home.
3) For the most part, they would not be off fighting wars for most of their lives. It would normally be for a handful of years at most.
4) Wars don't make up that much of history.
Despite that, although that is a counter-argument you could make, it's not something that you can show him to be wrong on. I't your claim vs. his claim.
"…when it was common to adopt others' children even if they are not orphaned;…"
This undermines your claim. In these cases it wasn't the child's natural father, but it was an adopted father, presumably precisely because they understood that a father was needed.
"…my point being that a child isn't raised and taught these values exclusively by a father…"
Which doesn't show that it wasn't considered vital; just that it didn't always happen.
"…and especially in Modern civilisation…"'
Which doesn't affect the claim about history.
"My greatest criticism of PragerU is that they claim to use facts and statistics but he didn't actually state any figures in this video…"
They didn't claim figures in this video, and a general claim about using facts and figures is not undermined by an exception to the rule.
"…when they do use statistics, it is from studies which have been disproved by many…"
That's a case of you using one unsupported claim to support another claim. I would suggest that the supposed disproof of those studies are themselves contested.
"…as the author has not had them peer reviewed or even qualified for their study."
As is the case with many of the rebuttals.
"…he states that he's a psychologist but he's not, he's in fact a psychological assistant and the only reason he's allowed to call himself it is because the state of Minnisota (if I remember correctly) allows him to."
Umm, so he's legally allowed to call himself a psychologist, but you know better?
"I got all this information from a YouTube video critiquing that video and it brings up many objective points about how reliable the "psychologist" is."
Was that video peer-reviewed? Or is that only needed for arguments supporting PragerU?
"I can give you the name of the video if you'd like,..."
Okay. It won't support your point that "any" PragerU video has numerous fault, but I'm prepared to look at it.
Ah, that's in another comment that's in my notifications, but not here! I'll look for it.
1
-
1
-
@harrisonw6065
Okay, I found the video you mentioned, and from that found the PragerU video, which I watched first, then watch the "debunking" one.
I wasn't terribly impressed with the PragerU one, based on my personal experience as a child. I did agree with his claim that an obedient child is a happy child (in general, and I guess conditional on that obedience being to loving parents, not tyrants), and with being authoritative. I can accept his point about not getting down to a child's level as being generally not a good idea. I did balk at him saying that a parent should not explain, as explanations can always be disputed. I'm strongly of the belief that a parent should explain why they have to do something (where practicable). But not to convince them to do it, but so that they know that their parents have good reason. Having explained, the parent should insist on the child doing why they are told because the parent says so (as he says). Yes, explanations can be disputed, but no explanations can lead to resentment on the basis that the commands seem to be arbitrary and can lead to the child doing things that they have been told not to do, once they are not under their parents' control.
Now for the rebuttal. It's bias, condescension, and approach was not becoming. It extremely-quickly flashed "not a PhD" on the screen with no explanation at that point, but implying that if you don't have a PhD your views are completely worthless. That is no allowance for experience or lesser qualifications (which he apparently does have).
To rebut the video's claim, the Bee (the presenter) cited opposing views, a tactic that is commonly used by the media and the left. That is, one way to "rebut" an argument is to find someone who disagrees, and present them as being the last word on the subject. And yet academia is rife with leftists who bias their studies according to their beliefs. To take one rather extreme (or is it?) example in a different field, a researcher in the transgender field (he earned a PhD in gender history) later admitted "The problem is: I was wrong. Or, to be a bit more accurate, I got things partly right. But then, for the rest, I basically just made it up." But this is not just a case of one bad apple. he added "Everyone was (and is) making it up. That’s how the gender-studies field works."
So back to the rebuttal video. It claims that the advice is "out of date", which is a way of saying that modern leftist activist academics have argued differently to academics in the past. But does that make it true? Well, no, because these academics, more than in the past, are typically Marxists (atheists) or at least leaning that way.
Bee admits that Robert Larzelere, one of the sources, is a genuine academic, but, horror of horrors, he advocates for spanking which "most other parently scholars consider child abuse". Well, it can be if done improperly, but not, it's not child abuse. That is another modern leftist invention.
He is further dismissed because he belongs to an organisation of paediatricians that, unlike the "actual leading" organisation for paediatricians is ... Conservative! See, that's bad right there. This is a video by a leftist who, despite claiming to want to see opposing views, is a dyed-in-the-wool leftist. But of course there's more. That conservative society is pro-spanking, pro-life, anti-LGBTQ, etc.! Frankly that clearly shows them to be the saner organisation. People who want to kill unborn babies. who, contrary to both God's design and science, think that there are more than two genders, who fantasise that a person can change their gender, and other completely bonkers idea, have no credibility with sensible, fact-based, people.
And just to top it off, this organisation is cited by the extremely bigoted (not that Bee said that) Southern Poverty Law Center. Probably another reason to like them.
And yet, she makes the claim that the video's sources "are a little, let's say.. questionable". She should look at her own sources which are anti-Christian, ant-scientific, and anti-life.
And obviously Bee is anti-Christian too, because one of the presenter's faults is in using "biblical psychology". She doesn't explain what is wrong with basing some of his views on the world's best-selling book, written by God Himself, that is the basis for Western Civilisation, and which resulted in its followers starting public hospitals abolishing slavery, introducing universal education, spreading democracy, founding science, and so much more. No, according to Bee, that he bases some of his views on such a solid book "speaks for itself". Well, it does, but not in the way that she thinks.
Ironically, the video pauses to point out that it's an "essay ... based on opinion". Yep. That bit's accurate.
To summarise, this "rebuttal" is claiming that the PragerU video is wrong based on finding leftist academics who disagree, and is itself bigoted against Christian and other conservative views. While there might be a valid point or two hiding in that video somewhere, it's basically garbage, and as such fails to show the PragerU video to be wrong. And, as I think I mentioned, this is the problem with a lot of anti-PragerU videos. They are simply by people with a different worldview who argue not from accepted or demonstrable facts, but from that worldview.
1
-
@harrisonw6065
"you yourself are arguing from a world-view…"
Absolutely. We all do.
"…and not from a pure perspective of objectivity…"
That doesn't follow. Part of my worldview is to be objective.
"Christianity is, in essence, where you derive your opinion from in many topics."
To be accurate, I derive my views from God, via His book, the Bible. Christianity is also based on that. But then, God being infallible and omniscient (all-knowing), that's surely a good basis for deriving one's views.
"But to base your entire arguments from a purely religious stand point…"
How are you using the word "religious"? I said that I was basing my views on God, not on a religion. And many Christians don't consider Christianity to be religious. (I disagree, but it gets down to which definition of the word one is using, hence my question.)
"…is not wise since ( I know this is going to anger you) there is not enough substantial evidence to support the existence of a God…"
No, it won't anger me. I've encountered this claim many, many, times. But I reject it as utterly baseless, as there is heaps of evidence.
"…other than "the world's best selling book" which was written by Jesus' disciples who could've been a normal man, a lunatic, a cult leader etc…"
You don't know what you are talking about. First, the Bible was written by a range of people (princes, kings, judges, preachers, fishermen, etc.) over more than 1500 years. Only the last third, the New Testament, was written by Jesus' followers. Second, although God used humans to write it (like a celebrity might use a professional 'ghost writer' to write his autobiography for him), it is ultimately God's book with His authority and His guarantee of accuracy.
Third, a "normal man" doesn't go around claiming to be God, and a lunatic doesn't manage to rise from the dead. "Cult leader" may be technically accurate, but has bad connotations that are inapplicable here.
"…and the point is that because of this all religion is is just a theory just like the Big Bang theory or evolution."
No, in the case of Christianity (not all religious are the same, you know), it's quite different. Christianity is based on historical evidence of God's revelation; people actually witnessed and experienced what God did, including Jesus performing miracles and rising from the dead. That is, it's evidence-based. The Big Bang and goo-to-you evolution were not witnessed by anybody; they are based on an evidence-free philosophical view of naturalism. I can demonstrate that fact.
"…I genuinely cannot provide any more utility to sway your opinion…"
Because you have little that is not worldview-based, i.e. a worldview that I don't accept.
"…you may view this as a victory…"
Which it is, in the sense that you made a claim that I challenged on the grounds that you couldn't substantiate it, and you didn't substantiate it. I wasn't trying to show that my views are right, but that you can't substantiate your views.
"…that doesn't disqualify me from entering discussions and weighing up how reliable other people's words are and if I can do that, so can you."
Of course it doesn't. But a bit of advice from someone older. Rather than start with saying that something is wrong, start with questioning why it's right. Your first contribution in this thread was to make a far-reaching claim ("you could literally watch any PragerU video and disprove…"), whereas my first contribution in this thread started with "Why?", and my first to you was not to express a contrary view, but to challenge you to substantiate yours ("Prove it"). When a person makes a claim, they have the onus to back it up if challenged. (You didn't do this, but I've often had people make a claim and then when I challenge it, they expect me to prove them wrong; that's back to front.) Starting with a question rather than a claim puts you in a better position to make your case.
"Have a good one and it's been interesting to chat."
You too. I've enjoyed it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bigjohnharvey
"Wisemen were not at the birth of Christ. 3 gifts but nowhere does it say 3 men."
True. But that doesn't contradict anything Lilatan said.
"Dec 25th is a 100% wrong Pagan date."
No, it's not.
First, for a long time I used to believe that too, but it didn't matter to me. Even if the date was chosen to supplant a pagan festival, then that's a good thing. And keep in mind that (depending on where you live), the Queen's/King's birthday holiday is not on the date of the actual birthday of the monarch. For that matter, I've had birthday celebrations on the weekend rather than my actual birth date mid week. There is nothing wrong with having a celebration on a different date to the actual event, especially if the actual date is unknown. So nothing about that contradicts anything Lilatan said.
Second, I then learned of evidence which says otherwise about the date. Christians are recorded as believing that 25th December was the date of Jesus' birth by about AD 200, and there is no known pagan celebration on that date at that time. The one often cited, a celebration of Sol Invictus, was not declared to be a celebration until about 70 years after that, and there is no evidence of it being actually celebrated for another 80 years after that. There was an early belief that a prophet would die on the anniversary of his conception, so if he died on 25th March (Easter time) then he was also conceived on that date, and born nine months later, on 25th December. Whether or not the Christians were correct about the date, the point is that it wasn't based on a pagan date. Further, the timing of the Sol Invictus celebration suggests that the date of the pagan celebration was chosen to supplant the Christian celebration!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BobbieBins
"All the resources used to create are taken from Australian land ..."
Including the resource of their own effort? No, some resources may be, but not all.
"...the roads, ships, trains, the internet all created and operated by working class."
Operated, mostly yes, built, mostly yes, but created? That's not in evidence. It usually takes a lot of wealth to create such expensive things.
"They cannot be rich without our support, ..."
True. And we would not have many jobs without them providing them. Nor could we buy many of the things that they fund the manufacture of. It works both ways.
"The fall of the Romanov's in Russia and the later creation of communism with a revolution, multiple wars of independence, the fall of multiple empires can be linked to class imbalance and the resulting instability."
Or perhaps to ideology which preached class division.
"Completely rejecting the idea that the people of a country have rights to the wealth produced from their efforts and resources of the land,..."
Who completely rejects that? That's the very reason that resource companies pay royalties.
"...if anything they should be paying another 20% of their profit to the original owners of our land..."
Why? And who is/are the original owners anyway? I'd say God is the original owner (and creator). And yes, aborigines were here before Europeans. But do we know for sure that they were first? And did they "own" the land, or just use it? Where are their title deeds?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davem3325
"why didn't you "all seeing and all knowing" GOD stop the PLANES hitting the twin towers?? Huh?"
And what else would you like Him to stop? All murders? All robberies? All lies? All sex outside marriage? All jealousy? All free will? You might object that those things are not as serious, but where do you draw the line, and why? If He stops all things worse than X, then people will ask why He doesn't stop X? In other words, for all you know He has already drawn a line and has been stopping even worse things.
Your question is a theological one, asking why God would do or not do something. But you're implying that if He's not doing it, it must mean that He doesn't exist, which simply doesn't follow. That it, God might very well have a reason that you're not aware of.
Further, God created a world without suffering and death, but we rejected Him, so He left us somewhat to the consequences of our own sin. So if we don't want Him (as you don't), it's hypocritical to then blame Him for not intervening.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wuper2270
"wow what a logical fallacy,..."
You've attempted to show error, not logical fallacy.
"I had also made other comments prior,..."
Of the 35 comments, all of ours are in this single thread, and all of those except your opening comment are since he made his comment.
"you tried to correct me on the number of comments made at the time, whilst counting all 10 of ours as the last 10?"
Clearly all of ours except your opening comment are after his comment. Yes, there are also others since that comment, which is why I said "perhaps", because you can't always tell. But granted, at least ten others are also after that comment, so yes, perhaps 1 out of 15 would have been better.
And of course I did correct you on number of comments we made; that wasn't just something I "tried" to do.
"Then, you went on to utilize the ENTIRETY of the view count, rather than what it would've been at the time."
True, but my point was that the number of viewers, and therefore potential 'likers' greatly exceeded the number of commenters.
"Then you reference client as if we are in a court of law, but you already disregarded burdens of proof without refrain."
Utterly false. I referenced law and civil courts regarding burdens of proof, not in disregard to them.
"You have also cherry picked consistently."
False.
"Can you be any more inconsistent in your logic?"
I've been entirely consistent in my logic, and you've not shown otherwise. What you've shown is that I've been a bit inconsistent in comparisons, not in logic. But then you clearly got your claim wrong anyway.
"Please go bad to your NDIS careers."
People inventing stuff about me do not help their credibility. Nor do spelling errors, although I realise that nobody's perfect in that regard. I assume you meant carers ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tarynswan326
"Eloheem wouldn't exist without the LORD."
Elohim is the LORD.
From the Names of God Bible translation:
Genesis 1:1 : "In the beginning Elohim created heaven and earth."
Genesis 1 various verses: "Then Elohim said, 'Let...' "
Genesis 1:31: "And Elohim saw everything that he had made and that it was very good. There was evening, then morning—the sixth day."
Exodus 20:2: "I am Yahweh your Elohim "
Exodus 20:11: "In six days Yahweh made heaven, earth, and the sea, along with everything in them. "
John 1:1b, 3: "The Word was with God, and the Word was God. ... Everything came into existence through him. Not one thing that exists was made without him."
Colossians 1:13-16: "God has rescued us ... and has brought us into the kingdom of his Son, whom he loves. His Son paid the price to free us... He created all things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible."
Therefore, Elohim = Yahweh = Jesus (The Word/the Son) = God.
1
-
1
-
1
-
betty4018
"That’s what history records?"
Yep. You've never heard of the Bible, a book that is chocka with history, and which archaeology has been shown in many cases to be accurate?
"Have you ever heard of the term geologic history?"
Of course. Have you ever heard of the term methodological naturalism?
"Where the age of the Earth is determined through various radiometric dating methods based on mathematics."
Yes, various radiometric dating methods that often don't agree, are mostly not able to be calibrated against historically-known dates, have in testable cases been shown to be incorrect, which the scientists who use them often don't agree with, which are based in part on worldview-based assumptions, and which are contradicted by recorded history.
"THAT is the history of the earth..."
Well, it's claimed to be by people who reject the recorded history, but it's based on methodological naturalism, which says that explanations (such as about how things came to be) must be naturalistic ones. That is, supernatural explanations are ruled out a priori. How is that scientific? Further, these naturalistic explanations must be accepted even when the evidence says otherwise. How is that scientific? Why should I accept such "history"? (And by the way, I can defend every one of my claims in this and my previous paragraph.)
"...not some ridiculous stories out of an ancient book of myths and legends"
What makes them "ridiculous"? Simply that you don't agree with them? That's illogical.
What does the age of the book have to do with it?
And what's your evidence of it comprising myths and legends? It purports to be actual history; millions believe it to be actually history; science is based on it being actual history; and still today many scientists believe it to be actual history. So you can't just declare it to not be without making a good case.
1
-
@lighthouse7i
"Religion or relationship with Christ is faith. Evolution is theory."
I'm not sure whether I should be responding to you or maemiller9164 here, but...
"Religion" covers a lot of very different and contradictory views. Christianity is just one of those.
Christianity (or a relationship with Christ) involves evidence-based faith. That is, faith (in the sense that the Bible uses it) is trust in a trustworthy God, i.e. a God for whom we have evidence of Him being trustworthy. This is different to 'blind faith' which involves a belief without or contrary to evidence.
"Evolution is theory."
In scientific terms, a "theory" is a well-tested explanation for an observation. For example, we have the observed fact of gravity, and the theory of gravity, i.e. the well-tested explanation for what gravity is and how it works.
In the case of evolution, this is something held more by blind faith, as it is not well tested. Supposedly occurring in the past, it has never been observed, measured, nor tested, nor is it repeatable, all of which are normal requirements for something to be scientific. In fact the observations contradict the "theory", which it would be more accurate to call a hypothesis.
Evolution is a naturalistic explanation of the variety of life, i.e. an explanation that a priori assumes naturalism. Science should go with the evidence rather than assume an outcome. The Bible is a historical observational record of the variety of life. Neither are, strictly speaking, scientific explanations. Science should take the evidence into account, but evolutionists ignore much evidence that contradicts the explanation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
betty4018
"there is no “secular view.” "
I asked if you'd heard of the term methodological naturalism. You never answered that. When a scientists a priori rules out a supernatural explanation simply because it's supernatural, and especially if he ignores contrary evidence in doing so, that can legitimately be described as a secular view. But okay, call it a naturalistic view if you prefer.
"There are the facts."
Science involves observation, measurement, testing, and repeatability. You cannot observe, measure, test, nor repeat the past. So how are they "facts"? In fact, they are conclusions that assume a naturalistic view.
"And the fact is the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old."
What's your evidence?
I have challenged you on your claims in an earlier reply in this thread, and you have not answered. You don't get to simply assert something to be the case without providing evidence, and expect people to simply take your word for it or believe you.
1
-
@davidbaker1918
"Which version, there are 7 versions of the Bible,..."
Ummm, no. There are in fact versions of the entire Bible in 736 different languages, and parts of it into another 3000 languages. On top of that, it has been translated into some of those languages more than once. Into English, it has been translated probably over 100 times, as language changes and we learn more about the nuances of the original languages.
But then it's not clear what your point is.
"radiocarbon dating is unscientific,..."
Which I didn't say. Carbon dating is actually one of the better of the radiometric methods, as for some dates it's able to be calibrated against known dates.
"...but believing that dinosaurs and man walked the world at the same time is accurate, wow?"
Yes. That's what history records, and other evidence supports. What's your evidence to the contrary? And I'll point out that, according to carbon dating, dinosaurs were around less than around 60,000 years ago. Do you accept carbon dating?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well when he did appear, He was arrested and executed, albeit not for crimes against humanity (He committed none).
God is spirit, not physical, so neither white nor black. When He did appear on Earth, it was specifically as a Jew, so would have looked like a Jew.
There can be only one God, by definition, as the word refers to the ultimate being and creator. If there is more than one, they can't all be ultimate.
"why does god allow children to die of starvation, why does he not stop all wars, ..."
Simply because we rejected Him telling us what to do, so He granted our wish and stopped protecting us. We are to blame, not Him.
"I will tell you why, it’s because it’s all a load of [rubbish]."
That conclusion seems to be based on not realising that there is an alternative explanation, such as the one I have just given you. Therefore your conclusion is baseless.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paulrevere2379
"You seem to be a true critical thinker."
Thank you.
"It's often not easy to make a clear point (at least not for everyone) on a complex issue with few words in this medium."
Probably why I often use more than a few! 😜
"My point about the homelessness of Jesus is to contrast it with the utterly wrongful view many people have these days in seeing "homelessness" as a particular form of misconduct."
I'm not sure that I completely follow, and that may in part be because I'm not all that familiar with the attitudes of the sort of people you are talking about. And although there is a homelessness problem here in Australia, perhaps attitudes are a little different in the U.S.
The way I see it—and I'm definitely generalising, knowing that there will be many different circumstances—is that homelessness is often a problem the 'victims' bring upon themselves in some way. Perhaps alcoholism or other drug addiction, perhaps family breakdowns, perhaps refusal to reconcile, and so on. I'm not therefore suggesting that they are only getting what they deserve and therefore should suffer the consequences. The Christian way is to help people who need help, and they surely do. But I reject the attitude that they are innocent victims who should be able to expect government handouts. The way to help them is to get them off the drugs and help them back into productive society, but that probably requires a change of attitude and/or worldview. Government handouts that simply assume that giving them free accommodation or similar will solve the problem will come up short, because it doesn't address the core problem that got them there—or on the path to there—in the first place.
That appears to be consistent with some of your comments, such as allusions to homeless being a symptom.
1
-
1
-
@paulrevere2379
"I could go on, but I've provided enough..."
And yet you then continue with two more comments! 😜
I appreciate the thought and effort that you have put into this. And much of what you say I could agree with. But I'm not convinced that you're not a bit harsh.
"This PragerU video begins right off with a clear inference that The big problem is one of optics."
I don't agree. It mentions that "you literally face it every day", but I don't see any inference in that comment that optics is the main problem.
"...that the problem of drugs and/or mental health and homelessness are essentially one and the same."
Again, I disagree. They cite data to support the claim that "approximately three quarters of people living in cars, tents, and on the streets suffer from serious mental illness, drug addiction, or both". So on one hand there is obviously another quarter who are homeless for other reasons, and on the other hand there is no inference that mental illness and drug addiction are no also a problem with non-homeless people. So no, I can't see that they're saying that the two are essentially one and the same.
"The video implies that the increase (double in some cases) in homeless populations in the West coast cities is from "homeless" people moving away from one place to get free services in those west coast cities."
I'm not sure what you're questioning here. That the homeless people move, or that the motive is free services.
On the former, the video states (not implies ) that for San Francisco "it is estimated" that 30% came there from somewhere else. I guess you could challenge their source, but they did at least have a basis for saying what they said. It also said that for Seattle the figure is 51%, and the source of that figure is a much better one. HOWEVER, it appears to me from a quick look that they have cited the wrong figure. My first thought (after noticing this) was that they have cited the figure for those already there (51.6%) instead of moving there, but (a) that is actually the percentage of those in shelter who were already there (the percentage not in shelter is a bit lower), and elsewhere the source says that 70% were already in Seattle or King County (I assume that's where Seattle is) when they became homeless. So the actual figure for moving there is 30%, which although quite different to the supposed 51%, is actually in line with the San Francisco figure!
Another detail that the video didn't mention is that in Seattle, they found that 15.4% moved there "To access homeless services", which supports the video's claims as to why, even if not on the percentage. (The biggest factor was supposedly because "Family/friends live there" (35.4%), which I struggle to understand; why move to be with or close to family/friends if they are not going to help with accommodation?)
"While partly based on truth, it is blatant spin which diverts attention away from more fundamental problems imo."
I saw that part as trying to explain only a more general point, that the numbers of homeless is significantly affected by government policies, that being merely one way that government policies are a factor.
"Simply put, it seems clear to me that even PragerU would rather choose the easier path of gross oversimplification in order to avoid tackling the much tougher core cultural problems..."
You could make that charge, but on the other hand, these videos are intentionally short in order to reach more people, so I'd think it's more likely that gross simplification is for that reason rather than to avoid anything.
"The two keys to apply to the issue imo are these. #1 Personal face to face involvement."
In one sense, I strongly agree with that. However, the other side of the coin is that government (and other) attitudes and policies are without much doubt a big factor, so if you don't also deal with those, you're going to find the face-to-face involvement much harder. And (in a different sense) you say as much yourself.
"The video equates Property Crime with homelessness,..."
Again, I disagree that it equates it. There is nothing I saw in the video saying that property crime does not occur with non-homeless people. (Otherwise I agree with your comments about Portland and Seattle.)
"As someone who really appreciates most of what PragerU puts out, I hope that my criticism would carry more weight than that which comes from the left."
Given your detailed analysis (even though I don't fully agree with it), I would hope you're correct on that, given the drivel and slogans and falsehoods that typically come from the left. That is, even though I think your wrong in some respects, you're at least making a good attempt at making a reasoned case.
You know that Melbourne has been ranked as the world's most liveable city several times (albeit not currently)? And yet you didn't get to this part? You don't know what you missed! 😜
I'm not sure that Australia's age ranges are really any different to America's. You're observation on complying with government policy may be correct. At least I would agree that the country as a whole is more to the left than in America, although with both countries having a political spectrum that's very wide, that might be hard to quantify.
"... smaller population and hopefully fewer levels of bureaucracy."
Governmentally, there are three levels (federal, state, and local), despite the "small" population (about 25 million in a country about the size of the U.S.) and many consider this to be too much (I don't necessarily agree), but ...
"People don't equate Australia with heavy corruption,..."
... you're right, in my opinion, but possibly because we elect only the parliamentarians (and local council members). Judges, police chiefs, etc. are not elected.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pwillis1589
"Your clownish attempts of shifting the burden of proof..."
Says the person attempting to shift the burden of proof, as I pointed out.
"...relating to a negative claim..."
It doesn't matter if the claim is worded negatively or positively. The onus is on the person making the claim.
"Arguments from ignorance and slippery slope fallacies are your stock in trade."
An evidence-free assertion.
"You are just fear mongering or are just truly a frightened little man."
And more evidence-free assertions, again attacking the man rather than the argument. And yet you claim that I'm the one who doesn't understand argumentation!
"Unlike you and your intellectual laziness and inability to read the national curriculum, ..."
Yet more abuse, and ignoring a) that the onus is on you, and b) that the curriculum is not necessarily going to name it as such.
"I just went into the Ethics Centre website and read the article I believe you are referring to..."
Note that I supplied both evidence and a source myself, instead of telling you to find evidence to support my point of view.
"... and yes they clearly are supportive of CRT,..."
You seem surprised, as though you presumed that you could dismiss my source as biased.
"...but you are confusing historical fact and racist attitudes of the past being taught in history classes as CRT."
They were explicitly referring to CRT. So if anyone is confusing those things, it's my source, not me.
Further, one of the key teachings of CRT is that current racist attitudes from the past still exist. That is, that claimed history is part of the CRT agenda.
"...CRT however as a theory is most definitely not taught anywhere on any primary or secondary school."
A claim that you've not produced evidence for, and which is contradicted by the source I provided.
And I have another source, although one that you could dismiss as biased if you don't bother with the actual evidence. See the article "New Schools Program Is Dangerous And Divisive" by Bella d'Abrera.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Solus94
"In their own unholy book the quran, go read it if you want to learn more. It states they can treat woman like second class citizens."
I know. However, most Muslims don't read their own 'holy' book. (Also, Muslims consider any translations of the Quran to be inferior to the original Arabic, and less than one percent of people (not just women) in Afghanistan know Arabic.) What they know of it is what their imams tell them.* And as this video relates, there are many Afghan women who are desperate to get an education. That is, they don't accept what the Quran teaches in that respect (assuming the Quran does actually teach that, and it's not just a Taliban thing, which may be the case as women in other Muslim countries can get an education).
*—And, to repeat, those at Speaker's Corner would be exceptions to this rule, and therefore unrepresentative.
"In conclusion noo we are not responsible for what they do with themselves..."
I didn't say that we were responsible for what they do.
"...nor are we obligated to help them."
Try reading the story of the Good Samaritan.
"Most of [the women] support this kind of treatment,..."
My point is that your comment is effectively saying what I have modified your comment to say. But that's not in evidence.
"...because they constantly try to justify it ..."
No, those women don't try and justify it. They are getting an education in secret.
"...and it's taught in their religion."
As I said above, I doubt that's actually the case. Hang on, I'll do a bit more research. .... Done. I can easily find numerous article saying that the Quran doesn't say that women shouldn't get a decent education. Of course they might be lying, so please feel free to point out where it does.
"You say you have a good handle in logic. You do not."
And yet you've not shown anything wrong with my logic.
"You even respond like a robot."
Again, another ad hominem, and an ironic one, given that robots operate according to programs that rely on logic!
"My last reply."
We'll see.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dmw798
"lol, your whole argument is based on there being conservative voters who don't vote conservative, "
No, that's not my argument. I explicitly referred to a range of views.
"climate change is an important issue to people now, "
Well, to people on the left and the people who don't look at it closely.
"inner city "conservatives" as you call them, the ones you need to win elections, ..."
All that is needed to win elections is enough seats. It doesn't need those inner city ones in particular.
"tend to be wealthy and well educated, ie. they believe in science, climate change science."
They talk about believing the science, but actually believe the scientists who promote the climate change agenda, without actually looking at the science objectively.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JustaNaughtyBoy666
"I am sure he feels his god will bless him. "
That's "God", not "his god". God is the God of us all.
"...keeping safe those in that school from his bigoted views. "
How is it bigotry to stand for the truth? Or are you just name-calling?
"I don't feel the waves of intolerance are rising,..."
Oh they are. From the left and the transgender activists in particular. I know that from personal experience.
"Discrimination and division is promoted in the bible, ..."
Yeah? Where? You do realise that we all discriminate all the time? You discriminate when you choose vanilla over chocolate ice cream. You discriminate when you choose one candidate for a job over others. You discriminate on sexual grounds when you choose a female over a male to play the role of Joan of Arc in a movie. You discriminate on the basis of age when you only let people over 18 vote. Discrimination is wrong when there are no grounds for it (e.g. choosing a man over a woman simply because he's a man, for a job that can equally be done by either), but discrimination itself is not wrong. So the Bible promoting "discrimination" is not a fault with it. Also, yes, it promotes division between people who do right and those who do wrong. Again, nothing wrong with that.
"...over time rules have been put in place to negate some of the biblical god's laws by making common law for society to live by. "
Common law is actually based on the Bible.
"...with the religious they wish to defend and make excuses for their bigotry by pointing to the bible to sanction their behaviour, ..."
You have to show that there is actual bigotry first. Otherwise you're just being the bigot.
"A few years ago Dr David Mackereth (a Christian) lost his job with the DWP for essentially the same reason. "
For telling the truth? And yet you don't condemn that?
"I think this quote sums up my feelings [snipped]"
What "religion" was he talking about? They cover a very wide range, from belief in no god (atheism) to belief in multiple gods (polytheism) and believe that all is god (pantheism). Blaming "religion" is like blaming "opinion". It becomes meaningless when used so non-specifically.
"I hate division and discrimination."
Does that mean that you hate the discrimination of the left and the LGBT+ activists? Those that won't allow a contrary view to be heard?
"harks back to values held in biblical times, where women are merely property of men, and only have half the value as men."
A view that the Bible got rid of.
"The bible teaches that those who worship in a different way to themselves are sinners,..."
False. At least if what you're meaning is that they are sinners simply because they worship in a different way. Unless, of course, you can support your claim?
"...along with those of us who do not worship at all."
It teaches that we are all sinners. Because we have disobeyed/rejected God. If you do not worship because you reject Him, then yes, that makes you a sinner. So the Bible would be correct.
"We have the joy of being sent to hell by the biblical god, just because it was not capable of making itself know to us."
First, what makes you think that He was incapable of that? On the contrary, He has made Himself known, in numerous ways, including through His revelation to us, the Bible, and through becoming one of us. Second, you're showing your disrespect of Him by referring to Him as an "it", which shows you're not even interested in knowing Him.
"How is that for blaming others for ones own failings?"
Like you're blaming God for your own failure to recognise Him?
"I think Enoch Burke has found that blaming others for his own failings..."
What failings? You haven't shown any. He spoke the truth, and was punished for it. So you're victim-blaming.
"I took an interest in religion about 15 years ago,..."
Which one(s)?
"...there is so much harm that comes from religion."
Some, including atheist ones, but not from Christianity, which has done an enormous amount of good.
"We are aware of the abuse towards kids by the Catholic church in Ireland, ..."
Yes, we are (not just Ireland). But two points to note: 1) That was carried out by individuals, not the church (Catholic) nor the religion (Christianity), and 2) we condemn it because Christianity has taught us that it is wrong. Non-Christian historian Tom Holland describes what life was like in ancient Roman and Greek society. Part of this was "The sexual economy is founded on the absolute right of free Roman males to have sex with anyone that they want any way that they like." What changed that? He says that it was the apostle Paul's letters in the New Testament: "compacted into this very very small amount of writing, was almost everything that explains the modern world [the Western world] but also the way that the West has moved on to shape concepts like international law, for instance, ... concepts of human rights, all these kinds of things. Ultimately they don’t go back to Greek philosophers; they don’t go back to Roman empiricism. They go back to Paul."
We consider sex with children wrong because of Christianity. If you reject Christianity, you have no basis to criticise those priests who abused those children.
"We have found that The claimed situation in this video around Enoch Burke does not hold water."
Why is that?
1
-
1
-
@tracygeddes5867
"by your words you stand and by your words you fall."
True. And the same applies to you. And my words have never indicated that I have an irrational fear of transgenderism or so-called transgender people. I have already pointed this out. Your words, no the other hand, have repeatedly accused me of that, but you have not provided any evidence.
"all you have said is your opinion"
False. Your words are wrong again.
"I follow a god of love and kindness,..."
Is your god also a god of justice, who punishes sin, such as destroying Sodom and Gomorrah? If is a cherry-picked god where you only accept the "nice" bits?
"you can keep your vengeance."
What vengeance? You're maligning me again, in defiance of Exodus 20:16: "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour." and James 4:11: "Brothers, do not slander one another."
"Your transphobic ways,..."
Again, I do not have an irrational fear of that. Again, you are maligning me. You believe in doing unto others as they do unto you, but I doubt you want others to malign you. So why are you maligning me?
"As I said before look in the mirror,fix yourself before interfering in the lives of others,..."
You haven't shown that I need "fixing", and I'm no more "interfering" in the lives of others than you are.
So when are you going to retract and apologise?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pwillis1589
"No the bible most definitely doesn't teach men and women are equal. Timothy 2:9-15."
That passage has been much debated, and much can be, and has been, said about it.
For one thing, it is not talking about superiority, but about roles. In my job, have a boss who is (slightly) younger than me. He is not superior to me, but his role is as my boss and my role is as his subordinate. For another, it doesn't say that women are not equal; that is something that you infer from it.
Also, it appears to be in conflict with other passages, where women teach. That could be a straight-out contradiction, but it makes more sense for this passage to be talking about a specific circumstance; not talking generally. If I said that I catch a train to work but that last week I was late because my car was caught in traffic, am I contradicting myself or talking about an exception to the rule?
Galatians 3:28 is taken to be teaching the equality of all people: "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
But also, see how Christians have understood this in history. It was Christians who got laws passed to protect women, and women got the first first in countries that were historically Christian. That is, Christianity hasn't, as a general rule at least, taken that verse to mean that women are inferior.
"At no stage in human history has it ever been moral or right to execute anyone for their sexuality."
Because you say so? God created us heterosexual, and being a just God, imposed the death sentence for simply disobeying Him, because disobeying our Creator is a very grave thing. (Also being a merciful God, He then took that penalty on Himself, so that we could be reconciled to Him.) In the nation of Israel before Christ, God deemed death to be the penalty for various things. That He did so, made it right.
"Your God is immoral. ... even indentured servitude has always been immoral..."
Apart from God, how do you judge right and wrong? You have no basis for doing so!
Much of it was indentured servitude. The nations around were being judged for their attacks on Israel.
Also, although Israelites were permitted to buy slaves from surrounding nations, the slaves were not to be mistreated. As such, being owned by Israelite masters probably meant they were better off than with their foreign masters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
kermitthehermit9588
"Offer me some evidence that Christianity is based on reality."
Sure. Of course this is (as requested) just some evidence, in dot-point form. A lot more could be added.
* The fact that anything exists at all is evidence for God (not necessarily the Christian God, but it rules out atheism). The 2nd Law of thermodynamics shows that the universe cannot have existed forever (I can explain that in more detail if required), so it had a beginning (as the vast majority of scientists recognise). But the principle of cause and effect requires that anything that occurred (the beginning of the universe) has a cause. Something that doesn't exist cannot cause itself to exist. So the cause of the entire material/natural world must be something super natural.
* There are many aspects of the universe that are "finely tuned", i.e. have very precise values, without which the universe and/or various parts of it (e.g. life) could not exist. The odds of the universe having these values by chance are so extremely low they are effectively zero. This indicates that the Creator was a very intelligent being.
* All living things contain genetic information. The only known source of information is an intelligence. Of course the intelligence concerned must have predated living things.
* The Bible has proven to be a very reliable source of history, with archaeologists using it as a guide to what they find. It's never been shown to be wrong in any detail.
* The fact that Jesus, who claimed to be God, was executed then rose to life again, supports his claim to be God. Jesus' life, death, and resurrection is one of the best-attested facts of ancient history.
"Then I shall do my best to refute your claim."
Good for you. I appreciate that you said that you'd do your best, rather than arrogantly claim that you would refute my claims. I would add one caution, however: refute my claims with evidence, not by simply citing an alternative view. For example, telling me that scientists believe that genetic information can come about by chance is an alternative view, not evidence. You'd need to cite the evidence supporting that belief.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rattusfinkus
"Exxon funded science in the 70s that predicted the warming we are seeing now. This is well documented."
Then why did most later modelling get it wrong?
"Riddle me this, if the richest corporations on the planet could prove that global warming wasn't a threat, don't you think they wouldn't funded it?"
You're assuming that they would be interested in doing so. Some would not be interested in proving it, and some may be wary of funding it because of the backlash from the left.
"They had the means and the motivation (bigger profits)."
How would they necessarily make bigger profits? It would depend what their business was about. Besides, what about the profits being made by those who benefit from the alarmism? Wouldn't they also fund research into proving it happens?
"There's the smoking gun right there."
In your imagination.
"They decided to fund misinformation because the science they wanted to find does not exist."
That's not in evidence.
"Do you think for a second that if Judith Curry was right the fossil industry would fund her "science" to the teeth, they'd be buying the labs and journals to publish the science,..."
You assume that they would be as dishonest as the left is. And of course they'd be in funding competition with many governments around the world, so it's not obvious that they would see that as worthwhile, especially with the propaganda backlash from the left.
"What you are suggesting makes absolutely no sense."
Except that it does.
" Not one fossil organisation is actively funding any significant climate science, come on? Ask yourself why."
Perhaps because critics like you would dismiss the research as being biased due to being funded by the fossil fuel industry. Heads, you win. Tails, they lose.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rattusfinkus
"[so you couldn't find anything either?]"
I didn't look. You asked about a where you could find science oppose source of opposing views, and I provided an example. You haven't shown my example to be wrong.
"[governments also fund real science,..."
That's irrelevant to my point.
"[the misinformation that shows up is not published science, it's blogs and memes. Show me the science that has been published]"
The science journals tend to not publish things that go against the ruling paradigm. And when they do, it's usually papers that are not up front about being opposed to the ruling paradigm. But look at the article "Crumbling ‘Consensus’: 500 Scientific Papers Published In 2016 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm", which has three links to pages summarising and linking to those 500 papers.
"[LCOEs and Gencost all show renewables are cheaper]"
With what assumptions going into them? GenCost calculations are based on projections of what power sources will be used according to current policies, which favour renewables.
"[because you say so?]"
No, because of the evidence. Including that governments have had to subsidise them and penalise alternatives in order to get them adopted, and because prices have already gone up a lot as a result.
"[perhaps misleading or incompetent, your pick]"
I pick accurate.
"[so if it was bad, were the real results closer to 96% or 98%?]"
The methodology was bad. I don't know of another study having been done with good methodology. But one analysis of the claim pointed out that Cook had classified 11,944 paper abstracts into one of eight groups (seven groups if you exclude the "Undecided" category with ), but the category of "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%" was only 65 papers out of 4011 not in the "Undecided" category, which is 1.6%.
"[ arhhh, when you can't find any facts to argue a point, just invoke the GRAND CONSPIRACY]"
What else are we supposed to conclude if, according to you, there is not one single paper that disagrees?
Besides, we have evidence in the ClimateGate emails that they did conspire, talking about, for example, taking over a journal that was allowing sceptical papers to be published.
1
-
1
-
@rattusfinkus
"100% is anything 99.5% and over. Judy curry is 0.00000001 of scientists "
First, she is not the only climate scientists who disagrees with the alarmism.
Second, you're not invoking all other scientists, including non-climate scientists, are you? You must be desperate.
"Wrong again my friend. "
No, I wasn't.
"AGW must be false because 0.00000001 percent of scientists disagree."
That 0.00000001 percent is even more bogus than the 97% figure. But if you want to go with bogus figures, you're showing you don't have a case.
"In a study ... The team compared 17 increasingly sophisticated model projections of global average temperature developed between 1970 and 2007, ..."
Only 17? That sounds like they were being selective.
"The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections."
Maybe they weren't trying. Search for "STILL Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-Year Means" and have a look at the graph there.
And although it's behind a paywall, the introduction to a paper on the Nature website ("Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years") starts off this way: "Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability.
"The evidence, therefore, indicates that the current generation of climate models (when run as a group, with the CMIP5 prescribed forcings) do not reproduce the observed global warming over the past 20 years, or the slowdown in global warming over the past fifteen years."
1
-
1
-
@rattusfinkus
"so the actual science still shows man made warming"
How do you conclude that?
"have a look at any global temperature reconstruction and it shows a hockey stick."
So they've all been manipulated?
You're wrong in any case. Without looking up the details again, the Mann's hockey stick graph erased the mediaeval warm period that were shown in earlier IPCC graphs.
"climate gate was a beat up nothing came out of it."
Apart from evidence of rigging the science.
"In any case there will always be bad faith players on either side, allegationd of bad faith does not disprove the science. "
Obviously, it brings the science of those bad faith scientists into question. And when it's prominent scientists, it brings it all into questions.
"If pointing to bad faith actors was an argument then just look at Koch brothers, Heartland, Prager U, Exxon, LNP, Toyota etc."
It's not in evidence that they are (all) bad faith players. It sounds more like they are players that you don't like, so you label them as bad faith players.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fletcherhamilton3177
There is a lot to history, and I don't claim to be an expert in that area. My previous comment was based on your claim that Nazism has roots in Marxism, then you backtracked and effectively said "or something like that", which suggested that you were no expert either.
I also know that finding objective history of something like this can be difficult. However, your response to me pointed out that Hitler attended a lecture by Feder (true), who saw a difference between two different types of capitalism (true), and therefore Nazism is linked to Marxism (what??). How does that follow? You haven't shown that Feder was Marxist, and in fact Feder appears from my quick research to actually be anti-Marxist, giving a talk to a group that was anti-Marxist, and Hitler was anti-Marxist.
And I'm not a left-winger, and I'm not trying to say that Hitler was not socialist. That is a separate question.
1
-
@Polleej
"My responses will be all caps."
Why aren't the presence and absence of quote marks sufficient to distinguish between your quotes of me and your responses? After all, that is precisely what quote marks are for.
"WHAT IT CAN DO BY DEFINITION ALSO INVOLVES WHAT IT CAN'T DO…"
My point was not about can vs. can't, but Commonwealth vs. state. You mentioned that it doesn't say much about individual rights, but not that it doesn't say much about what the states can and can't do, potentially giving the wrong impression that it talks more than minimally about what the states can and can't do.
"SECTION 109 MEANS IT IS ILLEGAL FOR STATE LAW TO PROFESS TO SUPERSEDE COMMONWEALTH LAW. I'VE ALREADY STATED THIS."
And I've already responded to it. See my next point.
"..BUT NOT SO AS TO ALLOW FOR CIVIL CONSCRIPTION. WHY DON'T YOU ACTUALLY READ IT?"
I did read it. It is about providing pensions and allowances, and mentions parenthetically that it doesn't allow for civil conscription. So the Commonwealth can't conscript, but it doesn't follow that the states can't. That is, the Commonwealth can't make a law conscripting people, so they can't have a law about that that contradicts any state law. So if the states pass a law to conscript, it is not contradicting any Commonwealth law.
"THIS IS A STRAW MAN ARGUMENT. THE FIRST SENTENCE IS CORRECT, BUT THE SECOND SENTENCE IS IRRELEVANT."
I don't believe that it is irrelevant. It relates to my previous point. That the Commonwealth can't conscript doesn't mean that the states can't conscript.
"THIS IS JUST THE SAME ARGUMENT AS THE LAST PARAGRAPH, REPACKED TO LOOK NEW BY REFERENCE TO A SPECIFIC ITEM OF LEGISLATION."
Hey, you referenced both the general and the specific, so what's wrong with me replying to both the general and the specific?
"I'VE EXPLAINED ALL THROUGH THIS COMMENT AS WELL AS MY "INFORMATION PACK'."
You've asserted, but your assertions don't withstand scrutiny. In other words, you've provided no valid justification for them being illegal.
"I WANT PEOPLE TO LOOK FOR THEMSELVES USING THE LINKS I HAVE PROVIDED."
Granted, but I thought the point worth highlighting.
"THAT'S GREAT. WHAT LEGAL REMEDIES DO YOU HAVE?"
Unfortunately, I don't think that there are many beyond voting them out at the next election. But me not having any better remedies does not mean that your remedies are valid ones.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cont7628
"All he is saying is that people who identify as trans at the very least should be respected."
Yes, that is what he is saying, but they should be respected because they are humans. What he means is that their delusions should also be respected, and that they should have rights that others don't have, such as competing on the sport of the other sex.
"if a trans women who is closer to women than men physically and biologically there is no reason to exclude them if they can't fairly compete with their birth gender."
I'm a bloke, and don't pretend that I'm not. But I'm not as strong and fit as an athlete, so I guess I should be able to compete in the women's sports too? I mean, if it's on the basis of ability, not sex, then why not? But then we'd need to rename the sports so that they don't refer to sex, I guess. And all this would mean, of course, that we'd be completely changing the point of them!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stefanantolin5501
"Yeah, from other UN member countries who complied and had nothing to hide perhaps?"
No, the quotes were from the UN itself. Like the quotes about not worrying about the thickness of sandwiches despite them having written negatively about the thickness of sandwiches.
"Some people need to be aware of basic Hypocrisy 101,"
Someone like the UN and sandwiches?
"You shouldn't preach 'human rights' to the world IF you're not prepared to practice them 100% yourself."
In principle, I agree. But there may be nuances. Like one government (e.g. Federal) practising them, but another (e.g. a state) not doing that. Or different people or groups having different ideas of what constitutes human rights.
"You shouldn't Preach 'christianity' to others in the world IF you're only practicing Fake Christianity yourself."
Granted, but keeping in mind that Christians aren't perfect, and will also get some things wrong.
"You shouldn't preach Democracy to others IF it doesn't 'fully' apply in your own country. NB the USA!"
How do you determine whether if "fully" applies?
"And one for Sly Spews, you shouldn't preach "REAL NEWS, HONEST VIEWS" on your permanent banner if you mostly only employ "OPINION PIECES" to vomit your POOPAGRANDA!"
True enough, if that's actually the case.
Here's another one: You shouldn't point out others faults if you've got your own faults, such as maligning people without evidence. Which you're doing.
"...the last decade of Lieberal mismanagement of the prisons and their operating mindset backed by those in the whole Legal and political system with vested interests."
A claim that you have not provided evidence for.
"IF you're Nothing to Hide, WHY the bleedin bureaucratic BS and the Sly guys mocking a serious world issue ..."
Because you can make good (but imperfect) people look bad by being very selective in what you report, rather than giving a balanced view. Such as making Australia out to be less than perfect while ignoring much greater problems with other regimes. And such as claiming 'human rights' over trivial things like mentioned in this video. THAT is YOUR lesson in Basic Hypocrisy 101.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@azadehamininajafabadi8386
"It is not bad for you to learn some thing extra to simple ,easy and not a very sophisticated language called English..."
English is actually said to be hard to learn, as there are many inconsistencies in it.
"...so it is a good start for you to know every other language is more sophisticated than English !"
I very much doubt that "every" other language is (creole languages are worse, I believe), and I wonder what you mean by "sophisticated" in this case, but yes, I do recognise that there are other languages that are both more complex and more rigid than English, including some supposedly-primitive ones. In fact it can be observed that languages simplify over time, so ancient languages were more complex than today's languages. But in English's case, it has also suffered from being basically a mixture of languages, which is why it has all those inconsistencies.
"And no ,people who did wrong are not long dead ..."
Except that they are.
"... their ideology of abuse and stealing from every other nation is very alive in all of your politics and governments and your thoughts of course !"
No, not "of course". That is a claim that you haven't show to be true.
"I am using my Persian language which is sophisticated ,philosophical ,beautiful and can relate long sentences without needing to make them short or cut because we have ability to relate sentences together even if they are long or not being cut short ."
That is incorrect. Yes, I'll accept that you know Persian, but you used English!
"It is good for you to start to learn sentences can be more than short made of few word !"
Oh, I know that they can be, and sometimes that can work well when those sentences are well-constructed. But that was not the case here. But I guess that can be put down to English not being your first langauge?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rattusfinkus
" 'Government mandates stuff the market up.' I've already replied to that."
Yes, and I replied to your reply.
"What I can add though is that with battery prices falling and price parity is within reach, mandates or not, EVs will be the wiser financial choice for buyers."
Well, that's what you expect. And you may be right. But you also may not be.
"So mandates are irrelevant."
They why do we have them? Clearly, because without them, this wouldn't be happening, or at least not yet or not at the pace being forced. So no, mandates are relevant, and tyrannical.
"So at price parity and the huge value V2G can add in powering your home, worksite or holiday, ICE just can't compete with an EV."
Then why not let the market produce that? Why does it need to be mandated?
Further, a number of car manufacturers have backed off from EVs, not seeing them as the best way to go.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kelly_Kapowski
"What an aggressively stupid comment."
The only problem I see with it is whether "always" is true.
"Protection for marginalised groups takes exactly nothing away from the majority."
Then why the opposition to the religious freedom bill?
"This topic is literally about giving the queer community the same rights as everyone else - not additional rights."
They already have the same rights. This is about a Christian school being allowed to uphold their (evidence-based) beliefs. Why would you oppose that?
"You still haven’t explained what is taken away from hetero people under this proposal."
He did, implicitly, and I have above.
"White people have literally been the only lives that matter for literally hundreds of years."
Utter rubbish. Unless you can support that claim with evidence?
" NO ONE, literally NO ONE said white lives don’t matter. Good grief…."
And yet when people responded with "all lives matter", they were heavily criticised. Not to mention that some people have actually said that "white" lives don't matter. For example, a Yale lecturer said she "had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any White person that got in my way, burying their body and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step."
"There is a huge power imbalance."
You're right. The left have the support of most of the media, the education system, etc. The power balance is heavily skewed to the left.
"This is about schools stopping gay and trans kids from enrolling due to their sexuality or gender. "
There is no restriction on either sex, so that part is false. The other part is to do with whether or not they are willing to abide by God's standards.
"Which is called discrimination."
Nothing wrong with discrimination. We all do it all the time. ( Some forms of discrimination are unfair, however, and some forms of discrimination are illegal.)
"Do you think businesses and schools should be allowed to stop black people from using their services?"
No, because there is nothing wrong with being "black".
"And it’s both rights and protection."
So the school should have the right to uphold its values and protection from those who would try and impose their views on the school.
1
-
1
-
@Kelly_Kapowski
"So the church’s bigotry towards Queer people is ”evidence based” is it?"
If you're going to question my claims, at least represent them accurately. I denied bigotry.
"Ok then it should be easy for you to provide an example of mainstream peer reviewed science/sociology which supports that claim……"
Oh, okay. You're not actually after evidence at all. You're after claims from people who support your views.
"There’s nothing wrong with Queer people either. Please enlighten us on what’s wrong with Queer people."
They are defying the way that they were created.
"Except the right to being Queer and religious, and attending the religious schools of their choice."
By "religious", I assume you mean a particular religion, such as Christian. But they can't consistently be "Queer" and Christian as the two contradict each other.
"But it’s ok for religious groups to impose their views on Queer people."
I never said that. Telling prospective students (or their parents) that they have to abide by certain principles if they want to attend is not imposing their views on them. They are free to choose a different school.
"Sounds like hypocrisy … We are a secular nation."
Do you even understand what that means? It does not mean anti-Christian. Australia (like the rest of the West) is, historically, Christian.
"And no, no one here including you has been able to state how this proposal disadvantages heterosexual people."
False. I pointed out that it denies them the right to uphold their beliefs.
"All you’ve dribbled is rhetoric."
Says the person who has made a number of claims that I have challenged but which you haven't answered.
"Additionally, if you can’t see the historic disproportionate power balance between black and brown people compared to whites in the western world…"
I've never denied that in the West there have been and still are more 'whites' than others, so of course, just on numbers, the 'whites' will have the most power. Of course in other places, that is different.
"White fragility at its most cringey."
An attempt to demonise people making a valid point, and done by misrepresenting what I said. I did NOT say, per your supposed quote of me, ”and yet when people said white lives matter they were heavily criticised”.
"White people aren’t disproportionately incarcerated and killed by police."
Proportional to the crimes committed by them? What's your evidence?
"White people don’t need to protest in the street because established systems leave them behind."
Established systems don't leave non-'whites' behind either.
"Crawl out of your privilege for one second..."
What privilege? Are you saying that I have privilege just because of the shade of my skin? That is overt racism. You know nothing about what privileges I've had or not had.
"…look up the Indigenous deaths in custody data for Australia."
Which will tell me what? That more indigenous people died because of racism, or simply that more indigenous people died?
"It’s absurdly immature to to interpret “black lives matter” as “White lives don’t matter” "
When people who say "black lives matter" reject the claim that "all lives matter", then what else is one supposed to conclude?
"Yet you perpetuate a blatantly white nationalist idea."
What idea is that? Because I'm not a white nationalist. I don't even accept the concept of race, as we are all one race. Biologically there are only trivial differences between different so-called races.
"I guess black people are ok as long as they stay on their lane and don’t complain, right? Am I on the right track?"
Absolutely not. You are stereotyping me in a racist way.
"Are white people so precious that they are threatened by a marginalised group asking for a more equal standing in society?"
No, they are threatened by the Marxist worldview that seeks to undermine Western Civilisation by pretending (among other things) that there is racism where none exists or that there is a lot where there is in fact only a little.
"Racial inequality still exists."
Where? I don't doubt that it's rife in some parts of the world, but it's mostly gone in the West.
"If you bothered to do a shred of research you see that."
I've done my share of research, but not by looking through Marxist glasses.
"Instead, people like you bluster endlessly about how victimised white people are because black and brown people want equality."
No, we complain about false claims of inequality used to justify trying to bring down Western Civilisation.
"Or to not be maliciously misgendered?"
Calling a male a male is not misgendering them.
"Last time a checked heterosexual people have those rights."
Actually, in some places, normal people don't have the right to use the correct pronouns; they are forced to use incorrect ones.
"You claim a superior intellect yet can’t answer basic questions without dribbling vague rhetoric."
Where are your answers to my challenges to your claims?
* Then why the opposition to the religious freedom bill?
* Why would you oppose that? (a Christian school being allowed to uphold their (evidence-based) beliefs)
* Unless you can support that claim with evidence? (that "White people have literally been the only lives that matter for literally hundreds of years.")
If you are going to accuse others of not answering basic questions, then why don't you answer such questions put to you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@justmeandi8256
"Fetuses start developing consciousness and pain perception approximately around week 24-28"
Several responses:
First, as you said, "What we know today might change tomorrow as new evidence is discovered." In other words, that might turn out to be wrong. And if we are not certain, then we should err on the side of caution. If a deer shooter see movement and shoots and kills a person, he won't get off by saying that he didn't realise it was a person. He must be certain he's not shooting a person.
Second, there is already research challenging that. From the Journal of Medical Ethics: "Given that the cortex only becomes functional and the tracts only develop after 24 weeks, many reports rule out fetal pain until the final trimester. Here, more recent evidence calling into question the necessity of the cortex for pain and demonstrating functional thalamic connectivity into the subplate is used to argue that the neuroscience cannot definitively rule out fetal pain before 24 weeks"
From a Charlotte Lozier Institute Fact Sheet on the Science of Fetal Pain: "The published scientific literature shows that unborn babies can experience pain at 20 weeks gestational age" and "A comprehensive review of the scientific literature[1] including neural development, psychology of pain sensation, and moral implications of fetal pain, concludes that unborn babies may experience pain as early as 12 weeks."
In fact I think you're blatantly wrong to claim that "Fetuses start developing consciousness and pain perception..." That's more likely when the development is well advanced if not complete.
Third, it is not moral to kill an innocent human being just because they won't feel the pain of it. Otherwise it would be okay to anaesthetise your toddler and then kill him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@seltic13
"my evidence is that at no point has anything divine ever happened."
So your evidence is actually a perceived lack of evidence? Why couldn't there be evidence that you're not aware of?
"Nothing that is not easily assignable to natural occurrence of nature"
What about the 'fine tuning' of the universe, or the origin of life, or the origin of genetic information? Science has been unable to explain those, and in fact the evidence shows that they could not happen naturally.
"The Bible claims creation and dinosaurs have entered the chat."
Huh? I don't follow what you're saying there.
"Further if you can explain why Zeus is not real, or Buddha, or Kali, or any of the thousands of first peoples gods are not the true god."
First, "god" refers to the ultimate being, the creator. Zeus doesn't even fit the category, as he was (supposedly) the offspring of other gods. Kali is in a similar situation. Buddha was a person, not a god. Some of the other "first peoples gods" might in fact be the true God. Australian aborigines call the creator Biaime, which might be their name for God, especially given that they have legends that in a number of respects match the biblical account.
"You will have the proof you seek as to why your god is nothing more then a spaghetti monster."
Given that I've shown your arguments to be wrong, that proof is still lacking.
"Do you guys not get his message"
Umm, yes, of course.
"The North American Christian community better hope there is no heaven or hell. Because they are not going where they think they are."
A fact-free assertions, which therefore can be safely ignored.
"that sums up western religion fairly well."
Except that it doesn't. Or perhaps you can back up that claim, like you've backed up the claim that there is no evidence for God, when what you really meant was that you're not aware of any evidence.
"An all powerful white male sits in control and judgement of all species..."
God is a spirit, so apart from taking on human form to visit Earth, he has no colour.
"But then he sent his kid off to get killed and become a zombie."
Atheists have a big problem with rationally discussing the topic, don't they? That "kid" was Himself, and He didn't become a zombie. And He did it in order that we could be reconciled to Him. Isn't that a great thing He did?
"And then as the belief was fading..."
Rewriting history now?
"Where they began producing and refining the “Bible”..."
Err, no. That's more rewriting of history.
"...people confuse love they neighbor and the meek shall inherit the earth with, wealth is good, and protect what’s yours someone else doesn’t deserve it."
What some people might confuse does not mean that there is something wrong with the correct message that most understand.
1
-
1
-
@davidrichaidson3269
"The problem I have with most of not all adherents of religion is their refusal to accept religion is based of something called faith, I think, and faith is not nor can ever be based on fact, "
That is simply false, as it is an atheist definition. Faith, in the biblical sense, is trust in someone who has shown themselves to be trustworthy. That is, it is based on evidence. If, for example, I loan a friend some money, I trust (have faith ) that he will repay me, because of the evidence that he is an honest, trustworthy, person.
Applying an atheist definition of a word to the biblical use of it is simply intellectual dishonesty.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oldgolfer7435
"It is a well known false ploy to claim all of the humane advances in civilisation for the efforts of Christianity,"
First, you haven't shown that it's false. In fact you don't actually dispute any of the examples I gave. Second, I never claimed "all" human advances.
"...it was Christians that started slavery."
Huh? Slavery has been around in most of the world (including non-Christian parts) for virtually all of history, and certainly before there were Christians. That claim is bizarre.
"A second of course is that religious schools have always divided and denigrated, even between religions themselves."
What's your evidence that they have "always" done either? And why are you treating all non-atheistic views as one and ignoring atheistic views?
"...your basic belief is a delusion that there is an extra terrestrial being to whom we are all beholden, ..."
Again, what's your evidence for that being a delusion? A bald assertion is not an argument.
"Atheists', or non theists' have the right to express more scientific views,..."
Science can only study the natural; the supernatural is outside science's purview, except to the extent that it can potentially investigate claims of the supernatural affecting the natural.
"...the realities of evolution,..."
What realities?
"...along with the atrocities that have been carried out in its name over the centuries, and still are."
What atrocities? Note that I'm not denying that people who called themselves Christian have not committed atrocities, nor am I claiming that Christians are perfect and have never done anything wrong. But compared to numerous other groups (including atheistic ones) Christians have committed few atrocities.
"The bible is not a scientifically proven document."
Again, the Bible outside science's purview. Science can only properly study things in the present (not the past, as it can't observe, measure, test, nor repeat past events), and only the natural. The Bible records history (quite reliably) and the supernatural.
"What a horror in myriads of cases it would be if it were so."
Huh? I don't understand that.
"I quite agree, but to what are you referring. Teaching science?"
I don't know what Dianne Smith was referring to, but in teaching "science", what is actually taught in some cases is a naturalistic view, because many scientists work on the principle of methodological naturalism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"If separation of church and state is upheld,..."
Then you don't get the state favouring one Christian denomination over another. And by extension, one religion over another.
"...it protects everyone's religions ..."
Is that a good thing? Not all religions are good.
"...and prevents taxpayer money from being spent by one religion for one religion just because it happens to be the majority in a certain area."
What about taking into account which religion is correct?
"Christians might not be the majority and might feel differently if another religion were using government property and taxpayer funds to celebrate and promote itself."
Yes and no. Christians are not in a majority in various countries, but tend to accept that such countries don't have church/state separation, and simply live within that paradigm. But Australia IS, historically, a Christian country, and still is a Christian country in the sense that Christianity is the basis for Western Civilisation, of which Australia is a part.
"The government should be used to provide the structure and infrastructure of society, and leave the celebration and promotion of various belief systems up to the houses of worship and private citizens."
That sounds like an atheist view you're putting there. So why should your view dominate, instead of the Christian view that countries should acknowledge God?
"To be fair if government cover the expenses of one religion's gatherings how would they not cover another's?"
You do realise that we are not actually talking about government covering the expenses of a religion's gatherings?
"Government funds and property must be inclusive of all the citizens..."
But in this case, it's apparently all except Christians.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Absorbingcow
"well it has to start someday..."
But does it? And how do you do it with the 2nd Amendment?
"...why not now ?"
Because America is not ready for it. I think if you're going to remove guns, there has to be a well-thought-out long-term plan that doesn't result in the situation where the criminals have guns and others don't, and somehow gets around the 2nd amendment. Superficially, that appears to be impossible, but I suspect that there is a way to do it, but I don't know what that way is. But it may well involve convincing the population that it's the better way to go, so that the 2nd amendment can be repealed.
To do that will require very good accurate arguments. Yet so many arguments on this matter—from both sides—are fallacious. I'll give two examples from this thread:
* Joe Nox claims that the ban on firearms in England is not working out well. But how many people had guns in the first place? I think England is like Australia in that it didn't have a lot of guns to start with, and apart from special groups, even the police didn't and still don't carry guns (although in Australia they now do).
* You claimed that crime, and specially gun crime, is very low in Australia. First, as I've mentioned, most Australians didn't carry guns before the gun buyback. It was never like America. Second, I looked closely into that some years back, and found that yes, following the gun buyback murders by guns dropped. But not by a huge amount, and there was some evidence that it was already dropping anyway. I saw no evidence of a large drop in gun crimes or all crimes (but neither did I see a large increase as the pro-gun side often claims).
1
-
1
-
1
-
@charlesbrightman4237
"Because the Pope believes he is God's representative ..."
I was quoting, and rejecting your question. It was not my question.
"The thing is though, that God does not even actually exist besides just as a concept,..."
I asked you for evidence of that claim. You haven't provided any. Your claim is baseless.
"...and nobody as of yet can prove otherwise either."
I also asked you for evidence of that claim, and again, you've provided none. That claim is baseless too.
"Then you don't know how Catholicism works."
What does this have to do with how Catholicism works? This is about how the recipients of those 'dictates' respond.
"Nobody as of yet can show me how 'b' is really true and that 'a' is not really true in the God analysis above."
So your "evidence" is a lack of evidence? And again, what's your evidence that nobody can show you that?
"Plus, nobody as of yet can show how God currently interacts with humans in human discernable ways, as is stated in Books like the Bible."
Again, your evidence is a lack of evidence, backed by another evidence-free claim that nobody can show that. Further, the Bible doesn't just state that; it gives examples of that happening.
"Believing that God actually exists without any actual evidence of God's actual existence, is blind faith of believers."
But despite being challenged on this, you've produced no evidence that nobody has any evidence. So your conclusion of blind faith is based on a bald assertion that is itself without evidence! That is, on blind faith!
"Because nobody can prove God even actually exists besides just as a concept."
Repeating your claim that you've not provided evidence for does not make it any more true. Again, what's your evidence that nobody can do that?
"It is, you obviously do not know the history of the Bible."
I rejected your claim with a reason. You simply besmirched me without providing a reason.
"Their stated beliefs would indicate that they do. Or here again, you don't understand the Catholic belief system."
I think you need to carefully reread my comment on this.
"Because it's not really true, and because it is."
That's just repeating the claim with different words.
"Death was in this world long before humans even ever existed on this Earth."
Evidence? Citing a competing view is not evidence, by the way.
"In fact, there supposedly 5 mass extinction events even before humans existed on this Earth."
According to the competing view. That view is incorrect.
"Shortening this up, why cannot you deal with real reality?"
I am. Why do you assume that your views are the reality-based ones?
"Are you afraid that life itself is ultimately meaningless in the grand scheme of things?"
I know it's not.
"That it does not even matter that any of us exist while we exist? That when we die, we are dead for all of future eternity?"
What's your evidence for any of that?
"Why do you cling to your delusional fairy tale beliefs when there is not actual evidence to support those beliefs?"
Why do you keep repeating that there is no evidence, when you won't show that there is actually no evidence? Your claim of no evidence is the thing that has no evidence. I actually have plenty of evidence.
"'a' is true, is it not? 'b' is true, is it not? If 'a' and 'b' are true, then no creator is needed in 'c'."
No, 'a' is not completely true. Modern (naturalistic) science doesn't take into account the option of God creating it. Modern science says that there is no natural mechanism for creating or destroying it. It has not ruled out a supernatural mechanism.
The problem with 'b' is entropy. The universe is running down. If it had always existed, it would have already run down. But it hasn't run down, so it hasn't always existed.
So as your premises are wrong, 'c' is not a valid conclusion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@simonharris4873
"Flat earthers are almost always biblical creationists."
Evidence please (of the "almost always" bit). The last I heard, the head of the flat earth society was an evolutionist.
"According to them, the bible says the earth is flat."
And they are wrong.
"Of course, the bible also says PI = 3,"
It doesn't, of course. Rather, it gives a diameter and a circumference of a round object, from which you can deduce that pi = 3 assuming that you're not rounding the measurements and are actually measuring the same thing (e.g. one's not inside and the other outside). But then what IS pi? Is it 3.14? Well, no. I know it as 3.1415926, but even that's not exactly it. But 3.1415926 IS correct to eight significant figures and 3.14 IS correct to three significant figures, and 3 IS correct to one significant figure! So the Bible is a) not trying to say what pi is, b) is not incorrect, and c) is not providing a useful formula, but just giving some round measurements.
"so it's probably not a great source for anything science."
It's not designed to be. Rather, it's mainly about history. The history of God's interaction with man. Science is not the primary nor even necessarily a good tool for investigating history, because you can't observe, measure, test, nor repeat past events, and yet observation, measurement, testing, and repeatability are key tools of the scientific method.
"You'll find many things are calculated rather than measured. That doesn't make them less accurate."
No, but the assumptions can make them inaccurate.
"What are these assumptions you speak of?"
The assumptions that we can determine with certainty the original quantities or ratios of the elements being measured, that we can know that none of those have leached out or into the sample, and that the decay rates have remained constant, being the main ones. And that the Bible is wrong. That last assumption is particularly relevant when it comes to carbon dating. Carbon dating requires one to know the C12/C14 ratio in the environment at the time the living thing died, and yet we know that has changed over time. So scientists draw up tables of what it was in different time periods. They find, for example, timber of known age (e.g. used in construction of a building that we know from history when it was built) and use that to calculate what the ratio was at the time. If the global flood occured as described in the Bible, then that ratio would have been changed drastically by the flood event. So do they adjust for that? No, because they assume it didn't happen. So the dates they come up with from around that time will appear to be much older than they really would be if the flood did happen. Therefore, those dates are based on the assumption of no flood. Many people then use those dates to say that the Bible got it wrong, which constitutes a circular argument.
1
-
@simonharris4873
No, it's not inaccurate at all. What you mean is that the is the most least-precise definition of pi you've ever seen. However, as I pointed out, it's not defining pi! It's simply giving some rounded measurements. Also, as I've already pointed out, it's not talking about a circle, but about a circular object that has thickness. But even if that point is ignored, as (again) I've already pointed out, it could well be that the measurements were rounded. Would you expect that the object was 30 cubits in circumference precisely? Or at least to the nearest thousandth of a millimetre? What if it was actually 30.41 cubits around? Surely rounding that to 30 is not unreasonable? And what if was 9.68 cubits across? Rounding that to 10 cubits is surely not unreasonable too. And yet, if those were the measurements, pi comes out to 3.1415.
"Given that it's supposed to be the work of an infallible being, is have expected a little better than that."
Ah, so this comes down to your expectations of what God would do! Do you claim to know Him that well?
"Carbon dating is only one form of dating."
Yes, and that was just an example.
"We can tell the earth is more than 7,000 years old simply by looking at core samples, all maidenhead no assumptions."
Core samples of what? Core samples of tree rings assume one ring per year, even though there are known cases of more than one per year. Core samples of ice assume similar, but there is also evidence against that.
"If God created them all less than 7000 years ago, we wouldn't be able to see them."
Unless there was time dilation per Einstein's theory of special relativity. This actually reinforces my point. Mainstream science assumes that the universe has no centre or edge, and therefore gravity is the same everywhere. However, if the universe does have a centre and and edge (which there is evidence for, showing, incidentally, that the Milky Way is close to that centre), that assumption is wrong. There's also the issue that we cannot determine the one-way speed of light (see the video "Why No One Has Measured The Speed Of Light" on the Veritasium channel).
Conversely, if the universe is as big and as old as mainstream scientists say, then there has not been enough time for the heat of the cosmic microwave background to have evened out to the level it is. This is the "Horizon Problem". So both mainstream scientists and creationary scientists have a similar 'problem', but both have come up with potential explanations.
"To be quite honest, I think being a young earth creationist requires just as much ignorance as being a flat earther."
And yet it was 'young earth' creationists who founded modern science. And who produce the world's most accurate clocks, have the most sophisticated computer model of plate tectonics, invented MRI, and more. So maybe not so ignorant after all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tcdrx
'When you are religious I can understand that you think the Enlightenment has it limitations."
Specifically, I'm a Christian (often rejected as being a religion), and therefore I believe in facts and evidence. And that is why I'm not a fan of the so-called Enlightenment.
"But I'm from Europe."
You have my sympathy.
"And the differences of opinions about what the ultimate religious 'truth' exactly was ..."
Well, as I said, I'm interested in facts and evidence, and not so much in opinion. And there is only one 'truth', not 'religious truth' and other sorts of truth.
"...has led us into many many wars."
I'm not convinced of that, depending on just what you're referring to. The three-volume Encyclopedia of Wars lists only seven percent of wars as being of a religious nature, and of those, more than half are connected to one particular religion, which is not Christianity.
"Freedom of religion and secularism was an answer to that problem."
Freedom of religion is a product of Christianity. I'm glad that you like it.
"They are marxist indead. Which also can be considered a believe system (religion) ."
Absolutely.
"Because it is not grounded in reality."
No, not for that reason. Because it's a set of views on how one sees the world. Something being a religion is not based on whether or not it's grounded in reality. Christianity is a religion grounded in reality, and (therefore, I would argue) has done an enormous amount of good in the world. See for example the short video "Tom Holland tells NT Wright: Why I changed my mind about Christianity"
1
-
@tcdrx
"I'm not religious myself."
You don't have a set of views that define how you see the world?
"But it has also been abused for political reasons."
Any good thing will be.
"Religion is very attractive for the powerhungry."
That would surely depend on what the particular religion teaches. Christianity has been the opposite, opposing the power hungry. Bishop Ambrose stood up to the Roman emperor Theodosius after he ordered the slaughter of 7000 people. Christians were instrumental in the creation of the Magna Carta, limiting the power of the king on the grounds that even the king was answerable to God. Many missionaries have sided with the locals against the colonial powers when they thought that the colonial powers were doing the wrong thing. Hitler, while outwardly remaining a Catholic, was actually opposed to Christianity because he knew that the Christians would never fully support him.
"Even in the 50's we had what was called pillarization. People from different religions had their own schools, shops, jobs, etc."
You probably still do. Different viewpoints want their own view to be dominant. Nothing surprising about that. The problem with Europe (I'm generalising, of course) is that one of those viewpoints—the 'secular' one—achieved the desired dominance. This is not about a fairer system, but about one side winning. This is the same (in principle) as saying that Islam is about peace—once everyone is a Muslim!
"So, this might cloud my judgement."
No doubt. Because (it seems) that your judgement has been clouded by your acceptance of secularism (a worldview) over Christianity (a competing worldview). And that you think that somehow means that things are better. Well, most adherents to a worldview would think that, wouldn't they?
1
-
@tcdrx
"So, even in the history of Christianity the values were flexible."
The values of individual people who called themselves Christian, yes. As I alluded to, there will be bad people even in good institutions.
"But at the same time our value system is still rooted in Christianity."
True. But it's moving away from those roots.
"So, I don't think Christianity has lost much."
It's lost the respect that it had, and with that, society will suffer for being cut off from its Christian roots.
"I would even defend the right to believe. All classical Liberals would. I don't see each other as enemies."
But many people do see Christianity as the enemy. Maybe not classical Liberals, but a lot of secularists would.
"And the Freedom of religion was not to protect Christians from atheïst. Because at the time there were very little."
No, I never thought that it was for that.
"The reason a lot of people migrated to America was to escape persecution because of different religious beliefs. Freedom of religion was also born out of that history. The freedom to choose your own religion."
It was more a case of freedom of Christian denomination (the "different religious beliefs", at the start at least, were different Christian beliefs), but the principle has been extended to other religions. The underlying reason, I believe, is because Christianity (despite how some have imposed it) is, inherently, about beliefs, not actions (e.g. rites and rituals), and hence it can't be forced on people. To explain, Jesus said "You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgement.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgement; ... You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.". It's our thoughts that condemn us, but thoughts cannot be forced. He also said "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him [my emphasis; notice "believe" not "do certain things"] should not perish but have eternal life." You can force someone to say that they are a Christian, but you can't force them to believe it, so saying it doesn't make you one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@panayotisdamianakis3658
"I din't mean 'you', personally, I meant it collectively. "
No, I realised that.
"At best, it is a theory until he or academia can prove it. That's the way it works."
True. My point was that even without proof, it's possible that it's correct. (Although in this case I don't believe at all that it is.)
I'll give you a thought experiment that might help. Just for the sake of argument, suppose that I was a politician and I was visited by a UFO. In this hypothetical scenario, know for a fact that I was so visited. That is an absolute fact.
But without evidence that I could present, I shouldn't go proclaiming that fact. I know it's a fact, but without evidence, another source, 'peer review', etc., I would be foolish to claim that, and, more importantly, others would be foolish to believe me.
But (in that hypothetical scenario) it remains a fact, even without any evidence, peer review, etc.
1
-
@panayotisdamianakis3658
"'you' were the eye witness. Pascoe wasn't."
That doesn't change my point that something might be true even if you can't prove it's true. I do agree, however, that Pascoe can't even claim to have eye-witness knowledge.
"Further, his ancestry is now being questioned."
It's more than being questioned. It's been shown to be false.
"Archeologists found the foundations of round stone buildings dated from about 8000 BC in WA - ... its the world's oldest temple."
That's assuming that the dates are correct. But that's another matter.
"There are eye witness accounts of Jesus, some evidence here and there of his existence and a religious ideology built around his 'possible' existence ..."
There is enough evidence that virtually no historian concerned with the period doubts the existence of Jesus.
"...Christians have to rely on faith, not proof to believe."
I disagree. What is "proof"? In science, there is no such thing. In logic, it assumes the accuracy of the premises. In a criminal court case, it's evidence that is sufficient to convince the judge or jury "beyond reasonable doubt". In a civil court case its evidence sufficient to convince that it's more likely the case than not. In both court case examples, it also depends on the willingness of the judge or jury to be convinced. Despite overwhelming evidence, some may not be convinced in any case.
In the case of Jesus, the evidence is so strong that it can be considered "proved" except to the most stubborn sceptic. Numerous people have set out to show that Jesus didn't exist (or that the Bible is wrong), only for the evidence to convince them otherwise. For them, the case was proved.
Besides, you are using a definition of 'faith' that atheists love and which they misapply to Christians. The biblical use of the word 'faith' is trust that is based on evidence of the source being trustworthy.
"And some people don't believe there was a 'son of God' for good reason."
I would dispute the good reason bit. I don't know of any good reason.
"That there was a cult of personality hero, some 2000 years ago who's mother gave birth to him, a virgin birth. God had apparently snuck around while she wasn't looking and impregnated Mary - I guess artificially or magically."
Not a cult of personality. God doesn't need to sneak around. And God doesn't invoke magic—He is capable of doing things by his own abilities.
"This son of God, Jesus, later walks on water and provides manna from heave! Fish, loaves and wine! "
If you're going to critique claims, it's best to be familiar with the claims that you're critiquing. The manna was 1500 years before Jesus.
"It's party time for the believers."
No. The 'wine' was for a wedding festival before Jesus had followers. The loaves and fish were to simply feed crowds of people who would have gone hungry otherwise.
"Sounds a bit unbelievable, doesn't it?"
Only if you think God is incapable of doing those things. But if God is capable of creating the universe, the planet, life, etc., then this sort of thing is a walk in the park for Him.
"Am I supposed to believe Anatoly Fomenko too?"
Of course not. I never even suggested that you were supposed to believe Pascoe. I've argued to the contrary.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gizzmowalliss
"the earth abideth for ever.— Ecclesiastes 1:4
the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 2Peter 3:10"
So you're argument is one from hyperliteralism and English translations. The NET version has lots of translators notes. It translates the Ecclesiastes verse this way: "A generation comes and a generation goes, but the earth remains the same through the ages.". Note that it doesn't say "forever". It has a note on "remains" that says "The participle עֹמָדֶת ( ʿomadet, “to stand”) emphasizes a continual, durative, uninterrupted state (present universal condition). Man, despite all his secular accomplishments in all generations, makes no ultimate impact on the earth." That is, the context here is not about the lifetime of the earth, but how little he can change it. And the lengthy note on "through the ages" starts with "The term עוֹלָם ( _ʿolam_) has a wide range of meanings: (1) indefinite time: “long time, duration,” often “eternal” or “eternity”; (2) future time: “things to come”; ...". So the verse doesn't explicitly say "forever"—that is one possible English translation of the Hebrew.
"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father-Ezekiel 18:20
I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation — Exodus 20:5"
The Exodus reference is generally taken to mean that a father's sins will affect his children, whereas Ezekiel is saying that a good son will not be punished for his father's sins.
"he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. — Job 7:9
the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth— John 5:28-29"
Job is talking about the normal way things work, than when one dies, they stay dead. John is talking about a particular one-off future time. Again, you're reading it hyper-literally instead of in context.
"...is that not exactly what happens to the pharaohs son, he who is one of the many first borns killed by the angle of death as vengeance for the Israelite babies that the pharaoh had put to death."
Without looking up what the experts say, I would say not, it's not done to punish the sons, but to punish the fathers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"How religions work:"
This sounds like it's going to be a work of fiction.
"When people were nomadic and lived in family tribal groups, they made up gods ..."
As I thought. Do you have any evidence for that? And even if you do, do you have any evidence for that in the case of Christianity?
"This is where "Elohim" PLURAL comes from."
Again, do you have any evidence for that? It's still sounding like fiction.
"This is where "Don't have any other gods before me comes from."
No, that came directly from the creator, God, who wrote it on the ten commandments.
"When people merged into city-states, ..."
People basically started off having cities. Adam and Eve's son Cain was one who built cities.
"they ginned up a dying/rising savior who would bring the dead back to life"
Definitely fiction. Jesus was a real person who was really crucified, as accepted by historians. And history also tells us that He was seen alive afterward by hundreds of people. And if he hadn't been, Christianity would have been still-born.
"THAT is Christianity."
No, that is fiction.
"You don't need a book, a building, a preacher, or a god to know to not be a [bad person]."
How do you know then?
"You don't need a book to tell you that it's to everyone's benefit to feed the poor (because sometimes you might be poor)."
And yet such was often not the case outside the Judeo-Christian world.
"That's PSYCHOTIC NARCISSISM."
Because you say so? Or do you have any actual evidence?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Aaronwhatnow
"The bible is written by man so it could be wrong."
Evidence? Because Millions of Christians have believed it to be (ultimately) written by God, so the assertion that it's written by man is not self-evidently true and not true just because you say so.
"do you have any proof besides the bible to back up your beliefs?"
I assume that you mean "evidence", not "proof", and yes, there is plenty. Further, why arbitrarily exclude one of the key pieces of evidence?
"we don't have proof [of the Big Bang] at the moment."
So whenever anyone talks about the Big Bang as though it's true, do you question if they have any proof? Or only when it comes to God?
"That doesn't mean God did it."
No, not when the argument is phrased that way. But when you have only two competing views, either it happened naturally or it happened super-naturally, and one doesn't work (nothing can't create anything), then that IS evidence for the other.
"What evidence do you have of God?"
Plenty. Here is a small sample of the areas in which we have evidence:
* The fact that anything exists at all (nothing can't create anything), given that the laws of thermodynamics show that the universe cannot be eternal.
* The 'fine tuning' of various physical values, the odds of them occurring naturally being so small as to be effectively impossible.
* The information in the genomes of living things. Such meaningful information (i.e. not random noise) can only come from an intelligence.
* The reliable historical record of the Bible, never been proven to be wrong and often been shown to be correct in various details.
* The multiply-attested record of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
"we have a lot of evidence for the big bang."
But according to someone in this discussion, that "is written by man so it could be wrong." Oh, wait, that was you!
Besides, all that evidence can be understood in a different way. For example, the expansion of the universe can be part of the creator's design, especially given references to Him 'stretching out' the heavens.
"We just don't have evidence as to what started it."
Because nothing can't create anything. Start with nothing, and all you'll ever have is nothing, sans a creator able to create something. You'll struggle to find evidence when the laws of physics are against you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mysticcove3392
"There are thousands of different versions of the Bible in many languages and dialects."
There are thousands of different translations of the Bible, and yes, many are in different languages. So what? They are all still the Bible, i.e. the same information, just in different languages or different wording. For example, I can say "Today I rode on a tram", or "I rode on a trolley today". Exactly the same meaning, but different words.
"Which one are you referring to, i.e, King James Version, New International Version, The Literal Standard Version."
Any good modern version. NIV or ESV are good ones, but not the only good ones.
1
-
@LionessDragon-k4x
"poor soule"
What's poor about it?
"The bible was put together in the 14th..."
14th what? 14th day of February?
"from greedy mail man (3 popes at the same time) "
Utter rubbish. The Bible was written using human authors over a period of at least 1500 years from around 1500 BC to around 100 AD. And there was no postal service then (given that you mentioned mail men).
"...the Bibel has nothing to do with God..."
Again, utter rubbish. It's all about God and his relationship with man. It starts by mentioning God in the very first verse.
"how dare you to claim you know what God is when even your Moses did not know."
Except Moses did know. Further, what do you mean by "even" Moses? He didn't know a lot of stuff that God revealed later. At the time he write, He never new Jesus, for example. Further, what you do mean by "your" Moses? He's not mine.
"Genesis: I am who I am and what I will be, the one without a name"
Oh? What verse does it say that in? You should know, given that you you claim to know the Bible. I know where it says "God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” ", but that doesn't have "and what I will be, the one without a name". I think you made that up.
"I was raised in the katholic Churc, and I also do read the Koran and the Kabbala and the Thora"
So?
1
-
1
-
@LionessDragon-k4x
Second attempt
"poor soule"
What's poor about it?
"The bible was put together in the 14th..."
14th what? 14th day of February?
"from greedy mail man (3 popes at the same time) "
Utter rubbish. The Bible was written using human authors over a period of at least 1500 years from around 1500 BC to around 100 AD. And there was no postal service then (given that you mentioned mail men).
"...the Bibel has nothing to do with God..."
Again, utter rubbish. It's all about God and his relationship with man. It starts by mentioning God in the very first verse.
"how dare you to claim you know what God is when even your Moses did not know."
Except Moses did know. Further, what do you mean by "even" Moses? He didn't know a lot of stuff that God revealed later. At the time he wrote, he never new Jesus, for example. Further, what you do mean by "your" Moses? He's not mine.
"Genesis: I am who I am and what I will be, the one without a name"
Oh? What verse says that? You should know, given that you you claim to know the Bible. I know where it says "God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” ", but that doesn't have "and what I will be, the one without a name". I think you made that up.
"I was raised in the katholic Churc, and I also do read the Koran and the Kabbala and the Thora"
So?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DriveInFreak
"You tell me as that is exactly what you are doing."
That's called avoiding the question. No, I am not killing anyone. You made that up.
"About 287,000 women died during and following pregnancy and childbirth in 2020."
So your solution to this is to kill more babies? How ridiculous and horrendous. The vast majority of those women are in third-world countries with poor maternity services. In Cameroon, that's 438 deaths per 100,000 live births. In Australia, it's 5 per 100,000. But in Australia, there are about 88,000 babies killed in the womb per year.
"Every one of those deaths were preventable via abortion."
Every one of those abortions is a death. Every one of those deaths was also preventable by not getting pregnant. But I don't see you advocating that as a solution.
Further, about 78,000 mothers die each year from abortions. So why are you killing mothers?
"Is that outright absurdity ..."
That is not an absurdity. That is exactly what an abortion does—it kills an innocent human being. A survey of biologists showed that by a consensus of 95%, human life begins at fertilisation. Abortion kills innocent human beings.
"... honestly your best excuse for killing women via forced birth laws?"
Nonsense. The goal is to save babies, not to kill women. Abortion deliberately kills babies, and sometimes unintentionally kills the mother. Births occasionally kills the mother unintentionally.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davem3325
"the bible is just a bunch of STUPUD HOMEBREW SCRIBBLE! THERE IS NO PROOF THAT ANYTHING IN THE BIBLE IS TRUE!"
On the contrary, a considerable amount of the history in the Bible has been shown to be true. One old example being the existence of the Hittites.
"PROVE THE EARTH IS FLAT - AS THE BLIEBULL SAYS"
It does not say that, and Christianity has never believed that, contrary to the lies of atheists.
"PROVE THE GREAT FLOOD ACTUALLY HAPPENED"
I can do that. Assuming that you won't unreasonably reject good evidence. What sort of evidence would you find convincing?
"PROVE THAT GOD EXISTS - I AINT NEVVA SEEN HIM"
I haven't see you either. Should I ask you to prove that you exist? But again, what sort of evidence would you find convincing?
"PROVE THAT SNAKES CAN TALK?"
They can't talk, so I don't have to prove that.
"PROVE THAT ALL THE MILLIONS OF SPECIES OF ANIMAL AND PLANTS COULD FIT ON THAT IMAGINARY ARK!"
Nothing can fit in an imaginary ark. And the Bible never says that millions of species of animals and plants did.
"PROVE THAT ALL OTHER GODS AND RELIGIONS ARE FAKE AND THAT YOUR PATHETIC RELIGION IS TRUE!"
I don't have a pathetic religion, so I can't prove that a pathetic religion is true.
"PROVE THE EARTH IS ONLY 5000 YEAR OLD?"
Why, when I don't believe that it is?
"PROVE THAT THE SUN REVOLVES AROUND THE EARTH?"
Why, when it doesn't? Should I ask you to prove that the moon is made of green cheese? The question makes as much sense as your question.
"PROVE THAT YOU HAVE NEVER EATEN SHELLFISH OR PICKED UP STICKS ON A SUNDAY!"
Why? I never claimed to have not done so.
" well where is he right now? new york? sydney? HUH where ... is ya god!"
You don't know? Then you obviously are ranting against something that you don't actually understand. And your stupid questions above show that too. That's like, say, ranting against Raëlism without even knowing what Raëlism believes.
But to educate you, seeing you asked, God is a spirit, not a physical being, and He is everywhere.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davem3325
"I knew you would say that,..."
Yet you made the claim anyway, knowing it to be wrong!
"BUT for god to interact with nature or humans his spririt need to effect particle of matter, a force, and forces come from particles."
I didn't realise that you were such an expert on the subject of spirits. What's your evidence?
"For example if god made the earth, and put water on it, how did he "PLACE the WATER, what forces made the water go where it did?"
If you have an idea to, say, move your arm, how does that immaterial idea manage to move your arm? At some point it has to interact with the physical, and I know of no research or evidence that says that that's not possible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"You don't need to have faith to have the values etc he talks about"
If you don't believe in God, on what basis do you have those values? Sure, you can still have those values, but in practice those values have been adopted from the society that you live in, which is, historically, based in Christianity, which has provided the basis for those values. To put it another way, atheists can be very nice people with very good values, but atheism provides no basis for having those values, which means that if an atheist with enough power decides to adopt different values (as did Stalin, Mao, etc. slaughtering millions), there is nothing in atheism to say that they did anything wrong. What they did was wrong by God's standards.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pwillis1589
"A voice without veto power, legislative capacity, or financial delegation cannot in any be anything more than it is."
True, it can't be more than it is. But what actually IS it? That's the question.
"A voice recognises the original inhabitants it has absolutely nothing to to with race."
Nonsense. If it was just about the original inhabitants, it would have no members, as they are all long gone.
"Race is being raised only as an issue by racists like yourself..."
Except that I'm not a racist, and you've never shown me to be one. Yeah, I know, to the left, if I deny being racist, I must be racist, because, well, they don't understand logic.
"...who are Christian fundamentalist white supremacists."
I expect you to apologise for that baseless slur. Although I don't expect you will. Yes, I'm a Christian who actually believes what the Bible says. But it says that we are all equal under God, and are all descended from the same original pair, which goes against the former evolutionary view that some are more evolved than others, which view was a big driver of racism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@obsidianlimb5290
If the date is irrelevant, why did you make the claim that it's wrong? You're right in the sense that as we are not told the date, it's not particularly relevant, but if you're arguing that Christmas is on the wrong date, you should have evidence that it's the wrong date. It could well be the correct date, as it turns out.
Yes, we are not commanded to celebrate Christmas or Easter, but then I never claimed otherwise. All I did was dispute your actual claim that the date was wrong. So you are now shifting to a different argument that fails to address my refutation of your claim.
"We opened ours against the law because we put God above Government. "
God says to obey the government. Yes, that is a limited requirement, obviously not applicable where the government is clearly going against God. And in the United States, some governments have clearly discriminated against churches and thereby violated the U.S. Constitution, and have won the legal right to meet. I think that's terrific. Here in Australia, though, we don't have the same legal freedom, and I know of no discrimination against churches that is as blatant as has occurred in the U.S. (That's not to say that there hasn't been any discrimination.) It would appear to be harder for an Australian church to justify disobeying the government here.
But again, that's a different topic; I was addressing your claim about 25th December being the wrong date. You haven't refuted my rebuttal of that.
1
-
@obsidianlimb5290
As I said, you made the claim that the date was wrong. You thought it relevant enough to make that claim. I refuted that claim. You didn't attempt to refute my refutation, instead raising a different argument.
What Christmas means to different people will vary. And yes, if nativity scenes are all people ever see of Jesus, then you would have a point. But as Christians we know that there's a lot more to Jesus than that, and there is nothing wrong, in principle, with us celebrating His birth if we choose to do so. If you choose not to, that's also fine. But telling other Christians that they are wrong to is not fine unless you can actually show that they are wrong to do so.
I grew up with the story that the early church took a pagan festival and replaced it with Christmas. (That's a bit different to the claim that they 'Christianised' a pagan festival, though.) I saw no problem with that. That is, what's wrong with replacing a pagan festival with a Christian one?
However, I have since learned that that story is wrong. It turns out that, if anything, there was an attempt to replace the Christian celebration of Christmas with a pagan festival! There is a historical record from AD 202 of Christians already celebrating Christmas on 25th December. The pagan festival on that date came later!
"No Government has the right to close ANY Christian group at ANY time..."
Morally? Perhaps so. Legally? That depends on the laws of the government concerned.
"I question ANY religious leader that happily went along with this..."
As would I. But in the case of the leadership of my church, they have gone along with this unhappily, and tentatively. When in-person services were not allowed, we switched to on-line services. When the Bible says 'not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together', does that necessarily preclude being together on-line? You mightn't like that interpretation, but arguably meeting online satisfies the biblical injunction.
At present, we are allowed to meet in person, but with a maximum of 50 people unless they are all vaccinated. My church took the view that dividing the congregation up violated the injunction to meet together, so chose to have two services of 50 people each, mixed vaccinated and unvaccinated, plus still being on-line. They weren't happy with this, but didn't feel that the restrictions were yet sufficiently against biblical teaching to resort to civil disobedience. We may not agree with that, but we should concede that it's a difficult decision that they really struggled with, trying to do the right thing biblically.
"I'm sorry if you think I'm skirting your rebuttal..."
I don't just think it; you've admitted that you are doing so.
"I... have decided that only the truth needs to be discussed and revealed."
However, is 25th December being the wrong date, the truth?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dmw798
"Lol that's delusional,..."
No, it's not.
"look at western countries today; women can vote,..."
Yes, thanks to the Christian worldview underlying Western Civilisation that elevated the status of women.
"...people of colour are considered equal,..."
Again, the Christian worldview says that all people are equal before God, all being made in His image.
"gay marriage is legal, "
Citing an oxymoron as evidence of progress simply makes my point, that it's not progress but regress. Marriage is, by definition, a lifelong union between a man and a woman. "gay marriage" is a contradiction in terms, and is a defiance of the way we were designed to be. It is not progress.
"...all things that conservatives tried to stop in their day."
Not at all. Women's suffrage, for example, was supported by the very conservative Woman's Christian Temperance Union. Treating people of colour as inferior was supported by the atheists who believed that coloured people were less evolved. (That's oversimplifying it, but it's broadly true.)
"Backward countries are defined by conservatism, ..."
You might define them that way, but others don't.
"...those where women are treated as second class citizens, where religious law rules, where LGBTIQ lifestyles are illegal."
The places you refer to are not Western conservatives, and not "religious" so much as following particular, regressive, religions, those not being the religion that Western Civilisation is based on. But if you want an example of something "delusional", look no further than the T of LGBTIQ that is anti-reality. To claim that believing that men can declare themselves to be women and vice versa is not progress, but more regress.
"Sorry but those are just straight facts, no matter how you may feel."
No, they are a mixture of facts and of conclusions that you draw from those facts.
1
-
@dmw798
"First of all, we have the separation of church and state in western democracies."
Well, they have it in America, at least. Not (technically) in the UK. But do you know what that actually is (because many don't)? It's the state not controlling the church. It does not mean that the state should not recognise and respect Christianity.
"What you call Christian values are simply human values, shared with atheists and agnostics."
Not necessarily. Most of those atheists and agnostics adopted those values from the historically-Christian cultures that they lived in.
"western countries are characterised by secularism, turning away from religion towards science."
Turning away from religion to a thing that was founded by Christianity. That's hardly a case of turning away from religion. But yes, the West has turned away from Christianity, but historically, the West is founded on Christianity, as acknowledged by many scholars.
"Yes there were progressive Christian movements that supported equality, as there are churches today that support LGBTIQ rights, ..."
The difference being that equality is taught in the Bible, whereas LBGT+ is against what the Bible teaches.
"'...but that was not the orthodoxy at the time."
At what time? The change was gradual.
"Over 60% in Australia supported gay marriage, ..."
Yes, they did support that self-contradiction, because the left provided a false message about it, making it sound good.
"The 60s civil rights and counter culture movement did more for women's rights and racial equality, the antithesis of conservatism."
That's very debatable insofar as women are concerned. It actually debased women somewhat, with the free sex and the like. The civil rights movement had the support of many Christians; in fact Martin Luther King was a Baptist pastor.
"Western civilisation is conservatives continually losing and the goal posts shifting further to the left."
Yes, the left is today undermining the basis of Western Civilisation, succeeding in shifting it to the left. Which is something to be fought, not celebrated.
1
-
@dmw798
"separation of church and state means religion should not influence government or the judiciary. "
No, it does not, as I pointed out. It arose because of the Christians from England who were not part of the official state Church of England and who therefore had restrictions placed on them. When they went to America, they wanted a society where they were free to worship without those restrictions.
"Science was not founded by Christianity, ..."
The scholarship says otherwise. For example, Loren Eiseley wrote: “The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation … . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.”
"Galileo was tried for heresy for suggesting earth revolves around sun."
Actually, he was tried for heresy (and acquitted) because he upset the pope by maligning him. His scientific views—which were actually taught in the (church-run) universities—were merely an excuse.
"Civil rights movement was opppsed by KKK white Christians burning crosses."
You need to distinguish between actual Christians and people who call themselves 'Christian' but don't follow biblical teaching.
"Bible also teaches against eating shellfish, tattoos and wearing jewellery, ..."
No, it doesn't. What it does do is record the Mosaic Law that was applicable to the ancient nation of Israel, but which does not apply to others. This explains the shellfish rule. There is only one mention of tattoos, and even that depends on which translation you are using and whether the modern concept of tattoos is even what was referred to. Plus it also is part of that same Mosaic Law. I don't know where you got the jewellery reference, but there are several positive mentions of wearing jewellery in the Bible.
"but LGBTIQ rights is the one that gets to you?"
What rights? They have rights as people, but why do they need special rights just for them?
"My values are not based on Christianity in any way, ..."
So you claim. But what do you think your values are based on?
Agnostic historian Tom Holland would disagree with you. Referring to the apostle Paul and his letters in the New Testament, he said "compacted into this very very small amount of writing, was almost everything that explains the modern world [the Western world] but also the way that the West has moved on to shape concepts like international law, for instance, ... concepts of human rights, all these kinds of things. Ultimately they don’t go back to Greek philosophers; they don’t go back to Roman empiricism. They go back to Paul."
"...might be hard for a religious person to comprehend, but some of us do think for ourselves..."
Christians have been thinking for themselves for millennia. That's how they've helped the West make so much progress.
"...and don't need a book to tell us right from wrong."
So where do you get your concept of right and wrong? Merely your subjective opinion?
1
-
@dmw798
"no, separation of church and state means distance between the two and a secular state."'
I provided you with the historical rationale for it. All you've done in reply is deny.
"Science goes all the way back to the ancient Egyptians and Greeks, not to mention China, before Christianity even existed."
Again, I provided you with a quote from the scholarship, and all you've done in reply is deny. Here's Rodney Stark: “...progress was the product of observation and of trial and error but was lacking in explanations—in theorizing. Hence, the earlier technical innovations of Greco-Roman times, of Islam of China, ... do not constitute science...”
"Galileo was acquitted only after recanting his views after being threatened with torture by the church."
According to Arthur Koestler who studied the original documents, "both the judge and he knew that the threat of torture (territio verbalis) was merely a ritual formula, which could not be carried out … ."
"Lots of cherry picking with your bible interpretations again,..."
Like where? You don't demonstrate that I have cherry picked.
"...but then that's the problem with religions."
With some, including atheist ones perhaps, but I'm not here defending "religions".
"Are you the gatekeeper who decides who's a real Christian?"
I just give you the facts and evidence.
"I would argue anyone opposed to LGBTIQ rights is not loving their neighbour or doing onto others as they would have done to themselves."
Because you think that loving someone means endorsing a delusion rather than correcting them? If you saw someone about to drive off a cliff they didn't think was there, would it be loving to allow their delusion to continue?
"Human rights values can be found in the writings of the ancient Babylonians, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucius, the Koran (again in comes down to interpretations),..."
Perhaps so, to some extent. But not in the way that they are found in Christianity.
"...it's something that evolved through living in societies in any culture that's ingrained in most humans."
What's your evidence? Or is that just what you'd like to believe? And why are you more of an authority on this that Tom Holland? Again, I've provided scholarship on the issue and all you do in reply is deny.
"Just look at early Christianity,..."
What about it?
"...the crusades,..."
The attempts to defend Jerusalem and the Holy Land from invaders?
"...the inquisition,..."
That past practice of governments?
"...we moved away from those horrors by moving away from Christianity."
The crusades were a specific, short-term phenomenon. Besides, nobody is claiming that Christians, or people who call themselves Christian, have always done the right thing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@indiathylane2158
"Why don't you start without me?"
Start what? It's your job to defend your claims; not mine.
"Do your usual, reject every assertion the other person makes outright, ..."
Well, I will assert that one outright, because it's simply false. And being my approach, I'm the expert on that.
"...demand they prove it, then reject that outright."
Asking for evidence is not the same as demanding proof. But of course if you want to avoid defending your claim, attack the challenger instead. And rejecting evidence outright is not what I do. I reject with evidence.
"Meanwhile you'll make your own baseless statements, either refusing to back them up, or delaying several time."
False again. I do not make baseless statements, and I'm always willing to back them up, assuming that the person challenging me is not refusing to back their own claims. Like it seems you are doing here.
"Or you'll claim your posts are either self-evident or common knowledge."
In fact I very rarely do that.
"You could be a valuable contributor to these extreme channels."
What extreme channels? Evidence of them being extreme, please.
"But you're not here to debate, ... ."
I'm here (other than to watch the videos) to challenge baseless and/or false claims. And much of the time, the people making those claims fail to support them. Just like you're failing to do now.
"You're here to slap people down, or to obstinately defend the extreme agenda, no matter how distorted the telling of the original story."
No, I'm here to slap down baseless or wrong ideas, not the people, as you're doing now. And in that comment you've made more claims that I'd like evidence for, of the agenda being extreme, and of the story being distorted. You seem to think that you can make these derogatory statements without having to back them up, and when you're challenged to do so, at at least in this instance, you're attacking the challenger, not defending the claims.
"If you accepted other ppl's views & line of reasoning occasionally,..."
I do, when their reasoning makes sense.
"But you stonewall everything and live for the kill."
Again false. I live for the truth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@echelon2k8
"It didn't take off whilst it was illegal there,..."
What's your evidence for that? On the contrary, historians say otherwise.
Official persecution of Christianity was ended by Gallius in 311 AD, and Christianity was made legal by Constantine in 313 AD, i.e. just into the start of the fourth century.
However, a magazine article says this (my bolding):
-----------
"During plague periods in the Roman Empire, Christians made a name for themselves. Historians have suggested that the terrible Antonine Plague of the 2nd century, which might have killed off a quarter of the Roman Empire, led to the spread of Christianity, as Christians cared for the sick and offered an spiritual model whereby plagues were not the work of angry and capricious deities but the product of a broken Creation in revolt against a loving God.
"But the more famous epidemic is the Plague of Cyprian, named for a bishop who gave a colorful account of this disease in his sermons. Probably a disease related to Ebola, the Plague of Cyprian helped set off the Crisis of the Third Century in the Roman world. But it did something else, too: It triggered the explosive growth of Christianity. Cyprian’s sermons told Christians not to grieve for plague victims (who live in heaven), but to redouble efforts to care for the living. His fellow bishop Dionysius described how Christians, “Heedless of danger … took charge of the sick, attending to their every need.”
-----------
"If this didn't happen, Christianity, which started out as a tiny religious sect, could have possibly withered and died out like so many others."
But of course it did happen. Which might well have been God's deliberate timing. You're indulging in "what ifs".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pwillis1589
"Your merely interpreting the bible to suit your own morality."
Not so.
"The bible has specific laws on blasphemy and dress, the mixing of certain fabrics is outlawed and women should only pray with a veil, so don't be so disingenuous that only your interpretation of the bible is the right one or other interpretations haven't been Christian or church teachings."
Yes, the Bible does record specific laws as you describe that were given to the pre-Christian Israelite nation. It also records crimes that various people have committed. Not everything in the Bible is an instruction for us to follow.
What you refer to as theocracy is often known as that, but as I pointed out, is actually cleriocracy. I have no problem with rule by God, but I do have a problem with rule by the clerics.
"Generally women and children are treated as property with few rights."
"Generally" where? Yes, that was generally the case in the culture of the time, but the Bible treated women differently. For example, it records that women were deaconesses in the early church.
"Now I know this is all ridiculous and you do to, and it has been a gradually increasing secular society that has meant progressive Christians have had to adapt their religion to maintain relevance."
And yet the example I gave of the treatment of women was directly from the Bible, not a later change.
1
-
@pwillis1589
"You have reached the height of absolute wilfull ignorance by selectively quoting from a bible you clearly have not read."
Except that I have. More than once. And you have not shown any wilful ignorance on my part.
"Who decides what is an instruction to be followed and what is merely a guide."
A distinction that I did not make, so that's a straw-man question.
"Go read these verses."
Okay. It's good to get down to specifics. But first, these are the things that you claimed that the Bible says we should do:
1. specific laws on blasphemy and dress
2. the mixing of certain fabrics is outlawed
3. women should only pray with a veil
4. laws that advocate slavery
5. eating camel, prawns, lobster, mussels
6. Out goes Democracy and back comes Theocracy
7. women taking part in church [is] not allowed.
8. Generally women and children are treated as property with few rights. (although you're not actually claiming that one as an instruction)
Ephesians 5:22-24: Nothing here about any of those claims.
1Timothy 2:11-15: Nothing here about any of those claims, unless you're stretching a reference to learning.
1Corinthians 14: 33-35: Nothing here about any except for No. 7. I'll come back to that.
Colossians 3:18: Nothing here about any of your claims.
[1] Peter 3:1-6: Nothing here about any or your claims.
So here's what's happened. You made a series of claims about what the Bible supposedly instructs us to do. I rejected that the Bible does instruct us to do those things. So then you "refute" me by pointing to where is says a whole lot of different things than you claimed! So maybe it's you who needs to read the Bible, not me.
Okay, there was one apparent exception. On this I will concede two things:
* That, prima facie, you are correct.
* That many Christians would agree with you on that.
However:
* Many Christians do not agree with you that it is a universal instruction as opposed to one for the particular circumstances in view.
* In other places it records (without criticism) women taking part in services.
* I tend to favour a view (found in an on-line article which you should find by searching for "Paul and Women - A Christian Thinktank") that the "instruction" here is actually a criticism of the practice. Effectively, it's saying "What? Women should keep silent in the churches? ... Really?"
Whatever the correct explanation is, it's not a slam-dunk case that this teaches that women should not take part in church. And yet that was your only claim for which you provided supporting evidence.
"I'll take my definition of Theocracy from the Oxford dictionary not your interpretation."
That might be fair enough. As long as you're not incorrectly imposing the current Oxford definition on how the Bible uses it. But also, I guess the criticism I should have made is with regard to your claim that "Theocracy which the bible strongly advocates for which is where priests rule in the name of God." Where exactly does it do that? I don't believe it does that anywhere, and certainly not "strongly".
1
-
@pwillis1589
" So it is mixture of willfufull ignorance and deliberate disingenuousness you have opted for."
Nope. I've opted for addressing your claims.
"If you know your bible so well it would be you quoting the verse references about slavery, blasphemy, clothing restrictions back at me."
Why? I've already rejected your claims, and the onus is on you to support your claims, not on me to disprove them.
"Please deny there isn't."
I have already agreed that there are mentions of those things, but denied that they apply to us. You've not shown I'm wrong on that.
"What the is a strawman question?"
That I drew a distinction between instruction and guide. I drew a distinction between instruction applicable to us and instruction applicable to the pre-Christian nation of Israel and accounts of people doing wrong things.
"You stated not everything in the bible is an instruction and I ask and who decides that?"
What is an instruction and what is not is clear from the language. What is applicable to the Christian era is disputed among Christians, but most agree that much of the Mosaic Law is no longer applicable. And that's where you get references to shellfish, etc. This distinction is on the basis of the New Testament teaching about the role of "the law" (the Mosaic Law as a whole) and how Jesus affected that. You appear to be working on the baseless assumption that once an instruction is given, it can never be changed or rescinded for any reason whatsoever.
"You may have a other options, ..."
And that's the point. What you have listed are not the only options.
"...but my second option is obviously the reality"
Why? Because you say so?
"The five references were all to the subjugation of women not to all the various laws."
So not support for your claims, as I pointed out. I'm glad you've conceded that.
And no, they are not about the subjugation of women. To the extent that you've not misinterpreted them, they are about the role of women in particular circumstances. My boss at work does not subjugate me, but his role is as manager and mine as subordinate.
"How could you possibly misinterprete 1 Timothy 2:11-15"
How could you possibly accuse me of that without showing that I have? Oh, I guess what you say goes, regardless of evidence or argument. My apologies, o high one.
"Women who claim to love god should do helpful things for others and they should learn by being quiet and paying attention."
You don't learn much if you're not paying attention and if you're chatting away to others or interrupting.
"They should be silent and not allowed to teach or tell men what to do."
Without bothering to look up the full details of that, I'll just say that taking a single verse out of context is not a good way to understand the Bible. Christians (speaking generally about the experts) do NOT simply accept what they like and reject what they don't like. There is considerable and in-depth study of such topics to understand why such statement are there. They might be instructions in some cases, or they might be opinions of the human writers (Note that v.12 doesn't explicitly instruct, but says what Paul would do). They might also be instructions or advice for particular circumstances which would have been apparent to the original high-context readers, but not so apparent to people in low-context societies of the 21st century.
"And you just dismissed that be saying nothing here but a stretched reference to learning."
I dismissed the passage as not supporting your specific claims (which I listed, and you have not shown that I missed any), because it didn't.
"At this point you are either and I suspect not remotely genuine or so blinded by a faith in a God as to make any further discussion pointless."
Looking for an excuse to not address my rebuttals?
1
-
@pwillis1589
"I have provided accurate references to slavery and subjugation of women"
No, you provided no reference to slavery and I pointed out that the ones regarding women were not about subjugation.
"...your failure to understand the context they are written in is further proof you are not engaging in an open manner."
Given that you've not provided a context that supports your claims, I reject that claim as baseless.
"You only reinforce my argument when you subjectively dismiss bible teachings as they don't apply to me."
Which I did not do. I gave an objective reason.
"In making a distinction between pre Christian and modern western world instruction you once again completely reinforce my point of subjective interpretations of bible."
Are you claiming that there is no difference between a pre-Christian and a modern western world? If not, then no, I made an objective distinction.
"I assume nothing about bible teachings..."
Nonsense. You're assuming that all the instructions still apply, that there is no distinction like I've pointed out, that the passages about women are about subjugation rather than roles or other matters, and so on.
"...you absolutely prove my argument again by stating an instruction once given can be reminded. (sic)"
That is a non-sequitur. How does God rescinding His own instruction prove your argument?
"Which clearly proves my comment about how the bible has been interpreted differently throughout its history."
No, it does not. The people in ancient Israel thought that the instructions applied to them. Christians also think that the instructions applied to those people of ancient Israel. That's not a different interpretation.
"So in conclusion you have on multiple occasions applied your subjective interpretation..."
Simply false, as I have pointed. And you have not shown that I'm being subjective. You've simply deemed the distinction I made as being subjective.
"...there isn't even a general agreement on that hence over 50000 different Christian denominations."
That fallacy again! First, there is not complete agreement, but there is general agreement, contrary to your claim.
The supposed 50,000 different denominations is a furphy. That's a count of the number of different Christian church organisations. So the Victorian Baptists are counted separately to the New South Wales Baptists. It does not indicate disagreement, but simply different organisations. Second, where differences do exist, they are often about peripheral things like church government, not about differences in doctrine. For example, the (former) Methodist church in Australia was set up with the denomination being in charge of individual churches, whereas the doctrinally-similar Wesleyan Methodist church was a federation of self-governing churches.
That's not to deny that there are different views, but nothing like 50,000 different views.
"You have managed to completely falsify your your original point of sensible Christians not changing church teachings by publicly stating in this discussion that's exactly what has happened throughout bible history."
So you have just completely distorted what I said, turning it 180 degrees. Not exactly honest.
1
-
@pwillis1589
"...every time you reply with your subjective opinion you expose the vacuousness of your position."
First, I'm being factual and objective, not merely giving my opinion in most cases. And it's easy for you to call my comments anything you like (such as vacuous), but showing them to be is another matter.
"Go back and read my comments I gave you multiple references to laws advocating slavery in the bible..."
Which comment? Because I reject that you did.
"...you just conveniently glossed over them."
I didn't gloss over anything. I rejected that the Mosaic Law is applicable to us today, and I don't recall any references you provided to slavery from the New Testament, and even if you did, the NT references you gave were supposedly in support of a different claim.
"Every other person reading this exchange can easily see when you are stuck and realise you are wrong you just claim and objective fact."
Another easy claim to make, but hard to back up with evidence.
"Which is just so beautifully rich after you commented how could you possibly misinterprete 1 Timothy 2:11-15..."
I never said anything about me misinterpreting that passage. And if you think what I said is a misinterpretation, then you need to show that, which you have not done.
"Are you even reading what you write?"
Of course. I find the question itself offensive.
"All you have done is emphasise the contradictions in all your previous comments."
So many claims you make without showing them to be true. In fact, in this comment of yours that starts off by alleging my supposed subjective opinion, all you've done is make opinionated claims with not one bit of evidence.
1
-
@pwillis1589
"Multiple references to the subjugation of women and slavery have been ignored..."
I only ignored references where they were not applicable to your claims, which, at the time, were about the supposed subjugation of women. I showed that they were not. I avoided getting distracted by other claims that you had not made about those references.
"Your wilful ignorance and sheer arrogance in your standard response to references that expose the hypocrisy ..."
Blah blah blah. Insults are not an argument.
"Restating comments that I have shown to be false again is childlike in manner."
You had not shown them to be false.
"...what I find highly offensive is blatant wilful ignorance to a deeply flawed document, full of abhorrent practices, ..."
Two faults that you have not demonstrated.
"...the idea that you are the sole arbiter is reprehensible."
So why do you hold that idea? I certainly never claimed it. I actually implied otherwise.
"Ephesians 6:5-8... "
None of these verses are "laws advocating slavery" as you claimed. Rather, slavery was a fact of life in those times, and three of these references are verses telling the slaves how to get along with their situation. (None were 'laws'). One is in fact telling slave-masters to treat their slaves well, a rather counter-slavery admonition. And contrary to your implication, it was the biblical teaching that brought an end to slavery, because biblical teaching is that we are all equal before God (e.g. Galatians 3:28 which you didn't mention), and Paul's advice as to how the slave-master relationship could be improved doesn't somehow override that.
"All are New testament examples of how slaves and slave masters are to behave. None of them clearly condemn the practice. "
Yes, they are about how to behave, and no, none clearly condemn the practice. But neither do they "advocate" for it, as you claimed, and which I (rightly) rejected, and as I've mentioned, it was biblical teaching that led Christendom to twice abolish slavery. Which shows that these verses are not endorsing it, let alone advocating for it, but merely dealing with the situation that existed.
"Personally if I was whipping up some commandments I would have dumped any of the first four and chucked in, Don't own people as property under any circumstances."
Well, perhaps that might have helped people like you who cherry-pick. But go back to the very beginning when God told man (i.e. mankind) that he had dominion over all the fish and the birds and the animals, but not over other men. What you want spelt out is already there in the very essence of creation. Which is why you need to look at the big picture, not cherry-pick particular verses that suit your purposes.
"Those two modifications immediately qualify me as morally superior to any God in the bible."
Please define what make some things morally superior to other things. That is, what is your standard by which you judge that. Because without God, you have no standard that amount to anything more than opinion. So by claiming to be morally superior to God, you're actually accepting the idea of absolute moral standards, which only come from God!
1
-
1
-
"Is anyone seriously buying this ... propaganda."
What propaganda? Since when is accurate news reporting propaganda?
"Woke A term used and weaponised by Rupert Murdoch to create an US vs THEM paradigm."
A term used by the left of themselves vs us, but now used more by conservatives as a useful description of the left's own making.
"It’s all about attaching a negative connotation to the word..."
No, being culturally Marxist does that without any help.
"...so if the government decides to Tax billionaires..."
Are you pretending that billionaires are not already taxed? You're not helping your credibility.
"Propaganda 101"
You're referring to your own comment there? It doesn't fit anything else you've said.
"Murdoch is trying to make it a popular word to hate through emotional propaganda."
Why the hate against Murdoch?
"Traditionally Woke was short for being awake meaning u are aware of societies problems instead of ignoring them. Thats literally all it meant."
True. Except for the bit about "societies problems" being inventions.
"It was about fixing inequities."
No, it's about cultural Marxism, which tries to undermine Western Civilisation by turning people against each other by finding "inequities" that aren't.
"Helping minorities have a voice."
We've had that for a long time, in part thanks to Christianity. It's called democracy.
"Helping the poor."
We've had that for millennia too. Christians have been doing that since Christianity started. But Marxism is atheistic. It's goal is not to help the poor, but to bring down Western Civilisation.
"Fixing the environment."
Yeah, right. The capitalist West was and is much better at doing that than the Marxist countries. Another pretence for gaining power.
"Things that people have ignored or drowned out for years."
You're trying to rewrite history.
"Murdoch doesn’t want anyone awake to fix societal problems that effects the most vulnerable within society, ..."
Evidence please.
"...he just wants another $882 million dollar tax concession and Tax cuts for billionaires."
I'm sure we'd all like to pay less tax (well, the sensible ones at least). But otherwise, what's your evidence?
"Hence his avid support for his liberal lapdogs."
What supposed lapdogs would that be?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The moment Christianity and all religions are cancelled the better. "
And yet if it wasn't for Christianity, you'd not have the benefit of public hospitals, universal education, science, freedom, human rights, and so much more.
One historian put it this way:
“Christianity created Western Civilization. Had the followers of Jesus remained an obscure Jewish sect, most of you would not have learned to read and the rest of you would be reading from hand copied scrolls. Without a theology committed to reason, progress, and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800: A world with many astrologers and alchemists but no scientists. A world of despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys, and pianos. A world where most infants do not live to the age of five and many women die in childbirth–a world truly living in "dark ages."
“The modern world arose only in Christian societies. Not in Islam. Not in Asia. Not in a "secular" society–there having been none. And all the modernization that has since occurred outside Christendom was imported from the West, often brought by colonizers and missionaries.”
"No need for the 2000 year old fairytale."
Please provide your evidence for it being a fairytale. Can't? I thought so.
"where did I say I know all religions?"
If you don't know them all, you have no basis for saying that they are all bad.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AMERICANPATRIOT1945
"All of these claims are false."
No, they are not false. As I said, it depends on which meaning of "religion" you are using. Like most words, it has a range of meanings. I explicitly asked you to define it, but you haven't done so.
"Atheism is about as far from being a religion as one can get."
And yet the U.S. Supreme Court has declared it to be a religion. Actually, I technically agree that atheism is not a religion. Just like theism is not a religion—it's a category of religions. So while atheism might not be a religion, you can have atheistic religions, just as you can have theistic religions. Do you deny that Confucianism, Scientology, and Zen Buddhism are religion? They are all atheistic in nature, not believing in God. And Secular Humanism was declared by its atheist founders to be a secular religion.
"As for Christianity, the faith fits the dictionary definition of a religion."
Again, it depends on which definition. If you think of religion as requiring a system of rites and rituals, Christianity (at least of the Protestant variety) doesn't qualify.
"Christianity also fits the entire IRS definition of a religion."
Perhaps so, but that's because the IRS uses a particular definition for its own purposes, and the IRS is not the ultimate authority on what a religion is or is not, even in America.
"None of Atheism fits the IRS or dictionary definition of a religion."
And yet Secular Humanism was considered as a religion by the atheists who founded it.
"That is why Christianity and virtually all Christian groups are routinely granted tax exempt status at all levels."
Christianity is not granted tax-exempt status. Christian groups are (as you added) (in America at least, and some other places).
"Atheists are never granted tax exempt status as a religion."
No, although they are also granted tax exempt status. But again, you're citing a particular definition of 'religion' used by the IRS, not the full range of definitions of 'religion'.
"The real reason why some Christian groups want to be classified as non religious is to give them the ability to become involved with government, public schools, and the like without running afoul of separation of church and state mandates."
That's a separate issue. Your rationale applies only/mainly to the U.S., but I've also heard Australian Christians making the same point. It may be that you are correct in some instances, but not all. But even then I think the rationale is different. I don't think it's a case of wanting to avoid the bogus church/state separation rules, but wanting to avoid the government controlling what they do. I don't believe that the tax-free status is automatic, but has to be applied for. If they don't apply for it, they don't get it, and therefore are not under the same level of government control.
"You take exception to the assertion that a religious source negates the truth of a claim made by religious groups in regards to abortion, and other claims as well. You claim that this is a genetic fallacy, non sequitur, etc."
Because your arguments were. And you haven't refuted that they were.
"In fact, the claims made about abortion by religious groups are false on their own lack of merits."
That may be (although I disagree), but that was not your argument. You have now switched arguments. Your argument has gone like this: Anti-abortion arguments are wrong because of A. I point out that A is a fallacy. You respond that A is not a fallacy because the anti-abortion arguments are wrong because of B. That is, you've changed your argument, but pretend that that supports your original fallacious claim!
"the fact that religion is made up,"
You already effectively claimed that, and I challenged you to provide evidence. You have not done so. Repeating the claim does not make it any more true.
"...unscientific,..."
In what way?
"...unproven,..."
Again, what's your evidence (in the context of Christianity)?
"...and has to be accepted on faith..."
I assume that you don't know what that word means. Like 'religion' (and most other words), it has a range of meanings. The biblical meaning (which is obviously what you are talking about here) is that of trust based on evidence. Almost everything has to be accepted on faith of that sort. Why do you have faith that the scientists are right? Why do you have faith that the chair you are about to sit on will hold you? You might reject that those things take 'faith', but they are faith in the biblical sense. You have faith (trust) that the chair will hold you because of the evidence that it has done so when you've sat on it previously. So you figure that it still will. In the biblical sense, faith is NOT belief without or contrary to evidence. It is trust in God because God has been proven to be someone trustworthy.
"Your claim that science stems from religion is true."
I didn't say that. I said that it stemmed from Christianity, not religion. I'm not thereby denying that Christianity is a religion; I'm pointing out that it was Christianity in particular, rathe than just any religion, because of the particular views that Christianity holds. Views that are incompatible with atheist views, by the way.
"Religion was humanity's first attempt to understand the universe around us."
What's your evidence for that?
"Religion, unfortunately, cannot discover accurate information about how our universe really works."
Christianity is not intended to. It's not a method of discovery. So that is simply a category error. However, that does not mean that Christianity (or, more accurately, the Bible) is not an accurate source of selected information about our universe, including its origins.
And by the way, I'm not an attorney. You'd be a fool to hire me for that purpose. I'm just a person who understands logic and evidence, and have studied this topic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sidecarmisanthrope5927
"Wow Phil that was so ignorant on so many levels."
No, it wasn't.
"How about the card carrying Catholic Hitler?"
Hitler was not a card-carrying Catholic. He was brought up Catholic, and never renounced it, but didn't follow it either. He had is own weird idea of a god.
"How about the crusades?"
What about them? You mention a few things, but don't show how they contradict what I said! The first crusades were legitimate attempts to take back Jerusalem that had been invaded by Muslims. Later ones degenerated into opportunities to pillage, but I never said that nobody had died due to Christianity. I said relatively few, and those that died illegitimately in the crusades weren't enough to contradict that. On this topic of being relatively few, have a look at the video "Bill Warner, PhD: Jihad vs Crusades".
"How about the inquisition?"
Recent research has shown that the various 'inquisitions' (courts) executed only a small percentage of people tried at the courts (e.g. less than 4% in Portugal, for a total of 1,183 people over nearly 260 years).
"And you are not too bright trying to defend Christianity while leading with an ad hominem attack."
What ad hominem attack? I made no ad hominem attack.
"It is estimated that over 70,000,000 people have died at the hands of Christian zealots."
Estimated by who? What's the evidence? In what circumstances?
"And don't forget that the US is the worlds largest Christian country and they alone have killed millions."
First, you haven't shown that that was due to Christianity. Second, you haven't shown that they were unwarranted deaths.
"And although those you mentioned were atheists they did not kill people in the name of atheism unlike the Christians."
No, they didn't kill "in the name of atheism" (and most "Christian" killings weren't "in the name of" Christianity, but that didn't bother you), but atheism IS to blame for them, because, unlike Christianity it has no prohibition on killing innocent humans. So if you have an atheist with power, such as the people I mentioned, they are free to treat humans as they like, and in their case, that was slaughtering millions of them. Of course that doesn't mean that every atheist will behave in the same way. In Western countries at least, most have adopted many of the values of the society they were raised in, a society that is historically Christian.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@seriousmonkey5654
"What's wrong with it Richard is that your little thesis is most probably incorrect."
So you criticise a plausible explanation because you think it's "most probably" incorrect? In other words, you really have no idea.
In fact, Richard Martin is right. From the Online Etymology Dictionary (my bolding):
" "female parent, a woman in relation to her child," Middle English moder, from Old English modor, from Proto-Germanic ^mōdēr (source also of Old Saxon modar, Old Frisian moder, Old Norse moðir, Danish moder, Dutch moeder, Old High German muoter, German Mutter), from PIE ^mater- "mother" (source also of Latin māter, Old Irish mathir, Lithuanian motė, Sanskrit matar-, Greek mētēr, Old Church Slavonic mati), "[b]ased ultimately on the baby-talk form ^mā- (2); with the kinship term suffix ^-ter-" [Watkins]. Spelling with th dates from early 16c., though that pronunciation is probably older"
(NB: I substituted the caret (^) for asterisks in the original, as asterisks here cause bold text, and omitted hyphens around "th" for similar reasons.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JustaNaughtyBoy
"There is a claim that more than 500 people saw a risen Jesus, no names, no testimonies, just a claim. "
On the contrary, we have the testimonies of several people, including Paul, Matthew, and John.
"With Jesus, there wasn't even one body as evidence."
Huh? The fact that the body was missing from the grave is evidence that Jesus was alive. And He presented that body to various people, including Thomas who said that he wouldn't believe unless he saw Jesus for himself.
"The thing is, when we look at the bible, people coming back from the dead was relatively commonplace,..."
Not really, no.
"I remember the bit where "... The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people." Matthew 27:51-53 [NIV] And there were a few other people coming back to life in other circumstances too, ..."
Yes, there were several such cases, but not enough to make it "relatively commonplace".
"...yet somehow Jesus was special for some reason."
Jesus was God Himself. The others were raised by Jesus/God, but in Jesus' case, He raised Himself. Also, He had been buried in a sealed grave guarded by soldiers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@billcarson818
"You are mixing up the terms here."
No, I'm not.
"Religion = "he service and worship of God or the supernatural. b. : belief in or devotion to religious faith or observance""
The semantic range of the word is wider than that. Another definition (this is from Merriam-Webster) is "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" That says nothing about God or the supernatural, and there are atheistic (i.e. no God) religions, including Scientology, some forms of Buddhism, Confucianism, Marxism, and Secular Humanism, the last of which, in its founding document, Humanist Manifesto, described it as a "secular religion".
"What you are talking about with communism is called ideology, which can be very dangerous as well."
Religion, ideology, and worldview are all similar terms with overlapping meanings. One of Oxford's definitions of ideology is "a set of beliefs, especially one held by a particular group, that influences the way people behave", and two of Merriam-Webster's definitions are "a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture" and "a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture". Those could describe a religion. And "worldview" is "a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world especially from a specific standpoint" (Oxford) or "a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture" (Merriam-Webster), which can also encompass religions or ideologies.
"And do you know where it becomes dangerous? As soon as people give up logic and reason and open argument for faith."
So Communism, which is atheistic, gives up logic and reason? Well, maybe, but that's not the real problem. The real problem is (to give an example) that atheism has no teaching that killing innocent people is wrong. And so if you're an atheist with power, such as Stalin or Mao, what's wrong with slaughtering millions? What reason or logic says otherwise? (That doesn't mean that lots of atheists have nothing against killing innocent people; most do, but they don't get it from their atheism.) Whereas Christianity teaches that killing innocent people is wrong, because we are made in God's image, and because we belong to God and He never gave us permission to kill other innocent humans.
"Christianity did a lot of evil as well. Maybe you dont know about it or are ignoring it, i dont know."
I asked for evidence, not to assert the claim again.
"For example the hatred against jewish people is something that came from christianity in the western world."
That is not logical, given that Jesus—not to mention His disciples, etc.—was a Jew. Note that I asked you to, in providing evidence, "please stick to the product of Christian views, not of Christians or so-called Christians acting in an unchristian way. You have not shown that hatred of Jews stems from the teaching of the Jew Jesus Christ, i.e. Christianity.
"The church only stopped their blaming of jews collectively in 1964."
That's an oddly-precise date for a movement comprising a multitude of different groups. I suspect that you're stretching some detail well beyond breaking point there.
"And communism isnt based on atheism. Thats just a part of it and its not an "atheistic" ideology. Because its not mainly based on that. "
Lenin: "The philosophical basis of Marxism, as Marx and Engels repeatedly declared, is dialectical materialism, ... —a materialism which is absolutely atheistic and positively hostile to all religion."
"Atheism just means lack of believe in a god. Its not an ideology."
First, it's really a case of a belief in no God. Not just a lack of believe—that's agnosticism. Second, it might just mean that, but a lot more flows from that. For example:
* Can it reject the idea of God, but accept that God made the world? Of course not. It has to accept a world occurring by natural means. So it also rejects design in the world, the universe, and living things, contrary to the overwhelming evidence of design (so much for logic and reason!).
* Can it reject God, but do science? Well, you might think so, but in fact science is a product of Christianity because it's based on a Christian view. Paul Davies (my bolding): "In the ensuing three hundred years the theological dimension of science has faded . People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature—the laws of physic—are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they come from; at least they don't in polite company. However even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith the existence of a lawlike order in nature that is at least in part comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological world view. "
* Can it reject the idea of God but accept that God created man? Of course not. According to atheism, man must have occurred naturally, and so is not answerable to God.
* Can it reject God, but accept the standards that God expects? Of course not. So right and wrong are not absolutes from God, but matters of human opinion. Which is why an atheist can, logically, say that it's okay to kill other humans, as I've already pointed out. Stalin and Mao were being quite logical—but basing their logic on the atheistic principle that there is not God setting the standards. All those things together (and they were just examples) constitute an ideology, or worldview if you prefer, or a religion.
"As opposed to religious people doing it exactly because their scripture told them so, in the name of faith, in the name of their god. "
Only if they are theistic religions, and not atheistic religions. And it's not "their god", but THE God, the one supreme being and creator, in Whom there is logically good evidence and reason to have faith. But of course, as an atheist (I gather), you misrepresent the view that you disagree with, as though we think that we are just following a preferred god and a human-written book.
"Slavery ... is also very present in the bible and is justified."
On the contrary, it is not the same thing as slavery of recent centuries (it wasn't racist, for one), and it is acknowledged and regulated rather than justified. Hebrew slaves were people paying off a debt—it was illegal to force someone to be a slave—were required to be treated fairly, and were given the offer of freedom after a time. And it is a fact of history that Christianity twice abolished chattel slavery on the basis of its biblical views. (After it first disappeared from Christendom, it reappeared during the so-called 'enlightenment' with the support of atheists.)
"...rape is also very present in the bible and is justified."
Yes, like 'slavery', it was present. But no, it was not justified, but condemned.
"Exodus 21:20-21"
So killing your slave was a punishable crime. Not killing him was not.
"Exodus 21:7"
Paying off a debt.
"Numbers 31:18"
With none of these three passages have you actually explained what you see as the issue. None of them mention—let alone justify—rape, for example.
1
-
@billcarson818
"Ill add to the moral argument: Is it really moral to behave morally just because god told you to do it?"
Why wouldn't it be? That is, by what standard do you judge whether or not something is moral? Your opinion? Or some absolute standard? And what absolute standard can you have from human opinion?
"For the threat of hell or reward of heaven?"
You don't do it for the threat of hell or the reward of heaven. You do it because it's the right thing to do. Do you obey the law simply because of the threat of a fine or imprisonment? Or do you obey the law because doing so results in a better society? Why do you assume any less for Christians?
"In my view moral people behave morally for its own sake."
That assumes some standard of what is moral, and you've not explained that from an atheistic point of view.
"Everything else is not honest."?
But why be honest, if not for some standard that says that you should be honest? You are assuming that honesty is a requirement, but that assumption doesn't come from atheism. In most people's cases it comes from the Christian standards on which Western Civilisation is based.
"Lets say you are in trouble financially and I give you money to help you. Is it better that I give it to you because I want to, because I dont want to see you suffering, that I do it because of my love for my fellow human being?"
Of course. If you think loving your fellow human being is a good thing. But why is it a good thing? Christians take their lead from a loving God. Atheists can't (take that lead), because they don't believe in God. So why do atheists love others? In practice, because of their upbringing in a historically-Christian society. But if you choose to not love others, as clearly Mao and Stalin didn't, why should atheists love others? What in atheism says that you should?
"Which would be the more moral behavior in your view?"
Following God's example of loving people, obviously.
"And you talk about absolute morals. But your explanations and justifications of the slavery back then couldnt be more relativistic."
You confuse absolute morals and how morals are best applied in particular circumstances. "Absolute" doesn't mean that a particular rule applies the same in every circumstance. It means that a particular standard is not subject to human whim (opinion); that there is a solid basis to it.
"So its allowed to have slaves, as long as I treat them well?"
In that particular society that had no other welfare programs, prisons, and so on. If you owed someone money, you couldn't go to the bank for a loan, and they didn't have debtors prisons, etc. The solution was to work for the person you owed money to, in indentured servitude, also known as slavery. It's similar to national service that some countries have had in recent memory (and some probably still do), where you were forced to serve in the military for a limited amount of time. That didn't mean taking away all your rights—you still had to be treated well, etc.
"(beating seems to be part of treating them well,..."
No, it doesn't. You're treating an exception as the norm.
"Does that mean I can own another person?"
Do you "own" your kids? Do you "own" your home? The point is, ownership is (often at least) not absolute. The government can (at least here in Australia) take your land from you simply because it wants to (albeit you'd be compensated for it). Ownership is, at least in some cases, like having responsibility for looking after something. You get to decide what to do with it up to a point, but only up to a point. Yes, most people would agree that you "own" your children, but that doesn't mean that you can do whatever you like with them. You must still treat them well. Just as God "owns" everything, but has allowed us to "own" (have responsibility for) those things. The Bible says (poetically) that God owns the cattle on a thousand hills. "Cattle" obviously referring not to wild animals, but to livestock "owned" by a farmer.
To summarise that, your question assumes a view of ownership that allows you to do whatever you want with your property, and that is why the idea of owning a person appears abhorrent. Coupled with that is the justified repulsion that "owning" slaves in recent centuries has implied that, as slaves, you can treat them badly, including how or why they became slaves in the first place, which wasn't because they owed the person a debt, but because they were forcibly taken though having done nothing wrong. Yet the Bible makes that a capital crime: Exodus 21:16: "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death." So under the Mosaic Law, then entire American slave trade would have been a capital offence, because they were in possession of people who were stolen. Which also shows, again, that the "slavery" that was permitted under the Mosaic law was quite a different beast.
"I mean, if he didnt change his mind, then he would acknowledge and regulate it now as well, no?"
There's an old analogy about a shepherd and his sheep, which grazed close to the top of a cliff. The shepherd built a fence along the top of the cliff to prevent his sheep falling over the edge. But they were otherwise free to roam and graze where they liked. But later, wolves moved into the district, so he built a further fence to fully enclose their grazing area to protect them. Did he change his mind about the sheep being able to roam freely? No, but the changed circumstances required a different response.
I mentioned above about banks and welfare systems, etc. Indentured servitude is no longer needed in Christian-based Western societies.
"I know I can phrase things a bit provocative at times, but i dont mean it personally."
Apart from some of your "outrageous" claims (perhaps that's too strong a word), I haven't noticed anything wrong with your approach. And I'm often quite blunt and forceful myself.
"You seem to be a guy one can have a reasonable argument with."
Thank you. I appreciate that.
1
-
@billcarson818
Part 1:
"That is obviously not true, since morality is innate in most of us."
The concept of morality may be, but the particular moral values vary widely. Some examples:
* In Roman times, according to historian Tom Holland, "The sexual economy is founded on the absolute right of free Roman males to have sex with anyone that they want any way that they like." (Christianity changed that attitude.)
*Also from around that era (1 BC to be precise) we have a letter from Hilarian, a migrant worker in Alexandria. The letter to his wife at home starts off lovingly, and tells her to not be anxious when co-workers return but he remains in Alexandria. He says that he will send his wages when he gets paid. It's apparent that his wife is pregnant, for he then writes, "If—may you have good luck—you should give birth; if it is a boy, keep it; if it is a girl, throw it out". (Christianity changed that attitude.)
* Harry Richardson, writing in the Pickering Post, gives the example of Hindus thinking it wrong to kill cows, whereas Westerners don't, and points out that "Each of the different cultures has its own concept of right and wrong. There is no universal definition of what is right and what is wrong. We in the West tend to rather arrogantly assume that the Ten Commandments’ principles of not to kill, steal, cheat, or lie etc. exist in every culture but this is demonstrably not true. 'In the past (and probably even today in remote areas) there have been warrior societies where killing was considered a rite of passage for all males. The Vikings were somewhat famous for glorifying rape, pillage and plunder and there are numerous examples of cultures which considered particular Western (Judeo/Christian based) “sins” to be virtues."
* There were a group of tribes in Irian Jaya in which the highest achievement a man in the village could have was to befriend a man from a neighbouring village, fully gain his trust, and then kill and eat him. (Christian missionaries changed that attitude. How that happened is an interesting story.)
"And those who dont have empathy and any sense of morality, we usually call things like psychopath, so we recognize that they are not healthy and that it has a reason in the brain that makes them immoral and ruthless like that."
Yes, we do. But why do we? If I did something like such people do, you could say that you don't like what I do, or that it's illegal, or that most people disagree with it, but on what grounds could you say that it was inherently wrong?
"And for those who are in the middle somewhere, so might be extremely selfish for example and wouldnt consider the wellbeing of their fellow human beings much, it has a lot to do with their upbringing and in what kind of environment they grew up in."
But why just them? Why isn't it the case that people who are not selfish and who do consider others, aren't (also) that way because of the upbringing and the environment that they were brought up in? This is the point. The reason that most people in Western societies in particular—including atheists—think that they should help others is precisely because that's what Christianity taught. In the Roman empire in the second-century, the Antonine Plague killed off perhaps one quarter of the population. The wealthy fled the cities to safer pastures, but the Christians stayed to help complete strangers, something that was unheard of. Subsequently, it was Christians who founded public hospitals. Before Christianity, it was basically every man for himself (I'm not saying that they didn't help family members).
Historically we have the morals that we do because they are morals that Christianity taught.
"There is no absolute standard."
So if I torture babies, or shoot whales and leave them to suffer and die slowly, you can't say that I'm wrong. Only that you don't like what I do, or it's illegal, or unpopular.
"Like I said in an earlier comment, we have to advance our morals and societies by learning about ourselves, our past."
Why do we? Because you say so? That's just a bald assertion.
"I would explain it through evolution, that we evolved this way for survival reasons."
Yes, you might explain it that way. But what would your evidence be?
"But im not an evolutionary biologist, of course."
And I've never heard an evolutionary biologist provide any evidence for that either.
"I have a little brother for example and I try to make him understand that being honest is very important."
Why? What makes it important? It wasn't the case in that tribe in Irian Jaya. Deception was the important thing.
"For example by pointing to the golden rule, which is older than religion."
Given that Christianity is the continuation of Judaism, which is the more-formalised version of the worship of the creator God that goes back to the first man, Adam, it cannot be older than Christianity. Further, I know of no other religion of philosophy that stated the Golden Rule before Jesus. Yes, there were things similar, such as not doing things you wouldn't want done to you, but nothing else I know of that says do what you would have done to you.
"If you dont want to be lied to, you shouldnt lie to people yourself."
In other words, be consistent; don't be a hypocrite. But why? Why should you be consistent? Why shouldn't you be a hypocrite? What standard says that being consistent is a good thing?
"If someone doesnt respect me, it will be very hard for me to respect that person. That seems natural."
And yet I respect all people, not because they respect me, but because they are fellow humans carrying the image of God.
"But I wouldnt say that I own them and I never heard any parent say that they own their child. Using that word."
I have heard that, albeit probably only in particular contexts such as drawing a distinction between the government owning your children (as Joe Biden alluded to recently) vs. you owning them.
"I think owning a person is a very immoral thing, because freedom is essential to the wellbeing of a human being,…"
First, as I said, it depends on how you think of "ownership". Second, that is, yet again, a concept from Christianity, which was the religion that (twice) abolished slavery, and by promoting the concept of freedom, effectively did away with serfdom also.
"…just like it is essential to most animals."
Animals don't understand the concept.
"…its not true that there were only slaves for reasons like owing money or being poor."
I was, of course, only talking about the Israelites. Other nations did things differently. Which of course the Israelites had suffered themselves.
"Foreigners were stolen and forced slaves."
Only, I think as the result of being war captives. Not for the purpose of acquiring slaves. The rule about not stealing men was not a rule specific to fellow Hebrews.
"The bible and the interpretations of it. If a supernatural perfect being wrote or at least dictated it, then wouldnt he have found a better way to make it clear to people back then and people today at the same time? So that there isnt so much room for interpretation,…"
I don't believe that there IS that much room for interpretation. Most cases of different interpretations are not because there's plenty of room for it, but because people have ulterior (even if unconscious) motives for wanting to understand it differently. To give one example, there is a big disagreement over whether God created in six days or by using evolution over many millions of years. And yet, those who go for the latter option admit that they evolution over millions of years comes from the (secular) science, not from the Bible, which is quite clear about it.
"For example homosexuality. It is considered a sin, as far as I know."
Correct. God designed us to be heterosexual, and explicitly condemned homosexuality.
"But prohibiting would take away rights and freedom of homosexual people. It often stigmatizes them as well."
Be hypothetical for one moment, and pretend that it IS a sin. Then so what? Laws against other sins such as murder and rape (remember those Romans?) also take away "rights and freedom" of murderers and rapists to murder and rape. And yes, that stigmatises murderers and rapists. But if it's actually wrong, then how is that a problem? The point is, your comment assumes that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality in the first place. You're basically asking why should people consider something acceptable to be unacceptable. But you haven't show that it is acceptable.
"Thats one good example of how religion stands in the way or morality sometimes, in my view."
Only if your "morality" is that homosexuality is okay. But given that you have no absolute standard for your morality, that boils down to mere opinion. Which I can logically dismiss as baseless.
"People should be free to live their lives in the way they see their destiny, as long as they dont harm anyone."
Is that your opinion also? Does that extend to harming themselves morally and spiritually?
"Have you read the bible in hebrew? 99,9% of people havent."
No, and true.
"And that creates a problem, if people want to take it as evidence for gods will."
I disagree.
1
-
@billcarson818
Part 2 (of 3):
"In the translation alone, there is a lot of room for interpretation. In the original texts for example, there is no punctuation."
Incorrect. There is some room for interpretation, but the original Hebrew (and Greek) were languages that people understood, despite a lack of punctuation. And although most people don't read ancient Hebrew and Greek, there are many who do. The language is well studied and well understood by a lot of people. Further, we have multiple translations which non-Hebrew/Greek readers can compare. I think one of the biggest problems is that there is frequently not a one-to-one correspondence in meanings (and nuances) of words of different languages. It's not that the languages are not well understood, but that it's hard to know the best way to translate it. Corresponding to that is the variations in English itself, which is why a number of modern English translations have both U.S. and British versions—because a word in one version of English can mean different things to different people. You may well be familiar with this, but (to give a non-biblical example), in Australian English a "marquee" is a large tent to hold a group of people, whereas in American English, it's the moving banner sign on the front of a theatre (or theater).
There's also the issue of how to translate euphemisms. In Australia (before it started taking after America), we say that we go to the toilet. In America, they go to the bathroom. In ancient Hebrew, they said that they covered their feet. (The allusion is to squatting down to defecate on the ground, so that their ankle-length robes actually covered their feet.) The Bible makes reference to King Saul going into a cave to defecate, but uses the euphemism "covered his feet" (in Hebrew, of course!). The Authorised version translated that as "covered his feet". Modern English translations typically say something like he relieved himself. The Living Bible (a very loose American translation overall), says that Saul went into the cave and used the bathroom! To this Aussie, that was hilarious! A bathroom (i.e. a room containing a bath) in a cave??
But such things aside, as I said, there is not that much room for interpreting the text in different ways. Some, but not much.
"Now if you remove the commas: I like eating dogs and my neighbors."
True, but that's because English relies a lot on punctuation, whereas many other languages relied more on word inflections. Here is a quote from The Open University in a course about Latin (bolding in the first paragraph in the original. Other bolding is mine):
"A common feature of all these languages [Indo-European languages] is the ‘inflection’ of nouns, adjectives and verbs, whereby the end of the word is changed according to its function in the sentence. For example, woman, woman’s, women and women’s are all inflections of a noun. This and these are inflections of an adjective, and teach, teaches, teaching and taught are inflections of a verb.
"Modern English uses inflected forms in a fairly limited way. But many languages use them much more than English does – including Latin which is a heavily inflected language. In English, we have, on the whole, exchanged the inflections for a very strict system of word order. For example, ‘Those girls are feeding the horses’ means one thing and ‘The horses are feeding those girls’ means something rather different. Similarly, ‘You are going to Spain tomorrow’ is different from ‘Are you going to Spain tomorrow?’ We can tell who is doing what to whom, in the first example, and whether something is a statement or a question, in the second example, from the order of the words.
"This is much less true of Latin. The endings of words (the inflections) are vital to understanding how words relate to each other and enable us to work out the meaning of a sentence. When learning Latin (or Greek, German or Russian), we have to change our reading habits. We need to look even more carefully at the ends of words than at the beginnings, and only if we do this will the meaning of a sentence become clear and unambiguous. In learning Latin, vocabulary is important, but just as important is the system of word endings."
Your example of commas is actually a way of overriding the word order. In numerous other languages, you don't need to.
"Some of the nouns and adjectives in the translation are completely made up, since hebrew didnt have a word like that, or the hebrew word had another meaning."
I reject that. Yes, in English words are often added because in the original language they were implicit, not explicit, but that's not a case of making up a word.
"Genesis Chapter 1 for example says in hebrew:"
Given that I don't read Hebrew, you haven't explained what is supposedly made up or had a different meaning.
"Its important to note here, that even the vowels were added by the Masoretes, jewish scholars. The original text had no vowels."
Yes, I'm well aware of that.
"For example within the concept of this semitic language, there isnt any word for the concept and idea of creating from nothing."
That may be so, but words can have recognised meanings in particular contexts.
1
-
@billcarson818
Part 3:
"Better translations would be modify, intervene, organize."
They wouldn't fit the context. Citing Keil, C. F. and Delitzsch, F., Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, 1:47, 1857:
"In Kal [i.e the Qal stem], it always means to create, and is only applied to a divine creation, the production of that which had no existence before. It is never joined with an accusative of material, although it does not exclude a pre-existent material unconditionally, but is used of the creation of man (ver. 27, ch. V. 1, 2), and of everything new that God creates, whether in the kingdom of nature (Num xvi. 30) or of that of grace (Ex. xxxiv. 10; Ps. li. 10, etc). In this verse, however, the existence of any primeval material is precluded by the object created: “the heavens and the earth”."
"And even tranlating ´Élöhîm into "god" brings some problems, because the word god comes with its own context in our cultures."
True, which is why translators tend to be very careful about what existing word in a given language they use. Some candidate words have connotations that don't fit well.
"The hîm in ´Élöhîm stays for the plural. ... if you want to translate the word into the english word god, it would mean "gods"."
Except that God (singular) is three in one (plural).
"Some argue that "virgin" was falsely translated from the hebrew word for "young woman"."
Again, context. Yes, the Hebrew word basically means a young woman, but that typically implied a virgin, and therefore it can also mean a virgin. And the context is not about a normal birth, but something abnormal about it. Hence "young woman" doesn't fit the context. Further, it's not just modern translators that translate it as virgin. That's also what the translators of the Septuagint did in Old Testament times (although using the Greek parthenos, of course!).
"My point here is, that it heavily depends on interpretation, already in the original text, and then even more so in the way it is translated."
Except that interpretation is not the big problem you make it out to be, as I have shown above.
"But it cant serve to tell others what god said."
Yes, it can.
"Because its just an personal opinion, an interpretation."
No, it's a well-studied, well understood, translation.
"I dont expect you or would demand from you that you take what I say at face value, but if you are interested in the hebrew version and how it is translated (and most people dont know it yet, like 99,9%), you have the possibility to learn more about it."
Although I've never learned to read ancient Hebrew, given what I've said in response above, I would say I understand how it's translated better than you.
"Ill just add to the absolute: there is no absolute when it comes to morals in the natural world."
That's just a bald assertion.
"Or if there are absolute morals and it has a source, it has not been proven yet."
Except that it has, many times over. Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it untrue.
"Then we simply dont know yet."
No, we do know.
"Deism for example can be a reasonable theory."
I understand the concept, but how is it a "theory"? And what's reasonable about it? It doesn't explain the Fall, nor Jesus.
"But theism, in other words a god who cares about us, gives us morals and rules and listens to our prayers and everything that comes with it is a lot more based on faith and wild speculation. Because there is zero evidence for it."
What is your evidence that there is zero evidence for it? What about the strong evidence for Jesus' existence and death and resurrection?
"Then we have the problem of geographical distribution of religions. Are all those religions true"
Given that many religions contradict each other, they cannot all be true.
"…and if not, why would some regions have less rights or justifications to be saved?"
Nowhere has less rights or justifications to be saved. Everyone has the same right—to repent and believe in Jesus.
"It very much depends on where you are born."
Which is why missionaries exist.
"The vast majority of people end up believing in the religion that is dominant in their region."
Which is not an argument for or against the truth of Christianity.
"And how would you explain children getting terminal diseases like cancer?"
The Fall. Romans 8:22: "For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now." The Fall affected everything.
"How does religion explain that?"
That would depend on the religion. As I said, they are not all the same. But in the case of Christianity, I have given the answer.
"But in a world created by an absolute moral god, how can this happen?"
Because He gave us Free Will (i.e. freedom), and we used that to reject Him. The alternative is that he make us robots, unable to do anything beyond what He would program us to do.
"What purpose does it have?"
It allows us to be free, to love, and to worship Him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@robertholland7558
How does the allegory relate to this discussion?
No, they are not just opinion; as I said, they are based on evidence.
"There is no evidence on the existence of God,..."
That is not an opinion, but a truth claim. I asked for evidence of your claim (that there is no evidence). You have supplied none, so your claim is baseless. And yet you have repeated the claim.
"But until evidence is presented the subject of debate remain unsubstantiated..."
Evidence is what I have asked for, and you've failed to supply. Your claim (of no evidence) therefore remains unsubstatiated.
"...and as such just a mere theory, a possibility, an opinion, a point of view, not a fact."
Presented (by you) as a truth claim, not as a mere theory, a possibility, an opinion, nor a point of view.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Runaway Puppet
"Murdoch’s Sky News Australia team are not, nor will they ever be serious and considered Conservative commentators..."
Except that they ARE considered that by many people. The left is not everyone.
"Press Council held that Bolt breached its standards ..."
Bolt has shown that the Press Council is biased, and as far as I'm aware, there was nothing incorrect in what he said. Rather, because he correctly criticised a leftist icon, he was told off by leftists.
"Had to offer a four Min air apology ..."
I never claimed that they were all perfect. I doubt there's any journalists or commentators who haven't made a mistake. At least she did apologise for it, unlike some at the ABC who have been shown to be wrong but won't apologise.
"Kenny
- “Climate alarmists are brazen opportunists preying on misery” "
So? He's probably correct.
"Murray
- “You can say Sky News at night is a Liberal echo chamber. I will wear that badge if you will also attribute that badge to others.”"
So? What's wrong with that?
"Dean
- Was forced to remove an article in Spectator because of the vile and offensive descriptions of Sarah Hanson Young"
I've found no evidence that he was "forced" to. It was a letter from a reader, not an article. Whether it was "vile" is subjective. And "offensive" is not a basis for criticising someone. Plenty of people take offence for no good reason. The entire issue seems to be very overblown by the left, despite them often being as bad if not worse.
"Telling Soutphommasane to “hop on a plane and go back to Laos” after criticising the Australian Human Rights Commission’s push for greater diversity in business, politics and the media."
What's wrong with that? The HRC and Soutphommasane deserved the criticism they got for the way they were pushing leftist ideology.
"I suggest you stick to Edmund Burke, John Adams, T S Eliot, William Buckley and Arthur Brooks if you want considered conservative discourse and consideration!"
I suggest you stop maligning people simply for having different views to yourself. Criticise their views with reason and evidence all you want, but name-calling and maligning is not that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@di_ibzy
"The Jews real Jews that I’ve spoken too call Christianity blasphemy and consider it as idol worship ."
Some might. But I've also heard that they think Christianity is a good religion for non-Jews, because they consider Judaism to be only for Jews.
"They would know more about the times back then over Christianity ."
Back when? And what about all the Christian Jews (or are you pretending that they are not really Jews?)?
"James Oglethorpe was among the first to articulate the Enlightenment case against slavery, ..."
And yet many leading lights of the Enlightenment owned slaves, after Christianity abolished it for the first time.
"Thanks for agreeing that it was not the British Christians who were The first to ban slavery ."
Yeah, you can't have the Christians doing it, can you?
In fact Christianity effectively abolished slavery centuries earlier, thanks to Christian beliefs. But it returned, spurred on by the so-called 'enlightenment'.
But for the later history, here are some dates:
* 1787 Wilberforce become prominent in opposing slavery, and explicitly on Christian grounds.
* 1788 a motion was debated in Britain's parliament to ban slavery.
* 1794 France banned slavery as a response to an uprising in the Caribbean colonies and the French Revolution.
* 1802 France reintroduced slavery
* 1807 Britain abolished the slave trade (including using its navy to intercept slave ships of any country)
* 1833 Britain abolished slavery.
* 1848 France again abolished slavery.
"The Nazis were Christians also . What happened there ?"
They stopped being Christians, partly because they adopted evolution (survival of the fittest, and they considered themselves the fittest). They wanted to rewrite the Bible without the Jewish bits.
"Sorry but They’d know more about the matter more than Europeans that aren’t even from the joint ."
Why's that?
"That’s like asking an American on Australian history they would not have a clue ."
What if the American was someone who came from Australia? After all, the first Christians were all Jews, and took Christianity to Europe. By your logic, they would know more about it than you. For that matter, by your logic, you'd expect a Christian to know more about it than you.
"Thus, all Roman Catholics are Christian,..."
Technically, you're right insofar as classification is concerned. But many Catholics are more social Catholics than actual believers. Thus many Protestants think that Catholics aren't actually Christians (which would be correct for many, but I wouldn't make it a blanket claim). To put it another way, being a Christian doesn't mean holding membership in a group; it means repenting and making Jesus Lord, which not all "Christians" have actually done.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iainrae6159
"We 'athiests' are simply saying there is no proof for a personal supernatural God type being."
No, you're not "simply" saying that. Because that being your starting point, you have various other beliefs as well. For example, you believe that God did not create the universe, that God did not create man, that the Bible is not God's revelation to man, that God did not give us standards to live by. It's also extremely likely that you believe in the Big Bang and evolution, including that mankind evolved from animals.
So it's not a "simple" belief that has no consequences, but a belief that underlies a very different way of understanding the world. You may intellectually say that it's simply a lack of belief, but that supposed lack of belief in practice is a very wide-ranging belief.
"The onus of proof is in on those who make the claim."
The onus of proof is on whoever makes any claim, including a claim of God's non-existence.
"The word theist came first, hence the term A theist"
Perhaps so, but then in ancient Rome, the term "atheist" was applied to Christians, because they didn't believe in the Roman gods. So I'm not sure that your factoid has any relevance.
1
-
1
-
"Organized religion is used by the wicked to ensnare the good."
Not all religions are the same.
"People have been slaughtered for religion over and over."
Far more have been slaughtered by atheist regimes than theistic ones.
"In order to eat this food we brought you have to read this book,..."
Sounds like fiction. Your claim, not the book.
"Also, who's to say y'all are going to heaven anyways?"
We're not all going. But the ones who accept God are. He is to say. And has said.
"The atrocities committed in the name of religion are the roadway pathed underneath the entire thing."
Again, not all religions are the same. But you're right for some religions, especially some atheist ones.
"Be a good person, not because someone told you to or out of fear. Just be one."
Umm, why? Because you say so? No, that would be because someone told you to. So what reason is there to?
And what is "good" anyway, without God? Surely it's just opinion, which is no basis for expecting people to be good!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LDU2U
"Well, I guess it comes down to one vote one man/woman and do away with the Preferences. ... Under this system it's a waist of time voting for your preferred Independent."
No, you have that exactly back to front.
If you have (say) two conservative candidates in a seat and one 'progressive' candidate in the seat, and you don't have preferences, then you run a big risk of splitting the conservative vote. Say, for example, that 60% of the voters want a conservative, and 40% want a 'progressive'. But in this example there are two conservative candidates, A and B. Also in this example, 35% of the voters vote for conservative A and 25% for conservative B, leaving the other 40% for the 'progressive' (C).
Without preferences C wins, because he got the most votes of any of the candidates, even though 60% of the voters didn't want him.
With preferences, because nobody has 50% of the vote, the candidate with the fewest votes (B) has those votes' preferences distributed. If those voters all wanted a conservative (it's never this black-and-white), then B's preferences go to A, and he therefore has 60% of the vote. As he has more than 50%, he's the winner. Unlike in the first case, 60% wanted a conservative, and a conservative won. That's fairer than without preferences.
But take that a step further. If you're a conservative voter, and you really prefer B, would you vote for B or A if you thought that the election might be close? Without preferences, you'd be inclined to vote for A, to avoid the possibility of C winning. That encourages most to vote for only one of two parties. But with preferences, you know that you can vote for B without wasting your vote, because if B doesn't get in, your vote can be transferred to A and you'll at least get your second choice of candidate over C.
People often complain that (in this example) A got in with only 35% of the vote. But that's 35% of the primary vote. In fact, 60% of people wanted A over (in preference to ) C.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@msvulcanspock
"No it was not."
Yes it was. First, quoting a newspaper article, "He became Archbishop of Melbourne on 16 June 1996. Sick of the dithering inaction of his fellow bishops, within a month he had instructed Corrs lawyers to come up with a plan. By mid-October Peter O’Callaghan QC had been appointed the first Independent Commissioner, who went on to investigate 351 complaints of abuse, of which 97 per cent were upheld."
So the scheme was drawn up by a legal firm, not Pell. The Commissioner running it was independent, and he upheld 97 percent of cases. How is that protecting himself and his archdiocese?
The article also says "So pleased were Victoria police at Pell's initiative in 1996 that they issued a press release praising the Melbourne Response, and NSW police royal commissioner Justice James Wood also lauded the Catholic Church's response then as a “model” for other institutions to follow."
And article in Quadrant says (referring to a Victorian parliamentary inquiry), "The Parliamentary Inquiry rejected Ashton’s criticism of the Church. The Inquiry said: “In establishing the Melbourne Response the Church consulted with both Victoria Police and the Victorian Government, both of whom welcomed it as an innovative measure to provide victim support….” "
"Pell created it to protect himself and his archdiocese."
Accusations of motive require very good evidence. What is that evidence?
"Read it."
Read what? I've cited some of the things I've read.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@genebrowne3138
"mate, there is no evidence that's the point ..."
Is there evidence for your claim of there being no evidence? If so, please provide some.
"there is no evidence for the thousands of gods ppl have made up."
Well of course not! But that doesn't mean that there's no evidence for the God that people didn't make up!
"And the bible so often contradicts itself is just further proof."
What contradictions? You haven't shown any. Further, I showed you to be wrong on the one that you did attempt to show, and you've not refuted my rebuttal, so at the moment, your credibility is suffering.
"Since there is no evidence that any of the gods, including yours, exist ..."
Again, what's your evidence that there is no evidence?
"...the verdict is they don't exist."
Given that you've provided no evidence for any of your claims, the verdict is that you are wrong and have no idea what you are talking about. Note that RetroRocketReview cited a book that is loaded with evidence, but you've completely ignored his citation, simply dismissing his citation of evidence as though he never mentioned it. That's not intellectually honest. You've also ignored my citation of a famous archaeologists who clearly disagrees with your subjective opinion. More intellectual dishonesty.
So, what's your evidence for your claims?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@samr.england613
"All nature is in the image of God."
No, only humans were created in the image of God. Read Genesis 1.
"There is NO separate creation for mankind."
Again wrong. All kinds of plants and creatures were separately created, including humans. Again, read Genesis 1.
"Human beings, and all other life on Earth, are related."
Only in the sense of all being created by the same God.
"You can choose to, "disbelive" this, but your disbelief doesn't change the facts."
True, it doesn't change the facts, but what's your argument as to why your claims are facts?
"Don't get me wrong, as I have faith in God through Jesus Christ, it's just that I don't assume how God did it,..."
I don't assume either. I believe what God told us.
"I rely on my God-given brain, and the scientific method that is the result of that God-given brain, to find and reveal material truths."
The scientific method is not just the result of that God-given brain, but the result of belief in God (it was Christians who founded modern science, based on their Christian beliefs), but science is a study of God's creation which involves observation, measurement, testing, and repeatability. You can't observe, measure, test, nor repeat unique past events, such as the origin of humans. It's like the difference between studying a refrigerator to see how it works, and studying how a refrigerator works to see how it came into existence. How it began is a different process for how it works, and the origin of things like humans is a matter of history, not observational science. The Bible contains that history. You should believe it. Ignoring that, then using your God-given brain to figure it out for yourself is the wrong approach.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tahliah6691
"no one goes to heaven or hell before judgement day…. The dead know nothing…."
Please explain Jesus telling the thief on the cross next to him that "today" he would be with Jesus in paradise.
"christians interpret their Roman/Greek new testament..."
What does "Roman" have to do with it?
"...according to the nicene creed..."
The Nicene Creed is based on the Bible (Old and New Testaments), not the other way around.
"...and then try to interpret the Tanakh the same way… which is wrong…"
Evidence please.
"christians have no right to interpret the Tanakh for their own agenda either…"
Evidence that they do it for an agenda, please.
"most christian faiths curse Israel 🇮🇱 too and preach against it and support the Arabs…"
Not in my experience. Yes, perhaps the more theologically-liberal ones do, but that is not most of them.
"Christianity comes from pagan Rome…."
No, it came from Christ. Read the Bible.
"Torah teaches not to follow pagan ways…. Which is also Christianity…."
What is pagan about following Yahweh?
"read the nicene creed to se how christianity was made…."
The Nicene creed is not a history of Christianity or how it was formed. It's simply a statement of belief.
"Isaiah 43 v 11 There’s no saviour apart from God ALONE….
Yes, and Jesus is God.
"no one is burning in hell.. that’s what Christian’s believe it’s not written…"
The burning part is probably metaphorical, but that hell is a real place that people go is clearly in the Bible.
"the Hebrews entered a covenant with the God of Israel christians and pagans didn’t"
What about God's covenant with Noah? That applies to all people.
"There is only one true and living God and is not a God of religion, for never gave man religion."
That depends on how you define "religion". One definition would be the worship of God, and clearly God did require (give us) that.
"the very religious book the Tanakh and Torah is a Hebrew book not a pagan book not a Muslim book and definitely not a christian book…"
That's misleading. There is literary and other evidence that Moses compiled Genesis from even older (pre-Jewish, even pre-flood) documents. In any case, it's ultimate author is God, not Hebrews. And of course the Tanakh predates Christ, so in that sense it's not a Christian book (and certainly not a product of Islam). However, the Bible is not the product of any religion, but the product of God, and some religions are the product of the book.
"to be interpreted by non Hebrew people…. "
Everyone has the right to read and understand what God has revealed.
"...but the distortion of the interpretation is that of Christianity…."
What distortions? You haven't shown any.
"Jesus isn’t part of the Hebrew books or world…"
True, Jesus is God, the Creator.
"...that’s part of pagan Rome and pagan Greece..,"
No, Jesus is God, not the product of any pagans. Jesus was born in Israel to a Jew, and is Jewish, not Roman or Greek.
"education is key to understanding the origins of belief systems and originality…"
True, and it seems that you could do with some.
"to do and be but there’s only one way…"
And that's through Jesus.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@yassomesho4554
"Bro are you for real"
Yes.
"Are you seriously trying to disprove one of the main beliefs in Islam..."
No, I was challenging your claim that "if you also look at the Quran you'll see that we believe the bible was corrupted..."
"Anyway here's some verses I found, honestly there's too much for me to even list them:"
But not one of those verses make the claim that the Bible was corrupted. I asked you for surah and verse on that, and you've failed to provide even one, and therefore failed to support your claim. I know that the imams teach that, but your claim was that the Quran claims that. You've failed to show that.
"Also, whenever Allah talks about the bible and torah as being books they should judge matters on, he is talking to the Jews and Christians of the past who got the true revelation before it was corrupted"
No, the Quran is talking in the present tense, i.e. at the time that the Quran was written. It doesn't say that the Jews and Christians of the past got the true revelation; it says that the Jews and Christians (at the time) have a true revelation. So at the same time in history where it records "He begets not nor was he begotten", it also records that the Christians have a revelation from God that they can use to judge matters. So according to the Quran, it obviously hadn't been corrupted at that time.
So my challenge stands: where does the Quran say that the Bible has been corrupted?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kaloarepo288
"Bible nowhere condemns slavery either and actually condones it!"
That's not entirely true. What the old Mosaic law did was regulate slavery, which was quite unlike what we think of today as slavery. It's a complex topic that it's hard to do justice to here, partly because there are so many aspects to it to consider.
But yes, there was a lot of overlap in the meanings of servant and slave, and all people were considered to be "slaves" of the king or the country, i.e. they were required to serve their country in cases of war. Rather like the modern 'national service', which could be described as slavery. But you wouldn't be thinking of that as slavery, would you?
In the New Testament, Paul told a runaway slave to return to his master, but that was a practical thing to do, as the runaway slave's life would be forfeit if he was caught. Paul also told the slave's master to treat him as a brother, which is a very radical and un-slave-like thing to do. And it was teaching such as this (along with the explicit teaching that both slaves and non-slaves were equal before God, and the teaching that we are all made in God's image) that led to Christianity twice getting rid of slavery.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thinkingallowed7042
"...that doesn't mean those are the only options..."
True. I didn't mention two other options that I didn't think were reasonable. One is that you have an unusual definition of "good". The other is that you've been extremely unlucky. But the odds of that option, given the number of Christians that you've encountered, would be so ridiculously low as to not warrant considering.
"If a reasonable number of non-Christian people held Christians in high esteem, wouldn't that be reflected in the choices they make in their personal and professional lives to align themselves with, endorse and fund church groups, activities and projects?"
To the extent that they agreed with the activities, then yes, I would say that would be reflected. As it is, with support by non-Christians of many Christian charities.
"Can you give examples of where that has occurred?"
Support for World Vision and the Salvos are two such examples.
"What is the latest on that?"
Last I heard was, I think 5%. But I'm not sure how that supports your claim.
"...you would probably know that churches are continually being sold off."
I also know that new ones are continually being built.
"About 4 years ago, most churches in Tasmania were put on the market."
I find that very hard to believe.
"One of the Anglicans I mentioned was convinced he was respected in the community and very good friends with a minister and all the congregation. He was sadly mistaken."
Anecdotal evidence of a few people like that is not evidence for your claim.
Your claim was about individual Christians (that you've (not) met). I don't dispute that Christianity's reputation in the West has been dropping, but I put much of that down to the attacks by people in positions of influence demonising it with false claims, although it has also suffered from bad practices of too many so-called Christians going against Christian views, and also from too many Christians failing to counter the false claims and vilification. There is a clear bias against Christianity by many with influence, which has been recognised even by non-Christians.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SCplayer1000
"Not the forum to tackle this properly..."
True, but it can be tackled partially, as you are at least attempting to do.
"...constructed with an alchemy of pagan local beliefs, repression of scientific discovery, sexual abuse, systematic destruction of indigenous peoples, various support of government aggression."
Ah, so your rationale is actually one that is almost completely fictitious!
I'm not sure what you mean by "pagan local beliefs", but Christianity itself, as opposed to the ways that some people practice it, does not embrace pagan beliefs. That doesn't rule out it embracing some local beliefs that are not inconsistent with it.
The claim of repressing of scientific discoveries is completely false. It was Christians, acting on their Christian beliefs, that invented science.
"sexual abuse,"
Sexual abuse is NOT part of Christianity. Yes, there have been bad Christians and people who call themselves Christian who have gone against Christian teaching, but that's not the same thing. It's actually Christianity that changed views on sex. Historian Tom Holland points out that in the pre-Christian Roman empire, "The sexual economy is founded on the absolute right of free Roman males to have sex with anyone that they want any way that they like.". He goes on to point out that Christian teaching changed all that.
"systematic destruction of indigenous peoples"
Evidence please, because I believe that to be complete fiction. Yes, there may be exceptions to the rule, and there may be governments (not Christianity) that did that at times. But you also have plenty of cases of Christians recording the language and other aspects of indigenous peoples.
"various support of government aggression."
That's claim is too vague to respond to properly. But it's also the case that Christians have opposed governments in many cases, particularly tyrannical governments.
But none of that indicates that anything said in this video is a lie. So you still haven't actually answered the question.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@peaceandparty
"when you understand the definition then its impossible to write "there are still only boys and girls" "
No, it's not. It's still possible to write that!
God created male and female. Period. In that respect, biology IS binary. But since He did that, defects have arisen. In fact the current rate of new genetic defects in humans is (conservatively) 100 per generation. One of my defects is red/green colour blindness (more common in men because it's related to the sex chromosomes). Some people are born with an extra copy of chromosome 21. This produces Down Syndrome. Others are born with different genetic and chromosomal abnormalities, which includes intersex. And yes, such people might have physical characteristics of both males and females. But, as I said, that does not constitute a third sex. Like my partial colour blindness, it's just an abnormality.
Homophobia is a different topic, but again, God created us to be heterosexual, and there is no good evidence that homosexuality is based in genetics, even genetics with defects. Also, the term 'homophobia' (an irrational fear of homosexual/homosexuality) is frequently used as name-calling of anyone who simply disagrees with it.
And there is no genetic basis at all for transgenderism. If anything, it's a denial of the underlying genetics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@veganath
"...the only thing 'atheism' informs is a rejection of the claim that a theist's God/s exist, and nothing more."
Yeah, I've heard that before. It's nonsense, because other things flow from that. For example:
* Atheists believe that the origins of the universe, the earth, life, etc. must all have a natural cause.
* Atheists believe that man can (must) decide for himself the difference between right and wrong, because there is no God to set the standards.
* Atheists believe that humans are not special in the sense of being made in the image of God.
* Atheists believe that some of the history recorded in the Bible (e.g. the flood) is wrong.
"You speak about atheism as if it explicitly informs a world view, a perspective."
Because it does.
"Being an atheist does not inform peoples morality/values."
It does inform them to the extent that an atheist believes that God does not set the standard, and that we are not answerable to Him, and must decide such things for ourselves.
"I would be remiss not parse an example, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot were labelled atheist and so am I, the difference here is that they were genocidal, borne of zealous commitment to the implementation of communism and I am on the other end of the moral spectrum,..."
They are labelled atheist because they were atheist. It was an accurate description, not merely a label. I never said that all atheist religions taught the same thing. That appears to be what atheists do, when, like the comment I was replying to, all religions are lumped in together ("It's when you believe that religion is dangerous and holding back humanity.")
However, the point with the communists is that, as atheists, they were not beholden to God's command to not murder, so felt free to do what they thought was permissible. That is, their actions were a consequence, even if not an inevitable one, of their belief in no God. You presumably have a different view of murdering people, which is good. But the underlying principle that man can decide right and wrong for himself is something that you share with those people.
"I am labelled vegan, a commitment, borne of nurturing love & compassion, to not causing others(human & non-human animals) to suffer unnecessarily."
Christians don't want animals (let alone humans) to suffer unnecessarily either. In fact it was Christians who founded the RSPCA. However, I'd suggest that your veganism is also based in part on your atheism, in seeing humans and animals as part of the same group of creatures, rather than humans being distinct from animals due to being made in God's image, with an eternal soul.
In summary, your atheism influences a lot more of your worldview than you realise.
"Buddhism doesn't but then there is no mention of God"
Yes, it's one of those atheist religions. But I've also heard of a case where a buddhist did just that. Admittedly this is anecdotal, but the situation was one where a person questioned a buddhist monk (or similar) on where all the souls of people were in the past when there were many fewer people to have those millions of souls. The response was "You should not ask such questions."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pwillis1589
"Utterly ridiculous."
Except that it's true.
"Vast swathes of human civilisation other than Christianity were using the scientific method long before the enlightenment."
Well, you got the timing right. Christians were using science before the so-called enlightenment. But no, vast swathes of humans were not. You have clearly completely ignored that I provided evidence to back my claim. You've provided nothing but your own assertions.
"What a preposterous arrogant statement to suggest Christianity founded science."
So all those scholars are arrogant, are they? Tell that to Paul Davies: “In the ensuing three hundred years the theological dimension of science has faded [note that science began with a "theological dimension"]. People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given as brute facts. Nobody asks where they come from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd that there is rational basis to physical existence manifested as lawlike order in nature that is at least part comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological world view.”
"Also secular legislation outlawed slavery, Christianity abolished nothing,..."
In England, the push to abolish slavery was led by Christians such as John Newton and William Wilberforce. Wilberforce was the politician who fought all his political life to have it abolished. Obviously that legislation only affected areas under British control, and of course I wasn't referring to ongoing slavery in Muslim countries and other places. But Britain did more than that. Before Wilberforce managed to get slavery abolished, he got the slave trade abolished. This authorised the British navy to consider any slave ship they encountered to be a pirate ship and take it over. So even there, the influence of this was felt beyond just British territories.
And that wasn't the first time. Slavery died out earlier in Christendom, thanks to the biblical teaching that we are all equal: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female—for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." and other passages that teach the same thing. But it returned later, partly due to atheists in the so-called Enlightenment period who supported slavery.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pwillis1589
"Hey Phil, it's your bible not mine..."
No, it's God's.
"...you are displaying a shocking lack of knowledge of it."
I doubt that you are in a position to judge.
"Have you even read it?"
Of course.
"A bald assertion of detailed slavery instructions, that's just so beautiful and sweet in its naivety."
So is that a tacit admission that you don't understand the status of the Mosaic Law?
"Tell me Phil what does Paul in his letters say about slaves?"
Several things. This is not a full list.
* "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
* "From Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, ..."
* "...or perhaps it was for this reason that he was separated from you for a little while, so that you would have him back eternally, no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, as a dear brother."
* "Were you called as a slave? Do not worry about it. But if indeed you are able to be free, make the most of the opportunity. For the one who was called in the Lord as a slave is the Lord’s freedman. In the same way, the one who was called as a free person is Christ’s slave. You were bought with a price. Do not become slaves of men."
* "Masters, treat your slaves the same way, giving up the use of threats, because you know that both you and they have the same master in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him."
* "Masters, treat your slaves with justice and fairness, because you know that you also have a master in heaven."
Now, a question for you: How was slavery in biblical times different to 18th/19th century slavery in the West?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"PragerU knows it's audience. It knows that confirmation bias is a powerful thing and that the viewers will use this video to reinforce their contrarian beliefs about climate science, ecology, epidemiology, and even evolution in extreme cases."
And the mainstream media knows their audience. It knows that confirmation bias is a powerful thing and that its viewers will use their articles and videos to reinforce their beliefs about climate science, ecology, epidemiology, and evolution.
So your point is? Other than including the word "contrarian" solely on the basis that they don't agree with the left? That is, the left is, of course, correct, and anyone with different views must be "contrarian". After all, the left needs to make an insult somewhere, given that they have trouble actually making a rational argument.
"But not by people who never went to college, who are this channel's target audience..."
Why did you just switch from the teacher to the student? That's a false equivalence.
"...and who most certainly don't have a legitimate reason to doubt peer reviewed scientific research."
Other than all the known problems with peer review? Sure, no other reason. For example, the climate scientists who wanted to take over a peer-review publication that was disagreeing with them. Or the fact that peer review tends to reinforce popular views and weed out unpopular ones even if the unpopular ones have evidence? (I think peer-review is a good thing if done properly, by the way.)
"If this man is a well educated scientist,..."
He apparently is.
"...he has a right to try to disprove things through research."
Glad you agree. He also has a right to teach us ignoramuses (as you seem to think we are). And yet, before you even see the video, you're trying to undermine its legitimacy.
"Uneducated viewers have no legitimate reason to believe they know better than modern scientists though."
Thanks for slandering all of us as "uneducated". You seem to have a very low opinion of your fellow man. But you are wrong, in any case. I do have legitimate reason to believe that I know better than modern scientists in the case that their conclusions are based on worldviews that I don't agree with. As is the case with evolution, which is a claim about history, (not empirical science, because the past cannot be observed, measured, tested, nor repeated), and which is based on a principle that excludes supernatural explanations even if they are true. Why should I accept the conclusions of scientists with that bias?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kobrapromotions
Thanks for looking into it.
My understanding has long been that states (who are responsible for government schools) give much more money to their schools than to independent (i.e. non-government) schools, and the federal government gives more to independent schools than to state government schools, but that in totalling the two governments' contributions, the government schools still get more than the independent schools. Further, anti-private-school groups sometimes cite the federal funding figure only, as a way of arguing that the system is unfair.
Or, in the case of the second of the articles I'll mention, they compare total funding, i.e. including the school fees for independent schools.
The article "Dispelling Myths" by Independent Schools Australia explicitly says "On average, Independent schools receive around half the level of government funding of public schools".
The article "The Facts About School Funding in Victoria – An Update" by an anti-independent group has a number of charts. The first shows "Total income of Public, Catholic & Independent Schools 2021", which shows that in every state Catholic schools get more than government schools, and independent schools get more again. In the case of Victoria, it has each type of school getting $15,970, $18,762, and $26,431 respectively. Its second chart shows the "Government funding share of Schooling Resource Standard, Public and Private Schools, 2023", which shows private schools getting more than government schools. The article also makes the claim that "The income per student in Independent schools in 2021 was 69% higher than for public schools − $26,431 per student compared to $15,970 per student in public schools [Chart 4]. Catholic school income per student of $18,762 is nearly 20% higher than in public schools." (their square brackets).
So the case seems to strongly support your original claim. However, its chart 4 breaks down the figures $15,970, $18,762, and $26,431 mentioned above. And what it shows is that the figures include "fees and other income", and that the government contribution part of the total is $15,219 for government schools, $13,917 for Catholic schools, and $10,817 for (other) independent schools! That is, the government funding is greater for government schools than either of the other two categories, and that the argument that Catholic and other independent schools get more is made by including the school fees paid by parents! It's frankly a deception. Apart from the fact that this breakdown is only given for Victoria, this proves that the disparity actually favours government schools, which is the opposite of what you were saying (and remember, I'm citing an anti-independent-schools source!).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nenadcubric2663
"and tell me, how will the Government, ban those Illegal Guns,"
Did I say that they would, or could? No. You're asking me to defend a claim that I never made. I do accept that in the U.S. situation, it would be very difficult to do in a reasonable way.
"Same like they did on Illegal Drugs??"
That's a silly question. You don't ban illegal things. They become illegal by banning them. As for the comparison with drugs, you can ban them, and have the effect of significantly reducing their availability, assuming you have good enforcement. The left's mantra on this seems to assume that because banning particular drugs is not 100% effective, such bans are completely useless and you should therefore not have such bans. That is illogical. You might as well make murder legal, because the ban on murder is not 100% effective!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Nine years ago, that's when convicted felon and great wall builder, Donald Trump,..."
Of course he wasn't a convicted felon at the time. And also of course, even some Democrats acknowledge that that conviction exists only because he's Donald Trump. That is, it was political, not justice.
And of course you're cherry picking (even assuming you're accurate, which I wouldn't assume), and ignoring the huge jump in illegal immigration under Biden, the inflation under Biden, the support for delusion under Biden, and so much more. Plus you're making out good things to be bad. What is wrong with anyone accumulating wealth?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dantrey3714
"atheism is not a religion"
I didn't say it was. I agree that it's not, just like theism is not a religion. But they are both categories of religion. That is, there are some religions that are theistic and there are other religions that are atheistic.
"i'm fine with whatever anyone wants to believe..except when it applies to govt policy."
So what should government policy be based on if not people's beliefs?
"this is rediculous the devil? how can a logical commonsense thinker take that talk seriously?"
How can a logical common-sense thinker dismiss that without reason? What reason is there for thinking that such doesn't exist?
"morrison believes the earth is only 6,000yrs old yet, he says we should trust the science on vaccines but, not when it comes to the earths age?"
I haven't heard him say that (can you cite where he did?), but you miss a very big distinction. Science involves observation, measurement, testing, and repeatability. You can do that with vaccines because they exist in the present, but not with past events. So the "science" of the earth's age is actually an attempt to explain the history of the world from a naturalistic viewpoint. A different thing entirely to studying vaccines.
But wait, there's more. It was those very people who believed that the earth is only about 6000 years old who founded modern science! And they did so based on their Christian beliefs, including that God was a law-making God so they could study His creation and discover the laws he created to govern physics, nature, etc.; that He is consistent and doesn't change those laws on a whim (else it would be pointless studying them); that creation was distinct from God Himself, so it was acceptable to study; that God told us that we can learn from His creation; and that studying creation would potentially rediscover the extensive knowledge that they though Adam would have originally had.
In other words, there is nothing inconsistent with believing the world to be about 6000 years old and accepting the Christian endeavour of science.
"politics and religion does not and should not be part of the same equation.."
Because only atheist views are allowed?
"people need to keep their fancy beliefs to themselves."
If only the evolutionists would!
"well for a start these religious folks believe that before christ can return armageddon must happen ..."
So? It does not follow from what you've said that they will want to hurry that along. They (we) believe that the timing of that is in God's hands, not ours. So your conclusion does not follow from what you've said.
"you think all this villification against russia and china and iran is just a coincidence?"
What vilification? I see justified criticism happening in accord with the problems that are raising that criticism. No evidence of any coincidence.
"morrison biden trump bush all of them touting ''we are doing gods work'' "
Biden clearly isn't doing it. And for those that might say that, what do they mean by it? Probably they mean making the world a better place, not trying to hasten the end.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't know for sure. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, or at least that is the language that we have the earliest extant manuscripts of it in.
However, I seriously question your claim that "Moses did not speak or read Hebrew, he spoke Aramaic.". Moses was raised in the Egyptian royal family, and would have spoken some form of Egyptian. But he was very likely bilingual, or perhaps even knew several languages. What's your reason for thinking that Hebrew was not one of his languages?
Further, there is a lot of misinformation about when Moses lived. According to the Bible, it was (just from memory; I might have this wrong) around 1500 BC, but if you try to apply that to Egyptian history, it won't make a lot of sense, because Egyptian chronology is full of holes. So various people have tried to determine when in Egyptian history the exodus happened and come up with quite different answers. And as the Egyptian language changed over time that then affects which Egyptian language was in use in Moses' time.
Which all suggests that it's not an easy question to answer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@killbotone6210
"1) With his Gun"
I thought we were talking about a baby.
"2, 3, 4 and 5 all require extraordinary evidence which neither you nor nobody in history has been able to produce. "
False. They simply require accepting the available evidence which is more credible than the alternative.
"All your arguments so far depend on the existence of not just any creator, but specifically the one you chose..."
I didn't arbitrarily choose. As I said, Yahweh has the evidence for His existence.
"Unless you can prove to the world the existence of your chosen Deity then you have no argument. "
It has been proved many times over. That's why, for example, numerous people who have set out to prove His non-existence have ended up believing in Him.
"And as you can not prove your chosen Deities existence your arguments can not be taken seriously."
What's your evidence that I can't prove Him? Unless you can "prove" your claim, it cannot be taken seriously.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
First, false, extraordinary claims require sufficient evidence. Second, what makes the claim extraordinary? Your unwillingness to accept it? Here's an example of an extraordinary claim: Nothing exploded and became everything. And yet that is the standard naturalistic view.
"Lucky for reality it existed before humans came on the scene and will continue long after we are gone. Yaweh is pretty new. He's a nice creation, but nothing original."
What's your evidence of all that?
1
-
@killbotone6210
"1-No. I was talking about the shooter in relation to self defense. Go back."
Okay, I've gone back. This is the start of that line of the conversation:
----------
You said "People have a God given right to protect themselves from such threats …"
I replied that "People don't have a God-given right to kill an innocent human. Self-defence is from someone trying to kill or harm you. A baby is not doing that."
You: "yes they do. It's called self defense. As is our God given right."
Me: "No, it's not self defence, as the baby isn't trying to kill them."
----------
"2-As I predicted, 99% of your argument is now about convincing us that your invisible friend is real."
My argument is based on the fact that humans are designed by God in His image and everything that goes along with that. Your argument is based on a denial of that. So my argument is based on a Christian view, and yours on an atheistic view. My view has the evidence behind it.
"It would be irrational of any person to accept an absence of evidence as better than actual evidence."
True. So why do you do that? I explicitly asked you for evidence of your claims, but you've provided none. One would be reasonable in assuming that you have none.
"Sorry but you're argument is " My invisible friend said it's true so it's true"....I can't learn anything from this"
No, my argument is that the creator made it that way and told us it's that way so it is that way. Your argument is that "I know God doesn't exist because I know of no evidence for Him (i.e. an absence of evidence) so I get to make the rules".
"Mate,you might want to ask who ever told you this. Why are you asking me?"
As I've already said, that is a standard naturalistic view, and that is, in part, the view underlying your own no-God view. As I said, there is evidence for God. One bit of that evidence is that anything exists at all. Without God, there would be nothing. So how did nothing become everything? If you can't answer that, you have no basis for your view that God doesn't exist. You are arguing from an absence of evidence. Your entire argument about abortion ultimately comes back to your atheistic worldview that is based on an absence of evidence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CJay-du8tc
"Where is there any evidence of the supernatural?"
Lot's of places. Here are some examples:
* Why does anything physical exist at all? The physical cannot create itself, and neither could it have existed forever. It must have been created by the non-physical, i.e. supernatural.
* Where does the genetic information come from? Given that it can only come from an intelligence, there must have been a (super-intelligent) intelligence to provide that information.
* Where did the obvious design of the universe come from? So many physical constants have extremely precise values for the universe to even exist, and yet the odds of that happening without an intelligence are effectively zero.
* The Bible records evidence of the supernatural, including Jesus rising from the dead.
"And if there even was any, why would it be Biblical and not say, Hindu?"
The Bible is the product of the supernatural. As a result, it has shown itself to be a very reliable source of information. The same can't be said for the Hindu scriptures.
"Or Buddhist?"
Buddhism, or at least some forms of it, are atheistic; i.e. they do not teach the supernatural. Otherwise it's similar to Hinduism, where it came from.
"Or from the Roman deities?"
They were the offspring of other 'gods'. None qualify as the creator or supreme being.
"Of course science looks for natural explanations, ..."
So you admit that "science" is therefore biased. And yet you quote it as though it proves what it assumes.
"...there are no others..."
Blatantly and ridiculously false. What you mean is that there are no others that are correct. But that's not what you said, and you haven't shown that there are no other correct ones. That was simply a bald assertion; a product of your blind faith.
"unless you make them up, which is what religion is - made up stories"
What is your evidence of that being the case with Christianity? Or do you also ignore evidence that doesn't suit you?
"Confusing unanswerable questions (what are currently outside a sciences limits) with the supernatural is not only a logical fallacy..."
That sentence is barely coherent. What are you trying to say? Why is it a logical fallacy? Given that that was another evidence-free assertion.
1
-
@CJay-du8tc
"You suggest I have blind faith, yet I hold no faith."
Blind faith and faith are not the same thing. Blind faith is believing without or contrary to the evidence, which you seem to do. I mention more examples below.
"You offered no evidence whatsoever to the supernatural."
Except that I listed four. You can't pretend they don't exist just because you don't like them.
"Such assertions are just that..."
Like the assertions you made?
"...demonstrate your divergence to the supernatural ..."
Huh?
"The rest is just plain rubbish ..."
What's your evidence?
"Christ may have (likely) existed, ..."
It's the consensus of historians concerned with that period. So yes, He did.
"...there is no proof of him being of a supernatural source."
Apart from performing miracles, rising from the dead, etc.
"Suggesting a story in the Bible does not prove anything."
I didn't suggest a story. I cited documented historical evidence.
"It would be equivalent to claiming the Cat in the Hat exists because it is in a book."
Comparing history books with a known fiction book? Hardly good enough to make your point. Further, I never said that God exists just because He's in a book. You're straw-manning me.
"Clearly your adherence to religious text..."
That's a reliable historical document, not merely a "religious text". You're misrepresenting it.
"...precludes you from understanding science..."
That is clearly nonsense, given that it was those who believed the Bible who came up with science. And I was the one who pointed out that naturalistic science is not really science, but you ignored that point.
"...(and its provability) ..."
Science doesn't do proofs. Didn't you know that?
"...versus faith and belief (which is unprovable - even if you try and argue otherwise)."
As I indicated above, another thing that you don't understand is what 'faith' is. It's trust, based on evidence of the object of the trust being trustworthy.
"No need to respond - this argument is an utterly pointless exercise."
Because you're not open to rational discussion? Well, I guess you failed to substantiate your claim that religion is made up stories, or the basis for your claim of a logical fallacy, that I challenged you on. So they're more examples of your blind faith.
1
-
@EL_Duderino68
"He's a Murdoch worshipper really"
False.
"...he will not be swayed from his mindless devotion to a god..."
I will not be swayed because it's not at all mindless, and because, as in this case, the people I challenge with evidence consistently fail to demonstrate the truth of their views or the falsity of mine. Instead, they typically resort to mockery, ridicule, abuse, and/or a refusal to even discuss.
"he claims is omnipotent but over two-thirds of the world does not believe in."
And here's a typical example: I pointed out to you that that is a non-sequitur, and yet here you go repeating it without even showing that I'm wrong on that description. So why should I believe differently when you ignore (not refute) what I say?
"Still, I do it for the ... giggles :)"
True. Not for rational discussion, but for giggles.
1
-
1
-
@CJay-du8tc
"Those are not examples of evidence,..."
And yet you don't say why they are not. Just another bald assertion.
"...nor is there proof of historical accuracy."
There is good evidence. Whether or not you consider that "proof" depends on your willingness to accept the evidence. But rather than take my word for it, here's what famous archaeologist William F. Albright said:
“The excessive scepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, certain phases of which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history.”
"Nothing is rational about religion."
Another bald (evidence-free) assertion.
"What is rational about this discussion?"
From my side, because I'm providing you with evidence, logic, and reason, and challenging you to provide evidence for your assertions. For example, I provided a quote from an expert just above. That's the sort of thing a rational discussion will include.
"Are you prepared to alter your view, perspective or belief in Christianity? No?"
Yes, if I have good enough reason to do so. But I keep getting mockery, dismissal, and little reason.
Are you prepared to alter your view, perspective or belief regarding Christianity?
"Then how can this be rational if you will remain committed to a position?"
First, I didn't say that I will remain committed. You made that up (which should not be part of a rational discussion). Second, I could be completely rational and remain committed if that's what the evidence showed. Your question assumes that it won't. And that is also not rational.
"It's not pragmatic discourse, it's dogmatic."
Well, yes, your part is dogmatic, with all your evidence-free assertions.
"Let's sum it up with a quote by Ricky Gervais ..."
A quote by a comedian is not evidence or reason.
"Basically, you deny one less god than I do. You don’t believe in 2,999 gods. And I don’t believe in just one more.”
Okay, so I show you a 3000 $100 notes, and say that I know that 2,999 of them are forgeries. Do you think it's clever or logical or rational to simply assert that you think all 3000 are forgeries, without actually inspecting the one that I say is not? Apparently Gervais does.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EL_Duderino68
"The slaves as well?"
Yes, the slaves as well. Which is why Christianity abolished slavery.
"Ephesians 6:5"
You conveniently omitted to refer to the following bit: "Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him."
Slaves were a part of the economy and legal system then. The instruction for a slave to do his best would make him more respected, but it was followed by instruction to masters to treat them well because from God's point of view, they were equals.
"Colossians 3:22"
Again, you omit the following bit (starting by still addressing the slaves): "For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality. Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven."
At the time, these early Christians were under Roman rule. They could not directly fight the system. But they undermined it with teaching such as this, so that by the time they had enough influence, this sort of teaching led to the abolition of slavery, something no other religion has done.
1
-
@EL_Duderino68
"it was democratically elected parliaments enacting legislation that ended slavery, not god."
In Britain, it was the efforts of parliamentarian William Wilberforce who fought all his life to end it, and his view on the matter was driven by his Christian convictions, and he was backed and supported by a group of Christians in doing that.
"This was largely influenced by the Age of Enlightenment."
No, it wasn't. Jeremiah Johnstone in Unimaginable:
“Christianity has successfully abolished slavery not once, but twice before—in late antiquity and again in the 1800s, with the elimination of the transatlantic slave trade after the American Civil War. Much more could be said (and has been written) about the efforts of Christian leaders like William Wilberforce and John Wesley, who tirelessly worked in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to abolish slavery.
...
“It should be noted that Wilberforce and Wesley lived during the so-called Age of Enlightenment. Were secular philosophers of the time "enlightened" to the evils of slavery? The simple answer is no. A "Who's Who" of major enlightenment figures supported slavery: Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Voltaire, David Hume, and Edmund Burke, among others.[ref]
...
“As you may recall, as far back as our available sources take us, philosophers, politicians, and playwrights expressed racist opinions and dogmas. But starting in the fourth century, widespread racism ended for hundreds of years. Why was this?
That's when the Christian movement emerged as a dominant cultural force in the Roman Empire, and the bold socio-theological statement "There is neither Jew nor Greek"[ref: Galatians 3:28] took hold. Unfortunately, racist ideology, and with it justification for slavery in the West, reemerged in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The influential voices that spouted this new racist ideology—all of them Europeans—were atheists who explicitly rejected the notion that humanity had been created in the image of God. Humanity is not special. Human beings are not equal. Humanity is not one, but is made up of various races or subspecies, some of which are inferior to White Europeans. It was this post-Christian thinking that the ugly racism of antiquity made its comeback, laying a foundation on which the horrors and tragedies of the twentieth century could take place.”
"Also, why was your god so focused on such a small part of the Earth."
Ask Him.
"I mean you would claim "he" is omnipotent. Couldn't "he" get out and about more?"
Of course He could. You're jumping to conclusions that if God didn't do something that you think He should have, it must be because He couldn't (or doesn't exist). But that is not logical. There could be other reasons that you haven't thought of or considered.
"It's always fun to read your crazy comments that "conveniently" ignore logic and history."
I've quoted you history. You've quoted your opinions. And you've shown nothing wrong with my logic, but I've shown something wrong with yours.
1
-
@EL_Duderino68
"You post no links/references to support your arguments..."
When did you post links or references to support your arguments?
"You post no links... to support your arguments"
I avoid links, as experience has shown that comments with links often get deleted. Not always, but I haven't figured out which links are allowed and which aren't.
"You post no ...references to support your arguments"
Except that I did. A large part of my last post was an extended quote from a book and author that I named.
"I'd also add the do you think it would have accepted for a politician to not identify as Christian, specifically the Anglican sect and get elected at time."
You're talking about Wilberforce? In fact, Wilberforce recorded that you needed to pledge your support to the Anglican church (calling it a sect is denigration, which damages your credibility) in order to enter university, I think it was. But most signed the document without actually meaning it. So perhaps you did need to identify as a Christian, or Anglican Christian, but you didn't actually need to be one.
But that doesn't help your argument. One of the pro-slavery people who opposed Wilberforce was Lord Melbourne, who objected to Wilberforce's arguments against slavery by saying "Things have come to a pretty pass when religion is allowed to invade public life.".
"Thankfully not in Australia. We're better than that."
What makes it better? Atheism is a worse religion/worldview.
"There's nothing about democratically elected governments in the bible is there."
Not directly, but biblical teaching led to Christians supporting and spreading democracy. One example was the Magna Carta, which restricted the power of the king (giving some to parliament instead) because the king was supposed to be subject to God's law, just as the prophet Nathan reminded King David over 2000 years earlier. In other words, democracy provides a better outcome in line with the biblical view of humans and governments
"Woah what happened there."
See above.
"Your god didn't know how enlightened humans were going to rule themselves."
What makes you think He didn't know? You're still inventing things about Him.
By the way, given that you want references, on the matter of Christianity spreading democracy, see Robert Woodberry, The Missionary Roots of Liberal Democracy. You should be able to read it online. I wonder if you will.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EL_Duderino68
"You seem to like to argue for the sake of it,..."
My intention is to argue for the truth.
"Please clarify what your basic argument is? Your replies are so long that I find it hard to tell."
My 'basic argument' depends on the particular discussion. Without going back through the thread (which you could do), I don't recall just what that was. If my replies are long, I guess you never read papers or books.
"Also, you didn't answer my question."
You complain about long answers and supposed conflation, but then bring up off-topic matters. Why do you do that?
"You've previously asked me what I believe/consider about what different organisations are religions..."
No, I didn't really do that. I pointed out that there are atheistic religions, and you tried to refute that by arguing against just one of my examples. I asked about the others that you avoided(?) mentioning. If you accept that the others are atheistic, and therefore that you can have atheistic religions, you can just say so. But if you don't accept those and don't refute them, my argument on that point stands.
Your question about angels et. al. is not equivalent. But yes, I believe in angels and demons, but not ghosts.
1
-
1
-
@EL_Duderino68
"Note the words "basic argument" by that I mean what are you trying to get across in the comment to this video if that was not clear."
That's roughly what I originally thought, but then your subsequent response ("So you ask me to be on point about your argument") caused me to think otherwise, as I think that the only time I asked you that sort of thing was about a particular question. Which is why I then asked "Are you referring to this comment of mine?"
But it seems that I was correct the first time. However...
"I mean what are you trying to get across in the comment to this video if that was not clear."
Which comment? My first comment (I made several comments before you made any) in this thread was challenging another commenter who vilified the Bible for no good reason.
"I found in the first dozen paragraphs what I thought were many conflicting statements."
"I thought" are the operative words there, at least for your example. They are not conflicting at all.
"He writes about being scientifically complex on the one hand and then writes about a totally faith-based nonscientific view on the other."
No, that's just your jaundiced view.
First, he didn't say "faith-based". That's your wording.
Second, like most words, 'faith' has a range of meanings. Atheists love to use the meaning "without or contrary to the evidence", also referred to as blind faith, but that's not the way the Bible uses it, which could be worded "trust based on the evidence of being trustworthy".
Third, Batten's second comment that you cite is about history, not science. Science is, primarily, a study of things in the present, whereas history is about the past. He's talking about the past, where evidence-based history is the main guide. Calling it "nonscientific" is like calling love non-scientific. Science is not the only source of information, and often not the most appropriate one.
Fourth, as I allude to above, it is evidence-based history. So he is basing his comment on evidence, not blind faith.
Ergo, there is no conflict in those two statements, except in your imagination.
"It makes no sense."
Read it properly, and not through atheistic glasses.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EL_Duderino68
"You should have looked up the definition of kismet before you commented..."
I did.
"...you clearly don't understand it's the complete opposite of coincidence."
On the contrary, I said that because I do understand that. That is, I wasn't giving an alternative term for the same concept, but suggesting that it was something different to kismet.
"Do things just happen by coincidence? Is that the case? It doesn't seem to correspond to your theological comments."
I would suggest that it doesn't correspond to your presumption about what I believe. On one hand nothing can happen without God allowing it. But on the other hand, I don't believe that God micromanages every single thing that happens. God designed a creation that operates according to natural laws, i.e. it can run (up to a point) by itself. Therefore you can have coincidences.
"Does anyone else think so?"
My wife often doesn't, but yes, there others who do!
"You just say it isn't."
True, in this case that's all I did. But then I'm actually quoting an expert on the subject. That is, me. I'm the one in the best position to know what my motive is.
"Really :)"
Uggh! No. Did I say that? Drat, I did. Okay, I'll try that again.
First, what I meant was that I didn't want to imply acceptance of something being the case that may not be the case.
1
-
@EL_Duderino68
"I'm really interested in where you think god draws the line between micromanaging and the "up to a point" "
Colossians 1:17 says "And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together."
Hebrews 1:3 says "The Son is the radiance of his glory and the representation of his essence, and he sustains all things by his powerful word,..."
God set up His creation to operate according to laws (which we know as the laws of physics or similar terms). But that might imply that if God disappeared, His creation could continue on its own. But the verses I quoted indicate that without Him, His creation would cease to exist. So, to paraphrase and expand what I said, the creation can run by itself up to a point, i.e. as long as He is there to sustain it.
I guess an analogy is if you write and run a computer program to, say, monitor temperature, that program can then run by itself, without you continually controlling it. But you do have to make sure that the computer still has power!
And although it goes a bit beyond your question, God can intervene at any time, and may in fact 'micromanage' particular events or circumstances that He chooses to, but this would be the exception to the rule (and would, I'd think, constitute a miracle).
By the way, I'm going on holidays in a couple of days' time, so from then may not respond for a few weeks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Bork_Cruk
"you want me to go into detail about why it doesn’t affect us, and my denial is hollow."
I didn't specifically say go into detail. Even some basic reason might be enough.
"But you simply asserting that it affects us and not explaining how, that’s not hollow?"
I DID explain how: "American issues [are] brought here". That is, what happens in America often ends up happening here. That's why, for example we had BLM protests here in Australia.
But you have not explained why it supposedly doesn't affect us.
"As for evil, that’s a religious concept,..."
No, it's a God concept. You know, the Being who created all of us, and against whom we rebelled. That is history. Putting the label "religious" on it is nothing less than an attempt to pretend that it's made up.
"...religion declares many things to be evil that are completely absurd."
Sure, many religions do, including atheist religions. But not Christianity.
"So yes, I’m happy for “evil” to flourish."
I wasn't asking about "evil" (with scare quotes), but actual evil, which is what is at issue here.
"I support freedom, not authoritarianism."
Great! That's a Christian concept that Christianity gave to the world, and which you've rightly adopted.
"Let the evil flow, and mind your own business."
Fighting evil IS my business. It's the business of all of us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nobody6056
"you need a history lesson, ..."
I think you need a comprehension lesson.
"Aboriginals for example were never under the flora and fauna act, ..."
I never claimed, implied, or even hinted that they were, did I?
"they were counted in census run by states but not reported to commonwealth census number simply because states back then paid tax to the commonwealth"
That may or may not be the case, but I didn't actually say that it wasn't the case. The referendum removed section 127 which said "In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives should not be counted." So they weren't counted, at least in federal census numbers, because the constitution said not to. Why the constitution said that is a separate question.
"Anyway, even if you are right and I’m 100% wrong, and the Commonwealth can now make specific laws in favour of aboriginals,..."
Section 51 says, in part, "The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government
of the Commonwealth with respect to ... (xxvi) the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws". Prior to 1967 it said "(xxvi) the people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws".
"... then what exactly is the point of the proposed referendum by Albonesse?"
Good question! Perhaps to prevent future governments from reverting back to the current state?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@artemmandrob
"YOU brought up "sexual immorality, pride, greed and cruelty." Those are the DT brand."
How so? I haven't seen him promoting or endorsing those.
"So... He, the Almighty, is many things. Our job is love, not judgement."
John 7:24: "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgement.” So no, we are also supposed to judge. Which, after all, is what you've been doing, although the "right" bit is questionable.
"Christianity, God's love and His mercy are all much broader than your narrow interpretation."
What's narrow about my interpretation?
"Is hell full of people you don't like?"
I'm sure that there will be many there that I do like. Your question sounds like a smear.
"How did you get this job?"
What job?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gimble5555
"I'm not sure how else to read that."
Read it as written. Don't twist it with mockery. You couldn't figure that out for yourself?
"Sky daddy = God in the analogy."
Yes, I figured that. But then God is not "made up", and does not live in the sky. So the analogy is false.
"So... in genesis there is no talking snake? And I do recall a talking donkey story..."
There is an account of how Satan presented as a snake in order to deceive Eve, and also an account where God caused a donkey to talk on one occasion, but your comment was explicitly "Talking snakes and donkeys" (both plural) as though these were common or normal. As such, what you described is not found in the Bible.
It's this sort of exaggeration, mockery, and distortion that simply reinforces the idea that biblical critic either have no interest in having, or no ability to have, a rational conversation about such things. And believe me, that idea has been strongly reinforced in my mind, as I have found that that sort of irrational approach is very common.
"Once you understand the physics of our earth, Sol, milky way... you will understand the ridiculousness of the genesis account."
What makes you think I don't understand? And what makes you think that physicists who study such things and also believe Genesis don't understand? After all, you haven't said how the physics is supposedly inconsistent with Genesis.
"You are absolutely entitled to think you are correct... even when you believe ridiculous things."
So you're retracting your previous mocking comment ("Classic... 'my made up sky daddy is the only real one' argument.") having a go at me for thinking that I'm right about God? Good. I'm glad you've conceded that point.
"Why are other religions ridiculous when yours is not?"
Because the others aren't true.
"I see no difference between any of them."
Can you see the difference between a well-made fake handbag and the genuine article, if you've never been shown what the difference is? Does that mean that there is no difference? And I'd suggest that you're not even trying, given that some religions claim multiple gods, others claim one God, and others claim no God. That's a pretty stark difference right there. They obviously can't all be correct, but it simply doesn't follow that they are all incorrect. If you haven't bothered trying to figure out if one of them is correct or not, then why are you vilifying people who think that theirs is correct?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davem3325
"HUH? You are stuck in your FAKE RELIGION BUBBLE, "
Prove that it's fake. And no, I'm not in a bubble, because I live and work in a secular world.
"Why should HILL$ONG make huge profits and NOT PAY TAX on them!"
They don't make huge profits. They are a non-profit group. They might have a lot of income, but income is not profits.
"You would be surprised as to how many businesses in australia are registered as RELIGIOUS ORGANISATIONS and have nothing to do with religion!"
You don't know that I'd be surprised. You're making that up.
"Sanitarium foods, ..."
Sanitarium is owned by a religion organisation, and as such, is a non-profit. That's legitimate.
"Gloria jeans coffee,..."
I am surprised at that one, if you're telling the truth. But then that could only be the case if they're a non-profit, which means that the shareholder(s) don't get any of the proceeds beyond wages. That is, they might be like Sanitarium.
"( THE CLEVER CHOSEN ONE) "
Mockery is not an argument, but suggest that you can't make a rational argument.
"SHOW ME WHERE YOU ... HAVE DEBUNKED TIS SO CALLED MYTH!"
Comments with links often get rejected or hidden on YouTube comments, so I won't post a link here. I'll put a separate comment with the link, in the hope that it will be there. But what I debunked was a figure of $31 billion; I'm not sure that it's the same source that you're citing.
1
-
1
-
@davem3325
"Sanitarium food is a FOOD MANUFACTURING BUSINESS, which compete with other food manufacturings business that have to pay more in taxes and putting up their prices."
True. Because they have to return a profit for shareholders. Sanitarians is a non-profit organisation.
"TAX Exemption should only be for business that provide 100% charity, ..."
Define "charity" in this context. Because I would argue that the organisations you're talking about do.
"...for example HILLSONG spend almost nothing on charity outside of their members,..."
I'm not simply taking your word for that.
"...the owners and top staff are extremely wealthy and they bypass a lot of costs because they are registered as a religious organization."
To the extent that it happens that a religious organisation pays inordinately-high wages, you have a point. But that is the exception to the rule, and as such you should not take tax-exempt status away from all religious organisations. And not, the owners and staff are not registered as a religious organisation.
"to me they should donate all their profits to the government as TAX."
If it's a donation, it's not a tax. And they are a non-profit, so don't make profits. What you're misrepresenting as "profit" is income over and above their immediate expenses and which, you're alleging, they pay as wages. That's not profit, even if it's unethical, although even that case hasn't been made here.
"ITS A SCAM AND YOU KNOW IT,..."
More like a loophole, and no, I don't know it. I've not looked into that one group of churches in much detail, but I am aware of many other churches quite unlike the claims made for Hillsong.
"They also donate ( tax exempt as well) to political parties for bribery ..."
Are you claiming that every donation to a political party counts as bribery? Because bribery is illegal, so I doubt very much that you're not putting an unreasonable spin on it.
"...so they can get COMMON LAW changed to suit THIER RELIGIOUS AGENDA!"
Examples?
"Also hillsong is cult, look at what the owner brian is covering up, they own vast amounts of properties? is that fair that they dont pay taxes?"
I think the claim of them being a cult is very questionable. Why do they own the properties? The mere fact of owing them is not a problem in itself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
DrZook
"who wrote: "...Christianity, the religion that invented science?" "
Yes. Here is Loren Eisely on it:
“The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation … . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.”
And here is Rodney Stark:
“...theological assumptions unique to Christianity explain why science was born only in Christian Europe. Contrary to the received wisdom religion and science not only were compatible; they were inseparable.”
And here is Paul Davies:
“In the ensuing three hundred years the theological dimension of science has faded [note that science began with a "theological dimension"]. People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature—he laws of physic—are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they come from; at least they don't in polite company. However even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith {that the universe is not absurd that there is rational basis to physical existence manifested as |the existence of a} lawlike order in nature that is at least in part comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological world view.”
How many more quotes from the scholarship do you want?
"I think if you examine the history of the way the Christian faith dealt with science, that the invention of the field was due more to the valiant work of men of intelligence;..."
Yes, and those men of intelligence were Christians.
"...often acting in direct opposition to the suppression of the truth by orthodox Christian ."
Evidence please.
"For example, the Inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church declared in February 1616 that heliocentricism; which was based on Galileo's observations of celestial bodies,..."
Galileo was one of those Christians that had a part in founding science. The fact that some other scientists disagreed with him does not invalidate the claim. In fact Galileo also had considerable support within the church for his views, and his views were taught in the Catholic-run universities. However, he was also arrogant and managed to offend the pope, who used his disputed views as an excuse to censure him.
Meanwhile, cathedrals were being used as solar observatories—the church had no problem with science per se, just with some of the ideas that came up that took a while to be accepted.
"Such a response by the major Christian power of the time had very little to do with "inventing" science or anything else for that matter but was only and solely an overt act of suppressing the truth of the nature of the universe, which is the essence of science."
Actually, it had nothing to do with suppressing science, but was only and solely an overt act of censuring Galileo himself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kiwiman358
"still not proof or a source on "burning all the major cities" "
Yes, he did exaggerate. But he's not otherwise materially wrong.
"...there were very few in comparison to all the peaceful protestest..."
A claim I would not accept without evidence, given how widespread the violence was, even in the vicinity of reporters calling it mostly peaceful.
"...most importantly these cases have been condemnd by almost all of the people who supported the cause..."
You mean like the now VP raising money to bail out these people? Oh wait, that's the opposite of condemnation. Perhaps you mean like the journalist who questioned whether the constitution said that protests had to be peaceful. Oh, no, that's also the opposite of condemnation.
"... on the other hand, people on the right are still defending or denying the insurection."
You mean that largely-peaceful protest in which a very few people got violent and no more than a few hundred even trespassed (peacefully)? And in which the only person killed was an unarmed white woman shot by a police officer? I don't deny that happened, but I do deny that it amounted to an insurrection in anything more than a pedantic technical sense, and certainly that it was the greatest threat to democracy that America has seen, as claimed by the loony left that want to demonise anything that Trump was involve with, even falsely claiming that he caused this kerfuffle.
1
-
@kiwiman358
"...he was also wrong, as only a few builings ever took any damage through the protests..."
Define what you mean by "few".
"...the lie ... is simply not true."
Well, if it was true, it wouldn't be a lie, would it!
"...the lie that the protests led to whole cities burning down is simply not true."
A claim that I can't say I've ever heard in serious conversation. A lot of buildings being burnt in a lot of cities, yes, but "whole cities"? I can't say I've ever heard of that claim. It sounds rather like a straw-man.
"...when it comes to wheter or not the protests were peaceful, most sources claim that 93 - 95% of the protests were peaceful, which is a good amount in my oppinion."
That depends on your perspective. In some circumstances five to seven percent is a high figure, whereas in other circumstances that would be considered a low figure. It also depends on how violent. From what I saw, there was far too much violence, and certainly a lot more than the 6th January incident.
"...of cource this will not change your mind as you said that you dont care about the evidence."
I said no such thing. Ouch! I did say that! I meant "A claim I would not accept withOUT evidence..." I've corrected that.
"Kamala Harris did not personally bail any protesters out, she only advertised a fund for bailing out protestors."
I never said that she did personally. I said that she was "raiding" (sic; another typo I've fixed) money to bail people out. Which advertising for the fund qualifies as.
"...regardless Kamala Harris does not represent BLM or any protestors, so she doesn't matter."
It matters to your claim that "these cases have been condemnd by almost all of the people who supported the cause".
"I have not seen any journalists question whether protesters have to be peaceful,..."
I said that from memory, and I was incorrect in mentioning the constitution in that. But it was CNN's Chris Cuomo who said "Please, show me where it says protesters are supposed to be polite and peaceful." That exact quote should be plenty for you to confirm the claim.
"...even if they did, it is fine to question and discuss the constitution. "
He wasn't questioning the constitution, he was trying to justify or downplay the violence.
"...none of this actually matters much, because what matters is that most of the protesters have many times condemd the looters and violent protesters."
That's not in evidence.
"...the definition of insurection is "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government" "
Like the BLM etc. rioters did? They were never described as insurrectionists. And the 6th January protestors were not revolting against the government, but against the 'stolen' election. And yes, it was 'stolen' at the very least in how the mainstream media had a constant attack on Trump for four years, in how the social media censored pro-Trump view, etc. There are also good grounds, even if not proof, for thinking it was rigged in other ways too.
"...this is definitly what happened on jan 6."
No, not definitively. Technically, perhaps, but not really.
"...it is historical that any group of people have "invaded" the capitol."
I don't know what you're trying to say there.
"...any on the right can't accept what happened and the consiquenses it could have had"
The reason I can't accept that the election was a fair one is because the evidence says otherwise.
1
-
@kiwiman358
"somewhere around 5%"
Five percent of all buildings? That's a LOT!
"The violence of the protests compared to the Jan. 6. Insurrection have very little to do with the definition or the consequences of the insurrection."
True, but it has a lot with how that one incident is compared to the widespread, far more violent, BLM 'protests'.
"No, Kamala Harris doesn’t represent the opinions and ideas of the BLM protesters,..."
You claimed that "these cases have been condemnd by almost all of the people who supported the cause". Harris clearly supported the cause. You're now moving the goal posts.
"...the protesters condemning the looters actions, which can be seen though interviews and from actual representatives of the protestors intents opinions."
I believe that I have seen otherwise, but I don't know where to find that now, so I won't take that further.
"... its one guy saying something stupid."
That "one guy" is a prominent CNN reporter, and there was also the CNN reporter who claimed that the protests were "mostly peaceful" while standing in front of a fire set by 'protesters'.
"Whats more interesting is that you still believe that the election is stolen, despite all reliable evidence,..."
What reliable evidence?
"I could say the same thing for Bernie, who did not get much good publicity from the media either,..."
Nothing as bad as Trump got.
"In addition, bad publicity from the media doesn’t mean the election was stolen."
I didn't claim that it does. But wall-to-wall bad publicity and censorship does.
"In the end through all the court hearings, ..."
Most cases were not taken up by the courts for various reasons. That is, they did not actually investigate.
"...there has been no evidence of the election being stolen."
False.
"Provide one source that proves otherwise."
Proves that it was stolen? I already said that there is evidence, but not necessarily proof. Or a source that proves that there is evidence ?
1
-
@kiwiman358
"I meant 5% of protests not being peaceful, nothing to do with buildings."
One things that annoys me is people only half-answering questions, and therefore not really answering. You claimed that "…as only a few buildings ever took any damage through the protests…" So I asked what you meant by "few". Your answer was "somewhere around 5%", without saying what that was five percent of. Now you claim that it was nothing to do with buildings, but you explicitly referred to buildings.
"No, it doesn’t, few people portray the insurrection as a violent attack or whatever,…"
Not true. The frequently call it both violent and deadly.
"The claim about BLM protests being “far more violent” has very little proof and there is no evidence that anyone has been killed by protesters during the protests."
There were numerous people killed by the BML protests. You could only deny that by drawing a distinction between the peaceful protests and the non-peaceful protests and rejecting the non-peaceful ones as not actually protestors.
"Additionally, the right claims there was only a white woman killed by police who died from Jan. 6., but this is not true, because in the aftermath of Jan. 6. Up to 4 police officers have committed suicide, most likely because of the insurrection,…"
I note the unverified "most likely". And that you concede that they weren't killed by the protestors, despite your desperate attempts to link them.
"…nor do I think Kamala supported the cause at all, she used it for populism, nothing more."
Okay, so her support was not really support because you think she had a different motive. Got that.
"…that other guy was not wrong saying “mostly peaceful” which is true statistically."
Maybe, although that's not in evidence. But the media didn't call the 6th January incident "mostly peaceful". Because they have an agenda.
"Evidence:"
Ummm, yeah? Well, there's a lot of stuff there, so I can't go through it all, but from the quick look I've had of it, I'm not convinced.
campaignlegal: It tends to quote only critics, not defenders. It's coverage of the Maricopa audit is clearly biased, again citing mainly critics of it, and not defenders. It's labelling of the Arizona Senate's intensive audit as "highly questionable" is clear bias, and their claim that it's "methods of doing a recount are not transparent" is blatantly false, or at best cherry-picking, given that its methods were very open, fully explained, and broadcast live.
apnews: The reporting is very one-sided. I have no doubt that some of the claims about voter fraud, etc., were false. But this report simply picks out the ones that go against Trump, omitting the ones that support him.
I've given Wikipedia a miss, given that it's definitely biased and doesn't even claim to be truthful.
I skipped the second apnews one.
aljazeera: A story about Dominion suing news outlets, a case that is yet to be conducted, is not "evidence".
And it's been shown that the fact-checking organisations are biased and inaccurate too, so that's hardly a good source.
"Show one source which proves otherwise, the burden of proof is on you."
Did any of them (not that I saw), refute the evidence of social media censorship of news favourable to Trump?
"Well, I disagree, Trump at least had Fox News and OAN to help him, unlike Bernie."
But Trump had many more outlets against him, parroting the Democrats invented charges.
"Sure, censorship might, but Trump was not censored, ..."
Nonsense. First, I didn't refer just to direct censorship of Trump. What about the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story and the newspaper that ran it? But even Trump was censored in that the mainstream media often didn't accurately report what he said and did. That he was free in -some venues to speak does not mean that he was not censored in others. That's just misleading spin.
"And no, bad publicity does not reduce the elections legitimacy."
Deeply deceptive publicity does.
"Wrong again, you keep lying, are you bad faith or don’t do research?"
Not wrong, not lying, no bad faith, and I've done research.
The reuters link is another so-called 'fact checker' by journalists, that actually 'fact-checks' a different claim, a Facebook post that claimed that “Not one court has looked at the evidence and said that Biden legally won. Not one” Even that report concedes that a case brought by Texas was not investigated by the court. It doesn't mention that when Trump tried to bring the same case, it was also dismissed without being heard.
"Provide it then."
I have; the election interference by much of the mainstream media and social media.
"You’re admitting it is a conspiracy theory without proof or evidence then, well what a waste of time."
I did no such thing. So can I accuse you of lying? I explicitly said that there is evidence, and yet here you are claiming that I admitted to there being no evidence. That's pretty good evidence of you lying. (Not to mention your claim that your comment was nothing to do with buildings.) Or failing to read what I wrote. And I never even mentioned it being a conspiracy. You simply made that up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NathanRowat
"I'm just being the realist here... she didn't provide them with the acting talent to land the job, the managers that got them the audition, the producers who foot the cost of production, etc... They owe her nothing."
Utter nonsense. Without her stories, they would not have the fame that they had. And Radcliffe appears to agree: "...Jo is unquestionably responsible for the course my life has taken,..."
"What she did do was force anyone related to her work to endure the spotlight of this issue after her comments."
Given that her comments were true and her detractors false, you're putting blame in the wrong place. The ones who have "forced" this are those who promote the transgender nonsense and expect everyone to agree with them.
"That said, she's also responsible for the lack of income the latest installment of her universe earned and the effects of that on the many individuals who worked on it. "
False. The blame for that are with those who want to cancel her for telling the truth. You're guilty of victim-blaming.
"Final point, you're absolutely insane for thinking people should be arrested or charged for having personal opinions."
When those publicly-published opinions involve discriminating against people for telling the truth, it probably should be a crime.
"Again, just being the realist..."
Defending nonsense is not a case of being a realist.
"So you're suggesting that legally voicing an opinion you're legally allowed to have is turning on her?"
It does seem to have been a piling on against her, not merely voicing an opinion.
"She painted a target,..."
No, she defended women. Your spin does your credibility no good.
"...they stepped out of the way."
No, they stepped up to disagree with her.
"Sorry they still have to maintain an image to continue getting work..."
Then the blame lies with those who expect them to have an image of endorsing anti-scientific nonsense, not with Rowling being realistic.
"...when she can simply write a book under a pseudonym and still end up rich."
Why should she have to? She's done nothing wrong! Again, you're victim blaming. Not to mention the chance that she would be discovered and cancelled again.
"They didn't sell her out, they just didn't defend her. "
Not defending her would mean remaining silent. They didn't. They publicly disagreed with her.
"Last point, and this is the most important, you don't need to blindly follow someone into the depths of hell because they've made you a little bit of money."
What hell? The hell of being vilified, ridiculed, and cancelled for telling the truth? Actually, you should support someone like that. You know, stand up for victims.
"To be clear, I am not for or against either opinion,..."
That's clearly false. That you characterise her as the one at fault shows otherwise.
"She dug a grave,..."
No, telling the truth is not a case of digging a grave. Again, you take sides against her, despite claiming to be for or against.
"Remember that exact logic when you look back to Nazi Germany and tell me if your point has merit. "Well the Nazi regime supported them, how dare they condemn their actions?" "
That is a fallacious analogy, as the Nazi actions were wrong, whereas Rowling's were correct. But yet again, you're taking sides despite falsely claiming that you're neither for nor against.
1
-
1
-
@NathanRowat
"That's an awful lot of typing to botch the first paragraph."
I didn't botch it.
"Let me give you an example. Does Hugh Jackman owe his fame to the creators of the X-men? Johnny Depp to the writers of the Pirates franchise? How about Robert Downey Jr. owing Marvel?"
It's not a given that actors owe their fame to a particular movie or series of movies. If they were famous before the movie, then they don't owe the fame to the movie. If they weren't famous, then they likely do. Your examples were were all of already-famous actors before the movies you mention. So they are not a fair analogy.
"Are you gonna tell me that you'd recast Harry Potter since he's "ungrateful and undeserving?" "
I didn't say that anyone was ungrateful and undeserving.
"But once again I state, they do not have to go to war for her because she made them a bit of money."
And I never said that they should.
"But please continue to deconstruct my entire paragraph to repeat yourself 40 times in the delusion that right and wrong play any factor in today's society."
Are you seriously claiming that right and wrong pay no part in society? Then what are you doing telling me that I'm "wrong"?
"Life has always been about survival as it is our most basic instinct, and you want to condemn actors for stepping out of the crossfire."
You're strawmanning again. I explicitly pointed out that they could have remained silent (stepped out of the crossfire), but they didn't—they stepped in.
"And yes, she's 100% responsible for the lack of income for recent projects."
Repeating a claim does not make it true.
"Talk your way around it all you want, but had she done nothing (a lot easier than something), everyone would still have a payday."
In other words, go along with nonsense, and you'll still have a job. Sorry, but integrity still matters.
"I'm not for or against transgenderism, that's why I'm not targeted by it, understand?"
So if you are required to lie and refer to a 'trans woman' (i.e. a man) with feminine pronouns, you'll happily do that? That is implicit support, and, again, integrity matters. I refuse to lie to affirm a lie.
1
-
@NathanRowat
"Do me a favor though, since you're all about science. I want you to start targeting the Catholic church for their claims against science..."
What claims against science?
"...and do everything in your power to have those people imprisoned (as another person you've agreed with stated) just for their beliefs."
I did not express any agreement with that statement.
"PS. On the subject of Radcliffe, could she have picked a chimp to fill the role?"
Of course not.
"She could have been responsible for the course of its life too..."
I guess why would have.
"...but the film wouldn't have worked and it's life wouldn't have been that drastically changed."
Of course the film wouldn't have worked. But if it had, the chimp's life certainly would have been drastically changed.
"Stories don't make movies, actors, directors, SFX artists, stuntpeople, producers, etc... make movies. You know, the things that made her far more money than the books she wrote the stories in..."
I have never suggested that Rowling was the only person responsible. It does, of course, take a lot of people. But the claim that Rowland had no significant part in it is such nonsense that even Radcliffe disagreed with the idea, a fact that you've completely ignored.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@martinwalker9234
...which god are you referring to?"
There is, by definition, only one, the creator and supreme being. So I refer to that one.
"According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions, churches, denominations, religious bodies, faith groups, tribes, cultures, movements, or ultimate concerns...."
Your question was about which god, not which religion. You're conflating two different things. So how many of those churches, denominations, religious bodies, etc. are not all in agreement on which claimant is the correct one? For example, Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, etc. are all in agreement. You seem to be simply throwing around figures as though they mean something in this context.
And of course there are some atheistic religions too. What makes any of them the correct views? Anything more than simply believing that your religion is the correct one?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pwillis1589
"Whoever suggested American politics was a level playing field."
Your comments appears to assume one. If one candidate wins over another, that shows that the loser is inferior only if all else is equal, i.e. a level playing field.
"I can't believe you are suggesting Mehmet Oz with all his high profile in the media suffered from lack of messaging."
I'm not. I'm suggesting that Fetterman was whitewashed in the media.
"You blame the media and a lack of debate."
I'm blaming the media as a likely cause (not necessarily the only cause). I blamed a lack of the debate being broadcast by the mainstream media, not a lack of debate itself.
"I assume you advise the Republican party, ..."
You assume too much, and not just in this case.
"Raphael Warnock was a Baptist minister..."
Still is, as I understand it, but one who apparently puts his own 'progressive' views above what the Bible teaches.
"...I think evil is a bit over the top"
Yeah, I wouldn't go that far myself, but I can understand the sentiment.
"...so yes a poor candidate is the likely reason..."
Or the mainstream media favouring Democrats for key positions such as governors and senators.
"...but please Republicans believe whatever you want."
I'm not an American, so I'm not a Republican. I simply go with the available evidence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@100percentSNAFU
"So, ask a scientist which one it was, and the answer you will get is that nobody knows."
While your overall response is great, this line is not. Some scientists may answer that, but others will answer with one of the three explanations you mention. In summarising the views of Alan Guth, one of the leading Big Bang theorists, Discover magazine said this:
"The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere. How is that possible? Ask Alan Guth. His theory of inflation helps explain everything."
So Guth would answer with your first explanation, despite that being contrary to cause and effect, a basic principle of science.
Others go with the second option, of the multiverse, often said to have been invented or become popular precisely to avoid the third option. Of course that is an evidence-free metaphysical explanation, so, strictly speaking, outside the realm of science.
The third option is therefore the only one with any credibility. But because that implies a God to whom we are all answerable, many don't like that answer so will opt for one of the other two bizarre answers.
"...because none have been proven."
Actually the third one has been "proven", depending on what is meant by that word. That is, there is sufficient evidence for the third option to have convinced people, which amounts to it being proven in their minds.
1
-
@j...bro.
"50,000 it's now 60,000 as of last week..."
Actually, it's been supposedly 60,000 for a decade or three.
"...good to see you updated from 2 months ago message of 40,000..."
Huh? What 40,000 two months ago?
"...slaves for stealing a loaf a bread.. not even a commodore!"
No, convicts, not slaves.
Yes, the idea that they were sent to Australia for stealing a loaf of bread is widespread. And perhaps some were. But that would be the very bottom end of the range. Most would have been for more serious crimes that that, even if they were generally not the much more serious crimes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@raymondo2469
"Apparently god can perform miracles ,"
He can.
"...if Christians truly believed that..."
Which we do.
"...they wouldn't be forever asking for contributions and donations , they would simply pray to their all powerful god... "
That conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.
* First, we also know that God performs miracles by exception, not routinely.
* Second, we also know that He is not our servant to do whatever we ask without question.
* Third, we also know that miracles are there as signs pointing toward Him, not for providing regular needs.
* Fourth, we also know that God often provides by means of other people. There's an old story about a man sitting on the roof of his house because the area is flooded. The water was not yet that deep, and a neighbour came by on horse and offered to take him to safety, but he declined, because he trusted God to rescue him. Then police came by in a boat and offered to take him, but again he declined for the same reason. The waters were still rising. Then the military arrives in a helicopter and offers to rescue him, but again he declined. The waters rose above the roof, and the man drowned. Arriving in heaven, He asked God why He didn't rescue him. God replied, "I sent your neighbour on a horse, the police in a boat, and the military in a helicopter—what more did you expect from me?"
"...to print up some cash."
And cause inflation? God understands the consequences of His actions better than you do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@turnerfamilyinozi
"Please go back and look at what Swan actually said. He preficed his claim with if."
Now that is the sort of response that you should be making, to actually (attempt to) show that the reporting is wrong.
However, the report showed three claims that he made, and mentioned others. You've responded regarding one of those.
Also, it's easy to claim innocence over scaremongering when you qualify with an "if". The point here is that if you say things like "if X happens it will be this bad" but fail to say "If X doesn't happen it will be better", i.e. if you only talk about worst cases, you're giving a distorted impression to people. In this case, the "if" is not really an excuse to say that you're weren't wrong.
I've said many times before, news media can misinform not by lying or being mistaken, but in being selective in what they report. If you only report one view, you give a distorted picture no matter how accurate you are. I think the situation with Swan is akin to that.
"No comment on how science totally disproves a global flood?"
It doesn't, but no, as I said, no comment until you respond to my previous comment. Until then, you're simply trying to change the subject.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chucklednut8324
Thanks for that example. But it doesn't actually show that he was incorrect. Rather, you're saying that he has a different view to you, and you therefore leap from him having a different view to him being wrong. That's a non-sequitur. I also reject, in the case of Sky News and Bolt, that it's synonymous with conspiracy rhetoric. Conspiracies are where people scheme together to do something that they know to be wrong. Rather, and this gets to Bolt's very point, the climate alarmists really believe the rhetoric that they spout (so not conspiracy), and it's this belief contrary to much evidence that justifies describing it as a (false) religion.
For example, you indicate that describing it as "a redistribution of wealth, enforcement of authoritarian socialism" is a false claim, and yet climate alarmists have said as much. For example, Extinction Rebellion (XR) co-founder, Stuart Basden said: “And I’m here to say that XR isn’t about the climate. You see, the climate’s breakdown is a symptom of a toxic system that has infected the ways we relate to each other as humans and to all life.” and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer said: “But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”
1
-
@chucklednut8324
"I never said it was incorrect"
I asked what he said that was incorrect. You dodged that by saying you didn't have time to go through it all. I pointed out that I didn't ask or all, and that you didn't supply even one. So you (apparently) supplied one. That was a reasonable conclusion for me to draw.
So now you concede that you've not supplied even one example of him being incorrect.
"... he is wrong for using his opinion to wedge division."
That sounds like spin. If side A say X and side B says Y, how is it that only side B is causing division?
"Extinction rebellion is an extremist group, they're more concerned with social and economic disruption than the climate or even environmentalism."
They use disruption to push their agenda of changing society. But other, less extreme climate alarmists, are also using the alarmism to change society, as the IPCC official I quoted admits.
"Michael Mann has indicated that trying to mix social reform in with climate action weakens the necessity to act because it alienates those apprehensive to the broader social reforms."
No doubt he says that because it is the case that many of the climate alarmists are doing just that. Okay, not all of them, and Mann might be one of the exceptions. And maybe he's trying to wedge a division between those groups?
"However, it's progressives, independents, and moderates that are innovating within these frameworks to realise practical climate action within industry."
I think you have a rather rosy view of things. I wonder who you would place in each group. I would consider "practical climate action" to not manipulate the market to artificially change the economics of it, and yet I suspect that many you would consider "progressives ... and moderates" and not "far left" are pushing for just that. Similarly, I would consider "practical climate action" to not cost the Australian taxpayers millions or billions to make essentially no change in the temperature, and yet I suspect that many you would consider "progressives ... and moderates" and not "far left" are pushing for just that too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wefinishthisnow3883
"You've brought apples to a discussion about oranges which makes me think you missed the point."
My point was that your basis for your opinion is probably one that you don't apply consistently, and therefore your opinion is one that is held inconsistently.
"I'm not sure I saw the point about Christians providing freedom either when the point was about acknowledging the fact that LGBT people have contributed to our freedoms we enjoy today."
Turing's practical actions helped us to retain the freedoms that Christians brought to the West. He didn't expand those freedoms in any way, nor contribute to them with a philosophical basis. That is, he merely supported the freedoms that originated with Christians.
"The difference is that Christians have the luxury of 'blending in' with society, ..."
Christians shaped the society; the society is, historically, a Christian one. That's why they've long appeared to 'blend in'.
"...whereas LGBT people can't hold hands or even walk around without risk of someone laughing, snickering or verbally or physically assaulting them for just minding their own business and contributing."
Yes, I guess if you stick out, people will comment. But then things have changed somewhat today, with LGBT nonsense being actively promoted by the mainstream media, governments, the education system, sporting clubs, and many businesses, whilst Christians are sacked, taken to court, vilified, and otherwise discriminated against more and more. So where is the difference really?
"Religious people get to gather every week, ring church bells or Islamic call to prayer and nobody complains about rubbing it in their face."
Actually, much of that is not "rubbing it in their face" (most gatherings are in their own buildings, and few churches ring bells) and yet people do complain about about Christians. More and more that is happening, as I just cited above.
"LGBT people get one night/year to gather, I think it's only fair to give them that."
They can gather whenever they want. But they really do "rub it in our faces", having public marches widely publicised by the mainstream media. And often backed up by penalties for simply disagreeing.
"If you want to bring Christianity into the discussion, how about you try acting like Jesus and hang out with the so-called sinners like Jesus did in Matthew 9:10-17, Mark 2:15-22, and Luke 5:29-39?"
What makes you think I don't? Jesus never endorsed nor agreed with the sin, and yet disagreeing is all I'm doing here. But of course disagreeing is not acceptable to the LGBT+ activists.
"Or would you rather play god and pass judgement when that's his job and not yours?"
John 7:24: "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgement.” It's also our job.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eb2505
"...the catholic church is steeped in corruption throughout the centuries."
If you're talking about things like indulgences, yes, I won't disagree. But you weren't referring to that.
"Perhaps the crimes against children are what we think of most when thinking of the catholic church, ..."
In recent decades, yes.
"...but if you read of Charles Chiniquy, you'll also understand it was broader than that."
I just read up on him, in the article on the Christianity site. According to that (Protestant) site, he wasn't exactly a reliable source.
"Perhaps they appear to be more prevalent now because the information age makes it harder to cover them up?"
Sure, that's possible, but what I said was "I've seen no evidence..." of that particular crime having been around for longer.
"I'm also of the belief that we are yet to understand how much the other denominations, including protestant ones have been involved in this..."
They haven't been talked about so much, but there has been evidence presented on them, so I think (if you look at the evidence, which I've not really done), we can understand that.
"(IHillsong is perhaps the one most recently infamous)."
And that's a stretch. As far as I'm aware, the only person accused of that crime in that case was the father of the Hillsong founder, so not Hillsong itself. The only other person accused in connection with that was the Hillsong founder himself (Brian Houston), charged with "covering it up", i.e. not reporting it to the authorities. But I know of no evidence that he condoned it or allowed it to continue. On the contrary, the evidence is that the abuse had long before stopped. So I hardly think that Hillsong is really a good example of the same sorts of things as happened in the Catholic church.
1
-
1
-
"The judges in Australia should state that if the government want to change the constitution they should conduct a referendum."
The constitution requires it, and the pollies know it. This is not about changing the constitution, but about ignoring a legal implication of the constitution.
"What I do know is that you are a common law country. Common law decisions in one common law country can be cited in another common law country."
They are not necessarily a legal precedent, however.
"I have cited an Australian decision in your top court which refers to the British Common law regarding entry to property."
I don't know the case, but it's true that British Common Law from before Australian federation applies, unless the government has legislated otherwise. But British decisions based on Common Law since then are not legal precedents, I believe, although I guess they could be cited in support of a position.
"I haven't read your constitution. The fact that you have to ask me indicates that you haven't either. ... Thanks for asking your question. Now go and seek the answer to your question yourself and then spread the word."
FYI, I don't believe that there's anything in the constitution directly on this (and yes, I have read it, but haven't memorised it). However, what is there is provision for the federal government to enter into international treaties, and Sall Grover appears to be saying that as Australia entered such an agreement in which the definition of women is based on biology, then a law based on that treaty that allows men to call themselves women is, arguably, unconstitutional.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@floatinghamstick
"God is about love, not hate."
Seriously?
Romans 12:9: "Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good."
Revelation 2:6: "Yet this you have: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate."
Zechariah 8:17: "Do not devise evil in your hearts against one another, and love no false oath, for all these things I hate, declares the Lord.”"
Colossians 3:5-6: "Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these the wrath of God is coming."
That's not an exhaustive list.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Fortnite87463
"if you kill it at the start, its not formed into a baby."
It begins to form into an adult human being at conception. As the process continues, it grows a heart, a brain, a nervous system, and so on. At one point in time it emerges from the uterus, but continues to develop, growing teeth, and continuing to develop. At puberty it gains working sexual organs.
We have terms for different stages of this development, including zygote, fetus, baby, toddler, child, and teenager. Some of these terms overlap (e.g. a fetus is an early stage of being a baby), and some don't have specific starting points.
But throughout the whole process, it's a human being. And it's wrong to kill innocent human beings.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dilligafwoftam985
"I'm not confusing them, they are 2 different, but important issues that need to be addressed. That's why the are numbered 1 and 2."
No. 1 is people born here. No. 2 is people with dual citizenship. No. 3 does not refer to No. 1, but would include both No. 2 and people changing their citizenship to Australia without retaining their former citizenship. It's that last group that you don't explicitly mention, and in fact your subsequent comments totally fail to recognise, as though anyone not born here must necessarily hold dual citizenship.
"... 'we are bringing Australians home', and then proceeds to call people who have applied for the annoyingly named 'citizenship', Aussies."
If they have changed their citizenship to Australia (losing their former citizenship), then they are Aussies.
"So tourists, students etc. NOT Aussies."
No, I wasn't referring to them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ExistenceUniversity
"It's a misconception that you cannot prove a negative."
The misconception is that I made that claim. I said that you can't prove a universal negative. I can prove that there are no matches in this matchbox, but not that there are no matches in the entire country, because it's impossible to search everywhere in the country.
"Is there a tea cup in orbit around the sun? Did anyone make a cup and send it into space? No"
How do you know nobody did?
"God is interacting with the world, but the world cannot interact with God."
And yet people do all the time.
"God and physics are opposite, ..."
In what way? I am not my house, but that doesn't mean that I'm the opposite of a house. Which I made by the way (albeit by hiring builders). We both exist, even though one is a living thing and the other isn't (so in that limited sense we are opposites).
"physics exist because it is physical ..."
Huh? That doesn't make sense.
"...the universe is full of physical objects."
You've checked every part of it, have you? Actually, the statement is false anyway. The universe contains information, numbers, etc. that are not physical.
"... the universe is full of physical objects. Therefore god is opposite to reality."
You seem to have overlooked that, in one sense, God is outside the universe. So no, your argument is garbled, and your conclusion simply doesn't follow from the premises.
"You cannot prove a negative if you are a skeptic that reality exists. "
As I have shown above, I can prove a (non-universal) negative. And I most certainly believe that reality exists. The physical reality we experience was created by God.
"You give me any "fact" about God and I will demonstrate why and how it is counter to reality, and why it would mean this character must be fictional."
Okay. God is eternal. He has no beginning. He exists outside of time. (Pre-emptive response: your experience of reality not being eternal is of physical reality not being eternal, but God is not physical.)
1
-
1
-
@ExistenceUniversity
"I think your issue is that you think your beliefs need to change to have something to be proved."
I'm not sure what that means, but "proof" is not an absolute, but is more a case of being convinced by the evidence, which will vary from person to person.
"To non-insane people that don't believe in "outside of reality",..."
I don't believe in outside of reality, but I don't consider the physical universe to be all of reality. Rather, it's just all of physical reality.
"...your requirement that God is outside the universe..."
That's not a requirement of mine. That's just the nature of things.
"...is the evidence that god doesnt not exist as nothing can be outside the universe."
Why do you think that nothing can be outside the universe? Simply because you define the universe as everything that is? If that's the case, then you would indeed be right. But if the universe is defined as the entirety of the physical, then you need not be right.
"I can prove that your schizophrenia invisible friend is imaginary, it won't cure your schizophrenia and you will continue to BELIEVE."
You seem to be under the delusion that my views are not based on evidence. You would be wrong. Christianity is an evidence-based view. Beliefs do come into it, though, such as the belief that the supernatural is a possibility to be considered. And as for proving, you have now twice failed to refute my claim about God that you said you would.
"If you stop believing and engage in reality, god cannot fit into it."
We all believe. Belief is simply assent to an idea. You assent to the idea that God doesn't exist, i.e. you "believe" that God doesn't exist. The question is whether a particular belief is evidence-based or not. Therefore, you can both "believe" and "engage in reality". The two are not mutually exclusive. Hence your conclusion that God cannot fit into it does not follow from your premises.
"What came before God? Who created him? Your believe requires an infinite regress, which is also counter-reality."
Simply false. There can be no "before God", because that requires time, but time is part of God's creation. He exists outside of time. Further, that means that he doesn't have a beginning, and therefore He was not created. This is basic biblical teaching, which you should know if you knew what you were talking about. Therefore, there is no need for an infinite regress.
The naturalistic view, on the other hand, does require either an infinite regress or a miracle, but without a miracle-worker. The Christian view is sensible, in that it proposes a cause (God) for the beginning of the universe. Do away with that, and you have a universe that has either existed forever (physically impossible, given thermodynamics) or that had an uncaused beginning. That is contrary to our understanding of reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Alotofnades
"Christianity is not factual."
Not so.
"It’s faith based."
What gives you that idea? Oh, because the Bible says it is? Yes, true, but what the Bible means by "faith" is trust based on evidence. That is, we have evidence that God (and the Bible) is reliable, and therefore we trust (have faith in) God when He tells us things that we can't otherwise observe.
"A book that very well could just be a collection of folk lore stories."
It couldn't, actually. There is too much consistency and a common theme throughout the Bible, written by 40+ (?) people from various walks of life over a period of more than 1500 years. Further, archaeology has confirmed many details of it, often refuting sceptics who claimed that the Bible was wrong, showing that it is very reliable.
"The fact that they are moral teachings should be an indicator that they are just fairy tales."
First, that's a non-sequitur. Moral teachings don't have to come from fairy tales. Second, a large part of the Bible is history, with some of that providing evidence for the morality. And as I mentioned, a lot of that history has been confirmed from other sources.
"Christians will say it’s all true because Christ is the most documented person in history."
That's only one thing we'll say.
"So with that logic, Harry Potter is the most documented wizard in history and he and his exploits must be real."
No, that's not the same logic. The Bible documents Christ at a known place and time in history, unlike Potter, and Christ is testified to by several biblical and non-biblical sources. There is all but unanimous agreement from historians concerned with that period that Jesus existed, which is definitely not the case with Potter.
"Because millions of copies of Harry Potter books were printed."
If the number of copies printed was relevant (it isn't), you lose the argument again, as the number of Bibles printed amounts to ten times that of Potter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@668771
"Bahahaha, do some research."
I did.
"In 2013, the estimated figure of losses to the economy upon the Queens death was anywhere from a minimum 2 billion to upwards of 8 billion."
First, a reference please. Second, from your description, that's a loss following her death, not for her funeral.
"Also, upon death, the rest of the countries like Australia will officially leave the commonwealth, just as Canada already did."
You don't know that, and Canada didn't, highlighting that you're the one who needs to do some research.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davem3325
"The chaplains are there to EXPOSE the students who are vulnerable to christianity and become brainwashed by the fakeness of god."
What is your evidence that God is fake?
What is your evidence that they are trying to brainwash? On the surface, that is absurd because the chaplains have only a limited amount of time with them.
"RELIGION ALWAYS DOES SECRET SPECIAL DEALS WITH GOVERNMENTS! ITS CALLED DONATIONS!"
Nonsense. "Religion" is not an entity that can do deals. And what's your evidence that the organisation concerned has done a "secret special deal"?
"accreditation for what "
Providing chaplains, obviously.
"lying to kids about an imaginary god, not of them have any training, there are not qualified counsellors, they are sales reps for the pope!"
There are five claims in that sentence. What's your evidence for those five claims?
And most chaplains are, I gather, not Catholic, so are not representing the pope.
"so you are ok with unqualified religious fruitcakes hang around children's playgrounds in seculars schools, ..."
I'm not talking about unqualified people, and I'm not talking about fruitcakes, so that's a nonsense question.
"...but have a problem with secular qualified counsellors in christian schools!"
Yes, because those secular counsellors do not have a proper understanding of reality.
"your pathetic!"
Because I disagree with you?
1
-
@davem3325
"Where is your GOD RIght now?"
He's not just my God, but everyone's God. He is everywhere, because He is a spirit that is not constrained to a particular place or time.
"how can ONE god be everywhere?"
Because He is not a physical being.
"Does GOD have FORM, I .e does your god have a brain, arms legs, hands?"
No, because, as I said, He is a spirit.
"How did he make the earth, ..."
By the power of His word. He spoke it into existence.
"...its not mentioned exactly how he made the earth,..."
On the contrary, it is mentioned. He spoke, and it was.
"...where did he get all the stuff from to make the earth?"
He made that too.
"When he made the earth did he put it all together first and then started it spinning?"
I guess so, because it IS spinning.
"If he is a such a brilliant DESIGNER, then why did he allow hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes, heatwaves, floods,..."
He made a perfect world, and He gave humans free will, but those humans chose to reject God. So God stepped back a bit, and allowed nature to take its course. Consequently, things started to deteriorate (run down), and so we got bad things.
"what is the purpose of lightning?"
Off the top of my head I couldn't say. But then I don't know if lightning was part of His original perfect creation or a consequence of its deterioration.
"If your god created the bible, then why didn't he give a copy to adam and eve when they were just starting out?"
Because most of it is about things that hadn't happened at that time. Of course that doesn't mean that God couldn't have done so, but it would have made little sense.
"Can you tell me how all humans came from just 2 people adam and eve, ?"
Easily. As you know, parents can have children, and they can have children, and they... and so on. Also, God created them perfect, so there were no genetic defects in them. Genetic defect are today accumulating at the rate of about 100 per generation, so even assuming that rate applied then, there would have been extremely few in Adam and Eve's children, so sibling marriage was not a problem (and would, of course, have been consensual).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mooseitself
"xD The video is about Joe Biden my dude, the original comment is talking about the US because why would an Australian say "this country" when referring to what an American president said."
I tend to assume that people watch these videos! The headline mentions Joe Biden, but the video mentions both Joe Biden and Australia's foreign minister, Penny Wong, and in fact spends more time on Wong than Biden. So no, the video is not "about Joe Biden", but about how a couple of prominent people (with Biden being only one of them) are ignoring the Christian festival in favour of a more woke celebration.
"You then stated that you didn't imply "the great Australian president Joseph Biden" "
Yes, quoting you using that phrase; apart from quoting you, I never used that phrase.
"I was using your quotes to make fun of you not even comprehending your OWN arguments and now I am explaining it in detail, like I would a child."
I appreciate you now explaining in detail, which has given me the opportunity to show that you were wrong, in that you were wrong to say "The video is about Joe Biden".
"Literally explaining how words and conversations work right now..."
No, you're explaining how you apparently mistook the headline for the video. Or perhaps didn't even watch the video.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@happycarnivore7922
"your argument is "If other media do it, it's fine for Sky to". "
No, that was NOT my argument. I clearly stated what my argument was.
"And no, nobody twists things like Sky."
And yet you give no evidence of that.
"And there always should be time to give the relevant info."
So you're saying that they should select the information that somebody (you? Sky?) considers to be relevant. That's being selective. As I said, "there isn't time to give every bit of information", so you have to be selective. I also said "The question is whether the selection is misleading, but you haven't shown that it is." You still haven't.
"Of course the selection is misleading."
You claiming that doesn't make it so. You haven't shown that it is.
"That's Sky's intent."
Please provide evidence.
"And no, I haven't shown it..."
And that is the problem.
"...as I kept my reply brief."
But you just said that "here always should be time to give the relevant info", and if you're making an allegation, evidence is relevant!
"Again, "everybody" is not an argument."
It's not an argument that it should be done, but it's an argument to say that Sky is doing what is normal industry practice.
"Nothing wrong with 'biased', so long as it's the right one? I know you actually believe that."
Yes, I do.
"When you said 'right', did you mean rightwing?"
No, I meant correct. There is such a thing as right and wrong, or correct and incorrect. We should be biased towards correct things. Do you not agree?
"Yes, telling the morons what they want to hear. Yes, many are morons."
More evidence-free insult.
"I've supplied more facts than you have."
Factually incorrect. In response to the opening comment, I cited some facts about why Bolt is not getting marching orders from Murdoch. You, on the other hand, admitted that "no, I haven't shown it [evidence for your claims]".
1
-
@happycarnivore7922
"No, you didn't state your argument."
Yes I did: "I NEVER said that it was okay for Sky to be selective because others did, as you claimed. I said that it was okay for Sky to be selective because there "there isn't time to give every bit of information."
"What on earth is "correct bias"?"
Bias towards the truth or true things.
"There shouldn't be bias."
So it is okay to tell lies, i.e. not be biased towards the truth? Yet here you are criticising Sky for supposedly doing something like that.
"And Sky is biased to fit their propaganda."
Do you criticise the ABC and the mainstream media for their obvious biases?
"the cheapest, lowest comeback in the book."
Nonsense. I'm just drawing the obvious conclusion from your own comments. Completely legitimately.
"Precisely when zealots deliberately misquote people."
It can't be a misquote because it wasn't a quote, but instead a conclusion from your comments.
"Because they can't present a counter argument."
And yet I did.
"Your standard comeback for when you haven't or can't prove something? To tell me I haven't proved something."
The onus to produce evidence is on the person making the claim. You made the prior claim that I challenged. Therefore the onus is on you, not me. If you disagree, please quote me, verbatim, a claim that I made that a) wasn't in response to a claim of yours, and b) that I haven't produced evidence or logical argument for.
"Sky's not doing standard industry practise at all."
Why do you think that?
"And still not an argument, just because you frame it differently. Not an argument, period."
It was a response to your claim that it was "dumbed right down". That is not an argument, but a claim that is meant to be critical but is instead just spin.
"And, no, nobody twists thigs like Sky."
Repeating your claim does not make it any more true.
"Remember they got taken off their air for too many lies?"
No. I do, however, remember when they got banned by left-wing YouTube for stating views that the left don't agree with. YouTube never showed that they were lies. They never (or almost never) justify their actions like that, beyond a vague claim that it didn't meet their guidelines.
"You've present zero facts but your escape is to claim I haven't."
Already answered. Again, you're repeating yourself.
"You don't think many here are morons? Then you haven't read their ignorance-based, dumb[...] opinions."
Oh, I've seen plenty from the left. But you weren't referring to them. You were making a very broad generalisation about conservatives.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@binmcbin1890
"I forgot how you go through, select quotes and argue about semantics! Haha so dishonest..."
Nothing dishonest about challenging claims, which is what you're describing dishonestly.
"you taking issue with the word always but not the fact that you consistently use proving a negative fallacy..."
Except that I don't do that.
"The point is not that i think giving evidence isn't the right thing to do, ..."
Then your comment wasn't warranted.
"the point is even when you're given ecid3nce you use logic fallacies to weakly try to undermine it every time. "
So often I'm not given evidence. Just like you've not given evidence for your claim that "we actually give alot to Murdoch,". And I avoid logical fallacies.
"That's why I brought up the time you thought that prediction was proof ..."
I never claimed that. You were the one who incorrectly described it as prediction, and I never claim proof, only evidence.
"...even when you admitt2d it wasn't..."
All I admitted was that it didn't mean quite what I thought it meant. But at least I admitted that error.
"you demanded others prove that Christmas wasn't celebrated (ie proving a negative) "
To be accurate, I challenged you to support your claim that it wasn't celebrated before Constantine.
There is nothing wrong with asking someone to support their negative claim. If it's a claim that can't be supported, then the claim is baseless.
"THATS why I laugh at the prospect that you have the audacity to ask for evidence, bevause you yourself have no idea how any of it works!"
Says the person who has not provided evidence of his claim regarding Murdoch, and who seems to think that if you make a negative claim, you have no onus to support it.
"a deranged dishonest churchy who will use logic fallacies to dispute fact"
Talking of logical fallacies, there is also the abusive ad hominem fallacy of attacking the person rather than his argument. Like you just did there.
"The response i give you ... is not the same response id give to a reasonable honest person actually interested in murdochs tax dodging and hand outs. "
I AM interested in the evidence for your claim, and I AM an honest person. Disagreeing with you doesn't make me dishonest.
"You're not worth a proper response mate, that's why you don't get one."
More abusive ad hominem. That is, more of that logical fallacy, from the person who falsely accuses me of using logical fallacies.
"Respect is earned mate, and you've done nothing to earn any."
And yet I have earned it from some people.
"Ps notice how I actually gave you ecidence ..."
Nope. Not unless it's in a comment that YouTube is hiding.
"and where to look..."
Nope again.
"...you still declare that I said I don't have to give evidence?"
I didn't say (in this conversation at least) that you said that you don't have to give evidence. And yet, in your last response, you actually say something that amounted to that: "You're not worth a proper response mate, that's why you don't get one."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pwillis1589
"You clearly can't comprehend, I never suggested their were more than two sex ..."
Nonsense. This is a direct quote from you: "If the question was how many sex’s are there then the answer is simple, XX, XY, XXXY, XYYY." That is, you listed four.
"but no in your fundamentalist imagery black and white world there is no room for learning."
More nonsense. In my "fundamentalist" world, us "fundamentalists" introduced universal education, universities, and science, because we "fundamentalists" believed that God was a god of order who created an orderly world that we could study, that studying it was a good thing, and that everyone should be able to read and learn.
"I didn't previously bother commenting on your ludicrous rewriting of the history of astronomy and the discovery of heliocentrism..."
What rewriting? What I put was accurate. The idea of heliocentricity in early science was inherited from the ancient Greeks (who I referred to as pagans; is that your objection?). Later, the early scientists who believed this and those who challenged it were Bible-believing Christians. What was inaccurate in what I wrote?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@W1ZY
"Whatever word you opt to use, the point is that "something happened" after which subsequent events occurred."
Saying "something happened" does not explain where the matter came from ( Scott J's question).
"The laws of physics presently known indicate that when you "stuff" all that "stuff" into such a small space, ..."
How small? Because surely that is an important factor in your scenario.
"...into which all of the matter & energy present in the universe was "stuffed"."
That supposes that the matter and energy already existed, which a) was what Scott J was questioning, and b) is contrary to the claim that nothing existed.
"The point being as you indicate that before the Big Bang there was "nothing"--not even physical space--after which some event occurred..."
But what caused that event? Because if there was nothing, then nothing could cause that event. Which means that it couldn't occur in the first place.
"This is all a theory, though, which is open to modification and/or refutation on the basis of experimental observations."
Except that we can't go back and observe it, experiment on it, etc. As such, it barely qualifies as science.
"And because it is so big a question, naturally one will find religious folks contributing their 2 cents' worth to the discussion by quoting "God" from the Bible, Gensis, etc."
Incorrect. You don't get "religious folk" (which religion? Certainly not atheistic ones) contributing because it's so big a question, but because they have a better source that records what actually happened. And why the scare quotes on "God"?
"What's interesting about that crowd is that they rarely go back a couple thousand years to the Sumerian "creation myth" cited every new year by Sumerians explaining the creation of the solar system in great detail which is the basis of the "dumbed down" "crib note" version provided in the Old Testiment."
Again, that is incorrect. The Sumerian story is not ignored, but has been shown to be a corrupted version of the Genesis account, not the other way around.
"Inflation Theory is a very nice mathematical explanation for how the "universe" got "big enough" so "quickly" ..."
I don't consider an explanation that simply invents a rapid expansion a "very nice mathematical explanation".
"The best empirical (experimental) data supporting inflation theory thus far has been the cosmological survey of background radiation..."
That's back to front. Inflation was an attempt to explain the too-uniform background radiation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"I am agnostic"
As a famous academic, traveller, and speaker once asked, 'an ordinary agnostic, or an ornery agnostic?' That is, someone who doesn't know whether God exists, or someone who says that they don't know, that we can't know, and that nobody knows? Perhaps he was basing that on a comment by Robert G. Ingersoll, "The agnostic does not simply say, "I do not know." He goes another step, and he says, with great emphasis, that you do not know."
And a fun fact (well fun for us Christians): agnostic comes from the Greek for not knowing, and the rough Latin equivalent is ignoramus.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chriswatson7965
"The term "sovereign state" is something as defined in international law."
It's also defined in dictionaries. I don't see your point. And the concept predates any formal international law defining it.
"Your whole argument that international law is less legitimate is based on international law being equally legitimate."
False, given that the concept existed independently of international law.
"There seems to be some mystical, nearly religious zeal to the concept of modern nationhood. But it is an invention, one that that has its origins in the Peace of Westphalia of 1648."
What ancient countries ever considered themselves anything but sovereign? Rome? Egypt? China?
"It is only international law that permits countries to have their own laws and boundaries"
And yet they had them before there was international law, so that's clearly false.
"Australia has laws because other countries permit it to."
No, it has laws because it has the authority to make laws. True, in Australia's case (unlike most) Britain gave it authority, but since then it does not rely on Britain continuing to permit it.
"...there has, over the last 80 years, profound bias in favour of Israel..."
What bias?
"...that has allowed it to behave in a manner that would not be tolerated by any other country."
Such as?
"Israel only exists because of the support of cooperation of other countries."
True. If it didn't have the support of others, it would be wiped off the map by evil regimes. Which could be the case for many other countries also. France only exists because Britain and its allies freed it from Germany. Your point is correct, but not special to Israel.
"International law was the basis of that support."
Only in the sense that there was international agreement on providing that support. Law is something imposed on its subjects by a body with the authority to do so. International law has no such body. It exists on the basis of agreement between sovereign states.
1
-
@chriswatson7965
"Please cite one example of the concept of sovereign state prior to 1648 - note I am asking for the concept, not examples of states with de facto sovereign power."
If they had sovereign power, they had the concept!
"The point is that concept of sovereignty arose out of international law. Prior to that rulers organising forces to invade other territories was fair game."
In what sense was it fair game? What made it fair?
"" Rome? Egypt? China?" - no they didn't. They were simply entities that fought against other entities."
No, they weren't "simply" that. They were countries (nations) that considered that they had the absolute right to rule their territories.
"They existed, but there was no permission for their existence."
Romans 13:1 (2000 years ago): "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God."
""No, it has laws because it has the authority to make laws." - where does that authority come from?"
See Romans 13:1
"What stops countries from invading or otherwise forcing Australia to enact laws in favour of those other countries?"
It can be either the knowledge that invading Australia is the wrong thing to do, or the negative consequences of doing so.
" "What bias?" the bias that allowed the country to exist,..."
Okay, so a good bias.
"...excused the multiple invasions of surrounding territory,..."
What multiple invasions? Are you referring to pushing back against the invaders OF Israel?
"...and excuses the continued illegal treatment of the palestinians."
What illegal treatment?
"Consider this scenario - Russia invades Australia, organises the mass migration of unwanted minority groups into the area around Sydney, it leaves and the Russian immigrants organise their own country, centred on Sydney, declare independence, and kick out any Australian's who disagree."
Given that Israel was given some of their own land by the then-governing authorities, and didn't "invade", how is that a valid analogy?
"exactly - this is an example of international law."
Yes, but of it being an agreement by sovereign states, not because it has any authority over states that don't accept it.
"that is what international law is. What did you think it was?"
That's what I thought it was! But what you're claiming is more than that. You're claiming that it has authority over states that don't agree to it.
1
-
1
-
@chance1113
"i've read countless number of documents that go into depth about why it's necessary and nothing that's mentioned seems bad to me."
Your reading has been very selective, has it?
"i mean the AHRC even go out of their way to expletively mention that acknowledgement of them in the constitution does not give those individuals or groups more rights than anyone else but is a recognition of history. "
Yeah, well, the AHRC would, being good lefties.
"whys is it so bad then?"
Because it's racist and discriminatory.
"one thing i didn't know until i read into it a bit more that apparently our constitution doesn't even have any provisions in it to stop the government enacting laws based on race."
True. But then you seem to think this is bad, yet want a race-based provision in the constitution!
"...so basically while the racial discrimination act is enshrined in federal law, you can use the constitution to override it ..."
I don't see how. The constitution doesn't ban race-based legislation, but it doesn't require it either.
"would love for someone to provide some clarity on the pro's and con's for this"
A voice in parliament for a group of people based on their race is, by definition, racist. And when that group of people already has the same voice in parliament as every other Australian, it means giving them an extra voice that the others don't have, which is discriminatory.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@magatism
"Yep, and you are known by the fruits of destruction you bring on your own people."
STILL making up things.
"Your response is typical to that of the Islamist brigade who claim the same. They too ask for evidence when confronted with logic".
Another falsehood. When I'm confronted with supposed logic, I counter it with logic. I only ask for evidence (which I've not actually done explicitly in this discussion) when people make bald assertions, i.e. without logic or evidence.
"It's written in Bible in black and white, what more evidence do you as a Christian require."
Yes, that parable is written in the Bible. That's not the issue.
"All you are saying is that Jesus told stories which do not mean what they mean."
Not true. I'm saying that Jesus told a story (there's only one we've talked about) which doesn't mean what YOU claim it means.
"The parable is simple, an authorative figure trusted his servants, they stole from him, he sent his son, they killed him and then the master sent his soldiers to deliver justice."
There's a bit more to it than that, but loosely, yes.
"Now compare this with life of Jesus and voila you are proved to be a fake Christian."
That simply does not follow from your previous comment. You have not shown how that parable means that I'm a fake Christian.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelshannon9169
"But you are making the claim that its by the creator..."
I made no such claim. I asked a question. A hypothetical if you like. You are avoiding answering it.
"so its you who has to substantiate the claim, not me to disprove it"
I agree that the onus is on the person making the claim to explain it. But as I said, I didn't make that claim.
"Claims require the one claiming to support their claims, otherwise its simply a book written by men."
Your premise is correct, but your conclusion does not follow from your premise.
"All that aside, really, what kind of all powerful god, all intelligent etc would use parchment from thousands of years ago to prove his existence?"
What makes you think that He did? That is, what makes you think that the Bible is proof, or the only proof, of His existence?
"Then the stories within it, to still believe in this stuff is a real bad reflection of ones mental state."
Except that it's demonstrable that very intelligent people do believe it, and that includes people who set out to disprove it and ended up being convinced by the evidence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@manueldesousa5054
"you commented this on a lot of posts because you are a sad little troll!"
No, I commented this on a lot of posts because a lot of posts had it wrong.
"Caitlyn is a brave woman!"
No, Caitlyn is a man. That is a simple, biological, fact.
"She literally comes out, speaking out against the woke nonsense and still has to deal with people like you who refuse to acceot her as she is."
That's bizarre. He speaks out against one bit of woke nonsense, while indulging in some other woke nonsense, and it is not me, but you, who refuses to accept him as he is.
"I fully respect her identity..."
No, you are also under the delusion that he is a woman. Again, that he is a man is a blatant biological fact.
"I am glad that she is speaking out to protect women's sports, ..."
I am also glad that he is speaking out about that.
"I hope that trolls like you will not discourage her nor lead her to the woke side."
I'm not a troll. I'm someone who stands up for what's right, and he is already somewhat on the woke side.
What is your actual evidence/reasoning to claim that he is a woman? That he identifies as one does not make it so.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anthonys439
"well science tells us that the oldest polar bear bone is carbon dated to roughly 110-130 thousand years old, "
Incorrect. ScienTISTS tell us that, conforming to a naturalistic paradigm that a priori assumes that things have naturalistic explanations. As such, the scientists are biased, and not open to evidence that doesn't agree with that. See more below.
But also, Jim P has made a valid point about carbon dating, which means that your claim is false. Either carbon dating shows the bones to be younger than around 50,000 years, or it wasn't carbon dating that showed that (but carbon dating is the method normally used for organic matter).
"so what you're saying then is that those polar bear bones are at least 50,000 years old."
No, he's not saying that. He's saying that they measured C12 in the bones, they can't be more than 50,000 years old, as there would be no C12 left after that time.
But carbon dating illustrates my point above. Read this carefully, because it's a bit involved.
All living things contain carbon, which comes in two forms that are relevant here: C12 and C14. C12 is normal carbon, whereas C14 is created by cosmic rays in the atmosphere adding an extra neutron to Nitrogen atoms in the atmosphere. C14 eventually radioactively decays back to nitrogen (N14), but more is being produced all the time, so there is a roughly-constant proportion of C14 to C12 in the biosphere, and that gets into the food chain, so living things generally end up with that same ratio.
When the living thing dies, it stops adding carbon, and so the ratio of C14 to C12 changes over time as the C12 decays back to nitrogen and leaves the corpse. By measuring this ratio, one can, in principle, determine how long ago the thing died. However, we need to know what the C12:C14 ratio was at the time the thing was alive. We know that that ratio changed a little over time, with the industrial revolution, for example, being one such cause of change. So how do we determine what the ratio was at the time the thing lived and died?
To do that, we need to find things that we know the age of (from history), and work back from their current ratios to that age and determine what the ratio would have been at that time. But for things older than recorded history, such calibration is not really possible.
Now we are getting to the kicker: The global flood would have dramatically changed that ratio. So do scientists take that different ratio into account? No, they assume that there was no flood, and therefore conclude that the ratio was about the same as later times.
So when they calculate the age of something as being, say, 20,000 years old, they are assuming no flood. If you then argue that this shows that there was no flood, you are making a circular argument, as the argument assumes no flood in the first place!
Ergo, you cannot use the supposed carbon age of something older than just a few thousand years to show that the flood didn't happen.
"So just remind me when Noah sailed?"
History records that as being about 4,350 years ago. So polar bears—as a distinct variety of bears—did not exist then, and as such, would not have been on the ark.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Stikibits
"Western society is [stuffed] and tyrannical..."
Perhaps so, given the leftist nonsense that we are being indoctrinated with now.
"...not some glorious white, christian success story."
I don't know of any scholar who claims that it's a "white" success story. But there are plenty who say that it IS a Christian success story. Here is one, from a non-Western, even non-'white' original source. This is from former Time journalist David Aikman's book. And note that I don't expect you to buy to book to find it; I'm quoting the relevant part.
------
The eighteen American tourists visiting China weren’t expecting much from the evening’s lecture. They were already exhausted from a day of touring in Beijing. But what the speaker had to say astonished them.
“One of the things we were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world,” he said. “We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next, we focused on your economic system. But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West has been so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.”
This was not coming from some ultra-conservative think tank in Orange County, California ... This was a scholar from China's premier academic research institute, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) in Beijing in 2002.
------
"White, Christians forcing their tyrannical Christian despotism on others is the problem; not a solution. "
Except that plenty of Christians are not 'white', it's not tyrannical, it's not despotism, and it's mostly not forced. So you could hardly be more wrong there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Stikibits
"I have..."
Only an apparently-biased article behind a paywall.
"It's common knowledge."
Among the far left.
"There's a wiki page, even."
Which proves what?
"Anyone can look up the "Great Replacement Theory". "
True enough. But just the fact that there is such a theory doesn't show that this video is about or supporting that.
"One more time for you, dumby:"
Calling me names does nothing for your credibility.
Wikipedia is not a objective source when it comes to worldview-type issues such as this. But one of the problems with both some of the Theory's proponents and with its critics is the conflation of the concepts of white supremacy and religion. The amount of melanin in one's skin is irrelevant, and so any white supremacists who believe that 'white' people are better by virtue of being 'white' are deluded. (The same applies to those on the left who draw distinctions between 'white' and 'black' people, such as in the racist referendum proposal.) However religion IS an important factor. It is very obvious for those willing to look that religions are not all the same and some are better than others. And there is plenty of scholarship to show that Christianity has been very beneficial. I gave you one quote in an earlier response, and I could give you others.
This video is about sidelining Christianity, NOT about white supremacy. In this conversation, you're the one conflating the two, but they are not the same thing. For one thing, there are plenty of Christians who are not 'white'. In fact it would not surprise me if the majority of Christians world-wide are not 'white'.
"In mid-September 2021, the U.S. media turned its attention to an increasing number of Haitian migrants seeking protection at the border in Del Rio, Texas."
Evidence please. That they were genuinely "seeking protection", that is. In fact in the Tucker Carlson segment they mention, Carlson points out that they were already refugees in other countries, but then decided to come to America. They were not fleeing danger. (Of course that doesn't mean that none were fleeing danger, but most weren't.)
"Carlson said that current U.S. border policy is designed to ‘change the racial mix of the country. ... In political terms this policy is called the ‘great replacement,’ the replacement of legacy Americans with more obedient people from faraway countries.” "
He did say that. But the quote is taken out of context and is therefore misleading. He wasn't objecting to non-whites coming into the country. He was objecting to the Biden policy of bringing in people who would support the Democrats. Your source is, again, biased.
"On Sept. 29, Axios summarized the situation: “A racist conspiracy theory goes mainstream.”
More deception from your biased source. Carlson pointed out that Biden's policy was racist, but your article turns that around to make out that people opposed to the racist policy are the racists! Further, it pretends that it's a conspiracy theory despite Carlson (and other) making a good case that it's reality. Just to be clear, what appears to be reality is that some on the left DO have a policy to bring in immigrants for the purpose of changing the 'racial' mix. Pointing that out is not a conspiracy theory, and is nothing to do with white supremacy.
1
-
1
-
"PS I always have refused to accept that religion has the sole claim on morals, ethics, values, and the right or wrong would have developed despite of religion!"
But do you have any evidence or rationale for that? After all, if our ideas of right and wrong don't come from God, they must be just subjective opinions, and that is no basis for claiming that it's "right" or "wrong".
"Religion if anything is divisive!"
That's illogical. What's divisive is competing views. And yes, there are competing 'religious' views, and competing 'non-religious' views. If Christians believe in God and atheists believe in no God, there's a division right there. Not because of the Christians, but because there is more than one view.
"What right is there to be referred to as an sinner or infidel?"
What's wrong with that if it's accurate? Your question appears to beg the question by assuming it's not.
"We are all human beings each with flaws, non perfect. That goes without saying, ..."
So your objection is merely to the actual words used?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"the ludicrous preference voting method"
If you think it's ludicrous, you don't understand it. As your subsequent comments prove.
"...some people have 2 votes (primary and preference) "
That's completely false. Everyone must provide both primary and preference votes, but in every case, only one of the votes is used. A preference is used only if nobody gets at least half the vote.
"...we often see minority governments elected to power."
So do places without preferential voting, because preferential voting is not the cause of minority governments.
"If Australia used majority voting like the UK then Labor would not have been elected to power"
That is also completely false. Labor didn't get win the election because of preferential voting. They won the election because they won more seats than any other party. Suppose you have three seats in the country, and suppose there are 100 voters in each seat. A party wins government by winning two of the three seats. So even if party A gets 51 votes in two of the seats and 10 votes in the third seat, they win government on those 122 (51+51+20) of the 300 votes.
That can happen with or without preferential voting.
But here's another scenario. In a given electorate, there are three candidates, two 'progressive' (A and B) and one conservative (C). In this example 60% of the voters want a progressive, but the vote turns out to be A=31%, B=29%, C=40%. Without preferential voting, C wins, because he got the most votes. With preferential voting, because nobody got at least 50%, B (with the smallest vote) is eliminated, and everyone who voted for B has their second preference counted instead, (not in addition to—they still only got to vote once) which means that A gets 60%, and so he wins. So how is the non-preferential system better? Please explain.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@peterschmidt1453
"it's not right that preferences, essentially a second vote, ..."
It's not a second vote, as I have explained.
"it's not right that preferences ... nobble the candidate with the highest primary vote."
Why not? Because you don't like the outcome? The point is, they won because more people preferred that person than the person who got the highest primary vote. Why is that not fair? Suppose that there were twenty candidates in an election, nineteen of whom supported, say, lower taxes, and one of whom supported higher taxes. Further suppose that 55% of voters wanted someone who supported lower taxes. But the votes of those 55% were spread over 19 candidates, with each getting only a few percent of the vote (on average around 3% in this example), while the other candidate got 45% of the vote from the 45% of the people who wanted higher taxes. Why should that candidate with less than half the votes win? 55% of people don't want him! Yet that is what you're saying should happen. With first-past-the-post voting as used in many places, that candidate, supported by less than half the voters, would win. With preferential voting, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and the votes of the voters who voted for him are transferred to their second preference of candidate. That step repeats until one of the candidates has more than 50% of the vote. So the result is that the person preferred by more than 50% of the voters wins. How is that not the the right outcome?
"Some will argue it lets the "little guy" win for change rather than the major parties,..."
Some might, but that has nothing to do with preferential voting.
"I don't think it serves the community for a 3% candidate to win."
Even though most prefer him? Because that is the only way it can happen.
"First past the post is probably fairer."
Absolutely not, as I have shown. Why is it fairer for the person preferred by the majority to not win?
"I'm Gen X, and I can assure you we were not taught anything about the Australian political system at school ..."
And therein lies the problem.
"Our social studies taught us irrelevant topics like ... prohibition in 1930's USA."
And I guess they told you it was a failure? Because I've looked into it, and it actually wasn't.
"...keep the peasants ignorant of how the powerful manipulate the system for their own ends."
That is pretty much what happened with prohibition. It was introduced nation-wide after already being implemented in many individual states, as the result of a grass-roots movement campaigning for decades for it. After it was introduced, pro-prohibition politicians won with increased margins. But then the media barons, looking for a way for the government to raise more revenue off people other than themselves, started a propaganda campaign demonising prohibition, until they got the government to agree to overturn it. The effects of that propaganda campaign are still around today, with most people still convinced that it was a massive failure.
1
-
1
-
@archangel763
"So democracy is only valid if the people it supports are free,..."
I'm not sure of your point, but if the people aren't freely able to vote, it's hardly a democracy.
"..the Palestinians are not free hence Israel is not a democracy,..."
Huh? What Palestinians? The ones in Israel are free. The ones in Gaza don't count as far as determining Israel's democratic status is concerned. That's like saying that Australia's not a democracy because the North Koreans are not free!
"A democracy is true if all people from the land it supports are free to live in peace and as equals."
What do you mean by "the land it supports"? The land that the government is for? Of course. But the Gazan's are not in Israel.
"If all the Palestinians in the diaspora came back to the current borders of Israel, they would be the majority, they would shape the entire country."
That is not the situation that any of this discussion about. All sorts of "what ifs" could be proposed, but this discussion is about the present situation.
"Hence the need for a 2 country solution which the current state of Israel does not want as its not a democracy."
There are two errors there. Israel IS a democracy, including allowing Arabs to be in parliament. The other error is your claim that Israel doesn't want a two-state solution. On the contrary, it has agreed with it numerous times, but the Arab Palestinians keep rejecting it.
"Her statement Israel is a democratic country is incorrect on that basis."
Your basis is completely back to front. Her statement is correct.
"Democracy is not just valid for one ethnic group."
And given that Arabs in Israel can vote, hold office, and even be appointed judges (one Arab judge once convicted a former Israel politician), it is clear that democracy in Israel is NOT for just one ethnic group.
"The only solution to the current conflict is a 2 country solution ..."
Sure. IF you can get the non-Israeli Arabs to agree. But Hamas, for one, has as it's policy the destruction of Israel. That's completely contradictory to a two-state solution.
"... on 1967 borders"
Why? The Arab states lost that land fair and square when they attacked Israel (for simply occupying their own land that they already had) and lost.
"As for Lebanon, Peta and Israel are naive to the threat,..."
And yet your apparent reason for saying so does not support your claim.
"... Israel is surrounded on all fronts ..."
They are well aware of that. So no naivety there.
"...this situation has the capacity to be one of the worst conflicts we will see,..."
Which is why Israel has to win. As has been said before, if Hamas surrenders, there will be peace. If Israel surrender, there will be no more Israel.
"...blowing up pagers and walkie talkies doesn't help Israel's current war situation."
Why on earth not?
"Its a well coordinated attack but its fruitless."
How is it "fruitless" to eliminate leading figures among your enemies?
I asked what was untrue, and yet nothing you've said supports that. In other words, you were the one that was wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mylittledashie7419
"Maybe that I've literally just finished 4 years of university, no one told me I needed a "safe space", ...
Okay, but that only shows that it's not the case in your particular experience. That doesn't mean that it's not true in other places, and I don't believe for one moment that anybody's claiming that it's true in every case.
"...clearly I'm not completely afraid of anyone with differing opinions to my own."
You had already effectively said that, and I'd already agreed that that was a fair point to make.
"If the brainwashing of university students is truly so ubiquitous, how come I literally never once encountered any political beliefs from my professors, or the university as an establishment?"
As I said, I don't think anybody's claiming that it's everywhere. But on the other hand, would you recognise it if you did encounter it? People who only hear one side often don't even realise that there IS another side that they're not hearing. Or, to put it another way, what formed your views such that you so readily dismiss the conservative views found on PragerU? Typically, it's parents, peers, mainstream media, social media, or the education system, and not necessarily in that order in terms of influence.
"...I'm sure PragerU has provided ample, peer-reviewed studies that prove how much it "actually" happens."
Given that they didn't actually make any claims about how much it happens, that's not a fair point to make.
"This would still be their safe space."
Not so, and not so even by your own logic, at least as I understood it. You rightly rejected his claim about you having a safe space by the fact that you came here. A safe space is where you avoid hearing alternative views. You came here, so you're not avoiding it. You don't know that he doesn't go elsewhere, so you don't have grounds to say that this is his safe space, i.e. he stays here to avoid hearing other views. I think the issue here is what is meant by "safe space". It's not where you go after hearing opposing views, but to avoid hearing opposing views.
"PragerU is just a hub of right wing circle-jerking and confirmation bias."
Not in evidence.
"They make you believe stuff just by saying it over and over again,..."
Not so. First, they don't "make" you believe anything. Second, they give evidence and/or reasons and/or logic to help you believe. Unlike the left in many (not all) cases).
"...not by actually making good arguments, and providing valid sources."
Again, untrue. They typically make good arguments, and they typically provide valid sources.
1
-
@mylittledashie7419
"Yes, I'm very confident I would've noticed if all of a sudden my professors had started spouting leftist talking points."
I wouldn't expect them to "suddenly" do it. So that's not convincing.
"Literally the only thing I can vaguely think of as a "left wing" belief that was touted by one of my professors, was... the existence of climate change. "
However, you make a strong point there, in that you show that you recognise that as a left wing talking point.
"I rejected the idea that this is my safe space."
I don't think that's what you did, but as I said, I think the issue is of what a 'safe space' actually refers to.
"What is this very video if not a right-wing circle jerk about how spooky leftists control the universities,..."
Whether or not this video is an example of that depends on whether or not they are correct. You're making a circular argument: PragerU is bad because they are wrong. Here's my evidence that they are bad: they are wrong.
"Which for the record, is a proven phenomenon."
Citing Wikipedia is not likely to convince me, but I'm not questioning that the phenomenon exists. The question is whether that's the case here.
"Yeah, logic based on men made of straw. This is the confirmation bias I was talking about."
Again, not in evidence. Yes, this might be the confirmation bias if you're correct. I don't believe that you are.
"Anyone on the left can see how PragerU will constantly tell you "what leftists are like", and "why they believe what they do" and how wildly inaccurate they are about it."
Except that I can see for myself that they are correct. No, not in every details, but (not in a university) I have encountered leftists just like some of their descriptions, and I'm in a completely different country.
"If you don't already agree with PragerU, it's clear how much the misrepresent, how much relevant information they deliberately leave out, ..."
I agree with them because it fits with other things I have seen. So yes, I "already agree" in a sense, but that agreement is evidence-based.
"...the fact that they never leave links to their sources,..."
Simply false. In the description below many of their videos, they have a link to "FACTS & SOURCES, Transcript, and Quiz", and that page has links to sources.
"Again, I can tell you first hand... they don't."
If I was able to post pictures here, I'd put a screenshot. But they do.
"...only to find they've quoted someone out of context, or cherry picked data,..."
I've heard claims like that (not necessarily about PragerU) many times, only to find that the claim is false. I can't say whether you're wrong or not, because you've provided no examples, but experience tells me to be sceptical of that claim.
"...or completely ignored the conclusions of the people who's information they're pinching."
First, that you refer to them as "pinching" the information shows that you're not being fair. Citing someone is not "pinching" information.
Second, there's nothing wrong with what you accuse them of. That is, there's nothing wrong with citing the facts someone provides while reaching a different conclusion from those facts. I've often seen cases of an expert saying "This is the evidence I've found and this is the conclusion I've reached" where the conclusion doesn't have to follow from those facts, and it's perfectly legitimate to reach a different conclusion.
"Genuine question, how many PragerU videos have you looked at the sources for?"
Not many. On the other hand, I have looked at a handful of anti-PragerU videos and can see that their opposition is ideological and their arguments don't hold water.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
J
"god doesn't exsist"
As I'm sure I've asked you before, what's your evidence? But you never supplied any, so that's a blind-faith claim.
"present me with the evidence, "
Okay (a sample):
* Nothing can create itself. So the natural universe cannot pop into existence from nothing. It needed something super-natural to create it.
* The universe is 'fine-tuned' in a way that is so extremely unlikely it's essentially impossible. That speaks of a designer.
* Living things have enormous amounts of (genetic) information, and information only comes from an intelligence.
* Jesus rose from the dead, showing that He is God.
"the bible doesn't count"
Why not? Your only reason is false.
"...any [person] could have written that..."
Not so, given that it includes prophecies that later came true. Further, for much of the rest yes, anybody could have written it, but it checks out as being accurate, so the point is moot.
"...that waste of paper."
That "waste of paper" led to Western Civilisation, universal education, the spread of democracy, modern science, the abolition of slavery, human rights, improving the status of women, public hospitals and many charities, and more. But if you consider all those things a waste, then I pity you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sidecarmisanthrope5927
"The world's first university was founded by a woman. The Madrasa (Islamic School) Al-Fihri founded is still in operation today as the University of Al Quaraouiyine.."
First, I explicitly said the university system, not an isolated university.
second, it was not founded as a university. It only became a university in 1963.
"Slavery was a part of Christianity and your buybull condones it."
No, slavery was not a part of Christianity. The "slavery" in the Old Testament was regulated to prevent abuse, and it was nothing like what we today understand as slavery. The slavery in the New Testament was a fact of Roman life, and Christianity had no power to stop it.
"Christianity gave us oppression of women."
Utterly false. And I note that you provided no evidence of that.
The Bible teaches that all are equal: Galatians 3:28 ("There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.") has been understood by Christians as teaching that nobody is inferior to others. It was Christians who got laws passed to stop women being used as labour in mines, Christians who fought against the practice of suttee, (burning widows alive on their husband's funeral pyre), Christians who (among others) campaigned for women to get the vote (which happened first in historically-Christian countries). To give just a few examples.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nevillehoward8736
"...forcing his Secret Service to stay at and pay top rates in his own venues,..."
Evidence please.
"Harris supports women's right to self determination of reproductive health. This is not the same as murder,..."
When it involves killing the unborn babies, that's exactly what it is. You're just hiding that behind nice-sounding words.
"...nor does it somehow outweigh GOP neglect of support for needy children and their families."
First, what neglect? Second, why is the GOP responsible for people's children? Third, why doesn't it outweigh it?
"Perhaps because none of those ridiculous claims deserved a response."
Because...?
"Having a father who is knowledgeable about Marxism does not make him even less, her, a Marxist."
But is here merely knowledgeable about it, or does he agree with it? He seems to have some ideas consistent with Marxism, as does Harris herself. And she could have denied it, but didn't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Normally, we work hard to shed light on policies, theories, ideas, laws and history from the perspective of a cold-hearted economist because that is often the most transparent way to understand the true motivations behind any of these things." Fair enough. So in this supposedly most important of issues, why abandon that approach? The claim that "Australian media outlets don't make too much of a secret of the fact that they are conservative" is (a) not a "cold-hearted economist" view, and (b) laughable; with only the committed left having such a view.
Further, the idea that that YouTube allows everyone a fair go is blatant falsehood, given the considerable evidence, such as by Project Veritas, that they are biased against conservative views.
If you actually had a good argument against the legislation, you've lost it by blowing your credibility.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@therick363
"Saying everything we see it because of a God is a belief and interpretation. "
No more so than saying that it's all because of nature, or chance, or whatever.
"Saying because we can’t explain something…therefore it can only be God? Weak argument."
That wasn't his argument. You misrepresented him. He gave evidence in support of the creating having been designed.
"Evolution is one of the most scientifically demonstrated and evidence backed theories there is."
Utter nonsense. Even if you were correct to say that it's scientifically demonstrated and evidence-backed, it's certainly not "one of the most".
"You think alllllll the scientists and teachers would teach a lie for this long and get away with it?"
It's not a lie, if you define that as them claiming things that they know are not true. On the contrary, they really believe it. And yes, they get away with it because of active suppression of the creationary alternative, and because people don't want to believe God did it.
"If it’s a hoax then it should be easy to demonstrate as such..."
Like phlogiston and other past scientific beliefs, it's a 'ruling paradigm' in science currently, and so people won't accept that it's wrong even when it's demonstrated to be wrong. J.B.S. Haldane (I think it was) said that you won't find wheels and magnets in nature, and you won't find 'out of place' fossils (rabbits in the Precambrian was his example). And yet we have since found wheels and magnets in nature, and fossil pollen in the Precambrian. So evolution has been falsified (there are many more examples), and yet people still believe it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Rita: "Is it too late now to preserve our intellectual freedom and fundamental rights that make us unique in the West. What can we do to counteract this war against truth?"
Teach the Truth. Jesus is the truth. The West has (or had) these freedoms because of Christianity, which is the basis for Western civilisation. But that's no longer politically acceptable, so that truth doesn't get much of an airing. Given the Marxism (atheism) involved, the motive should be obvious.
Dr. Gad: "If you have a certain set of principles that you think are well informed, well reasoned, that you can defend, don't cower, ... stand tall ... and defend your views".
Christian principles are just that. Numerous critics have set out to prove the Bible wrong, but have ended up believing because of the evidence. Christianity has always incorporated reason, and based on Christian principles and reason, Christians founded modern science, started universal education, spread democracy, abolished slavery, and much more. It's an eminently-defendable position and stands in opposition to tyrranies such as Marxist or neo-Marxist views.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jacobite Jones "you're best defense of "if only one religion is correct all others must be false" is to be semantic over numbers. that is weak... "
That was not the main part of my defense. So that is a straw-man.
"Understanding that all religions are false doesn't leave you with nothing - it simply means religions are false."
Except for the fact that religions give us meaning, or at least provide us with our basic beliefs.
"Atheism is simply the rejection of the existence of God(s) not a rejection of everything."
No, it's not simply a rejection of the existence of God. It's the rejection of how and why we are here, of the absolute basis for morals, of the existence of an afterlife, and of being able to trust our senses. According to Christianity, we can trust our senses because God designed us to have working eyes, ears, etc. According atheism, we are the product of a series of accidents, which gives no basis for us trusting our senses. As such, it undermines the principles on which science are built.
"If you are at all familiar with Dawkins you'd know that he clearly attacks the validity of all religions without prejudice."
Except, of course, for atheistic religions such as Secular Humanism. He, like most atheists including you, won't even acknowledge that atheistic views are not non-views, but alternative views to Christianity (or other religions).
1
-
Jacobite Jones
1. If you can't see it, how do you know that it's weak?
It's that we all, including atheists, have beliefs, and that we can't realistically discard all religions 100%. Atheists don't, as they have their own beliefs (religions) too.
2. Repeating your claim does not make it more true. The definition of Christianity is simply to believe that Jesus is God. BUT, a lot of other ideas flow from that. Similarly, the definition of atheism is simply the belief in no God. BUT, a lot of other ideas flow from that, as I have already explained.
"the non existence of YOUR god is of no consequence to me."
First, it is not my God, but the supreme being, creator (that's what the word means) *of us all*. There is only one, by definition.
Second, so you're still open to believing that man was made in God's image, that God sets the standards of right and wrong, that there is an afterlife that we will all end up in, and so on? Of course not. Your rejection of God necessarily means that you also reject those other, quite fundamental, ideas. And if Christianity is correct, the consequence of that means that you will end up in hell rather than heaven. Your views are not necessarily consequence-free.
"If Atheism was a religion where or what is its guiding doctrine?"
That we decide what is right and wrong for ourselves.
"please list its 10 commandments that all atheists follow."
Only Judaism and Christianity has ten commandments. I never claimed that atheism did, so that's a silly question.
"Who is the God of atheism? "
In one sense, man is. But ignoring that, it's another silly question, because, by definition, atheistic religions don't have a god.
"The genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all."
Not so. If a lion attacks a pack of deer, the deer that is caught is most likely to be the one nearest the lion, not the 'least fit' deer. In other words, luck plays a bigger role than fitness. So you're incorrect. Natural selection is quite random, albeit not completely so.
"The survival and reproductive success of an individual is directly related to the ways its inherited traits function in the context of its local environment."
However, the nature of that local environment is the result of random processes. If you play a board game with dice, such that your moves (natural selection, assuming it's not random) are entirely dependent on (i.e. you have no decisions to make upon each throw) what value you throw on the dice (the environment), you could argue that your play is not random because there is a non-random response to each throw of the dice (you move your piece by the value of the dice). But as the dice throws are random (the environment is a product of chance), then really, the entire game is down to the random throws of the dice.
1
-
1
-
Jacobite Jones
" and you managed to completely miss the point... your concept of luck is infantile and your understanding of evolution is very limited.."
And yet you don't point out what I have wrong. Perhaps nothing beyond seeing things different to you?
"This is so arrogant and ignorant it is beyond belief...."
And yet you demonstrate no arrogance on my part. So that's just name-calling.
"By the very same standards that 1000s of other God(s) have been dismissed so has yours."
Dismissed by atheists because they don't like the idea? Sure, but that counts for nothing.
"No sufficient proof for the existence of God has ever been presented."
Except that it has, and it has convinced many sceptics.
"So UNLIKE religion there is no doctrine that must be adhered to in order to be considered atheist."
You asked what the doctrine is, I said what it was, but someone, without explanation, you maintain that that there is no doctrine. So you're not actually engaging with the argument.
"Its silly because you missed the intent... i'll say it slowly for you... where is the doctrine that all atheist's follow ?"
So the "intent" was simply to repeat the previous question that I answered*. I'll say it slowly and in bold for you: *That we decide what is right and wrong for ourselves.
"There isn't one."
So you assert, but you've ignored my answer of one that is.
"so again atheism is UNLIKE a religion"
Incorrect, because not all religions have a god. And I even mentioned on (Secular Humanism, which originally described itself as a "secular religion", showing that the term "religion" can include atheist views).
"Again slowly...
Atheism is merely the rejection of a claim."
Repeating it slowly doesn't make it true. I have shown how it's more than that, and you haven't shown that I'm wrong; you've simply repeated the claim.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"All the religious right want is a special exemption which allows them to circumvent discrimination and hate speech laws."
Given that "hate speech laws" are very subjective (what counts as 'hate speech'?) and given that discrimination is sometimes warranted (you do it too), then what's the problem with that?
"Laws the vast majority of functional humans easily adhere to."
That they are function is debatable.
"Christianity is a disgusting plague, using the illusion of virtue to spew sewage into the world and brainwash people."
Yeah, right. What you denigrate so nastily is what brought you public hospitals and many charities, universal education and widespread literacy, science, the abolition of slavery (twice), and also elevated the status of women, influenced human rights, spread democracy, moderated tyrants, and is the basis of what made Western Civilisation so successful. Methinks you are quite ignorant or very biased.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@phillipstroll7385
"Pay special attention to that which is recorded to have been said by God and Jesus and not so much of what Paul says."
The entire Bible—including Paul's parts—were inspired by God. They are all God's words.
"I'm merely stating what is written..."
No, you're misrepresenting what's written. Some of it is sort of correct, but much isn't.
"...good looked down on all that which he created, every bird in the sky, every animal, every plant every being with disgust and decided to destroy it all. That was before the supposed sin of man."
Absolutely false. It was after sin. About 1600 years after.
"Also, whom exactly created sin? Man or God?"
Sin is rebellion against God. It's a bit like asking who created darkness, when darkness is not a "thing", but an absence of light.
"Just that I have no reason to believe there is one."
And yet there are many reasons. You either haven't looked or you've dismissed them for no good reasons.
"For example: morality was defined long before religion was even created. Any religion btw, not just the hewbraic one."
That conclusion is based on an atheist view of the history of the world, assuming that "religion was ... created" after morality was defined. What's your hard evidence for that? The "Hebraic" religion (Judaism) traces back through Moses to Joseph and Israel to Isaac to Abraham to Noah to Adam. And God. So no, "religion" did not came later. Belief in the creator God has been there from the very beginning.
"The same laws and commandments in the Bible along with every biblical story in the Bible predates the Bible by thousands of years."
According to what chronology? The biblical one or an atheist/secular one?
"Case in point. God is all for abortion. The Bible is very clear on this."
Utter rubbish. And I note that you don't cite anything in support.
"Neither God nor Jesus ever said anything about forgiveness of sins..."
What about where Jesus actually forgives sins Himself?
"People claim the ten commandments God spoke are invalid negate Jesus came in fulfillment."
Sorry, but that's barely coherent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ruslanotarov9727
"Philosophy predates Christianity by at least 600 years."
Christianity is Judaism fulfilled—Judaism expected a messiah, and Jesus is that messiah. So Christianity is a continuation of Judaism, which is the worship of the creator God, and that goes all the way back to Moses and Abraham and Noah and Adam. So in that broader sense, nothing predates Christianity.
"Middle ages universities curriculum contained natural philosophy aka systemic study of nature defined by Greeks, logic ,origins of which are also with the Greek..."
Yes, in some ways Christianity did build on discoveries and inventions by others. But just because we know the Greeks used logic doesn't mean that it wasn't also known before then. Or perhaps more to the point, even if the Greeks formalised logic, they didn't invent it. It already existed.
"...to credit Christian Church with founding modern science is laughable."
Except that it's what happened, and that is widely acknowledged. First, sociologist Rodney Stark explains why what the Greeks and others did was not science: “...progress was the product of observation and of trial and error but was lacking in explanations—in theorizing. Hence, the earlier technical innovations of Greco-Roman times, of Islam of China, ... do not constitute science...”
Christians founded science for a number of reasons including the following:
* Because they believed in a creator God who made laws for things, and therefore they believed that He would have made laws for nature, so they set out to discover them.
* Because they believed that God was consistent, and so didn't change things on a whim. This was unlike the Greeks who believed that the gods might change things on a whim.
As mentioned, that Christians founded science (on Christian beliefs) is widely acknowledged. Here are just three scholars on the matter:
Rodney Stark again: “...theological assumptions unique to Christianity explain why science was born only in Christian Europe. Contrary to the received wisdom religion and science not only were compatible; they were inseparable.”
Astronomer Paul Davies: “In the ensuing three hundred years the theological dimension of science has faded [note that science began with a "theological dimension"]. People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature—the laws of physic—are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they come from; at least they don't in polite company. However even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith the existence of a lawlike order in nature that is at least in part comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological world view.”
Anthropologist Loren Eiseley: “The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation … . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.”
1
-
@ruslanotarov9727
"Rodney stark is a sociologist..."
Yeah, I said that.
"...not a historian or biblical scholar."
Perhaps not trained as either, but he's studied those things a lot, and published a lot on them.
"It is funny how you are basing large part of your theses on conjectures made by sociologist..."
Funny how you try and downgrade it by referring to his studied conclusions as merely "conjectures". Further, as I've pointed out, others agree with him.
"...made by sociologist that was labeled by some as church apologist."
I don't know what you're implying there. And of course an apologist is someone who produces evidence to defend their position. Nothing wrong with that.
"To dismiss contribution to science and technological progress of Greek-Rome times and to label it as not real science is insanely ignorant."
To dismiss a reasoned conclusion without showing how his reasoning is wrong, and labelling it as "insanely ignorant", is childish.
"Science has no single origin."
As I said, Christianity did build on what others did. But the evidence nevertheless shows that Christianity founded modern science. And in fact the reason I referred to it as modern science is to distinguish it from things like the Greek studies that some might misleadingly label ancient science
"Rather systematic methods emerged gradually over course of tens of thousands of years,..."
You're clearly citing a naturalistic view there. I reject naturalism as an evidence-free philosophical position. Actually, a position that is opposed by the evidence.
"It doesn't matter that Christianity evolved from Judaism."
Except that it undermines your claim that philosophy predates Christianity. Simply declaring it to be irrelevant doesn't make it irrelevant.
"Judaism is not credited as a mother of science, philosophy is."
No, Christianity is.
"Definition of philosophy is love of wisdom."
Okay, if that's the case, philosophy was clearly around in Judaism at the time of Solomon, which predates your date for the Greeks by up to four centuries.
"Philosophy is the foundation upon which all other fields of study are built."
I'm not sure about that, but even so, I do agree that science is built on philosophy, in the sense that it's built on Christian principles.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pineapplepenumbra
"There are multiple gods in the bible..."
There are references to false gods, if that's what you're referring to.
"...if you do a bit more research outside of the bible, you can see that the ancient Hebrews believed in a lot more than are mentioned in the bible, but are alluded to."
Really? Oh, I guess that explains why they are criticised for believing in false gods!
"Again ironic, as the bible contradicts itself and observable reality."
A claim I've heard many, many, times, but never with good evidence. Perhaps you can provide some?
"Genesis refers to male plural, gods."
A reference to the trinity.
"Way to insult ... god,..."
Why?
"However, you've got no evidence for any such gods."
What is your evidence that I have no such evidence? Because I do in fact have evidence. But you made the claim, so you have the onus to back it up.
1
-
@pineapplepenumbra
"Nope. Ell was the Head of the Council of Gods and Asherah was his consort. Yahweh, known variously as The Usurper, a metal working god, a mountain god, a war god, and an volcano god was one of the (originally 70, later found to be 200 gods, according to tablets found beneath a farmer's field) gods beneath him."
The Bible does not say all that. Your claim was that "There are multiple gods in the bible ...".
"Can god be seen or not be seen?"
As spirit, He cannot be seen. But in human form (i.e. Jesus), he can be. Both are true in different ways. No contradiction.
"...the bible claims that the entire Universe is 6000 years old.
It claims that a man lived in a fish for 3 days.
It claims that a woman was turned into a pillar of salt.
It claims that people lived to be several centuries old.
It claims that the Sun stood still in the sky for a day.
It says that we all descended from one man and one woman 6000 years ago.
It says that there was a mass Exodus from Egypt, followed by thousands of people wandering in a tiny desert for 40 years"
Your claim was that "the bible contradicts itself and observable reality."
But none of those are self-contradictions, and none of those are contradictions of observable reality. What they contradict is a naturalistic view. Or perhaps you could cite where anybody has observed differently?
"It claims that there was a world wide flood 15 cubits higher than the highest mountain, killing all animals except those on a 450 foot long wooden vessel (which, alone, is impossible) and all except 8 humans, about 4,200 years ago (when archaeology and geology show there to have been a drought in the region lasting over a century)."
Here you are showing your ignorance. There are two competing views of history:
* The one described in the Bible.
* The secular one based on naturalism (a philosophical belief).
You're claim amounts to saying that the Bible is wrong not because it is inconsistent with reality, but with the competing view. Well, it's a competing view, so of course the two are not going to be consistent! Duh!
You haven't shown that such a wooden vessel is impossible. In fact other very large wooden vessels of similar scale are known from extra-biblical history. Second is your claim that the flood occured "when archaeology and geology show there to have been a drought in the region". By "when" you mean at the same time. But those two views I mentioned also disagree on the timescale. So again, you are judging the biblical account by how well it fits with a competing timescale. Essentially, you're arguing "I believe the competing view is correct, and therefore the Bible can't be". But I can, equally logically, say that I believe that the Bible is correct, and therefore the secular/naturalistic view can't be. You have not shown that the Bible contradicts reality on this.
"It claims that 3 wise men followed a star to the East, but if they came from Asia, as suggested, they would have to travel West."
First, it does not claim that there were three wise men. The account mentions three gifts that they brought, but doesn't say how many 'wise men' brought them.
Second, the account doesn't say that they "followed a star to the East". Matthew 2:1, in all 32 English translations that I checked, says that they came "from the east" or similar wording.
The next verse is probably the one you're thinking of, but that doesn't say that either. It is often translated as "we have seen His star in the East", but the obvious question here is, are they referring to seeing in the eastern part of the sky, or are they referring to having seen it in the sky when they were in the east, i.e. before they set out on their westward journey. In claiming a contradiction, you're claiming that whoever wrote that was so stupid as to contradict himself one sentence later. The intellectually honest thing to do is see if there is a way to understand it as not being a contradiction. Clearly my second option above is a feasible one, so there is no actual contradiction.
But it's also a translation issue. The NET Bible has lots of footnotes about translation issues, often quoting independent scholarly sources. It, similar to quite a few other translations, translate this as "we saw his star when it rose". No mention of east there. Its footnote on this is as follows:
"Or “in its rising,” referring to the astrological significance of a star in a particular portion of the sky. The term used for the “East” in v. 1 is ἀνατολαί ( anatolai, a plural form that is used typically of the rising of the sun), while in vv. 2 and 9 the singular ἀνατολή ( anatolē ) is used. The singular is typically used of the rising of a star and as such should not normally be translated “in the east” (cf. BDAG 74 s.v. 1: “because of the sg. and the article in contrast to ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν, vs. 1, [it is] prob. not a geograph. expr. like the latter, but rather astronomical…likew. vs. 9”)."
Continued...
1
-
@pineapplepenumbra
...continued.
"It claims that iron axe heads can swim like fish."
Again false. It says nothing about swimming, and nothing about this being a normal situation. Clearly Elisha causing one particular axe head to float is described as a once-off miracle that he performed. You have not provided observations (as you claimed) to the contrary.
"It claims that a good way to find out if your wife is cheating on you is to get a priest to effectively poison her, and, if she aborts the baby, she's guilty."
No, it doesn't Yet again, you misrepresent what the BIble says.
First, it doesn't say that it's a "good way".
Second, it mentions "bitter water", not poison.
Third, it doesn't clearly refer to an abortion.
I'd like to quote the NET's translation notes again, but they are quite long, so I suggest that you look them up yourself:
"It says that a donkey and a serpent can talk."
It says that a particular donkey and a particular serpent did once talk, not that donkeys and serpents can naturally talk. But it says the serpent was actually Satan talking, and the donkey was presumably used by an angel to talk. That is, both were supernatural exceptions to the rule, and you have not provided observations (as you claimed) to the contrary.
"It says that stars can fall to Earth.'
No, yet again, it doesn't. It says that stars will at some future time, fall to earth, but this is in a section of the Bible written in apocalyptic language, which is not meant to be taken literally. So again, no observations (as you claimed) to the contrary.
"It claims that Joshua knocked down the walls of Jericho, but there was no battle of Jericho anywhere near that time."
No, it claims that the wall fell down after the Israelites marched around numerous times.
Further, this is yet another case of saying that the Bible is wrong because it doesn't fit your preferred view, or more precisely, your preferred timescale. In fact there is clear archaeological evidence that the walls did fall down as described in the Bible. The disagreement is on which timescale is correct.
So of all the examples you mentioned in support of your claim that "the bible contradicts itself and observable reality.", no claimed contradiction actually was, and not one claim about an event has any observations that contradict it. I said in response that that was "A claim I've heard many, many, times, but never with good evidence. Perhaps you can provide some?" You have not provided good evidence, so my response stands unrefuted.
"― Mark Twain"
So what? What makes the opinion of a biblical sceptic any sort of argument?
"How many times have you encountered somebody raised from the dead ...?"
Relevance? Nobody is claiming that being raised from the dead is a common occurrence. But if you want a modern example (not someone who I know) look up the story of Dr. Sean George.
"... and how many times have you encountered a story that wasn't true?"
Many times. Evolution being one of them.
"The trinity was invented later, ..."
Evidence please.
"...even then, it was only alluded to once in the bible."
And yet I could quote you multiple passages. But to save space here, please read the article "Jesus Christ our Creator: A biblical defence of the Trinity" by Jonathan Sarfati.
"The torah, bible, qur'an, etc, ALL insult God(s)."
Repeating (and expanding) the claim is not an answer. My question stands.
"Their clearly made up gods are merely the reflections of the deeply flawed men who made them up, complete with those flaws."
Evidence please, because I reject that this is "clearly" the case.
"Their gods are petty, infantile, immoral, illogical, thoughtless, idiotic, narcissistic, capricious and sadistic."
Are they your biased opinions, or can you back them with hard evidence? By what standard of morality, etc. do you judge God? Your own opinion?
"The claims that they are loving, merciful, just, forgiving and compassionate are hollow claims, made by people who don't understand the concepts."
Again, evidence please. Hard evidence, not just your opinion.
"And there's no mention of humour whatsoever*. ... I remember more than one occasion where idiot religious people read out a passage and pretended that it showed god's humour. They were obviously deluded."
Again, evidence please, of them "pretending" and being "deluded". I think you're probably right that it doesn't mention humour (although it does mention laughter), but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have humour in it.
"Attributing books like the bible, qur'an, etc to a god INSULTS God (should such an unlikely being exist), as even an intelligent, knowledgeable person, let alone a God, would foresee the trouble such books would cause, and thus would cause a different book to be written. "
Your conclusion that He would cause a different book to be written does not follow from foreseeing the consequences. He might still have had good reasons to do it the way He did.
" The results of the bible REFUTE the bible! "
What results are they? Here are some results of the Bible:
* Founding public hospitals and many charities.
* Inventing modern science.
* Twice abolishing slavery.
* Founding the university system and universal education.
* Raising the status of women.
* Spreading democracy.
* Promoting human rights.
* Promoting freedom.
* Making life better for people (e.g. windmills, spectacles, and chimneys).
How do they refute the Bible?
1
-
@pineapplepenumbra
"No, it doesn't say all that, but it DOES mention several gods, such as El, Yahweh, Asherah, Chemosh and Ba'al."
"El" is a reference to God, and "Yahweh" is God's name. So that's one god. The others were false gods, which I already agreed were mentioned.
"Incorrect, there are verses in the OT saying that god can't be seen, and others where humans see their god, long before Jesus was born/invented."
Jesus wasn't invented, and although He was born as a human later, He always existed. Most of the OT references are to what is referred to as a pre-incarnate Jesus. That is, Jesus came in human form before he was born to Mary.
"I didn't say that they were."
You gave a combined list, without specifying for each one whether it was meant to be a contradiction or not. I simply covered both bases.
"I gave you one example, and you failed to show the claim to be false, despite claiming that you did."
On the contrary, I showed how it was not—or at least need not—be a self-contradiction.
"IF the Universe were only 6000 years old then we wouldn't be able to see more than 6% across our own galaxy."
That assumes that the light has taken more than 6000 years to reach us. But that is not a given. First, there are several possibilities involving time dilation that explain how light could have reached here in that time. Second, the one-way speed of light has never been measured. See the Veritasium video "Why No One Has Measured The Speed Of Light".
"Thus the claim contradicts observable reality..."
No, it contradicts hypotheses about the past.
"Only someone with the understanding of a young child would claim that these were in any way possible."
On the contrary, a young child would understand that God is quite capable of doing those things. Further, you claimed observational evidence against them, but failed to provide any.
"There ISN'T a competing view,..."
Except that there clearly is, else I wouldn't be arguing for a different view, would I?
"...there is only observable reality ..."
True, but with the possible exception of astronomical events, we can only observe the present, not the past. And yet what we are discussing are claims about events in the past that we cannot observe.
"To claim that the biblical nonsense is in any way competition with REALITY is absurd."
Yes, it would be absurd. But I'm not claiming that the Bible is competing with reality, am I? I'm claiming that the Bible is giving an accurate description of reality. Your argument is the thing that is absurd, because it's a misrepresentation.
"When your belief system is at odds with EVERY branch of Science,..."
But it isn't at odds with it at all. It is completely consistent with what we observe regarding astronomy, biology, geology, physics and the rest. What it disagrees with are claims that we do not observe, in particular claims about the unobservable past.
"...you really need to start looking in the mirror and seriously questioning why you believe such infantile rubbish."
You really need to start thinking about how there are two different views of the past, and you can't simply declare your own view to be reality, when you can't observe it. In fact the view I hold has the advantage of having been observed and recorded, whereas your view doesn't have that advantage.
You should also consider that it was people who believed that "infantile rubbish" who founded science! And did so on the basis of their beliefs. To call the bases of science "infantile rubbish" is showing ignorance of history and beliefs.
1
-
@pineapplepenumbra
"Anyone believing that there was a worldwide flood 15 cubits above the highest mountain (although there are 3 to choose from), and that the Universe is 6000 years old lost the right to say that, as they CANNOT be intellectually honest."
Because you say so? Because it conflicts with your view? Simply asserting that to be the case, especially while obviously not even understanding the view, is not an argument.
"You've got the cart before the horse there; as the bible claims this happened, you need to DEMONSTRATE that an axe head can do this,..."
No, you're trying to shift the burden of proof. Because, in this conversation, you made the claim that it was false. So you need to demonstrate that it is.
But you also need to get the claim correct. Nobody is claiming that an axe head "can" do this, but that an axe head "did" this on one occasion as part of a miracle. And to claim that it's not possible as part of a miracle, you need to show that God is incapable of doing that.
The Bible has already justified it's claim that it's possible by invoking a Being with that capability. You have not shown that, with God, such things are not possible.
1
-
@pineapplepenumbra
"Your denying of the history of the myths is only serving to undermine any credibility that you might have had."
Says the person who produces no evidence to support that claim.
"Tablets show that Yahweh was below El."
What tablets? Again, just a bald statement, with no evidence.
"Maybe he [Jesus] was [invented], maybe he wasn't, neither of us can prove it either way, ..."
Virtually all historians concerned with the period accept that Jesus was real. As far as history can be "proved", Jesus can be proved and has been. You are simply wrong to suggest otherwise, and by your own admission, you can't prove that He was invented.
"This is an entirely unsubstantiated, and incredibly unlikely, assertion."
False. It is substantiated in the Bible, and you haven't said what's "incredibly unlikely" about it.
"No, people just tried to retrofit verses and pretend that they referred to Jesus, but often they were just trying to pound square pegs into round holes, such as the Isaiah verse about the ugly, broken, despised character, and the Nazarite/Nazarene [error]."
Evidence for all that please.
"Your attempt to defend it just embarrassed you..."
And yet you failed to point out anything wrong with what I said? So you're not embarrassed that you couldn't answer it?
"Here's why it [light] couldn't have changed massively:"
I didn't claim that it had changed, let alone massively.
"The ONLY way you ca get around this is with a deliberately deceptive god."
And yet I've pointed out that there are other ways, which you've not even attempted to address.
"Why would you believe THAT about the video and not believe other Veritasium videos that go AGAINST your world view?"
Because it's not a worldview issue?
"I'll tell you why, it's because you are too biased to reach honest conclusions. You're a classic case of Cognitive Bias and filter out what you disagree with and focus on anything that you believe supports your world view. This is one reason why your world view is so deeply flawed."
Or perhaps that applies to you? You've not shown that I'm too biased; I expect that you're just saying that because I have a different view to you, and you're trying to justify that difference by denigrating me rather than showing that I'm wrong.
"Do you even know what a Scientific Hypothesis is?"
Of course.
"I don't remember any kids when I was young who admitted to falling for that infantile bollocks."
You haven't shown that it's infantile bollocks (so that's just name-calling), and perhaps you mixed in different circles.
"I do remember a lot of questions that never got answered (because there aren't any)."
Such as? Yes, I agree that Christians have often been poor at providing answers. But that doesn't mean that answers don't exist.
"I've already addressed this fallacious argument."
Where? I've not seen it in this discussion, and I don't recall any other discussion where it was shown to be wrong.
"Against them what? What are you referring to?"
Against your list that (apart from a supposed contradiction) started with "For example, the bible claims that the entire Universe is 6000 years old.". That list was in response to me disputing your claim that "the bible contradicts itself and observable reality." (my bolding) You provided no such observations.
"If I challenged a professional heavy weight boxer to a boxing match, would it be a competition?"
Yes. Not much of one, but it would still be a competition.
"It's NOT a competing world view any more than the Flat Earthers' claims are a competing world view."
First, the flat earth view IS a competing view, even if it is baseless and wrong.
Second, the flat earth view is observationally wrong, as you can observe that the world is round. The biblical view is a series of claims about the unobservable past. So they are not equivalent.
Further, there are many scientists who accept the biblical account as accurate.
"If detectives are called to a murder scene ... they didn't witness the murder, but they can usually reconstruct what happened, can't they?"
Yes, they can. But not always. For example, in the Azaria Chamberlain murder case, the scientists got the story completely wrong, contradicting the eye witnesses who turned out to be right. For another example, in the Oscar Pistorius murder case, you had scientists testifying for both the prosecution and the defence, giving different accounts. Scientists are fallible, biased, people, just like the rest of us. Further, most scientists work within the paradigm of methodological naturalism which means that they assume a naturalistic explanation before even looking at the evidence.
"Which is a ridiculous claim."
Simply asserting that does not make it true.
"As we Evolved,..."
We didn't.
"...it's inconsistent with biology, ..."
No, it's inconsistent with evolution, not biology.
"...as there was clearly no global flood..."
Except that there clearly was a global flood if you're open to seeing the evidence. Again, simply asserting that does not make it true. You need evidence, which you've not provided.
"...it's inconsistent with physics, geology, history it's inconsistent with physics, geology, history and common sense, as the Universe is obviously billions of years old, it's inconsistent with physics and astronomy."
All claims that you have not shown to be the case. You are simply citing your worldview as argument against mine. But you haven't shown that your worldview is the correct one.
"Virtually everything in the bible is wrong."
And yet you've failed to show even one error, despite trying.
"Two? What about what the islamic traditions?"
First, I never said only two. I never denied that there were more than two.
Second, what is different about the Islamic view insofar as this discussion is concerned? It also maintains that God created.
"This link doesn't mention the nonsense mix up with Pharoah and the Tower of Babylon stories, ..."
What "nonsense mix up"?
"Science WORKS, it's how we're communicating now. "
Yes, I know that empirical science works. Why do you think creationists invented it?
But it doesn't follow that historical science—where you can't observe, test, measure, nor repeat—always works.
"We could try communicating by praying if you want? See how well your world view works compared to mine?"
What a silly comment. My worldview is that prayer is a way of communicating with God, not other humans. Duh!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bradchristy8429
"If only the people wanted to be beholden to destinations and schedules mandated by society’s judgment of validity."
Actually, they be beholden to destinations and schedules mandated by demand.
But the freedom you desire comes at a cost, and isn't available for everyone. Yes, with a car you can go almost anywhere at any time. If you are a) old enough to have a licence, b) have the money to own and run and insure a car, c) are not blind or otherwise disabled that prevents you doing so, and d) are not too old to drive. And yet, most of those people that can't drive for some reason, can take public transport. They deserve their freedoms too.
Further, in many cases, such as going to work, catching public transport, especially a train, can be faster, cheaper, and more relaxing.
I don't want to be beholden to traffic holdup (worse if there is no good public transport), car running costs, etc. etc. mandated by society's judgement of which transport options are available. We need a good mixture of both.
"Can you name one railroad that was bought by an auto or auto parts MFR? Well wait….."
Pacific Electric Railway and Los Angeles Railway were two of many. They were bought by companies that were invested in by such companies as General Motors, Firestone Tire, Phillips Petroleum and Mack Trucks. A conspiracy theory arose around this, claiming that they bought the railways in order to close them down. A lot of that has been debunked, and I'm not sure that there's any good evidence for that claim, but I do find it interesting that the investors were all primarily in the road vehicle industry. So they may not have been a conspiracy as such, but perhaps a bias about what form of transport is best. (The systems were main tram (trolley) systems, and they often replaced them with buses, which are inherently inferior in some ways to trams.)
"Why can’t you just admit you want somebody to pay for your transportation?"
You do. You expect the government to provide roads for you to drive on.
"Except I DO pay for the upkeep of the roads I drive on. Or are they lying when they plunder those funds through the pump prices?"
I don't know too much about how that works in the U.S., but I'd suggest that you contribute to the upkeep of the roads that you drive on. That is, your fuel taxes pay part of the cost, but not all of it. And that's not even taking into account related costs, such as the costs of car accidents, police attendance at them, court costs, etc. etc.
"This is REALLY simple. If you think public transit is so valuable, fund it. Gather backers and build it. Let the tolls pay it back."
When the government is providing an alternative transport system that doesn't charge tolls? How do you think that's a valid suggestion?
"I’m mandated by the State to carry insurance for my cars. So I pay for crashes, too."
You pay the cost of repairs of the vehicles. Not for the police attendance, ambulances, hospitals, courts, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aaronjames7266
"My comments are getting deleted,..."
Yeah, I get that a lot.
"...turning from your wicked ways (aka: choosing to not sin anymore) is a work in God's view, as per Jonah 3:10."
Where in that verse does it say that?
"Also, 1 John 3:4-5 shows sin is breaking the Law. So you're saying Law keeping is required for salvation."
No, that doesn't follow. I said that you need to choose to sin no more. But that doesn't mean that you'll succeed. Indeed you won't. It's a change of attitude, not a fully achievable change of actions. That's why you need grace.
"You're teaching works salvation."
No, I'm not.
"Not once is there a command to "turn from your sins to be saved" ... "
Acts 3:19: "Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out,...". That sounds to me rather like a command to repent.
"Doesn't seem like you have the foggiest what justifies someone before God."
I was explaining what 'confess and repent' means, not giving a full description of salvation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bradbecker8982
"no it was John Locke during the enlightenment, as well as Aristotle that get to take credit for individual rights. The fundamental human rights are life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness."
I did not mean to imply that only Christians have championed individual rights. My point was more that Christianity has championed them, contrary to your claim that individual rights and "religion" do not mix, and that Christianity is why the West is so strong on individual rights.
"Christianity is against flourishing here on earth. Jesus said to relegate your treasures unto God in heaven, where they are eternal."
It is not against flourishing here on earth at all. Jesus said to not accumulate treasures here, because you can't take them with you. He didn't say to not do your best here.
"Jesus and his disciples held all of their property within “the commons” rather than owning it themselves."
Not that I'm aware of. Yes, it is recorded that some of them did pool their wealth for the benefit of others, but I'm not aware of them not still owning property themselves. Further, even if you were correct, that doesn't make your case that Christianity is against flourishing nor against the rights of individuals. On the contrary, there were a couple who donated some of their wealth to the group, but falsely claimed to have donated all of it. They were punished by God for lying, but were told that they had every right to keep some of it.
"The commandments are explicitly anti-liberty and pursuit of happiness as well."
How so? Unless by "liberty" you mean the right to do things that will harm others. The commandment against theft, for example, is against your 'liberty' to steal from others, but that makes the others happy!
"The enlightenment is called so, because it was a revolution of the mind against the religious rule of the dark ages."
What 'dark ages'? The term is no longer recognised by historians, as it is a fallacious idea.
"Christians like to claim that individual rights came from God, but “natural law” makes no mention of individual rights."
Christianity makes each of us individually responsible to God. Christianity twice got rid of slavery. Aristotle defended slavery, and Locke had shares in a slave-trading company.
"God wants you to serve him and his earthly servants in the church."
God wants you to serve Him, but gives us a lot of liberty around that. I don't know where it says that He wants us to "serve" his earthly servants.
"God does not want you to be free to live your life for your own sake."
The life that He gave us? On the contrary, He gave us free will!
"proof:"
That's that man's claims, not proof. There are numerous problems with his arguments.
Valliant claims that because the left appeals to Christian values, the left's values are Christian ones! He takes this further to claim that Communism is based on Christianity, and yet Communism is rooted in atheism.
He also cherry-picks things out of context. For example, claiming that Jesus and Paul were against sex, ignoring that Jesus created sex!
He claims that the Jewish history of independence, conquest (by others), and independence had caused them to develop a very particular form of monotheism that required them to have a God who was their God and a jealous God. The problem for this is that the concept long predates them being conquered!
He says that governments have used Romans 13 to declare the divine right of kings, but ignores that the Bible teaches that governments are also subject to God's laws. So he also fails to mention that Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, told the emperor, Theodosius, that he was wrong to massacre people.
He falsely claims that the Gospels have lots of contradictions with one another, and that many scholars have observed that the New Testament isn't reliable as history. To quote just one scholar, Sir William Ramsay said that "Luke is a historian of the first rank ; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy ; he is possessed of the true historic sense ; he fixes his mind on the idea and plan that rules in the evolution of history ; and proportions the scale of his treatment to the importance of each incident. He seizes the important and critical events and shows their true nature at greater length, while he touches lightly or omits entirely much that was valueless for his purpose. In short, this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians"
Valliant spins a story, but he does so by cherry-picking, making false claims, and jumping to conclusions. For an example of the last one, he says that it was coincidental that Christianity arose at the time that it did (meaning that such an apparent coincidence needs an explanation), and therefore says that the Romans invented Christianity! He clearly ignores the possibility that it happened at that time because God chose the timing.
1
-
1
-
@MrBadintentionss
"the relevance of it being written at a time when gods were regularly conjured speaks for itself, doesn't it?"
No. It implies that if some people were conjuring gods, then every claim of God is conjured. But that is illogical.
"you do understand that there were many submissions made to the bible,..."
Things were not "submitted" to the Bible.
"none of these submissions was accepted into the bible, therefore it is heavily edited."
To be edited, it must have been in the Bible in the first place. If they weren't accepted, then they weren't in the Bible to start with.
"in all likelihood, jesus was a selfless figure like gandhi, who inspired others and was selfless."
Who also claimed to be God, and rose from the dead, proving the claim. Ghandi didn't do either.
"there's "no concrete evidence" because no god has ever been proven to exist,"
Sorry, but repeating the claim is not evidence for the claim.
"you should know all of these three points already."
Given that they are evidence-free, illogical, and contradicted by evidence, why should I know them?
1
-
@MrBadintentionss
"why is it illogical?"
Because you can have both a real God and conjured gods at the same time.
"no god has ever been proven to exist out of all the ones conjured by man."
Of course not! If they are conjured, then they don't exist! That's axiomatic. You're making a circular argument—your premise is that no God is real, and then conclude that no god is real because they are all conjured.
"you can't be foolish enough to think that the bible isn't heavily edited based on semantics?"
I'm smart enough to think that your argument as stated doesn't hold water. Do you want to restate it? Apparently not.
"many submissions were rejected because they portrayed jesus as nothing more than a man. that is a fact, so stop playing semantics."
Many writings were not accepted because they were not considered authentic. You haven't shown that there was anything illegitimate about that. Further, as I pointed out, not being accepted in the first place does not mean that the Bible was edited. Here, let me spell it out for you with an analogy. You write an article about, say, your local town, and submit it to Encyclopaedia Britannica for inclusion. They don't include it, for whatever reason (e.g. it's wrong, you're not an expert, it's not relevant to the encyclopaedia, or some other reasons). Is it therefore legitimate to say that they have "edited" the encyclopaedia? Of course not, but that's what you're claiming about the Bible. You're wrong, because people didn't "submit" books to the Bible, and because not including books does not mean that the Bible has been edited.
"what evidence do i need? i'm not the one claiming gods exist."
You need evidence for your claims. If you claim that God has never been proved to exist, then you need evidence of that claim. If you have no evidence, your claim is baseless.
"you've only had 2000 years."
I'm not that old.
"please present your evidence that santa claus doesn't exist."
You first. You made claims that I challenged. Until you either support your claims or retract them, I have no obligation to support my subsequent claims, especially a claim that I didn't make!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tonyboleno8191
"just your confimation bias won't let you accept it."
What confirmation bias? That is, I have no real problem in accepting a copyists error if there is no other explanation.
However, it's not a case of saying pairs in one place and sevens in another. Genesis 6:19 says "You must bring into the ark two of every kind of living creature from all flesh, male and female, to keep them alive with you.". But Genesis 7:2-3 does not simply repeat that with "sevens" substituted for "two". Rather, it says both : "You must take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, the male and its mate, two of every kind of unclean animal, the male and its mate, and also seven pairs of every kind of bird in the sky, male and female,[f] to preserve their offspring[g] on the face of the entire earth.". It's clearly adding additional information (both clean and unclean animals, and birds). A simply copyists error does not explain the enlarged instruction.
"it doesnt really leave room for modifications."
Only if you take the first mention as an absolute without exceptions. But you haven't shown that has to be the case.
Without rereading the threads, from memory you started off by saying two or 14, and I said that it might be two and 7, acknowledging that 14 is also an option. My quotes above are from the New English Translation which includes extensive translators notes (and other notes), and on their first reference to "seven pairs" they have the note "Or “seven” (cf. NIV). Since seven is an odd number, and “seven” is qualified as male and female, only seven pairs can match the description (cf. TNIV, NRSV, HCSB).", which supports your original comment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Why he was able to own such a house, car etc"
Did he own the house, or was it owned by the church? In the past, it was common for the pastor to live in what was called the manse or presbytery—the house the church owns for the pastor to live in. It's often still the case. Admittedly two courts and a pool for a manse does seem over the top, though.
But most donations to a church do need to go to actually running the church—paying off the loan on the building, paying wages, maintenance costs, running costs (power, 'phone/internet, etc.), supplies (e.g. paper), and so on. Money and supplies for the poor are typically separate donations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@turnerfamilyinozi
"Michael Ruse is a philosopher and not an evolution scientist."
Which makes him an expert on what evolution actually is.
"Please provide evidence he is correct."
I have given you a scholarly opinion. The onus is now on you to show that he's wrong.
"Many, many Christian denominations accept evolution."
And many don't. But that's all irrelevant, as God doesn't. Evolution is an attempt to explain the diversity of life without God, and contradicts what God has told us.
"Yours apparently does not."
As far as I know, my denomination has not said one way or the other.
"So you now have to demonstrate that ... your denomination is the correct one"
No, I don't. I'm citing the Bible, not my denomination.
"So you now have to demonstrate that your god exists (which you have failed to do) ..."
There's many things I haven't demonstrated, either because I've not been asked, or because I've not claimed them, or because I'm waiting on others to defend their prior claims before I defend mine. I have no onus to defend my claims to someone who won't defend theirs.
And no, I don't have to demonstrate that God exists before rejecting evolution. It can be rejected on the scientific evidence alone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Chris-cd9se
"...the wealth of a nation may be determined by the amount of invested capital per capita; the taxing of profit removes that which could have otherwise increased the amount of invested capital; and so it's a nett loss. The limited cost of a limited government would leave that much more capital invested."
That's likely true, but I'd say you're looking at this solely in dollar terms without taking other factors into account. For example, without (limited) government, there would be no justice system (police, courts, etc.) and so you'd have a lot more theft, which eats into profits. So without having some taxes spent on government, there is reduced incentive in using capital to make profits, and hence less invested capital.
In other words, while I'll agree that excessive taxation reduces the wealth of a nation, too little taxation would also reduce the wealth of a nation. Therefore, not "every" tax dollar is a direct loss of productive capital and therefore a net loss for the whole country.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@emmettturner9452
"As I said before: Because the [genes] were not edited."
But the cell is "edited", as I pointed out.
"If you get an organ transplant or a blood transfusion no one screams about gene editing. Then again, mitochondria are passed down if the child is female..."
So you use an organ transport or blood transfusion as an analogy, then point out why the analogy is not applicable!
"...but that’s a good thing of the child’s mother’s mitochondria were a problem."
I didn't say that it wasn't.
"The child’s DNA is still only the child’s and derived only from the child’s mother and father without editing or manipulation."
The child's nuclear DNA is derived only from the child's mother and father. The child's mitrochondrial DNA is derived from the donor. Now this is clearly your error, not the medical people's error, but it's an example of drawing a conclusion based on a faulty understanding. Scientists know a lot about the genome and how the human body works, but there is still an awful lot that they don't understand, which is why we have to be very careful with doing stuff like this. (Again, I'm not saying that we shouldn't do it, nor that they haven't been very careful. But there have been plenty of cases of scientists and doctors thinking they knew what they were doing and later finding out that they didn't have a full enough understanding. Even removing a person's appendix or tonsils are examples, where they used to remove them at the first sign of trouble because they had the belief that they were just useless evolutionary leftovers, but later found that they weren't useless at all, and stopped removing them unless they really needed to.).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@The King of Nature
"PragerU failing at life advice we get stuff like Brad Wilcox telling you to marry and have kids extremely early without financial security, because some guy in the military ended up making 6 figures that way."
I take it you're referring to the video titled "Is Marriage Good for Men?"
The first issue I see with your claim is that you reckon he made his claim on the basis of one example. That is patently false.
"This means that all your freedom in career options is just gone,…"
It does? Since when?
"…your boss can exploit you however they want because you need to have a job or your wife and kids (yes this video is aimed at men specifically) will suffer the consequences."
That is an unjustified criticism. There is nothing (in principle, and it's principles that we are talking about here) stopping the person from leaving that job for another.
"The guy in the video also didn't have a useful degree or anything, he was extremely irresponsible and he got lucky."
The example case? That was just an example, as I've pointed out. The argument was NOT based on a single example.
"Telling people to start a family before you have the job security you need, one that you might not be able to afford and one where the wife doesn't work (which is implied) will probably backfire and give you a one way ticket into poverty."
Well, he's done the research. Where's yours to show he's wrong?
"…this kind of thinking will ensure that every problem without a personal solution, that won't solve itself is guaranteed to stay."
"ensure"? How so?
"PragerU supports socio-economically right wing policies…"
And there your bias is displayed. It's not their arguments that you disagree with, but their worldview. If they are "right wing", then they MUST be wrong.
"…as well as "personal responsibility"."
Yep. A characteristic of the Judeo-Christian ethic that underlies Western Civilisation that has made it the freest, most successful, civilisation the world has seen.
"So when something like global warming comes along, where personal solutions are only a small part of fixing the actual problem and the rest of it is about holding coorporations accountable,…"
Why isn't that a case of holding those individual corporations personally accountable?
"…it's not hard to see why PragerU's policies and climate change denial go hand in hand."
Are you saying that PragerU denies that the climate changes?
"They get one expert (Richard Lindzen) in the field of climate physics to agree with them,…"
Did he agree with them, or them with him? After all, if he's the expert, presumably they are his own views. And what's your point anyway? That they picked one when they could have picked many?
"…his sources for why climate change is not a big deal are obviously biased,…"
I completely agree with that. His sources are obviously biased towards the evidence and the truth, unlike the bias of the climate change alarmists who are not actually interested in climate change but in tearing down the basis of Western Civilisation.
"…sometimes literally just his own opinions…"
Okay, the opinions of experts don't count now?
"These are only two examples of PragerU giving advice…"
So I thought you were trying to say that they give bad advice? You haven't shown that. All you've done is present your own competing opinions.
"But that's the thing, I actually pick apart positions from my opponents."
You mean like I'm doing with yours?
"The videos where you can find these are titled "be a man, get married" "fix yourself" and "climate change, what do the scientists say"."
Now you tell me! Hang on while I check those ones out.
Oh, the first one is the one I watched, with a different title. So I've taken care of that one.
On the Peterson one, you have misrepresented him. The video is not about all the problems of the world, but the personal problems individuals have in their relationships. There is nothing in there that talks about how one should or should not tackle larger issues, nor that all issues can be solve by individuals. You're criticising it for what it doesn't say about things that it's not talking about!
On the climate change one, I see that PragerU (assuming that this represents their view) does NOT deny that the climate changes. Rather, the video talks about the non-scientists pushing the alarmism, plus the group of scientists who are part of that climate alarmism.
"That's how you can tell that none of these are strawmen."
You know, the nice thing about critics who get specific, such as mentioning an actual video, is that you can more readily check them out and potentially find out, as in this case, that they ARE actually straw-men.
"While you did the "the left does/says:" trick twice in this very discussion already."
What trick? You have misrepresented the videos, thereby supporting my comment. Which I made only once, by the way.
"For all I know, you're arguing against positions no one actually holds."
It seems that I was arguing against positions that you hold, so I guess you now know.
1
-
@The King of Nature
"…they value job security more from which it logically follows that they value financial freedom less."
It does? How? I'd think that the opposite follows. Financial freedom comes from having money to do what you want, not from being free to quit a job and be without work for a while.
"Because the ability to take financial risks is smaller."
When you don't have financial freedom.
"Starting a family before having the job security you need to sustain it isn't a one way ticket into poverty but it is a horrible and incredibly selfish descision regardless."
In your opinion. I don't believe that it follows.
"If you fail to get a stable high enough income, you didn't just screw over yourself but your spouse and children as well."
Living involves taking risks. I'm not disputing that there is a risk to it, but there's also a risk to not doing it. There being a risk doesn't mean that its "horrible and incredibly selfish".
"…you are talking about principle, I'm talking about moral/logical descision making. He can in principle abandon his family as well,"
My use of "in principle" did not mean "in theory", but more along the lines of a principled decision, i.e. moral. I equated it to "talking about principles ".) So no, your "in principle abandon his family" is not the equivalent of my use of it; you're using the word in a different way.
"…the issue is that he shouldn't, just like he shouldn't quit his job without a new one because that can horribly backfire on himself and other people."
Abandoning his family is morally wrong. Quitting his job without a new one may (or may not) be unwise, but it's not morally wrong. He may not have a definite new one, but likely prospects, or his family might agree that it's worth taking the risk. Or he might have some other fall-back plan.
"Well he says that we shouldn't look to fix the world, and only ourselves. He literally says "a proper way to fix the world isn't to fix the world"."
He does. But again, the focus of the video is on personal problems, so this is a side comment. Secondly, it doesn't follow that "every problem without a personal solution, that won't solve itself is guaranteed to stay". If everyone fixes themselves, then what problems remain?
"So anything that doesn't have a personal solution, we shouldn't attempt to solve, leaving the problem solving itself as our only remaining option."
I'll concede a minor point. But only minor. In other videos, I'm sure he says that you can fix other problem, once you're learned how to fix your own. And this video is not a comprehensive treatment of the topic, but just a quick look focusing on fixing personal problems. P.S. I've since noticed that you later agree that this is not a major point.
"…this single line is just a total blunder."
So it's just a single-sentence blunder, not evidence of PragerU not teaching life skills.
"Ah yes the good old assuming intent."
You're the one that brought up political position.
"It is an obvious fact that PragerU supports socio-economically right wing policies."
I'm sure that they also support eating breakfast and driving on the correct side of the road, and a whole host of things, but you chose to mention that one as though it was relevant. It wasn't just a random fact.
"They're ill-equipped to handle climate change due to their stances on not trying to solve larger problems and them being capitalists..."
What stance on not trying to solve larger problems? You've conceded that Peterson's line was just a blunder, not (apparently) a deliberate or key point. And capitalist societies have the best record on protecting the environment, so supporting capitalism does not mean that you're opposed to "handling" climate change.
"...but the biggest reason is that they're funded by oil billionaires so don't lecture me about bias."
Why not? What's wrong with being funded by oil billionaires? Why even mention that if not for bias against that sort of funding?
"Please cite the many experts who agree with Lindzen.."
No way am I going to try and track down a comprehensive list, but Peter Ridd, the late Bob Carter, and Ian Plimer (although I'm no fan of his), are among them. P.S. I just happened across some more: Lennart O. Bengtsson, John Christy, Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, and Nir J. Shaviv.
"That's the most childlike bastardisation of the climate debate I have ever seen."
Except that it's not.
"Do you have ANYTHING to back up these wild claims about the "alarmists" intentions,..."
Of course. Extinction Rebellion (XR) co-founder, Stuart Basden said:
“And I’m here to say that XR isn’t about the climate. You see, the climate’s breakdown is a symptom of a toxic system that has infected the ways we relate to each other as humans and to all life.”
But if you want to dismiss him as a crank or outsider, then this is what German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer said:
"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."
"If the expert in question uses his own opinion as a source for his own opinion than he shouldn't be taken seriously."
What's your evidence that he's doing that rather than expressing an expert view?
"And a paper with "do not cite" written on every page but you're still casually ignoring that."
Your claim was vague. What paper? And what's your evidence as to why it has that?
"Yes this is subjective, "
So the claim is meaningless.
"Lindzens video doesn't imply that climate change isn't real. It implies that the damage won't be so bad..."
Which you misleadingly label as "climate changed denial"
" "sponsored by oil billionaires" ."
So? Is that worse than being sponsored by leftist governments? And some oil companies are on board with the climate alarmism, so simply being oil billionaires proves little. And at least they are spending their own money and not the taxpayers'.
"well to that you would reply "Okay, the opinions of experts don't count now?" "
No, I would point out that views are divided (plus a whole lot other things).
"But seriously are we just going to ignore his sources for saying all of this... again."
We shouldn't. But then we shouldn't ignore the sources of the alarmists either. Nor their biases, nor their funding, nor their failed predictions. Nor the non-empirical aspect of basing so much on computer models.
"…and one by Lawrence Solomon.... the executive director of Energy Probe which is another lobbying organisation."
And being involved with a lobbying organisation means that he can't know what he's talking about. Okay, I see the logic there.
"he rest of this source list is a disaster, see for yourself: "
What's disastrous about it? I see it includes Bjorn Lomborg and the IPCC. I forgot to mention Lomborg earlier.
"They're not the main points of the video's, but they're still claims within them (not strawmen)…"
Given that one was a blunder, and you've not shown I'm wrong on the others, then no, they are still strawmen.
"And any critic who doesn't get specific is no true critic, that's just debunking positions while not being sure if anyone actually holds them, what would be the point of that?"
I'd say "attempting to debunk" rather than "debunking", but otherwise yes, I agree with that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@innocentbystander8038
"1. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
Yep.
"2. And the earth was waste and empty...."
"Waste" implies that it was used for something, then no longer used. However, the context clearly doesn't allow that, as this is an initial state. Most translations say "formless" or "without form". Imagine a lump of clay before the potter starts shaping it.
"In between those two verses was when dinosaurs, ice age etc was."
1) How can you have a ages between two verses that both refer to the one day, the first of six days of creation?
2) That implies millions of years of disease and suffering and death of creatures in a world that God declared to be "very good".
3) If the world cools down, you won't get the evaporation that then returns as snow and forms the ice of an ice age. If the world heats up, you'll get the evaporation, but it will be too warm to form the ice of an ice age. One circumstance that can explain an ice age, is warm water from the global flood and it's fountains of the deep, evaporating, then precipitating as snow on a cold land mass caused by volcanic ash limiting the sunlight reaching the surface. So the post-flood time provides the circumstances for an ice age. And this is possibly referred to in Job and the reference to the storehouses of snow. Job also describes a behemoth, for which the description matches a sauropod dinosaur.
"Bible doesn't mention anything about that period because it's not relevant to the purposes of the Bible."
On the contrary, the Bible spends several chapters talking about the flood, which would have created many, many fossils. So the Bible does talk about the period when this fossil most likely formed, but it's about 1500 years after creation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidcarter4247
"I am talking about the church hierarchy."
There are multiple hierarchies.
"From the vast wealth amassed by the Catholic church..."
In property, etc. Well, given that they've been around for around 2000 years, you'd expect a lot of that. What about the costs of maintaining all that?
"...to the business of televangelism..."
Not all televangelism is there as a business, and you're now citing one tiny part of Christianity, unrepresentative of the whole.
"...it is about money"
Repeating your claim does not make it any more true.
"A blessing from the late Billy Graham had to be purchased,..."
Evidence please.
"...the cleansing of sins was something the Catholic church would traditionally swap for gold."
Yes, the Catholic Church got quite corrupt. That's why, 500 years ago, we had the Reformation. And that is now distant history.
"The believers and volunteers rarely get to share in this wealth."
So it's not about wealth for the vast majority. I'm glad you got to that point.
"More likely they are being urged to contribute more to it."
"More likely"? You're speculating now. That's not evidence.
"The original subject was a member of the clergy citing "the science" when the whole basis of his occupation requires suspension of belief in science."
Yes, and I answered that, and you changed the subject.
"Good works are done by atheists and agnostics. Charity is not a Christian monopoly."
It's not done by atheists and agnostics on anything like the scale that it's done by Christians, and they're copying Christians, having been raised in a historically-Christian society. Here is a quote from author Roy Hattersley who has looked into this (my bolding):
"I’m an atheist. But I can only look with amazement at the devotion of the Salvation Army workers. I’ve been out with them on the streets and the way they work amongst the people, the most deprived and disadvantaged and sometimes pretty repugnant characters. But they look after them as best they can. I don’t believe they would do that were it not for the religious impulse. I often say I never hear of atheist organizations taking food to the poor. You don’t hear of ‘Atheist Aid’ rather like Christian aid, and, I think, despite my inability to believe myself, I’m deeply impressed by what belief does for people like the Salvation Army."
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PattoDan
"The ALP have never been more centrist than they are currently..."
I guess that depends on how you define "centrist". But given their support of the LGBT+ nonsense, the global warming alarmism, etc, I would dispute that.
"...whilst the liberals had already done as described and alienated half the population."
By moving to the left.
"Conservatism is dying a slow death in Australia ..."
True. It needs to be resuscitated.
"...and has only held the country back from seizing the future."
That depends on what the future is. Yes, it has held the country back from going even more to the left, but then that's a good thing.
"Prepare for permanent opposition by swinging to the right."
Why do you think that is? The point that many have made is that the Liberal lost because they went too far to the left, so lost the support of conservatives, and didn't pick up support from the left because they left would go for Labor at least, if not further left with the Greens.
"...Labor is moving back to representing the working class."
Making noises that way doesn't mean that they are.
"Even if the Liberals move further right they can never win back government on a conservative platform."
But you haven't said why? The point is that they have done better when they were more conservative. Even in this election, the more conservative candidates hung on to their seats, while the less-conservative ones lost them.
1
-
"Ever think it's because of the culture wars and the scandals of the church?"
It's a lot of things that have been going on for a long time, but including atheism and atheist views. Christians founded science based on their Christian views, and those scientists accepted the history described in the Bible. Early editions of Encyclopedia Britannica treated Noah's flood as a real event, for example. But deists and atheists didn't want to believe what the Bible taught, and set out to undermine it. James Hutton believed the earth was much older than the Bible taught, so promoted the idea of it being much older. This was picked up by lawyer Charles Lyell, who said that he wanted to get the science away from Moses (i.e. the biblical account), and in the 1830s wrote a popular three-volume work on geology, including promoting Hutton's ideas.
Darwin read Lyell's books, and subsequently came up with his views on evolution that further disagreed with the biblical account, although the evidence he had really only attacked an ancient Greek idea known as the fixity of species. And yet, evolution is a view that, as Richard Dawkins described it, hasn't been seen happening.
Around the 1860s, other atheists spread the lie that Christians used to believe that the earth was flat. Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell said that "This vast web of falsehood was invented and propagated by the influential historian John Draper (1811-1882) and many prestigious followers, such as Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918), the president of Cornell University, who made sure that the false account was perpetrated in texts, encyclopedias, and even allegedly serious scholarship, down to the present day. ...
"The reason for promoting both the specific lie about the sphericity of the earth and the general lie that religion and science are in natural and eternal conflict in Western society, is to defend Darwinism. The answer is really only slightly more complicated than that bald statement. The flat-earth lie was ammunition against the creationists."
And so atheist views have been attacking Christian views for centuries.
Karl Marx was one who read Darwin and believed that evolution helped justify their anti-Christian views. Atheistic Communism was the result, but it failed to really penetrate the historically-Christian West, so Marxists came up with a new tactic to undermine Western Civilisation. This is known as Cultural Marxism, and is the source of much of the current culture wars.
Science is a method that involves observation, testing, measurement, and repeatability, and has done a lot of good for the world. But it's also used in an attempt to study things in the past that are not observable, testable, measurable, nor repeatable, yet most people don't understand this distinction between empirical or operational science and historical science, and so the pronouncements by atheist scientists about the past have been given a credence that they don't deserve. This helped convince many Christians who then began to doubt the Bible's history, resulting in them failing to stand against this undermining of the biblical account. So Christians have been guilty of not fighting back. This undermining has also resulted in an increase in Christians not holding to biblical values, and so we have the more recent scandals of "the church", which of course has only further undermined the credibility of Christians, helped of course by people opposed to Christianity publicising and magnifying the faults that the church has, making them look worse than they are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Walt-ib6nx
"Also, a doctor who deals with kidney transplants, which is an example you used, is regarded as a specialist called a "Nephrologist". A doctor who would perform a vaginoplasty or phalloplasty (or, as you lovingly choose to call these procedures, "genital mutilation") are not performed by these specialist doctors."
I don't know of any evidence to support the opening commenter's contention, and your point about the doctors is probably valid, but of course the doctors are not the only ones involved. What about the nurses, anaesthetists, and operating theatres?
"The shortstaffing of medical facilities is the cause,..."
That may be a factor, but having to commit staff to these completely unnecessary and evil operations can only exacerbate it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DimentionalBeing
"watched it 2 or 3 times, and it's a complete and utter joke she's got charged with battery."
And yet you've not answered my question of what she didn't do wrong, nor shown that I'm wrong about her admitting what she did. So presumably I was correct.
"Are you claiming she hit that officer in the head?"
No, I'm claiming that she herself said that she did (see about the 2:24 mark).
"...who had no other option than to slam this woman to the ground and slip tie her wrists behind her back and cart her of to jail because of the threat to this 250lb armed cop felt under by her."
The size of the police officer is irrelevant. And nobody claimed that he had no other option. The claim is that she committed and offence, and was arrested because of it. I'll add further that she also clearly resisted being arrested, which likely contributed to the way that they dealt with her.
"My reply to you about the genocide apparently is not allowed to be seen by youtube, and I wonder why?"
Because YT has a terrible algorithm for screening posts. It's happened to me many times, and I'm not trying to claim genocide. But you can often get around that by rewording things (although that's difficult if you're quoting someone!).
"Because I listed nothing but facts,..."
Well, so you say. But claims of genocide by Israel, if that's what you mean, are clearly false.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@2CJ
"Were talking about the queen here Phillip, not the other dole bludgers."
You explicitly mentioned "a royal", indicating that your opinion applied to more than just Elizabeth.
"If she didn't put her training in to use, then she didn't serve, so it's fake news."
While training, she was part of the service. So you're splitting hairs.
"He allegedly flew combat missions in Afghanistan, of which there's no evidence, all you ever saw was him in a uniform and taking off in a helicopter."
Which means that there is some evidence, not none.
"Like I said there's no way in the world, a royal would be placed in danger."
Repeating your opinion does not make it true. Further, to quote a curator of the Imperial War Museums, "At the outset of the war, King George VI and Queen Elizabeth [Elizabeth II's mother] decided that they would not be seen to be hiding away from the war. In September 1940, five high explosive bombs were dropped on Buckingham Palace. Rather than move away from the danger, the King and Queen decided to remain at Buckingham Palace in solidarity with those living through the Blitz. "
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mickzed6393
"SKY commentators continue to see saw between opening when we reach MAXVAX and lockdowns being draconian and killing small buisness"
First, you made this about Credlin in particular, but you're now switching to Sky presenters collectively, when they don't all say they same thing (they are individuals, not puppets of their boss, and have different views).
Second, I've not seen what you claim. Yes, they generally support opening when we reach maximum vaccination in the sense that they are saying don't wait a moment longer than that, but I've not seen them arguing that we shouldn't open sooner. As such, it's not at odds with lockdowns being draconian (to you your term).
"at least our state leaders are all on a similar wavelength, some forced, in trying to protect lives"
As are the Sky presenters. The issue is not the goal, but the way that it's achieved. And the state government are showing enormous hypocrisy in removing people's freedoms to stop a virus that is currently killing, what?, one person a week on average [Edit: actually about 13 a week since 16th June], while those states support the killing of around 1500 babies per week. That's a massive double standard.
1
-
@mickzed6393
"NSW is up to what 150deaths in this10 week outbreak and climbing "
I wasn't sure of the figure (as I indicated), but you're close: NSW Health's website says 162 since 16th June, which is nearly two a day. I'll correct my comment.
Whether or not the lockdowns have helped is uncertain. Many overseas studies have shown that they don't help. When you're tackling the problem in multiple ways at the same time, it's difficult if not impossible to be sure which of those measures are doing the job. But yes, with addressing it at all, it would have been higher. No argument there.
"SKY will play all sorts of good cop bad cop games,..."
Maybe, maybe not.
But regardless, my point stands, as even about 13 a day for about 12 weeks is far, far fewer than the number of babies killed per week, a comparison that I note you completely ignored. And solving that problem would not even take lockdowns, vaccines, or any of the freedom-denying restrictions that have been imposed on us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mickjslavin2109
"one sentence for you . You are nothing but a [deleted], no idea what your talking about, open your mind to see the truth instead of believing in a fairytale."
You do realise that insult is not an argument? Perhaps you don't.
"Learn to investigate, and seek the truth."
I have been doing that for years. And a part of doing that is to ask people why they think what they do. When those people refuse to say, and especially when they return question with insult, I figure that they've got nothing to teach me.
"I suppose you will tell me the man Jesus didn’t travel to India to seek enlightenment..."
I'm not aware of any evidence that He did. I'd ask you what the evidence is, but by your track record, you'd not tell me.
"if you knew history you would know the Sumerians were way before Hebrews"
I do know history, but I don't accept your version of it. Who came first depends in part on one's worldview, and you obviously hold to a different one than me. But further, who came first is not the point; the point is the basis of the account. I don't doubt that the Hebrew and Sumerians versions are both based on some original event. But it does not follow that the Sumerian one is the more accurate one. There is evidence not only that the 'Hebrew' one is more accurate, but also that it predated not only the Sumerians, but the Hebrews.
"I’ve researched, which you haven’t"
Given that you have no idea what research I have done, you're simply making that up. That I hold a different view to you does not mean that I haven't researched it. Further, rather than simply abuse you for being wrong, I sought to understand what your evidence was, i.e. to learn. But you refused to provide any.
"I don’t believe in a fairytale that was taken from the Sumerian and twisted to suit the Hebrews"
You haven't shown that it's a fairytale nor that it was twisted to suit the Hebrews. You'd think that one who had researched so much could easily provide evidence, but you seem strangely reluctant to do so.
1
-
1
-
@mickjslavin2109
"unfortunately you are full of [deleted]."
Leading with the insults again, I see.
"Otherwise you would of read the the Hindu account of Jesus and how sought enlightenment."
So you believe everything the Hindu accounts say? Even if there is no evidence? I asked for evidence, not others' claims.
"Mesopotamia was the root of civilisation where the Sumerian tablets have recorded evidence way before the history of the Hebrew account particularly about the beginning."
Still making claims based on your worldview, but still not providing evidence.
"You lack credibility."
Says the person utterly failing to provide evidence for his claims.
"Doesn’t the the so called bible tell you not to add or remove from the Word of God?"
It's not a "so called" Bible. Again, you're not even arguing rationally, but through denigration. And yes, it does say something like that, but then I'm not doing that.
"You haven’t shown me any evidence that the bible and the god you worship is accurate"
No, I haven't. Because I haven't been asked to. And I would not now in any case, until you first show evidence for your prior claims. You can't expect me to provide evidence when you won't, when you made the claims first.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Another concerning action from MTG regarding her questioning of Martin O'Malley raises questions about her understanding of the separation of Church and State in America."
Separation of church and state is about the state not being in control of the church. It's not about keeping Christianity out of a politician's decisions. I'd question your understanding of it.
"It is inappropriate to delve into an individual's private religious beliefs in such discussions."
Why? Their religious beliefs will affect their public actions.
"...while gun violence is the leading cause of child deaths in the nation, ..."
So ridiculously false it's not funny.
Gun deaths: around 4,500
Abortions: around 1,000,000
"Additionally, the choice for a woman to undergo an abortion or terminate a pregnancy is a private matter between her and her healthcare provider."
The question is not about whether it currently IS legally, but about whether it should be. Would you say that the choice of a woman to kill her toddler should be a private matter between her and her doctor? Of course you wouldn't. How does the extra couple of years change things?
"In a fair and balanced society, women should have autonomy over their health, ..."
We are not talking about their health, but their baby's lives. This is leftist misuse of language.
"While many people find the termination of a fetus ..."
There's that language misuse again. The "termination" is killing and the medical term "fetus" is intended to hide the fact that what's being killed is a baby.
"... her claim that abortion is simply a method of birth control is misleading."
As misleading as your comments? Her claim is that it's being used that way, and that is clearly true.
"It may be more productive for her to concentrate on her duties in a professional manner like speaking the truth,..."
She was. You've not shown any error in her comments, but I've shown error in yours.
"...rather than engaging in biased political maneuvering, ..."
Like you're doing?
"... and then to take constructive action regarding gun violence."
I'm not a fan of the gun culture, but what action do you think that she should take?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamestinning8900
My last comment was from memory, but I've now looked for and found some details.
The Parental Rights in Education Act was introduced to the state senate in January 2022. It was designed to keep parents informed about what the school was teaching the students, and banned discussing "sexual orientation or gender identity" before grade 4.
Initially, Disney said nothing, but was pressured by staff and others to denounce the bill. I see no reason for them to get involved in a bill that doesn't affect them as a business, but they did anyway. Further, they falsely referred to the bill as the "don't say gay bill", which was a mischaracterisation by critics, who often mislabel things because they can't make a rational argument, so demonise with false labelling.
The bill passed the lower house on 28th February and the senate on 8th March. It was signed by DeSantis on 28th March.
So Disney then issued a statement saying that the bill "should never have passed and should never have been signed into law. Our goal as a company is for this law to be repealed by the legislature or struck down in the courts". In other words, they were going to try and get a law that had nothing to do with them and made by a democratically-elected government—that had given the company a special privilege—overturned because they didn't like it. Hence my comment about corporate thuggery.
It was only then that DeSantis said that they had "crossed a line" and decided to fight back against them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Berserker978
"What date so I can put it on my Calendar. I wouldn't want to miss it."
We don't have a date. This is what we know (from Matthew 24):
“But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left. Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect. "
The bold part answers your comment about not wanting to miss it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Religion is ridiculous."
Most are, including atheist ones. But Christianity is not. It has provided the foundation of Western Civilisation, founded public hospitals, universal education, and science, spread democracy, introduced compassion, raised the status of women, brought freedom, twice abolished slavery, and more. Does that sound ridiculous?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thedubwhisperer2157
"I had no idea that 'Expresso' was a brand name - I don't drink coffee."
I don't drink it either, and perhaps that's why I got that wrong. It's not a brand name, and it is arguably pronounced incorrectly. Espresso (not the lack of an 'x') is a type of coffee drink. To quote Wikipedia, "Espresso is a coffee-brewing method of French origin, in which a small amount of nearly boiling water is forced under 9–10 bars of pressure through finely-ground coffee beans." Despite the French origin of the type of drink, the origin of the word is Italian.
Merriam-Webster says:
" Espresso is the word borrowed from Italian to refer to coffee brewed by forcing hot water through finely ground usually darkly roasted coffee beans. In Italian this word was probably coined to mean "coffee made on the spot at the customer's request," to distinguish espresso from coffee brewed in a pot. In English we sometimes say that an individual serving of something, such as espresso, is made "expressly for" someone, and it so happens that express shares roots with espresso, making the widely used variant expresso both logical and etymologically defensible."
"How about 'arctic' lorry instead of 'artic'?"
Oh, there's lots I could quote, at least if I could think of them all. And yes, that would be one of them, although the abbreviation 'artic' (regardless of pronunciation) is not one that I hear much here in Oz. There's the old classic Arks (ask), and another irritation is people using the wrong word, such as "less" where "fewer" should be used, or "practical" where "practicable" is correct.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Happy to see the proof, ..."
I'm still waiting for your answer to why you think he hasn't been proven to exist.
"...what makes you think this higher power is a man?"
In one sense, I don't, but He does use 'male' pronouns and titles of Himself, such as "father" that Sundry Coder mentioned.
"Do you have any proof of god beyond the bible?"
Please explain what evidence you would consider to be "proof". And also explain why you exclude the most obvious evidence? That seems very convenient.
"Josephus and Lee Strobel, Not even close , strobel is a grifter at best,..."
I can't see Sundry Coder's comment that you are dismissing, but you seem unduly dismissive of those two people.
"I’m not prepared to except anything which isn’t verifiable,..."
Verifiable by what means?
"I’ll be happy to except the existence of any god as soon as reasonable, verifiable proof is provided,..."
My suspicion is that you would not.
"...so far no one in history has even come close"
To some standard of verifiability that you haven't explained? Strobel was one example (of numerous people) who set out to show that God didn't exist, but ended up believing that He did, because of the evidence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shellodee
"you're not making any counter arguments..."
I pointed out the inconsistencies and problems with your claims, so yes, I am making counter arguments.
"...nor are you replying with any question that shows any genuine concern for human life beyond birth."
Given that the discussion is about human life before birth, then not showing concern for something we are not talking about means little.
"That you can ask the question "why is it ok to execute a criminals offspring?" shows you lack the necessary emotional capacity to see the entire subject as anything but what you already do."
It shows no such thing, and you haven't explained how it is supposed to show that.
"Does a child deserve to be born into an unsafe, unloving or abusive situation?"
If the alternative is being killed, yes, a child deserves to live even if in less-than-ideal situations.
"Does a victim of rape deserve to have the violation of her body and psychological trauma furthered indefinitely by being told her attackers offspring has more right to her body that she does?"
That's also her own offspring, and the trauma will not be furthered "indefinitely", given that a pregnancy is only nine months long. Also, nobody is taking the victim's body off her; your question is loaded—it's not a choice between who gets the right. They both have the right to live. So I've answered your question, but you've avoided answering mine.
"Does that child deserve grow up knowing it's mother can't look at it without reliving the despicable act its father did to her?"
What makes you think the mother will relive the trauma? But why not try asking Rebecca Kiessling, who was conceived by a rape. Tell her that she did not deserve to live.
"Do already breathing children deserve to have their quality of life drastically reduced to accommodate one that doesn't know it exists? "
Yet again, the inconsistency of killing one child so that another can supposedly have a better life, a choice that is not actually inevitable anyway.
"A child destined to die before it's 1st birthday due to a genetic condition, does it deserve a year of struggling to breathe, inability to eat, and being physically limited to the mobility of a newborn? "
It deserves a chance, yes. Many times such predictions turn out to be too pessimistic.
"Have you seen what emotional neglect does to a child's brain development?"
How does that compare to the brain development of a child that has been killed? It won't develop at all? Yet again, like so many of your 'what ifs', this is a case of the solution being worse that the perceived problem.
"Does a child deserve to be born to a mother that's emotionally and mentally disconnected..."
Does a child not deserved to be born?
"... perhaps it's better deserving of being placed in the foster system to be bounced around homes to grow up not knowing why its own mother left it."
Yes, although that's a bad outcome, that is better than being executed despite committing no crime. And by the way, people very close to me were adopted, and had loving adoptive parents. That's a lot better than being executed. And I have also been involved in short-term foster care; foster care may have problems, but it's not as bad as you make out.
"Seems a selfish thing to burden a child with that from birth."
Seems a bad excuse for killing the child. No, I'll correct that. It is definitely a terrible and bizarre excuse for killing the child.
"Life is measurable by the quality of the time you've got, not the quantity of time you had."
Life is binary. You are either alive or dead. And it's wrong to take an innocent life. You keep avoiding that fundamental point. Presumably because you have no answer to it beyond trying to argue that somehow death is better than a less-than-ideal life, a choice that is not yours to make.
1
-
1
-
@shellodee The fallacy of your argument is that you're using the law to determine what's right and wrong. The problem is that the law is based on what is believed to be right and wrong. That is, we make laws to make illegal things that we consider to be wrong. The law is not the standard, but government implementation of the standard.
Further, the law varies from place to place. For example, in some places if you kill a pregnant woman you can face two charges of murder, because in those jurisdictions the unborn baby IS considered to be a person.
Prior to birth it is still human, still alive, still has functioning organs such as a brain and a heart, still feels pain, and so on. So apart from a legal quirk, what is it about being born that turns a non-person into a person?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@porgythecorgi7871
"There are male and female names..."
There are names that are typically used by males, and others that are typically used by females. Meredith, for example, is typically a female name. But I had a male cousin once removed whose middle name was Meredith. Charlie is also a name used by both. Hayden is another. When it comes to sex, females have XY chromosomes and males have XX chromosomes. But with names, there is nothing about them that makes them male or female, other than common usage, which can vary over time and in different places.
"...his name is Bruce."
His name was Bruce, but he changed it. Just as my wife changed her name before I met her. People do that for various reasons. Yes, his reason was fallacious, but, unlike changing your sex which is impossible, changing your name IS possible. And he did.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@FranksHairSalon
"Just stating facts."
What facts? You didn't provide any.
"Renewables are the cheapest form of power generation."
True. After paying for all the equipment (solar panels, wind turbines), the transmission lines, and the ongoing maintenance, I guess it is cheap. And that's not even mentioning the government money to failed schemes.
"Australia is paying a fortune to keep the old coal plants running..."
Yes, because they've been allowed to run down because of the irrational desire for "renewables".
"...and gas is in short supply."
Yes, because there's limits on getting more, because of the irrational push for "renewables".
"That's what's pushing up your power bills,..."
Yes, that irrational push for renewables.
"...along with price gouging by the providers."
What price gouging?
"Renewables are THE CHEAPEST form of power."
Yes, you said that. But ignored all the costs involved.
"It's not that hard to understand."
And yet you don't.
"The old "when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine", i can't have a light on argument, hey."
Yes, that argument. So why didn't you answer it?
"You need to keep up."
With what? Your non-answer?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pwillis1589
"only that it can be done, legally and peacefully."
True. But then you were replying to a comment that didn't suggest otherwise.
"Read the 21st amendment."
Why? What does it say that I've implied I'm not already aware of?
"Your subjective opinion that alcohol is bad and guns are good is perfectly fine you are entitled to that opinion good on you for expressing it."
I don't think guns are good. You're presuming too much. I would say that alcohol is objectively bad, given that it is classified as a poison, the effects it has on people and on society, etc.
"Your language of tyrannical government is deliberately highly emotive."
No, not deliberately. Again, you're presuming too much. That is wording that is often used and from my understanding was accurate. I've been thinking about it further since reading your comment, and I still think it seems reasonable. Why would there need to be a check on non-tyrannical federal power?
"Finally yes the idea of an Armed insurrection is absurd as the government has tanks and missiles."
I have made a similar point myself, that the government can always have bigger weapons. Does the second amendment allow private citizens to have cannons, missiles, and nuclear weapons? (That's a rhetorical question.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@richx9035
"You should probably spend a little time looking into the history and circumstances of the Australian Indigenous community."
What makes you think I haven't?
"The point is that the Indigenous community were impacted adversely by European Settlement of Australia..."
False. The point is that some people claim that. You've failed to show that it's actually the case (in a net sense; sure some did experience adverse impacts, but also experienced positive impacts, as I have already pointed out).
You're essentially just repeating your previous claim that I've already addressed, without showing how my rebuttal was wrong.
"...have continued to suffer significantly over generations ..."
Evidence please.
"...and clearly the celebration of Australia Day is offensive to many Australians."
And, as I have already pointed out, just as clearly denigrating it is offensive to many other Australians. Why don't their views matter? But yet again, I've already addressed this, and you're simply repeating your claim.
"Australia Day should seek to unite Australians and not divide them."
IT DOES! That some people on the left use it to cause division does NOT mean that it "seeks" to divide. That is an outright lie. Probably because you don't have an actual valid argument.
"An alternative day would provide a solution."
Yet again, I've already addressed that. Repeating your claim does not make it any more true. Rather, it shows that you have no answer to my rebuttal, which therefore stands.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JonGreen91
At first glance, that all sounds very reasonable. But looking a bit closer, I disagree.
First, I think a question here is what does "proven" mean? You can prove something logically, but that assumes the accuracy of the premises. Science doesn't do proofs, so we can discard that one. A criminal court attempts to prove things beyond reasonable doubt. A civil court attempts to prove things on the basis of which is more likely.
You have said "beyond reasonable doubt", implying that you're referring to something akin to criminal court proof. But criminal proof is deliberately biased. It's designed to allow the guilty to go free rather than convict the innocent.
So is that biased process really the type of proof that is reasonable here? Why not civil court proof?
Second, proof, in such cases, is a matter of being convinced by the evidence. A judge is supposed to be unbiased. Ideally, a jury is also unbiased, at least as a group. But are all of us? Is an atheist going to be convinced of the existence of God strictly on the basis of probabilities, or is he going to choose the biased 'beyond reasonable doubt' option? Or even a 'beyond all doubt' option? Because most atheists I talk to seem to want one of those last two options, because they are biased against the idea of God.
Third, we cannot each individually 'prove' all things. So we rely on trust, or faith. For example, there are thousands of peer-reviewed science papers published each year. We cannot personally 'prove' all of them, or even anything beyond a tiny fraction of them. Rather, we trust (or have faith in) the scientists and/or the publishers and the peer-review process. So we accept the outcomes as true. (Or not, if we don't have that faith.)
Fourth, facts are facts regardless of whether or not we are convinced of them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@larrylongprong5219
You asked about dinosaurs, not how long ago they purportedly lived.
No, Jesus is not 2000 years old, and dinosaurs did not live millions of years ago. God is eternal, existing outside of time. Time was one of the things that He created (as part of the space-time-matter universe). God already existed when time began. God is three persons in one, often known as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. God the Son took on human form, being born as a baby about 2000 years ago. But, being God, He existed prior to that, although not in the form of a human being.
People who don't believe in God set out to try and explain things like the age of the earth and how the variety of living things came about without invoking God. That is, they assumed that everything came about naturally. And they came up with elaborate explanations of this, and claimed that the earth has been around for millions of years (later changed to billions, and currently about 4.5 billion). However, there is no way to measure the age of something. Instead, other things, like radioactive isotopes are measured, and an age is calculated from those measurements, making various assumptions about what caused those measurements. Those assumptions include that it all occurred naturally.
In other words, they start with the assumption that God wasn't involved and didn't create when He said He did, and, *voilà*, they conclude that it happened without God and much longer ago! Well, given that they started with that assumption, that becomes a circular argument, i.e. a logical fallacy.
Meanwhile, there is much evidence that dinosaurs didn't live that long ago. This evidence includes intact soft tissue and DNA (which tests have shown cannot last that long), intact C14 (used in carbon dating, but which would be long gone after a hundred thousand years or so), and many recorded sightings of dinosaurs by human beings over the past few thousand years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maurice7783
"Here is the truth: Aborigines' land was stolen by British convicts, ..."
What makes that "the truth"? I consider that to be false.
"...ever since the British arrived, Aboriginals have continued to suffer in Australia."
And I'm sure they suffered before, and non aborigines also continue to suffer. Suffering is part of life.
"Many aboriginals are in jail based on crimes that would have never gotten to court if they were white."
Evidence please.
"imagine, aboriginals are four times likely to be charge for a small drug possession than non-indigineous"
That is not evidence unless you also show that aborigines are not four times more likely to possess drugs.
"Aboriginals are also dying in jail and committing suicide."
As do non-aborigines from time to time. That is not evidence either.
"The suicide rate of Aboriginal children is the highest in the world, and some aboriginal communities in Australia are worse than in third-world countries."
Stating a fact (assuming it is a fact) does not show a cause.
"They are not better off at all."
Not if you only look at selected matters. But they also have better health care available, better technology, better forms of government, and so on. Many things are better, even at the same time that some things might be worse.
"If you are white ..."
Well, I'm not white. I'm light brown and somewhat pinkish, because I have less melanin in my skin that typical aborigines. But then I don't make a deal about that as though it's an important factor. We are all people made in God's images, regardless of the amount of melanin we have, which is a minor difference.
"...and proudly WOKE like me, you begin to feel real guilty in Alice Springs."
Probably because I'm not woke, I don't feel guilty about things I haven't done wrong. Only the woke do silly things like that (and worse, like trying to make others feel guilty for things they also haven't done wrong).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Bork_Cruk
“The only possible cause is something akin to a god, therefore Christianity is true”
You represent that as a quote, and yet that is not what I said. Rather, given that being the only possible cause, that is supporting evidence for Christianity.
"You have no solid basis upon which to say the cause MUST have been something akin to a God."
You have not solid basis to say that I have no solid basis. You are simply waving it away.
"How can you make such a claim? Why must it have been? "
It's logical. Logically, the cause of the universe (i.e. all of matter-energy and time) must have been outside of all matter-energy and time (nothing can create itself). The only thing that can be outside of all matter-energy and time is something that is non-material and timeless. Do you know of any other non-material and timeless being or thing? Instead of simply dismissing my argument (again), find actual fault with the logic.
"We’re discussing something that no one really knows much about..."
And yet we have a historical record of it. You obviously don't believe that historical record, but your disbelief is not a reason to say that nobody knows. That's just projection—if you don't know, then nobody knows. That's illogical.
"...that happened billions of years ago..."
That it happened billions of years ago is part of your belief. That's not universally accepted, and you've provided no evidence for that.
"...but you assert confidently “oh well it MUST have been started by god”."
Yes, by applying logic. The ancient Greeks used the same logic to reach a similar conclusion. Quoting Wikipedia (but omitting references and parenthetical remarks): "The unmoved mover or prime mover is a concept advanced by Aristotle as a primary cause or "mover" of all the motion in the universe. As is implicit in the name, the unmoved mover moves other things, but is not itself moved by any prior action. ... Aristotle argues, in Book 8 of the Physics and Book 12 of the Metaphysics, "that there must be an immortal, unchanging being, ultimately responsible for all wholeness and orderliness in the sensible world"."
Probably for that reason, the ancient Greeks, who had statues of numerous "gods" who they realised could not be that prime mover, also had a statue to an "unknown god", i.e. the one that they didn't know, but must have existed to start it all off.
"It’s ridiculous."
Waving it away and calling it ridiculous is not a rebuttal. The logic and argument stands.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Bork_Cruk
"No, people who make such absurd claims ..."
What makes it "absurd"? Your opinion? Is supposed absurdity really reason to not take people seriously, if they are seriously making that argument? Aer you admitting that for you some claims are simply and a priori off limits? That's hardly a scientific attitude.
"Few people will feel inclined to invest energy to try and point out to people making absurd claims why their claim is absurd, ..."
So instead of justifying your claim (of absurdity), just declare it to be so. Saves you having to think, I guess.
"...your assertions are bold, ..."
Actually, given that other serious thinkers have made the same argument for at least the last 3,300 years, I don't think it's bold at all.
"...you expect everyone else to prove you wrong."
If I make a case, then yes. That's the way that debates go. You make your case, and it stands unless someone else shows you to be wrong. But you seem to think that you can simply declare some cases to be "absurd" to avoid having to show that they are wrong.
"If you want to reverse the decline of Christianity in western society, I’d suggest a better strategy."
'Like what? Concede to the atheists? Appeal to emotion (and have the atheists criticise us for not using facts/reason/logic)?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Bork_Cruk
"I didn’t take it out of context, ..."
You quoted just the conclusion of an argument, misrepresenting it as the entire argument.
"I don’t consider you to have made a proper argument to begin with."
And yet you've not pointed out any logical error in it.
"From the start I’ve said you have made unfounded assertions."
Yes, and I've shown you to be wrong, because I've backed my comments with logical argument.
"And I gave an analogy of me asserting that woman who entered a house and never left must have been eaten by a crocodile."
You said 'monster', actually. And I showed the logical fallacy in your analogous argument, but you've shown no logical fallacy in mine.
"You agreed this was analogous to your argument."
No, I didn't. I agreed that it was analogous to my claim, but pointed out that the glaring difference, that I could show your claim to be wrong (i.e. not the only possible explanation), whereas you hadn't shown my to be wrong.
"And it’s not an argument, it’s an assertion with nothing to back it up."
Except that I backed it up. Your repeated denial of that does not make you right.
"You’re asserting things must be a certain way, that’s all."
I'm not merely asserting, as I have repeatedly pointed out. I have backed those statements with logical argument, which you've not shown to be wrong.
"There is no argument being put forward here."
And yet there was. You're in denial.
"You will never convert anyone with this, ..."
Not everyone rejects logical argument.
"...you are failing your imaginary god."
What is imaginary about Him? I have given you logical argument for His existence, but you've given none for His non-existence.
My argument still yet remains unrefuted. And I won't respond further unless you actually do come up with an actual response to my argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hans Otto Kroeger Kaethler
"Conviction is this: "I know that the Earth is flat, and nobody, no facts, no arguments can convince me otherwise, anymore."
No, that is just one example of a conviction. And yes, some people are like that. But it's not inherent in having a conviction that you are then close minded on the issue. That is, other people will not be closed to counter-arguments or facts.
" 'Convinced' people don't even understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory."
Are you convinced of that?
"But, obviously, fact won't convince you, since you already are "convinced"."
Nor will counter-examples, it seems, given that you are quite convinced of that and yet you ignore the counter-examples I provide. That you are so convinced that convinced people are closed to facts seems to be based on yourself, being so convinced of what you are saying that you're ignoring my counter-examples and my questions asking what facts led to you being so convinced.
1
-
Hans Otto Kroeger Kaethler
'Another example is the title of the video: 'Morrison's attitude to China is based on conviction' (therefore, not on facts.)"
The parenthetical part is your addition and is not implied by the actual title.
"There are NO FACTS AT ALL, supporting the claim that China is committing any type of genocide."
His conviction, according to the title, is the basis of his attitude, not the basis of his understanding. The description says "when making a decision about China’s threat to Australia he made it “based on conviction,” "
He didn't base his understanding of China's threat on conviction (or at least it doesn't claim that). He based his decision on what to do about it on his convictions. You can gather as many facts as you like, but then you have to decide what to do with those facts. And that decision on what to do is what the reference to conviction is about. Listening to what is said in the video itself only supports that point.
"There are NO FACTS AT ALL, supporting the claim that China is committing any type of genocide."
Genocide wasn't mentioned in the video, so I'm not sure why you're bringing that into it. Plus, as I have just explained, his conviction is about what to do about China, not on what China is like.
"No, you didn't provide a counterexample."
I provided two, in the other thread, which I know you've read.
"And that's what is being done by all the Anti-China propaganda."
You're changing topics from Morrison's conviction on how to respond to China to whether or not claims about China have merit.
"But, it seems, you are still more inclined to be convicted by Morrison's "convictions" as by facts."
I'm not convicted by Morrison's convictions. I'm convicted by my understand of English and of conceptions such as facts and convictions.
"And there is nothing that can change your convictions."
So you claim, but then all you've got to go on is me not being convinced by your claims.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NicolSD
You're incorrect. First, the concept of intelligent design was around well before that, although possibly used mainly used by creationists. The term itself also has a history long predating the 1989 Of Pandas and People. Second, there were books espousing the concept before Of Pandas and People. Books such as The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (1984) which, apparently, used the term. Then there was Denton's 1985 Evolution, a theory in crisis written by an evolutionist but which is considered a book in the ID camp. As a creationist, I bought that book around the time it it came out, but knowing full well it wasn't a creationist book (the author rejects the Genesis account).
Of Pandas and People probably gave the term and the concept a much wider audience, but it was NOT the first such book, as you claim.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@unvoicedrocktx3739
"What's funny about 616,377 Dead Americans?"
I never said that it was funny. Rather the opposite, actually.
"The republickan party and their "dear leader" killed them with their corrupt and incompetent response to Covid-19."
Nonsense.
"There are currently just under 2000 Covid-19 deaths in South Korea, because South Korea didn't have donald trump leading their response."
Non-sequitur. A isn't the same as B, therefore X is the cause. But you haven't shown that.
"...a republickan party more interested in pleasing their "leader"..."
Given the amount of opposition to Trump from within the party, even that claim is quite disputable.
"South Koreans did the rational and responsible things to mitigate the spread of a pandemic on a personal level whenever they could... "
As did Trump. For one, he stopped flights from China, and was vilified by the left for doing so.
"Hmm... no national lock down,..."
Lock downs have been shown in various studies to have no effect, and Trump didn't have the power to do that anyway. America is a federation of states, and much of the power belongs to the states (which is probably unlike South Korea).
"...no national mask rule,..."
Again, he didn't have the authority. And of course Fauci originally said that they didn't work.
"...no self-quarantining if you're exposed to Covid-19, and you don't want a vaccination?"
If you're exposed to it, getting a vaccination is too late. But again, the authority for that lies with the states. And various Democrat-run states bungled it big-time. But for political/ideological reasons, you're blaming Trump instead. Trump, by the way, sped up the development of a vaccine, despite the left saying that it couldn't be done.
"Must be a selfish, childish republickan that hates America."
Trying to be a comedian again? It's the left that hates America, at least in the sense of what it stands for and what its values are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sidecarmisanthrope5927
"We do not know who wrote the gospels."
Yes we do. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
"The names on them were arbitrarily assigned to those books by the Catholic church."
No, those names were assigned based on knowledge of who wrote them. The introduction to Matthew in the NIV Bible says (in part): "Although the first Gospel is anonymous, the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the 12 apostles, was its author."
The introduction to Mark says (in part): "Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship, it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark (“John, also called Mark,” Ac 12:12, 25; 15:37). The most important evidence comes from Papias (c. ad 140), who quotes an even earlier source as saying: (1) Mark was a close associate of Peter, from whom he received the tradition of the things said and done by the Lord..."
For Luke, it starts with "The author's name does not appear in the book, but much unmistakable evidence points to Luke. This Gospel is a companion volume to the book of Acts, and the language and structure of these two books indicate that both were written by the same person. They are addressed to the same individual, Theophilus, and the second volume refers to the first (Ac 1:1)."
John's introduction starts this way: "The author is the apostle John, "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (13:23 [see note there]; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7,20,24). He was prominent in the early church but is not mentioned by name in this Gospel -- which would be natural if he wrote it, but hard to explain otherwise."
(All parentheses in quotes in the original).
So none of them are "arbitrary", but all on the basis of evidence. And no mention there of the Catholic Church.
"That is an undeniable and demonstrable historical fact. "
It's clearly deniable, as I have just denied it. With evidence. And you have not demonstrated your "demonstrable historical fact".
"It always amazes me how little Christians know about the history of the bible."
Says the person who gets his cited history wrong!
1
-
@sidecarmisanthrope5927
"Did you even read what you wrote?"
You mean my quotes from academic sources? You're citing the cherry-picked parts that acknowledge that the books don't internally say who wrote them. It does not follow from that that we don't know who wrote them. If you mother wrote you a letter, but didn't sign her name, would you argue that that you have no idea who wrote it? Of course not.
"Hearsay and innuendo is all you have."
No, not hearsay and innuendo, but people who knew the authors and who passed on that information.
"Your faith is not evidence."
The sceptical view you quote is opinion, and a double standard, as pointed out by another writer:
"Because when it comes to the gospels, there are huge double standards. They are often presumed to be guilty until proven innocent. Normal ways of doing history seemingly get thrown out the window. And a big example of this is when it comes to the debate authorship of the gospels."
We have very good external evidence that the gospels were written by the names traditionally ascribed to them — Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John."
He then documents some of that evidence, and continues:
"So despite all the external confirmation that we have to the authorship and early use of the four gospels, that’s not good enough. Yet this “no one knows who really wrote the gospels” isn’t anything new. It’s notable that it wasn’t a criticism brought forward until around 400 AD by Faustus the Manichean.
"There were all kinds of critics of Christianity that we have a record of in the first three centuries of the church. Yet no one dared to challenge the authorship of the gospels until 400? That’s a telling fact.
"... In other words, “double standards much?!” Historians normally drool over the kind of evidence we for the authorship of the gospels. It’s early. It comes from writers from all over the Roman empire. And there’s no rival tradition.
"... Normal history just isn’t done the way biblical critics do history. Not when it comes to this issue. It’s an obvious double standard. I will let you draw your own conclusions about why those standards exist."
That source also includes a video of a professor detailing some of the evidence for the authenticity of the gospels.
1
-
1
-
"This is the problem with the Canavan family being in the mining business. It's in their interests to prolong our dependence on fossil fuels."
Is that necessarily the case? That is, I'm sure that his family is not simply in "the mining business", but in mining businesses, which don't involve uranium mining (i.e. their interests might be in coal mining, or gas, or even copper or zinc, for all I know). As such, promoting nuclear energy might be the family business, for all I know (based on what you've said).
Further, how is that any different to various green energy activists being in the green energy business?
"It's also a great tactic if you're in opposition."
Well, an opposition is supposed to provide an alternative for voters, so that might be seen as a good thing.
"Playing politics while in government didn't work so well for the coalition - they had a solid nine years and didn't progress any coherent energy policy."
True, they succumbed to the green energy activists, and failed to provide a proper alternative. They would have done better if they actually did have different policies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@athanasiosraptis5285
"Happy to answer you mate."
Thank you.
"1. My comment refers to what real value deliver the specific talk show, in informing and in changing things."
Huh? How on earth does that support your original claim? There is nothing in that that supports that they don't want to live peacefully.
"2. It is a cheap, low-class satire, wasting air time, ergo, it is delivering zero net gain value. "
I disagree with your characterisation, and even IF your characterisation was correct, that doesn't follow from your premise. Ergo, a non-sequitur.
"3. Wrt to examples you seek, open wiki and play (as much as your appetite and your nature desire) ...with "Non sequitur" Latin and fallacy bad translated and or created from Etruscan/Greek to English, examples."
I didn't seek any examples. I pointed out that you provided one. And despite your stated willingness to answer, you haven't shown how I was wrong.
"In closing out, I suggest to you a bit of Deontic logic, for aeonium wonderings of your mind."
And I suggest that you work on your basic logic and your English.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gutmuncher1990
"god is an idea ..."
Yes, a correct one.
"...people talk about god as if he is human why would an almighty infinite idea chose to look like us..."
God chose to make us "look" like Him, not the other way around. Although as God is spirit, not physical, we don't physically look like Him. But we are like Him in other ways, such as being able to communicate in language, hold abstract ideas, understand right and wrong, and so on.
"...the bible ... [is] made by humans so not really the word or what ever god is in the first place"
Evidence please. The Bible claims to have God as its ultimate author (using human writers), millions of Christians have believed that for millennia, and there is good reason to believe that. Yet you make that comment as though it's self-evident or widely accepted, neither of which is true. So, as I asked, evidence please.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeanpierre4370
"One, Trump made this small issue to a big deal."
But what make you think it's just a small issue? That's kind of begging the question.
"YES there is voter fraud, but not as bad as Trump is making it sound like."
I do agree, in the sense the Trump kept referring to "fraud" as a catch-all for various issues, including the sort of things I mentioned, which are not, legally at least, fraud. In my opinion, he over-generalised.
"Every election year, you will always find voter fraud but not to a point where it makes an impact on the election."
I agree that it happens every election. But again, it's you, not me, who raised the issue of fraud specifically. I didn't include fraud in my list, which makes this a straw-man argument, as I've already pointed out.
"Two the extension of votes made sense."
In your opinion. But it violated the law, hence it was illegal, and should not have happened. You're trying to justify illegality.
"Yes CDC said it was safe to do it in person if following the proper guidelines, but they doesn't mean COVID is over."
Of course not! Again, this is a straw-man. I never even hinted that it meant that it was over. What it means is that the supposed basis for mass mail-in ballots, and then extending deadlines, was a fallacy. You think it was justified, but you haven't shown why it was justified, even though I've shown why it wasn't.
"If you have a medical condition, low white cells, be safe and vote by mail."
Another straw-man. I wasn't arguing against people voting by mail if that had a valid reason. As far as I know, all the U.S. states provided for that. But that has been the case for ages, and therefore is not reason to extend deadlines contrary to the law.
"Three, I like talking to you..."
Thank you.
"Everything that Trump did/said made no sense."
That's a huge generalisation, and yet I consider it nonsense, as I could cite many good things he did. Of course some of them will be things that you think are bad, because your ideology is (presumably) different to mine. But that just highlights that many of our opinions of Trump are based on whether we agree with his views, not on whether they were objectively good or bad.
"if you wanna talk more as far as evidence, and the math equation I can give you my contact. "
I'm happy to talk further if you'd like, but as I have pointed out, you're mainly talking about fraudulent votes, not the other issues, which is what I was talking about. I'm probably not going to defend the claims about fraudulent votes too much, because although there are a lot of claims, one of the issues is that, for the most part, they've not actually been tested in court to see if they stand up to scrutiny. And, as I've said, the other issues are difficult to impossible to put actual numbers on.
On that point, I have myself argued against the fraudulent vote issue, because despite there apparently being a lot of irregularities (e.g. Republican scrutineers not being allowed to scrutinise), it doesn't necessarily follow that those votes were miscounted. Similarly, the late votes that should not have been counted may not have made a difference. Unless is it properly investigated, we simply won't know. So I'm not hanging my hat on that argument, even though I think it has a fair bit of merit. I note, though, that Arizona has fought for (against opposition—why would people object to this being investigated?) and won the right to do a proper forensic analysis of the voting in Maricopa County. It won't now change the result, but at least we might get some definitive answers (for that particular county at least).
1
-
1
-
1
-
@captainhowdy3906
I don't know who you are replying to, but I for one didn't talk about fraudulent votes.
But I don't think it's correct that they were "never" presented to a court. In Arizona, I think it was, a court did accept a claim of votes being counted wrong at least (which may not be exactly the same thing), and authorised a check of a small sample (100 votes?), which showed a significant percentage wrongly counted for Biden. So it authorised a bigger sample (1000 votes?), but that showed a much smaller percentage wrongly counted for Biden, so it went no further.
But I think that this was an exception to the general rule that the courts didn't even look at the evidence.
Not all the cases were brought by Trump's team, so I'm not sure that your comment about the lawyers reflects anything beyond just Trump's team's lawyers.
"Those cases had no standing to even be heard because the constitution explicitly grants those decisions of election policy to each individual state."
The constitution does indeed grant those decision to each state. But to the state legislators, not to the election officials who violated the legislation, nor to the courts who endorsed those violations.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hamster4618
"Just as Peterson is not censored."
Except that he was, in a way.
"what you saw his channel was gone? Strange I still see it."
No, I did not see his channel gone. I'll repeat one of my comments for you, explaining what the video says the issue is:
If you go to YT's search box, and start to type in, say J-o-r-d and so on (without the hyphens), it will give you a list of common search terms matching that. But it won't offer you 'Jordan Peterson'. This is one way of discouraging people from finding his videos. Yes, his videos are still available, but they make them harder to find.
And then you have critics who ignore or miss that proven suppression, and argue that just because he's not completely censored, he's not being censored at all. Which is illogical.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Gurovski
"No amount of evidence is going to part you from your chosen path..."
Given that you haven't put that to the test, that's merely an excuse to not provide evidence, and a baseless insult.
"...no evidence is needed as this person has been banned and reviled for their behaviour,..."
First, you contradict yourself. As justification for your claim that no evidence is needed, you provide evidence! (being banned and reviled.) Secondly, he's been banned and reviled by leftists (conservatives love him), who typically abuse and fail to provide evidence. So no, that's not reason for no evidence.
"But you ?, you don't see how manipulative this person's perceived control is."
Because it doesn't exist? You're still not providing real evidence.
"These types will get the clicks and the followers, until those following find someone else they prefer, who is usually the same type of person but someone who says more of what they want to hear at that time of their sudden adjustment."
So instead of providing evidence, you abuse him. That only shows your hate and bias.
"Why waste your time defending your Guru,..."
He's not my guru. You make thing up because you don't have a case.
"...especially if they are saying all you need to hear? Because they have trapped you in, you are now working for them."
Maybe you're projecting your own worship of someone on the left.
"I don't disagree with everything your Guru says, but it's almost impossible to disagree with everything a Guru says, they do after all need lures to pull the venerable types in."
And I don't agree with everything my non-guru says. Because I try to be objective.
"For some reason you mention "hate", at least I now know why you were lured in by one of these classic narcissistic types ."
Yes, your obvious hate for him. Which doesn't justify the rest of your sentence.
"Enjoy your search in life, but please don't poison others with what you find at this current point in your journey."
You mean like you're doing right now? You haven't shown that I doing it.
"P.S. The first way to stop hate is to stop using the word against others,..."
Nonsense. That simply doesn't follow.
"...no human genuinely hates anyone or anything,..."
Clearly false. Plenty of people do hate other people, and plenty of people (including me) hate evil.
"...hate does not exist in any form of life."
That's essentially true. In the natural world, it's only humans who hate. But that doesn't mean that they don't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're right. Tom Holland (who Mark Drury mentioned) said:
"Paul although in many ways he seems a must less familiar figure than Cicero, ... what is it, ... seven letters that ... conventionally people ... absolutely accept—as Tom Wright was saying, this is not a very lengthy amount of writing, but compacted into this very very small amount of writing, was almost everything that explains the modern world [the Western world] but also the way that the West has moved on to shape concepts like international law, for instance, ... concepts of human rights, all these kinds of things. Ultimately they don’t go back to Greek philosophers; they don’t go back to Roman empiricism. They go back to Paul. Paul, really, his letters are, I think, are, along with the four gospels, the most influential, the most impactful, the most revolutionary writings that have emerged from the ancient world.”
(See the short video "Tom Holland tells NT Wright: Why I changed my mind about Christianity".)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PaulyDownUnder
"Seroiusly, preferential voting is good how?"
It's more democratic. And it's terrible how so many people don't understand it.
"Everyone votes for "A", yet "B" wins because of preferentials."
No, there would be no preferences used if everyone voted for A. And no need for preferences if there was only A and B.
"Whoever gets the most votes, should win, simple for all!"
And that is what happens. After preferences are distributed as needed. I'll explain (although why you didn't learn that at school—or why they don't teach it any more—is the problem).
Suppose that 60% of the voters want a conservative, and 40% want a regressive. Further suppose that there are three candidates, C1 and C2 being conservatives, and R being a regressive. C1 is more popular than C2, and the vote count is C1=35%, C2=25%, and R=40%. If this is how it works out, then doing things your way, R would win, even though only 40% of the voters want a regressive.
But with preferential voting, it's noted that none of the candidates have a majority, i.e. at least 50%. So the candidate with the fewest votes (C2) is eliminated, and the second preferences of the voters who voted for C2 are distributed to the other candidates _according to how those voters recorded their second preference. As those 25% of voters wanted a conservative, their second preference was to elect C1, so their votes go to him instead of (not as well as) C2. C1 now has 60% of the vote and a majority, so he is elected. He got the most votes, and therefore one, as you said should happen.
So, to summarise. Under first-past-the-post, the regressive would have won even though only 40% wanted a regressive. Under preferential voting, a conservative one, because 60% wanted a conservative. Which is fairer? Which is more democratic?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The "great" Christopher Hitchens! Ha! The person shown next to him (John Lennox) has a better claim to that title, as does Christopher's brother Peter.
Yeah, okay, what he said there was fairly right (and Lennox appeared to be agreeing with him), but one of the big problems is atheism, of which Christopher was a proponent (until he met his maker when he died). As G. K. Chesterton reportedly said, “When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”
Thanks to atheistic views, people have stopped believing in God, and so now believe in anything, to their detriment. Atheistic ideas and teaching undermined Christianity, weakening society's defences against Islam, for example. How can you argue against Islam when you teach that all religions are equally (in)valid? And much as I admire Rita and Douglas, in that respect they are also part of the problem.
The freedoms that Douglas laments are being lost, we had in the first place thanks to Christianity, which opposed tyrants, twice abolished slavery, came up with capitalism, the freedom to use your own capital (money, skills, etc.) the way you want, which has in turned freed many around the world, and spread democracy.
"But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West has been so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this."—a scholar from China's premier academic research institute, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) in Beijing in 2002, as reported by journalist David Aikman.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@richardlafleur8389
"If you consider that having a go at you,..."
I've had people name-call me, insult me, vilify me, falsely accuse me, and more. In saying that you chose to "have a go at me", my intention was to say something quite mild compared to those other things. I'm sorry that it didn't come over that way.
"No need to be so defensive, I was just cutting to the chase and pointing out the bottom line."
Yes, but my point was that you were pointing out the bottom line to me, not the original poster, who was (incorrectly) also not talking about the bottom line.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@loveroffreedomp.5426
"We are a FEDERAL REPUBLIC,"
You say that as though "federal republic" and "representative democracy" are mutually exclusive, but you haven't shown that they are.
"...and I suggest that anyone look into what this means!"
Actually, I have looked into it. I have asked numerous people why they don't consider America a republic, with very few bothering to explain why. When I did finally get someone to explain it, and someone who seemed to know what they were talking about, then agreed that when Americans say that it's not a democracy, they are meaning that it's not a direct democracy.
"Even USING the term “democratic”, or “democracy “ is VERY dangerous…as it sets WRONG expectations!"
How so?
"This is purposefully done, so they hope citizens will clamor for elections done by “national popular voting “, especially in Presidential elections!"
Their intentions don't changing the meaning of words.
"Democratic voting, or Democracy is the DOOR leading to communism!"
So Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and all those other countries with representative democracies are leading to Communism? That's a claim that needs justifying.
"It really is troublesome to hear this term used alongside our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC!"
Because you have the wrong idea on what it means? After all, nothing you've said actually shows how I'm wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@100percentSNAFU
"Agreed, in no way is the existence of God proven..."
On the contrary, it is proven in some ways.
"so scientifically you cannot say as such, however religion works on belief and not proof."
Christianity works on faith, which is trust, based on trustworthiness, which is based on evidence. We believe God because what He says that can be checked is true. We believe Jesus is God because that's what the evidence points to. And "belief" simply means agreeing to an idea; it doesn't require that the belief be baseless. So although I've never been there, I can accurately say that I believe that America exists.
"Yes, no man has seen, touched, or proven that God exists."
Apart from Adam, Moses, the people who saw and touched Jesus, and more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@raventaylor1757
"With an estimated age of over 80,000 years, Pando is the oldest tree in the world…"
Good on you for finally answering some challenges. However, this one is easily dismissed. According to Wikipedia (which embraces deep time and evolution, so not friendly to my point of view) (my bolding), "The root system is estimated to be several thousand years old [i.e. consistent with a biblical view] with habitat modeling suggesting a maximum age of 14,000 years. [i.e. not certain, so not good evidence] ...An age of 80,000 years is often given for Pando, but this claim derives from a National Park Service web page that does not provide a source for its number and is inconsistent with the Forest Service's post ice-age estimate." So we can dismiss that evidence as baseless.
"The earliest megalodon fossils (Otodus megalodon, previously known as Carcharodon or Carcharocles megalodon) date to 20 million years ago…"
As I have already said and repeated, claims from naturalistic scientists constitute a circular argument. So no.
"Non-bird dinosaurs lived between about 245 and 66 million years ago, ..."
Again, a claim from scientists based on an a priori rejection of supernatural explanations. This is known as methodological natrualism and requires scientists (who adopt this view) to find natural explanations even where the evidence supports a supernatural explanation. This, as I have pointed out, makes claims from 'science' that show the Bible to be wrong, circular arguments. You've not provided evidence for the 6000 years being imaginary; you've provided the biased opinions of naturalistic scientists.
"You don't want me to use SCIENCE to substantiate my knowledge…"
I did not say that. I said that I don't want claims from scientists who a priori reject the supernatural. That's not the same thing. Accepting their conclusions would be a circular argument.
"…how can you use the very book not substantiated by anything…"
What's your evidence that it's not substantiated by anything?
"…then you've the nerve to call your book a "reliable history book"."
It doesn't take nerve to make accurate statements. Archaeology has shown various details to be accurate many, many, times.
"Tell me, which book is right <> The Bible, The Quran, The Torah?"
The Torah is part of the Bible. The Bible is the right one (which is not to say that the Qur'an is wrong in everything).
"You call the Bible the Word of God, but MEN wrote the Old Testament and MEN wrote the New Testament."
Yes, just like a celebrity might hire a professional writer to write his AUTObiography. The writer writes it, but the celebrity says what goes in it and makes sure it's accurate. The fact that "MEN" wrote the Bible does not mean that it's not God's revelation to us.
"So now you use MEN who wrote down things by talking to someone as historical facts?"
In fact, there is no reason to believe that most of what those men wrote were anything other than eyewitness testimony.
"They say God spoke to them and you just believe it."
Not just because they said it, no.
"MEN said homosexuality is a "sin". Our Creator NEVER said that, otherwise our Almighty Powerful Creator wouldn't have made us this way."
He did actually say it, including destroying Sodom and Gomorrah because of it. And He didn't make us that way. He made us heterosexual. That is in fact why it's a sin; not because of some arbitrary decree, but because it opposes the way we were designed to be.
"I've ANSWERED two of your questions."
You've attempted to answer two, but totally failed with your answers. And in fact your answer to the second question didn't even address the question!
"I know you won't answer my questions because you can't."
Except that I can, and because you at least made a good-faith attempt on the first one, I'll do the same.
"Tell me where the Dinosaurs 🦕 fit in your 6000yrs ..."
The problem is only the time span, which I'll come back to in a moment. Dinosaurs were created by God along with all the other land animals, and over time, they became extinct, as have many creatures, such as the dodo. History has numerous recorded sightings of creatures matching the description of dinosaurs (although the word itself was only coined in 1841, so the creatures were not referred to as dinosaurs; often as dragons instead). So having dinosaurs in those 6000 years is not in the slightest a problem.
As I said, the only problem is the claimed age of them. But 'age' is not something that can be measured. Rather, it is calculated from measuring other things and applying assumptions that are based on a naturalistic view (i.e. a view that a priori rejects the Bible), so again a circular argument if used to show the Bible is wrong.
1
-
@raventaylor1757
"you can't even answer one question of mine."
False. I said that I won't because you haven't answered many of mine. I never said that I can't. You simply made that up.
"Everytime you deflect back to your favourite phrase "circular argument"."
You made that up too. It's not my favourite phrase. Rather, it's the sort of argument you are making, and you have not refuted that point.
"Which is ironic because everytime you use the Bible as your evidence it's circular argument."
Again false. Unless you can explain why (as I did with my claim of your circular arguments).
"You first have to proof the Bible is the Word of God, before you can use the Bible as evidence."
No I don't. Unless you can explain why.
"You also failed miserably in saying which book is right. You tried to pretend all those books are right but they can't all be right. "
I did not pretend that they are all right. I explicitly said that the Bible is the right one.
"The Torah REJECTS Jesus Christ as the Son of God,..."
Given that the Torah predates Jesus, how does it do that?
"Do you really think GOD will write 3 different Books, since all three versions believe they are the Word of God."
No, I don't, and never indicated that He did. As I said, the Torah is part of the Bible. The Torah comprises the books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. The are also the first five books of the Bible.
"It's only 2000 years mate, unless you believe Noah took the Dinosaurs onto the Ark."
Yes, he took them onto the ark. Otherwise, how would we have recorded sightings of them in more recent times?
"You also forget the fact that humans would've gone extinct if we lived during same period as dinosaurs. They would've wipe us out."
How so? They may not have lived in the same places; they were originally vegetarian, and man is smarter, able to hunt bigger, faster, and more ferocious animals. It's not at all reasonable to think that would have necessarily wiped us out.
"Evidence of Dinosaur Extinction: "
You're citing that naturalistic view that a priori rejects the biblical view, so you are making a circular argument, as I've pointed out twice before. And the evidence is that they existed after that event, a I have pointed out.
"The extensive study of Aboriginal people's DNA dates their origins to more than 50,000 years ago..."
Evidence? From a quick search online, what I found is that their DNA has shown that modern aborigines are related to those early ones already thought to be from 50,000 years ago. That is, the 50,000 years didn't come from the study of the DNA.
"If your global flood was true it would've wiped out the Aboriginal tribes in Australia."
Only if the date is correct, but your fallacy (apart from the circular argument) is to say that the biblical account is wrong because it doesn't fit with a competing view! Duh! Of course it won't fit with a competing view. But that doesn't tell you which of those two views is correct.
"Science told us the earth is a globe."
The Bible hints at that too.
"The Bible said it's flat."
False. Show me where.
"The Bible said the Sun goes around the Earth."
False. Show me where.
"Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei was persecuted ... for saying the Earth is round and not flat."
False. It had been known to be round for over 2000 years. The idea that the early church thought the earth was flat is a lie that atheists invented specifically to discredit Christians. (And yes, I can point you to evidence of that.)
Galileo was a creationist who claimed to have found evidence (which turned out to be wrong) which supported Copernicus' claim of the earth going around the sun, which was contrary to the view of scientists of the time who had adopted the old Greek idea of the sun going around the earth. There was controversy in the scientific community, but with many agreeing with Galileo. However, Galileo was arrogant, and took out his arrogance on the Pope, so Galileo was made to stand trial, with his scientific views being the scapegoat. Nevertheless, his views were taught in the (Catholic) universities.
"You can't be serious"
I am serious, because your claims are false.
1
-
1
-
@raventaylor1757
"this is going nowhere. "
And it will continue to go nowhere while you continue to make false claims.
"You keep on using SCIENTIFIC WORDS like fallacy and circular argument..."
They are words from the field of logic, not science.
"...because you can't answer any questions."
No, I told you why, but you simply choose to reject my own knowledge of my own reasons, because you apparently know better than me what I'm thinking. That's arrogance.
"You even argue about Aboriginals with me, and I am an Aussie mate!"
So am I. So your point is...?
"I recommend Judaism, Christianity and Islam stop disrespecting LGBQ people."
You are confusing disagreement with disrespect.
"If you keep threatening us with Hell then we'll keep working hard to get you cancelled."
We are not threatening you with hell. We are warning you that hell is the consequence of your actions. That is, we are trying to be helpful. We have no power to send anyone to hell.
"Your faith should never be forced upon other people."
It isn't. But LGBT+ activists force their views on others, such as insisting on us lying about a person's sex.
"You refuse to believe we are born this way,..."
There is no good evidence of homosexuals being born that way, and transgender people are clearly not born that way.
"You indoctrinate us from 5/6 years old..."
How do we do that? Government schools and most of the media doesn't even talk much about Christian views, favourably at least.
"Let's just respect each other."
I respect you as a person, but I reject your views.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jd_kreeper
"in order to confirm something as true, you must prove it using experimental trials to confirm it."
As I said to you in another comment, "proof" is evidence sufficient to cause one to believe. It might not take experiments to do that. In fact a lot of evidence is eyewitness testimony (arguably virtually all is; see my last point).
"While I find some theories interesting, I never insist anything is true unless it had been proven."
That is, unless you have found it to be convincing to you.
"You're suggesting that the Bible, a nearly 2,000 year old story, is more credible than modern science."
I disagree with your wording. The Bible is the product of the omniscient and infallible God. Science is a tool that is used by fallible human beings. That's not a criticism of science; it's pointing out that scientists don't always get it right.
But in principle I support your point about using experiments to confirm things. That is one of the methods of science, and one of the things that make it such a useful tool. However, scientists are not able to observe, measure, test, nor repeat those tests, when studying past events. It's great for things in the present (testing the properties of materials, for example), but not so good for the past. The Bible, however, tells us a lot about the past, and little about the present beyond timeless stuff like what people are like.
So when you want "proof" in the form of experiments, you'll not get that for past events, as we cannot experiment on those past events.
"The Bible is nothing but a story."
Only if history is "nothing but a story".
"There is no proof that any of that actually happened."
By your definition of proof being experimental evidence, there's no proof that anything in the past actually happened. But then, as I've been pointing out, experimental evidence for past events is not a suitable criterion. And experimental results are not the only forms of evidence.
"Why don't you also believe in Greek and Roman mythology?"
Because the evidence (albeit not experimental evidence, of course) supports the biblical account. The same with Allah.
"Why is the Bible's "God" the "truth" and not any of those aforementioned religions?"
Because it has the evidence on its side. Why do you think that virtually all historians (concerned with the period) accept that Jesus lived and died? Because the evidence supports that. And most of that evidence is actually the biblical record.
Experimental science is very good, but it's not the only form of evidence. And I'm quite sure you don't rely on it yourself. That is, how many things do you believe because you've personally done, or observed, the experiments? And how many things do you believe because others (scientists) have done the experiments (out of your sight) but you believe them because you consider them to be reliable eyewitnesses of their experiments?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BigGen222
"who defines what is beneficial?"
That doesn't need to be defined in order to ask or answer that question. You know what the word means, so the question can be answered. So you've failed to justify your claim.
"Whilst being who I am I think Christian religion is best for our country, but I am in no position to judge."
I'm not sure why you think you're not in a position to judge that, specially since you've already made a judgement that religion and politics shouldn't mix. If you think you're capable of judging that, then why can't you make a judgement about Christianity being the best?
But I'll also put it this way. Is there any reason to doubt that Christianity has been beneficial when it's been responsible for founding public hospitals and many charities, twice abolishing slavery, founding the university system and later universal education, giving people freedoms, spreading democracy, upholding human rights, elevating the status of women, founding modern science, and etc.?
The fact is that Western Civilisation and its laws were based on Christianity. (See Augusto Zimmerman's three-volume work on Christian Foundations of the Common Law. ) That is, Christianity and politics mixed. Also, when William Wilberforce was campaigning against slavery in the British parliament, an opponent of Wilberforce said "Things have come to a pretty pass when religion is allowed to invade public life." The point is that slavery was abolished because religion and politics mixed. I could easily cite other examples.
1
-
1
-
@matthewlane
"Many scholars also once agreed that the Earth was flat."
Like who? The idea that people in medieval times thought the earth was flat was an atheist invention intended to discredit Christians.
"No one cares what some scholars agreee to, since science is not a religion,..."
We are talking about history here, not science.
"No, all that matters is what they can demonstrate ..."
True. So can you demonstrate your claim in your original post?
"if it were the case that society is underpinned by christianity, then no society could exist BEFORE christianity."
The title of the video says "society", but the video itself is more specific. At 0:10 "underpins ... our political and legal system". At about 1:40 it also refers to " our political and legal systems" (my emphasis). It's not about society in general, but our society.
"No society could exist in countries in which christianity wasn't the states religion."
Not so. It's not about a state religion, but about Christian influence.
"And yet societies existed for thousands of years before the conception of your religion,..."
Well, Christianity is the continuation or fulfilment of Judaism, which is the worship of the creator God, and that goes back to Adam and Eve, so no, they didn't exist before that.
"...thousands of years from now when your religion is nothing more than a short foot note in the worlds history..."
You're presuming things that you have no idea of. People have been predicting the demise of Christianity for centuries, but it stubbornly keeps growing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@soonpohtay4794
"Clever arguments can never wash away the clear statements and example that Jesus himself gave."
The problem is that the "clear statement" was a specific one to Peter to put away his sword, and a general one about the consequences for people who "take" the sword. It was not a general instruction on what Christians should and should not do. Sure, you can try to make an argument that the specific command to Peter should apply generally, but that is an argument, not a clear statement from Jesus.
If we take your position to it's logical conclusion, then we should never defend an innocent being attacked, we should never have police forces or armies, and we simply let evil do what it wants to us without resistance.
But Jesus was in a situation where the religious authority was attempting to arrest Jesus, and this was part of Jesus' plan, that He didn't want Peter spoiling. This example might be an argument against civil disobedience, but I cannot see that it's an argument against fighting evil and defending your neighbour. Those have to be just causes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fredfosdick4093
"Show me where it does work."
No, you have the onus to show that it never works. But it seems that you can't do that, so your claim is baseless.
"Evidence? Take a look around you."
Taking a look around me doesn't show that it doesn't work anywhere. So no, that's not evidence.
"You're the one in favour of banning, show me where it works"
No, you made the claim that it never works that I challenged. You have the onus.
"If you can't name one place, then it's not really working out so great."
Oh, I can name places, but I don't have the onus. You do.
"'Nice tap dance, ..."
Says the person failing to produce the requested evidence to back up their claim.
"...yet my original question remains unanswered"
No, it doesn't. Both bin mcbin and I answered it, and you acknowledged that bin mcbin answered it ("I asked a question and you answered it clearly enough.")
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rmoz2729
"ourselves of course. We should develop our own sense of moral truth."
Okay, so if I decide that it's moral to rob a bank, then it is moral. That's utter nonsense. It removes the word from having any meaning.
Or to put it another way, if I think that robbing a bank is moral, what right does anyone else have to say that it's not moral?
"Politicians shouldn’t participate in that..."
Then there would be no point in having politicians. Why do you think they pass laws to ban something? Because they think that something is wrong (immoral). Absolutely politicians should participate in that. It's what they are there for!
"Our courts will debate right and wrong and that is its purpose,..."
No, the courts debate whether something is illegal or not. It's the politicians (the legislative) that formally decides whether it's right or wrong in the first place.
"Beyond that, moral theory (such as Kholberg’s) set out that part of our identity is linked to morality."
Given that we were designed as moral beings, that's not surprising.
"Hence, we must not have our thoughts or ideas restricted by anyone."
This is not about restricting thoughts or ideas. This is about restricting actions based on particular thought or ideas. People are free to think—and debate—whatever they want. That doesn't mean that they are free to do whatever they want. Such as promote immorality.
"Cumberland Council has councillors who are aligned with religious groups. They are allowing themselves to vote according to their religious beliefs."
So? Whether or not that's a good thing depends on whether or not those religious groups are good ones or not.
"This is not good, they should abstain from voting if clouded by religious judgment, otherwise it could breach their code of conduct."
So only atheism is allowed to cloud their judgment? That sound discriminatory if not bigoted. And in any case, what do you mean by "clouded"? Why can't it be that they judgment is clarified by their religious views?
"We are secular..."
Yes, meaning that the government is not run by the church (or vice versa). That does not mean that religious views are not allowed and only atheistic ones are.
"...no politician, be it this guy, or Albo, will tell me what is right or wrong morally."
What IF what they are telling you is simply repeating what God has said is right or wrong? Doesn't God have that right? After all, he made you.
"That is up to me, and up to society represented though the judicial process, not the political process."
Which gets back to your first sentence, the implication of which is that if I decide that robbing a bank is moral, then it is.
1
-
@rmoz2729
"God didn’t make me."
Evidence please. And to be clear, I'm talking about God making humans, not you in particular.
'Hence, morality can drive thought but can’t drive a decision."
Decisions are made based on those thoughts.
"No religious group should have a say in the political process..."
Only atheist groups can. Right? You didn't answer that last time.
"...all religious groups are free to practice their beliefs."
Even if that religious belief includes having a say in the political process?
"They are not permitted to force me to believe their nonsense."
What nonsense?
"You are meant to abstain if religion can cloud your judgement."
What if atheism clouds your judgment? Again, I've already asked this, but you've ducked the question.
And what if "religion" clarifies your judgment? Again, I've already asked that, but again, no answer. It seems that some questions are just too hard for you.
"Politicians legislate and the judiciary interprets based on evidence."
Based partly on evidence, but evidence doesn't say whether something is right or wrong, and therefore whether something should be banned or allowed.
"We don’t need politicians if they are going to force their beliefs on us."
And yet that's what every law is—forcing their belief on you!
"It is why even aboriginal smoking ceremonies in parliament worries me."
As you should be, partly because that's based not on (theistic) religion, but on atheistic or left wing views (that can amount to religion).
"These are religious things, we are not under canon law, sharia law, tribal law (all of which are dogmatic)."
Secular laws are not dogmatic?
"We are under secular law determined by the legal process and legislated by a group bound by a constitution with the public."
Yes, but the question is what those secular laws are based on. Which is clearly the beliefs of the people making those laws. The evidence may show that con men are rising in number, but the law is based on the moral principle that conning people is wrong.
"A classic example of the abstention rule was the same sex marriage bill in 2017. Politicians such as Tony Abbott, Scott Morrison, Andrew Hastie all abstained from the vote declaring a conflict of interest due to religious belief."
That's an exceptional case, due to it being a public 'vote' (which wasn't done properly in any case).
"This was correct as the will of the people countered their personal beliefs..."
No,the "will of the people" was manipulated with lies, which then contradicted their correct views (not merely 'personal beliefs') on marriage.
"Chris Bowen, I believe, was incorrect as he voted for the bill despite the fact that his seat clearly voted against it in the plebiscite."
Yes, you could make that argument in that particular case, but then the correct process was for the politicians to vote on it (there was no legal requirement for them to vote according to the plebiscite). Further, a lot of people voted against the plebiscite, so shouldn't there be some politicians representing those people?
"He let personal belief trump the will of his electorate and that is not democratic."
No, he let the truth trump the manipulated will of his electorate. You previously said that it should be based on evidence, and yet most politicians ignored the evidence that they had no right to vote on the question, as the matter was already decided by God.
"The fact he was never held to account for this is quite sad."
What about the liars pushing this travesty? Why shouldn't they be held to account?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@turnerfamilyinozi
"There are millions and millions of people who don't agree with you."
And millions more who do. Your point...?
"But as I have asked you repeatedly before produce the evidence that your god exists."
I am under no obligation to provide evidence for claims I haven't made, nor am I under obligation to provide evidence when you won't when you have made claims that I have challenged before I made any claims.
However, in this conversation, I did make the claim that there is only one, so I will provide evidence for that claim. And that is that "god" refers to the creator and supreme being, and only one can be supreme. None of the ancient Greek gods, for example, qualified, as none were supreme, all being the offspring of others.
"Bet you don't. (Again)."
And yet I have supported the claim that I made in this conversation.
Further, I have, at various times, provided evidence for God, especially if I made the prior claim, although I don't recall if any of those times was in conversation with you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Desert_Kingdom
"Did jesus said I am god..."
Yes. Not in those actual words, but he forgave sins (which only God can do), rose from the dead (which only God can do), claimed to be the "son of man" (a reference to that phrase in Daniel where it referred to a divine being), claimed to have met Abraham, and claimed to be Yahweh, the I AM of Moses.
"He said i go to my father my god..."
Yes, another of the persons of the godhead. That doesn't exclude Jesus being God.
"Why would muslims follow christianity..."
Because the Qu'ran says that the gospels are God's Word to the Christians, and the Gospels make it clear that Jesus is God.
"...when if you read bible jesus is saying exact opposite."
Except that He's not. Just as He didn't say "I am god", neither did He say "I am not God".
"Jesus said I won't die like jonah."
No, He didn't. He said that like Jonah he would "die" and return to life.
"he died."
And rose again.
"Jesus said touch me and see I am not dead."
Yes, after He rose from being dead.
"They quote paul paul paul, not jesus."
No Christians quote the Bible, which contains writing by numerous people, including God.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@monicawarner4091
"Great post Philip, but isn't an "atheist religion" something of an oxymoron?"
Thanks, and no, it's not. Most words have more than one meaning (a 'semantic range'), and 'religion' is no different. It can mean belief in a deity or similar, and most people normally use it that way. But it can also refer to your core beliefs on which you base your life.
Scientology, Confucianism, Zen Buddhism, Marxism, and Secular Humanism are all atheistic religions, i.e. no god involved. Indeed Humanist Manifestos I and II, the founding documents of Secular Humanism referred to Secular Humanism as secular religions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bobhawke7373
"Wrong. Atheists just lack belief in deities."
I know you've convinced yourself of that. But I showed that you were wrong. Repeating yourself doesn't make it true.
"I'm an atheist and I know evolution exists. Some atheists don't believe in evolution at all."
I know of very, very, few atheists who don't believe in evolution (what do they believe in), but then I didn't mention evolution, did I?
"And you are an atheist too Phil. You lack belief in one less deity than me."
Yes, I've heard that silly line many many times.
"You actively believe in one deity who is completely lacking of any evidence at all."
And yet you've provided no evidence for that claim, despite me asking for evidence of your claim of nonsense.
"The onus is on your belief, not my lack of belief."
No, the onus is always on the one making the claim. You made a claim which I challenged. You have the burden of proof. The fact that you're trying to get out of that indicates that you have no evidence for your claim.
"My lack of belief is the standard position."
Yeah, right! Given that the vast majority of people in the world are not atheists, that is clearly not the standard position.
"Every single person is born atheist. Religion is a taught behaviour."
Evidence please. I don't know of anyone born with the belief that God doesn't exist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@deanlowdon8381
Let's see. I said "for the most part what I get back is leftists ... just asserting that I'm wrong." So what do you respond with: assertions that I'm wrong!
"Every poll ever conducted shows that Fox News viewers are consistently the most mis-informed."
Examples of this assertion? And evidence that this is due to watching Fox?
"Rupert Murdoch has spent his entire career building a media empire to push his own political ... agenda...".
Again, evidence? The point is that Murdoch's news outlets (some at least; I can't speak for all of them) tend to employ people on both sides of politics, and sometimes support the left and sometimes conservatives. So your claim does not, on the surface, appear to have merit.
"The reason there was more negative reporting on Trump than previous presidents was because he has consistently said and done things throughout his time in office that warranted it."
Question-begging.
"As I’ve already said however, I’ve personally tried to engage in discussions around healthcare, taxation etc and 99% of what I’ve had back was insults."
I didn't comment on your experience. You told me yours, and I told you mine.
"Now we find ourselves in a situation where Trump has lost, and instead of following their own advice from 2016 and accepting the result, the Republican Party are making the US look like even more of a joke than it already was."
That he has lost is not yet determined, given pending court cases. And the US only "looked like" a joke because the biased media portrayed it that way. I go past looks to substance. Perhaps you should too.
"And no, significant levels of voter fraud in US elections hasn’t been documented. "
That's moving the goal posts. You previously claimed that voter fraud was "non-existent". Now you're conceding that it does exist.
"... nowhere near the levels required to swing an election even if that were all in favour of one candidate."
That would depend on how close the vote is.
"Overall levels of voter fraud have historically been found to be a tiny fraction of a percent (0.0006% the latest figure I saw)"
Does that historical figure includes the recent examples, and does it take into account the new mass mail-in voting of this election?
Do you want a rational discussion? How about answering this: Do you believe that all people should be treated equally under the law?
1
-
@deanlowdon8381
"When it comes to misinformed Fox News viewers its hard to say if watching Fox News leads them to be misinformed, or if people that are already misinformed then flock to Fox News to find someone that agrees with them."
So you have no evidence. Thanks for that.
"Either way Fox is a terrible source of information."
Another bald assertion.
"There is plenty of literature to back up my comments about Murdoch"
I'm sure there is. But remember my comment about "what I get back is leftists citing leftists as evidence that I'm wrong". What reason is there to think that that's not the case here?
"(I’m actually reading an interesting book that covers this called ‘Billionaires’)"
The one by Darryl Cunningham? What I can find about it seems to confirm my suspicion above.
"every step of the way he has used the media to push his personal agenda in order to make profits and gain power."
Well, according to the left at least. That doesn't explain having journalists, columnists, etc. with opposing views (to each other and sometimes to Murdoch).
"I don’t base my opinion of Trump on any news media, I base it purely on what I see him say and do with my own eyes."
So you've attended his news conferences and his rallies, have you?
"How can I be influenced by media bias if I base my opinion on my own personal judgement of his actions? T"
By getting a very selective offering of what he has said and done.
"The US looks like a joke because they elected this man..."
I've already addressed this. Repeating it doesn't make it more true. And you're the one who complained about not being able to have a sensible conversation!
"It’s not moving the gate posts to say that historically there has only been 0.00006% of ballots that are fraudulent..."
When you claim that there was none, then switch to saying that there's very little historically, I think that could be described as moving the goal posts.
"You ask whether those figures include anything from this election, how can it when there is no evidence for it!?"
There's no evidence of mass mail-in voting? Huh? As for fraud, there is plenty of evidence. That the mainstream media doesn't report it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
"I do believe everyone should have equal protection under the law."
I didn't ask about equal protection, but about being treated equally (which includes more than just 'protection'). It's not directly relevant to our discussion, which is why I introduced it the way I did.
1
-
@deanlowdon8381
"No doubt you’ll just dismiss this as ‘leftist bias’ as you’ve done with everything else..."
No, I will not, and have not. That doesn't mean that I won't reject it, but I won't "just dismiss" it as leftist bias, given that you've done more than simply assert.
And in all the responses I've made to you I think there is only once where it can be said that I cited leftist bias to respond to a claim of yours, being your subjective claim that the US looks like a joke.
"If you were really interested you could have looked this up yourself instead of continually saying I’ve been making baseless claims."
I doubt that I would have known what to look for, but if you make a claim, it's not my responsibility to look for supporting evidence.
"There seems little point continuing this conversation as no matter what I say your response is essentially the same, with everything I write being because of left wing media bias or some kind of conspiracy."
The only times I mentioned conspiracy were (a) when I rejected your claim that parts of the media want to claim conspiracy for Trump supposedly losing so many supporters, and (b) when I pointed out that the left has made claims of conspiracy.
So you've provided another example of me wanting to rationally discuss the issues, only to have you misrepresent me and make noises about not wanting to continue.
But to your main point, the link you provided. It's subtle, but there is leftist bias in there. No, I'm not just dismissing it as leftist bias; I'm documenting leftist bias.
The report sounds good to start with, including acknowledging the problem of determining whether people are misinformed without addressing what is correct, and therefore saying "In most cases we inquired about respondents’ views of expert opinion...", so not assessing whether the respondent's views were correct, but whether they were correct in knowing what the prevailing expert opinion was. They gave an example of the climate change debate: "On some issues, such as climate change, there is a vocal dissenting minority among experts. Thus questions were framed in terms of whether, among experts, more had one or
another view, or views were evenly divided. "
This seems a very good way of undertaking a study like this. Until you think about it a bit more. Is it really true that disagreement on climate change is only "a vocal minority"? Studies showing that 97% of scientists agree have themselves been debunked. Many science (and some non-science) organisations have been cited as supporting the climate change view, and yet there have been whistle-blowers pointing out that often those statements from those organisations have not always been based on a poll of members, but on what the management of those organisations say. Not to mention that dissenters are widely vilified and ignored, so many sceptics would not even be game to make their views known. Another problem is, who are actually the "experts"? "Scientists" seems to be the accepted answer on that (the report asked a question about "scientists" views of climate change, but what makes non-climate scientists "experts"? That non-expert scientists (i.e. scientist not in that field) are included is itself a red flag.
And the report claims that the NAS has "a strong reputation for being immune to partisan influences". Regardless of its reputation, I would find the claim that it is immune to partisan influences very questionable.
One way that the media misleads is not by being inaccurate or misinforming, but by being selective in what it reports. The questions in this report that are discussed in relation to the media are as follows, although note that for clarity and simplicity I have reworded the sometimes convoluted questions as "correct" statements (correct according to the report) :
* The (Obama) stimulus saved or created jobs
* The (Obama) health reform law will not increase the deficit
* The economy (under Obama) is starting to recover
* Scientists think that climate change is occurring (consistent with Obama's view)
* TARP was started under Bush
and continued under Obama
* Republicans also supported TARP
* The car manufacturer's bailout was done by both Bush and Obama
* The Chamber of Commerce (CoC) was not using foreign money to support Republicans
* The (Obama) stimulus included tax cuts
* The tax was actually cut (by Obama)
* Obama was born in the U.S.
Note that with one clear exception (CoC) and three ambiguous ones about TARP and the bailout (is the fact that Republicans supported them a good thing or not?), every question was about something good for or consistent with the views of Obama. Where were the questions about how misinformed people were about things favouring Republicans? There was only one clear one, the CoC one, and on that one the non-Fox outlets were the ones that apparently got it most wrong.
I'll summarise that this way. If, hypothetically, Fox was providing misinformation on things favouring Obama, and the others were equally providing misinformation on things favouring the Republicans, then this report would cast Fox is a worse light because it mainly looks at things favouring Obama.
As such, it is biased (whether intentionally or not) towards the left, and therefore fails to support your claim.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@arroeducarlion4990
"it would be racist to hold them to account"
Why?
"when a dog turns rabid you put it down how are these animals different"
They are humans, not animals.
"lack of evidence? i have the pics here in front of me of her face "
First, that was a question, not a claim. So you're saying that you have evidence? Fair enough. That would need to be evidence of who did it, of course, not just of what was done. Going by what you say, if you have evidence of who did it and what was done, I see no reason why they should not be prosecuted.
"if we are responsible for every ill ever perpitrated against them throughout history..."
Which we are not.
"then they can be held responsible for every ill perpitrated against us by their own measure of guilt"
Two wrongs don't make a right. If some of them wrong us that way, it doesn't make it right for us to do the same to them. Further, if some of them do that to us, it's even more wrong for us to do that to all of them.
"you sycophantic piece of work you didnt have double standards youd have none at all would you"
You haven't shown me to have double standards. You've simply assumed it.
"retracted my offer of exposing my mother to you as you are a proven licker of boots"
You've proven nothing. And I wasn't planning on taking up your offer in any case. Simply pointing out that you have evidence was answering that question.
"be the first to cry foul and racist if i went out with a pack of friends aand beat down elderly aboriginals wouldnt you"
Incorrect. Yes, I would cry foul, because doing that would be wrong. I would not cry racist unless I had very good reason for thinking that you did it simply because they were aborigines and not for any other reason.
"you sycophantic piece of work"
I'm not a sycophant. As evidence, I offer the point that I have also disagreed with Light House's claims.
"now whos the bigot"
Still you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@binmcbin1890
"we have given more to newscorp and nine in handouts than what they pay in tax."
I ask for evidence, and am instead given more accusations, more claims. But no evidence. Give that I have asked this question numerous times with no evidence provided, it leads me to believe that the claims are hollow. The one thing I'll grant you is that you've at least attempted to provide some evidence.
"Newscorp haven't paid tax since 2012."
I don't count this as evidence, for three reasons:
1) You have provided no source
2) You have provided no evidence that they needed to pay tax.
3) Not paying tax is not the same as a handout or subsidy in any case.
"We gave them $50 mill to keep regional papers running which they shut down the year after."
An AAP fact check says that this claim is false. See their article "News Corp and PM ‘defrauding the taxpayer’ claim is fake news".
"Another $30 mill to foxtel to make women's sport more available..."
Actually, to increase coverage. "More available" seems to be your wording. And so what? Commissioning a private company to provide a service that the government wants provided is not a handout or subsidy. It's a fee for service.
"Hockey provided almost $900 million vash payment to newscowp. Details are too complex to type out, afr have a food write up..."
Another fail. Your source says nothing about Hockey providing it. Your source is a left-wing one making it out to be something it's not. The "cash payment" was a refund on taxes that they were not required to pay. It was not a handout nor a subsidy.
"Same for nine, only ..."
...only you've provided even fewer specifics to check.
"lso, its run by former liberal treasurer who used nine to fund raise for lnp lmao."
Another evidence-free claim. You're not good at the 'evidence' part, are you?
"If you think they aren't getting kick backs then I have a collection plate to give you!"
I wouldn't take that plate. After all, if you think these things were gifts, I'd be suspicious of your gift of a plate. But no, I don't think that they are getting kickbacks. Because you've not only provided no evidence of kickbacks/handouts/subsidies, your attempts at providing the evidence show that you can't even get your facts straight.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"inflation which is [corporate greed]"
No, that's governments printing money.
"the suppression of technology that would give us all cheap, clean energy,"
Nuclear? Yes, you got that one right.
"why 80% of wealth in America is owned by the 10% and the other 90% only hold 20%. If you think that is right, you're a lunatic."
It depends on what you mean by "right"? If 10% do most of the work and earn 80% of the wealth, there's nothing wrong with that. If you think that governments ought to take some of that 80% off those who worked hard to make it and give it to the ones that didn't, that's wrong.
"It is called crony capitalism, which the right love so much that is causing the people to suffer."
Incorrect. Conservatives love capitalism, the freedom to use your own capital the way you choose. It's distinct from slavery (someone owns you), serfdom (you have no choice but to work for the lord) and socialism (the government owns everything and you love it). Crony capitalism is an aberration from that.
"Let me remind all you hypocrite Christian right that our saviors' teachings are more liberal / social leaning, and it would be nice to practice them if you want to say you are a Christian."
Actually, Christians do. Jesus said nothing about expecting governments to help those in need. He expected us to. Studies have shown that Christians give more of their money, time, and blood to help those in need than liberals. Liberals expect governments to help those in need by taxing workers. That saves those liberals from having to bother themselves.
"You right lie almost about everything,..."
Yeah, sure. Or maybe that's a lie.
"...you guys that say trickle-down economics works,..."
Why do you think it doesn't?
"...or letting corporations get away with even more white-collar crime, dump toxins, chemicals in our air, water and on and on with your ... lies."
I'm not aware of any conservatives that support those things. Again, maybe that's the lie.
"Say you stand with the constitution but backed a man, Trump that violated more than any other president ..."
What's your evidence?
"Bunch of hypocrites and liars and the left isn't much better."
Actually, the left is a lot worse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paulchilds9137
"kean ... helps to keep it in power by being a moderate, as glades and baird were."
I don't accept that leaning left (fancifully called being moderate) does help keep it in power. If anything, I think it undermines it. If you like people who lean to the left, why not go with the real lefties?
"NSW and Victorua are big highly educated progressive states and the natives do not like scomos conservatism."
Well, that's the real question, isn't it? The left-leaning media give the impression that everyone agrees with them, but it's also quite clear that not everyone agrees with them on everything. It's what's known as the the 'silent majority'. Now I can't prove to you that those that disagree with the left are in a majority, but I'm also not sure that you can prove that they aren't.
I also noticed your implied slur there that those who are not so conservative are not as well educated.
It's been pointed out more than once that when people really do stand up properly in a conservative way (as the 'moderates' don't, and even some more to the 'right' don't), then the actually do get considerable support. That's why in the U.S. you have very popular governors like in Florida and Virginia, because they're not 'moderate' conservatives who say some of the right things but do little; they actually strongly support what's right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bluesman7292
"i have never seen a sound logical argument to prove the existence of the christian god, care to share ?"
Then I suggest that you haven't been looking. For one, the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus is evidence.
However, I will question what you mean by "prove". Mathematical proof? Scientific proof? Criminal court proof? Civil court proof? Something else?
There is plenty of "evidence", but whether or not it qualifies as "proof" to you depends on what you mean by that word.
"Historical evidence of jesus does not prove what the bible says about him is true."
The Bible says He existed. Historical evidence says that He existed. If you don't consider that "proof", you're close-minded. On the other hand, if you're claiming that evidence that Jesus existed doesn't prove every single detail the Bible gives about him, yes, you're correct. But then you could make the same claim for every single other figure from ancient history.
"There is no proof i have seen that the universe was created by a god."
A universe cannot (logically) create itself. So the universe must have been created by something outside the universe, i.e. God. Why wouldn't that count as logical proof?
"Give me the best prophecy that has been fulfilled and prove that it was a divinely inspired prophecy."
Prophecy is not an area that I'm particularly expert on, so I'm not sure what the "best" one would be. But from memory, there was a prophecy that named an actual king (Darius, I think) well before he was around. And there were lots of prophecies about Jesus, such as in Isaiah 53.
As for proving that it was divinely inspired, surely the very fact of fulfillment shows that?
1
-
@bluesman7292
"Then why do you believe what the bible claims if that is correct?"
First, no ancient historical account is going to be able to have every single detail confirmed independently. That's simply expecting far too much. Second, because if it proves to be reliable on the things that you can independently confirm, why not accept it on the other details?
"Historical claims about other historical figures aren’t usually miraculous or extraordinary like the ones about jesus,…"
Actually, many are, I believe.
"…extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence."
A nice line that is often repeated by atheists, but has two problems. First, it is a non-sequitur. All claims need sufficient evidence. Second, what makes it an extraordinary claim? What is extraordinary about God being able to rise from the dead?
"For example, Just because a historical king arthur could of existed or could be proven, doesn’t mean every story or tale about him is true, those tales have to be proven."
True, it logically doesn't follow that every claim is true. But IF the sources are shown to be reliable, then most likely other details from those sources are true also.
"How do you know a universe can’t logically create it self?"
Because an effect cannot precede a cause.
"How did your god come about?"
He didn't come about. He has always existed. He had no beginning.
"Or are you special pleading for your god ?"
No. Different kettle of fish.
"Your argument about prophecy is an argument from ignorance."
How so? You don't explain.
"So you’re saying if a prophecy is fulfilled it has to be divinely inspired because you can’t think of another way it could of happened?"
When you can't attribute it to chance or non-divine design, yes. Because sans God, humans don't know the future.
"Yes there are heaps of animals and DNA, and planets and life, just because they exist does not mean they are designed by a created. Explain why they have to be “made” by someone."
Because their genomes contain meaningful information, which can only come from an intelligence.
"The flood has been debunked..."
How? When? By who? Sure, there are many who reject it, but I know of no actual debunking that actually addresses the claims.
"…most christians would tel you not to even mention it,…"
Maybe, but many others, including scientists, do mention it, because it's true.
"…what animal bones prove that it happened?"
The vast majority of fossils that could not have been formed by processes that we see happening today.
"The diverse range of endemic species on earth prove that did not happen."
How do they prove that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sixtus9559
"God kills those in Africa by famine because they did what exactly wrong?"
We have all done wrong. But who has God supposedly killed in Africa? The problems are man-made.
"so everything bad everytime is caused by man."
Yes, ultimately if not directly.
"And what exactly is God doing then?"
Wanting us to return to Him. Offering us forgiveness.
"yeah the most christian lands are in Africa and South America, ..."
Historically, that's not correct, even if it's moving that way now. Historically, the West was the most Christian place, and it's that Christianity that made the West as great and successful as it became. The West is living on it's Christian legacy. Africa and South America is living on it's non-Christian legacy, but if things keep going the way they are, I expect that those places will overtake the West.
"...nothing gets better there."
Oh? A journalist and politician wrote: "... I’ve become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people’s hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good."
That journalist and politician was an atheist. He was in Africa and actually saw it for himself.
"A verse like this is found in every religion"
You're incorrect. Does the Secular Humanism religion say that? What about other atheist religions like Marxism, Zen Buddhism, Scientology, etc.?
"And an all loving God that punishes me with death and/or misery when I stop telling him he's the best? Sounds more like a narcissistic [deleted]"
Given that God gave you life and you rejected God (as we all did), then you're hardly in a position to complain when he withdraws and takes with him some of what he gave you, like, umm, life. You're actually blaming God for your own sin, and trying to spin it as Him being the bad one.
1
-
1
-
@sixtus9559 When the churches started universities, it was just for a select few (probably priests and royals, as you said). However, it was the Protestants who changed that. Quoting from a Psychology Today article:
"Much of the impetus for universal education came from the emerging Protestant religions. Martin Luther declared that salvation depends on each person's own reading of the Scriptures. A corollary, not lost on Luther, was that each person must learn to read and must also learn that the Scriptures represent absolute truths and that salvation depends on understanding those truths. Luther and other leaders of the Reformation promoted public education as Christian duty, to save souls from eternal damnation."
Luther lived 200 years before the so-called 'Enlightenment'.
"The whole "entlightment" was to break the science and society free of the bounds of the church."
It didn't start that way, as I understand it. It was originally Christian, but then the neo-atheists took over. And no, it was not necessarily to free society from the church, but from the Bible. Charles Lyell said that he had the goal to "free the science from Moses".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blackknightjack3850 What makes you so sure that that is the only thing that justifies that sort of comment? Lots of people have that view, and most, I would suggest, are not being paid by fossil fuel interests. One reason for saying that is that fossil fuels, unlike solar and wind, are very good for providing baseload power, i.e. not subject to the sun shining or the wind blowing.
And you're still not justifying most of your claim. Rather, you make a claim, get challenged on it, then ignore that and make another claim. On the few occasions that you do try and justify a claim, it's on the basis of baseless assumptions, such as in this case of reckoning that there could not be any other reason for his views.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@neilhorrabin6320
"'Im not trying to covert you to being atheist I'm saying where you are raised is likely to be the religion/God you belive in."
I didn't assume that you were trying to convert me. But your comment is meaningless unless your trying to make a causal association between the two, which doesn't follow, because it doesn't explain the millions of exceptions. Why, for example, has the Christian population in China grown from from around four million in 1948 to around 100 million today? It's not because it's a Christian country.
" I take it you don't believe in Thor, Odin, Allah etc etc etc. Well neither do I. You believe in one less God than me so to paint we are bitg atheist."
I tired old argument. There can only be one God, by definition, as I have pointed out. Therefore either all, or all but one, must be false. Going from one to none is actually quite a big jump (a 100% decrease), is without evidence, and even contrary to the evidence, as I have pointed, but you keep ignoring.
"I don't see any evidence that God does exist..."
Even though I've mentioned some? That would show that you're not even trying? What sort of evidence would you expect to find? There are lots of sources that can point out evidence to you, so if you're not aware of it, it's either that you haven't tried or you've dismissed it as not even being evidence for some unexplained reason.
"... I don't see evidence as to where God came from..."
Which shows that you don't even understand the issue. God is timeless and simply IS. He didn't "come from" anywhere.
"so I'm happy being a good person without the need for religion."
Two problems. First, you say "without the need for religion", yet much of what you believe actually comes from Christianity, and atheism supplies no basis for it. For example, what do you even understand "good" to be? For an atheist, there is no reference point in atheism for what is "good" and "bad". Those concepts come from God's standards. Sure, you can make up your own standards, but being made up, they are not actually standards, but preferences. "good" and "bad" are actually reduced to "like" and "dislike".
Second, being a "good person" is not good enough for God, who demands perfection. You might think that you don't need God, but if He really does exist, then one day He will judge you by whether you're really "good" or not (where the 'pass mark' is perfection). If you fail (you will; we all do), then your only hope is to accept God's forgiveness. Once you die, it's too late to do that.
Now, I'm sure you don't want to believe that. But that doesn't mean that it's not true. And of course I'm not saying that you should believe it just because I claim it's so. But what if it IS so? Shouldn't you at least check out the claim a bit?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GragoryBell89
"sir this is what a genocide is."
Merriam Webster: "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" Note "group", not "individuals in a group".
Oxford: "The deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group."
Collins: "the deliberate murder of a whole community or race."
So no, that is not what genocide is.
"do you not think that being discriminated from 1788 until 1976 ... My mother would have been directly impacted by laws actively preventing her from voting in federal elections for example."
That aborigines could not vote in federal elections until 1976 is a furphy. It's actually more complicated than that. With an act of federal parliament in 1902, aborigines could vote in federal elections as long as they already had the right to vote (in the colonies) before 1901. And they had that right everywhere except Queensland and Western Australia. In 1922, the Northern Territory was added to that list.
In 1949, the right to vote in federal elections was extended to all aborigines (regardless of state/territory) if they'd served in the military.
In WA in 1944 and the NT in 1957 the right to vote was extended to some aborigines.
In 1962 all aborigines got the right to vote in federal elections, regardless of their right to vote in state or territory elections. However, WA and the NT gave them the right to vote in their elections soon after, and Queensland followed suit in 1965.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bossstarling217alt2
"...Christianity, ... is one of the main reasons why older generations were able to flourish."
It's the main reason Western Civilisation has flourished. David Aikman (former Time reporter) wrote:
-----
The eighteen American tourists visiting China weren’t expecting much from the evening’s lecture. They were already exhausted from a day of touring in Beijing. But what the speaker had to say astonished them.
“One of the things we were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world,” he said. “We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next, we focused on your economic system. But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West has been so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.”
This was not coming from some ultra-conservative think tank in Orange County, California ... . This was a scholar from China's premier academic research institute, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) in Beijing in 2002.
-----
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@psidot
"The Voice was never about race..."
It specifically and explicitly gave something to a particular subset of the population based on their "race". It was blatantly racist.
"... it was about indigeneity. ... race, ethnicity, and indigeneity are three different concepts, ..."
Okay, I'll tentatively accept that. But the problem with racism is that it disciminates on the basis of an irrelevant characteristic (i.e. "race"). If you want to argue that it was about discriminating on the basis of "indigeneity", then how is that any better?
"...though most people tend to overlap all three into a single concept, which is incorrect"
Like the people who called Dutton 'racist' for opposing the indigenous-based discrimination? He opposed it on the grounds that it was targeted at one particular group of people. YOU assume that he therefore opposed it on the basis of 'race', because you are implicitly treating them as a race.
"Indigeneity is a broad term that refers to the First Peoples of a specific regional area."
It's a word with multiple meanings (like most words). It can include anyone born in a given place. Which means that I'm indigenous, even though I have no aboriginal ancestors. And what is the evidence for aborigines being the "First" people in Australia (i.e before any other people)?
"The Voice was about recognising a group of First Peoples who were here many many years before the most recent wave of arrivals,..."
False. First, none of the current aborigines were here before any other non-aborigines. Second, it wasn't merely about "recognising" them, as you go on to admit. So that is misinformation from you.
"...and, by its very nature, was designed to prompt (sic) their needs."
No, it was designed to give them a benefit that others didn't have. Classic unfair discrimination.
"There is nothing ostensibly bad about this,..."
How so? Most people think that unfair discrimination IS bad.
"...nor was it based on any particular race as you suggest."
I never heard any "Yes" campaigner claim that it was about indigeneity.
"Your "one-to-one" concept is far too simplistic..."
But is it really? Your own "one-to-one" concept is that "indigenous" refers to having some ancestors who were here before British settlement, rather than recognising that most "indigenous" people have mixed heritage.
"The Voice was about recognising and acknowledging the First Nations Peoples of Australia as the first inhabitants of this country."
I've already shown this to be false. That was one (or two) of the lies put out by the "yes" crowd.
"The essential criterion was indigeneity, not race or ethnicity."
But you said that "indigeneity" was about being the first people, with you obviously meaning "descended from" the first people, which, as I've said, ignores that man are of mixed heritage. It's your concept that is far too simplistic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@turnerfamilyinozi
"Hi Philip, I tried to respond to your claims about atheism but Youtube wouldn't let me."
I haven't had YouTube block anything I've said lately, but it does hide a lot of stuff. Because of previous problems, however, I studiously avoid putting links in comments. I don't know if that was your problem.
"Scientologists believe in a god."
There does appear to be some disagreement about that, but a scientology website says "The Church has no dogma concerning God,..."
"Though I will bow to your superior knowledge of Mary Baker. I have never heard of her."
Her "Christian science" is a rather small group these days, and I don't think it was ever large. They are just called "Christian Science", but I include the founder's name to make it clear that it is a group with that name, not a reference to Christians into science or anything like that.
"Look, all I can do is suggest you check out the science."
Which I have.
"If you disagree with it and have evidence that it is wrong, then don't present the evidence to me. present it to the world."
The evidence I "have" is not original to me. Others have already made it available to the world. But the point is that I was responding to claims you made. Therefore you are the appropriate person to respond to.
"Then it can be peer reviewed."
But can it? While I strongly support proper science and agree in principle with peer review, it's not all it's cracked up to be.
"The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong." (my bolding). That was said by Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet.
"Science...is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as “truth”? is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment in time … [Scientists] are not really receptive or not really open-minded to any sorts of criticisms or any sorts of claims that actually are attacking some of the established parts of the research (traditional) paradigm—in this case neo-Darwinism—so it is very difficult for people who are pushing claims that contradict the paradigm to get a hearing. They’ll find it difficult to [get] research grants; they’ll find it hard to get their research published; they’ll, in fact, find it very hard."
(My bolding again). That was from Professor Evelleen Richards from the University of New South Wales.
"Hey Philip, when our you going to produce evidence that your god is real?"
Whenever I'm asked nicely by someone who has not refused to produce evidence for their own prior claims.
1
-
1
-
@binmcbin1890
"Ad hominems can be true you know!"
Of course. But they are not the way to argue.
"If someone gives me a quote, says it says something it doesn't, won't back down when shown he is wrong then committs a dishonest argument from ignorance then I'm fully within my right to say your argument is dishonest."
You're always within your right to say that the argument is dishonest, if it is, but not that the person is dishonest. The former is rational argument; the latter is ad hominem.
"That's attacking your postilion not your character so settle down with thr self victimisation."
When you say "You're so dishonest." (an exact quote) you're attacking my character, not my position.
"It's so frustrating that you have moved the goal posts, falsely attribute that quote, ignore the fact that there is no Santa, reindeer, mistletoe, holly, gift giving or any of thr Christmas traditions in the bible, there is no record that it was celebrated prior to sop invictus NOTHING!"
It's so frustrating that you're continuing to argue a strawman, as most of that is.
"You've totally shifted the burden of proof here."
No, I have not.
"There are records that sol invictus was first,…"
You've not provided any.
"(which we all know is inaccurate anyway)"
No, we don't.
"For you to then claim that this quote doesn't NOT show any festivities means there could have been is NOT proof!"
Another strawman.
"It's recorded that sol invictus began on 274 AD."
As I understand it, it's recorded that it was declared then, not that it actually happened then. Just for the record; I'm not basing any argument on that detail.
"Christmas as a celebration ... wasn't recorded until 387."
Which is (clearly) not evidence that it happened first. But neither is it conclusive evidence of Sol Invictus being first.
"Burden of proof is on you to dispute the general consensus among historians, you've failed to do that."
I originally said that the quote showed it being celebrated before Sol Invictus. I subsequently dropped that claim, but maintained that it showed that 25th December was based on what was thought to be Jesus' actual birthday (and not simply a guess, let alone a prediction of something which you bizarrely claimed but never explained). You have not shown that the date was based on replacing any pagan festivals.
"…no dishonest backwards churchy with an agenda…"
Yet more abusive ad hominem.
"You've also moved the goal posts big time. Your whole thing was this one quote, which doesn't prove anything... after realising that you've back tracked…"
When I realised that the quote did not mean one thing that I thought it meant, I modified my argument. Nothing wrong with that. Moving the goal posts is when a) I claim A, b) you argue against A, and I then say c) that you haven't refuted B, as though d) B was what I originally claimed. I never did d).
"…when you see the Christmas tree today, think of the Egyptians who have been doing that custom long before Christmas."
The Egyptians have been having a Christmas tree long before Christmas? Yeah? And you reckon I have no credibility!
"…btw, enjoy your pagan holiday turned holy…"
I did enjoy my Christian celebration of Christ's birth. Even when I thought as you do, that Christmas replaced a pagan festival, I still understood it to be a Christian celebration. Replacing a pagan event does not make it pagan.
"(It's amazing how often I have to repeat myself, you just refuse to understand, actually kinda frightening how well you ignore evidence and reason to push an agenda... but then, I guess not that surprising seeing as you're a believer lol)"
It's the non-believers who have no sound basis for telling the truth. As a Christian, I do.
"I mean you've ignored sextus Julius africanus who argued march 25th around the same time..."
You mean someone who you failed to mention when I asked who else came up with different dates? According to a Britannica blog, "The Roman Christian historian Sextus Julius Africanus dated Jesus’ conception to March 25 (the same date upon which he held that the world was created), which, after nine months in his mother’s womb, would result in a December 25 birth."
"So let me use your logic..... sextus predicted jesus birthday to be March 25th, so that means that all Christians were celebrating on the march 25th and all recognised Christmas and it definitely didn't replace sol invictus at all even though all the recorded history says so and there is no proof Christmas was in any way a thing before, there is no proof that Christmas WASNT ackowledged celebrated by Christians all over the world so therefore the date of msrch 25th is and always has been Christmas."
More strawman. None of that was my logic.
"This is what you've done."
That is absolutely NOT what I have done. As I said, that is all strawman.
This is what I have done:
1) I said that Christmas was a Christian festival.
2) I supported that by citing Hippolytus of Rome mentioning Christmas being celebrated as early as AD 202. I later withdrew that claim.
3) I also supported it by citing Hippolytus of Rome mentioning Jesus' birth being on 25th December for reasons given, which shows that 25th December was not chosen for the purpose of replacing a pagan festival on that date.
4) I said that the first known date of Christmas being celebrated later than the first known date that Sol Invictus was declared and the first known date that it was celebrated does not prove that Sol Invictus came first. (I do not deny that it is circumstancial evidence.)
You have not produced evidence contradicting Nos. 1 or 3. You have not produced conclusive evidence contradicting No. 4.
"You've extrapolated things that don't exist from 1 mis attributed quote."
What was misattributed about it? In fact I never even gave you the quote. I simply gave you the attribution and you apparently found the quote yourself from that attribution! How could you do that if I misattributed it?
1
-
@binmcbin1890
"Let me ask you."
a) No. I agree that it was declared in AD 274; whether it began then I don't know. I've read that the first clear record of it actually being celebrated was in AD 354.
b) No. I'm not saying you're wrong, but neither am I agreeing you're right. I don't know.
"you asked me to disprove that fact that christmas is a christian holiday…"
Not exactly, I asked for evidence of your claim that it's origins were a pagan festival.
"Well it does. This is where you have a big lack of understand of evidence. The evidence shows sol invictus began in 274 and christmas began sometime after 313."
If so, that's evidence that you haven't provided. Evidence of it happening in AD 313 (per your question b)) is NOT evidence that it didn't happen earlier. The earliest known celebration need not be the earliest celebration. That doesn't mean that there can't be evidence that AD 313 was actually the first, IF that is what the evidence said, but your question b) did not claim that.
"if you claim that that record is wrong YOU have to prove it."
I agree. But I'm no longer claiming that, as I have made explicitly clear.
"There is just as much evidence to make the claim that we celebrated velentines for 20 years in the 300s too! Are you understanding this?"
You don't seem to be understanding that I'm not (any longer) making a claim that Christmas was celebrated before AD 313. Rather, sans evidence to the contrary, I'm saying that simply knowing that it was celebrated in that year doesn't mean that it wasn't celebrated earlier. And, I'll add, that's not my main point anyway.
"before you realised hippoloytus's quote was trash…"
I never did. I realised that it didn't claim what I thought it claimed. That doesn't mean that it's trash. You have a love of overstating things, it seems.
"This is why I think youre dishonest. Youve totally flipped on what is reality and what is the threshold of proof."
Nothing dishonest about making an honest mistake. And that has nothing to do with reality and proof. Again, you're going way overboard.
"…then youve now decided that not knowing for sure that something didnt happen is fine."
That was always the case. I never claimed that it started in AD 202. I never said when it started. I said (incorrectly, as it turned out), that the quote showed that it had started by about then. For all I know, it could have started 100 years before that! Not knowing for sure was always 'fine', and still is.
"Using your logic, I too can claim, without evidence that sol invictus was first because you cant prove it isnt."
That never was my logic, and still isn't.
"This is called shifting the burden of proof."
Maybe it would be, but as I said, that's not my logic.
"…you made a claim that your proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false."
Then quote me where I said that, because I flatly deny that I ever did. Rather, you read that into my comments.
"This is a ridiculous argument."
I agree. Which is why I never used that argument.
"I suggest reading a few basic logic fallacies. because you dont know what strawmans are either…"
Nonsense. Claiming I used that logic was a strawman.
"…pagan traditions not mentioned in the bible is a very relevant point in how Christmas has adopted pagan traditions,…"
I never suggested that pagan traditions were mentioned in the Bible, nor did I claim that Christmas didn't include any pagan traditions, so no, it's not relevant to this discussion, and as such, was a strawman.
"…theres no dececmber 25th in the bible,…"
Again, I never claimed that there was, so refuting something I never claimed is a strawman.
"…in fact its almost certain that is wasnt December 25th when jesus was born. The bible says the sheppards and their sheep were out, sheppards didnt have their sheep out in the middle of winter in Bethlehem."
Except that they have done just that. Bethlehem is not too cold for them in winter.
"…evidence you dont like isnt a strawman."
And that is another strawman, because I never claimed that it was.
"you dont need to copy and paste the quote to misattributed it lol."
I didn't say that you did. I said that I didn't give a quote, only the attribution. How could I misattribute a quote if I don't provide the quote?
"I mean, are you actually making that argument?"
No, I wasn't. Read it again.
"you dont understand what a misattributed quote is either."
What do you think it is? To misattribute is "to incorrectly indicate the cause, origin, or creator of (something)". Are you somehow claiming that Hippolytus's quote was actually by someone else? Because that's what accusing me of misattributing it means.
"When you misquote…"
Misquoting is different to misattributing, in case that's what you're thinking.
"…is when you say a quote it doesnt only mean you changed the text, it means you can incorrectly attribute meaning, origin, context of the quote. Thats what youve done."
You seem to think that any problem with a quote can be called a misattribute or a misquote. That is incorrect. I've pointed out what misattribution is. Misquoting is, contrary to your claim, simply getting the text wrong. Given that I didn't quote, I clearly didn't do that either.
What I did was misinterpret the quote. That is not misattribution nor misquoting. When you say "The more I talk to you, the more I realise you dont know basic logic and crititcal thinking.", I have to wonder if you're the one who needs some education.
"…this is a perfect example of a misattributed quote as it ignores the context…"
Again, it's not misattribution. And it's not, as far as I know, out of context in the normal meaning of that word (which is to do with other things in the same text).
"…it misrepresents the text by claiming it shows it was celebrated,…"
As I've admitted. Trying to turn one admitted error into multiple errors is not lending you any credibility.
"…and there is no word christmas (this is something else youre failing to grasp, a bithdate prediction isnt christmas. christmas is the traditions and organised celebration of jesus's birthday, more dishonesty)"
Nothing dishonest about that at all. Christmas is, by definition, a celebration of Jesus birthday. Hippolytus was talking about the date of Jesus' birthday. The only error is the same one admitted to.
"I wish youd wake up to yourself and be a bit more honest."
And I wish you'd stop falsely accusing me of dishonesty and a whole lot of other things.
"You have a set theory and are desperatly trying to make it so instead of just listening to the evidence."
I also wish you'd stop repeating your baseless claims of my motives.
"come on mate. do you want to be taken seriously? this is just so awfully flawed I wonder if even you believe this dribble? This quote isnt proof that Hippoloytus's prediction was the reason for choosing the 25th lmao. you dont have that!"
What's "awfully flawed" about it. I never claimed it as "proof", but "evidence". I also never said that 25th was chosen solely on the basis of Hippolytus' reasoning which, for the umpteenth time, was not a "prediction". (But, given that you don't understand misattribution either, I guess I have to wonder if English is not your first language.) What I claimed is that it is evidence that 25th wasn't chosen in order to replace a pagan festival. Now, it is possible that Constantine might have been unaware of Hippolytus and Sextus Julius Africanus and others(?) believing 25th December to be Jesus' birthday, and just coincidentally coming up with that date for completely different reasons. But you haven't offered any evidence of that. So the evidence that we have discussed so far suggests that 25th December was chosen for non-Pagan reasons.
"Please answer my questions at the start. which do we disagree on?"
Lot's of claims that you have brought up, but the main one is that Christmas had a pagan, rather than Christian, origin.
"PS. no it doesnt make christmas any less special. which is why im confused about why white washing history is so important to you."
I'd suggest that the reason you are confused is that you've made up your mind that my motives are something other than what they really are. I have already rejected that I'm whitewashing anything, and I've explained that my sole reason is the evidence.
"this is actually astounding, this logic doesnt hold up anywhere else but inside your mind."
And yet you don't point out what is illogical about it. There is nothing illogical in saying that the first known occasion of something was not necessarily the first occasion of something. I remember reading many years ago that it was thought that the story of William Tell shooting an apple off his son's head with a crossbow was obviously fictional as crossbows hadn't been invented in his time. And then they found evidence that showed they'd been around longer than they previously thought. The first known record of something does not prove that it started at that point. That is simply basis logic.
"I love how much youve shifted from your first over arrogant response lmao"
Nothing arrogant about it. You're projecting, I suspect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@After_Pasta
"Yeah it says that because you deleted the comments & they are still counted"
Do you have evidence of that?
"You want me to have proof that youtube doesn't remove random comments "
I asked for evidence, not proof. I take it that you have none.
"shouldn't it be on you to prove they did remove your comments considering you are making the claim?"
If you challenge my claim, then yes (to providing evidence). Just as it's on you to support your comment if someone challenges it.
First, I know I didn't delete anything.
Second, I can see a comment when I click on a link from a notification. But I often can't see it when I click on the "View n replies". So it's clearly not deleted, but hidden.
Third, I'm not the only one to notice this. Two other people have replied to me (in other threads) saying that they've seen the same thing.
"I am sure the delusional conspiracy that youtube is out to get Philip Rayment will continue"
First, again, do you have any evidence?
Second, I explicitly said "random" comments, not my comments in particular. (Not that I know that it's random, but I've not seen a pattern.)
"though I am looking forward to the next excuse you create"
Well, I've given you my reasons. What are your reasons?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Your ignorance is enormous. It was those "delusional bible bumpers" who founded public hospitals and many charities, who founded the university system and universal education, who twice abolished slavery, who founded modern science, who raised the status of women, who opposed tyrants, who promoted human freedom, who spread democracy, who made Western Civilisation the success that it has been, and so much more.
Sociologist Rodney Stark wrote
“Christianity created Western Civilization. Had the followers of Jesus remained an obscure Jewish sect, most of you would not have learned to read and the rest of you would be reading from hand copied scrolls. Without a theology committed to reason, progress, and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800: A world with many astrologers and alchemists but no scientists. A world of despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys, and pianos. A world where most infants do not live to the age of five and many women die in childbirth–a world truly living in "dark ages."
“The modern world arose only in Christian societies. Not in Islam. Not in Asia. Not in a "secular" society–there having been none. And all the modernization that has since occurred outside Christendom was imported from the West, often brought by colonizers and missionaries.”
Perhaps you should rethink who it is that is delusional.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Seriously, the ABC is a world class news and entertainment organisation."
Evidence?
"SKY is a very small organisation..."
Relevance?
"...with a very small elderly audience."
You're being ageist.
"The ABC is paid for by taxpayers but so is SKYs owner News Corp,..."
Evidence of News Corp being paid by taxpayers please.
"...which pays little or no tax in australia and has done so for many years."
Evidence of them not paying the tax they are supposed to, please.
"Kenny says News Corp discusses a far greater range of views than the ABC."
Which sounds like a good thing, surely.
"Seriously, SKy is stacked with former Liberal Party politicans..."
If you consider who they have on panels, they have quite a few from the left, and who of the main presenters are former politicians of any sort? Bolt isn't. Credlin isn't. Kenny isn't. Murray isn't. Panahi isn't. Yes, there are a few, but "stacked"? No, the evidence disagrees.
"...and idiots from far far right think tanks, ..."
Having a different view to you doesn't make them idiots, and being a long way from the far left doesn't make them far right. Resorting to insults is not the way to make your case.
"...very few of these people are trained journalists."
I'd say that's a good thing, given the biased training that journalists get.
"The ABC is a distinguished australian, ..."
Distinguished by it's bias and cost and failure to abide by its legislation.
" SKY is a small part of a US billionaires troubled business."
Again, what's the relevance of their size?
In that entire comment, you did not make one relevant criticism of Sky, nor one evidence-based defence of the ABC. You clearly do not know how to make an argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hughmiller925
"Two fundamental truths can exist at one time,..."
Only if they don't contradict each other. But in this case they do, and that is my point: aboriginal activists reject their own historical accounts involving a creator in favour of secular Western views based on the philosophy of naturalism which contradict the aboriginal accounts.
"...that of Western modern academia and science, by way of archaeological and anthropological records."
I'm not sure what you mean by "anthropological records". In the case of Aboriginal Australia, there are no written records.
"Almost every culture on earth has invented tools, permanent structures, clothing and, interestingly enough, and separate to each other the bow and arrow, after the spear."
First, so what?
Second, I think you overstate the case; there are many that don't have permanent structures.
Third, in many cases, those developments were not done independently.
"Almost no cultural anthropological evidence exists for native people,..."
I don't know what you mean there, but we have plenty of evidence of tribal groups with little technology.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@goldencalf5144
"It's a religious text, not a history book."
Why can't it be both? And what makes it a "religious" text? The fact that a couple of religions came out of it? That doesn't mean that it's not (at least in part) a book of history. Or do you think that the religions invented it? If so, what's your evidence?
"The Earth and the Universe as we know it was formed over billions of years, not six days."
According to naturalism. I don't accept naturalism. It's baseless. Or perhaps you can provide some hard evidence?
"There's no evidence for a large scale exodus of Jewish people from Egypt."
Typical atheist misinformation. What you mean is that there is no evidence other than the evidence in the Bible. So what you're saying is that there is no evidence other than the evidence that we have! Duh! That says nothing. Also, do you not understand that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? If your best argument is that we don't have particular pieces of evidence, then you have a very weak argument. And what's your evidence for there being no such evidence anyway?
People also used to claim that there was no extra-biblical evidence that King David existed. And then they found some. And that there was no extra-biblical evidence for the Hittites. And then they found lots. So again, a lack of evidence (if there was indeed a lack) is not a good argument.
"The Ancient Israelites did not conquer Canaan, rather they were Canaanites who gradually went from having a polytheistic religion to a monotheistic one."
Again, what's your evidence?
"Indeed, Yahweh originated as a minor storm god in the Canaanite pantheon. He was the son of El and Baal was his brother. He even had a wife, Asherah."
More evidence-free claims. Or do you, in fact, have hard evidence for this alternative belief?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RowleyBQC
"Unfalsifiability and it's importance are there for the reasons I have demonstrated in my last post."
Repeating your claim without addressing my responses does not change anything.
"Taking your mentality, my Giant Hamster is just as real as God, you can't disprove him, so he is real, that's it."
As I pointed out, that was NOT my mentality. So why are you repeating that claim?
"Joking aside, if you don't see the importance of unfalsifiability,..."
Evidence is important. Unfalsifiability is relevant to scientific topics. From Wikipedia, if you're prepared to accept that source (my bolding): "Falsifiability is a standard of evaluation of scientific theories and hypotheses ..." We are not discussing a scientific theory or hypothesis here.
"...exactly the same applies for god."
That is true, and I never suggested otherwise.
"For both Giant Hamster and god, there is no evidence of their existence either, ..."
Isn't there? I'll accept your claim that there is no evidence for your giant hamster, but what is your evidence that there is no evidence for God's existence?
"...so it would be the most logical thing to assume, that neither exist."
IF you're correct that there is no evidence for either. But you haven't shown that.
"From this I expect to latch on to the point "assume" and there being a chance, well:"
Youi expected incorrectly. I accept your point about "assume". I don't accept your claim that there is no evidence for God. Which shows that you simply don't understand the difference between our respective points of view. You assume you understand my thinking, but you clearly don't. So you should stop projecting your opinion of my thinking onto me. I want to see your evidence for there supposedly being no evidence for God.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@puffin51
"So it's a wooden building, not a ship."
It's a wooden building that represents what Noah's Ark could have been like.
"It is braced, trussed and tied in steel and bedded on steel and concrete because no purely wooden structure that size can survive long in ordinary weather, let alone on the open sea."
Except that such ships have been built and survived more than a year on the open sea.
"That's why the building regulations exist"
To ensure that a ship can survive? Huh?
"The first uses of meteoric iron might go back as far as 2500 BCE, ..."
What about non-meteoric iron?
"Iron was not being forged from ore until about 1500 BCE, nearly a thousand years after Noah is supposed to have built his ark."
I asked for evidence of it not being around in 2400 BC. So all you do is repeat your claim in different words. You've provided no evidence whatsoever.
On the contrary, iron is recorded as being used by Tubal-Cain, a seventh-generation descendant of Adam.
"...after Noah is supposed to have built his ark."
After Noah did build the ark.
"Do not rely on Wikipedia."
I don't. At least not for controversial claims.
"See any standard text ."
If they are from a naturalistic position, I don't rely on those either.
"a ship which neither he nor Athenaeus had ever seen. Plutarch repeats the story, but he'd never seen it, either."
Which means little. You've never seen, say, the library of Alexandria either. Does that mean that it's just legend?
"The dimensions are almost certainly wildly exaggerated, ..."
Why do you think that?
" Wyoming was a widow-maker that nearly foundered three times in a short life, [snipped]"
None of which refutes what I said about it.
"No wooden ship the size of the ark has ever been built."
Repeating your claim does not make it true.
"This is for the excellent reason that it's impossible to make a wooden ship that size seaworthy."
Kind of begging the question, aren't you?
"The flood of Noah is a legend."
What's your evidence?
"It is not recorded as history anywhere,..."
Flatly and blatantly false, given that you know that the Bible records it.
"...by any of the four or five literate cultures that existed in 2400 BC."
Oh, what supposed cultures were they? Given that most of the cultures were founded somewhat after 2400 BC.
"There are at least three Mesopotamian versions of the story,..."
You say that it wasn't recorded, then go on to mention other records of it!
"...all recorded in the original sources as stories - legends from long ago."
Actually, there are hundreds of accounts from around the world, and while many differ in many details (as you'd expect), many also agree in some remarkable details. And no, they are not presented as merely legends.
"The sources all pre-date the Biblical story, one of them from Sumeria by at least a thousand years."
What's your evidence for that? And note that the age of extant documents is not necessarily the age of the originals.
"The Giza pyramids, built on flat land near the Nile, have been dated from four or five convergent methods to have been built between 3000 and 2500 BC, but have never been immersed."
Four or five naturalistic methods, i.e. methods that a priori exclude any explanations that involve the supernatural. As such, citing them is to make a circular argument. But what are these supposed four or five convergent methods?
"There was no world-wide flood. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there ever was."
Okay, so you consider evidence to be important. Good. (Although you failed to provide any for the one claim that I asked for evidence for.) So what's your evidence for that claim? Because I know of plenty of evidence for the flood.
"...because He was angry at unspecified "wickedness"."
Righteously angry. You omitted that bit. This is about justice, not throwing a fit.
"He said He was sorry for getting in a snit like that, ..."
He didn't say that. You're making that up.
"...and - get this - put a sign in the sky to remind Himself not to."
Nope. Not true.
"Do you really think that this combination of psychopath, sadist and toddler should be worshipped?"
You haven't shown any psychopathy, sadism, nor that He was a toddler. So you are asking a loaded question that is baseless.
"Because I sure don't."
I wouldn't either, but then you're talking about a being of your own imagination.
1
-
@puffin51
""I have to congratulate Mr Rayment on his tactics. His arguments were entirely spurious,…"
We'll see.
"It's a building, not a ship. "Ham keeps calling it an ark,…"
I said that it was a building. So your point is...? So my argument was not spurious there. And it is intended to represent Noah's Ark, so it is quite reasonable to call it an ark. Still not spurious.
"…which is taking advantage of a confusion in translation. Most people think "ark" means "large wooden ship". It actually means something more like "chest" or "box"."
Which is why creationists tend to think that it was box-shaped (AiG is a bit of an outlier there.) But the Bible refers to it as an ark, and gives dimensions, so this ark was large. Nothing spurious there.
"Whatever it is, it could never survive on an open sea,…"
Oh? What's your evidence for that? Because experts say otherwise. So nothing spurious there.
Regarding Athenaeus, it's not in evidence that it was all fiction. Britannica says "The value of the work lies partly in the great number of quotations from lost works of antiquity that it preserves and partly in the variety of unusual information it affords on all aspects of life in the ancient Greco-Roman world." Further, it wasn't the only large ship in history. Another was the Leontifera.
Sure, the library of Alexandria was seen by others, but your argument was that Athenaeus hadn't seen the boat, therefore it was not a reliable source. You've now shifted your argument to how many and who have seen it, not whether it was seen. And simply waved away the evidence for Noah's ark.
"The question is, how well do the sources stand up to critical examination? ... Noah's ark, not at all."
A claim that you haven't shown to be true. See more below.
Your argument regarding the Wyoming is very selective. You still ignore that it lasted 14 years. And unlike the ark, it has masts, which put a lot more strain on the structure.
"There is no "begging the question" in that logic."
Actually, there is. You're critiquing the account by assuming the accuracy of the naturalistic view. In the naturalistic view, people have gotten smarter through the millennia, and only accumulated knowledge and technology. Therefore you assume that the "later nineteenth century … shipwrights … were … the best shipwrights in the world" and that "If it were possible to produce a seaworthy wooden ship of that size, ithey'd have done it.". But from a biblical perspective, man was created perfect (without fault) and has only deteriorated since. Therefore, later people are less intelligent then earlier ones. In addition, most knowledge and technology that initially accumulated was lost with the flood. Therefore your naturalistic assumption that Noah was not as clever as the 19th century shipwrights nor had as much knowledge as those shipwrights is the question-begging part of your logic. And even though I doubt that he had steam pumps on the ark, you can't actually be sure that he didn't. Similarly, he had antediluvian timber available, which could have been a better choice than the timbers available today.
"The stories in Genesis are not historical records, and they never claim to be."
They are written as history, and the world's top experts in the language agree that it was meant to be taken as history. So that's your claim that was spurious.
"They were assembled from several major sources, themselves probably compendia of oral tales, by Temple scribes in the fifth or fourth century BC."
That view has long been debunked.
"This is known from their different vocabulary, the varied archaism of their language and their evident different interests."
On the contrary, there is evidence in the language of the antiquity of it. For example, there are references to place names in Egypt that were known at the time of Moses, but not known in the fifth and fourth centuries BC.
"Not even Paul, centuries later, claimed that they were literal."
On the contrary, the New Testament authors—and Jesus—spoke of past people and events as though they were real, with no hint that they were not. Peter even makes reference to those who "…deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed."
"The cultures of Egypt, Sumer, Akkad, the Indus, and at least two sites in what is now China were literate by the beginning of the third millennium BC."
What's your evidence for that date? Because that's the question you're begging here—that whatever records or evidence you're basing that on does in fact date back that far.
"None of them left any historical record of a world-wide flood."
There is evidence that Egypt did know of Adam and Eve and Noah's children. The first of a few papers on that topic is online, titled "The search for Adam, Eve, and creation in ancient Egypt" by Gavin Cox.
Sumer's account is well known (the Gilgamesh Epic), so I don't know why you ignore that one. Not as well known, but hardly unknown, is the Atrahasis Epic of the Akkadians.
A BBC production had Joanna Lumley travel to India and hear a flood story involving the Hindu god Vishnu. But I don't know details of that one.
Of course, as you admit, there are still plenty of flood accounts from right around the world. Selecting a few that have lost their history of them proves little.
"The documents are themselves older than the Bible."
The extant documents are older than the extant copies of the biblical books. But that proves little too.
continued...
1
-
@puffin51
...continued.
"But they are not found among, for example, the Incas, who lived in the Andes,…"
But they are. One site says (in part) "Pictorial records of ancient Incan rulers show that a flood rose above the highest mountains. All created things perished, except for a man and woman who floated in a box."
Another site has another story: "Like many peoples, the Incas had a story about a great flood that wiped out a race of wicked and unruly people. The flood myth says that during ancient times people were cruel and greedy and failed to pay proper attention to the gods."
"…or among dry-land Australian aboriginals - only those of the south and east where rivers can flood."
An aboriginal flood story from the north west of Western Australia starts "In ancient times the sea made the watermarks on the mountains and ranges. For example Mt. House, Mt. Waterloo, Mt. Hann all have these watermarks, they are right on top." There is another one, the Bundaba Flood Story, that comes from the same area, referencing Mt. Broome. I found two others that come from Western/Central Australia. I didn't actually find any from the south and east.
"…or in the New Guinea highlands,…"
You were wrong on your other two examples, so why should I believe this one? Or make anything of it, given that, as I said, citing come that have lost the stories proved little.
"But in any case, you don't believe any of those other flood legends."
I don't? I don't believe that those other accounts have necessarily been transmitted accurately, but that's not the same as not believing them at all.
"The only reason you believe the Genesis story is because it's in the Bible,…"
Well, that's a reliable source, so why not?
"…you apparently think that the Bible must be read literally."
Because it is meant to be (parables, figures of speech, etc. excepted).
"Only you don't actually read it literally."
I don't? What's your evidence. And how is it consistent to both accuse me of reading it literally and not reading it literally?
"…your addition of the word "righteous" to the description of God's emotions at Genesis 6:5-7. That emotion is described as "bitter regret" that He had ever made human beings. The word "righteous" is applied to Noah, not to God."
God's action is by definition righteous. I don't need the Bible saying that in every instance to know that.
"The facts remain: Genesis says God killed everyone but Noah's family - everyone! - for unspecified "wickedness"."
Why the scare quotes? That is the word used in the Bible, but while chastising me for supposedly adding to Scripture, you're questioning it by your scare quotes on 'wickedness'.
"That is the act of a psychopath."
A psychopath doesn't have the capability. It's the act of a righteous God.
"And the lack of foresight, or wisdom, or restraint…"
What lack of foresight or wisdom? You haven't shown any. And God has a history of being very patient before acting, so no evidence of a lack of restraint either.
"As for God's later remorse…"
What remorse?
"…His placement of the rainbow to remind Himself of his "covenant" not to bring another flood,…"
He said that He would remember the covenant when He saw the rainbow. He doesn't say that the purpose was to remind Himself. You're reading into what you want to read into it.
"…read Gen 8:21 and 9:15, which gives you the lie."
I see no lie there.
"Isn't it odd, that I'm the one citing the text directly, and you're the one mutilating it?"
You've shown no mutilation on my part, and you're not actually quoting it; you're making incorrect claims about references you've provided.
"Of course the dating of the pyramids was done by "naturalistic" means…"
So you're saying that of course the dating was done by means that a priori exclude any explanations that involve the supernatural. Don't you see the bias in that?
"What means do you expect scientists to use? Scrying the crystal? Tea cup readings?"
Reliable documentary sources, such as the Bible (if they actually want to delve into history). (Manetho has long been shown to not be reliable.)
"But the methods themselves are carbon-14 datings of ashes in mortar and timber from within the structure;…"
And yet carbon dating doesn't allow for the effects of the flood, because the scientists are assuming naturalism. Hence citing carbon dating is to make a circular argument.
"These agree with the documentary sources to within a century or two."
They might agree with selected documentary sources, but clearly they don't agree with the documentary source known as the Bible.
"What's your problem with that? Oh, don't tell me. That doesn't fit with the flood legend, so you'd rather throw the evidence away. Well, you can't."
I'm not throwing away evidence. I'm throwing away dates based on the assumption of naturalism. Dates are a naturalistic conclusion, not evidence. The carbon 14 measurements are evidence. The dates you derive from them depend on naturalistic assumptions and therefore aren't evidence.
"You know of no evidence for a world-wide flood approximately four and half thousand years ago."
I said that I did, and I asked you for evidence of your claim that there is no evidence. You have failed to provide the requested evidence (despite making out that evidence is important), and invented a claim that I have no evidence even though I said that I do.
"Evidence is physical material, real records of actual phenomena, that can be verified."
Evidence can include reliable documentary sources.
"There is no such evidence."
An evidence-free claim, despite me challenging you to provide evidence of that claim. So that claim can be discarded as baseless.
"His arguments were entirely spurious, …"
That is shown to be false.
1
-
@puffin51
"Well, I'll concede the Inca. They did have a flood legend."
I cited two, and you're conceding one?
"Dry land Australian aboriginals - that means, from the interior of the continent…"
You explicitly said that "only those of the south and east" had flood accounts. You were wrong.
Further, one of the ones I mentioned was from central Australia.
"…and New Guinea highlanders do not."
Yes, you said that, and I answered that. Repeating it does not make it any more true.
"…most peoples who lived by water did, and that was most. Is that really surprising?"
What's surprising (from your worldview) is the specific details that many of them have in common, and which can't be explained by them all experiencing their own local floods. For example, not a few mention the Noah character sending out birds—specifically a raven in at least seven stories—after the flood.
"But all peoples I can think of have ghost stories, too. Vampires,…"
With remarkably similar details? Please provide the evidence.
"…dragons and giant animals are common."
That doesn't help your case, as they might well have actually experienced both (dinosaurs and larger animals).
"No. If there had been a world-wide, mountain-topping flood four to five thousand years ago, the geological evidence would be overwhelming. There is no such evidence."
A claim that you keep making but keep failing to provide any evidence of, despite being challenged. That strongly suggests that you have no evidence of your claim of no evidence for the flood, and are just repeating your blind faith in no evidence.
"There are lake varves going back a hundred thousand years…"
Who observed the years? That is, how do you know that they cover that time period?
"But nothing like the flood of Noah ever happened."
Yet again, what's your evidence?
"You prefer documentary evidence of the age of the pyramids? That of Manetho…"
I've already addressed Manetho.
"…and the Theban king lists…"
Does it? I can find very little on the Theban list, and what I found doesn't seem to be a problem.
"The pyramids date to about the middle of the third millennium BC."
According to the naturalistic view.
"I repeat, Athenaeus was telling stories."
But it wasn't all fiction.
"There's no reason to believe it ever existed, or could go to sea if it did."
There's no reason to believe that it didn't exist either.
" Wyoming was very fortunate to have lasted fourteen years, and wouldn't have gotten out of the harbour without steam pumps and extensive iron bracing. Noah had neither."
How do you know he had neither? Metal use was known before Noah.
"You're a long way out to say he could have used iron, but when you say he could have had steam pumps, you have simply taken leave of reality"
Why is that? I'll tell you why. Because you're judging how well the biblical account fits with a competing view. Of course the biblical account is not going to fit. But that is an illogical way of looking at it.
"The god you describe as "righteous" killed everyone but one family. You say this is "righteous" by definition."
Because it is. Why do you think it isn't?
"I put "wickedness" in quotes, because it is a quote."
Okay, although the context didn't require it. You could just as easily have said "for unspecified wickedness."
"It is also, however, the only word explaining why god did that."
Not so. There is also the account of the mating of humans and demons.
"But there is no wickedness so great as to justify such a thing."
By your standard. Rejection of the perfect, omnipotent, God is enough reason in itself.
"To perform an evil so overwhelming, this god was far more wicked than those he drowned."
By what standard?
"Most people prefer to find natural explanations for events."
So most people have a bias.
"Finding those explanations is what science does."
So science itself is biased too. (Well, the scientists are; science doesn't actually require that.)
"The application of those explanations to technology has benefited humanity enormously."
Yes, because science is a very good tool when used on things in the present that can be observed, measured, tested, and repeated.
"But you prefer supernatural explanations,…"
False. Unlike you (who apparently prefers natural explanations), I prefer correct explanations, regardless of whether that explanation involved the natural or the supernatural. Why don't you prefer correct explanations?
"…because you're a magical thinker."
No, I do not believe in magic.
"That approach has never produced any worthwhile result."
Not true. Science itself is a product of believing that God created. Is science not worthwhile?
"Who was it said that you will know them by their fruits?"
Jesus, of course. And the fruits of Christian thinking are many. Including science, as I mentioned.
1
-
@puffin51
"Denial is useless."
Does that apply to you too? Because you're denying a lot of things that I've challenged you to provide evidence for, and yet you haven't provided the evidence. Simply repeating the claim ("There never was a flood of Noah.") is not evidence. Where you do provide an argument of sorts, it's hand-waving ("There isn't enough water on the planet") with no specifics, or it's further bald assertions ("No human being ever saw a living dinosaur.")
"No wooden ship of that length and beam could ever survive an ordinary sea-state, because the leverage would be enough to wrench open its seams. … No expert today thinks it could be done."
Naval architects disagree with you. See the paper "Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a seaway".
"Science did not arise from any religion."
The scholarship disagrees with you. For just one example, Loren Eiseley: "The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation … . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption."
"Moral compass? If that's a moral compass, I'll give it a miss."
I challenged you to explain what standard you were judging that by, and the only answer you gave was that that's what you've come to believe. Which is not an answer.
"No human being ever saw a living dinosaur."
We have records of their sightings.
"…the dinosaurs … were extinct about 63 million years before there were humans."
According to the naturalistic view. But not only do we have recorded sightings, we have intact tissue, including traces of DNA, that could not possibly have lasted that long. That is, we have evidence against the naturalistic view.
I have shown you to be wrong on your criticism of Ham calling his structure an ark. I have shown you to be wrong on Incan flood accounts. I have shown you to be wrong on Aboriginal flood accounts. I have shown you to be wrong on the origins of science. I have shown you to be wrong on the feasibility of Noah's Ark. I have pointed out that you are judging the biblical account by how well it fits the naturalistic account, and yet you keep doing so.
Clearly you are more concerned to defend your faith view than to argue your case with evidence.
1
-
@puffin51
"Proving a negative is impossible, logically."
It's not, actually. It's merely unfeasible for certain cases. I could quite easily prove to you that "there are no matches in this matchbox" by opening it and showing you. But yes, for it's not possible for universal negatives.
"You do know that you're asking me to prove a negative, right?"
I reject that, for three reasons:
* I'm asking for evidence, not proof. They are not the same thing.
* I'm asking you to substantiate your claim. That your claim is a negative is on you. Do you think that it's okay to throw out any negative claim you like then excuse yourself from substantiating it simply because it was a negative claim? That's intellectually dishonest.
* You have now shown that it is possible to (attempt) to substantiate your claim, because in this reply, you have actually tried doing that! So why didn't you do so earlier? And why the denial that you could?
You give a number of reasons why you think that the evidence is against Noah's flood, but it's selective evidence, assumption, and special pleading. For example, you assert without any rationale that formations like the scablands should be found all over, but even on a naturalistic assumption why should that be the only place? That is, the implication for both scenarios is that conditions there were not replicated elsewhere. It's certainly not the only large-scale flooding event we know of. For example, there is reason to believe that Britain being separated from the continent was due to similar catastrophic ice-dam floods. One (secular) researcher believes that the Hawkesbury Sandstone was deposited by massive flood waters: "Imagine a sudden wall of water up to 20 metres high coming down from Murrundi at enormous speed ... on a front up to 250 kilometres wide. ... Imagine that it would tear the whole landscape apart – and that's what it did."
Many river valleys are 'underfit', meaning that the valley is too large for the size of the river. If a small river (i.e. as runs now) cut the valley, it would not start off with a very wide gorge gradually narrowing down as it got deeper. It would start off with a narrow gorge, and as it got deeper, the sides would collapse into the river, potentially blocking the river and creating a dam that might well end up diverting the river. But this is often not the case.
Huge amounts of sediment was swept into the oceans. See the article "Continental margins Their rapid formation during flood runoff" by Michael Oard.
Those "seasonal varves" are not necessarily seasonal. They can be produced more frequently.
"The longest sequences are of a hundred thousand years or so. Again, no disruption of the layers is seen. There was no almighty flood and run-off."
The fact is that there is ample evidence of massive flood run-off, but you conclude that there was no almighty flood and run-off because you interpret the evidence in long-age terms. But it can also be understood as being from a flood. The Scablands flood idea was resisted for a long time because it strongly suggested something like Noah's flood. See the book review "The Missoula Flood—analogue for the greatest flood of all".
"There are desperate attempts to evade this fact. The antediluvian mountains were lower, and the ocean basins much shallower, they say."
What makes that a "desperate attempt"? Your bias?
"So the entire planet was resculpted after the flood,…"
No, during it.
"…this super-quick massive metamorphosis took place without being mentioned by any ancient writer, not even the Bible."
False. Psalm 104:7-8: "The watery deep covered it like a garment; the waters reached above the mountains.Your shout made the waters retreat; at the sound of your thunderous voice they hurried off—as the mountains rose up, and the valleys went down—to the place you appointed for them"
"The paper you refer to was commissioned and funded by a creationist organisation …"
So what? Are only evolutionists allowed to do research?
"…specifically for coming to the conclusion it did."
What's your evidence for that?
"It assumes … a structure that would have left no volume for cargo."
Evidence? The paper says that the wood would have comprised 4000 tonnes, which for heavy wood would amount to about 5000 cubic metres, or about 12% of the volume of the ark.
"The practical limit for wooden ships that can actually face the open ocean is about 300 feet. But I'm sick of hammering this point,…"
Yet hammering is all you've got, as you have no real evidence.
"See the NCSE article, "The impossible voyage of Noah's ark" for a digest. Their references are given in the bibliography."
The bibliography is missing from the online version, but the article predates both the naval architect study and and extensive study into the feasibility of Noah's Ark by Woodmorappe. So the author can be forgiven for not addressing the arguments in those publications. Nevertheless, the point is that you are citing an article, by an anti-creationist of unknown qualifications (not a scientist apparently), who does not address the research on this topic. Further, like much of your argument, it assumes naturalism to be true and judges the biblical account by how well it fits the naturalistic view, a clear logical fallacy. And unlike the naval architect study, it's full of polemic. It's also not peer-reviewed, unlike the naval architect study.
"Still, what is more likely? That people saw a local flood and told stories in which they hugely exaggerated the effects, or that an impossible event occurred?"
Again, a loaded question, assuming that the flood was impossible. Loaded questions don't deserve an answer.
"Humans tell stories, make up legends, create tall tales. That's what we do. Why is that so difficult to accept?"
Because of the similarities with many of the stories, which you ignore or wave away.
"But you have not shown me to be wrong on the origins of science."
I gave you a quote from the scholarship. So yes, I have shown you to be wrong.
"It's true that the first people we can call "scientists" were of the various faiths."
No, it's not. They were almost exclusively Christians.
"That was true even of the earliest geologists in the seventeenth and eighteenth century, and they believed that they were investigating an orderly universe."
One of the earliest was Nicolaus Steno, a Christian.
"But as soon as truths opposed to scripture started to appear - like geocentrism, which put the skids under Joshua stopping the sun - the religious authorities clamped down."
Not so. And the event with Joshua involved the sun and the moon appearing to stop, which supports the idea of the Earth being the thing that is rotating.
"The idea that humans deal with an orderly and knowable universe antedates Christianity, anyway, going back to the Greeks, hundreds of years BCE."
One of the reasons that the Greeks didn't develop science is because they didn't think it was an orderly universe. They believed that the capricious gods might change things on a whim.
But to rub it in, here's a different scholar, Paul Davies: "In the ensuing three hundred years the theological dimension of science has faded [note that science began with a "theological dimension"]. People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given as brute facts. Nobody asks where they come from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd that there is rational basis to physical existence manifested as lawlike order in nature that is at least part comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological world view."
"I repeat, it's a building, not a ship,…"
You're right—you're repeating yourself, on a claim that I've already answered.
"The fossil remains of dinosaurs are all found below the iridium layer,…"
No, some are found very close to the surface.
"…which is dateable."
By dating methods that assume naturalism and which have been shown to be unreliable.
"There is no intact tissue."
Flatly false.
"Some collagen, indicative of blood vessels, was reconstituted from the interior of the largest fossilised bones."
It wasn't reconstituted. It was intact, and it was blood vessels.
"It turns out that the iron in haemoglobin can act as a preservative."
Yes, but the tests showing that used a concentrated solution and allowed the test material to last for two years. This is a desperate attempt to avoid the glaring fact that the intact tissue could not last that long. For more detail, see "Dinosaur soft tissue In seeming desperation, evolutionists turn to iron to preserve the idea of millions of years."
"It's remarkable that much was very rarely preserved, but not impossible."
On the contrary, tests have shown that even with very favourable conditions (including being frozen), DNA would have completely broken down in less than seven million years. (See the same article for a reference.)
And almost finally, I note that you're still failing to show by what standard you are judging God. You resort to your own incredulity that a good God would do what He did, but incredulity is not an argument.
"…since he doesn't exist."
And yet you still provide no evidence for that claim.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@crazyprayingmantis5596
"In order to recognise that something is created we need to compare it to things we know areny created e.g a car to a rock."
That works both ways, you know. In order to recognised that something wasn't created we need to compare it to things we know weren't created.
Further, we know that nothing can create itself. So before there was anything, how could anything be created?
"So at no time does he exist"
No, existing outside of time means that He exists in all time, not no time.
"And in no space does he exist; And in no location does he exist"
No, He exists everywhere.
"Sounds exactly how you'd describe something that doesn't exist."
I guess it does, they way you put it. But that way is incorrect. On the other hand, according to secular 'science' (which has no other universes to compare this one to, as you rightly pointed out), the universe started out as a singularity, which is a dimensionless object, which means that it had no width, height, or length. Sounds exactly like something that doesn't exist.
"Congratulations you just admitted that this God 'cannot' exist in any true sense of the word."
On the contrary, you just admitted that the Big Bang could not have occurred. Which leaves God as the only viable cause.
1
-
1
-
@crazyprayingmantis5596
"So no time means all time…"
No. "no time" was your words, not Marks, nor mine.
"And no where means everywhere…"
Same. That was your term. Whether inadvertently or not, you twisted Mark's words, and when I pointed out your error, you've now tried to say that my correct terms equate to your incorrect ones. Yes, it does look silly when you do that.
"So what are you comparing this universe to in order to confirm that it must have been created?"
I'm wan't confirming it by comparison. I was pointing out that your objection also applies to what is presumably your view.
"I haven't made any claims so I don't know why you're telling me it works both ways…"
Because it's a choice between the secular view or the Christian view. True, it may be that you have no view at all, but I was pointing out that the logic applies to someone with the opposing view; I didn't say that you had the opposing view.
"Even if you disproved the big bang or anything else, God doesn't win by default or process of elimination,…"
He doesn actually. That is, if the choice is between it occurring naturally or non-naturally (i.e. by design), and you eliminate one, then you've demonstrate the other. Your logic only works if there is a third alternative. Depending on how you frame it, there isn't.
"you still have to demonstrate that it
1. Exists
3. Created everything"
Demonstrating that it can't happen naturally IS demonstration that it must have been created, and therefore that the creator exists.
"Let me know when you receive your Nobel prize as the first human being in the history of mankind to prove that God exists."
That was proved long ago. Well before the Nobel Prize was invented. That there are people who refuse to see that doesn't change that.
1
-
1
-
@Maxxx568
"Education system was around in ancient Greece, Rome and Persia."
I referred to universal education, not education itself.
"Science was created by Greek."
And yet many scholars say that it was a product of Christianity. Sociologist Rodney Stark explains that in Greek "science", “...progress was the product of observation and of trial and error but was lacking in explanations—in theorizing. Hence, the earlier technical innovations of Greco-Roman times, of Islam of China, ... do not constitute science...”
"Not exactly. It was privilege for middle class till the 19th century."
So? Mentioning when it happened doesn't address who started it. But your dating is wrong in any case. Martin Luther was arguing for it 500 years ago. And according to Britannica, "Only in the 18th century did the school system start to separate itself from its Christian roots and fall more and more under state control."
Robert Raikes opened the first Sunday School in 1780, because, with the children working in the mines and factories the other six days, that was the only day left to give them an education, part of which was the basics, like reading and writing.
"Literacy rate in ancient Greece was higher than in 17century Europe, where it was barely above 30 percent."
And Christianity changed that. So what's your point?
"So like I said, Christianity or Islam done a lot to educational system, but they didn't create it. It was there all along."
And like I said, Christianity founded the university system and universal education.
1
-
@Mrbfgray
"There are thousands of gods,..."
Evidence please. Including explaining how there can be more than one creator and supreme being (the definition of "god").
"...each as likely as the next to be real."
Evidence please.
"If U only subscribe to 1, or 3 as in the case of Christianity, you are 99.9% as much an Atheist as anyone on Earth."
Christianity doesn't believe in three gods. You have no idea what you're talking about. And yes, early Christians were called atheists by the Romans because they rejected all the Roman 'gods'. But what does that prove?
"We use the term "religion" as a pejorative..."
I know. Conflating both good and bad religions—and pretending that your own atheist beliefs don't count*—just to be pejorative. That's not an argument.
*—Atheist religions include Marxism, Scientology, Confucianism, Zen Buddhism, and Secular Humanism, in case you're inclined to claim that the beliefs that you were indoctrinated with are not a religion.
"...and rightly so."
And yet your reasoning is wrong.
"It means said beliefs are based on indoctrination not reason and evidence."
Then if YOU use it that way, please explain why you'd consider Christianity a religion, given that it doesn't fit that criteria.
"The only religions we don't deride for irrationality is the ones WE were indoctrinated with."
Including in the case of atheists. But also, it simply doesn't follow logically that we don't do it because it's the one we accept. Did it ever enter your mind that in some cases we believe it's true because that's what the evidence supports?
"Doesn't really matter if it's one made up god or 3, my point stands, ..."
But it does matter if it's a real God, doesn't it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ELee-zv5ud
"Because they are tribal."
Given that it's been reported that the current leaders of the Taliban have come from Pakistan, I'm not sure that explains it.
"As a stage of social development, loyalty is to the tribe aka your kin."
That sounds like an evolutionary view, to me. I don't subscribe to the atheist creation myth.
"It took another 1,000 years to even begin to approximate what life was like in Romans times."
I'm not aware that they ever lost it. Rome basically morphed into Europe.
"Because of religion, ..."
Which one or ones? They are not all the same, and some are very different than others. Putting it like that is a bit like saying that, say, the failure of America to pull out of Afghanistan is because of politics rather than because of Biden or his government. It's just too broad to be meaningful.
"...when one believes you are following a god's commandments you "know" you are right and whatever you do is justified."
"a" god? There is only one. But if it really is God, then yes, it would be right and justified. Which is why real God-followers created Western Civilisation, including freeing slaves, founding modern science, starting public hospitals and universal education, and so much more. The problem here is that God said no such thing to the Taliban.
"European history provides plenty of examples, the Thirty Years War being one case, 8 million slaughtered,..."
Wikipedia, for what it's worth, says between 4.5 million and eight million. Britannica says that it was "a series of wars fought by various nations for various reasons, including religious, dynastic, territorial, and commercial rivalries."
"another the inquisition, torture was justified because the victim didn't believe in one sect of Christianity but another."
There is a lot of misunderstanding of the inquisition, and I'm not convinced that it was quite as you claim.
"Secular modern Westerners have moved so far from the belief systems of their past that most are incapable of understanding why people would prefer a oppressive belief system over none."
All people have a belief system. Most believe in a god, and most of those are Christians. Atheists believe in us all coming to be by chance, and therefore people are just animals, and people get to decide right and wrong for themselves (and when people who believe that get power, they often decide horrific things, such as with Stalin and Mao and other atheists). Christianity, on the other hand, has led to freedoms and has stood up to tyranny. It's not an oppressive system.
"You question of Why do they prefer.... Because its theirs and it give structure and meaning to life."
As opposed to secularity which doesn't give any structure and meaning. Yep, you might be onto something there. That's a major problem of modern Westerners, influenced by if not actually following Marxism (atheism).
"We Westerners are very arrogant in thinking that everyone would want to be like us."
First, do we really think that? Or do we think (rightly) that they would be better off being like us? Secondly, the fact that so many people flee non-Western countries for the West kind of supports the view that they do want to be like us.
"I'm very grateful for the Greeks, Christianity (after 2000 years of reinterpreting it to tame it), and the Enlightenment but that grew out of a specific set of circumstances."
Christianity has not been "reinterpreted" for 2000 years. It remains as it was originally, apart from some people through history mis-interpreting it. The so-called enlightenment didn't achieve much—most of its supposed achievements predate it. One thing that it did achieve was reintroducing slavery. As for the Greeks, have a look at the video "Tom Holland tells NT Wright: Why I changed my mind about Christianity"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kugelblitz1557
"But at the end of the day the government is not there to tell people what choices they can and can't make so long as those choices are not choices to directly harm others."
But indirectly harming others is okay? And how do you define "harm"? For example, if a father takes drugs and that harm him, what about the effect that has on his wife and children?
I do have sympathy for the idea of governments not putting too many restrictions on people, but I'm not sure that where you draw the line here is a good enough basis.
"But it happens anyway regardless of the law surrounding it."
As does murder, rape, burglary, etc. But that in itself is not reason to not have laws about it, as laws that are enforced do have an effect, even if they are rarely 100% effective.
"And drugs on the streets have who-knows-what in them, ..."
Well, for starters, they have the dangerous drug. People tend to forget that point.
"If there were an actual industry with safeguards in place to prevent that kind of price gouging, a lot of that crime would drop because they don't need five thousand dollars a week for their addiction."
But then people would be objecting to the government making the drugs available to children, to people with mental health problems, and so on. Except, of course, you'd not make it available to those people. Which means that you've just recreated the demand for a black market that you've tried to get rid of. And of course, given the drugs themselves are dangerous and cost the community/government in money spent on ambulances, police, hospitals, etc., then at the very least you'd tax it to cover those costs, just as happens now for alcohol and tobacco. And then it's not so cheap after all.
"...but I would bet on it being better than what we have now..."
I wouldn't take that bet. For one thing, you've also now legitimised it, removing an impediment that some more law-abiding people would have respected, and you therefore increase the number of users of the inherently-dangerous drug. And the associated costs to the community.
"...keeps making new, redundant laws that accomplish exactly nothing. "
Then they should make laws that accomplish something, like they do with most other things. The cure for ineffective laws is effective laws, not no laws.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pwillis1589
"Did something just try to prove a Theist god by quoting a bible verse."
It didn't look like it to me. You can quote verses for plenty of reasons.
"A classic circular argument."
Except that you haven't shown that it was.
"using scripture to prove scripture."
He explicitly denied trying to do that, and you haven't shown that he was doing that.
"And nitdiver5 just goes and emphasised my point."
Except that he didn't. There is no attempt to prove God, and he didn't even quote Scripture.
"You’re all doing it now. Using the bible to prove Christianity."
The Bible is evidence in support of Christianity, so doing so is not circular. But again, they weren't doing that.
"Try a strawman or an argument from authority."
A strawman is exactly the argument you were making. And an argument from legitimate authority is not fallacious.
"So you add further personal slurs and freely admit to circular reasoning."
Where did he admit that? Answer: he didn't. You're making that up.
"So we have no idea who wrote the Old Testament bible,..."
What's your basis for that claim? Because I DO know who wrote it.
"... the oldest known fragments are in an Greek."
I'm not sure that's true, but even if it is, do what? They would have been translations of the Hebrew.
"Some of the New testament is attributable, but the Gospels certainly aren’t."
So you've never heard of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (the people)?
"I just stated factual information."
Except that it wasn't factual.
"You have on three occasions called into question my comprehension skills..."
For good reason, given that you made claims about what he said that that contradicted what he actually said.
"When Grantley Hughes specifically asked you to prove god..."
FINALLY you make an actual argument to back your claims. Except that Grantly didn't ask him to prove God. He asked "where" God is, so that "we" could prove Him.
"You specifically used a bible verse in an attempt to show consciousness proves God. "
How would you know what he was attempting?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
JP
"Do you understand mathematic probability?"
Yes. I also understand coincidence. The fact (assuming the video's claimed facts are true) that one verse out of more than 31,000 in the Bible has these characteristics is one reason why the claimed odds is overstated.
The section on extra-biblical sevens is simply being selective. That they've managed find nine(!) things that come in sevens is meaningless. I'm sure that I could find nine things that come in other figures. But also, a number of them are quite arbitrary:
Claim: There are seven continents. See the video "How many continents are there?" on the Geography Realm channel, which explains how people have counted anything from four to seven continents, depending on how you define 'continent'.
Claim: There are seven colours in a rainbow. Yes, they are typically listed as seven colours, but a rainbow is actually a spectrum of colours, not seven distinct colours.
Claim: There are seven notes on a musical scale. This ignores the black notes on a piano keyboard. Include those and you have twelve.
Claim: There are seven stars in the Big Dipper. Again, quite arbitrary and very selective. What about other constellations?
Claim: Seven digits are the average limit of memory for a human. Thus we have seven digit telephone numbers. I think that there is some truth to this claim, but it's an average, and it depends on how they are presented. Here in Australia, landlines now have eight digits, and mobile numbers have ten. But they are typically broken up, such as into two groups of four. This helps us remember more than seven digits.
Claim: Seven metals upon which civilisation was based. They omitted bronze. That would make eight.
Claim: The period table has seven levels: Yet there are tables with nine levels.
But to the actual numerical claims of the verse:
In order to calculate the odds to be 1 in 823543 (7x7x7x7x7x7x7), all seven factors have to be independent of each other. But it's not clear that they are, given that they are all involve counting some of the same letters.
For example, the third claimed feature is that there are 14 (2 x7) letters in the three "leading" words (God, heaven, the earth). It's not explained what is meant by "leading" words. It's not the first three words, so this seems selective. The three words are also described as the subject (God) and the objects (heaven, the earth).
Then the fourth claimed feature says that the "expression of the two objects" (the heaven and the earth) have 14 letters. But these are almost the same words as in the first case. Sure, not exactly the same, but it means that the two features are not completely independent. But also, if one subject and two objects have 14 letters, how do just the same two objects have 14 letters? Because in this case, an "and" and a "the" are included! So why weren't they included in the third feature? Yes, this one is described as the "expression" of the two objects, but this is an apparent case of a) find some combination of words that add to a multiple of seven, then b) find a label ("expression of the objects") that describes that combination of words, to give the impression that this is not just an arbitrary selection.
The fifth claimed feature is that the middle word (a mere 'the') plus either of the words on either side (God, heaven) have seven letters. But again, these words have already been counted, so they are hardle independent.
The sixth feature involves not counting letters (apparently they couldn't find any more multiples of sevens), but the numeric value of words, in particular the three "important" nouns. There are actually four nouns, but apparently adding those up doesn't work, so how do you get it down to three nouns that somehow work? Oh, you call them "important"! Of course God is important. And heaven (space) is important, and obviously in this context earth is important too. But then the whole verse is important! So the words in it must be. But... why isn't "In the beginning" important? After all, this is Genesis, the book of beginnings! So surely in this context, that is also a very important noun? So why has it been excluded from the count? Because including it doesn't produce a multiple of seven?
So, to recap:
1) The words counted are not independent of each other, and it's therefore not clear that it's valid to simply multiply seven seven times.
2) The choice of words is somewhat selective, i.e. finding combinations that fit, and excluding ones that don't.
3) This is picking one verse out of over 31,000 verses. Finding one out of 31,000 that has something that a case can be made for may not be that hard. Oh, but this verse is special, because it's the first one! Well, yes, but other verses could be considered special too. What about the first verse of the New Testament? What about the last verse of the Bible? Then we could easily tell if it had been added to. What about John 3:16? What about something in the only part that God personally wrote, the Ten Commandments?
Finally (although this doesn't bear on the merits of the argument), 823543 (7x7x7x7x7x7x7) is not 7! (7 factorial). 7! is 7x6x5x4x3x2x1, or 5040.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pwillis1589
"Nope proved you wrong on numerous occasions"
I was talking about this thread, and I stand by my comment. It's possible, however, that YouTube is hiding something from me.
"He has literally no evidence..."
What's your evidence that I have no evidence? Because I do have evidence.
"...and will attempt to shift the burden of proof every chance he gets."
Utterly false.
"None of the gospels are eyewitness accounts they are all written in the second person."
They are written in the third person, and that does not mean that they are not eyewitness accounts. So do you have any actual evidence?
"The only known earliest fragments are in Greek not Aramaic the actual language of the disciples."
What you wrote was "So we have no idea who wrote the Old Testament bible, but it certainly wasn’t illiterate goat herders as the oldest known fragments are in an Greek."
The disciples didn't write any of the Old Testament. Yes, the New Testament was apparently written in Greek, but your comment referred to the Old Testament.
"The earliest fragments are all written long after any disciples were alive."
You're talking about extant copies, not the originals. In fact there are a few fragments that date from the likely time of the disciples. And certainly not "long after" they were alive. You cannot use that to say that the disciples didn't write them.
"The church attributed these names in the second century CE."
The gospels don't name the authors in the text, so our knowledge of who wrote them does come from later people. But it's not as bad as you make out. You say that "the church" did this as though an organisation did it. But one source of our understanding of who wrote John, for example, comes from Irenaeus, who says that he learned this from Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. Does this absolutely prove that the gospel of John was written by John? No, of course not. But it does show that there is good reason for believing that's likely to be the case, and therefore wrong to claim dogmatically that we don't know.
"I mean Phil this is common public knowledge."
A lot of "common public knowledge" is wrong. What's the evidence?
"Even Paul in his letters admits never meeting the alleged Jesus, only seeing him in a vision."
Paul didn't write a gospel. I never claimed that Paul met Jesus outside that vision.
1
-
1
-
@tonyboleno8191
"i suspect someone once said to him it was up to him to prove the existence of god (or something along those lines) and not up to them to prove that god does not exist,"
Nope. I know that if I claim God exists and someone challenges me for evidence, then I have an onus to provide it. And I have done so in the past.
However, if someone claims that God doesn't exist, and I challenge them for evidence, then they have the onus to provide it.
And if that happens before I make a counterclaim, then I have no obligation to support my counterclaim when they haven't supported their prior claim.
"perhaps phil should meditate upon how the bible says faith in god is enough or something."
Or perhaps you should read the Bible, or read it more carefully. It also says that we should demolish arguments against God.
"yeah he can be alright actually, when he's not resorting to his pavlovian response of "where is your evidence for that claim?" "
Hey, if people keep making baseless claims, why shouldn't I keep asking for evidence? What I have learnt is that instead of countering claim with another claim, asking questions is a good approach. It also gives them opportunity to provide evidence before I start criticising them for their claim. That is, it's a less-confrontational approach. But when people refuse to back their claims, well, that's their problem. I've had the atheist Christopher Hitchens quoted to me more than once: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." And yet those atheists frequently fail to provide evidence when challenged to. And somehow think that it's up to me to produce evidence for what I believe, even in cases where I've not claimed anything!
"especially when the claim made is just an opinion, for example "sky "news" sucks""
Well, when the "opinion" is presented as though it's fact and it denigrates good people, why shouldn't I?
"So you're still asking questions but not answering any? Why is that?"
See above. I'm not the one with the onus to.
"You can't support your claims?"
That is definitely not the reason.
"I'm happy to provide evidence for my claims."
Then why don't you?
"You can't expect me to back my claims when you won't back yours."
That's my point. The question is, who made the first claim that was challenged? I rarely start these conversations; I'm usually responding to them. So it's rarely me who makes a claim that is challenged before I have challenged someone else.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jakeg3296
"How you can think that the decline of “ western civilisation” and its controlling influence, religion , is terrible news is very telling. "
How you can think it's not is also very telling.
"Western civilisation foundation was responsible for the exploitation of less fortunate and primitive societies with slavery..."
Nonsense. Slavery existed long before that and in many other places. Slavery was close to being a universal practice. Western Civilisation was not "responsible" for slavery.
And it was Western Civilisation—specifically it's Christian worldview—that twice abolished slavery within its control.
"...and capitalist imperialism..."
Capitalism is the freedom of people to use their capital as they choose, instead of being dictated to. As such, it is the opposite of slavery (where the slaves are not free) and feudalism. Capitalism has been responsible for much technological and societal progress and for raising many out of poverty. Of course, like all good things, it can be misused. This is specially the case when governments interfere beyond just administering justice.
" “ Render unto Caesar what is his”, another example of golden advice from the Iron Age ?"
Huh? First, "Render unto Caesar what is his" dates from Jesus 2000 years ago, more than a millennium after the so-called "iron age".
Second, what's wrong with it anyway?
1
-
1
-
@jakeg3296
"Grab a dictionary and go to “supernatural”, it will state essentially that it means, something that transcends the laws of nature of an order of existence beyond the observable universe . "
I notice that you don't actually quote a dictionary. I'd say that's a loose definition.
"Now go to the word “ superstition”. It will state something like “‘a belief in the supernatural “
Again, I notice that you don't actually quote a dictionary. And in this case you're wrong. But I'll do what you didn't:
* Macmillan: "a belief that things such as magic or luck have the power to affect your life"
* Collins: "belief in things that are not real or possible, for example magic."
* Oxford: "Excessively credulous belief in and reverence for supernatural beings." (Note that it's not simply "belief in supernatural beings".)
* Merriam-Webster: "a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation"
"Ergo, religion ALL religion including Christianity are superstitions."
Given that your second premise (at least) was wrong, your conclusion is also wrong.
"I couldn’t care less as long as it doesn’t encroach on my rights."
But it's apparently okay for atheists to encroach on my rights.
"Firstly your history like your science is a bit off, the Iron Age overlapped from BCE to the first century AD."
You're half right. What I quoted was the start of it. However, the end of the Iron Age depends on where you're talking about, and in Europe it's taken to be when the Romans arrived. So in England, it's taken to be AD 43. Given that Jesus lived in a Roman-controlled province, I take it that would not be classified as Iron Age at the time.
"The first century was when the supposed God man of the Bible JC was said to exist."
Did exist.
"Many scholars are of the opinion of a mythical Jesus."
Actually, extremely few, other than scholars whose fields are not in that area. See the short YouTube video "Atheist Refuted by Agnostic Historian (Bart Ehrman) on the Existence of Jesus."
"There’re many commonalities with other mythical beings including resurrections, but let’s not digress too much."
In other words, throw out another claim (which has been refuted many time), and expect me to not respond to it. Most of those claims are false. But let's not digress into that, okay?
"Now you can’t attempt to justify imperialist slavery by pointing at other slavery societies in history,..."
I didn't do that. I refuted your apparent claim that Western Civilisation was responsible for slavery by pointing out other slavery in the world and history. But see my next point.
"I didn’t say western slavery was the only slavery or that western civilisation was responsible for slavery."
You said "Western civilisation foundation was responsible for the exploitation of less fortunate and primitive societies with slavery...", which sounded to my like you were laying the responsibility for slavery at the feet of Western Civilisation. It still sounds like you're saying that Western Civilisation did something that other's didn't.
"Capitalism is responsible for more poverty than relief of poverty..."
Not true. The percentage of people living in extreme poverty has dropped from around 90% 200 years ago to around 30% today.
"...that’s why inequality is rampant in capitalist societies more so than socialist societies."
Poverty and inequality are two different things. You can have everyone living just above the poverty line being equal, or some living just above it and some living far, far above it and have inequality, still with nobody in poverty.
"Poverty can and does exist in socialist societies but the poverty is not because of socialism."
History says otherwise. What really-socialist country has not been an economic failure?
"In any case the Jesus of the Bible more resembles a socialist than a capitalist ..."
Not so. As an atheist newspaper columnist put it many years ago, the difference between Christianity and Communism is that with Christianity people voluntarily share their wealth while in Communism the people are forced to share their wealth.
"China has lifted nearly a billion out of poverty in the last half century, what western nation can boast that percentage lifted out of poverty in the same time frame ?"
Despite being communist, China adopted a capitalist economy, and that's why it's had a big change.
"It took a bloody civil war to abolish slavery in America. Nothing to do with Christianity."
In Britain the move was powered by a group of Christians led by William Wilberforce, who explicitly attributed it to a Christian worldview. In America many Christians pushed for it too, and America was a country founded in a Christian worldview. Christianity had a lot to do with it.
"The slave owners were also Christians..."
Yes, some of the slave owners were Christians, and some called themselves Christians without necessarily being particularly Christian. And there were atheists who supported slavery too.
"Christianity was invented by the Romans to control the masses."
Yeah, sure. Pull the other one. The Romans opposed it for centuries.
1
-
1
-
@jakeg3296
"Of course I’ve paraphrased."
Misrepresented is a better word.
"The definitions are clear."
I know. I gave them to you from dictionaries. You made up yours. You're basically claiming that you know better than the dictionaries.
"Yes the Romans opposed the cult for centuries..."
Yet you claimed they "invented" it. You were wrong, and you now agree with me, but won't admit that you were wrong.
"You haven’t refuted anything I’ve said."
And yet I have. Including your claim that the Romans invented Christianity.
"If you can’t prove something eg your belief in the existence of the supernatural it can be dismissed."
And if you can't prove that I can't prove it, then I can dismiss your claim that I can't prove it.
"The burden of proof is not mine."
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You made the claim.
"Proving a disbelief in something is absurd."
Then asserting that the disbelief is correct is absurd.
"You claim Christianity is true, the burden is yours to prove it that basis of the whole discourse."
You claimed it was false before I made any counterclaim. Therefore the burden of proof is yours.
"you’ve actually forbidden the obvious ones like China, Scandinavian."
As I said, China, although remaining Communist, embraced capitalism. Scandinavia is also somewhat capitalist. It's not really socialist, just somewhat.
"You forget about Nations put into poverty by other nations against their best interests by capitalism."
Like what?
"Nigeria is a capitalist society as is India which you can compare their progress to China in the past half century."
They may be nominally capitalist countries, but have started from a very low base and are not considered particularly free economies.
"Obviously you lack the nuance to realise there’s many degrees of political ideology."
You're the one that dismissed capitalism as though it's not nuanced. And the fact that I referred to "really" socialist shows that I understand that there are many degrees.
"neither did you contradict my definitions, yours meant exactly the same thing."
I pointed out how they didn't. You simply denied that without showing it.
"So many strawmans to address."
Nope.
"I didn’t say ... Christianity was just a belief in supernatural beings,..."
Did I say that it was? No. So what was that about straw men?
And did you watch the video about the existence of Jesus? Do you have any response?
1
-
1
-
@pwillis1589
"Let's go with the Merrium-Webster definition of supernatural ..."
""a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation". Yes, that supports my point.
"you conveniently left off the bit about "an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or god resulting from superstition". "
It wasn't for convenience, but in order to save repeating myself. I said about the Oxford one "Note that it's not simply "belief in supernatural beings"." The same applies here. It's not simply "belief in supernatural beings" but " an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or god resulting from superstition "
"So Jake G statement does hold up."
No, it does not.
"What rights are us atheists denying you?"
The right to use correct pronouns. The right to decide for myself who I rent my house to (if I was doing that). The right to have an accurate view of origins taught in schools, including sometimes in Christian schools.
"Slaughtering homosexuals? The ability to enslave the nation's around you?"
Nope. Neither of those are rights.
"Well then yes, us atheists have minimum standards we like to adhere to."
Where does that standard come from?
"There is no conclusive evidence the Jesus character in the bible existed,..."
That depends on what you mean by "conclusive". If your standard is high enough for that statement to be true, then there is no conclusive evidence that Caesar existed, or Alexander the great, or anything else in ancient history. Did you listen to the video I gave Jake as evidence?
"Yes the scholars for a mythicist jesus are in the minority but it is growing."
Well, when there were none, any becomes growth, doesn't it?
"A defence of slavery advocated for in the bible by saying well everybody did it."
What defence? And where does it advocate for it?
"there is no more better example of inequality than when you mix them together."
History says otherwise. Here's a quote on this topic:
“The eighteen American tourists visiting China weren’t expecting much from the evening’s lecture. They were already exhausted from a day of touring in Beijing. But what the speaker had to say astonished them.
“One of the things we were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world,” he said. “We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next, we focused on your economic system." But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West has been so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.”
This was not coming from some ultra-conservative think tank in Orange County, California or from Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. This was a scholar from China's premier academic research institute, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) in Beijing in 2002.”
"At best they put up with 200 years of persecution, other than what you are coping from me obviously."
200 years (more, apparently) from the Roman Empire, but plenty more in later times and places. But what's your point?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tikkabrno
"what is a "God"?"
What it says in the dictionary. The creator and supreme being.
"Show some actual tangible proof such a thing/being/whatever exists?"
Whether or not I can do that depends on what you would accept as "tangible proof".
"This does not include hearsay or something from stories a human wrote in a book..."
Hearsay is "information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour." So eye-witness testimony, research, etc. is not hearsay. Much of the Bible is eye-witness testimony, and some is first-hand research.
"Stories" implies fiction, which the Bible isn't. Also, every book has been written by humans, so do you reject every instruction manual, history book, etc. that has ever been written?
Also, the Bible is ultimately authored by God, so it would fit your criteria anyway, right?
"Hallucinations aren't proof of a "God" "
Did I ever suggest otherwise? No.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DD-bx8rb
"The Catholic Church is an identifiable visible organisation with an official teaching."
As are other Christian churches.
"Protestant Christian groups are a gaggle of thousands of seperated groups arguing about the meaning of the Written Tradition."
It takes two (or more) to argue. You can't claim to not be arguing if you're only talking to yourself. But in fact yes, Protestants disagree with Catholics on some issues, and Catholics disagree with Protestants! So you can't pin disagreement just on the Protestants.
Further, there are not as many different Protestant groups as you may think. Documented claims of tens of thousands refer to organisations, not denominations. So Victorian Baptists are counted separately to New South Wales Baptists because they are different organisations, not because they have different views. Similarly, Australian Catholics are counted separately to United States Catholics for the same reason.
In addition, some differences are over church organisation, not over biblical doctrine. So the number of different views collapses further.
And what you're saying is that Catholics don't argue because Catholics all agree. Well Baptists all agree too! You're splitting hairs and making out differences to be something that they are not.
"It's the Catholic Church, with it's claim of being established and guaranteed by Christ, that the Marxists fear."
You're in dreamland if you think that it's only Catholics that Marxists fear. Who they really fear is anyone who makes a public stand for biblical teaching. That includes Catholics on some issues, but it's certainly not limited to Catholics. One group that they get really upset with is creationists, who dare to claim that evolution doesn't exist and the earth is 6,000 years old. And that's something that most (but not all) Catholics are weak on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SuperEdge67
"There shouldn’t even be a word for atheism……just as there isn’t a word for a non-astrologer."
And yet there is such a word, widely used, if for no other reason than because atheism is the exception to the rule.
"The generalisations you make about atheists/atheism are ludicrous."
On the contrary, a) you have simply waved them away without answering them, and b) I didn't just generalise, but provided specifics, including, for example, a quote from Lenin. I tend to think that if they were actually ludicrous, as you claim, that it should be easy to point out why. But no, you didn't. Objection dismissed as baseless.
1
-
@dougy6237
"I am referring to the Pope at various times in history..."
Then why did you refer to "The Pope at the time "?
"...well before your Wilberforce lauded by the Protestant ascendancy who "wrote" most of our history in the English-speaking world...please."
Do you have any basis for denigrating that accurate history? Note also that although I (factually) pointed out how Wilberforce got slavery stopped on the basis of Christian beliefs (note that I did not say "Protestant beliefs"), I never said anything against Catholicism, but you for some reason tried to make an issue of that. Also note that I favourably cited the Bishop Ambrose.
"The first pope to do so was Eugenius IV (r. 1431-1447), ..."
Which is not "at the time", so we can ignore him for this conversation. The same applies to Popes Paul III, Gregory XIV, and Innocent XI. Benedict XIV was around that time, and it's legitimate to say that Gregory XVI was "at the time", although note that he issued that 32 years after the British parliament banned the slave trade. Leo XIII was later than Wilberforce, so he doesn't count for this conversation either.
"Yet despite the many papal condemnations of slavery, European colonists continued to enslave Africans and New World natives until the nineteenth century."
Which is rather consistent with an article I read on this years ago, that several popes did condemn slavery, but with little effect (If it was really effective, they wouldn't have to keep repeating it.) And yet, another book I have (written by a Protestant) says that "Christianity has successfully abolished slavery not once, but twice before—in late antiquity and again in the 1800s,...". Clearly the reference to "late antiquity" (he later refers to the time "starting in the fourth century,") is during the time before Protestantism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh dear, that old bad Spiderman analogy? Do you think that nobody is able to tell the difference between history and fiction? Do you regard all ancient history is fiction on the same basis, or only the Bible?
"To purport that because Jerusalem exists it stands to reason that donkeys spoke, whales swallowed and regurgitated humans, seas were parted, corpses were reanimated, etc. is so unbelievably feeble minded, I almost assume that it’s trolling."
Ignoring the fact that this video is not drawing any such conclusion, you're clearly misrepresenting the Bible, which makes no mention of donkeys speaking, whales swallowing and regurgitating humans, nor seas being parted. What the Bible does record is one donkey speaking thanks to the supernatural intervention of an angel, one specially-prepared "great fish" (no whale is mentioned) swallowing a human, and one sea being parted miraculously. These are all presented as being due to God's direct intervention, not as natural or repeated occurrences. So who's trolling? Unless you want to argue that God couldn't or didn't do such things, that is no reason to reject them.
"The Bible is an allegorical work of fiction..."
Evidence please. It purports to be history. It's written as history. Millions accept it as history, including archaeologists such as William Albright who said that “There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of the Old Testament tradition.” You can't simply assert the contrary without making a good argument for that being the case.
"It is NOT divinely written or historically accurate."
Evidence please.
"It’s barely even readable,..."
Utter nonsense.
"...chock full of misconceptions..."
What misconceptions?
"...and omissions, etc."
Well, duh! Nobody claims that it includes everything that ever happened!
"...I just can’t get over how people can turn off their brains whenever religion is involved."
Atheists in particular. Christians, on the other hand, have used their brains and their Christian worldview to found the university system, universal education, and science.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ss-th9pf
"education is not free anymore, we have student debts now."
For universities, not for primary and secondary school.
"Nowadays, Medicare only covers a small portion because the true costs of doctors is well above schedule fees so medicare covers in reality 20% instead of 85%."
But free medical care still exists, even though it's harder to find.
"Housing is not affordable for our young as average house prices is 15 to 20 times their annual wages."
That is not a black-and-white issue. You could argue that fewer young people find it affordable, but you can't say that it's "not" affordable.
"I do believe in hard work and fighting through difficulties, but i don't believe in rigged games where there is no equal oppurtunity."
Neither do I. But then socialism hasn't really gone away. Socialism is an attempt to have government run everything. In the past, that was by nationalising businesses. Now it's by manipulating the economy, energy, and so on, by working with big corporations to get their way. But the more the government "provides" (like free health care, free education, etc.) the more that the government is spending of other people's money, and the more they cut programs to provide money for new programs that they have a fetish about. It really demonstrates the follow of socialism, which seems good at first, but doesn't work in the long run.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Really,? might want to do some actual research on that history,!!?"
Yes, really (except for the number of years he inadvertently mentioned).
"Also go to Gaza, the occupied west Bank, if you dare, ..."
He's already said that he wants to go to Gaza.
"...this war didn't start in October 2023, see the unprecedented genocide, slaughter, holocaust of the Palestinian for yourself."
What genocide, slaughter and holocaust? You haven't shown that there was any.
"The fact remains that Zionist Israel is an illegal Occupier state since 1948, created by the British Balfour Declaration for the Rothschild dynasty, in another man's land."
The fact remains that Israel was legitimately given back some of their historical land, with the support of other nations, in land that Britain controlled.
"The Palestinian people have suffered 75 years of Israeli occupation, their apartheid regime, ..."
More lies. It's not an occupation, but their land. Israel allows Arabs to be members of parliament and judges. That's not apartheid.
"The US now owns Israel, their outpost in the middle East."
"Owns" in what sense?
"The ICJ world Court hearings in the Hague, Re the genocide and the illegal occupation of Palestine for 75, with 50 countries and 3 organisations, say otherwise, which not one legacy media has reported."
The case has been reported, and the existence of accusers does not mean that the accusers are right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chriswatson7965
"Which "god" do these morals come from then? "
Your question is loaded. It assumes more than one, and yet the very word means (in part) "supreme being". There can only be one being that is supreme.
"How how these morals communicated?"
In the Bible, to a large extent at least.
"What morals existed before the bible?"
The same ones. God was around and communicating with man before the Bible.
"Where did the ancient Egyptians get their morals? Where did the ancient Norse? Where do muslims get their morals?"
I never said that God is the only possible source. I tacitly acknowledged that they can also come from man. The problem is that in that case they are just opinion, and we therefore have no grounds to expect others to go along with our opinions. On the other hand, all those people are descended from people such as Adam and Noah who knew God. So at least some of their morals may have come (indirectly) from God.
"If western civilisation's morals come from the bible, then why are they different in every society and in every time?"
How are they different? The point is that the term 'Western Civilisation' refers to a civilisation that has a lot in common. Of course the people in it are not perfect, and will get some things wrong at times.
"Why have wars been fought over differing morals that have apparently all come from the same source?"
What wars? Relatively few wars have a religious basis, and most of those that had a religious basis involved non-Christian religions. And as I said, people sometimes get some things wrong. Western Civilisation has proved to be very good, but not perfect.
"Why do modern day morals differ violently from those explicitly espoused in the bible?"
Firstly, I'd say most don't. Secondly, because people make mistakes. Thirdly, because of the influence of anti-Christian ideas such as those by (neo-)Marxists, followers of naturalism, etc.
"None of what you say makes any sense."
And yet you don't point out anything incorrect in it.
""God" is a concept invented by humans, as are morals."
What's your evidence for that? Because I keep asking questions along that line, and I've yet to get a realistic answer (or almost any answer).
"You don't get to enforce your morals on someone else..."
Actually, that's what lawmakers do all the time. In fact it's their paid role.
"by convincing yourself that they were invented by a fictional being, "
I'm not convinced that they were invented by a fictional being. I'm convinced (by the evidence) that they emanate from a very real being. What's your evidence of God being fictional? Or is that just blind faith?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chriswatson7965
"that wasn't at all clear from your initial response which was 'No, people have long gotten them from God.' "
I believe it was clear enough. I was disagreeing with your claim that "Morals ..." "Always have. Always will" "...come from people." I was disagreeing with the "always".
"Firstly the bible was written by people, so how is that communication from a god?"
The Bible claims, and Christians have always believed, that the Bible is "inspired" by God, or "God-breathed". That is, God used people to write the Bible just like a celebrity might hire a professional writer to write his autobiography. Much of the actual wording will be that of the professional writer, but the decisions on content and responsibility for accuracy come from the celebrity.
"Secondly how was god communicating morals to man before the bible?"
God talked to Adam in the Garden of Eden, and had direct communication with others over time. Much of the Bible is the record of that communication.
"The bible does not provide a complete set of morals, in fact hardly any concrete list at all."
It provides many principles, but often not specifics for specific circumstances.
"For example in income tax, what is the morally most appropriate income tax structure?"
Taxes are approved of in a number of places, and there is also the Old Testament principle of the 'tithe', or giving back to God one tenth of one's income, which would appear to make an appropriate example. The Bible also talks about treating people fairly, helping the poor, and so on.
"The bible offers nothing here."
And yet I just gave you something, from the Bible. Asking questions is fine. Asserting something to be so when you actually don't know is arrogance.
"Lying appears to be a sin in the bible and yet society would fall apart without it."
How would it fall apart without it?
"Where does it stand on advertising and self-promotion?"
It speaks against pride. I don't know of anything against advertising, but then not saying something means that it's okay. So there would be nothing wrong with advertising per se.
"The bible is vague..."
In some places, but not in others. But then that's a very vague criticism!
"...and occasionally contradictory, ..."
Evidence? Because many, many contradictions have been claimed, but shown to be without substance.
"...in particular there is a difference between the old and new testaments."
Of course they are different. If they weren't, it would be repetition. But that doesn't mean that they contradict each other. They don't.
"Snippets can used to justify, and have been used to justify, almost any position."
Misuse of the Bible is a criticism of those misusing it; not a criticism of the Bible.
"So in effect, what little that has been written has to be interpreted to such a degree that the morals derived and man-made anyway."
Evidence please.
"Lastly there's there are many moral codes set as the norm in the bible which are considered repugnant in today's society, ..."
Maybe today's society has it wrong? Simply pointing out that the Bible differs from today's society is, again, not a criticism of the Bible.
"...most notably that normalisation of slavery as a necessary part of the economy."
On the contrary, slavery, which was essentially a necessary part of the economy, was regulated and limited. And quite different to modern understandings of slavery. And it's also true that a biblical understanding of mankind led to Christianity twice abolishing slavery. Today we consider slavery wrong precisely because of the Bible-based Christian understanding of it. That is, in disagreeing with slavery, you are taking an essentially Christian view.
" "How are they different? " - the most notable here is usury."
I thought your claim was about different societies and times in Western Civilisation, but okay.
"In the most obvious interpretation of the bible lending of money for any amount of interest is highly immoral."
I disagree. The Bible was written for a "high context" society, where people were expected to understand the context of something you said, without it needing to be spelt out. For example, in Ezekiel 18:8 it says that a righteous man "does not engage in usury or charge interest", but the readers would have understood that this was a reference to the law in Leviticus 25:36 which said "Do not take interest or profit from him", where "him" was "your brother [who] becomes impoverished and is indebted to you". In other words, it was about taking advantage of vulnerable people. Charging interest was not totally banned (Deuteronomy 23:20).
"The views on abortion vary widely depending on how the bible is interpreted."
Or misinterpreted.
"Your excuse seems to be that the bible is so badly written that people are always going to get the interpretation wrong."
Definitely not. Rather "The human mind is more deceitful than anything else. It is incurably bad." (Jeremiah 17:9). The problem is not a badly-written Bible, but man's desire to do his own thing and misinterpret in ways that he prefers.
"...but we don't really know what those morals are, ..."
A claim that you have not backed up.
"Almost every war in Europe from 500 to 1750 was done on the basis of the conviction that the fighters were on god's side."
The three-volume Encyclopedia of Wars lists more than 1700 wars and categorises seven percent as religious wars, and more than half of those attributable to one religion, which is not Christianity.
"Take for example the English civil war. The heads of the two sides couldn't be more pious people."
That doesn't make the basis of it religious.
"The heads of the two sides couldn't be more pious people."
Couldn't they? Just because they could talk the talk doesn't mean that they were actually following the Bible. William Wilberforce, when in Cambridge, was required to sign his name assenting to the article of the Church of England in order to get his degree. But people just signed it as a formality, without actually agreeing to it, because that was the done thing. He in fact recorded that when he arrived at Cambridge, he was introduced "to as licentious set of men as can be conceived. They drank hard, and the conversation was even worse than their lives." ( Amazing Grace, pp.50 and 17.) Just because they claimed God's support doesn't mean that they actually believed that they had it.
"My evidence for god being a man generated concept is self-evidential."
No, it's not.
"There is zero evidence for any ... supernatural being."
What's your evidence that there is no evidence?
"All sources for the existence of a god come solely from literature and/or people claiming that a god exists."
So you're denying that there are actual logical arguments, eyewitness accounts, and supportive history? What's your evidence?
"There is no clear definition of the characteristics of such a god ..."
Except in the Bible.
"...and no way to test if any of the claims are true."
And yet there are people who claim to have tested them and found them to be false. Which is not possible if there's no way to test them.
"Even if a god does exist, any concepts we have on such a being must necessarily be entirely constructed through our imagination."
That is a circular argument. The only reason they "must necessarily" be through our imagination is if you first reject the idea that God is real and can relate things to us. Otherwise it's not "necessarily" the case at all.
"why did you cut that sentence in half and deliberately misrepresent what I said?"
Because that was the only part of your sentence that wasn't a straw-man.
1
-
@adrianthom2073
"our moral values do not come from Yahweh."
Why do you think that?
"Have you even read the Bible?"
Yes.
"- AaronRa"
Why quote an atheist on what God should be?
"“If there really was one true god, it should be a singular composite of every religion’s gods, ..."
Why? Because he says so?
"If a being of that magnitude ever wrote a book, then there would only be one such document; one book of God."
There is. It's called the Bible. His argument is fallacious, because he simply assumes that there is more than one such book.
"It would be dominant everywhere in the world..."
Again, why? Because he says so?
"...because mere human authors couldn’t possibly compete with it."
That's not in evidence. But you could also argue that the claimed alternatives are, objectively, inferior. So again, he is assuming things that he's not demonstrating.
"And you wouldn’t need faith to believe it, because it would be consistent with all evidence..."
This shows that he doesn't understand what the Bible means by 'faith', which is based on evidence. He's applying a different definition of the word that atheists love to use, wrongly when they apply it to the biblical use. Besides, it is consistent with all the evidence. Again, his argument assumes otherwise, without providing evidence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chriswatson7965
"Your first paragraph describing Carnegie and Rockefeller isn't describing morals, its describing tactics."
Tactics based on or allowed by their morals.
"Also Malthusian economics has nothing to do with evolution. It predates it by more than 50 years."
It predates Darwinian evolution, not other evolutionary ideas, which predate Darwin. For just one example, Darwin's uncle Erasmus published an evolutionary view before Malthus published his views.
"The grading of humans by Europeans with Europeans at the top of the pile predates evolutionary theory,..."
Again, Darwinian evolution, not all evolutionary ideas.
"...evolution actually states the reverse, that all humans are equally evolved."
False. Evolution very much promoted the idea that humans were unequally evolved. Actual science, however, has shown that evolutionary idea to be false, so modern evolutionists don't hold it.
"European racism is much more deeply rooted in the association of other races with paganism, and the belief that 'god" had chosen Christians for the prime position."
According to Stephen Jay Gould, "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."
"Racist slavery practices and mistreatment have been a part of European culture since the 16thC and fell out of favour with the rise of the theory of evolution and other enlightenment."
Nonsense. As Gould said, the theory of evolution greatly encouraged it. Various atheist enlightenment thinkers supported slavery, which had previously been abolished in the West by Christianity, which again abolished it in the 19th century.
"In any case you are tending to discuss beliefs and actions and not morals,"
They are all intertwined.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As I've said before, atheists such as Douglas and Rita are, despite their good sense, part of the problem. Western Civilisation is built on Christian values and views, and atheism has been undermining that. Christianity embraced reason, and founded the university system, universal education, and science. Atheism says that it embraces those Christian inventions, but so often rejects the science, has undermined universities with their Marxism (a form of atheism), and foists "reason" on us like the idea that the universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada, and that as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere! What utter, unscientific, anti-reason nonsense!
Most atheists don't realise how they have 'stolen' many of their values from Christianity, and can't show how you can get them from atheism.
But kudos to these two for publicising the survey at the end of this video.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anikaparker1077
"Please correct me if I'm wrong, the updated estimate of the US population is actually over 335 million;..."
Google told me 333 million (2022). But I didn't say how much over 300 million, did I? I wasn't wrong, just being conservative. And of course, as you mention, that includes children, so 300 million is closer to the true adult figure than is 333 million.
"But we can be sure that they didn't survey the entire US population."
Of course. But that doesn't change anything. The point is that about 85% of (300 million) people didn't watch the debate, so it's not surprising that around half of those (42%) might still support Biden.
"Therefore, we cannot assume that "the ones who didn't watch" made up the 43% or the 41%."
Not strictly, no. But it's a reasonable inference to draw that there might be a big overlap between the 42% support and the 85% who didn't watch it. And note my question mark ("The ones who didn't watch?"). It was a suggestion, not a definitive answer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jakeg3296
"sloppy research, “ slander” is the spoken word."
Oh, is that what you're getting at? Actually, the Macquarie Dictionary (the Australian one, and I'm Australian), says that slander is " n. 1. defamation; calumny. 2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report. 3. Law. defamation in a transient form, as speech."
Neither defamation nor calumny refer specifically to the spoken word. So neither definition 1 nor 2 support your claim. And definition 3 is restricted to the legal context.
So it could be that this is a different meaning based on which brand of English you use.
"Nothing I typed was untrue."
And that is untrue. You said that I didn't produce any evidence, and yet I did. You said that it was "just conspiracy", which it's not. You false referred to Project Veritas as "notorious" and a "propaganda site".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jfkfitirjdjjsisieirirjfjdj5967
"so you know men who have hunted my people for sport"
No, I don't. James Morrow said that he has met such people. I know of no-one who has done that.
"...but it’s hard for you to believe people like them have tried to wipe my peoples out,your logic is broken"
No, not my logic. People have long hunted various animals (which I'm NOT equating aborigines to) for sport, whether that by wild pigs, deer, lions, or whatever, without any intention to wipe them out. Hunting for sport does not equate to wanting to wipe them out. The logic is on my side. In fact, it's probably a contradiction. If you're doing it with the intent to wipe them out, you're not doing it for sport. If you're doing it for sport, you'd want them to continue to exist so that you can continue your sport.
Part of the issue is what "genocide" means. Is it merely the intent to wipe out a people group, or the act of doing so. My point being that aborigines have not been wiped out.
1
-
1
-
@jfkfitirjdjjsisieirirjfjdj5967
"do you understand what I said..."
Yes. You were trying to shift the burden of proof.
"...all the information is out there..."
Then it should be easy to provide it upon request. So why don't you?
"I’ll say it again,it’s a waste of time trying to reason or show the proof,it’s common knowledge ere in this country,..."
It's "common knowledge" among the left. Conservatives want evidence. Are you suggesting that "common knowledge" can never be questioned?
"f I found the evidence so can you,I mean a simple google search will even bring it up,..."
I'm not saying I can't. I'm saying that it's not my responsibility to find the evidence for other people's claims.
"state libraries have tons of archives about jenocide and eugenics program yous did on us,..."
I never did that on you. You're making that up. Eugenics programs were a consequence of the idea of evolution, a false idea that I have never accepted. So I'm not even in the group of people who did that sort of thing.
"...all the diseases yous deliberately infected us with..."
Again, I'd like evidence of that. I know that people got infected with diseases that they had no immunity to, but I also know that was not deliberate. At least in most cases; there may have been exceptions. The claim, however, that aborigines were given deliberately-infected blankets is false. Also, you fail to balance your comments with the other side of the story, of how Europeans have helped and protected aborigines in various times and places. The impression I get from you is that it was and is all one way.
"so educate yaself instead of letting ya feelings get in the way"
I have educated myself on various things, but, again, it's not my job to find evidence for your claims.
1
-
@jfkfitirjdjjsisieirirjfjdj5967
"it’s nothing to do with a particular political party,..."
I didn't mention political parties.
"...it’s to do with a nation of people who are in the wrong,period,point blank,..."
Another fact-free assertion.
"...I don’t play that little politics game of blame,..."
And yet here you are blaming an entire nation.
"...if you can’t find the proof ..."
If you can't read, then you'll never understand that I never said I couldn't find it. I said that it's not my responsibility to find it.
"...i think you are confused or ignorant,..."
Says the person who seems to think that "it's not my responsibility" means "I can't".
"...I believe my families and my own accounts of reality,..."
Which appears to be a very small bit of anecdotal evidence. Which means that it cannot prove the larger claim.
"...everything you know is a lie,sorry..."
Yeah, right. So you know everything I know well enough to know that every single thing is a lie! Your credibility would be shot if it wasn't already.
"...your illegal occupiers..."
What illegality? You haven't shown any (insofar as occuping are concerned).
"...but reality is that colinialism isn’t pretty..."
No, reality is that colonialism is morally neutral. It's how it's done that may or may not be pretty.
"...look at jisrael,they are still using the bretish colinialism act today against the Palestinian peoples..."
Evidence please. And again, it's your responsibility to provide it, not mine to go hunting for it. As a well-known atheist once said, “...what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”
And you still haven't provided any evidence that the aborigines were the original inhabitants. Why not?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jfkfitirjdjjsisieirirjfjdj5967
"ok,i guess you are correct,there isn’t evidence available,..."
Thanks for the admission.
"...doesn’t mean they treated my peoples with respect..."
It doesn't mean that were not, either. But the point is, it's not a nothing-or-all situation. Aborigines were treated with respect by some, and, undoubtedly, not by others. The question then becomes how much of each occurred. And even that answer is not simple in the sense that it would have varied both from place to place and time to time. But I do agree that many people treated aborigines appallingly. My objection was to the claim of genocide, not mistreatment.
"...your kind taking my peoples land is wrong,..."
My "kind"? I'm of the same kind as you—mankind.
"...don’t you agree stealing,lying,masacres is wrong"
Yes, I definitely do. But did Europeans steal? That is, where are the aborigines' titles to the land? I twice asked about the evidence that they were first, but you've not answered. There are claims, and I believe with some evidence, that aborigines were not the first, but that they supplanted earlier people. Not only that, but some of the new arrivals actually bartered with the local aborigines for use of the land. They didn't just take it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aaronfranklin6863
"well your clearly and deliberately overlooking the bit which says destroys in part,..."
On the contrary, that was said by one of the four definitions I cited. Further, it also required intention, You're overlooking that. Deliberately?
And I notice that you have not said what dictionary you're using!
"...judging by history you didn't come over to hold hands and sing kumbya,..."
No, that was not the intention either. But it doesn't follow that genocide was the intention.
"...everywhere you people went ended badly for us native peoples..."
Utter selective nonsense. Yes, it ended badly in some places. But not everywhere, and you also got the benefits of medicines, technology, civil government, and more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AntithesisDCLXVI
"Spirit doesn't mean ghost or invisible being, spirit means purpose or intent."
Why do you think that? That is, why do you think it can't be a reference to Satan and his demons?
"Spirit does not mean ghost or invisible being, those are beliefs of the occult."
I agree that it doesn't mean ghost (dead person's spirit), nor does it mean an invisible being, but why can't it refer to a spiritual being without a body, such as Satan and his demons?
"He cast away evil intentions."
He cast evil intention into pigs? How does that work?
"Let's be realistic here: invisible beings do not exist."
Evidence please.
"If they did, and we could interact with them and they can interact with the physical world,..."
Yes. That doesn't mean that they don't exist.
"... then we would have a ton of video or other evidence by now."
What makes you think that we don't? How could we have video evidence of an invisible spirit being?
"But also if they existed, they would be blind, because it's impossible to even see if light just passes through you,..."
What if there is some as-yet-unknown aspect of light that doesn't pass through them? My point is that we have very little in the way of knowledge of how spiritual beings would work.
"The Hebrew word for Spirit means wind."
It can also mean mind or spirit.
"The original belief was that it was the Breath of Life from God animating our beings."
And yet Genesis 2:7 which says that God breathed the breath of life into man does not use rûaḥ the word used for the Spirit of God in Genesis 1.
"Okay but we know people don't just magically speak other languages, that simply doesn't happen."
True, but we are talking about the power of God, not magic.
"Besides, you really think the rulers of this world are actually Christian (Matthew 4:8-9, 1 John 5:19)?"
Those passages are not talking about earthly rulers They don't mean what you're arguing.
"That's rich coming from someone trying to claim that invisible, immaterial beings exist can see, hear, and speak."
It's "rich" for someone who believes that immaterial being exist to claim that immaterial beings exist?
"How do they see without eyes? How do they hear without ears? How do they create sounds without lungs filled with air? How do they control their voice without vocal chords?"
Refer to my comment above about having very little in the way of knowledge of how spiritual beings work. How does the spirit-being Yahweh interact with the world?
"How do they do any of these things without brains to organize and interpret information?"
Because they have minds. Just (in that sense) like the immaterial, invisible God does.
"But I'm the ridiculous one, okay."
Well, when you claim to know things that you don't, I guess that might fit.
"Spirit referring to intentions is even deeper and more complex than supposed invisible beings."
What makes it deeper and more complex? That it helps you justify your distortions of Scripture?
"Maybe instead of taking completely literally a story that describes impossible events,..."
You haven't shown them to be impossible. You've only deemed them to be so.
"... you should focus on the spirit of the story; its meaning, intention, and purpose."
We do. And it's very clear that the Holy Spirit is a real person, one of the three persons of God.
"The lesson of the story, what is teaches, is what is important. This is how stories have always worked, and still do. Movies and TV shows are filled with impossible events that nevertheless serve to teach."
False. Many stories are based on reality; they are not all based on fiction. When God said that we are to work for six days and rest on the seventh because that's what He did in creation, the instruction has no meaning if God didn't work for six days and rest on the seventh. Fictional stories can help us understand things, but they can't be the basis for teaching what we should do (or not do).
"Only children can't differentiate between reality and fiction."
Is that an admission that you're a child because you can't differentiate between your fiction and the reality of spiritual beings?
"It's normal to resist weening off the milk, but it's important you move onto the meat of true understanding in order for us to grow as a species."
True. So why aren't you doing that? Or to put it another way, why do you make such comments solely on the basis of us disagreeing with you?
"Words, their origins, and the concepts they represent matter."
True. Which is why we disagree with your claims of what they mean.
"Just because the modern world has been Deceived to conflate ghost and spirit as one does not mean it is accurate."
Deceived? On the contrary, it's simply a matter of the meaning of the word "ghost" having changed over time. At one time 'ghost' and 'spirit' meant the same thing.
1
-
@AntithesisDCLXVI
"How does a being without a body see, hear, speak, or think?"
I don't know, as I've pointed out.
"It's on you to prove the claim that this is even possible,..."
False. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You made the claim that they couldn't, so you have the burden of proof.
"...as all these functions are dependent on physical body parts."
What's your evidence that they have to be so dependent?
"It's impossible to prove a negative,..."
It's not always impossible, actually.
"You're the one making the claim, it's on YOU to provide the evidence for it."
COMPLETELY FALSE. YOU made the claim that "invisible beings do not exist." Therefore it's on YOU to provide the evidence for it. That it might be impossible to prove only shows that you made a claim that you can't back up.
"Convenient how you ignore the part about the being interacting with the world, which would be easy to capture."
Convenient how you ignore my actual question. What makes you think that occasional, unpredictable, events would be "easy" to capture?
"A mind can exist without a brain? You need to back up that claim with evidence."
Read the Bible. It is evidence.
"And who says Love is immaterial or invisible?"
I didn't, so I don't know why you bring that up.
"Suddenly speaking another language without training is magic, not Love."
Magic is when you invoke some mysterious power by speaking a series of words. God invokes His own power, ergo it's not magic.
"You worship Power (1 John 5:19)..."
No, I worship God, and I don't know what 1 John 5:19 has to do with your argument.
"...and have been Deceived into worshiping the Pretender, like all the rulers of this world."
You have no business inventing things about me.
"Are you going to cast out demons? Are you going to heal the sick with merely a touch? Are you going to turn water into wine, or duplicate bread and fishes? Are you going to walk on water?"
I don't know.
"No, you will never do these things, I promise you."
Evidence please.
"And so those stories teach you nothing..."
Nonsense. They teach me about what God can do, among other things.
"...because you refuse to see their true meaning and instead are seduced into worshiping Power instead of Love, ..."
More fact-free invention.
"I'm focusing on practical wisdom, which is what's actually important and useful, and can be agreed upon by anyone/everyone."
And yet I'm not agreeing. So clearly you are wrong.
"Your comment is a perfect example of the mental gymnastics of a infantile need to cling to belief in fantasy, like a child with Santa."
More abusive ad hominem.
"You want magic powers and beings without bodies to exist, probably simply out of fear for your own mortality."
More invention.
"You don't want the responsibility of having to fix your own problems, and to do work to help others."
Even more invention.
"You don't want to be a conduit for the Most High, you just want to say some special words and have everything be magically fixed for you."
Still more invention. Can you actually make a case, or is making up things about all you have?
"I didn't scoff or look down at anyone."
Utter rubbish. Most of your response to me was that.
"If you feel attacked, it is only because of your pride."
It couldn't possibly be because he was attacked? Why not? Because you're so perfect you're above that?
"You also have no basis to claim I am afraid,..."
Perhaps so, but then you have no basis to make the numerous claims you've made about me.
"...but you need to belittle me in some way, which would also seem to be due to pride."
Is that why you've been belittling me? Your pride in your views being accurate, despite not being able to provide evidence for them?
What sort of being is your deist god? Biological? What?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AntithesisDCLXVI
"Now look what your pride has made you do."
More evidence-free insult.
"I never said your mind is closed just because you have a different view..."
You never gave any reason for your invented claim was wrong. The only argument you've made is to insult me and to present your own different view.
"...it's dishonest of you to try and frame my words that way."
It's dishonest of you to make up things about me.
"...shame on you for intentionally resorting to deceit."
Says the person who makes up things about me!
"I've made it clear that it's because you refuse to see reason, which is evidenced simply by (among other things) repeatedly demanding I prove something doesn't exist; an impossible feat."
If it's impossible to prove, then it's intellectually dishonest to claim it in the first place. The fact that you made the claim means that I have a valid reason for expecting you to back it with evidence, and therefore is not evidence of me not seeing reason.
"How can a being exist non-physically?"
How do you know it can't?
"That's an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence."
What's extraordinary about it? We know of numerous non-physical things that exist, and we also have very good evidence that a non-physical being exists.
"If "invisible beings" interacted with any of the higher or lower EM wavelengths then we could use those to detect them..."
Evidence please. What if they interact in a way that we can't detect?
"...so we can thereby conclude they don't interact with any form of light and would be unable to see."
No, we can't conclude that, because that's an argument from ignorance.
"How would the non-physical even interact with the physical at all?"
I don't know the specifics, but then you don't know that they couldn't.
"Spirit doesn't mean being,..."
According to the Bible, it does (or can). So what's your good evidence to the contrary?
"You don't have a soul, you ARE a soul."
That's your opinion, not something you've been able to demonstrate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@1voiceCriesOut
"so the southern hemisphere is now referred to as the global south?"
That was my impression, but it turns out I'm wrong.
"why are words and phrase ceated when one already exists?"
Often because people are ignorant of the existing words and phrases. I also wonder why, when quoting someone (as I have done with you), people often use anything but quote marks!
But in this case, southern hemisphere is a term for all the globe south of the equator, whereas 'global south' is apparently a term referring to certain countries that are mainly in that hemisphere. According to Wikipedia, "Global North and Global South are terms that denote a method of grouping countries based on their defining characteristics with regard to socioeconomics and politics. According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the Global South broadly comprises Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia (excluding Israel, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea), and Oceania (excluding Australia and New Zealand)."
According the Sage Journals, "The phrase “Global South” refers broadly to the regions of Latin America, Asia, Africa, and Oceania. It is one of a family of terms, including “Third World” and “Periphery,” that denote regions outside Europe and North America, mostly (though not all) low-income and often politically or culturally marginalized. The use of the phrase Global South marks a shift from a central focus on development or cultural difference toward an emphasis on geopolitical relations of power."
Given that the second definition apparently includes Australia and New Zealand, it seems that definitions differ!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SouthernRebels94
"no we are a republic "
I never said that you weren't, did I?
"they even told us to stay away from democracy..."
How and where did they say that? Please give me quotes. And what did they mean by "democracy"?
"...being an American I thought you would know that."
I'm not American. I'm an Australian, which has a constitutional monarchy, which, apart from having a Governor General representing the king instead of a president, is a very similar system to America. I have discussed this question with a number of Americans who make the same claim, and none could justify the claim that they are not a democracy. The closest any got was to say that America is not a direct democracy (which is true; it's a representative democracy), and that person agreed that America IS a democracy.
The World Population Review website says that "Republics are also referred to as representative democracies. " It describes Australia as a "Republic-type Constitutional Monarchy", and we consider our system to be a democracy.
It goes on to say that "Like many other nations, the U.S. is considered a hybrid government and is simultaneously a constitutional republic, a representative democracy, and a democratic republic."
1
-
@vegastrina
"The United States is a Republic."
I know. I never said otherwise, did I? On the contrary, I affirmed that the U.S. is a republic! Try reading properly.
"A Republic has citizens vote for a representative to speak on their behalf, ..."
Which is the way that most democracies, including Australia, work.
"...these representatives are governed by a written document or set of documents, like a Constitution and Bill of Rights, or whatever is chosen for a particular Republic country."
Yep. Just like most democracies.
"A Democracy doesn't necessarily have a representative, although it can, it hears the voice of each and every individual citizen who chooses to speak and it doesn't necessarily have a set of governing papers because majority always rules.."
A representative democracy always does. That's why it's called a representative democracy.
"...the Republic is supposed to do a better job at making sure the minority ruling isn't squashed by a majority ruling,..."
A better job than what? That's also what happens in Australia, a Constitutional Monarchy (another form of representative democracy).
"...please feel free to do your research and expand your knowledge."
Oh, believe me. I have done it, and have expanded my knowledge. I'll provide some of that research/knowledge to you below.
"There are something like 4 types of Democracies and 5 types of Republics,..."
I'm sure that depends on how you count the differences. It's probably the case that every democracy and every republic is different in some way, even if it's a minor way. And you're not allowing for overlap between democracies and republics. The point being that they are not mutually exclusive.
"...the populace living in the United States doesn't appear to know what kind of Republic the United States is, ..."
Yes, I've found that many in the U.S. don't appear to know that their republic is also a democracy. In fact I'm making this point to one such person right now!
"...it's definitely a Constitution Republic of some kind, probably trying to be a Democratic Republic or maybe it's leaning that way.."
See my further comments below.
"The last TRUE Democracy was about 2000 years ago...give/take...and it began in Athens, Greece."
I agree. But the point is that there is at least one other type of democracy than a pure or true or direct democracy, and that's a representative democracy, which is actually about the only type of democracy that has existed since those in ancient Greece.
"I hope this clears up any confusion ..."
Thanks for that, but I wasn't confused. You are. Here is some of what my research revealed. This is from the World Population Review site, in its article titled "Republic Countries 2022"
* "Republics are also referred to as representative democracies. "
* "On the other hand, several other countries (mostly former British colonies) would likely be republics if not for a technicality. Countries such as Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom are defined as constitutional monarchies because they have a queen or king who acts as the head of the state. However, that monarch's role is largely ceremonial and the rest of the government functions nearly identically to a parliamentary republic, with the people choosing the overwhelming majority of their representatives in free and fair elections."
* "The United States is a presidential republic. ... the U.S. is considered a hybrid government and is simultaneously a constitutional republic, a representative democracy, and a democratic republic." (my bolding)
I strongly recommend that you search for that article and read it. You should find it quite enlightening.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Yet another Murdoch editor finds a way to support this feeble, aging disgrace!"
Huh? They didn't mention Biden.
"Btw, as a Diplomat of some standing, allow me to correct Greg Sheridan here: it is NOT the "enemies" of America that fear a Trump regime - it is her traditional ALLIES in Europe, NATO, AUKUS etc!!"
Yeah, pull the other one.
"As for America's anti-democrat rivals and "enemies", Trump openly courts them!"
Why is "enemies" in scare quotes? Don't you see evil regimes as enemies? And being diplomatic with them is not courting them.
"Of all Trump's crude and bizarre antics, NOTHING threatens to destabilise our world more than his sycophantic idol-worship of despots and tyrants, such as Russia's Vladimir Putin, Chinese CCP President Xi Jinpin, Turkey's President Erdogan, and even North Korean Dictator Kim Jong Un."
On the contrary, Harris love of killing babies, not being able to tell a man from a woman, favouring woke views, etc. etc. that all are part of a Marxist attempt to undermine the basis of Western Civilisation, are much bigger threats than your misrepresentation of Trump's relationships.
1
-
1
-
God did create humans in His image, meaning that, like Him, we think, plan, love, and so on. God is not a physical being, so we are not created in His physical image. However, we then rejected Him, so He stepped back, allowing us to go our own way. And consequently things started to deteriorate morally and genetically (among other ways) (we accumulate about 100 new mutations per generation).
1
-
@tabularasa7775
"LOL that was hilarious but the reality is he won't be turning up anywhere anytime because he's dead ."
No, He was killed, but was brought back to life, and still lives. Read the eyewitness accounts.
"You're the one believing in an old story book as if it's matter of fact ..."
It's a history book (and other things), not merely a "story book", and of course the age of a history book doesn't matter because history doesn't change, and yes, it is factual, as archaeology has shown many, many, times over.
"...that was written by humans in a time where they hadn't yet realised laws of motion and that something in motion will continue in motion until something stops it ..."
What's your evidence that they didn't realise that? Just because they hadn't described it in a scientific way doesn't mean that they hadn't observed and realised that.
"The "bible" was also written by humans ..."
Under the inspiration and guidance of God. And why the scare quotes? You can't find a real criticism?
"...before a time where science thought to cure one's illnesses you must drain their blood..."
So they didn't get that wrong like the later science did? Is that what you're saying?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tedbell4416
"Well Ukraine was one of the most corrupt governments in the world."
I think the operative word there is the one I bolded.
"Now they are getting $40 billion, think they will have enough to buy an ambulance?"
Fair point, but it doesn't take into account that they need to spend that money on defending the country. In fact, if I was a gambler, I'd be willing to bet that the $40 billion was not open-ended, but given with string attached as to what it was to be spent on. In fact, I'll look it up. Hand on a tic....
Yes and no. I take it you're referring to a $40 billion U.S. aid package. Some of that money is "to replenish stocks of U.S. equipment sent to Ukraine", so not actually going to Ukraine. Most of the rest is for designated purposes. Yes, there is about $7 billion for humanitarian aid, but even some of that is "to address food insecurity globally due to the conflict" (i.e. not for Ukraine) and some "to help refugees" and some to "fund efforts to seize the assets of oligarchs linked to Russian President Vladimir Putin". So none of that can be used for ambulances either. Maybe some can be, but chances are, none of it is simply money to be spent as Ukraine wants.
"There are people in more need of an ambulance all over the world including Australia."
Are there? I'm not aware of a shortage of ambulance vehicles in Australia. As I understand it, there is a shortage of people to man them, and a shortage of hospital staff to deal with ambulance patients, so the ambulances and their crews have to stand around waiting a lot of the time.
But you're also incorrect in another way. Even with the ambulance problems in Australia, they are not more in need than in the Ukraine, according to this video.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@male42nfree
"On this then, we likely disagree ."
No, not really.
"The Word of God stands on its own - it not open to interpretation."
We are using the terms in slightly different ways. When I said that "you can have those sorts of approaches to biblical doctrine too.", I did not mean that each of those different ways were equally legitimate. Suppose I asked you the question: "Can you murder someone?". Your answer could be "no" because the law (whether biblical or secular) says that no, you can't. But your answer could also be "yes" because, despite being against the law, you can murder someone—it is within your capability to do so. That's the sort of thing I was getting at—I was saying that you can interpret the Bible in different ways (just as you could interpret almost any text in different ways), whereas what you're saying is that you can't legitimately interpret in different ways. I essentially agree with you on that.
And given that you can interpret it in different ways, I'm further saying that how you interpret it—or understand it—often depends on your 'conservative' vs. 'progressive' approach to things. Of course this is all a very simplified way of looking at it, as there are not simply two ways of looking at it, but a spectrum of ways, and 'conservative' and 'progressive' are not the only labels one could put on that. But given that, if you want to say that the 'conservative' way is the correct way and the 'progressive' way is an incorrect way, you'll get no disagreement from me, because, to reiterate, I'm not saying that both ways are equally valid or legitimate.
And just to clarify another point... I have myself often said that I don't interpret the Bible; I just see what it says. Because 'interpret' has a bit of a connotation of putting what the text says into a different form. I did use the word 'interpret' here, but it might be better to replace that with understand. Even if you don't interpret it in a particular way, you do understand it in a particular way.
At the risk of changing topic and starting another argument, 😜I think that there are cases where particular instructions or advice were based on the cultural circumstances, and there are also cases where the text is not as clear or explicit as we'd like it to be. In the latter case, of course, there is the apocalyptic language in Revelation. My rule of thumb here when people disagree is to ask, are they putting the Bible first and disagreeing solely on their understanding of the biblical text (e.g. modes of baptism, eschatology) or are they compromising with views from outside the Bible (e.g. evolution)? In the former case, I believe that it would be fair to conclude that the Bible is not as clear as we would like (and likely for good reason—that God wanted to leave some things open).
Have a good think with your noodle as you fall off to sleep!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cont7628
"Ok well I thought the bigotry was clear...opposing same sex marriage."
Which was one of the problems with the entire debate: Many people supporting it refused to recognise that there could possibly be a valid reason for opposing it, and therefore vilified them for doing so.
"Marriage isn't a religious thing..."
I didn't say it was, because "religious" is a word that (like most words) has a range of meanings that people typically don't clarify as to which they are using. Those meanings can include any core belief system (i.e. including atheistic views) to a system involving rites and rituals (i.e. excluding evangelical Christianity).
"I get the whole religious side of there reasoning..."
Yet your subsequent comment suggests that you don't get it at all.
"...the only reason those religions (people of the good book) is because centuries old traditions of homophobia."
No, it's not. It's because God created us heterosexual, and homosexuality is a defiance of what God has created and decreed to be good. In other words, homosexuality is, objectively, wrong. And marriage is, by definition of the One who created it, a union of a man and a woman. Ergo, same-sex marriage is an oxymoron, like a married bachelor.
"There isn't any "morally right" reason to oppose allowing two people to married."
God says otherwise. And He, not you, is the authority in such matters.
Note that the above is not an argument from "religion", but an argument from history and design.
1
-
1
-
@cont7628
"Right well firstly my understand of faith is just that my understanding."
Okay, that's fair enough. And thanks for the detailed reply. But...
"I am not wrong nor am I right nor are you right or wrong as we are all entitled to our own beliefs in this great nation."
That is incoherent self-contradictory nonsense. One cannot be both not wrong and not right. Nothing can be both A and not-A. There is such a thing as truth, and you are either right or wrong, and I am either right or wrong. We are entitled to our own opinions but not to our own truth.
"I simply disagree with your view that god did this and that."
Okay, you disagree. But why? That is, what reasons or evidence do you have. The point here is that you are calling people homophobes on the basis of an understanding that you apparently have no basis for. That is, you are maligning other people on the basis of your understanding, which implies that you think you are right and they are wrong. And yet you claim that both of us are not right and not wrong!
"the only thing about religion I know is that it is something that is personal and that it should have no role in politics."
What do you mean by saying that you "know" that? What if your understanding of that is wrong? Because I have a completely opposite understanding—that it is not merely personal, and that politics has no basis without it. In fact it is historical fact that Western Civilisation and all the innovation, success, and benefits that it has brought has been because people believed the Bible and put that belief into public action. Keeping it personal and out of politics would lead the the decline and eventual demise of Western Civilisation.
1
-
@cont7628
"Mate you have earned my respects with your detailed response..."
I'll probably blow that respect with the amount of detail in this response! But thanks for that. I also appreciate your civil interaction with me, which is a rare thing.
"I do not see or know any scientific or modern evidence of a god"
Why limit it to just those two forms of evidence? What about ancient eye-witness evidence?
But there is plenty of evidence. Just one example is the evidence of (genetic) information in living things. The only source we know of for information is an intelligence, and given that the information in living things predates humans, that's strong evidence for God.
"...they where all written by scholars and theologians who often did not live during the time of Jesus or any major events in Abrahamic religions..."
Except that they were. The gospels were written by those that bear their names, and two knew Jesus personally, and the other two knew people who knew Jesus personally. Internal evidence in the first three gospels indicates that they were written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Virtually all historians concerned with the period accept that at least some of Paul's letters were in fact written by Paul, who lived in the first century.
Similar arguments could be made for much of the Old Testament too.
"But we are debating religion and ideologies which often don't have many facts or truths like science or measurements does."
Actually, I'm debating Christianity in particular, not other religions. And Christianity does have many facts. Or perhaps I should phrase that as the Bible does have many facts. It has often been criticised for getting things wrong (e.g. the existence of the Hittites, the titles of certain officials) only for further archaeological discoveries to show that it was actually right on those things.
"... but politics and those early innovation did not emerge because of the teaching of the bible..."
It depends on which particular innovations you are talking about, and when, but often the case is the opposite of what you say. For example, it's well documented that science itself emerged because of the Christian worldview. And while politics itself may not have, the Christian worldview has had a significant effect on it. To quote from one researcher on the topic, Vishal Mangalwadi (talking about translations of the Bible into English):
"Almost every alehouse and tavern turned into a debating society. People started questioning and judging every tradition of the church and every decision of the king. People could question religious and political authorities because they now had in their hands the very Word of God. The Word of God was an authority higher than the authority of the church and the state combined. ...
"Alehouses became debating clubs as people interpreted and applied the Bible differently to the intellectual and social issues of the day. Some were content to let the church settle their disputes. Others realized that the only way to determine which interpretation was correct was to read the Bible with valid rules of interpretation. This was a bottom-up intellectual revolution. It infused the minds of all literate Englishmen—not just those in the universities—with a new logical bent. It took no time for that revolution to spread into other aspects of people's lives. Until that time, England was only a middling power. But once the English people began using logic to interpret the Bible, they acquired a skill that propelled their nation to the forefront of world politics, economics, and thought."
Also, if you're interested, find the paper "The Missionary Roots of Liberal Democracy" by Robert Woodberry, which shows how Protestant missionaries fostered democracy and more involvement in politics simply by providing education, literacy, examples of running organisations, printing, and newspapers.
"... if the bible mentioned freedom of speech and democracy then it would've implemented centuries ago not in the past 250 years ago."
The Bible's influence has not so much been by direct endorsement of particular things such as democracy, but rather by more fundamental principles, such as the right of individuals to think for themselves, that then led to the spread of democracy and the principle of freedom of speech. For example, it does not condemn slavery, but does say that slaves and non-slaves are equal. That led to Christianity doing away with slavery once it became widespread enough. Slavery later came back, but again, Christianity fought against it on the basis that we are all made in the image of God.
Also, democracy is older than 250 years, and Christianity has been influencing it for more than that. When the Roman emperor Theodosius slaughtered 7000 people attending a chariot race in revenge for some people rebelling against him, the Bishop of Milan confronted him and forced him to repent and to institute a new rule preventing any executions within 30 days of their sentence, to allow for a cooling-off period. That was in 390 AD.
The church was instrumental in getting the then king of England to sign the Magna Carta restricting the rule of the king on the grounds that even the king was subject to God's laws. That led to England having a parliament, and that was about 800 years ago.
"When religion isn't separated by the state we end looking like Saudi Arabia or the U.A.E or milder versions of them."
Not all religions are the same. The problem there is the particular religion concerned. Not the simple fact of a "religion" being involved.
"Separation of religion is essential to maintain equality between those with different faiths and without faith."
First, the Bible describes God instituting a church-state separation a thousand years before Christ. King David was the civil leader, and the prophets Samuel then Nathan were the religious leaders. But even then, the civil leader was still subject to God's standards.
Second, nobody is "without faith". We all believe in something. At a couple of extremes, Christians (and others) believe in God, while atheists believe in no God. (The Christian faith is based on evidence, while the atheist faith is contrary to the evidence; a 'blind' faith.)
"In the western world religion is slowly fading anyway from relevance..."
Yes, it's fading in the West, but not from (lack of) relevance; rather from sustained attack from anti-Christian ideologies that have gained a lot of positions of influence.
"...the value of all religions not just Christianity is huge..."
No, just Christianity, or Judeo-Christian thought. I'm not saying other religions have contributed nothing, but their contributions are not "huge".
"at least in the west religion is becoming a thing of the past and less relevant with each new generation."
On the contrary, it's becoming more relevant as people move away from it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paddopadderson9688
"It took 25 odd years to get into depravity without the bulwark of christian morality and world views"
It's a recent development of a process that's been going on a lot longer than that.
"no it began in the universities through collectivist, socialist and communists."
It began with deists and atheists, although yes, sometimes in the universities, attempting to marginalise Christianity, including with geological claims of deep time and of evolution, a process that is designed to explain the variety of life without God.
Sherwood Taylor was the Curator of the Museum of the History of Science, Oxford, and said way back in 1949:
“… I myself have little doubt that in England it was geology [i.e. millions of years, denial of a world-wide flood, etc.] and the theory of evolution that changed us from a Christian to a pagan nation.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Saskfinest1
"If there's multiple definitions, ..."
What do you mean, "if"? Check a dictionary.
"...that would make religion subjective,..."
If that logic was correct, almost every other word would also be subjective, because, as I said, most words have multiple meanings.
"So therefore everything you say would be pointless."
That's nonsense. Rather, it means that you have to either (a) understand which meaning is meant from the context, or (b) clarify which meaning you are using.
"Are you blind to how society operates today?"
Nope.
"Do you not see the degeneracy of society right now?"
Yes, living in the West, I do see some. But I also see improvements in other places.
"All of this points to the decline of religion."
Again, which religion(s)? You can have a decline by more people becoming religious, if the religions concerned are bad ones, such as atheist ones. In fact, as I pointed out, Marxist views are very popular these days, and Marxism is responsible for much of that degeneracy.
1
-
@Saskfinest1
"athiesm and secularism is not religion."
I didn't say that atheism is. No more than theism is. But there are both theistic and atheistic religions, and I gave you examples and evidence of the latter, which you've not shown me to be wrong on, which means that you're just in denial. And for the record, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared that atheism is a religion.
"most words do not have different definitions, "
So you didn't bother checking a dictionary? Take the first word in your sentence: 'most'. Oxford gives two definitions:
1) "the largest in number or amount", with an example being "Who do you think will get (the) most votes?"
2) "more than half of somebody/something; almost all of somebody/something", with an example being "Most of the people I had invited turned up."
And here's the second word in your sentence: "word". Merriam Webster gives twelve meanings of the noun, with some of those twelve having their own variants. The twelve meanings include the following:
2a: "a brief remark or conversation", as in "would like to have a word with you"
3: "ORDER, COMMAND", as in "don't move till I give the word "
5: "PROMISE, DECLARATION", as in "kept her word "
I expect that I could show multiple definitions for every word in that sentence of yours.
"You are just making up your definitions on the spot to strawman your arguments."
No, you are making up criticisms of me, rather than just address my actual arguments.
"if Marxism is more popular, what does that tell you?"
That that religion is growing.
"You can't make this up."
And I'm not. I can give evidence. But you're failing to do the same.
1
-
@peterc4082
"I don't think I'm wrong."
And yet you are!
"I think that popularity of a religion has little or nothing to do with its truth value."
The discussion was about whether being convinced by something has anything to do with it being true. We weren't discussing popularity.
"... (some or many of) the teachings of Christianity are so ingrained in European culture that people take them for granted and take them as obvious default positions. I don't think I'm wrong."
No, you're not wrong on that. That is definitely correct (except that I'd refer to Western culture, not European culture).
"2. Some religions have failed."
True.
"Christianity hasn't failed - to fail Christianity we'd need to find the bones of Jesus Christ."
True.
"Christianity unlike all other religions can be proven false empirically."
In principle, i.e. it's falsifiable. But it can't be proven false empirically because it's true.
"2. Christianity even so, has no targets."
You mean targets that it has to meet? I disagree, but if you mean numerically-specified targets, yeah, perhaps. But Christianity does have the target to "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." And you could argue that "all" is a numerically-specified target. But I agree that it doesn't have the sorts of targets that you give as examples.
"Anyway I hope you see the OP said something nonsensical."
No, I don't see it, although there's not much information in his comment to go on. I don't really have an opinion on that.
"Happy Easter."
He is risen!
1
-
@Saskfinest1
"No, You are being obtuse on purpose."
False. You're avoiding addressing the evidence. And avoiding admitting that words can have more than meaning, despite me giving you evidence.
"The context which everything we have talked about is pretty obvious."
You think that "religion" doesn't include atheist religions. I'm pointing out that it can, and that atheist religions are one of the biggest problems. Further, when I mentioned atheist religions, you didn't reply by specifying that you were only talking about theistic religions even though I explicitly asked which religion(s) you were talking about. Rather, you simply denied that such a thing could exist, and that words can possibly have more than one meaning.
"Once again, You are the religious version of the person that can't answer "what is a women"?."
I got a notification that you'd made a comment about that, but the comment doesn't exist. But of course, being a Christian, I can answer it. A woman is an adult human female, one of the two sexes in which God created mankind.
"Making everything subjective is not providing anything."
I'm not making everything subjective. You're the one who brought up subjectiveness.
1
-
@Saskfinest1
"Religion is the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods. That is the definition."
No, that is one of the definitions.
From Merriam-Webster:
1: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
2a(1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural
2a(2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2b: the state of a religious [e.g.] a nun in her 20th year of religion
3: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
"Marxism is a political philosophy, not a religion, it has nothing to do with gods,..."
Actually, being atheistic, it does say something about gods—that they don't exist. Further, as I pointed out The United States Supreme Court has declared atheism to be a religion. You ignored that.
"... more to do with socioeconomics."
Socialism is the economic part. The socio part is to do with morals and ethics, just as religion is. Although some/most religions (including Christianity) are to do with all of life, including economics.
"Conflating the two is absolutely illogical."
You also ignored that Secular Humanism's founding document described it as a secular religion.
"If marxism and atheism are religions, than all ideas are religious. All you are doing is broadening the definition to fit your argument."
On the contrary, what you're doing (even if unconsciously) is narrowing the definition to suit your argument. Atheism and theism both have something to say about God, origins, morals, etc. If you prefer the word, they are categories of worldviews (and everyone does have a worldview). If you want to use 'religion' to refer to just pro-God worldviews and ignore no-God worldviews, you're being arbitrarily selective. I prefer to use 'religion' to refer to worldviews, per definition 3 above: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".
1
-
@Saskfinest1
"Marxism has nothing to do with faith."
Marxism is atheism, and believes that God doesn't exist. Can you empirically prove that God doesn't exist? If not, then that view is held by blind faith.
"Despite the fact that atheism is not a religion, atheism is protected by many of the same Constitutional rights that protect religion."
First, if you're going to quote someone else, it's polite to acknowledge the source.
Second, How does that work? How can a protection of religion protect atheism if atheism is not a religion?
Third, your source is an atheist one, and atheists have have no basis for telling the truth (which does not mean that they don't necessarily tell the truth, just that they have no basis for it), and they sometimes do lie.
"That, however, does not mean that atheism is itself a religion,..."
Despite the spin that the atheists put on it, what the court actually said doesn't match that spin.
From the court: "The problem here was that the prison officials did not treat atheism as a “religion,” perhaps in keeping with Kaufman's own insistence that it is the antithesis of religion." Note that they said that "the problem" was that the prison didn't treat atheism as a religion. Which implies that they consider that it is.
Also, "Atheism is Kaufman's religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being."
"And that's only on the U.S."
True. Also, it was considered religion for a specific purpose. But that only supports my earlier point that it depends on how you define 'religion'. It can mean different things in different contexts.
I have given you several reasons for saying that there are atheistic religions. I have 1) cited U.S. Supreme court decisions, 2) given you actual examples of atheistic religions (see also below), 3) explained from dictionary definitions why it's legitimate to say that there are atheistic religions, and 4) cited an example of an explicitly-atheist group that declared itself to be a secular religion. You have only now tried to address No. 1. You have also disputed the status of one of the examples of No. 2. But apart from those, you've done nothing but ignore or deny.
And by the way, the U.S. Supreme Court also said (in a different case), "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Saskfinest1
"The difference in believing in God and believing in natural answers is that the answers science gets are based on repeatable experiments that result in the same outcomes."
Up to a point. But science is not the only source of answers. The scientific method involves observation, measurement, testing, and as you said, repeatability. And that's great for studying how things are. But you can't observe, measure, test, nor repeat unique past events, such as the origin of things. To know what happened in the past, we rely a lot on history, i.e. records made at the time or soon after.
Second, science can only deal with the natural, not the supernatural. So its inability to scientifically study God is no evidence whatsoever against God's existence.
Third, science is predicated on God's existence. It was Christians who founded science, based on their understanding of God, and some of that understanding still underpins science.
"you don't think politics have to do with religion even though it has to do with political philosophies?"
Incorrect. I didn't say that politics has nothing to do with religion. I said that politics isn't religion. And that was a generalisation. For some people, it could be. As can evolution. Atheist evolutionist professor of philosophy Michael Ruse: “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint ... the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
“… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.”
"the consequences are a reduction in survivability. Ex: if you kill a tribe member, the less chance your tribe has of surviving."
So? What makes that a bad thing (under your view)? After all, perhaps the tribe is a bad tribe.
"having multiple meanings does literally make something subjective."
Please justify that statement. Yes, multiple meanings can allow for equivocation, but that's not subjectiveness.
"You subjectively picked a definition to fit your flawed argument."
No, that wasn't subjective. And my argument is not flawed.
"Essentially expanding it to fit all word views that have nothing to do with worshipping a deity."
Most people accept that things like Scientology, Confucianism, and Zen Buddhism are religions, even though they have nothing to do with worshipping a deity. Which means that they are using definition 3.
"...what's the difference between modern science and ancient science..."
It depends on how you define science. I used the term 'modern science' in order to exclude things like the discoveries of Ancient Greece, China, etc. Sociologist Rodney Stark puts it this way about those societies: “...progress was the product of observation and of trial and error but was lacking in explanations—in theorizing. Hence, the earlier technical innovations of Greco-Roman times, of Islam of China, ... do not constitute science...”
"...which one of those gave us more inventions..."
The Christian one.
"ice cream and sports can require ardor and faith as well."
You're citing only part of the definition, omitting the first part: " a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".
"That's how the context of that 3rd definition is usually used."
Which definition fits with Secular Humanism being a religion?
1
-
@Saskfinest1
"right, so every thing is religious in your train of thought."
No. Unless you don't actually mean "every thing".
"what is "the Christian one"?"
The science founded by Christians.
"and what are those discoveries that those "ancient sciences" find?"
Gunpowder. The size of the earth. I don't have a complete list.
"Buddhism, Scientology and Confucianism all have supernatural properties attached to them."
Such as? And I notice that you didn't mention Secular Humanism.
"e·quiv·o·ca·tion
noun
the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication."
So you can look up a dictionary! Other than revealing that, what's your point? Equivocation is still different to subjectiveness.
"science WAS predicated on god's existence and a lot of it was wrong."
Evidence please (that "a lot of it" was wrong).
"We put Earth in the middle of the universe because of God's existence. That was so wrong."
First, what science did that? (Actually, it was that ancient Greek 'science'. The geocentric view was an ancient Greek idea, not a biblical one.)
Second, there is actually astronomical evidence that Earth is close to the centre of the universe! Well close in the sense that the Milky Way is close to it.
"Using your definition, he's religious. Equivocation though right?"
Wrong. As you said, it's "the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself ". I didn't do that. I made clear which definition I was using, so that it wasn't ambiguous.
"what do you call the absence of god in a system of beliefs?"
Umm, "absence of God"? Or an atheistic or agnostic belief? I don't fully understand your question.
1
-
@Saskfinest1
"athiesm is the absence of god."
It's actually a belief in no God.
"Where is god in athiesm?"
In denial.
"You don't understand, using that definition automatically makes it ambiguous and I gave you a example with sports."
You're overlooking context.
"yes, I do mean everything"
In which case, my "no" answer stands, and I had already given you examples, so you're not arguing in good faith.
"You can make everything religious using your definition and "equivocation"."
I'm not convinced that you understand equivocation. It's to do with using different meanings in the same context. For example, you might be talking to a visitor: "Do you like coffee or tea?" "I prefer tea". "I'm about to make tea, would you like some?", and then you serve them up a meal, because you've eqivocated between the hot drink and the evening meal.
"what is the "science founded by Christians"?"
I thought I'd made this clear, but I can't find it; perhaps it was a different thread.
It's the science we know, founded by Christians around the 16th/17th centuries.
"Secular humanism is...[snipped]"
Yes, I know. That's why I said "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are ... Secular Humanism...", but your response was that "All those religions you listed have to rely on supernatural." But now you're quoting Wikipedia (again without attribution) to support what I said—that it doesn't teach existence in God! And saying that as though you're somehow contradicting me!
"Ancient societies were obsessed with the idea that God must have placed humans at the center of the cosmos (a way of referring to the universe). An astronomer named Eudoxus created the first model of a geocentric universe around 380 B.C. Eudoxus designed his model of the universe as a series of cosmic spheres containing the stars, the sun, and the moon all built around the Earth at its center."
So not science as you implied. You claimed that "science WAS predicated on god's existence and a lot of it was wrong.", and I asked for evidence that a lot of it was wrong. But you've given no evidence.
"The geocentric view was based on god, therefore biblical."
That is one of the worst non sequiturs that I've ever seen! And completely false.
"Concerning the age of the Earth, the Bible's genealogical records combined with the Genesis 1 account of creation are used to estimate an age for the Earth and universe of about 6000 years."
Yes*. So? (*—Not quite. It wasn't an estimate, but a calculation, and it wasn't based on Genesis 1, but the chronogenalogies in later chapters and other time indicators in the Bible).
"Christian Science."
Christian Science is a sect that is neither Christian nor scientific. What's that got to do with this discussion?
1
-
@Jaspergiraffe
"oh, you mean blind faith statements like gods are real?"
First, "god" means supreme being; creator and there can only be one supreme being, so no, there are not "gods" (plural).
Second, no, that God is real is evidence-based faith, not blind faith, like you admitted to in reference to claiming that God doesn't exist. We have evidence for God.
You know, if you're going to argue with a view, it's a good idea to actually understand the view before showing your ignorance.
1
-
@Jaspergiraffe
"I do actually have a very good understanding of my argument."
If that is the case, why did you ask about gods, plural? And why did you misuse the word "faith"?
"Evidence based faith is an oxymoron. If you have evidence you don’t need faith."
No, it's not (as you'd already know if you really do have a very good understanding of your arguments. Clearly you don't).
Biblically, 'faith' is trust in a trustworthy person, and the basis of considering the person trustworthy is the evidence that he is. We have faith in God being correct when He tells us things that we can't check, because the things that we can check turn out to be correct. That is evidence.
It's only an oxymoron when you're using a definition of faith that excludes evidence!
"I admit I cannot prove that people invented ALL gods, any more than we can prove that Santa Clause , Big Foot, Fairies, Leprechauns, ghosts etc, etc, are fictitious."
Admitting that is a start, at least. (And I expect that you known that Santa is based on a real person, and in that sense, is not fictitious, although a lot of modern descriptions of him are.)
Here is a brief overview of the evidence for God (which of course, could be expanded with much more detail):
* The fact that anything exists. Personally, I find the idea that the universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada, and that as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere, completely nonsensical and without evidence.
* The fact of the 'fine tuning' of the universe, where so many values are extremely precise, such that if they were different by even a tiny fraction, the universe could not exist.
* The information in the genes of living things. Information only comes from an intelligence. The only intelligence before living things must be a supernatural one.
* The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the best-documented event in ancient history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davem3325
"The BLIEBULL Aint perfect mate,"
What's your evidence?
"READ THE WHOLE DAMN THING, I Did! that's why i became atheist!"
I've read it several times, and yet I'm still a Christian.
"FACTS , SCIENCE , BIOLOGY, EVOLUTION , LOGIC, EVIDENCE, etc!"
Yes, they all, except the atheist origins myth (evolution) support the biblical account. Or perhaps you can show me where they don't?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davem3325
"you also now claim that EVOLUTION is TRUE, "ancestors of kangaroos" tell me which animal on the ark EVOLVED into KANGAROOS in less than 4000 years?"
No, I'm not claiming that at all. So no animal "evolved" into kangaroos. I won't further answer that question, because I can make the point clearer by talking about the polar bears. Polar bears, brown bears, black bears, grizzly bears, and others are all bears. So there were two bears on the ark, and after leaving the ark the subsequent population has variegated into different species as they adapted to their respective environments, but not by a goo-to-you evolutionary process.
"WHERE IS YOUR FRIGGIN PROOF!"
That a number of different species can interbreed.
"Exodus 35:2"
The sabbath was Saturday, not Sunday. (The clue is in the reference to the seventh day.) And it's part of the old Mosaic law that no longer applies, in part at least.
1
-
@davem3325
"WHy cause I GOT YOU phil, didn't I!"
No. Because I haven't looked into which other animals would be of the same kind. I could have said that the ancestor would have been something of the kangaroo/wallaby/whatever kind, but I felt it was clearer to go with the bears.
"...you said kangaroos evolved, ..."
No, I did not. Just like I didn't say the polar bears evolved.
"where is your proof!"
My "proof" is that goo-to-you evolution is contrary to the evidence.
"What about marsupials phil?, where there any of those on the ARK??"
Yes.
"What about Asian People or Indians, or Aboriginal people, where any of them on the ARK ?"
The ark was before you had Asian people or Indians or Aborigines. You had people, which those separate ethnic groups are descended from.
"how did moses and his kids produce asianS ,"
Moses didn't Do you mean Noah?
"I even understood this when I was in primary school!"
On the contrary, this is basic creationist stuff, which you clearly have no idea of. If I said that evolution was wrong and yet showed that I had almost no knowledge of how it works, you'd rightly berate me for criticising something that I'm unfamiliar with. Yet here you are showing that you have no idea of creation and the flood, but you arrogantly criticise it anyway. Why don't you educate yourself on its claims and then come back and criticise it if you still want to?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Goughs Bastard
"You're probably right, I was a little OTT last night with 'bigot'."
Thank you.
"None of Izzy's freedoms were curtailed then or now, we're still the same nation."
He was sacked. That meant that he wasn't free to make the comments he did. On the other hand, he didn't do anything to atheists, adulterers, homosexuals, etc. He merely expressed a view. He didn't curtail anyone's freedoms, but Rugby Australia curtailed his freedom to play rugby.
"There's no evidence at all it was ever about religious persecution,..."
Sure. He was sacked for quoting (albeit paraphrasing) from the the Bible, and Raelene Castle said that the problem was quoting that from the Bible; it was most definitely about what Christianity (a religion) teaches.
"Factually, if Izzy had lost, people could still get up & say drunks & liars are going to burn eternally. I haven't met anyone who wants that curtailed."
People could still say it. And depending on the circumstances, they could be sacked too. Clearly, Rugby Australia or someone connected to them did want that curtailed.
"What Marxist left?"
The Marxist left that control much of the media and the education system and some corporations, as well as many politicians, especially in the Victorian Labor government. That Marxist left. I agree I wouldn't use that term of the current Federal government, but then we weren't talking about them.
"Marxist left (another inaccurate term)..."
What's inaccurate about it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hellotime3394
"I have my opinion but I have no intrest in debating opinions or talking points"
And yet you did. But sure, if you want to stop, that's up to you.
"My comment about it should be rare is not opinion..."
When you say something "should" be the case, that is opinion, not fact. Even if there are reasons for the opinion.
"Far as your opinion that it should never happen well good for you ."
This is not just my opinion, but God's, given that he said that we should not kill innocent humans.
"Like I said earlier about the other person's opinion, being in the minority because very few people support open-ended abortion."
God's view trumps everyone else's.
"Very few people support the idea that the mother should give up her life to give birth to another life ."
And I never said that should happen either. If the mother will die because of the baby (e.g. an ectopic pregnancy), saving the mother's life is legitimate even if an unavoidable side effect is that the baby dies. But that's a side effect, not the goal. I'm not including that in the discussion of abortion, the deliberate killing of an innocent human.
1
-
@hellotime3394
"You can say I gave my opinion. But I disagree . I was just agreeing with the majority opinion."
First, it may be an opinion in common with a lot of people, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't also your opinion.
Second, my point was that it was opinion, not fact.
"And you just said you agreed it should be rare. From what I gather is your thought on how rare is when the mothers life is at risk."
That gets down to semantics. Yes, if you count saving the mother's life without intending to harm the baby as abortion, then you're correct. But as I said, I don't count that as abortion. As such, I say that abortion should not exist at all.
"And I certainly don't want to find myself in opposition to what God says ."
Great!
"Can you think of any circumstances of which you would not being showing your neighbor love , by you siding with people that wanted to force your neighbors very young daughter to carry a baby to term."
Your focus is again misguided. The issue is not about forcing a mother to carry a baby to term. The issue is about saving the life of the baby (and the mother). And sure, I would want to distance myself from people who tried to save the baby's life in an unloving, harsh, way. But I would not distance myself from their principle that the baby should not be killed.
"I don't want to get into the specifics of what I mean but I'm sure you get the picture."
I'm not sure that I do, which is why I answered in a qualified way. You appear to be conflating the principle with how some people might voice their concerns. That is, you seem to be saying that you shouldn't try and stop a baby being killed because some people go about that in the wrong way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"but the spiritual significance is exactly the same and goes to the spiritual sovereignty of first nations people.."
What is "spiritual sovereignty"?
And what "first nations"? Yes, there were tribal people here when the British settled, but there were no nations.
"This sovereignty is a spiritual notion: ..."
So it's not a legal notion?
"...the ancestral tie between the land, or “mother nature” and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors."
What does that mean? What "tie" is that? Simply because they live(d) in a land, like non-aboriginal australians also do, they are "tied" to the land?
What does it mean to say that they were "born therefrom"? Like the rest of us, aborigines came from elsewhere. And in what way are they "attached"?
"Responding to the concern that any change to the Australian constitution will signal a ceding of Indigenous sovereignty, they insist that this is not the case."
They can insist all they want, but that doesn't mean that it's won't happen.
"that sounds like a threat .. you silly little twat"
Insult is not a rational argument.
"then you have no idea of constitutional law.... the Aboriginals never ceded their sovereignty over this land..."
Where can I find that aboriginal constitution?
"...there is not one ... thing you can do say or think that will alter that fact"
But IS is a fact? We ARE allowed to challenge that claim of it being fact.
"and they are NOT after your house..."
From memory, there have been calls for non-aborigines to pay rent for the use of "their" (aboriginal) land.
"...the Mabo decision has already decided what they can and cannot claim ..."
So who says that can't be changed?
"they certainly didn't end well for the Aboriginals who were treated like trash ..."
It likely doesn't end well for anybody treated like trash. But what about the others?
"after years of white government rule ..."
So now you're being racist. Of what relevance is the amount of melanin in one's skin?
"...it is time for the Aboriginals themselves who understand their own cultural needs and experiences to lift them up to an equal footing"
Yes, it's long past time. So you're saying that we should stop providing money to aboriginal groups? At least more so than non-aboriginal groups? Because that's the main "unequal footing" that exists at present.
"blah blah blah blah blah... "
So you mock his accurate points because you can't answer them?
"they have been told by white Australian Governments what is what..."
There's that racism again.
"Jusified hatred towards them? .. [gratuitous profanity deleted] they have been hated since cook first landed"
Nonsense. That's rewriting of history.
"they did not cede their sovereignty over this land..."
What sovereignty?
"...this land they have been living in for 60,000 years..."
That 60,000 years is according to a naturalistic view of many (not all) Westerners. The aborigines have no such records of that. Further, that 60,000 years is according to a view that rejects the idea that they were created, which is actually the traditional aboriginal view. You are trying to justify their time here by imposing on them a naturalist Western view. To be consistent with your (and my) concern for them, why not accept their own view of being created by Baiame (God)?
"...its time we acknowledged that fact..."
That "fact" is an imposed Western view.
"...give htme the right of self determination"
They already have the same rights as the rest of us to determine their futures.
"VoteYes like the vast Majority of Australians will"
Not the ones opposed to racism. And if you can predict the future like that, I'll predict that the only reason Yes will win (if it does) is by suppressing the No case.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Klako-ls6yt
"My answer is B."
I'm not surprised. Your claim of my cognitive dissonance was based on your understanding of religion, not on mine. From my point of view, what I said made complete sense. It only made no sense from your point of view.
"Religions came about as a belief in a higher power as a way to explain the inexplicable..."
But did they? What is your evidence for that? Because that sounds like a rationalisation after assuming God's non-existence.
"A God or Gods may exist out there..."
But if God could exist out there, then a) could be the correct answer! Why do you think it's not?
"...the point is that the religions themselves and all the rules their followers are made to live by are all man-made (this includes marriage rules)."
Again, another rationalisation. Again, what's your evidence for that? Because clearly Christians claim the opposite so you can't simply state your own opinion as self-evident or universally-accepted fact.
"This is why religious beliefs and religious rules vary wildly across cultures."
Is that the only reason why they could? Could there not be other reasons why they differ? Like one religion is correct, and other religions are man-made? Why do you assume that all religions are the same in that regard? That's a bit like saying that you have all these counterfeit bank notes so there can't or won't be any genuine ones. But there can be!
"The Abrahamic religions all emerged from the Middle East, and share a lot of similarities as a result."
That is incorrect. They don't share similarities because of the geographical area that they came from, but because they are based on the earlier ones. There are three such religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Judaism is the oldest of them, but Judaism predicted a coming Messiah. Christians say that Jesus is that messiah. That is, Christianity IS Judaism, but completed. That's why the (Christian) Bible incorporates the Jewish Scriptures in toto. Christianity is not a separate religion in that sense.
Islam isn't similar because it came from the same area, but because it claimed to be Judaism and Christianity 'corrected', because (allegedly) they had become corrupted.
So what is your evidence that Judaism/Christianity invented God rather than being based on the knowledge of God's existence? Because all you've provided so far is bald assertions to the contrary.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@UncleYva
"It's not historical, it's biblical."
The Bible contains a lot of history, and has been shown to be very reliable in that regard.
"To be historic it would need the be a factual event."
Which it is. So my point stands.
"God isa belief, ..."
True. I also have a belief that America exists. "Belief" means "assent to an idea". It does not have to mean "assent to an idea without evidence".
"...not a fact."
What's your evidence that He is not a fact? Because I know of plenty of evidence that He is a fact.
"Nobody has seen him,..."
Evidence please. Because it's well documented that many people have seen him.
"...he/ it didn't sign anything including the bible."
If you mean a written signature, why should He? It's clear, however, that the Bible is His book. The human biblical writers claimed that it is, millions have and do believe that it is (including many very intelligent people), and there are good arguments to support that it is, so you really can't simply claim that it isn't without providing good reason.
"That's why there's separation of church and state."
No, it's not why. Separation of church and state (which there's actually an example of in the Bible) came about because of state (British) control of the church. It has nothing to do with whether or not the Bible is God's book. Except that the people who pushed for separation of church and state were (in many cases at least) people who believed that it IS God's book.
"The religious is out there with the mystical,..."
Most religions perhaps are, but Christianity is not. It's grounded in reality.
"...so deal with reality buddy."
I am. What about you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeffwalther3935
Many scholars disagree with you. For example, see many of the books by the sociologist Rodney Stark, such as "The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success", in which he says
"Christianity created Western Civilization. Had the followers of Jesus remained an obscure Jewish sect, most of you would not have learned to read and the rest of you would be reading from hand copied scrolls. Without a theology committed to reason, progress, and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800: A world with many astrologers and alchemists but no scientists. A world of despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys, and pianos. A world where most infants do not live to the age of five and many women die in childbirth–a world truly living in "dark ages."
"The modern world arose only in Christian societies. Not in Islam. Not in Asia. Not in a "secular" society–there having been none. And all the modernization that has since occurred outside Christendom was imported from the West, often brought by colonizers and missionaries."
Or one of the books by Vishal Mangalwadi, such as "The Book that Made Your World". Or the conclusion of a group from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, which was asked to look at what made the West successful, and concluded
"...in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West has been so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.”
Or try the video titled "Tom Holland tells NT Wright: Why I changed my mind about Christianity"
"Freedom from religion means freedom from religious dictates like abortion as "murder"..."
Given that murder is the killing of an innocent human being, and abortion fits that definition, then I'm not sure why any reasonable person would want to be free of that.
"Your religion preempts my self-determination BY law."
Yes, as is the case with laws generally. All laws are made with the goal of forbidding something that society considers to be morally wrong. As such, all laws "pre-empt" people's self-determination to some extent. Unless you are an atheist in charge of a country, where you can make the laws for yourself. That's why Mao, Stalin, etc. thought it was okay to murder millions—because they wanted to self-determine what was okay.
"I should be free from Christianity's monopoly on determination of morality."
That's God's monopoly, which Christianity is built around. But yes, I know. That's why many atheists reject Christianity. Not because it's wrong, but because they don't like not being able to do what they want.
"It is our BASIC due and required for ANY true democratic freedom."
No, freedom from good morals is anarchy, which is definitely not democratic. Democracy was actually spread a lot by Christianity. See Robert D. Woodberry's paper "Missionary Roots of Liberal Democracy"
1
-
@jeffwalther3935
"Could it be possible you are wrong, right from the start, AND, so wrong it's obvious to everyone, even you, but you lie like a rug, cradle to grave,…"
Of course it's possible. Just like it's possible that you are. The onus on you is to show that, not simply mention the theoretical possibility.
"1) you don't know any better,"
I've read a lot on this, so no, that's not likely.
"2) can't proceed, survive or get along independently;"
If that was the case, why am I not simply going along with the crowd? That suggestion makes no sense.
"3) don't realize doing all that complacent conforming to forced behavior is self-crippling and self-defeating"
What conforming, given that I'm not going along with the crowd? Again, that makes no sense.
"4) making it harder for innocent to avoid enslavement remain free/independent"
That doesn't even make sense.
"5) those enslaved to get free or be freed?"
False premises typically lead to false conclusions.
"It is RIDICULOUS of you to be an apologist for christianity on a youtube thread like this!"
But it's okay for people to be apologists against Christianity? That makes no sense.
"That's theoretical philosophical argumentation ENTIRELY without ANY verification, "
You mean apart from the verification that I provided? What about that? You have simply ignored the verification that I provided.
"I say we have entirely mutually-exclusive intentions here; nothing else, more or less."
So we are not both arguing for the truth? I'd agree that we have different worldviews, but different intentions?
"Further EACH statement you make about atheists is false, denigratory, deterministic, smearing, slurring and in every wrong way,…"
And yet you have not shown any one of them to be false or etc.
"I believe there's no such thing(s) as god(s), ghosts, life-after-death,…"
Why do you believe that?
"I believe there's no such thing(s) as ... BLM, AntiFa, fem3, BAM or astrology, phrenology, numerology, quack medicine, vegetarianism, racism, sexism…"
You don't believe that the BLM organisation exists? Nor Antifa? Nor astrology (what then are those columns on astrology that are are or have been so prolific?) nor vegetarianism, nor racism nor sexism? I disagree with all those things, but I don't deny that they exist.
"I DO believe in (all secular versions) concepts of...[snipped]"
What are "secular versions" of those things? That sounds a bit like saying that I have a steel cable made out of paper. If it's paper, it's not steel. If it's a steel cable, it's not paper.
"…if that helps understanding "religious(ly) naturalist"."
No, it doesn't sorry. Unless your point is that religious naturalism is confusion and contradiction, because that's what it seems to be.
"By good I mean 1) reasonable,…"
Which begs the question of what "reasonable" is. It's a bit like defining black as being the opposite of white, without explaining what white is.
"2) rational, 3) logical, 4) knowledgeable "
How does rationality, logic, and knowledge help you determine whether something is "good"?
"As THE "good", its direct opposite is obviously and completely bad:"
Ignoring that that doesn't leave room for neutral, then okay. But "good" has not been adequately defined.
1
-
@jeffwalther3935
Murdering someone is bad (according to God; not all cultures/worldviews); Saving someone from death is good (same caveat). Choosing to paint your house blue rather than green is neutral. It's neither good nor bad. But by the statement you made, it's not good, therefore it's bad. That's what I meant about the neutral, which, as I said, I was ignoring (as not being vital to your comment).
"Saying and proving something are two things and you just say my statements "makes no sense" "
Yes, meaning that the sentence is incoherent. Or at least appeared so to me. I couldn't make sense of what you were saying. Sorry I wasn't clear on that.
"Being wrong, especially totally, IS NOT in your best interest for one second."
I never suggested that it was.
"Look again who's telling you what and what's up, but me?"
God is telling me what's up. In the form, that is, of his revelation to us, the Bible. He's a pretty-good source!
1
-
@jeffwalther3935
"Your blasphemous heresy, (that YOU especially know for sure and act upon these things as proven and reliable as such) "
So I'm "blasphemous" and a heretic because I'm sure of what I believe, but you're so sure I'm wrong, and yet you're not blasphemous and heretical? Sounds like a double standard to me.
"Your blasphemous heresy, ...and historically-peerless fraud is shocking and awful. "
I have no idea what you're saying there. I do not know what you mean by "historically-peerless fraud".
"Not one thing you said is true, ..."
And yet not one thing you've said shows I'm wrong. Apparently I'm wrong simply because you say so, which must mean that you think you're infallible, which only God is, so you must think you're God. But somehow I'm the blasphemous one!
"Not one thing you said is ... well intended, ..."
Please explain how you think you know what my intentions are? Are you, like God, able to see into my heart? So are you claiming again to be God?
"Not one thing you said is ... Christian or Christ-like ..."
And yet you've not shown at all that it's not Christian or Christ-like.
"You don't have to ... believe in supernaturalist things if you don't believe in them. "
Huh? Another sentence that makes no sense. In fact most of that paragraph is hard to follow.
"...the initial premise in all supernaturalism is permanently completely false, entailing everything afterwards as false too or only true by coincidence to something else natural."
Is that still part of your speculation? It's not clear. If it is, well I can ignore it as baseless speculation.
"If natural, science and evidence then are the BEST indicators of truth..."
Science is not the best indicator of past events that are unobservable, untestable, un measurable, and unrepeatable.
"...and every ideal and goal religions exist to accomplish, in secular terms."
Again, I can't understand what that means.
"Truth matters."
Of course. But speculation is not a substitute for truth.
1
-
@jeffwalther3935
"But you do not profess the truth."
I reject that accusation, and you've not shown it to be the case.
"You've PURPOSEFULLY twisted and misquoted me out of context entirely."
So you're still claiming to know my motives, and you've not shown that I've twisted, misquoted, or take you out of context. I reject that I have done any of those things.
"If so-called christians, supernaturalists of any type were evere the least bit christian or honest, good, real, true, I wouldn't have become atheist."
I don't know who you are referring to, but of course it's illogical to reject Christianity on the basis of Christians doing or saying the wrong thing.
"I think you and your ilk are as much as anti-christian,…"
Again, something I reject and which you've not shown to be the case anyway.
"…anything supernaturalist-based is entirely FALSE…"
No, it's not, and you've not shown that it is.
"Your statements about me, atheists, reality etc. are completely misleading, carefully manufactured, cheap, low, mean lies and wrong as can be, as usual."
No, they are not, and yet again, you've not shown anything wrong with my statements.
"You're lying, like a rug."
Again, I'm not, and again, you've not shown anything I've said to be a lie.
"What's wrong with speculation?"
I never said that there was anything wrong with it. If, however, you are presenting speculation as fact, there is something wrong with that.
"I suppose if you're a theist, you don't rely on such much,…"
On the contrary, I'm happy to speculate about many things.
"Judgement of probability is how we (atheists and naturalists) establish truth…"
In my experience, it's done on the basis of a prejudice against the supernatural. I'm speaking generally, of course, not saying that specifically about you.
"…you fault me for doing EXACTLY, COMPLETELY and ONLY right thing to do,"
I did not fault you for speculating, if that's what you are claiming. That would be you twisting or misquoting me. Unlike you, I would not accuse you of doing that deliberately, however, at least without very good reason.
"I will remind you, a scientific hypothesis is speculation, as are every medical diagnosis and prognosis, business plan, gamble, investment, grocery list, and Constitution for that matter."
I would disagree with most of that. I guess you could call scientific hypotheses speculation, but medical diagnoses are more than mere speculation, as they are based on evidence. Business plans and grocery lists are not. Speculation is an evidence-free idea about what is or will happen; an intention or plan (such as a grocery list) is not speculation. A constitution is a set of rules, not speculation about what is or will be the case.
"Our conversation serves NO good purpose here."
You're free to stop at any time. I'm not making you respond to me.
"Stop talkin trash bout me and my folx."
I'm not, and again, you haven't shown that I am. On the other hand, you're making a lot of claims about me that I say are trash.
"Thats bad and unnecessary, self-defeating and needless."
Yes, it would be, IF I was doing that. You've not shown that I am, and I reject that I am.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ianmcdonald8648
"what I am saying is get rid of the preferences."
And I'm saying that that would be a backward step.
"I dont want somebody else whom I have not voted for to get my vote because of the preferencing process."
Nobody else gets your vote unless you give it to them. You list who you want your preferences to go to, as RelaxedMuffin said.
"I know there are many who think the same."
I know. They are wrong too. This is widely misunderstood.
"Each poly should only get one vote, not a second and third shot."
They do only get one vote. You get the second and third shot, not the pollie.
"The to partty system is flawed."
What two-party system? We have multiple parties in Australia, thanks to preferential voting. America really has only two parties, because they don't have preferential voting.
"Just because something has been around a long time doesn't mean it is right or profitable."
Of course not, and I never said otherwise.
Suppose 60% of voters want a conservative, and 40% want a 'progressive'. But suppose that there is one progressive standing (A) and two conservatives (B and C). Then suppose that A gets 40% of the vote, B gets 35%, and C gets 25%. Without preferences, A would win, as he got more votes than either of the other two. That is, a progressive wins despite a majority of voters wanting a conservative.
With preferences, nobody wins unless they have a majority. As none in this example do, C (with the smallest vote) is eliminated, and your second preference (assuming you voted for C) is therefore used, so B ends up with 60%, so wins. Of course it's not as black-and-white as that, but that is the basic principle. But note that you chose where your second preference went, and your vote counted, despite your preferred candidate being eliminated.
What is not good about that?
1
-
1
-
@kingcobra8840
"Their attack on Israel didn't happen just because they magically hate Jews, ..."
No, not magic. The Quran taught them that.
"...there was build up to that, entirely at the fault of the Israeli government."
And yet they've hated the Jews before the modern state of Israel existed. So no, that's not it.
"Israel occupied Gaza from 1967 to 2005,..."
Well, it was part of Israel for at least part of that, but roughly correct. Of course before that it was occupied by Egypt. But Egypt seems to get a pass in all this.
"...in which they treated the Palestinians like [deleted]..."
How did they do that?
"... meanwhile building comfortable and nice-looking illegal settlements for Jewish colonizers."
What was illegal about building settlements in its own country?
"They didn't physically occupy Gaza from 2005 to 2023,..."
So, as I said, it wasn't occupied. Thanks for conceding that point.
"...but they did put a terrible blockade on it,..."
What's "terrible" about stopping weapons and the like getting in and in stopping them attacking Israel? And why did you omit to mention that they supplied Gaza with free water and electricity?
"...now they intend to occupy or to perhaps even annex Gaza again."
As I said, the Gazans have forfeited the right to determine their own outcome. Last time they did, they elected a terrorist organisation, and then they attacked Israel over and over.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Dr Rockso
"😂😂😂😂"
Your mirth is not an argument. So you apparently have none.
"Not by my beliefs in a bronze age book filled with errors and lies."
No errors and lies. At least, not unless you can actually show some.
"Jesus was born of a woman. Her name was Mary. Jesus was carried in her womb. He is not god."
That last claim does not follow from the others.
"So sad that people in this day and age still believe in bronze age tribalistic, mythological fairytales."
What fairy tales? You haven't shown that they are.
"Thank you for explaining what your christian beliefs are and back them beliefs up by quoting the bible... Which is in fact where you get your beliefs in christianity from. That is called circular reasoning."
That is not what he did. He made an observation about the world and showed how the biblical account was consistent with that. Having done that, he then drew some conclusions. That is not a circular argument.
"So everything you see... Fits the narrative of the bible."
Yes, it does fit. Funny about that. That might suggest that the Bible is correct.
"You see... Truth and religion are two words that are like two opposing polls on a magnet. They will never be together."
Evidence?
"Eternal salvation. Heaven. Hell. God. Virgin births. A creator. All based on a mixture of ancient cultures and civilizations that where trying to understand the world around them and elevate their tribe above the other waring tribes."
Evidence?
"And that knowledge proves the errors and misconceptions that the bible puts forward."
You haven't shown that it has errors and misconceptions.
"Everything pointed to the trinity being a man made concept."
Except that it doesn't. The Bible clearly represents Jesus and the Holy Spirit as both being God.
"The N.T takes away the glory to god and asks for the worship of Jesus as god. So is blasphemy against the first commandment. "
It's only blasphemy if it's not correct in what it says about Jesus being God. And you haven't shown that it's not correct.
"The N.T takes away the Sabbath day and christians worship on Sunday - a pagan day of worship. So as to discard the 4 commandment of god."
The New Testament doesn't deny that the seventh day is the sabbath. Rather, it recognises that God rising from the dead on Sunday is a new start.
"And don't get me started on the trinity. That is an abomination."
Taught by the Bible, i.e. by God.
"I know not all stories in the O.T are to be taken literally."
Why not, if the are intended to be taken literally?
"...events are exaggerated or completely staged."
Evidence? And are you allowing for God staging them?
"I do study and research science. But even in science there are so many variables and unknowns."
Unfortunately, much science is done on the basis that the Bible is wrong, and therefore doesn't even consider the evidence in that light. As such, it's not a reliable guide to things in the past.
"I try and blend the bible and science together, but there are huge discrempancies. "
For the reason that I just gave.
"I don't believe that earth and the universe is young, like the bible claims."
On what basis? That naturalistic science says otherwise? Of course it will, if it presupposes no supernatural. That's its bias.
"I find it hard to accept a creator god could hurt and kill his creation for falling short of god's will."
The creation rejected Him. He has every right to do with it as He likes. But what He actually did was provide a way back to Him, by having Jesus (one of the three persons of God) take on the penalty that we should have paid. That demonstrates His massive love for us. But I guess it doesn't help understand that if you first reject that Jesus IS God.
"I want to believe... But I can't seem to climb that mountain after all I have learned about religion (Christianity) and the corrupted bible. I feel empty and wandering with no direction because of the mark that organised religion left on me."
Then please research from a perspective that actually shows that the Bible is accurate, and gives good evidence-based arguments. Although I consider many SDAs as good Christians (here in Oz at least), historically, and perhaps still so in America, it's more of a cult. I thoroughly recommend to you the site creation . com (remove the spaces). It answers many questions, including about the trinity, and gives strong, rational, evidence-based arguments for its answers. But you'll have to consider what it says on its merits, not through the glasses of your own existing views.
"I am struggling to accept anything in the bible knowing how corrupted the book is by Babylon the harlot (Roman Catholic Church…"
That sounds like SDA teaching. I'm no supporter of the RC church, but modern translations are not dependent on anything the RC church might have done to it. There have been multiple translators and teams of translators from various denominations determined to make the best translations they can from manuscripts as close to the originals as they can get. Forget the idea of it being corrupted—that's a bogus claim.
"That is exactly why people believe in the trinity. They see what they want to see and that is their truth."
No, that is not why. See the site I mentioned above.
"Hence why there are so many christian denominations. All claiming their interpretation of scripture is the most accurate."
That's not true. One reason that there are so many denominations is simply organisational. The New South Wales Baptists are are separate organisation to the Victorian Baptists for purely geographical reasons, not different interpretations. Another reason for differences are over church government, such as should it be denominational or local? Many Christian denominations happily accept that people of other denominations are fellow Christians. I myself have been part of an independent, non-denominational church, a Church of Christ (Australian), a Wesleyan Methodist church, and a Baptist church. I have also worshipped in Anglican, and other churches. I know ministers who have transferred from one denomination to another. Claims of disagreement between them are often overblown.
"The earth and the universe is only 6000 years old. Ancient men used to live to be several hundred years old."
Correct. What reason, other than a competing (naturalistic) view do you have to reject that?
"There must have been a world wide flood that covered the entire earth up to its highest peaks."
The highest peaks that existed at that time. Yes. Again, what's your reason for rejecting that?
"There must have been a wooden boat built that housed ALL the insects,animals and mammals on the entire earth to save them from drowning."
Not accurate. First, not "all" animals and mammals, but representatives of them all. That amounts to a small enough number that they could fit on a boat of the size given. That's been investigated thoroughly and withstands scrutiny. But no, not all insects; they didn't need to be on it.
"…then populated the entire earth in under 5000 years. Including the Chinese, Japanese, African…"
Yes, it's been shown to be genetically entirely feasible.
"Oh and the Australian aboriginals who have been in Australia for over 50,000 years."
That supposed 50,000 years comes from a competing story. Not from the Bible.
"Wowwwwwwwww....all those people are so intelligent with their beliefs in this bronze age book."
Even the concept of a bronze "age" comes from that competing story. As does the concept that people have grown more intelligent over time. If the biblical account is correct, those supposed bronze-age people were more intelligent than us (which is different to how much knowledge they had accumulated).
"I was one of those boys who was raped repeatedly for years by the faithful to god."
Anybody who does that is clearly NOT faithful to God.
1
-
1
-
@davem3325
"YOU havent shown that they are true, what is the bible based on? Where is the evidence ?"
You were the one who made the prior claim that they are made up. The onus is on you to demonstrate your claim. It's not on me to prove you wrong.
"The KORAN is another bible, that has words in it and its has it own god as well, just like your christian bible, muslims believe their bible is true and your is false, they both cannot be true but they both can be false! "
Whether or not it's a "bible" depends on how you're using the word. Yes, it is another book, which is what it having words in it shows. It doesn't claim to have another God, but the same one (although that claim is debatable).
I agree that both can't be right, and that, logically they could both be false. But it's also the case that one could be true and the other false. You haven't shown that the Bible is false.
"besides in genesis, god mention light and night and day even bEFORE he created the SUN! that's how dumb the bible is!"
And yet you don't say how that makes it dumb. Presumably only on the basis that it disagrees with your preferred story. But that's hardly a reason. Or perhaps because you seem to think that God is less powerful than man, given that man has multiple ways to make light that is not from the sun.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pwillis1589 Yes, Jupiter was a Roman 'god', but he was the Roman equivalent of the Greek Zeus, and, like Zeus, the offspring of other gods (Saturn and Ops), so not the creator nor supreme being. Jupiter could well have his origins in Japheth, one of the sons of Noah, and, I believe, the son from whom the Greeks and Romans were descended. So it's very possible that they elevated their ancestor who was born before the flood to the status of 'god' and mythologised him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@juicymelodic
"I've wrote a lengthy post invalidating your points. However YouTube for some reason did not post it."
I have that problem a lot. I'm a bit surprised that all of my response to you was not hidden.
But of course if I could see it, I would write a lengthy post refuting your arguments.
"Either way I will not continue this discussion as there is no point to debate someone who denies evidence."
What evidence have I denied? Rather, I challenged your claims.
"You are misinformed and not educated on this matter while I’ve studied the Bible since I was a child."
I have also studied it since I was a child, so how am I any less educated on it, or any more misinformed?
"Original christians did not believe in trinity, ... .
And yet, as I said, the New Testament has the concept.
"Jesus never claimed to be a god, on the contrary, he claimed to be the son of man, not even a son of god."
He never did so in those words. But we are all "sons of God", so claiming that would be pointless. "Son of man" was a reference to Daniel where the "son of man" is a heavenly being.
"The celebration of Christmas on December 25th coincides with the Roman festival of Sol Invictus (the Unconquered Sun), a pagan festival celebrating the winter solstice."
True, it does. But coinciding does not prove anything. The idea of Jesus' birth being on 25th December was recorded around 200 AD by Hippolytus of Rome in his commentary on Daniel, whereas the Roman festival of Sol Invictus was not proclaimed until about 70 years later, and there is no clear evidence that it was actually celebrated until another 80 years after that. So that would suggest that the pagan festival was intended to supplant the Christian one.
"Jesus could not have been born in winter according to the bible which you do not read."
Well, I read it, and I've seen nothing in there to say that He "could not" have been born in winter.
"Decorating a tree is a germanic pagan tradition."
Yes, it is of German origin, but what's your evidence for it being pagan? And no, a pagan practice that does something vaguely similar is not good evidence.
"The name "Easter" is believed to be derived from Eostre, a Germanic goddess of spring and fertility."
Yes, many do believe that. However, Easter is actually an Anglo-Saxon word used for both the Christian festival and for Passover.
"Symbols like the Easter bunny and eggs are also associated with pagan springtime fertility rites."
No, the eggs originate with a Christian Mesopotamian tradition of not eating eggs during Lent, instead hard-boiling them to preserve them until Lent was over, and painting them red to symbolise the blood of Christ.
The Easter bunny originated with German Lutherans (although it was actually a hare).
"My point is you have no idea what you believe in."
It seems that you have distorted ideas about Christianity, seeing paganism everywhere.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jonquil
"... they mostly immediately begin to TELL me, that I am "lost", or that I am "headed for hell", which, as you can imagine, is VERY insulting."
It's not an insult. We are ALL headed for hell, unless we have asked God to forgive us.
"For me, I have mostly found, that it is the christians who do the threatening."
As a Christian, I've not had many cases of atheists personally "threatening" me; but many of the things that the left is imposing on us now I find threatening as a Christian.
"I have NO interest in transforming other people into clones of ME and my personal "beliefs"."
Neither do Christians. However, they do want you to discover the joy of personally knowing Jesus and avoiding eternal life without God (i.e. hell). That is, we want the best for you, not to make clones of us (we are all different anyway). If you find something wonderful and new and exciting, don't you want to share it with others?
1
-
@Jonquil "What Christians fail to understand, is that, other people have their own path....and that we ALL have a connection to our creator, not just Christians."
No, Christians don't "fail to understand" that. They reject that claim. Just as you reject the Christian's claims.
"...can Christians accept the fact, that their belief system is just that.....a "belief system""
Nope. Not if they are convinced (which they can be, by the overwhelming evidence) that their views are correct. Is your believe just a "belief system", or do you actually think you're correct when you say things like a Christians' beliefs are "just" a belief system.
"Hell is a construct for keeping humans in constant fear...."
According to your "belief system", which you seem to think means that one can't claim to be correct, and yet here you are making claims as though they are correct.
"...which is what "fear of hell" actually is."
According to your "belief system". So I'll take that with the same grain of salt you take Christian claims.
"You see...I've done the work of discovering the origins of religion..."
Oh? What did you find?
"...and have no interest in any kind of false god of fear."
And neither you should, but I thought were talking about the true God.
"I accept and respect where people are at with this....and would never tell Christians they are wrong.......except.....when they start to tell me, that my own understanding is false, when I did not ask them to, OR bring up this type of thing."
But it's not okay for Christians to tell you that you are wrong even when you bring up this sort of thing?
"Are YOU prepared to look further into YOUR own belief system and where it came from?"
How much further can I look? That video? Okay, I looked. Here is a brief assessment:
The first problem is in proposing a solution without demonstrating that the problem actually exists.
The second problem is in lumping all religions in together, as though "religion" is the problem, when that is actually a label for a very wide range of views.
The third problem is in misrepresenting what Christians believe. She proposes a straw-man to attack. Just for one, Christians do NOT propose that God rules by fear. They actually teach the very opposite. They also don't teach that suffering is good.
It also claims that the "savior" never materialises, when in fact He did, 2000 years ago. So that's another falsehood.
It further claimed that these beliefs were holding us back, whereas history shows that belief in (the true) God has actually been of great benefit.
It continued in that sort of vein for the rest of the video.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@velkyn1
"those ideas were around long before a bunch of ignorant agrarians on the western Mediterranean."
What ignorant agrarians? Denigration is not an argument.
I appreciate that you have actually attempted to provide evidence, but not that you mix it up with insult and vilification. However, some of your response is along the line of "someone else said something similar, so it wasn't the Christians who invented it", which may in some cases be true. But did those others cause society to change as Christianity has done? It's a little like saying that Christianity's achievement in abolishing slavery doesn't count because some other bloke centuries earlier said that slavery should be abolished, even though nothing came of his comment.
"The golden rule ... appears in the “The Eloquent Peasant"” story…"
Where? I've just found and read a translation of the story, and could not find anything similar in it. I also found a couple of articles claiming that it had a version of the Golden Rule, but one didn't say where and the other cited it saying "Do for the one who does for you" found "in the final speech (location 582)". The translation I found didn't have that phrase, nor any location 582.
In any case, that phrase is not the Golden Rule. It's saying that you should do something for the one who has already done for your. That is, it describes a response. The Golden says for you to do for someone what you'd like them to do for you; it's pre-emptive, not a response.
Similar applies to your other examples. The Greek one is about not being a hypocrite, and the Indian one is about not doing something that you wouldn't want done to yourself.
"Believing that illness was from some god’s wrath."
I don't know specifically what you are referring to, but what is ignorant about that? That is, what if that was in fact the case?
"Having the world’s supposed “wisest” man and unable to contribute one thing of usefulness to humanity."
Are you referring to Solomon? He contributed a whole lot of wisdom in the biblical book Proverbs, among others.
"The ancient Egyptians knew about surgery, how cleanliness helped, that some foods could be carriers of parasites, etc. Nothing from the ignorant Israelites."
Apart from Exodus 20:8-10, Proverbs 17:22, Leviticus 11:1-4, Deuteronomy 23:12-14, and others.
"And yep, Phil shows that he is either ignorant or simply lying."
False.
"The greeks (the temples to Asclepius), Chinese, Indians, all had hospitals and charities. The Persians had medical schools and hospitals. The Romans had physicians and hospitals for their military."
I said public hospitals. The Romans had hospitals not only for their military, but also their slaves (which were valuable assets), and presumably the wealthy, but not hospitals for the public. I'll guess that you're also failing to make that distinction for your other cases.
"Charities were the "bread and circuses" of Rome."
Collins dictionary: "something offered as a means of distracting attention from a problem or grievance"
That's not the same as a charity.
The quote from Aristotle did not say who the wealthy man was giving it to.
"Universities were built by other cultures, including one in the 700s by Muslims."
Like I said public hospitals, I also said the university system. Further, from memory, the Muslim one you refer to was a school that only became a university in the 1960s.
"Charlemagne tried for universal education, at least for the nobility and the priesthood,..."
Which means that it wasn't universal.
"Christianity did not found modern science. The science were developed from the greeks, the Indians, the Chinese, the Muslims, theh Christians. You Christians certainly are greedy, lying about your contributions."
So the Greeks founded modern science, did they?
In any case, numerous scholars disagree with you.
Loren Eiseley:
"The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation … . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption."
Paul Davies:
"In the ensuing three hundred years the theological dimension of science has faded. People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given as brute facts. Nobody asks where they come from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd that there is rational basis to physical existence manifested as lawlike order in nature that is at least part comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological world view."
Neither Eiseley nor Davies were/are Christians.
Rodney Stark:
“...progress was the product of observation and of trial and error but was lacking in explanations—in theorizing. Hence, the earlier technical innovations of Greco-Roman times, of Islam of China, ... do not constitute science...”
Continued...
1
-
@velkyn1
...continued.
"Christianity has nothing to do with democracy."
See the paper The Missionary Roots of Liberal Democracy by Robert D. Woodberry.
"Women are considered either property in the bible or far less than men, especially by Paul."
False. They are considered to have different roles, but not as inferior.
"Catholics, Southern Baptists, etc all go for the lies by paul about women."
What lies? You haven't shown any.
"Christianity also never promoted the idea of human rights,..."
See the video "Tom Holland tells NT Wright: Why I changed my mind about Christianity". Holland is not a Christian.
"This god of yours blinds people to show off, Phil."
Huh? I have no idea what you're talking about.
"This god commands and commits genocide, so don’t try to incompetently lie that this god cares about humans."
That is a non-sequitur. First, if He didn't care about humans, he wouldn't have become one to redeem them. Secondly, he also cares about justice. Exacting justice doesn't mean that he doesn't care. On the contrary, it shows that He does care.
"Christianity never abolished slavery."
Rodney Stark:
“Slavery ended in medieval Europe only because the church extended its sacraments to all slaves and them managed to impose a ban on the enslavement of Christians (and of Jews). Within the context of medieval Europe, that prohibition was effectively a rule of universal abolution”
"Christianity didn’t create the west or make it great."
Former Time reporter David Aikman:
“The eighteen American tourists visiting China weren’t expecting much from the evening’s lecture. They were already exhausted from a day of touring in Beijing. But what the speaker had to say astonished them.
“One of the things we were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world,” he said. “We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next, we focused on your economic system. But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West has been so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.”
This was not coming from some ultra-conservative think tank in Orange County, California or from Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. This was a scholar from China's premier academic research institute, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) in Beijing in 2002.”
Rodney Stark:
“Christianity created Western Civilization. Had the followers of Jesus remained an obscure Jewish sect, most of you would not have learned to read and the rest of you would be reading from hand copied scrolls. Without a theology committed to reason, progress, and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800: A world with many astrologers and alchemists but no scientists. A world of despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys, and pianos. A world where most infants do not live to the age of five and many women die in childbirth–a world truly living in "dark ages."
"The modern world arose only in Christian societies. Not in Islam. Not in Asia. Not in a "secular" society–there having been none. And all the modernization that has since occurred outside Christendom was imported from the West, often brought by colonizers and missionaries.”
And see also the video with Tom Holland I mentioned above.
"Any during the flood. This god could have just made the “evil” people vanish."
That would be inconsistent with the principle that death is the consequence of sin.
"…this god mindcontroled the pharoah to “harden his heart” so it could show off"
God wasn't doing anything to pharaoh that pharaoh wasn't already doing to himself. And God is not an "it". That's just more denigration.
"And yep, your god tells slaves to never seek their freedom"
Your quote doesn't say that. In the Old Testament, slaves had to be released every seven years, unless the slave chose to stay. Why would they choose to stay? Well, for one thing, they had to be treated well.
In the New Testament, the verses you quote are referring to slaves of the Romans, which didn't have the same arrangements, and the Christians had no power to change that. The advice to those Christian slaves is to do their job well. That could be a witness to their masters. You didn't quote from Philemon (although your quotes had a bit about this as well), where Paul tells a runaway slave to return to his master (which was a good idea, as if the slave was caught, he could be executed), but also told his master to treat him like a brother. This was the best that could be done at the time, but the teaching that slaves were just as worthy as their masters led to Christianity doing away with slavery once it had the power to do so.
There is a lot more that could be said about slavery in the Bible. It's a very different situation than now, and the slavery was very different to slavery of more modern times.
"So, which is it, Phil, are you a liar or just ignorant, or both?"
Well given that I denied that "god tells slaves to never seek their freedom" and that your quotes didn't support your claim, and given that I appear to better understand the context than you, then I'm neither.
"There is nothing in the bible ever mentioning any “mandatory offer of freedom for slaves”."
Then I guess that Exodus 21:2, Deuteronomy 15:12, and Jeremiah 34:14 don't exist.
1
-
@velkyn1 "The Israelites were indeed ignorant agrarians, aka ignorant farmers. It is not denigration, it is the truth."
Repeating your claim does not make it true, and you haven't shown that it is true.
"And then Poor phil has to start his lies."
And yet you've shown no lies, so that's just more abusive ad hominem.
"I do love that he has to ignore that the other cultures had this idea long before his ignorant agrarians."
A claim that you've not shown.
"Alas he cannot show I’m wrong in that,…"
I showed that your examples weren't the same.
"...and thus his lie that Christianity invented what he claimed is entirely false."
I never actually claimed anything about the Golden Rule. You brought that up.
"Now, Phil, you tryto move the goalposts like so many deceitful christains do."
What goalposts have I supposedly moved? You making accusations without providing evidence is part of your intellectual dishonesty.
"Christianity did not abolish slavery."
And yet the scholarship agrees that it did.
"Some Christians did, some Christians still supported slavery."
Yes, there were some Christians—and some who called themselves Christians—who supported slavery. But the individual Christians who stopped it the second time did so on Christian principles, while those who opposed it mangled what the Bible taught. The first time around, it was more of a case of it dying out in Christendom.
"Do tell where you found a copy of that story. I’ll be waiting."
Which story? The Eloquent Peasant one? I avoid links, because they often cause the comment to be deleted, but the Google result came up with the title "Eloquent peasant - Mark-Jan Nederhof" (a pdf).
"Alas, that is the golden rule: do unto others."
No, it's do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
"But nice to see you lie that it isn’t."
Except I didn't lie, and your only "evidence" that I did is the bald assertion that the examples you cited amount to the same thing, even though I pointed out the difference.
"Wow, and poor Phil now suddenly doesn’t know that his ignorant Israelites thought that magic caused sickness and harm,…"
First, I never said that I didn't know. I wanted to know what, specifically, you were referring to. But you haven't said. Second, there is absolutely no mention in the Bible of magic being the cause of illness. You simply made that up.
And I note that you've not answered my question about why it's ignorance.
"ROFL, it’s so pathetic that now poor Phil has to claim that magic causes illness and harm."
Huh? Further invention. I said no such thing.
"Us humans have shown that it is bacteria and viruses, and gee, we can take care of those,…"
There are other causes also, and no, we don't have cures for all of them. But the real point is that you can give someone a bacteria or virus, either inadvertently or deliberately. So why couldn't God do similar? I never denied that things like bacteria or viruses were involved. But you denied that God could (also) be involved, and you've not provided evidence of that.
"Nothing shows that Solomon contributed anything at all."
Except that I showed that he did.
"Those books have no known author, only the baseless claims of Christians."
On the contrary, the book of Proverbs starts with "The proverbs of Solomon, son of David, king of Israel…" (and of course that predates Christians). So can I accuse you of lying?
"Funny how ol’ Solomon couldn’t figure out how disease works, etc."
What's your evidence that he didn't? Plus, one of the examples I gave was from Proverbs! Someone is simply in denial.
"Yep, as Phil has noted, his idiots didn’t know about anything about medicine."
Of course I said no such thing, so you're the one apparently lying.
"Exodus 20:8-10 is just the bit about this ignorant god whining that it needs a sabbath."
On the contrary, it has been shown that it's not good for our health to work without taking regular breaks about weekly. The rest of your dismissals are equally as incorrect.
"He of course doesn’t want to remember the rest of that idiocy where it claims that bats are birds."
And of course you don't want to realise that definitions can change. The biblical term is referring to flying creatures, not the modern scientific definition of a bird. Tell me, how many solar planets are there? Because when I was growing up, there were nine. Now there are eight. What changed?
"Phil lied about no one doing hospitals before the christens. He claimed that no one thought about slaves or taking care of each other before the Christians."
I never said that nobody thought about slaves. I said the opposite! So, again, the lie is yours.
"They were public hospitals, dear, they were temples where anyonen could go."
From "The charity and the care: the origin and the evolution of hospitals" in the European Journal of Internal Medicine:
"The origins of the public hospital are evidenced in early Christian age, when the Christian message led people to assist the sick and the poor and to establish centers for such interventions, initially in the house of the bishop, then in monasteries and, finally, in autonomous buildings (the hospitals)." Again, the scholarship disagrees with you.
"Yep,that’s how “bread and circuses” is used now. It is still charity."
You have very loose definitions. You're not taking the evidence or the discussion seriously, so I won't answer most of the rest of your points.
"Hmm, Loren Eiseley, long dead,..."
So?
"…and no evidence for his claims."
They are in his book Darwin’s Century: Evolution and the Men who Discovered It, Doubleday, Anchor, New York, 1961, p.62. Perhaps you didn't want to look too hard?
"he claimed he was an “independent christian” in 2007” someone who tries to lie about monotheism and repeats the same lies you do. How not surprising."
You dismiss him simply for apparently being a Christian, although I know of no evidence that he was when he wrote that. And I mention that not to grasp at straws, but because when I first came across him, it was with an agnostic claiming that Stark was an agnostic.
But your bigotry in dismissing an accomplished academic simply because he's a Christian shows your bigotry.
End of discussion, unless you can retract and apologise for your abuse or bring some new, overwhelming, argument to the table.
1
-
@jimkyriakidis4136
"To say that early Christians celebrated Christmas is not only incorrect but false."
Oh? What is the difference between "incorrect" and "false"? And yet it's not incorrect.
"Since you say that you read the Bible please tell me where does it say in the Bible that the first Christians celebrated the birth of Christ."
I didn't say that I read the Bible (but I do; I'm just pointing out that you need to respond to what I said, not what you assume I said).
I didn't say that the "first" Christians celebrated it. I said "early" Christians. That is, 300 to 400 years after Christ.
"Also by your own admission Christmas celebration is based mainly on traditions..."
I did not say that. Are you referring to where I said "some"? That's not the same as "mainly".
"...which means by definition that they are not based on Jesus's teachings."
I didn't say that were based on Jesus' teachings. I said that they were based on the fact of His birth. He was born, wasn't he? So they decided to celebrate that fact.
"Furthermore, since we are talking facts and not fiction,, It is historically known that the date picked for celebrating the birth of Christ (25 December) was conjured up after 200AD by king Konstantin of the Byzantine empire (also known as the Eastern Roman Empire) to invite pagans who celebrated the Roman God of the Sun on the same date and thus convert them into "so" called Christians."
Given that "we are talking facts and not fiction", that is historically believed, incorrectly. Here are some of the facts:
1) If you are talking about the emperor Constantine, he was emperor from AD 306, a century later than you mention.
2) The first known reference to Christians recognising 25th December as Jesus' birthday was Hippolytus of Rome in his Commentary on Daniel, which is dated to around 200AD.
3) The reason early Christians recognised that date was because of a belief that a prophet would die on the anniversary of his conception. Nine months before 25th December is 25th March, i.e. Easter, when he died.
4) 25th December was proclaimed as a celebration of Sol Invictus by Emperor Aurelian in AD 274, i.e. after Christians had already recognised that date as Jesus' birthday. This suggests that the Sol Invictus celebration was intended to supplant Christmas, not the other way around. There is no evidence of an actual celebration for Sol Invictus until AD 354.
"I prefer to stay true to the teachings of Christ as it's written in the Bible."
Me too. But that does not make Christmas a pagan festival.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ohasis8331
"What evidence would satisfy you?"
Good, unbiased, evidence. There won't be any videos or audio recordings of course. But neither are there any contemporary written accounts. So I don't think that any good evidence would be possible, which, if I'm right, means that the claim is lacking evidence. But if you make the claim, then you should have evidence. Not being able to provide evidence doesn't make the claim true.
"So they migrated like many humans. When the Brits got here it was claimed under the Terra nullius doctrine, the supposition of an empty land."
According to the Australian Library website, terra nullius means "belonging to no-one", not "empty". They knew that there were people here, but didn't think that there were enough to consider it "owned". And given the size of the country, the lack of any government claiming sovereignty, etc., that seems a reasonable conclusion.
And another commenter in this very thread claimed that the aborigines came in waves. Which, by your logic, implies that every wave after the first settled in a non-empty land. So how were the British different?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ivareskesner2019
"What do you mean?"
I'm saying that the idea that they will put as much effort into safeguards as into the achievement itself is flawed.
"They won't get lazy or complacent because of whatever you are suggesting here because to them it's always about that eureka moment they are chasing."
The eureka moment is in the achievement, not in the safeguards that might appear to limit that achievement. For example, did they put as much effort into checking that thalidomide caused no harm as they did into achieving thalidomide itself?
"Discussion has been happening on this topic for several years now and everybody who cared to know was welcome to participate."
Maybe so, but then the criticism should have been of that misunderstanding, not of perceived opposition to new technology.
"The difference of opinion on this matter is one of those things which will never change no matter how long people talk about it."
That's a rather defeatist attitude.
"Fact is that conservatives, who are largely theists, see this as meddling in God's territory. It's as simple as that."
Fact is, that's an overgeneralization. I am a conservative and a Christian, but I said that this technology "might be a good thing". I'll be more emphatic—trying to reverse the effects of the Fall is a good thing, which Christians have been in the forefront of throughout the past 2000 years.
"The conservative ethical objections are purely theistic in nature."
You say that as thought that's a bad thing, which is your atheism talking.
"There is no other inherent morality concern in here which isn't based on religious belief."
There is no objective morality which isn't based on God. If you don't base it on God, morality is purely subjective opinion, and therefore not a basis for deciding on the morality of new technology. From an atheistic point of view, anything goes if it's something you agree with.
"To atheists like me the morality of doing nothing and just letting people die weighed up against the rather vague and weak_'you're playing God'_ argument makes this an easy choice."
I agree that "You're playing God" is a vague and therefore weak. But so is the baseless morality of atheism. That's why atheist despots like Stalin and Mao slaughtered millions—because under the atheist worldview, there are no limits on what you can do if you have the power to do it. Under the Christian view, even kings and emperors are subject to God's rules, which is why we have things like the Magna Carta and Western democracies.
"But I am also far from a stubborn fool fearfully clinging to the past as some child to their comfort blanket."
Those who don't learn from history...
"We're an evolving species."
No, we are a created species, made in the image of God. If evolution is your basis, why not adopt the principle of survival of the fittest—a concept that is the opposite of helping others.
"And we see that with the woke crowd and all other manner of social retardation."
Mostly by people who are not theists, to counter your earlier comment! 🙂
"But, likewise, stubbornly clinging to antiquated mindsets shaped by a Bronze Age theistic mindset is not a way forward."
First, 'Bronze Age' is a naturalistic concept not supported by history. Second, that "theistic mindset" is the basis of Western Civilisation, with Christianity introducing public hospitals, many charities, universal education, and modern science, and twice abolishing slavery, spreading democracy, raising the status of women, and supporting human rights. Rather opposed to the claim that it's "not a way forward".
"I would say that the process of this law was sound and the decision to make it into law fair. The system works. Isn't that supposed to be a good thing for a conservative?"
Yes, it is. And I'm not disagreeing, except for the question of whether it's ethical—a question that I'm not providing an answer to, because I haven't considered what the answer should be. But an atheistic worldview is not a proper basis for answering an ethical question.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vitulus_
"How is the concept of 'gender' fiction?"
Because it's nothing to do with reality.
"There clearly are aspects of being a woman or being a man that is beyond just the biological sex characteristics."
True.
"Gender considers social/cultural aspects (e.g., gender roles, expression, etc.), psychological aspects (e.g., assertiveness, etc.), and behavioural aspects (e.g., mannerisms, etc.)."
But as you said, those aspects that are beyond the biological are aspects of being a woman or a man. They are not something else.
Further, some of these activists actually deny that there are sex (male/female)-based social/psychological/behavioural aspects. One said to me that "there is no difference between men and women (apart from some physical differences)".
"The answer to many of your questions have nothing to do with how gender is defined."
So why do the activists conflate them?
"Transmen should go in men's toilets because it'd be weird and would creep women out if someone who looks like a man had to walk into a girls bathroom."
Most 'trans men' look like women. And no, they don't "have" to go into men's toilets. They are free to choose to use the women's toilets, and to look like the women that they actually are. You are offering a justification for a 'solution' to a manufactured problem.
"If you want I can go through each one and give the reasons why."
Why what? Why the activists conflate them? I already know the reason for that—because they want affirmation of their delusions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ycageLehT
"The most prominent mark the Church of Rome has placed on modern Christianity has been the change in Sabbath observance."
The New Testament records worship on a Sunday before there was a "Church of Rome" (Acts 20:7).
"They claim it to be their "mark" of authority."
"They" being a Canadian Catholic publication, not the Catholic church as a whole, from what I can tell.
"You can use the translation you feel comfortable with, this is the one I use and I indicate it so folks have a reference to where I am qouting from."
You didn't answer why you choose to use it. How many people today (amongst the general public, where you posting the quote) would understand that "charity" means "love", "flesh" means "meat", and "meat" means "food", for example. My point is that using it in public can mislead the reader. (And of course with any version you use, you could indicate it so that they have a reference.) I'm not suggesting that it's a sin to quote from it. Just that, in normal circumstances, it's an unwise thing to do because it can mislead or confuse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tomgachagan1347
"on a legal level it is marriage however."
Yes, various governments, in defiance of God, have declared that to be the case. But just as if they declared that 2+2=5, it doesn't make it so.
"give me an argument against same sex marriage that doesn't involve religion"
What about the argument I've already given? I've already said that I'm not claiming that it's "religious". I'm claiming it as so from history and design. History tells us that God designed people and designed us to be heterosexual and designed marriage as a life-long union of a man and a woman. My argument is from design, not "religion". That you want to put that label on it, and thereby somehow pretend that my main argument is irrelevant, doesn't change any of that.
But to address your point a bit more, as God designed marriage to be between a man an a woman, any forgery of that, such as so-called same-sex 'marriage', can not help but be inferior. So my argument would therefore be that true (God-designed) marriage is, logically, the better way to go in practice. In other words, go against the way that God designed and things will, inevitably, be worse, just like using a book as a hammer won't work very well because that's not what a book is designed for.
1
-
1
-
@tomgachagan1347
"why would an all loving god allow us to kill each other in endless wars"
Because we rejected Him, so He gave us what we wanted: life without Him interfering too much. Besides, how do you know He's not actually stopping even worse things from happening? We are suffering the consequences of our own actions; you can't blame Him for what we do. Ergo, your argument completely fails to demonstrate that He doesn't exist.
"...let these horrific illnesses be a thing. a god that allows that to happen is no god I want to follow"
So you don't want to follow a God who has provided everything that you own and use and have access to (including food, life, free will, intelligence, love, happiness, friends, and so much more), plus He's provided a way, at great cost to himself, to be reconciled to Him, merely because He's not stopping us from suffering the consequences of our own actions? If you have a child who keeps doing bad things (throwing bricks through windows, attacking the cat, taking drugs, etc.) but you are somehow able to prevent any consequences to him for that (you pay for the neighbour's window; you somehow stop the cat being hurt (without stopping him from attacking it), you somehow prevent those drugs from having any bad effects), do you think he'll ever learn to be good? Won't he simply do worse and worse things, given that he suffers no consequences? And yet you seem to think that if God really did exist, he MUST, for some reason, stop all the consequences of what we do? Why can't you see that there might be a reason why He allows these things?
Ergo, you have not provided any evidence that He doesn't exist. Your faith in his non-existence is baseless. And yet you would have no coherent explanation of why we exist, of how life started, and so on, without invoking God.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tysondog843
"all demonstrably and provably false, fictional."
Then please demonstrate it, without resorting to the circular reasoning of citing scientists who start with the assumption that God didn't do any of those things. (You can omit the last one, which as I've pointed out to you in a separate comment, is symbolic language.)
"Not to mention the books of the 'Bible' "
Why the scare quotes?
"...were written long after the apparent life and death of 'Jesus'..."
Apparent? The consensus of historians is that Jesus did live, and die by crucifixion. So no scare quotes need yet again.
And no, they weren't written "long after". In fact they were written much closer to his life than almost any other record we have of any other person of ancient history.
"some by anonymous authors..."
We know with at least a reasonable degree of certainty who the authors are.
"Then a 'comity' chose some of these books to keep, and some to reject to make the 'Bible' hundreds of years after the apparent events..."
Simply false.
""Adam and Eve", people living for 600 to 900 years..."Evidence?"....come on, really?"
Yes, really. No, I can't give you evidence for every single detail, but otherwise, yes, really.
1
-
1
-
@tysondog843
"Talk about "circular arguments", you tell others not to, then use that Exact style of argument."
I pointed out why an argument from naturalistic scientists was circular. You haven't explained why my argument is circular. It's not.
" "Don't use scientific method"...lol"
Despite your quote marks, I didn't say that, and neither did I mean that. In fact, you are misrepresenting what I said, so that's a deliberate straw-man. The scientific method does not require a scientist to a priori reject God as an explanation.
"No one knows who all the authors of all the books of the Bible were."
Evidence?
"There is Not definitive evidence Jesus, from the Bible stories, lived and was crucified, it 'circumstantial' evidence,..."
Depending on your definition of "definitive", there is no definitive evidence that Caesar live, or Mark Antony lived, or Ghenghis Kahn lived, or almost any other figure from ancient history. Have a listen to the YouTube video "Atheist Refuted by Agnostic Historian (Bart Ehrman) on the Existence of Jesus"
"No, it is not False a 'comity' of Religious Leaders chose what "books or scriptures" to put in, and leave out of the Bible."
Evidence?
"Please show Empirical evidence [for a whole stack of things]"
Why? When you won't even give me evidence (of any sort) for your claims?
1
-
1
-
@tysondog843
"More evidence of the Fictional Bible..."
I'll come back to that.
Here is the passage in a different translation (the ESV), which might be slightly clearer:
"Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals,[a] the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate, 3 and seven pairs[b] of the birds of the heavens also, male and female, "
The notes ([a] and [b]) say that the "seven pairs" could mean "seven of each kind". It's actually two of each 'unclean' kind and either seven or seven pairs of the 'clean' kinds and birds.
But where (in either translation) does it say "species"? It doesn't. Species is a modern convention for classifying animals. The text most likely means (and this is what creationists claim) that there were two of each kind, so two bears (not two black bears and two brown bears and two grizzly bears and two polar bears, etc.), and two canines, and two felines, and so on. When you work out (as best as one can) how many creatures that works out to be (and given that the ark didn't have fish nor needed to have insects etc.), it would have needed about 16,000 animals, well within the capacity of the ark.
So...
"More evidence of the Fictional Bible..."
Where? You've provided none. As I said in the same response, "Don't you think it's a good idea to understand a claim before you argue against it?"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brentmathie7345
"all you guys have ancestors that are indiginous to the lands they hail from ."
A rather meaningless statement. You're basically saying that we all came from where we all came from. Further, we all came from somewhere else. Aborigines, for example, came from somewhere else (there is some evidence of that being India).
"Being indiginous to this land means your a first nation people of this land.."
No, that does not logically follow. For example, Aborigines are considered to be indigenous to Australia, but it doesn't follow that they were the first people in Australia, and there is some evidence of others being here before them.
"Can't you guys trace your heritage to where you were once indiginous you know where your ancestors lived and probably still do"
I would say not, at least in my case. My family has been in Australia for around five or six generations, having come from south-east England. But my surname traces back to France, and that part of England was settled by Normans, which makes sense. But before that, my surname traces back to Germany. But then the German people came from elsewhere also. As I said at the start, we all came from somewhere else.
1
-
@EL-FUKKO
"They are all the definition of a native. Hence why they are in the dictionary."
Yes, I know. But they are all different definitions, which is why I said that it depends on which definition one is using. Your response was that you were using "the" Oxford definition. But "the" means one, and Oxford has more than one.
"If 1 definition applies to you, then you meet the definition."
Again, "the" means one, but there is more than one. If one definition applies to me, then I meet that definition, but not necessarily all definitions, as I pointed out, but which you've ignored.
"Stop looking for reasons to be offended..."
I wasn't. I was simply pointing out that your claim that if we are born here, we meet are natives, depends on which definition one is using. You've said nothing to show that I was wrong to point that out.
"Some English words have multiple meanings, despite being spelt and pronounced the same."
That was exactly my point, which you were implicitly denying in your original comment! That was "Anybody born in Australia is by definition, a native", which is only true for one of the definitions, but is false by another definition. I used the word one way (because I was responding to someone else who used it that way), and you chose to correct me by using a different definition, as though I was wrong to use the definition that I did. So now you are getting your knickers in a knot in trying to make my point that there is more than one definition!
And all that despite my first reply to you saying "I don't disagree..."!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Morrison lost the election because he was and is ..hated."
Thanks to a left-wing and anti-Christian media who repeatedly demonised him. It seems that you swallowed that.
"...Hawaii holiday, mismanagement of bushfires, ..."
Part of that demonisation was blaming him despite bushfires being a state responsibility.
"...alleged rape cover up ( anyone who thinks Morrison didn’t know about it 3 weeks out from an election is a fool), ..."
Your evidence-free opinion and insult is noted and rejected as baseless.
"...mismanagement of vaccination procurement, mismanagement of vaccine rollout..."
Given the unprecedented situation, I'm a long way from being convinced that anyone else would have done any better.
"...there they all sit.. the dregs of the worst Government in our history..all on the Opposition front bench."
You must only remember a handful of governments if that's what you believe. And ignore the numerous failings of the current one.
"No policies, no ideas, no vision…"
Opposing the racist 'voice' was a policy, for one. Your blindness is showing.
"The Albanese Government is far from perfect but they are a [lot] better than this troupe of self serving Winged Monkeys."
As I said, your blindness is showing.
"they were the byword for corruption and mismanagement."
In your imagination.
"Here is SkyNews pushing Murdoch’s agenda in this blatant hit job."
Evidence please. What is that supposed "agenda"? For example, was it supporting the 'voice', or opposing it? Sky News often has dissenting opinions.
"Don’t people get it?"
Yes, but you don't seem to.
"It is all really about Murdoch’s power and profit margin."
Of course. That's why most other media outlets lean to the left. Because it won't make them as good a profit. Obviously. Duh!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mark-e9u9s
"it is fairer, because the candidate that actually wins the election is elected to parliament!!"
False. With first past the post, you could have three candidates, with none of them 'winning', i.e. getting more than 50% of the vote. That is, the 'winner' might be someone that a majority of voters don't want. I'll give you an example.
Suppose that there is one leftist candidate, A, and two conservative candidates, B and C. Further suppose that 60% of the voters want a conservative to represent them. And finally, suppose that the voting results are as follows:
A: 40%
B: 35%
C: 25%
With first past the post, the leftist (A) wins even though 60% of the voters didn't want him.
With preferential voting, because none of the candidates has a majority, the one with the smallest number of votes (C) is eliminated, and the second preferences of those votes is distributed to the remaining candidates. In this hypothetical case, all of the second preferences of the votes for C go to the other conservative, B. So now the results are:
A: 40%
B: 60%
So B wins, because he has more than 50% of the votes, because more than 50% of the voters wanted B in preference to A. This is clearly a better/fairer/more-democratic outcome reflecting the wishes of the voters than the first-past-the-post system in which A would have won.
"Not some grubby deal, ..."
Any system can have grubby deals. For example, suppose in my example above, only A and B were standing for election, and it's a first-past-the-post system. A knows that B is likely to win, so he finds a bogus candidate, C, to stand as a conservative. The hoped-for outcome is to split the the conservative vote so that neither gets more votes than A. How's that for a grubby deal?
"...where third combines with second to leapfrog the candidate with the most actual votes!"
That's a misrepresentation. Nobody is "combining". Rather, one candidate's votes get passed onto others (according to the voter's wishes), until one actually does have the "most actual votes", i.e. more than 50%.
If you disagree, please show me exactly where I have got it wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@throatwobblermangrove8510
"No more than Ken Ham is stuck on "kinds" as opposed to "species"."
What is 'no more' than? I don't know what you're referring to there. Further, you don't say what's wrong with highlighting 'kinds' over 'species'. It's a perfectly sensible distinction.
"His entire spiel is an exercise in sophistry, an attempt to reach a foregone conclusion based on his prior beliefs."
What's your evidence for that?
"It is literally impossible to fit two of each "kind" of creature on that ship,…"
Okay, so please refute the research that has been done to show that it is possible. Given that you clearly have a very good argument hiding somewhere.
"…only wishful thinking and ignoring of reality makes anyone accept it."
What ignoring of reality? On the contrary, it is widely accepted because the arguments are sound.
"Ham is convinced that the universe is 6,000 years old,…"
Yes, because that's what the evidence shows. Or perhaps you can explain why it's not?
"His justification for that is "you weren't there so you can't prove me wrong"."
Where has he said that that is his justification for that? Come on, give me evidence.
"You make the mistake of assuming that because science has not been able to accurately describe everything that it MUST have a supernatural answer,…"
Where did I say that? I want evidence, else your claim is vacuous.
"You treat secularism as a religion…"
That depends on which meaning of 'religion' you are using.
"…your worldview is defined by a faith that things must be a certain way just because someone says it was that way."
Again, what's your evidence that I think that way? You seem to think you know me rather well. And of course you're engaging in a fallacious ad hominem argument, focusing on me rather than the topic. Perhaps that's because you can't actually support your claims?
"…your completely faith-based viewpoint…"
My guess is that you're using 'faith' in a way that atheists love, but which is contrary to the biblical use, which is that faith is based on evidence.
"…as just as faith-bound as you are."
Moreso actually, in the sense that those who disagree with the views I hold are typically using blind faith, not evidence-based faith.
"I'm completely open to a reasonable, rational explanation."
Then perhaps you should use it instead of attempting to impugn motives to people.
"…a religion that has consistently retreated in its arguments over the millennia in areas that have increasingly been overtaken by evidence and proof…"
What's your evidence for that?
"You want to believe what you want to believe, ..."
Well, yes, as you do too. I want to believe the truth. Is there something wrong with that?
"…no amount of reality is going to change that."
How can reality change the truth? Reality IS the truth!
"You argue over "evolve" while ignoring the fact that I originally mentioned."
Despite the full stop, that sentence is unfinished, so I don't get your point.
"Where are the dinosaurs?"
Like many animals, they have become extinct. What's your point?
"If they died the moment the ark hit land,…"
They didn't.
"How did they fossilize over the past ~4,500 years?"
The same way anything fossilizes. It doesn't take long.
"Also, why would none of the contemporary accounts at the time not mention dinosaurs,…"
They do. Many of them.
"…or their mass extinction?"
After the flood? There was no mass extinction of them.
"And what about the civilizations (such as Chinese, Sumerian and Egyptian) that not only predate this time of Noah's flood,…"
They don't predate the flood. You're citing a secular timescale and pointing out that it doesn't fit with the biblical account. The problem is that they are competing accounts! Of course they won't fit together!
"Believe in fairy tales all you want."
What fairy tales? This is history.
"…it doesn't ground you in reality."
History doesn't ground me in reality? How do you figure that?
"So yes, it "sounds magical",…"
Yes, the Big Bang does, doesn't it.
"…and you're actually depending on that magic for anyone to accept it."
True, which is why I don't accept the Big Bang.
"Otherwise, so much of it wouldn't just have to be accepted on "faith"."
There you go misusing that word again.
"That's according to your belief."
Noi, that's what the word "god" actually means.
"I'm sure you would agree that every religious person who disagrees with you thinks that their own God, or even the "version" of God they believe in, is the only one."
That doesn't make them right.
"Anyway, "God" itself is a title,…"
I know. That's my point. It's a title for the creator and supreme being.
"If you follow Jehovah, or Yeshua, or Allah, you've chosen your version,…"
Jehovah and Yeshua are the same God. Allah arguably is too, although the Muslim description of Him is quite different.
"…there are billions of people who disagree with you."
And with you. So your point is... ?
"If you follow one denomination, you possibly believe that people who believe in the same "God" but follow a different denomination will "go to Hell" for their apostate views."
Again, making up things about me. No, I don't believe that.
"Saying that another "God" doesn't qualify as THE ONE TRUE GOD is potentially blasphemy if you didn't choose the right one."
True. Which is a good reason to go for the right claimant.
"So again, the question remains, "Which one?" "
The question is not which is the right God. There is only one. The question is which claimant for the title is the right one. And to get an answer, we need to assess the claimants and see what the evidence supports. Fair enough?
"Answering that "the one I believe in is the right one and I decided that on faith" is a non-answer."
If by "faith" you still mean without evidence, then you're right, it's a non-answer. But then I never even hinted at that being my answer.
"If one, why not two?"
Because only one can be supreme, as I've already said.
"If you have to argue for the existence of a God you cannot prove…"
What makes you think I can't prove His existence?
"…or even point to and demonstrate,…"
What makes you think I can't do that either?
I have challenged or questioned you about 17 times in this response. They are not questions asking you about what you believe about something that we haven't discussed. They are all on topic. One or two might be rhetorical, but at least ten are challenges to you to back up your claims with evidence. I wonder how many I'll actually see you address? Two? Three? For the rest, I'll take it that you have no evidence, and therefore that your claims were baseless.
1
-
@throatwobblermangrove8510
"Yes, I see much of the rhetorical in that reply, …"
In response to your rhetoric? And did you also notice the challenges to provide evidence for your claims?
"The easy answer for what makes me think you can't prove it or have any evidence is simply that you haven't given it."
You assume too much. My approach is to question the basis of the sceptic's claims, not to put my own.
"If you could have, you would have."
That's a non-sequitur and false.
"And if you'd had some, I'd have accepted it."
I'll withhold judgement on that one, but I'm sceptical.
"…whether it's YOUR unbelievable religion or someone else's."
You haven't shown that it's unbelievable.
"If ANY of you could provide evidence, we wouldn't be arguing…"
And yet you are arguing, despite there being plenty of evidence. Just because you're ignorant of it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
"…the things you can't provide evidence for but make blind claims of."
Are you talking about your claims now? Because you're the one who hasn't provided evidence — despite being asked for it.
"You point to scientific theories and hypotheses as if they are presented as proven facts,…"
I don't believe I did that anywhere. I was mostly referring to your specific claims, not to scientific theories.
"…possibly because your own worldview demands a claim of fact instead of an observation of what MAY be the case."
I don't know what you're referring to. Evolution, for example, has been described as both a theory (the explanation) AND a fact. Quite dogmatically.
"If it's proven not to be the case, science will discard it;…"
Science doesn't make decisions. Scientists do. And no, scientists will often not discard it. Evolution has been falsified, but it hasn't been discarded.
"…religion will fight tooth and nail to avoid that."
What religion are you talking about? Atheistic ones? Christianity is quite open to evidence.
"You say only one "claimant" can be God,…Stating that doesn't make it a fact,"
No, the definition makes it fact. Only one claimant to the role of supreme being can be correct. Two supreme beings means that neither is supreme. Your argument is like saying that stating 'a bachelor is not married' does not make it a fact.
"…and still gives no weight to YOUR "claimant" being the right one."
I never said that it did. I was laying down principles, not trying to justify my own view. If we can't even settle on the principles then we're not going to get anywhere. Such as the principle of the person making a claim having an onus to provide evidence for it when challenged. You seem to think you don't have to do that, but dismiss my views because I haven't provided evidence. That's a double standard.
"You claim I misused the word "faith" repeatedly, yet now [not?] how I misused it."
I said that I guessed you were misusing it. I didn't make it a definite claim. And I indicated that the misuse would be if you didn't allow for it being evidence-based. Atheists typically use it as being evidence-free or even contrary to the evidence. I can expand on that if you want.
"You call your religion "history", obviously misusing that word, apparently conflating it with "fact",…"
No misuse. History is what happened in the past. Do you dispute that history is supposed to be factual?
"…ou conveniently ignore the fact that other cultures with "competing" histories actually span the time before, during and after your flood."
No, I don't ignore that fact at all. I reject that those histories are correct. Just as you reject that the history in the Bible is correct.
"Ask for evidence. Get evidence."
I did ask. You didn't provide, so I didn't get.
"Evidence doesn't mesh with your narrative."
So you have claimed, but I have asked for evidence of that claim, and you've failed to provide it. So your claims without evidence can be dismissed as baseless.
"Deny evidence. Rinse. Repeat."
What evidence have I denied?
"Several of your responses just deny straight out what you've already claimed,…"
Such as?
"My evidence for what Ken Ham believes is what he says he believes."
You haven't shown that he says it.
"And the reason I make the distinction between "kinds" and "species"…"
I didn't ask why you made the distinction. I asked what your concern was with Ken being "stuck on" that.
"…Ken Ham uses that as his excuse why he can't fit two of each on the ark."
What makes it an "excuse" rather than a reason?
"He's said it multiple times,…"
I know. I never disputed that he talks about kinds on the ark. Creationists have done that for yonks. That's called making your case.
"…ignoring the fact that even with his broader "kind" division it still doesn't work."
There's another claim of yours that I'll challenge you to provide evidence of. In fact it has been shown that it does work.
"You claim that Jehovah and Yeshua are the same, although Yeshua is Jesus, and various sects obviously see distinctions."
Yes, Yeshua is Jesus but Jesus is God, i.e. Jehovah (a mistranslation) or Yahweh. And so what that various sects see distinctions? You're response means nothing unless you can show that they are right. But you seem to think that that dissent means that I'm wrong.
Actually, I'll take that further. Let's suppose we have views A, B, and C. You go for A, and I go for C. A sect goes for B. You argue that because B and C disagree, I can't argue for C. But you seem to think that A is above that, and the fact that B and C both disagree with A doesn't matter—A must still be correct (because you keep claiming that it's views show that C is incorrect).
"After all, one supposedly created everything, and the other was born about 2,000 years ago."
Absolutely not so. Jesus took on human form 2000 years ago, but is God, and has been around since before He created the world. And yes He, Jesus, is the creator, according to the Bible.
"Therein lies part of my point of "which one?" "
My original answer stands.
"Fossilization doesn't take long? Your evidence?"
First, what do you mean by "fossilization"? Fossilisation does not mean lithification (turning to stone). Lithification is common with fossils, but not mandatory. We have examples of such things, though. Also we have many examples of exquisitely-preserved soft tissue that would not be preserved if it wasn't buried and 'fossilised' rapidly. And we also have laboratory experiments that show that it need not take long. See the article "Fossils in a day?" by Ron Neller
As I predicted (and successful prediction is a hallmark of a good scientific hypothesis), you failed to provide the evidence that I asked to support your claims.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ozziecoops
"I just like how no one can prove its even been isolated..."
I don't believe that's the case.
"...pfizer has just said the vaccine will probably have no affect on future variants..."
That sounds suss. I've read from a scientist that variants will probably still be susceptible to the vaccine. It does depend on the details of the vaccine and on the specifics of the virus variant.
"full approval has been rushed from what was said in the beginning changing the goal posts when it suits them."
Can you give me specifics? I actually thought from months ago that full approval was due around now.
"Australia is currently experiencing 1 & 1/2 deaths per day they say from covid nothing said about side affects and deaths,..."
So nothing's been said about the blood clots from the AstraZenica vaccine? Funny, how do I know about that problem then? Look, I'm not disputing that the virus is being talked up as more dangerous than it is, and simultaneously they will talk down problems with the vaccine. However, virtually all medications have potential side effects, and from what I can tell, there's nothing worse in that regard than with many other medications.
"i just love how vaccinated ppl who can still spread it catch it will be allowed better restrictions its a joke and contradictory its just to push the vaccine and cause divide among the ppl and its working a treat."
Yes, there have been mixed messages about this stuff. However, there is a difference between a simple black-and-white claim and a more nuanced claim. So it's possible both that vaccinated people can still get and spread the disease, and that vaccination reduces both the effects and the spread of the virus.
"free choice would have been better"
At the moment there is free choice for most people. But yes, I oppose mandating it also.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@loganmyers1489 No, don't link to pages upon pages of research. Link to one to start with, and I'll engage with it. And I'm not a sea lion.
Climate research (at least the questionable part) is mainly models about what will happen in the future, which is of questionable value in the first place, but then given that so many of them have been wrong, it's not just questionable but demonstrably unreliable.
By the way, here's what one of the experts, Christopher Dummit, said:
"The problem is: I was wrong. Or, to be a bit more accurate, I got things partly right. But then, for the rest, I basically just made it up. ... Everyone was (and is) making it up. That’s how the gender-studies field works."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KHABIB-TIME
"I am sorry."
Thanks. And I hope you still feel the same way after this comment.
I often find people far too willing to criticise someone on flimsy evidence, which is why I asked what your point was. I've now checked your quotes, and found that they are accurate. Piers did say that he'd met Savile, and later did claim to not have met him.
But my original question stands: what's your point? I also found that Piers was confronted with his contradictions, and his reply was "Fair cop guv. Forgot this". I can understand people being sceptical that he really did forget, but on the other hand:
* Liars often tell another lie to cover the first. While Piers' response could be that, his response was to admit that he'd made the earlier comment, and therefore admit the contradiction.
* While Piers had met Savile, his account of it was that of a fleeting meeting, not one of an interview or extended discussion or time together. In my opinion, it's seems reasonable that Piers had forgotten that when he made the later comment.
Also, I meant to ask, what does any of this have to do with this video?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sirgreedy88
"Bible says that if you pray and truly believe in god your prayers will be granted. I truly believed yet, still no burrito."
If you truly believed in God, you'd know him better and would ask for things seriously, not flippantly. God will answer prayers, but the answer won't always be 'yes', as He's not a vending machine, but an infinitely intelligent being who knows what the right thing is in every situation.
"Nelson Mandela's grandchildren don't have magic powers, ..."
Neither does God. God has godly powers, i.e. ones wielded with discernment and wisdom, unlike magic that will give whatever you ask for regardless of the consequences (assuming such powers existed, of course).
"Only ever claimed that my lack of burrito proves either god isn't real, or what the bible says about prayer is false."
I would also point out that you didn't cite where the Bible says that. I know that it does say things similar to that, but what is the precise promise, and what is the context?
"It clearly says you can move mountains with prayer if you truly believe."
It actually says that if you have sufficient faith you can, but that was in the context of His own disciples not being able to because they didn't have enough faith. It's also possible that He was being rhetorical, not literal.
"It says anything within god's power that is not sinful will be granted to believers."
Hmmm. Not sinful, hey? Sure, nothing sinful about wanting a burrito. But why you want it may have been sinful. For example, wanting God to provide something that you're quite capable of getting yourself, but you're too lazy to do so.
"That's the full context."
No, it wasn't. For example, you didn't mention the circumstances in which He said it.
"Christians always claim cherry picking when their book makes no sense..."
No, we claim cherry picking when someone is cherry picking.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sydtopia1
"I think you should watch the video again. Have a look at the officer when he is speaking to her when she is hiding. He is sitting down, being clam and talking to her."
I've watched it again, but I don't think the bit you're talking about is in this video. And that bit is, of course, not the entire thing. Perhaps at one stage he did try to be calm, but by then she was already very scared.
"The main person being difficult the whole time is the mother. She is the one yelling, the one being unreasonable. The one screaming at everyone."
How is she being unreasonable? She's defending her daughter against police arresting her for a so-called 'hate crime'! I've already asked you why that's okay, but you avoided answering that.
"The police are taking their time, trying everything to sort the problem out."
What problem needed sorting out?
"And unfortunately people just believe whatever they are told."
Are you talking about yourself there? I'm going by the available evidence.
"And what were the police suppose to do in this case for her being Autistic?"
First, why did they need to do anything?
Second, how about stepping back, and asking the mother to coax her daughter out?
"We don't know what all the facts are. You are jumping to a conclusion without all the evidence."
So we just let the police get away with arresting a girl for likening an officer to her grandmother, because we'll never know all the facts??
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MegaRazorback
"I'm going to jump in here and say the same to you actually,..."
I asked him first, and yet he's provided no evidence. But okay, you're not him, so I'll answer you.
"...no the bible doesn't count..."
Why not? Why arbitrarily reject the main evidence? Because you want to limit my response?
"...where's YOUR evidence that Jesus/God is real..."
Well, the Bible is good evidence, despite your attempt to wave it away. As I've replied to Jase Daley, virtually all the relevant historians accept that Jesus existed, was crucified, and was claimed to have been seen alive by many afterward. They believe this on the basis of the biblical account, as much as anything. It contains multiple reliable eyewitness accounts. Many times critics have claimed that it was incorrect in various details, only for subsequent discoveries to show that it was correct after all.
Beyond that, there is evidence for God in the very fact that anything exists. Nothing creates nothing; you need God to have created the universe. You also need an intelligence to create all the genetic information in living things.
There is much more evidence than that, but that's a start.
"Give us scientifically provable evidence that Jesus/God exists ..."
Science doesn't do proofs, and science is not the best tool for studying history. Most of history has not been scientifically verified.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MegaRazorback I don't really understand your question. I do believe that the Bible is 100% accurate (in its original documents; the copies we have today might only be 99.9% accurate). Much of it is history, and it accurately records that history, including recording bad things that people did. It also records the laws given by Moses to the newly-emerging nation of Israel, laws that are not applicable to others or since Jesus (although many of the principles behind the laws would still be applicable).
I know people deny it, so no, I don't, in that sense consider it to be undeniable. I also know that people can attempt to refute it, but I don't believe that they can successfully do so.
None of that means that I'm not open to evidence contrary to my position, as so many atheists are.
I believe all this on the basis of the evidence that supports that view. My faith is, in line with biblical use of the word, based on evidence; it's not blind faith like that of so many atheists.
1
-
1
-
@MegaRazorback
"You said you didn't understand my question..."
I said that I didn't really understand it. But I tried my best. If I got it right, then that's good, but I wasn't sure.
"You said the bible is 100% accurate, undeniable, irrefutable evidence for the things in the bible happening ..."
I explicitly did NOT say that. I acknowledged that people do deny it. I also never claimed that it is "100% ... evidence for the things in the Bible happening". That is, while I do believe that it's accurate, I never claimed that it is "100% ... evidence" for it happening. You are claiming that I said something different to what I actually said.
"WHAT my question was, do you think the bible is 100%, undeniable, irrefutable evidence that God/Jesus exists.".
This is another conflation. Your question was about whether it's evidence "that God/Jesus exists", whereas you claimed that I had a positive response to whether it was "100% ... evidence for [al]] the things in the Bible", which is a different , broader, question.
This was probably why I said that I didn't really understand the question: because it was not clear exactly what you were asking. It seems that you don't even understand your question yourself, not sure whether it's about evidence just for God's existence or for all "the things in the Bible happening".
"Don't bother replying to this as i wont respond because you've actually answered the question i asked in your reply without realizing it."
And yet you have distorted my answer to what you wanted me to be saying, it seems. Not what I actually said.
By the way, you never did explain why you won't discuss an issue on which I hold an evidence-based view. That's a curious one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wuper2270
"go ahead and show me the proof."
What is "proof"? There's no such thing as scientific proof. Logical proof depends on the accuracy of the premises. A criminal court considers the case proved if it is "beyond reasonable doubt"? Reasonable according to who? According to the judge or jury. A civil court considers the case proved if it's more likely true than not. Again, according to what the judge or jury consider is more likely.
Many people have set out to look at the evidence for God—many of whom have actually set out to disprove God—and have been convince by the considerable evidence. So they have proved God's existence to their own satisfaction, just like a judge or jury does.
Of course some people are so unwilling to accept the evidence that they won't be convinced no matter how good the evidence is. So God is not proved to their satisfaction. But that doesn't mean that nobody has ever proved God—they have. Which is why I answered "yes".
Now that doesn't actually provide the evidence to potentially convince you. And I expect that you'll not be easily convinced, and it's impracticable for me to provide very much evidence here, but I can mention some basic areas of such evidence.
* That anything exists at all. The Laws of Thermodynamics show that the physical universe cannot have existed forever, and therefore it had a beginning. But to suggest that nothing became something all by itself (e.g. the Big Bang) is anti-scientific nonsense, as it violates the principle of cause and effect. So the only logical alternative is that something non-physical (i.e. spiritual or supernatural) created it.
* The universe shows evidence of "fine tuning", i.e. many very precise values (such as the strength of the weak and strong nuclear forces) without which the universe could not exist. The odds of this happening by chance rule out that they could have come about that way. So the spiritual creator of the universe was an intelligent designer.
* All living things contain massive amounts of genetic information. The only known sources of information are intelligences. So living things were designed by an intelligent being, and God is the only real candidate around.
* Jesus rose from the dead to show that He is God, the creator.
As I indicated, such evidence can be expanded on and added to, but that should give you a small taste of it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Raygo.
"I think I am done trying to reason with little boys with no experience of real life."
Typical. Can't refute your opponent, so you abuse him instead and run away.
"Here are some interesting views expressed by "pro-lifers" however on this topic."
Actually, going just on what is cited there, most of them are not about abortion. But I guess facts like that don't really matter when you choose to smear instead. Also, the video seem to assume that people will all agree as to what is wrong with them. For example, what is wrong with saying that rape victims should make the best of a bad situation? Shouldn't all people strive to do that all the time?
Also, not all Republicans are pro-lifers, so it's not in evidence that they are what you claim.
But I guess the key point is, are those simply cherry picked, or fair examples of what pro-life people think? I'd say it's pretty obviously the former, not the latter.
1
-
@howardramsey7243
"If you can see no difference between a pregnant lady randomly shooting you and electing to have an abortion, there's no point discussing it further, ..."
I never said that there was no difference, Clearly there is something of a difference between shooting an adult who could potentially run away or defend himself, and a baby who can do neither. But I fail to see how that makes killing the baby okay, and you've not even bothered to point out a relevant difference.
"...we'll have to agree to disagree."
I can't force you to discuss it, but no, I don't agree to disagree. This is not some inconsequential issue where different opinions don't really matter, but literally a matter of life and death, and not for an individual (which would be bad enough), but of millions of people. How can you possibly defend killing defenceless innocents?
1
-
1
-
@Raygo.
"The way you (and other "pro-lifers") seek constantly to muddy the waters by trying to drag in other issues (eg. Covid-19)…"
It's not muddying the waters to make relevant comparisons. Such accusations, however, are red herrings.
"…and support an irrational argument with meaningless statistics is just rather tiresome,…"
What's tiresome is calling argument irrational without showing that they are, and dismissing statistics as meaningless when they are far more significant that others, such as covid ones.
"I consider it absurd to suggest that the recent (unconstitutional) change in the law in Texas…"
What's unconstitutional about it? Rather, the Roe v. Wade decision was unconstitutional because (notice I'll say why, unlike you) the constriction doesn't even mention abortion and even supporters of abortion have said that the decision was not founded in the constitution, and because the 14th amendment says "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", which should mean that killing babies who have not committed a crime is unconstitutional.
"…is some kind of reasonable response to unreasonable demands by women seeking abortions."
Okay, that's your opinion. Can you back it up with good argument?
"There simply is no relevance between Covid-19 and abortion."
He pointed out the relevance. You have denied that it's relevant without given an argument why.
"The recent deliberate imbalancing of the SCOTUS by the tRump administration is part of this plan."
You mean that rebalancing away from the previous imbalance towards the left? Oh, that's right. The left is correct, and the right is, by definition, biased.
"And I have tried to suggest to you that the abortion issue is not a simple black and white thing."
Yes, you have, but you claimed of Randel that "you don't understand how rational discussion and/or debate is conducted.", and yet you don't seem to realise that it involves logical arguments and evidence, not just suggestions and opinions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Corruption Fighter
"These are all theories !! if you think we live in a true democracy in Australia you are wrong !!"
Theories? What I gave you were facts.
But I did miss that your comment about the popular vote referred to a "true" democracy, which you've now referred to in relation to Australia also. My understanding of a "true" democracy, which I already mentioned, was the ancient Greek one where every voter got to vote on every bit of legislation. So no, Australia's not a "true" democracy either, which is why I referred to it as a "representative" democracy, like the U.S. (in that respect). And in a "true" democracy, you wouldn't even have a president, as there is no need for one, given that everyone votes on every bit of legislation.
Democracies are not perfect, which is what most of your remaining points are about. Yes, you could argue that Switzerland is more democratic than most as they often get to vote as a whole on selected items of legislation. But then, in a far more limited way, so do Americans.
But again, none of that means that America is not a democracy, which is the claim that you made and which I've heard made before. I'm now all the more convinced that the claim is simply wrong, as nobody can show me rationale for why it's not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pwillis1589
"And there you have it, hilariously stupid religious opinion."
And there you have it. An atheistic dismissal rather than a reasoned argument.
"Constitutionally you haven’t got a leg to stand on."
What does this have to do with the constitution? Other than the fact that it starts with "WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God..."
"What God?"
There is only one, even by definition. The Almighty One.
"Australian law doesn’t recognise any Ancient text."
Sure about that? But even if it doesn't formally, then so what? I never claimed that it did.
"Laws on murder and property predate the bible by 600 years."
When do you think the Bible dates to? The first murder was Cain killing Abel, and that was considered wrong even then.
"I don’t nor does any Australian law recognise any idiotic ancient religious text legally."
I wasn't talking about any idiotic texts. I was referring to what God told us.
"That’s your argument the bible told me."
No, God told us. Shouldn't that be a good reason? If not, please explain why not.
"Did you just try and use math in attempt to prove something you think is immoral or wrong."
No. I used arithmetic as an analogy, not as a proof.
"Hilarious."
Your misrepresentations and opinions and misunderstanding? Not the word I'd use.
1
-
@pwillis1589
" Did you just suggest the Hebrew bible was written at the beginning of the evolution of the human species. Hilarious."
No. What's hilarious is that you try and conflate the biblical history with the origins myth you prefer.
But yes, there is textual evidence in the Bible that the earliest part of it goes back to the time of Adam.
"Again I have no idea what god or even understand what god you are talking about,..."
Clearly I'm talking about the only God, as described in the Bible (and as referenced in the Constitution).
"...with whatever you think it is. Hilarious."
What's not hilarious is your disrespect that has you referring to God as an "it".
"Exactly how did this god of yours..."
He's the God of everyone, of course! Duh!
"...tell you how to behave. No god or whatever that is has ever told me anything."
Yes, He has. He has provided the Bible which give us the principles of right and wrong. And that Bible is the basis of Western Civilisation, which has taught you how to behave.
"I haven't misrepresented anything."
False. You have misrepresented my views as illogical emotions, facts as "stupid religious opinions", the origins of Australian/British law as not being from the Bible, the Bible as "idiotic ancient religious text", and me as arguing on the basis that "the bible told me", if not other points as well.
"An analogy of 2+2=5 to express your opinion that the union of two people (that's what the law says) is wrong."
An analogy is to illustrate something, and it's not my opinion that same-sex marriage is an oxymoron, but an unavoidable logical deduction from the fact that marriage is, by design, between a male and a female. You've not shown either that that's an opinion, nor that the supposed opinion is not a logical deduction.
"Again I have absolutely no understanding of why I should pay any attention to a god..."
Because God is the One who made everything, including human beings, and who therefore is in charge of everything.
"You of course are free to converse with whatever you like."
There's that disrespect again.
"While a god is mentioned in the preamble..."
No, it doesn't mention "a god", but Almighty God (note also the capital letters).
"...there is no definition or explanation of what a god is,..."
Because everyone understood what was meant. Australian settlement by the British has a Christian foundation.
"...however section 116 is quite explicit in no law shall be established for imposing religious observance."
Yes, I know. But that's not relevant here. That section is based very closely on the First Amendment of the United States constitution, which was there because they didn't want the situation that existed in Britain at the time of the government being in charge of the church and favouring the Church of England over other Christian denominations. The reference to "religion" is basically a reference to Christian denominations (Anglican/Methodist/Baptist/etc.).
"You are factually wrong."
About what?
"Your opinions about marriage and family unions are literally worthless."
My "opinions" are based on what the Creator established. Dismissing them as merely my opinions is to sidestep the issue, to avoid answering it.
1
-
@pwillis1589
"I understand you reject evolution and accept the creation story in the bible."
Yes, because that's what the evidence supports.
"Again you are special in that regard. Very special."
Not at all. There are millions who reject evolution. But the disciples of evolution don't like to tell you that.
"There was no Adam Phil, it is just a story in an ancient text."
What's your evidence for there being no Adam?
"The oldest Hebrew texts date to about the second century BCE."
Incorrect. One has been found dating to the seventh century BC. (Which of course doesn't mean that that is when it originated.)
"There no doubt was some oral history for a time before that."
Why is there no doubt? Why couldn't early parts of the Bible have been written much earlier?
"Humans have been around for 250000 years."
According to the biased naturalistic (atheistic) view that willfully ignores evidence that contradicts it.
"Nope I don't recognise any authority from any imagined entity from any ancient text."
What's your evidence for Him being imaginary? And what's wrong with a history text being ancient?
"It/them/they makes no sense to me."
First, still being disrespectful, I see.
Second, why does He make no sense to you?
"Nope I see no evidence whatsoever of any sort of god of the bible."
Then you're either not looking, or don't know what "evidence" means.
"It is nonsensical to suggest it has any influence on me."
Dismissing my argument without refuting it is... well, hysterical??
"Nobody designed marriage..."
Evidence please.
"...the bible certainly doesn't have a single coherent teaching..."
Then how come many sensible and intelligent people think otherwise, and have done amazing things based on what it teaches?
"it goes from endorsing polyamorous relationships to celibacy (something I hope take notice of)"
Evidence of the former please. And of the latter unless you're simply saying that it says that celibacy is okay in some circumstances.
"Again I don't even understand what you mean by something that made everything."
I never said that something made everything. I said that God did. God is not a "something". The Big Bang, however, is (grammatically) "something" that is supposed to have made everything.
"Why would creation even mean authority?"
You make it, you own it (assuming you're not making it for someone else), and therefore you have control of it.
"Everybody understood what an Almighty god was."
As I said (although you again missed the capital "G"). Yahweh/Jesus.
"That's just your christian nationalism popping out."
"Christian nationalism" seems to be mainly an invention to malign Christians with. I'm certainly not a member of any such group, but whether or not that's a good thing depends on what you think it is. One writer wrote "When it comes to something like Christian nationalism, it is one of those topics where simply trying to find an agreed-upon definition is near impossible. Many already use the term in a very pejorative sense."
"of course a christian nationalist wouldn't see any relevance in the constitution that explicitly states no law should be established for imposing religious observance."
Well, I guess that means that I'm not one. I've already explained the relevance of it. And what do you think "religious observance" is?
"I don't know where you made the [nonsense] about section 116 (did you imagine it in your head)."
What part do you think is nonsense?
"116 originator was Tasmanian AG Clark who was keen about religious freedom."
So? That doesn't contradict anything I said.
"It was Barton and Higgins who were concerned that a reference in the preamble did not indicate an implicit federal power to legislate with respect to religion."
Again, how does that contradict anything I said?
"Your claim of universal recognition of one god..."
My reference to "everyone" was in the context of the Constitution, and therefore referring to Australians, not to the entire world.
"...is not supported by the data (the constitutional debates)."
How so?
"When Patrick Glynn motion was successful he argued that the words would recommend the constitution to thousands to whom the rest of its provisions may for ever be a sealed book. Higgins added the clause to prevent federal intervention and it was eventually passed as 116."
Again, how does that contradict anything I said?
1
-
@pwillis1589
"There are literally thousands of published peer reviewed scientific papers that prove beyond reasonable doubt the theory of evolution."
There are literally thousand of published peer reviewed scientific papers that assume that evolution is real. Further, as I already said, this is "According to the biased naturalistic (atheistic) view that willfully ignores evidence that contradicts it."
"It is observable and real."
And yet even Richard Dawkins has admitted that we've never observed it happening. What IS the case, is that people equivocate about what "evolution" means. Of course one understanding it that it's the entire process of change from the first living cell to the variety of life that we have today. Another often-used definition is that it's a change in allele frequencies. We have seen the latter, but we've not seen the former, or even one significant step in that supposed process.
"The bible creation story is laughable in its inaccuracies."
What inaccuracies? And note that disagreeing with the naturalistic view does not mean that the Bible is inaccurate. It means that one of the claims is inaccurate, but in order to support your claim you have to show that it's the biblical one that is inaccurate.
"Yes there are a couple of scrolls that date to around 650 BCE."
Contrary to your earlier claim.
"There are Mesopotamian texts that date to 2500-3000BCE that describe laws personal and property."
What's the evidence for those dates? And what does that prove? As I said, the oldest copies we've found don't mean that the originals aren't much earlier.
"Nothing wrong with being ancient if it was accurate."
Then why did you criticise it on the ground that it was ancient?
"The bible isn't even remotely coherent or univocal."
Evidence please. And remember that I asked "how come many sensible and intelligent people think otherwise, and have done amazing things based on what it teaches?", which you've not bothered answering.
"You imagine your god entity or whatever you think it is, I don't."
No, I don't "imagine" Him. Please don't make up things about me.
And you not "imagining" him doesn't mean that He doesn't exist.
"I don't even understand what it is to believe in a god entity or whatever that is."
That's probably the problem. But you believe in all sorts of things (that science works, that India exists, that the chair you're about to sit on will hold you, that the people you call Mum and Dad are actually your mother and father, and so on). So one aspect of believing in God is to believe that He is Who He is claimed to be. Of course that may require good evidence, but it also requires an open mind. The evidence is good enough that many atheists have become Christians because they investigated the evidence. The book "The Case for Christ" is very readable and is the story of an investigative reporter (Lee Strobel) who did just that. The open mind is something I can't help you with.
Another aspect is to act on the consequences of believing that He is who He is claimed to be, given that He claims to be a just and loving God who wants to forgive you of your rejection of Him, if you will "repent", i.e. turn away from that rejection (in all its forms).
"People simply adhere to their religious dogma."
Many do. And others don't, such as Lee Strobel. And millions around various parts of the world are rejecting their old beliefs and becoming Christians. But yes, there are also the hardened atheists who simply adhere to their dogma.
"People do amazing and wonderful things without even knowing anything about the christian bible"
Such as? Sure, there are some, but Christians have done more than people of any other religion, including atheism. These things include founding public hospitals and many charities, founding the university system, founding universal education, twice abolishing slavery, founding modern science, spreading democracy, standing up to tyrants, raising the status of women, providing people with freedoms they didn't have before, and so on.
Sociologist Rodney Stark wrote:
“Christianity created Western Civilization. Had the followers of Jesus remained an obscure Jewish sect, most of you would not have learned to read and the rest of you would be reading from hand copied scrolls. Without a theology committed to reason, progress, and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800...”
Historian Tom Holland said:
“...compacted into this very very small amount of writing [the letters of the Apostle Paul in the New Testament], was almost everything that explains the modern world [the Western world] but also the way that the West has moved on to shape concepts like international law, for instance, ... concepts of human rights, all these kinds of things. Ultimately they don’t go back to Greek philosophers; they don’t go back to Roman empiricism. They go back to Paul. Paul, really, his letters are, I think, are, along with the four gospels, the most influential, the most impactful, the most revolutionary writings that have emerged from the ancient world.”
"Read you bible."
I have. But it's a big book. I don't know every part of it backwards.
"I know the references you find them,..."
Why won't you tell me? You made the claim, so you have the onus, not me. Often when people say things like that to me, I don't recognise what they are talking about because they're actually misrepresenting it.
"The fact you are clueless as to the references to polygamous relationships and advocacy of celibacy in the bible is telling."
The fact that you've twisted what I said is telling. I already indicated that I'm not clueless to the advocacy of celibacy, but I don't know if what you're thinking about is what I'm thinking about.
"Again I have no understanding what is meant by your description of everything."
The universe, the stars and planets, the land and the sea, and life, for starters.
"The Big Bang doesn't describe the making of anything only a process."
The Big Bang is (supposedly) more of an event than a process, but it was the originator of everything in the sense that it made the universe in such as way that stars developed, and also planets, and those stars made various elements, and all of that led to life. Yes, I'd agree that the Big Bang was the supposed start of a process that did all that, rather than it all directly being the result of the Big Bang, but the BB is still the making of it all.
"There was no agreement on what a god was in the debates about the constitution."
Do you mean that they disagreed, or that they didn't discuss it (because they all agreed and so there was no debate)?
"I have no opinion on religious observance only what the High Court decides."
You don't understand the meaning of English words? Yeah, look I know that in particular circumstances a court might apply a particular meaning, but the basic meaning is "the practice of observing the requirements of law, morality, or ritual", and the law would not be meant here; it would be to do with "ritual", and perhaps a bit to "morality". In other words, the government is not to make a law requiring people to pray every day, or to take communion (mass) or etc. That is, it's limited to particular practices, and to do with imposing them—it's not a requirement that the government has nothing to do with religion (as the High Court has actually found).
"And finally once again the union of two people by marriage is federal law."
When have I ever said otherwise? Answer: I haven't. I have repeatedly (implicitly) acknowledged that, but pointed out that it's still wrong (immoral). That you keep harping on something I haven't said is, well, hilarious??
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PhantomFilmAustralia
" "Do not mix two different types of fabrics." We've just killed the textile industry."
There was no textile industry at the time. And if there was, it wouldn't have destroyed it anyway. It would just have limited what materials they could use in a particular garment.
" "Do not cross-breed livestock." There goes meat and dairy industry.
Again, that would not affect any meat and dairy industries that existed at the time.
" "The Earth is 5000 years old and took six days to complete." Um...dinosaurs, carbon dating, radioactive decay."
First, the claim is that it's 6,000 years old, not 5000. You clearly don't know the subject you're criticising (and not just for that one error; see more below).
Second, how does that contradict dinosaurs? Answer: it doesn't. You can still have dinosaurs in a 6,000-year-old earth. In fact we have eye-witness accounts of them.
Third, you don't explain how carbon dating and radioactive decay contradict the biblical account. But presumably it's because you under the misapprehension that they are empirical science that produces older dates. They are not. The dates are calculated (not measured) by methods that include various naturalistic assumptions. That is, they are based on an anti-biblical presupposition, and as such, citing them to show the Bible is wrong is a circular argument. Not to mention that carbon dating actually refutes many of the claims of scientists, such as how long ago dinosaurs lived, given that they can be carbon dated.
" "Two of each animal were put onto the ark." At least half of the animals are carnivorous and would have had to have eaten the herbivores to survive."
You're assuming a naturalistic view that carnivorous animals have always been carnivorous, so again, that's a circular argument, in that you're judging the biblical account by how well it fits with a competing view! Of course they are not going to agree! You need to judge the biblical account on its merits, not on whether or not it fits the view you hold. And most carnivorous animals today can survive—at least for some time—on a vegetarian diet.
" "Animals with cloven hooves are forbidden for consumption." This was before the discovery of adequate cooking methods of meats such as pork to kill parasites. It has nothing to do with evil meat."
So you're agreeing with my comments above that there was nothing wrong with the statement at the time it was written! And yet this is somehow supposed to support your claim that "It's not hard to stumble across things in scripture that are ridiculous." You've just admitted that it's not ridiculous.
But this also highlights what I said above about you not knowing the subject that you're criticising. Your first, second, and fifth points are all related to the Mosaic Law, a body of law that applied to the pre-Christian nation of Israel. The Bible is, in large part, a history, and that includes the history of bad things people do, and it also includes a record of what was applicable at the time. You must not read everything in the Bible as an instruction to us today. The Mosaic Law, or at least much of it, is not applicable to us today. And some of it was for the purpose of teaching principles, such as mixing different types of fabrics.
" "A virgin impregnated by a deity who calks on water, heals the sick and raises the dead with a single touch." This makes Scientology almost seem plausible."
And yet you don't even both to point out what is wrong with that? What makes the omniscient, omnipotent God incapable of doing such things? You don't say.
"Scripture is littered with inaccuracies."
And yet you've not demonstrated one.
"Regarding the crudeness. "Crudeness" is subjective. It's a matter of taste. What you find crude or offensive, many others may find funny and thought-provoking."
What makes it subjective? Why can't it be crude by some objective standards?
"Something isn't necessarily offensive. You found it offensive."
I agree with that, and in fact I didn't call it offensive (in this discussion). But it's hypocritical for the left (which may or may not include you) to use offensiveness as a reason for others to not do something, and then dismiss it as irrelevant when conservatives or Christians claim that something is offensive.
"I could just easily say that I'm offended by people putting their faith and indoctrinating their children into an ancient, archaic, impossible, and unverifiable stories."
You could. But a) teaching children truth should not be considered "indoctrination"; b) 'impossible' is a false claim—all the biblical claims are possible; and c) many of those stories have been verified, showing the Bible to be a very reliable history.
Further, the way that the Bible uses the word, "faith" refers to trust in a trustworthy person (God) who has provided evidence of his trustworthiness. So our faith is based on evidence; the atheist definition of 'faith' as believe in something without or contrary to the evidence is not the way the Bible uses the word. So why would you be offended by people holding evidence-based views?
"Atheist religion is Humanism, which is a belief in humanity."
I'd say that it's more a belief in humanity being capable of things that we aren't capable of, such as coming up with objective moral principles.
"When it comes to ridicule, everything is free game, like you!"
Only where it's applicable.
"You're being ridiculous."
How is holding evidence-based beliefs being ridiculous?
"Learn to be tolerant of things you don't agree with by making a joke about it, and lighten up."
The problem is not simply that I don't agree with them, i.e. my opinion. The problem is when they are objectively wrong and mislead people.
1
-
1
-
@pwillis1589
"No factually wrong Phil on all counts."
And yet I'm correct that the constitution never "explicitly made aborigines non citizens". Neither did the constitution "[deny] them any voice in the discussion, debate, and consultation in its writing". How could it, when it didn't yet exist?!
"Yes the Labor Party must accept some of the blame for the inherent racism of our constitution,..."
It's not inherently racist. But at least you do try to justify that...
"Sections ... are all specifically racist."
No, they are not "specifically" racist. They don't mention racism.
"Sections 25, ..."
Section 25 is against racism by stating that if the states deny aborigines a vote, then the states are not allowed to count aborigines as part of their population. This is explicitly in connection with section 24 that provides for how many representatives each state could have in the federal government based on their population. If you want greater representation, allow your aborigines to vote, and then they will be counted for that purpose.
"... 51(xxvi), ..."
Originally, or now? All that said is that they the government can make special laws for particular races. Okay, I'll grant that's racist, but it's not saying that particular races can be treated better or worse. Originally it excluded aborigines from that (which means that they were the same as other Australians). The 1967 referendum changed that to allow the federal government to make laws that helped aborigines.
"...127..."
Which is similar to section 25, and has since been repealed in any case.
So yes, I guess that the constitution is racist in the sense that there is some provision for treating different races differently, just as the Voice proposal will do. But the constitution never denied them a voice, and never said that they were to be treated worse.
"Edmund Barton even stated at the 1898 convention that section 51(xxvi) was necessary to enable the Commonwealth to "regulate the affairs of the people of coloured or inferior races who are in the Commonwealth". "
Barton is not the constitution.
"These provisions in our constitution enabled the Immigration Restriction act of 1901 or more commonly known as the White Australia policy."
Again, the act is not the constitution.
"Have you even a clue as to what you are discussing?"
I believe that I do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Bork_Cruk
"Well you can’t really expect supernatural belief to endure indefinitely as society becomes more sophisticated."
Why not? Why do you associate supernatural belief with a lack of sophistication? That appears to be a non-sequitur.
"Many of the positive values of Christianity are not unique to it,..."
True, but that doesn't mean that a) none are, nor b) the combination of them isn't.
"...and have been maintained anyway."
'Not yet completely died out' would be a better way of putting it. Plucking a flower doesn't cause it to die immediately; but it will sooner or later. And it's easy enough to point to values that are being undermined or weakened or discarded as Christianity is discarded, such as a rise in scientific fraud, increases in crime (e.g. less than a century ago people didn't lock their doors when away, let alone when home; cars didn't have locks on them), a loss of tolerance (it used to mean that I'll disagree with you but still like you, but now often means that all views are acceptable, unless they are ones that I really object to), and so on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Fox.is.a.cesspool
"So their denial proves that they do it?"
Of course not, and I never claimed that. Their denial is evidence that they claim to be neutral, while the evidence shows that they are not.
"Wow, you're a freak of nature."
So you straw-man me and then insult me on that basis?
"Why is it so hard to simply accept the fact that Conservative content gets removed more often because they violate the TOS more often?"
Several reasons:
1) They never (or virtually never) demonstrate that the TOS has been violated. They simply claim it and refuse to show that their claim is true.
2) The TOS are quite ambiguous in places.
3) Whistle-blowers and undercover investigations have shown that they have been anti-conservative.
4) Twitter has allowed clear violations of the TOS by violent regimes and the left to go un-deleted, while conservatives have had their acceptable posts deleted.
5) Recently-released information from Twitter shows that Trump was banned from the platform despite not violating their Terms of Service.
"There have been several studies proving this including this one... False Accusation: The Unfounded Claim that Social Media Companies Censor Conservatives."
That study is clearly biased and selective. For example, it says that "Twitter and Facebook both took action against posts of a questionable story about the Biden family published by the New York Post. The article, apparently based on stolen emails, ..."
The emails were not stolen, and the story was true. Yet this report tells the story as though Twitter and Facebook did the right thing. They clearly didn't, with the likely result that it influenced the outcome of the election, i.e. it was election manipulation in favour of Biden.
It also says "Take Trump’s exclusion from Twitter and Facebook. These actions, while unprecedented, were reasonable responses to Trump’s
repeated violation of platform rules against undermining election results and inciting violence."
But Trump did NOT incite violence. That is a lie from the left, spread willingly by leftists. And it was Twitter and Facebook (among others) that undermined the election by banning a true story that showed corruption with Biden. That shows that this report is very biased.
Also, some of the evidence from whistleblowers and undercover reporting was by a group called Project Veritas. Yet this report completely fails to mention them. Therefore their claim of there being "no reliable evidence to support it" is shown to be blatantly false.
"The simple fact is that right wing media lies with every breath they can muster."
Given that that is a lie, then are you claiming that you're right-wing?
"Some of these lies have resulted in deaths."
Such as?
"Now, I realize this is "moral" for you and your mindless gang because it's the only way you can win an election,..."
Biased rhetoric. Not becoming of a rational discussion.
1
-
1
-
@Fox.is.a.cesspool
"You know why that is?"
Of course. My point was to counter the claim "most people consider it acceptable - if not right - that the media will have an 'editorial slant'." Why the ABC is required to be balanced doesn't change that.
"A privately owned media orginazation can pretend to be whatever they choose."
I'm not denying that they "can", i.e. it's physically/technically/whatever possible. Nor that they are legally allowed to be. But morally, they shouldn't be. It's deceitful.
"Fox pretends to be news for example."
Fox does have news, as well as commentary and a lot of things.
"That's why it's called fake news."
By those opposed to it. And yet it's the mainstream media that better fits that title.
"ANY "news" that isn't subject to FCC regulations is fake news."
So only American news is not fake news? And even within the U.S., that's a silly claim. Fake news is claims that are not true or are misleading. You don't have to be subject to FCC regulations to be accurate.
"The networks like CBS, ABC, and NBC are subject to FCC regulations simply because they are broadcast over the airwaves. They get fined and their reporters get [deleted]-canned if they lie, like Brian Williams and Dan Rather."
Sometimes. But there are plenty of examples of them getting away with falsehoods. Like the entire Russian Collusion hoax, and the censoring of the Hunter Biden laptop story. Misleading can be done by being selective with the truth too, which doesn't involve lying as such.
"You want a social media platform that's obligated to remain neutral, lobby your government to set one up, ..."
How would that make it neutral? The ABC is required by legislation to be balanced, but isn't.
Besides, I never said that I wanted a platform that's obliged to remain neutral. You made that up.
"Then you will have some say."
I have no say with the ABC now!
1
-
@Fox.is.a.cesspool
"No you didn't. You are lying again."
Yes I did. I have looked up the legislation myself, ages ago. You're making things up to vilify me.
"No they don't. You're lying again."
False.
"No they don't."
And yet I gave you examples.
"In decades of testing, People who only watch Fox have consistently scored lower in tests on world events than those who watch no news at all"
Evidence please.
"Nope, but you have to be accurate when you are."
I gave you examples to the contrary.
"No there aren't."
Given that I gave you examples, yes there are.
"The lie is that it was a hoax."
It wasn't true. It was an invention. So yes, it was a hoax.
"There is absolutely no question that it wasn't."
False.
"17 of Trump's campaign staff were convicted."
Bolding in the following quotes is by me.
From a Time article:
"Along with a team of experienced prosecutors and attorneys, the former FBI director [Mueller] has indicted, convicted or gotten guilty pleas from 34 people and three companies, including top advisers to President Trump, Russian spies and hackers with ties to the Kremlin. ... But Mueller did not charge or suggest charges for anyone on one of the biggest questions he faced: whether the Trump campaign worked with the Russians to influence the election.
"Mueller’s report, which he submitted to Attorney General William Barr on Friday, did not conclude that Trump or anyone involved in his campaign colluded with Russia, ..."
From an article by the American Bar Association:
"The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.” "
From a BBC article "Trump-Russia Steele dossier analyst charged with lying to FBI":
"A Russian analyst who worked on a dossier that made unsubstantiated claims linking Donald Trump to the Kremlin has been arrested in the US.
"The Department of Justice charged Igor Danchenko, 43, with lying to the FBI.
"He was detained as part of an inquiry into the origins of baseless claims that Mr Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election.
"The so-called Steele Dossier was used by the FBI to obtain surveillance warrants on a top Trump aide.
"The document was held up by Democrats to paint Mr Trump as a Russian puppet, a narrative amplified in a feedback loop by most US media for much of the president's four years in office.
...
"Mr Danchenko worked with ex-British spy Christopher Steele on the dossier.
"Published by Buzzfeed 10 days before Mr Trump took office, the Steele Dossier made a number of explosive claims linking Mr Trump to the Kremlin - including that Russia had compromising material on the Republican candidate. Mr Trump always dismissed the allegations as a hoax.
"Mr Steele was hired to conduct the research through a law firm on behalf of Mr Trump's political opponents, including the campaign of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate in the 2016 election."
From Bret Stephens, a New York Times reporter, writing in an article titled "Opinion: I was wrong about Trump voters, said:
"Nor were they [Trump supporters] impressed by Trump critics who had their own penchant for hypocrisy and outright slander. To this day, precious few anti-Trumpers have been honest with themselves about the elaborate hoax that was the Steele dossier and all the bogus allegations, credulously parroted in the mainstream media. "
"No they aren't. The fairness doctrine was repealed in 1986"
From the current legislation: " It is the duty of the Board: ... (c) to ensure that the gathering and presentation by the Corporation of news and information is accurate and impartial according to the recognized standards of objective journalism; ..."
"Because they are a private company, idiot."
And yet you yourself previous said "They are owned by the Commonwealth Government of Australia. They are a public company - the people own them." So who is the idiot?
"I told you that you didn't understand why Aussie news was balanced."
No, you didn't say that, at least in any post that I've seen. And it clearly isn't in many cases.
And by the way, notice that I have given a number of sources in this response. You've yet to provide any for your claims, despite me asking.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@denniswakabayashi9000
"The unborn are not persons."
That depends on your definitions. We have human rights, not person rights. The unborn are living human beings. Human rights don't have an age limit—they apply to all humans.
"That prolife movement not really anti-abortion but only anti- doctor assisted abortions."
Okay, so your point was one that I had already answered. So that was a waste of time.
"Prolife not really anti-abortion but anti-doctor assisted abortions."
I've already answered that, and your example doesn't change what I said. Repeating a claim does not make it any more true, but does tend to show that you have no actual rebuttal.
"How can you do that if the prolife movement will fight against laws that criminalize the woman???"
By making it illegal for doctors to do it. But to get technical, we will never, of course abolish abortions. Just like we haven't abolished rapes, robberies, murders, etc. There will still be people who break the law. So when I say "abolish" it, I mean make it illegal so that, for the most part, it doesn't happen (and therefore lives are saved).
"There were no laws against women who abort before Roe v Wade. Why would there now be laws against women who abort post Roe?"
Given that I haven't argued for that, I have no obligation to answer that question.
So I'll ask again. Do you care about saving lives?
1
-
@denniswakabayashi9000
"Fetus not a person under the Constitution."
The Constitution doesn't mention a fetus. And as I said, the baby (fetus = baby at a particular stage of development) is a living human being, and human rights apply to humans, regardless of age.
"If the fetus was a person then the High Court wouldn't have allowed Mississippi statute to stand where doctor assisted abortions were allowed into the 2nd trimester."
First, was that law contested in the Supreme Court?
Second, even if it was, the court has been wrong before (e.g. Roe vs. Wade!).
"The burden is on the control freaks ..."
Still name-calling I see.
"...to codify the unborn as a person."
So you're arguing that a human being might not be a person? How do you figure that?
"You falsely call the unborn a human being..."
No, I don't. Biologists agree that human life begins at fertilisation. (Steven Andrew Jacobs, "The Scientific Consensus on When a Human's Life Begins", Issues in Law & Medicine, Volume 36, Number 2, 2021.)
"Truly prolife is not anti-abortion but anti-doctor assisted abortions."
Still repeating that discredited claim?
"How in the world would you achieve that when doctor assisted abortions are allowed in most states?"
Bizarre question: "How would you make something illegal when it's legal?"!! Get a law passed making it illegal! Duh!
"I told you that the overturning of Roe is as far as it goes."
And I told you that it's not as far as it goes. But I'm supposed to just accept your opinion because, well, you're infallible or something?
1
-
1
-
@denniswakabayashi9000
"Prolife not really anti-abortion but anti-doctor assisted abortions."
You're failing to distinguish between the goal (stop killing babies, i.e. stop abortion), and the method of achieving that goal (stopping the doctors from doing it).
"You can say it's been discredited but my statement is factual."
Your facts may be correct, but the conclusions you draw from those facts are not. I said it was discredited because I had already explained why it was wrong, but you didn't refute that, and kept repeating your claim. You have now attempted to support your claim further, but, as I've said above, you're conflating the goal and the method.
I pointed out that it's hardly fair to prosecute the women when so much of society has lied to them about what abortion actually is. Once abortion is widely accepted as unacceptable, criminalising the actions of the women themselves may be considered a reasonable step, even though it is currently not. Therefore, you haven't shown (your conclusion) to be true that they are not anti-abortion.
"Then anyone with half a brain can see that the zygote/fertilized egg cannot already be a human being."
Then it's just as well I have a full brain, and see that your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. One human can't become two humans, right? Why not? Well, we know that in normal circumstances they can't, but the zygote splitting would suggest that at that stage one can become two. Sot it doesn't follow that it is not already a human being before the split.
Of course your claim also begs the question of when it does become a human being if not at conception.
1
-
@denniswakabayashi9000
"...it took another human being splitting into 2 human beings and disappearing in the process to create twins."
What makes you think one disappeared? And you haven't actually shown that my explanation of one person becoming two is false.
"Huge problem with the control freaks..."
STILL name-calling! Are you incapable of having a civil discussion?
"...is their lack of biology particularly embryology."
A sweeping generalisation (and insult) that your attempt to support fails as being, again, a non-sequitur.
"...scientists and fertility clinicians routinely split apart embryos..."
Oh, really? From "Embryo splitting" by Karl Illmensee and Mike Levanduski, in the Middle East Fertility Society Journal, Volume 15, Issue 2, April 2010, Pages 57-63:
"Mammalian embryo splitting has successfully been established in farm animals. Embryo splitting is safely and efficiently used for assisted reproduction in several livestock species. In the mouse, efficient embryo splitting as well as single blastomere cloning have been developed in this animal system. In nonhuman primates embryo splitting has resulted in several pregnancies. Human embryo splitting has been reported recently."
Only "reported". That contradicts your claim that it is routinely done, especially in fertility clinics. Perhaps you're the one lacking adequate biological knowledge?
"If scientists can split apart an embryo into several embryos then reconstruct those embryos back into a single embryo, then this is indisputed scientific evidence that the zygote or early embryo is not a human being."
Except that it's not undisputed at all, and it doesn't follow from your claims. Further, I note that you haven't said when you think that it becomes a human being. By your rationale here, it becomes a human being at the end of totipotency, around day 5. Which even IF that is when it becomes a human, still completely destroys or abortion arguments.
1
-
@denniswakabayashi9000
"A person becomes a person at birth."
What magically changes then?
"But asking when is personhood attained is IRRELEVANT, A MOOT POINT."
You're the one who brought personhood into it as though that was something different to being human.
"SINCE vast majority of countries including the US already draw the line at birth and when personhood in bestowed."
Didn't your parents ever teach you that the majority is not always right?
"The burden is on the control freaks ..."
STILL name-calling. Why?
"...to codify the unborn as a person."
Why? You just claimed that was irrelevant!
"If the zygote or early embryo is not a person then perfectly ethical to create and destroy zygotes and early embryos for embryonic research and assisted reproduction."
No, it's not. If you're out hunting deer and accidentally shoot a person, it's no excuse to say that you didn't realise it was a person. If you demolish a building that has someone inside, and they are killed, it's no excuse to say that you didn't know someone was in the building. In both cases, you must be certain that you're not killing a human, else you are liable. You yourself have said that "If" a zygote or embryo is not a person, admitting that you can't be sure. The onus is on YOU to show that it's definitely not a person.
It's indisputably human, and alive. You've completely ignored my point that human rights don't have an age limit, but apply to all humans. Your attempt to switch to "persons" was so fallacious that you've now said that it's "IRRELEVANT". Okay, it's irrelevant. Why is it okay to kill an innocent human? You're STILL not answered that question.
"Very disengenuous of you ignore the rest of the article since it supports my claim."
No, it doesn't.
The article goes on to say, '"Embryo splitting may be advantageous for providing additional embryos to be cryopreserved for patients' "
Where in that statement does it say or imply that "...scientists and fertility clinicians routinely split apart embryos..."? I can't see it. It's pointing out a future possibility, not making a claim about anything happening routinely.
"Everytime an embryo is split into 2 embryos a person was split into 2 persons and disappeared in the process?"
That's your wording, and it makes no sense.
1
-
@denniswakabayashi9000
'Man becomes a living soul."
Why at birth? The Bible records John the Baptist "leaping for joy" at Mary's voice when he was still in the womb, for example.
"Do you believe 2 persons are being created when an embryo is split into 2 embryos in the lab?"
No, I'd be more inclined to believe that one is being formed from the other at that point.
"Do you believe most people will die BEFORE being born?"
I do believe that many do. I don't know about "most", though.
" 'Control freaks' is a very accurate description."
No, it's not.
"Since delusional to think you can force women into breederhood."
But nobody is thinking that! Nobody is saying that women must be forced to become pregnant.
"You said ' you remain a killer' "
IF I said that, it would be (a) a generic 'you', meaning anyone, not you, Dennis, specifically, or (b) a hypothetical, IF 'you' do this THEN 'you' remain a killer.
But I've searched my comments in this thread, and I never said what you quoted me saying.
"What an outrageous statement!. I haven't killed anyone."
And I never claimed you did. So it's your false accusation against me that it outrageous.
"You called me a killer,..."
Except that I didn't.
"...then I can certainly call you a control freak since I've never been charged with killing anyone."
So you never learned that two wrongs don't make a right? And you do know that false premises often lead to false conclusions? Your premise was false.
"Our federal government declared that the zygote or early embryo is not a human being since it adopted the 14 day rule on embryos where scientists are allowed to create and destroy zygotes and early embryos for embryonic research."
And your federal government is the source of all truth, is it?
"Science is not saying after 14 days the embryo is a human being/person since still high probability of spontaneous abortion,"
No, science is saying that it's human from fertilization, not 14 days after. I've already pointed that out to you. The probability of a spontaneous abortion doesn't mean that it's not human before that. That's a complete non-sequitur.
"Science cannot answer IF and when the developing embryo or fetus is a human being/person."
And yet it has answered that, as I have already pointed out to you.
"That is outside the realm of science to answer."
If you're talking about the soul, then yes, but you've cited nothing to say when the soul is created or enters the body, while the Bible indicates that people are people before birth, as I pointed out above.
"When a human being/person becomes a human being/person is irrelevant since our country bestows personhood at birth..."
So your government decides on reality, does it? And always gets that right?
" there is nothing the control freaks can do to codify the unborn as a human being,/person in the abortion debate."
Still name-calling, and still pretending that things can't change.
"But science can weed out the untenable beliefs such as the zygote is already a human being/person."
Yet a moment ago you claimed that "That is outside the realm of science to answer."! It seems like you're trying to have it both ways.
"I gave you the biology which destroys the belief that the zygote is already a human being/person."
Well, you claimed to, but it didn't destroy it at all. In fact you also claimed that "That is outside the realm of science to answer."
"Why don't you explain how 2 people can come from the same single cell when you already call that single cell a human being?"
I already did. I pointed out that it would appear that at that stage of development one person can become two (by means of the cell splitting), and that the idea that one can never become two is something that you have simply assumed (on the basis that it can't happen later, i.e. an unwarranted extrapolation).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EL_Duderino68
"As I've said before, your ability to write cogent comments has really decreased lately."
An ad hominem, and one without evidence.
"Wow, you're using the shortcut to thinking word "woke" now. My, my."
Actually, if you were following the conversation, I was, per your request, explaining the original commenters question, and he used the word. But further, what is wrong with using it? Your response that "Wow, your using word X" implies that there's something wrong with using it, but without any explanation as to what's wrong with using it. It's more of an argument from outrage, rather that an argument from logica and evidence.
"What does "woke" mean to you or for that matter "progressive"?"
Woke is a term referring to people supposedly being "awake" to social injustice, but what "social injustice" referred to is typically not social injustice, but merely things that the left is ideologically opposed to.
"Progressive" means something that results in progress for society, but used by people of themselves about their ideas which are actually regressive ideas.
"I'm just waiting for you to start calling people communists or WEF supporters. That seems like the way you are going. :)"
And if they are accurate descriptions, what would be wrong with that? Again, this is the issue that you seem outraged (even if that's perhaps too strong a word) by certain things, but don't actually give any reason to be outraged. So again, argument by outrage, not argument from logic and evidence. And yet you're the one accusing me of not being cogent!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidhandyman7571
"Also, I would not dare to say some are "good" and some are aren't"."
In a binary sense, I didn't say that. But in a human sense, some are relatively good people and some are not so good.
"Bottom line is that you do not have to be a true believer to belong to a "Church"."
I completely agree. The question here is about Morrison, and whether or not he was a Christian. I say that I believe he was, albeit, like all of us, a flawed one, and with flaws that were on very public display.
"One of the members stated loudly at the end of the service one morning, [snipped]"
I could believe that. I recall hearing stories of church ministers who got converted, i.e. they were ministers who weren't actually Christians until that point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@simonharris4873
"But isn't it all part of God's plan?"
In some ways only.
"Surely that makes it his fault."
No more than police doing a sting to catch criminals are at fault for the criminals' crimes.
"That's one of the biggest contradictions in the bible. How can anyone have free will, if God already knows what is going to happen?"
No, that's not a contradiction (and neither are there any others). Both concepts are compatible, as I'll explain below.
"If everything is pre-determined, then nobody has a choice and there is no free will."
Here's a mind experiment for you. Tom and Fred are mates. Fred is single. Tom invents a time machine and travels 20 years in the future. There he catches up with Fred, and meets Fred's wife, Sally. So he knows how Fred chose to marry. Tom then returns to the present. He doesn't see Fred again, so gives Fred no information about who he will marry, nor even a hint or subtle guidance.
So Fred knows who Tom will marry. In what way does Fred's knowledge of what Tom did cause Tom to choose to marry Sally? You're implying a causal relationship between Tom's knowledge and Fred's actions. If Tom had instead decided to marry Betty, then Fred in the future would have learned that he married Betty. Why was Tom's decision to marry Sally not completely his own (and Sally's) decision? How and where does that supposed causal relationship of marrying Sally (necessarily) occur?
My point being that God's foreknowledge does not mean that free will does not exist. That is simply a non-sequitur.
"Sure there are. You'd know that if you read it objectively."
On the contrary, I've heard many such claims, but not seen one that withstands scrutiny. Which strongly suggests that there aren't any. But please feel free to cite one, if you have one. And if it's one I've heard before, I'll point out where you're wrong.
1
-
1
-
@simonharris4873
"How can anyone have free will, if God already knows what is going to happen? If everything is pre-determined, then nobody has a choice and there is no free will."
I've tried answering this once, but it has been deleted, so I'll try again.
Here's a thought experiment. Tom and Jack are friends, and single. Tom invents a time machine and travels into the future. There he catches up with Jack again, and finds that he has married Julie. He then returns to the present, but has no contact with Jack or Julie, and tells nobody else about the two getting married. Tom does marry Julie, but where is the causal relationship that means that he and Julie had no choice? If Tom had instead married Mary, then Jack would have learned that when he travelled to the future. How was Tom's marriage to Julie predetermined simply by Jack learning that after the fact?
Unless you can show how Tom (and Julie) had no choice, then your claim is baseless. God can easily know what will happen in our future without denying free will.
1
-
@simonharris4873
"How can anyone have free will, if God already knows what is going to happen? If everything is pre-determined, then nobody has a choice and there is no free will."
I've tried answering this a couple of times now, but it keeps disappearing.
Here's a thought experiment. Tom and Jack are friends, and Tom is single. Jack invents a time machine, and travels into the future, where he meets up with Tom, and finds that he has married Julie. He then returns to the present, but has no further contact with Tom nor Julie, and tells nobody about the marriage. How does Jack's knowledge of the marriage cause it to be predetermined? If Tom instead married Sandra, Jack would have learned that.
Unless you can explain how Jack's knowledge of what Tom and Julie freely decided meant that they had no choice, your objection is baseless, and free will can exist concurrently with God's knowledge of what happens in our future.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@adam3112
"But extraordinary claims, like the existence of a God, ..."
What makes the claim extraordinary? Millions believe in God, so it's a very common claim, not (in that sense) an extraordinary one. Rather, it seems just a way to label a claim to put greater onus on the claimants.
Further, why doesn't any claim simply require sufficient evidence?
But if you want an example of an extraordinary claim (in this case, denying cause and effect), how about the claim that the universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada, and that as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere."? Do you believe that claim, and if so, do you have extraordinary evidence for it (specially given that there was nobody to observe it, measure it, test it, nor repeat it, normal requirements of science)?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@turnerfamilyinozi
"I suggest that if you want to cite someone you should have have a good idea of their beliefs as it relates to the topic."
In this context, why?
"It is relevant because I asked whether Bella acknowledged how Western Civilisation formed?"
Sorry, but I still don't see the relevance. Please spell it out better.
"While Europeans where still hunters and gathers there where civilizations in The Middle East, Egypt, China, India and Central America that discovered/invented reading, writing, maths, farming, use of metals and architecture. The European hunters and gathers where forced to adapt to the new technologies or perish."
It's true that post-flood civilization arose in the Middle East. Beyond that, I would seriously question your history, but it was a bit to general to be sure.
"Assuming you know what CRT is why don't you support it?"
Because it's racist. For one, it blames disadvantage of some groups on supposed continuing systemic racism by others (which no longer exists) and treats people as part of a group based on their supposed race, e.g. whites are bad.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@turnerfamilyinozi
"All places in the world have been flooded at some time, ..."
I know. I said that. But how does that explain many similarities in the accounts, such as the Noah character sending out birds to see if the flood had subsided?
"...there was never a time they where all flooded at the same time."
What's your evidence for that?
"My evidence for older civilisations, geology, achaeology, history, language studies, radiometric dating, paleontology, genetics etc."
That's not evidence. That's disciplines which supposedly provide evidence. And those disciplines actually support that there was a flood, such as history recording it and geology recording massive, continent-wide formations laid down by water. That's not a normal flood doing that.
"You do know that the genesis flood story is based on a previous story which was based on a previous story."
No, I don't know that. What's your evidence?
"Everything is available for you to research if you want to."
Yes, I know. And I have researched it. Have you?
1
-
1
-
@turnerfamilyinozi
"What if I am wrong and it was only 100's of years.
It still demonstrates that Noah wasn't the original."
True. If it was 100s of years. What if Genesis was the first record, and the others are simply other records of the same event? I asked you for evidence of the priority of the Gilgamesh account, and you provided none.
"You have the names, why don't you check whether I am right or wrong?"
Oh, I already know you are wrong. Story-retelling tends to go from the specific to the general. Genesis has the length, width, and height of the ark, and those measurements make sense (naval architects have determined that the ratios would make for a very stable vessel). The Gilgamesh Epic has one measurement, which it applies to all three dimensions, i.e. a cube. That would be a very unstable shape. That is just one detail that is evidence of the Genesis account being the original.
"It appears you are not prepared to fact check your biblical beliefs."
No, I've fact-checked them. Have you fact-checked your unbiblical beliefs? That is, have you looked at the arguments against the view you hold? Or do you suffer from confirmation bias?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@serenityslife4910
"...all people deserve love."
True.
"Trans people are no less people than you and I."
True also.
"I think we need to support people who are different than us."
I agree.
However, why is any of that reason to transition? Those are all the case regardless of transitioning.
"There are genuine born trans individuals..."
Why do you think that? I know of no genetic or biological support for that claim.
"Not closed minded hatred because they are different in some way."
Again, something I agree with and never suggested otherwise.
"We are ALL the same."
In some ways yes, but not in other ways. For example, we are all humans, but we are not all males, nor all females. We are all different also.
"...all people deserve love."
Affirming their delusion is not being loving. Any more than, say, agreeing with someone suffering from anorexia that they are overweight. They are factually not overweight, and the loving thing to do is to help them over their delusion. So-called transexual women are not women, and affirming the lie that they are is not the loving thing to do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"...there's know such thing has God or Jesus ..."
What's your evidence for that? And, FYI, almost every historian concerned with the period accepts that Jesus existed.
"...are we meant to believe that there's some on in the sky riding around on the clouds..."
No, you are not meant to believe caricatures of the truth.
"...the world would be better off if there was no reglion because most wars are fought over it and it ridiculous"
Wel, that claim is ridiculous. The three-volume Encyclopedia of Wars says that only seven percent of wars have been religious wars. And Christianity has done a lot of good in the world, including founding the concept of public hospitals and founding many charities, founding modern science, introducing universal education (and with it literacy), spreading democracy, raising the status of women, abolishing slavery twice, and more. So no, the world would not be better off without Christianity.
1
-
@zanam1873
"Allah is the same God for muslims that it is for christians and jewish. Allah is God in arabic translated"
Yes, Allah is the Arabic equivalent of the English word God.
However, the Muslim perception of God is very different to the Christian and Jewish perceptions.
Suppose we both know Mr. Smith who lives at No. 1 Park Street. You say he's an old, vindictive, nasty person. I say that he's a kind, helpful, and very nice person. Even though we are both talking about the same person, I can quite legitimately say of your description, "That's not the Mr. Smith I know".
The Muslim perception of God, as best I understand it, is of someone who expects his followers to show themselves worthy, and who rewards martyrs for him with 72 virgins in heaven, which also means that the Muslim god disrespects women.
The Christian perception of God is of someone who loves us unconditionally, and has Himself paid the price for our sins so that we don't have to, and therefore forgives us if we repent, because there is no way that we can achieve worthiness on our own merits, and who respects women as much as males.
Of course there is much more to it than that, but that's a taste of the sorts of differences between the Muslim and Christian perceptions of God.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CandorLupis
"what a nonsensical opinion you've got there,"
What's nonsensical about it?
"women can't be men."
I know. That's why a 'trans man' is actually a woman, not a man.
"All women are women, all men are men."
And all cats are cats. I know. That's not saying anything.
"Trans, cis, black, white, tall, short, are just descriptors, it doesn't make anyone less of a woman or man."
'Trans' is a word that claims that a man is a woman, or vice versa. But as you say, that's not possible.
'Cis' is a word that basically means that the man is a man, not a woman who thinks she's a man. As such, it's a useless word, as it adds nothing.
'Black', 'white', 'tall', and 'short' have nothing to do with sex.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@seanmcintyre131
"Please cite examples of scientific evidence of an "intelligent creator""
For starters, that anything at all exists. The universe is running down (increasing entropy; per the Second Law of Thermodynamics), and it hasn't completely run down yet, so it has not existed forever—it had a beginning. That's one big reason scientists switched from the Steady State idea to the Big Bang idea. The problem is that nothing can make itself, as nothing can do anything until it first exists. The idea that the universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada—and that as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere, is anti-scientific nonsense.
But the universe doesn't simply exist. The universe could not exist unless various universal constants, such as the strength of the strong and weak nuclear forces, were set to very precise values. The chances of these values being the result of chance are so vanishingly small are probable worse than the chances of you winning the lottery every week for a hundred millenia. It's impossible. Ergo, an intelligence is behind it.
Living things contain enormous amounts of genetic information, and the only known source of information is an intelligence. That genetic information is exceedingly complex, with multiple overlapping codes, for example. Ergo, there must have been a super intelligence to create that information.
There just three for starters, and just overviews without going into many more details. As Romns1513 points out, it's easy to find this sort of information if you're prepared to look for it.
1
-
1
-
@geraldbutler5484
"why bring god into it."
Because He would be the only one who fits the bill.
"Do you mean Thor, Juve, Krishna or Jesus?"
Thor was not the supreme being and creator. He was the offspring of other 'gods'.
"Juve"
Juventas was also the offspring of other gods, her father being Jupiter, who might well have originated as ancestor worship, the name Jupiter being a form of Japeth, one of the sons of Noah who was also the ancestor of the Greeks and Romans.
"Krishna"
Also the offspring of others, so not the supreme being.
"Jesus"
Yes, Jesus. The only one I know of that fits the requirements and for which we have good evidence.
"I’d prefer Buddha, he actually existed..."
Buddha didn't even claim to be a god, nor do his followers claim that. He was a human teacher. And Jesus also existed; that is well documented and accepted by virtually every historian concerned with that part of history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Reearl
"What have they actually done, they are flexing their muscles saying 'Look who are you to tell us what to do in our area of the world, how we can move about etc' yes they may have brought that on themselves but that's all they are doing."
No, it's not all they are doing. They are also trying to buy influence around the world, they have attempted to take ownership of the South China Sea, and they are threatening Taiwan.
"...Chinese people helped to build America."
They did. And Australia too. But this is not about the people. This is about the Communist government, which didn't help build America.
"Also by your bullying a bully psychology..."
That was your spin. I never said they they are bullying a bully. You're misrepresenting what I said. I said that they are standing up to one. I also asked if you agreed with helping others, a question that you never answered.
"You ever seen kids playing on the playing filed where they leave one kid out because maybe he/she's different,..."
I fail to see how that's analogous.
"By being 2022 i mean we are supposed to be moved on from threatening violence..."
Threatening violence against evil? According to who? Yes, I know the left think that sort of nonsense, but rational people don't. They know that there's a place for it. (And the left does it too, even when they claim that we should do otherwise.)
"...and instead trying to communicate our issues, like when you take two squabbling kids and say come on shake hands."
If you're likening, say, China and Taiwan to the squabbling kids, then yes, it is something like that. That is, America is the adult who is laying down the law to the squabbling kids. Something that you have characterised as bullying!
"A famous quote states; [snipped]"
Perhaps it does. But I fail to see the relevance. It is of course a generalisation, and perhaps an over-generalisation. Having confidence that you are correct does not mean that you're stupid. It could also mean that you've thought carefully about the issue and have come to a well-considered conclusion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RealSZ
"People who identify as Christians, contrary to what we think we are, are not exactly the kindest of people."
Perhaps so, given that you mention people "who identify as" Christians, but who may not actually be Christians. I fear, however, that you've imbibed a bit too much of the anti-Christian rhetoric that abounds. Sure, there are many genuine Christians who are not exactly the kindest of people either, but I believe the evidence is that, on the whole, Christians are kinder than others. Back in the first century or so, it was the Christians who stayed in Rome to help the poor and ill when a plague prompted anybody wealthy enough to flee the city. This compassion for others also led to Christians founding public hospitals (until then, hospitals were only for soldiers and slaves, and the wealthy had house visits by doctors), and many, many, charities.
A modern study in America showed that "religious" people (i.e. mostly Christians) give more of their money, time, and blood (literally) to help others than do "non-religious" people.
Roy Hattersley, who wrote a biography of the founders of the Salvation Army, said:
“I’m an atheist. But I can only look with amazement at the devotion of the Salvation Army workers. I’ve been out with them on the streets and the way they work amongst the people, the most deprived and disadvantaged and sometimes pretty repugnant characters. But they look after them as best they can. I don’t believe they would do that were it not for the religious impulse. I often say I never hear of atheist organizations taking food to the poor. You don’t hear of ‘Atheist Aid’ rather like Christian aid, and, I think, despite my inability to believe myself, I’m deeply impressed by what belief does for people like the Salvation Army.”
"...I believe it's important to not argue excessively with unbelievers, especially as a Christian."
I guess it comes down to what one considers 'excessive'.
"That's why we have to focus on agreeing with some parts of their stance, while simultaneously loving them despite our disagreements and their ignorance. "
It's not loving, however, to allow them to remain ignorant.
"After all, that's what Christ did; rebuked the Pharisees, but died for their sins."
Yes, he rebuked the Pharisees, although that's a poor analogy, as the Pharisees were not unbelievers, but the religious leaders, who should have known better. But He also told people the truth and corrected them, rather than implicitly endorse their wrong-think. We also have the example of Paul, who said that "We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, ...".
1
-
@shawyonsharifi3394
"Religion has ruined this world anyway..."
Which religion(s)? Yes, atheist Marxism has done a lot of damage, as have some other religions. But Christianity has done a lot of good, including founding public hospitals and many, many charities, founding the university system, founding universal education, spreading democracy, inventing modern science, elevating the status of women, promoting human rights, and twice abolishing slavery, to give some examples.
1
-
1
-
@shawyonsharifi3394
"no, because I have basic sympathy and empathy to feel to help someone who is struggling."
That doesn't answer my question. Rather, it simply raises the further question of why you are like that, given that not everyone is.
"I don’t need to be told some “higher power” did it first or is “guiding” me."
I notice that you didn't deny being taught that sympathy and empathy is a good thing in a historically-Christian society.
Sorry for the length of this quote, but it's from a non-Christian Historian (Tom Holland) and deals with this point. Notice not only the lack of empathy, but the celebration of slaughter, and why that changed.
“In many ways I think particularly of Rome they do seem very like us, ... [Cicero] is a man who is worrying about property prices; he's worrying about the weather, he's [complaining] about people, so in all kinds of ways he seems very familiar.
“But the more you live in the minds of the Romans and I think even more the Greeks, the more alien they come to seem, the more frightening they come to seem. And what becomes most frightening really is a kind of quality of callousness that I think is terrifying because it is completely taken for granted. The kind of innocent quality about it. Nobody really questions it.
“In the age of Cicero, Cicero’s great contemporary Caesar is, by some accounts, slaughtering a million Gauls and enslaving another million in the cause of boosting his political career, and far from feeling in any way embarrassed about this he’s kind of promoting it, and so when he holds his triumph, people are going through the streets of Rome carrying billboards boasting about how many people he’s killed. This is a really terrifyingly alien world, and the more you look at it, the more you realise that it is built on systematic exploitation. So the entire economy is founded on slave labour. The sexual economy is founded on the absolute right of free Roman males to have sex with anyone that they want any way that they like. And in almost every way this is a world that is unspeakably cruel, to our way of thinking.
“And so this worried me more and more, and it was kind of like I was thinking well I’m clearly not ... the heir of the Greeks and Romans in any way, really. ... And this is then enhanced for me by then writing a book about late antiquity and the emergence of Islam from the late religious context; ... and I began to realise actually that in almost every way I am Christian.
“And I began to realise that actually, Paul although in many ways he seems a must less familiar figure than Cicero, ... what is it, ... seven letters that ... conventionally people ... absolutely accept—as Tom Wright was saying, this is not a very lengthy amount of writing, but compacted into this very very small amount of writing, was almost everything that explains the modern world [the Western world] but also the way that the West has moved on to shape concepts like international law, for instance, ... concepts of human rights, all these kinds of things. Ultimately they don’t go back to Greek philosophers; they don’t go back to Roman empiricism. They go back to Paul. Paul, really, his letters are, I think, are, along with the four gospels, the most influential, the most impactful, the most revolutionary writings that have emerged from the ancient world.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ghryst
"firstly, i am not your personal [deleted] lawyer."
I never claimed that you were. You're strawmanning me. You're the person who made a claim, and who therefore has the burden of proof to support it.
"im not going to look up and quote statute at you."
So you're not going to back up a claim that you made by providing evidence? Then I can dismiss your claim as baseless.
"...but i do know where you're going with this, ..."
So now you're claiming to be able to read my mind?
"...the UN regulations themselves also state that a country must be "sovereign nations" to be allowed to be members, so once again, the crown couldnt possibly be the monarch of those countries, by UN regs in addition to UK law."
That simply doesn't follow. A king or queen could be the sovereign of more than one nation. That doesn't mean that both/all those nations are not sovereign nations.
"there are so many barriers to this concept its just not funny."
And yet the only two barriers you've claimed, you've failed to substantiate or is non-sequitur.
"the Head Of State of the commonwealth nation that i live in, must be a citizen of this country, which the king/queen of england certainly is not."
Again, what's your evidence? And did you consider that by being declared king or queen, they are also thereby deemed to be a citizen?
"what we're looking at is, a parliament that is fraudulently acting on behalf of an imaginary monarch..."
Clearly the monarch is not imaginary, and you've not shown that it's acting fraudulently.
"...having not been updated since QE2s' death"
No need to. At lest in Australia's case, it wasn't updated in that regard since it began. The "queen" referred to is not Queen Elizabeth, but Queen Victoria. Clause 2 refers to "Her Majesty’s [Victoria's] heirs and successors". Both Elizabeth and Charles fall into that category.
"today, the governor general is the PM's lapdog doing whatever the PM says,..."
Only within normal conventions. So not "whatever".
"maybe if you had read the rules of your life, known as your countries constitution,..."
I have.
"you wouldnt be so ignorant of these really simple principles"
I believe that I'm "ignorant" of them because they don't exist. And you haven't shown that they do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@josmith1815
"you seem to like to play word games as a distraction."
I'm not playing word games, but you seem to fail to properly address what I'm saying, and are still being simplistic, as I've already pointed out.
Further, you've failed to justify your claim that I'm not paid fairly.
"If wmn are not equal. Stop saying you are."
For example, I pointed out that "Yes, we are not equal in every respect, but we are equal in some ways." In other words, I'm saying that we are both equal and not equal, in different ways. But you've completely failed to notice or address that.
Further, did you just assume that I'm a woman? Because I'm not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dethdefy
"The first that comes to mind is the covering up of child abuse."
In some churches, yes.
"Not saying there isn’t positives to religion at all. You just can’t claim the moral high ground."
Atheists can't, without first saying where their morals come from. That is, to have a moral high ground you need to have a standard you're measuring against. Where does that standard come from?
"Religion is dying off. That’s just a fact. Look up the trends for yourself."
Not at all. Yes, some religions are decreasing in some places, but overall it's not dying off.
"There’s no need to disprove god. You have to prove he exists first. You’re making the claim."
And you're making the claim that he doesn't exist. Who made the first claim in this discussion? Well, in the discussion between you and me, you did.
"Feel free to go to a history museum and look into evolution or one of the thousands of other avenues to educate yourself on it."
I can't answer for MrDogsledder of course, but in my case, I'm well educated on it. And therefore reject it.
"Or……or you could continue to believe an ancient book."
Given that the ancient book is correct, then yes, I'll do that.
"At least that one accepts that there are common ancestors amongst species."
Except that there aren't common ancestors between all species, and there is no good evidence for that.
"Lol - or the alternative that they fit every species on the ark"
That's not the alternative. The Bible doesn't say that it had every species. Feel free to read the Bible and look into what creationists say to educate yourself.
"He LETS them do it."
Yes, He has given us free will, and we abuse that to do bad things. But that's on us, not Him.
"He CHOOSES not to punish them then and there or stop."
Yes, He chooses to not turn us into robots where we have no choices about what we do.
"Point to specifically in what i've written that isn't correct."
Nothing incorrect except the implication. But by what standard do you imply that He shouldn't do that?
"Tell me which one i've dodged then. I'll answer it. Which one do you think i'm avoiding??? Please tell me or stop bringing this up."
The one where I challenged your claim that "…we both know there is no proof of god..."
As I subsequently pointed out, "You made the claim of no proof for God. The onus is on you to support your claim, not on me to prove you wrong."
"You claim god exists right?"
I believe that God exists. But did I claim that in this discussion? At least before you claimed otherwise? In fact you made the claim that there is no proof of God, but you refuse to justify that claim, for which you have the burden of proof.
1
-
@dethdefy
"Simple evolutionary behaviors showing it's beneficial to a unit/group of people to treat your fellow man as you would like to be treated."
Being beneficial is not the same as being right. It's beneficial (to slave owners) to have slaves, but it's not right.
And, incidentally, what's your evidence that it's evolutionary behaviour?
"Religion didn't invent this."
What's your evidence of that?
"Moral's come from many places."
Given that I've debunked your only answer to my question, my question remains unanswered. Please answer it.
"But certainly trends have been down in the US and Australia if that's where we're measuring it."
Yes, it is in some places, although even there it depends on what you mean by "religion".
"Common man. Seriously?!"
I didn't mention common man. Or are you trying to use Biden's phrase, "come on, man"?
"You have to prove god. We're literally discussing if this being exists."
You might be trying to discuss that, but I'm trying to discuss your claim that everyone knows that there was no evidence that He exists, so I asked you to justify that claim. You're clearly avoiding that. So why do I have to prove God? Why won't you address your claim?
"it's clearly in contention across the world."
But I am talking about your claim.
"Well we wont agree on evolution then. Leave it there…"
And yet you brought it up again as justification for morals.
"Effectively saying - 'I believe the good book is good, because the good book says it's good'."
I never said that, effectively or otherwise. That's a strawman.
"How many creatures, insects etc were on the ark? Let me know if it wasn't all of them we currently have."
It's been calculated to around 16,000, if I recall correctly. Insects were not said to be on the ark, and could survive off the ark. There would have been the ancestors of all the existing land-dwelling, air-breathing living creatures, which does not mean two chihuahuas, two great danes, two fox terriers, two dachshunds, two dingos, two grey wolves, etc. But two of the wolf/dog kind.
"I'm sorry, i find it absolutely disgusting that god with unlimited power chooses to punish people AFTER they've done the act."
You'd prefer He punish them before they've done the act? Bizarre.
"He'll then knowingly let them do more horrendous things to women, men, children because of the free will excuse."
So you want Him to stop people doing anything wrong at all? In other words, deny their free will?
"Morally messed up."
According to moral standards that you can't explain.
"God knows it's terrible because he'll punish them when they die....but not before.....because.....?"
Because of free will, which you dismiss as an 'excuse' for no apparent reason.
"Your messing around with the burden of proof term."
No, I'm not.
"I say the spaghetti monster is real and i've an old book right here that says he is. Burden of proof is on you to disprove it.."
No, as I said, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If you make the claim, you have the burden of proof.
"This is just silly reasoning."
Yes, those comments about the burden of proof were silly reasoning.
1
-
@dethdefy
"Did you not read how i said 'as you would like to be treated'? "
Yes, you did. You also said (my emphasis and interjection) "it's beneficial to a unit/group of people [i.e. not all people] to treat your fellow man ". Slaves weren't considered to be fellow men, but inferior beings.
"Society as a whole has learned that it's more beneficial to not have slaves."
How did it learn that? When Christians fought against slavery, the slave owners argued that the economy would collapse.
"A point of note - the bible does not specifically condone slavery."
I agree.
"This is morally wrong quite obviously."
Not condoning it is wrong?
"Animals show morals all the time."
Morals? Or instinct?
"They know it's beneficial to their society to adhere to certain behaviors."
What's your evidence that that is something that they "know".
"Elephants form close family units. No religion. This is just a couple of easy examples."
Examples of anthropomorphising them.
"This is without a doubt saying - My books says it's real, so it's real."
Yes. What's wrong with that? If that book is a reliable account, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
"So depending on the source there's around 8 million different species."
Some sources say 8.7 million species of living things, which comes down to 6.5 million when you exclude marine creatures. But according to one site, "Scientists estimate that insects make up to 90% of all species of animals". So we can reduce that down to about 870 thousand. And we haven't yet excluded plants and non-insect arthropods.
"You're saying you can get that down to 16,000"
It's not me saying it; this is what research has come up with. And that was 16,000 animals, not kinds of animals, so there would have been around 8,000 kinds.
"Many animals (we can leave birds out) require more than a pair to succeed due to genetic defects it creates."
No, it doesn't create genetic defects. The problem that you are misunderstanding is that when closely-related animals (or people) (such as siblings) mate, they are more likely to inherit the same (existing) genetic defects. We all have two copies of every gene (one from each parent), and in many cases if one is defective the the other is used. When distantly-related animals or humans mate, the chances of getting both copies of a gene with the same defect is low, but when they are closely related, the chances are higher (higher the more closely-related they are).
When it comes to the ark, there are three key points to consider in this regard:
* The pairs of animals were not necessarily closely related. In fact, the animals were selected by God, not Noah, so God would know which pair would produce the best offspring.
* A sub-group of the animals (the 'clean' ones) were there in their "sevens", which might mean seven examples of them, but might also mean seven pairs of them.
* All living things were created without defects, which have arisen since creation (thanks to The Fall), but by the time of Noah, there would still be very few such defects in the population, so that would not be a significant problem.
"Therefore you need more animals on this 'tiny' ark."
That 'tiny' ark was big enough to comfortably carry all the animals required with room left over. From a book that discusses this (NB: The original had superscript '3's to indicate cubic space; they are normal '3's in this copy-and-past):
"The Ark measured 300 x 50 x 30 cubits (Gen. 6:15), which is about 137 x 23 x 13.7 metres or 450 x 75 x 45 feet, so its volume was 43,200 m3 or 1.52 million ft3. To put this in perspective, this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard railroad stock cars, each of which can hold 240 sheep.
"If the animals were kept in cages with an average size (some would be much bigger, others smaller) of 50 x 50 x 30 centimetres (20 x 20 x 12 inches), that is 75,000 cm3 or 4,800 in3 the 16,000 animals would only need 1,200 m3 (42,000 ft3) or 14.4 stock cars. Even if a million insect species had to be on board as well, it would not be a problem, because they require little space. If each pair was kept in cages of 10 cm (four inches) per side, or 1,000 cm3, all the insect species would need a total volume of only 1,000 m3, or another 12 cars. This would leave room for five trains of 99 cars each for food, Noah’s family and ‘range’ for the animals, and air space. However, insects are not included in the meaning of behemah or remes, so Noah probably did not have to take them on board as passengers anyway."
"I did not say stop them before the act did I?"
You did not say anything about stopping them (in the part I was replying to). You referred to punishing them.
"Quite clearly i said he could stop them in the act. He chooses not to."
Yes, and I explained why.
"That is disgusting."
By what standard do you claim that it's disgusting?
"He accepts that behavior at the time...does he not?"
First, that is completely false. He doesn't accept the behaviour at all. What you mean is that He allows it.
Second, how do you know that He allows it all the time? For all you or I know, perhaps He is stopping even more-abhorrent behaviour. But because He stops it happening, you don't ever see it, so wouldn't be considering that.
"Free will or not, he lets it go..."
Yes, but that doesn't mean that He doesn't have a good reason for doing so.
"Lets start fresh then. Both of us don't make any claim whatsoever."
Okay...
"You don't claim there's a god. I don't say I find your evidence very weak."
I didn't claim that God exists. You did claim that there is no evidence. So you're now withdrawing that claim? If you are, good. We've got somewhere.
"Lets leave it there....I'm happy with that."
There were other claims you didn't support, but if you want to end the discussion here, fine.
"Or, did you want to claim anything?"
Not really. In other circumstances I might, but my concern here was to challenge your claims, not to make my own.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually, carbon dating is about the best of the dating methods. That is, from around 4000 years(?) ago to now, it's been been calibrated to known historical dates, something that can't be said about most other dating methods.
Also, the theoretical upper limit for carbon dating is around 60,000 to 100,000 years, so scientists don't even bother using it if they think the thing is much older than that, which they do in this case. They either used a different (not historically calibrated) method, or they just claimed an age based on when they believe this creature would have lived.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kennethgoldston4643
"The fact that there have been pages written,even in this little forum, indicates that the answer is not just a simple 3 word catch phrase,"
That is a non-sequitur. Just because a lot is written doesn't mean that the answer is not simple. Neither is a dictionary definition a "simple catch phrase". It's a definition.
"...tt is quite appropriate to not be drawn into a "gotcha" question."
And yet, by not answering, that's exactly what she did. She was well and truly "got".
"She has been confirmed in any case,..."
Which is irrelevant to the discussion.
"...possibly the most highly qualified appointee to SCOTUS of any in memory."
And possibly not. Especially if she can't answer a straightforward question that has a simple answer. She could, if she felt it necessary, qualified her answer, such as by saying "in general terms, a woman is an adult female human". Then if the questioner wanted more information, she could have asked a follow-up question, but Jackson wouldn't have looked silly by giving that answer.
"She handled herself beautifully..."
By not answering a simple question? I would strongly disagree. Not to mention all the other things she's done, like being soft on certain crimes.
"the sneering, snide attempts of the Chris Kennys of this world to diminish her, ..."
You mean the valid criticisms?
"for what reason I wonder, could it be that she is black, intelligent and enlightened?"
No, because she's woke, which is a neo-Marxist position designed to undermine the values of Western Civilisation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@swanie360
"What would you call it?"
I believe that it's undisputed that it's a rifle, so I guess I'd call it that.
"...it's a common layperson's term for that particular item that's the way it is described in the media..."
I'm not sure about your first point, but as for your second point, the mainstream media leans heavily to the left. Yes, the left calls it an assault rifle, but conservatives reject that description as baseless. Note that by "conservative" I'm talking about American gun supporters. I'm a conservative but not a gun supporter, so I have no skin in this.
"I am using the terminology provided by the media..."
So what you're saying is that you don't know if the term is accurate?
"Can you define what a terrorist is?"
Loosely, at least. Someone who inflicts terror for political purposes.
"...what terrorist groups are in Australia..."
Off the top of my head, I couldn't say.
"Taking on terrorists isn't a job for the general duties police officers that's why they have SOG-trained police."
Fair point.
"Further to your question a lot of people and media commentators seem to think the AR in AR-15 stands for Assault Rifle."
I believe that's correct (that they do think that). As I understand it, that thinking is wrong.
"I see you are using someone else's YouTube name?"
I'm not sure what you're seeing, but I'm not using anyone else's name.
"you insisted that I answer questions, but won't answer mine?"
I have answered yours. But I've been busy, and have been a bit slow to respond; that's all.
"Who do you work for?"
A public transport operator. Nothing to do with this matter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@leoncutajar1369
"If the population are terrorists..."
It would be more accurate to say that much (not all) of the population supports the terrorists.
"...there is nothing wrong with making sure whats left goes to Palestine over the Jewish hostages."
Who controls that?
"The Eurasian Jews has been slowly taking Palestine since the end off WW2..."
No, they were given their land, and the surrounding countries tried to take even the little that they were given. Israel defended itself, and took some of the land that they should have had in the first place, because they were attacked.
"...they are in no position to tell anyone what they can and cannot have on occupied territory."
What "occupied territory"? Israel abandoned Gaza 18 years ago.
"If churches, mosques, houses and hospitals are Hamas targets then how do we know these "hostages" are not Mossad or IDF targets?"
Huh? First, why the scare quotes around "hostages"? Second, that doesn't make sense. Are you suggesting that the Israel is happy to target Hamas places that have hostages in them, or what?
"Israel DOES have 10.000 Palestinian hostages"
Repeating your claim does not answer the question. It seems that you have no answer, so I can dismiss that claim as baseless.
"...not including the 2.5 million inmates in Gaza."
More nonsense. The Gazan inhabitants are Hamas' inmates. Israel is warning them to leave, but Hamas is preventing them. When you twist things so badly, your credibility is shot.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stevem8318
"Certain presenters very occasionally point this out."
No, my word "often" is more accurate.
"Sky wants to give the illusion of balanced news."
This is part of their commentary, not their news.
"I suspect those videos will be shadowbanned to a degree."
Sky News Australia was temporarily banned by YouTube at one stage.
"My point is that it is a highly relevant thing to say in THIS video and many others ..."
I disagree. These segments are very short (and often incomplete in the sense that not everything that is broadcast makes it into a YouTube clip) and they have mentioned that many times, and it doesn't need to be mentioned in every clip about energy policy.
"...it is deliberately left out."
Well, perhaps, but I'd say for the reasons I said rather than what you're implying.
"Jon Seeley said that his concern is "what will drive emissions down" so he gives the listeners the impression that Australia's efforts will make a difference."
Seely is clearly a believer in reducing fossil fuels, unlike Kenny who is interviewing him. In some ways Kenny is letting him get away with saying something that Kenny clearly doesn't accept, but he's doing it because despite Seeley coming at this from an opposing perspective, he's still saying something useful. It's the 'hostile witness' aspect—getting someone who disagrees with your point of view to say something that supports what you think, as that carries more weight than interviewing someone who agrees with you.
"Most of Sky's stories like this omit this essential information."
No, they have mentioned it many, many, times.
"They also omit the fact that, for industry and cities, nuclear energy is the only substitute to fossil fuels. "
No, they don't omit that. Again, they have often discussed that, and Kenny in particular. In fact Kenny himself did an hour-long program on that. Find the video "SPECIAL REPORT: Going Nuclear – The Clean Energy Debate".
1
-
@stevem8318
"Kenny, in the video, supports the concept that Australia needs to get to net zero."
Nobody is perfect. And although it's a different topic, I strongly disagree with Kenny on his support for 'the voice' (he's at odds with just about all the other Sky presenters on that).
"This is the silly climate alarmist view about CO2 which is completely wrong."
I'm not sure that there's anything wrong with net zero as an ideal, but I'd agree that it's not something we should be doing if it's going to cost a lot.
"It's possible that Kenny wanted to say more but was not allowed to."
I doubt from what's been said on Sky that he wasn't allowed to. I'd suggest that it's more likely that he was only allowed a limited time for his report (e.g. one hour, including time for ads), and so he had to be selective about how much he put in there.
"I suggest you view more content out of the MSM, it is seriously affecting your perceptions."
Are you including Sky in the MSM? You don't know how much of each I view, and you've not shown anything wrong with my perceptions. I think you're assuming far too much about me.
"I look at Sky only occasionally these days to comment,..."
Oh. So when I said "Sky ... has OFTEN pointed that out. Don't you watch it?", and you replied "Of course", you were not telling me the whole story, that you don't watch it very much! And yet you followed up with "Certain presenters very occasionally point this out.", which seems you can't really know from the amount you watch it.
"He is on YouTube but you should be viewing other platforms such as rumble and odysee."
I was watching some stuff on Rumble at one stage, but I have limited time in my life (!) and can't watch everything. I think my selection is pretty balanced.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@turnerfamilyinozi
"Please go back and look at our correspondence regarding humans evolving from fish."
I have looked at it several times, and there is still nothing new there from you. But in an attempt to clarify, I'll list some of the relevant comments by each of us. (There are often other comments by both of us between some of these.) It might help clarify matters if you could respond here very specifically to the points I make here. Except for the last one, YouTube shows all these as being two weeks ago.
---- start of the list of comments ----
1) I posted by starting with a quote from you saying "Let's address one claim at a time." The end of that post says "Maybe we could start with your claim that we evolved from a fish? What's your best evidence for that claim?"
2) You posted " My response to you having fish as your ancestors has gone missing. So all I can do is suggest you google 'humans evolved from fish'."
3) I responded with a comment that included: "Sorry, not good enough. I asked what your best evidence was."
4) You posted by starting with "I am not an expert on evolution.". It includes the comment "if you want to know why I believe in evolution, then genetics, ring species, homologous structures and fossils are a good place to start. Can you demonstrate that I am incorrect?"
5) I responded with a post that started by quoting you saying "Science is by definition naturalistic.". In that post I respond in separate bullet points to each of genetics, ring species, homologous structures, and fossils. I explained for each one why they were not evidence for evolution over creation.
I followed up (in the same comment) with the question "Can you demonstrate that I'm incorrect in my responses above?"
6) The very next comment was me starting with "If your recent comment under the other video...", and included the question "I replied to your last three comments: [I listed them] but see nothing since. Or can you not see that reply of mine?"
I got no answer to that comment.
7) You responded with "I did not receive your response on fish. Please send it again."
8) I responded with a comment that started with me quoting you "Albright died in 1971...", and which said "I'll repost it after this. It wasn't so much a "response on fish" but a response to your post defending your claim that we are descended from fish." Note that I said that I would repost my comment.
8) I then reposted my comment (#5, above) exactly.
9) As a separate follow-up post, I point out that I had reposted it: "I have reposted that other response." So I a) said that I would repost it, b) reposted it, and c) said that I had reposted it. Your next post (see #10) was to respond to something else in my #8 post, so you did see that one, but there was no acknowledgement by you of any of those three posts talking about my repost of #5.
10) You posted a comment starting with "So you are saying that instead of going on the direct 4 day walk, ...", but made no mention of my repost or the arguments in it.
11) In my very last comment there five days ago, I said this (but have added italics):
--------
I know YouTube used to delete some posts (and perhaps still do, although I haven't seen that for a while) and also (still currently) hides some posts, but includes them in the post count. At the time of me posting this, YouTube says that there are 50 replies to the original post (this will make 51). Of those 50, I can see 49, so only one is hidden from me. How many does it say for you and how many can you see?
P. S. Of those 49, I count 26 from you.
--------
It now shows 51 replies there. That is, absolutely nothing further from you, even hidden (but I can't of course count deleted ones, as they would not show in the total). Could you please answer the question addressed to you in that (#11) comment.
---- end of the list of comments ----
Yet despite all that, you have continued to claim that I haven't responded to you! I might put that down to YouTube hiding my twice-posted response, but you haven't even questioned my separate posts saying that I would repost and had reposted, nor to my last response about the number of replies you can see.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jacobite Jones
True, the ToE has changed a lot since Darwin, but as I said, Dawkins in particular still attributes it strongly to Darwin, hence the term is still a correct one.
"there is a stark difference between religious belief and scientific acceptance"
But is there? Really? (In the case of Christianity) Or is that just an atheistic view? Christianity, similar to science, is based on evidence. Except that science, as practiced by many scientists when it comes to past events, is actually based on naturalism, i.e. it ignores evidence consistent with God creating in favour of the naturalistic view of evolution. For example, we know from observation that meaningful information (i.e. not just random noise) comes only from an intelligence, and we also know that the genetic codes in living things contain lots of information. Yet despite the origin of this information being contrary to the laws of nature, most scientists refuse to accept the obvious, that the genetic codes were designed, preferring to believe, contrary to the evidence, that it happened naturally.
1
-
Jacobite Jones
"email it directly to CNN, FOX, BBC, CNBC"
You seem to be under the delusion that those organisation are staffed by completely open-minded, objective people, without bias. Why do you assume that?
"As of yet no body has presented evidence for the existence of god.... "
Complete, utter, absolute rubbish.
"And the burden of proof is on you because you are making the outrageous claim that a god exists"
False. First, what makes the claim outrageous? Second, the burden of proof is always on the one making the claim, whatever that claim is. So if you claim no god, you have the burden of proof. If I claim God, then I have the burden of proof.
"seriously i bet i can guess your age"
I would not assume that you can, and it's hardly relevant in any case.
""Darwinism' often times encapsulates falsehoods that people attribute to Darwin and mistakenly equate to The Theory of Evolution..."
That's a non-argument. That some people falsely attribute certain ideas to any theory does not mean that it's wrong to use a particular label regarding a theory. After all, some people falsely attribute certain ideas to the ToE too. So perhaps we shouldn't call it that?
As for 'survival of the fittest', according to both Wikipedia (not a good source) and Britannica, Spencer coined the term for Darwin's theory, after reading the latter's book. And Darwin himself subsequently used the term. So it doesn't seem to be a falsehood to connect it with Darwinism at all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hans Otto Kroeger Kaethler
"It seems you didn't understand what I said: If you already have "convictions" facts don't matter."
No, you misunderstood me. I understand you, but disagree with you. "Facts don't matter" simply does not follow from already having convictions. It's a non-sequitur.
"You are saying that "convictions come before facts"..."
I'm saying that some convictions do. Such as your conviction that facts are more important. You've never explained what facts led you to that conviction.
"If that was true, then he is still not convinced."
Not true. Consider a prosecutor. He is convinced, from the evidence, that the defendant is guilty, and argues that case in court, and gets a conviction. Later, he learns of new evidence, and realises that his previous conviction of the person's guilt was wrong. He was convinced, but is still was till open to evidence changing his mind.
Or you can think of the detective novel, where it gradually becomes obvious that "the butler did it". As the chapters continue, you become even more convinced that the butler did it. Until the final chapter, where new evidence is revealed that shows that it wasn't the butler after all.
So what facts led to your conviction that facts are more important?
1
-
Hans Otto Kroeger Kaethler
"...Is based on my effort to first gather information, ..."
That you feel you should gather information first is itself a conviction.
"People were convinced that the Earth is flat."
That's a bad example. People weren't convinced of that. Rather, the idea that they thought that was an atheist invention. But to the point, you can give as many examples as you like of people who can have a conviction such that they then ignore facts, but others people can have a conviction yet still be open to facts, per the examples I gave.
"Facts are more important than convictions."
You have a conviction that facts are more important. That conviction may be correct, but it's a conviction nevertheless, and, to support your point, you don't seem open to seeing things differently.
"Therefore, convictions must rely on facts, and not the other way around."
You still haven't given an answer as to what facts led to your conviction on that.
"EXACTLY!!! That's why facts are more important than convictions!"
I wasn't arguing about which was more important. And again, it depends on the topic. I already said that facts should be the basis of a question such as "Is China being aggressive", but not the basis of a question "What is the right approach to dealing with that".
"CONVICTION HAS BEEN WRONG, NOT THE FACTS!"
You're missing the point. That was an example of someone who had a conviction that the accused was guilty, but was still open to facts, contrary to your claim.
"But, a convinced individual will never be convinced otherwise by facts."
The prosecutor in my example WAS convinced otherwise by the facts.
"Prosecutors oppose even clear DNA facts."
That is a separate issue, but perhaps that's sometimes with good reason. DNA evidence is not infallible. There was a case in Victoria where the clothing of a child murdered in Gippsland was found to have DNA from a woman who lived in Geelong. But this DNA was dismissed as being due to contamination in the police laboratory (despite there supposedly being a lot of care taken against contamination), and not on the basis of any contrary scientific evidence. (And perhaps it's sometimes for no good reason at all.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EIBBOR2654
"Hey Mate, why didn't they just lay down a third rail at the standard gauge?"
I don't accept the original poster's contention that gauge conversion in Victoria started in the 1960s (see my separate reply). Your suggestion is not as simple as it seems.
1) It gets complicated where you have points and diamond crossings.
2) You have to consider clearances to platforms (Victoria has high-level platforms, i.e at roughly the height of the floor of passenger carriages).
3) These days, where you have concrete sleepers, you'd have to replace the sleepers with ones designed to hold all three rails. You can't simply drill another hole for another spike like you could with wooden sleepers.
4) The gap between the second and third rail is just the right size to hold a rock, so rocks caught between the two rails could potentially derail a train. For that reason, where Victoria does have some dual-gauge track, speeds for broad-gauge trains are limited to (from memory) 80 kph (about 50 mph).
Not that it can't be done that way. On a few lines in recent years when level crossing have been upgraded, a third rail has been installed through the crossing to avoid rebuilding the crossing when the line is converted to standard gauge.
Victoria did introduce a fairly-efficient workaround to the problem for goods trains. At two(?) key locations, they built cranes that could lift a wagon off its bogies, the bogies were rolled out and another set of the other gauge rolled in, and the wagons lowered down onto the new bogies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NicolSD
"You just claimed that it is not true that the universe is older than 6,000 years old."
Yes, I did.
"Lemaître would dismiss your comment out of hand. Why? A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
But I have evidence. True, I didn't give it in that comment, but it's readily available and examples are available from me for the asking.
"Especially since the speed of light was already known (for quite a while, might I add) and the distance to the various stars was known."
Yes, and mainstream science's supposed size and age of the universe are known and there has not been enough time for the temperature of the cosmic microwave background to have evened out as much as it is. This is known as the Horizon Problem.
Of course Big Bang theorists have come up with ways around that problem, but then creationist physicists have come up with ways around the problem you mention. So it's not necessarily a problem after all.
"He knew the universe was more than 6,000 years old..."
He believed that it was.
"...and he had no problem reconciling that with his faith."
Yes, well, cognitive dissonance is all too common. In order to 'reconcile' it, he needed to reject the clear statements about the age of the earth in the Bible. I don't consider that to be 'reconciliation'. It's closer to capitulation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marthienel2190
"The issue are that many religions claim that theirs is the one and only true Deity,..."
THat's an issue, not the issue.
"...and have been killing each other over the centuries to 'prove' it."
Wrong on at least two counts. First, that is not how they've tried to prove it, even for those that have tried.
Second, in the case of Christianity at least, historically it's been a rather peaceful religion. (Yes, there have been exceptions.)
"In 99% of people, your choice of god is linked to your culture."
Not true and not relevant. Which culture is the culture of Christianity? In fact it's spread around the world, through many different cultures. There have been many cases of large numbers of people changing their religion to Christianity.
"You accept your god as the one and only supreme being, just as you accept your mother tongue and culture."
That makes little sense, because you are talking about two different types of acceptance. I "accept" my mother tongue in the sense that I use the language I was brought up on. There is no debate about whether it exists or not, and no suggestion that it is the only correct one. I "accept" God as real on the basis of the evidence for His existence.
1
-
"...religious people were also not okay with the big bang theory."
Unfortunately, many are okay with it. But true, many others are not.
"... if you don't address how anti-science religious people can be when the science threatens the dogma."
Which people are you talking about? There is no reason for Christians, who founded modern science as this video (and many scholars) points out, to be anti-science. There IS reason, however, for them to be anti-naturalism, a position that many scientists adopt.
"Hard to stay when they demand you try to believe in their set of unique truth claims."
Only if you don't accept those claims.
"I believe these kinds of arguments that justify a scientific or literal reading of the bible is just gross. I don't believe that is how the bible or any other ancient text was thought of when it was written nor do I think that is how it should bow be read."
Why do you think that? And yet Jesus and the other biblical authors treated the Bible (the parts they had at the time) as actual history. That the creation account meant to be understood as actual history is also the consensus of the top experts in the language.
"If church could focus more on becoming and less on knowing ..."
That sounds like you want it to have no hard claims—to stand for nothing—which kind of makes it useless.
"but as it is, they are so preoccupied with what they think they already know there is no room for any kind of growth or learning."
I can't speak for your particular experience, but it was the conviction of Christians about what they knew of God that led them to study his creation and learn. In fact the Bible says as much, instructing us to study and learn. But if you don't have any convictions that the Bible actually means that, why bother?
1
-
@100percentSNAFU
"Well, many fundamentalists still do not believe in things like the big bang theory, evolution, etc, and believe the earth is 6,000 years old and every excerpt from the Bible is meant to be taken literally."
Yes and no. Those "fundamentalist" Christians acknowledge the existence of metaphors and other figures of speech in the Bible. But they also know, from studying the language, that the creation account and the other bits of history that provide the age of the earth are not figures of speech, but are meant to be taken literally. James Barr, Oriel Professor of the interpretation of the Holy Scripture at Oxford and no fundamentalist, said "… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience, the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story, and that Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark."
"But yet of course such dogma does make it difficult to take organized religion seriously."
Why? Simply because you don't agree?
"I believe in God, and I also believe in the science, which I think is possible."
Given that modern science is based on a Christian worldview, it's definitely possible. What's questionable is whether you can be an atheist and accept science. Paul Davies said (my bolding) "In the ensuing three hundred years, the theological dimension of science has faded. People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature- the laws of physics - are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they come from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is rational basis to physical existence manifested as lawlike order in nature that is at least part comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological world view. "
"...the lessons it teaches and rules it gives to be a good and pious person in the eyes of God is pretty sound,..."
If they are not based on reality, what makes them sound?
"you can't really argue against teachings to be kind and honest and such..."
With a belief in no God (as many people have), why couldn't you? Evolution is about the survival of the fittest, which means the non-survival of the less-fit; it's 'nature red in tooth and claw'. If that's all you have to go on (i.e no God), that seems like reasonable justification to not be kind, but to be ruthless.
"But yeah, the ritualistic stuff turned me off, as well as the people who "went to church so they could be seen at church", which sadly I felt was most."
That's understandable. Evangelical Protestantism doesn't have much in the way of rituals, at least hard-and-fast ones (baptism, although not essential, and marriage being about the only ones). And of course even Jesus spoke against people just being seen to be good.
"I think just living a good and honest life is what is important,..."
Of course, you could be wrong. Much better would be to find out what God says is important. But for that, you'd have to believe what the Bible says.
"...it is hard for me to accept it is all just random."
As it should be. It being random just doesn't add up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@timpieper5293
"I encourage you to reconsider whether origins of life would require an intelligent designer after seeing how many steps in the process don’t require design."
Those episodes didn't mention one case (I believe) of any of those proteins and other molecules occurring naturally in nature outside of a living thing. They were all the result of intelligent scientists. If anything it only serves to show that intelligence is required.
"And an open question; how does a beginning to the universe imply a designer?"
It doesn't. However, a beginning to the physical universe—that is, going from nothing to something—requires a cause that is outside the physical universe. This implies a non-physical creator. The idea of a designer as opposed to just a creator comes from the arguments for fine tuning and of information in living things.
"…thus bringing on more deconstruction of such unsupported ideas in more places at more times."
The ideas are not unsupported.
"That would further undermine the harm done based on such ideas."
What harm?
"Some religious beliefs have some use."
That's understating it. Christian beliefs have been extremely positive for the world.
"I just don’t think there’s much use that religious or theistic belief offers that cannot be achieved without said beliefs,…"
History has shown otherwise. The beliefs provide the incentive, or motivation, to do something. Sure, people without those beliefs could do the same things, but why would they?
"I think there’s several ways that religious beliefs can be harmful, and used as the basis for harm."
Certainly! This is definitely the case for false religions, including atheistic ones.
"…the initial problem that religious beliefs aren’t reasonably justified."
Again, it depends on which religious beliefs you are referring to. One problem I have with atheists is how they stick every religious belief except their own in the one basket, as though they are all similar. In fact, they can be very different. Christian beliefs are justified, as they correspond to reality.
"Yes, I’m convinced human behavior and thought are determined."
So you're saying that you didn't choose to write that?
"…free will … doesn’t even seem apparent in our subjective experience if we pay close attention."
Close attention will see people choosing things almost every moment of their day.
"This doesn’t lower the value of attempting to persuade others of things, because the very act of attempting to persuade may yet deterministically persuade others."
It kind of does lower it, actually. While I understand that attempting to persuade others in a free-will-free environment could very well have a consequence, the very concept is at odds with what it's trying to achieve.
"I can see that I am not authoring my next intention or thought,…"
Who or what is authoring it? And what's your evidence for that?
"…I’m unable to act on on anything other than my intentions thoughts…"
I'm not sure that makes any sense. If you have the thought to jump, you can't skip instead? Why not? Or is it a case of if you choose to skip instead of jump, then you do so because you've had the thought to skip? The point is, you have chosen to change your thought. Anything else would be chaos, where you go to pay the shopkeeper for your purchases, but shoot him instead, because you did something without that being a thought that you had.
"I have no reason to think matter in human brains is any less deterministic."
What makes you reject the idea of an immaterial mind residing in your brain is not so deterministic?
"There’s no topic other than free will and determinism in those videos, so it’s unclear how you came up with “ideology”."
I don't know how 123mneil came up with it, but it was apparent to me too (I only watched the two shorter videos) because there was a complete absence of any discussion on a human soul, being made in the image of God, etc. It's effectively all done from an atheistic perspective.
"The confidence that a fundamentalist has is not grounded in good reasoning;…"
Depending on who/what you are meaning by "fundamentalist", that is false.
1
-
@Tim Pieper
"Each section below is in response to your corresponding chronological section of text."
1. Chronological? 2. To help if there is a next time, I've added numbers (probably too many, but ...)
"Origin of life experiments are replications of natural environments."
3. Only to a greater or lesser extent. The Miller-Urey experiment included a reducing atmosphere or methane and ammonia which is not known to have been the case, because they knew an atmosphere with with oxygen wouldn't work.
4. They also had an unrealistically-high concentration of organic matter, and a trap to gather the products before they could be destroyed, something that would not have been the case in a natural environment.
"The rise of each step of abiogenesis isn’t engineered or intentionally put together; each happens on their own on the simulated environment."
5. No, they don't happen on their own. The scientists assembled the required environments.
"How did you come to believe that there was a change from nothing to something?"
6. Because that is what is taught (except when they equivocate). Discover magazine described on the views of a leading Big Bang researcher this way: "The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere. How is that possible? Ask Alan Guth. His theory of inflation helps explain everything."
"The fine tuning argument assumes the constants could’ve been otherwise, but no proponents have ever shown this."
6. Prima facie, they could have been otherwise. Nobody has ever shown that they couldn't have been.
"As far as I can tell, “information” just means non-random patterns."
7. In a sense, yes. But non-random means designed, unless there is a physical process that can generate it, but we know from observation that information only comes from an intelligence.
"Life is biochemistry, honed over billions of years of evolution."
8. Yes, that is the mainstream naturalistic view. That's not a rebuttal to my argument, though.
"Given every new discovery in original of life research, its origins don’t seem to need intelligence."
9. Every new discovery shows how hard it is to occur naturally. 10. The Miller-Urey experiment, for example, produced a racemic mixture of amino acids, which is not conducive to life. (11. Reed attempts to counter this by citing a test that showed that an already-existing RNA molecule could handle the insertion of some right-handed molecules. 11. They also selected "promising" ones. That is, the scientists had a goal that nature wouldn't have had, and used artificial selection. I don't know much about this test; I'm going on what Reed said.)
"This is a short list of harm done on the basis of, or given cover by the undue reverence caused by, religious beliefs:"
12. Your list comprises things that are not based on Christian ideas, but on how some individuals apply their beliefs, or things that you haven't even shown are harmful, but are things that you simply don't like. There is nothing in your list that is actual harm that is due to Christian ideas. Your claim was baseless.
"No, I don’t think so. Net-negative impact overall, in my view."
13. Yet the scholarship disagrees with you. Christianity is the basis of Western Civilisation, and has introduced public hospitals and many charities, introduced universal education, founded modern science, elevated the status of women, abolished slavery, spread democracy, promoted the concept of human rights, and more. 14. To give one example of the scholarship, Rodney Stark wrote:
"Christianity created Western Civilization. Had the followers of Jesus remained an obscure Jewish sect, most of you would not have learned to read and the rest of you would be reading from hand copied scrolls. Without a theology committed to reason, progress, and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800: A world with many astrologers and alchemists but no scientists. A world of despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys, and pianos. A world where most infants do not live to the age of five and many women die in childbirth–a world truly living in "dark ages."
"The modern world arose only in Christian societies. Not in Islam. Not in Asia. Not in a "secular" society–there having been none. And all the modernization that has since occurred outside Christendom was imported from the West, often brought by colonizers and missionaries."
15. Meanwhile, what has atheism done? 16. Well, in the 20th century it has slaughtered millions under Stalin, Mao, and others, and 17. it has taught that humans "live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people." (Carl Sagan), are "just a bit of pollution,... We’re completely irrelevant." (Laurance Kraus), are "just a bit of slime on the planet" (Peter Atkins), and have "no ultimate meaning to life" (William Provine). But, I guess teaching people that does no harm, does it? 18. Whereas teaching people that "If you want to have a massive reason why human beings are special, here it is: God became one." (John Lennox) must be harmful, I guess.
"They provide the incentive to do horrid and unintelligent things,…"
19. Things other than the ones you've already listed which are no such thing?
"But you can see secular people doing the same charity and love that religious people do, for example The Scathing Atheist and Cognitive Dissonance podcast audiences recently raised upwards of $400,000 for the charity modest needs."
20. Copycats. Except that they rewarded some of the people for donating! 21. Christians have been doing it for 2000 years (without rewards). 22. A study in America by Arthur Brooks showed that religious people gave more of their money, time, and blood than non-religious people.
continued...
1
-
@timpieper5293
...continued
"No, the bare minimum Christian belief, that Jesus rose from the dead, isn’t justified."
23. It is definitely justified, being one of the most-documented events in ancient history, and something that changed the world.
"There’s no data anyone can cite that isn’t consistent with Paul having a brief, possibly guilt-induced hallucination on the Damascus road,…"
24. What about the fact that his companions also heard the voice? 25. What about being blinded in the process?
"…stories in the gospels being 30+ years of legend development."
26. What 30+ years and 27. what legend development? 28. And 30 years is not that long for this sort of thing anyway.
"Resurrections are not even close to as common as people developing legends, even from a Christian worldview."
29. So you're arguing that a rare event is probably wrong simply because it's rare?
"I’m saying that my choice to write this was determined…"
30. If it's determined, it's not a choice.
"How does it lower it? How is the act of attempting to persuade at odds with belief in determinism?"
31. If what a person thinks is determined by brain chemistry, how could he be persuaded of anything? 32. Yes, maybe the discussion will change the brain chemistry in some way, but why would that change be along the lines of the point that is being argued? 33. What's the mechanism that turns that cause into that particular effect?
"Just before you stated such, I had already explained how they aren’t at odds."
34. You expressed a view; it only barely qualified as an explanation.
"My brain’s neurochemistry is creating my intentions and thoughts."
35. That is supposition.
"The many direct connections between brain matter and consciousness, whether it be from the effects of drugs, to brain damage survivors, to split-brain patients, to the differences in the mental capacity of species with different brains; all point to consciousness being the product of brains."
36. No, it doesn't. It does point to damage affecting the mind-holder. 37. An analogy to what you're arguing is that the information (concepts, explanations, etc.) contained in a printed book are the product of the chemistry of the paper and ink because damaging the paper changes the information. A physical alteration to the paper and the ink can indeed corrupt the information, but it simply doesn't follow that the chemistry of the paper and the ink created the information in the first place.
"You’ve seen the two short videos explaining this so you should understand."
38. I understand, but don't agree that they make their case. 39. You can't choose to do anything that you haven't thought to do, but having the thought to do something else IS choosing to do that something else.
"See the section above the previous one."
40. That doesn't answer it.
"Why would they mention a soul?"
41. Because we have one. 42. Atheist ideology, on the other hand denies this. 43. That's why the videos were based on ideology. 44. If they weren't, they'd at least consider how well a soul would explain the evidence. But it's not even considered.
"The soul isn’t evident,…"
45. Lot's of things aren't evident, but there's evidence for them anyway.
"…the myriad of things I’ve listed previously point to a material origin of consciousness."
46. No, they are interpreted in that framework.
"I’m certainly talking about creationists, and those who find fault with sound science."
47. Creationists don't find fault with sound science, so that's a contradiction, and your previous claim was therefore false.
"Their confidence against science is not grounded in good reasoning;…"
48. Creationists created science!. They are not against it. You are constructing a strawman.
"That’s not even an atheist-take; digital footballer and 321mneil are not atheists and they see this too."
49. They've been brainwashed to believe it, more likely. It's a common view promulgated by atheists. They invent lies to spread misinformation like this. 50. An example is the lie that the church used to believe in a flat earth. Complete fabrication.
"Creationists will almost always ignore or twist the evidence for evolution,…"
51. False and false, unless you want to supply some evidence of that scurrilous charge.
"…and almost never characterize evolution accurately as they are victims of the harmful miseducation done by their religious leaders and family members."
52. That claim is contradicted by the facts that many creationists were taught evolution in university, were evolutionists themselves, some even taught evolution, and a few even wrote textbooks on it, before changing their minds because of the evidence that it doesn't work. Your claim is nothing but slanderous invention, albeit a common one.
"Even the most valuable purposes of a justice system, like rehabilitation, restraint, restitution, and deterrents, don’t require free will to make sense."
53. The most valuable purpose of a justice system is to make it clear that we expect certain standards (such as no theft) be met. The things you mention are secondary. If you set a standard and don't enforce it, it's not a standard.
"Accepting that our actions are determined allows for a more compassionate view of those who commit crimes. There is no reason for hate or blame on determinism, and so there is no reasonable justification for vengeance or punishment for the sake of getting some sadistic pleasure. That’s a good thing determinism offers."
54. What do you mean by "blame"? 55. A dictionary definition is "feel or declare that (someone or something) is responsible for a fault or wrong." 56. So if a person robs a shop, with determinism we shouldn't declare that the person is responsible for robbing the shop? 57. Actually, that's the very problem with determinism: not putting blame where it belongs.
58. With free will, there is no reason to hate or vengeance or getting sadistic pleasure either. 59. You're drawing a false dichotomy there. 60. As for punishment, that is simply doing what I said: showing that the standards must be followed.
"Another big difference it makes is It undercuts the fairness of religious views on how some get to heaven and others hell,…"
61. I'm not sure you meant to say that, but yes, that is a problem: it undercuts fairness.
"If our experience was somehow able to show an ability to think about what thoughts we could have or choose our desires, maybe that would convince me."
62. I was scared of heights even on things like fun park rides, but I chose to accept the empirical evidence that they were safe and got rid of that fear. 63. I don't like the taste of coffee, but believe that if I chose to do so, I could come to like it.
1
-
@timpieper5293
13. Stark is basing his assertions on his study of the history of Christianity and Western Civilisation, which he has written extensively on. He looks at the evidence, rather than start with an opinion, as you are doing by labelling them 'counterfactual' before even knowing where the ideas came from.
And as I said, he is just one example. Given your baseless dismissal of him, here's another, from journalist David Aikman:
"The eighteen American tourists visiting China weren’t expecting much from the evening’s lecture. They were already exhausted from a day of touring in Beijing. But what the speaker had to say astonished them.
'One of the things we were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world,' he said. 'We studied everything we could "from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next, we focused on your economic system. But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West has been so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.'
This was not coming from some ultra-conservative think tank … This was a scholar from China's premier academic research institute, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) in Beijing in 2002."
Or maybe you'd like an Indian source. Vishal Mangalwadi:
"'Devout Christians cultivated their minds by copying, preserving, and studying great books because they believed that to be God-like meant to develop the intellect, to grow in our knowledge of all truth—whichever individual or culture discovers it first. That is what made the West a thinking civilization. Amputation of its soul cannot but lead to the closing of the American mind."
"Hardly a Christian phenomenon, as it was influenced by several different ideas then able to be spread at far greater rates by the relatively new printing press."
I don't know what you are referring to. Much of what Stark refers to predated the printing press, which in any case was invented over 300 years before the so-called Enlightenment.
16. I didn't say that atheism caused them. Atheism says that we are not answerable to God. That means that we can decide right and wrong for ourselves. If you have the power, and no higher authority that you're answerable to, you get results like that. Atheism enabled it.
17. I beg to differ. First, it was not a claim about what the universe thinks, as the universe doesn't think. It's a claim about our worth as people. Second, which is more uplifting? That we are significant to a few other people who are as insignificant as us in the grand scheme of things, or that we are significant to the creator of that entire, vast, universe? Third, Australian statistics show a good correlation between the introduction of teaching evolution and the rise of youth suicide.
24. Most translations for Acts 22:9 say that the men did not understand the voice; not that they didn't hear it. So no contradiction. To understand why this is the case, see the article "Does Acts 9:7 contradict Acts 22:9 ?" on the Apologetics and Agape website.
I don't know why you're mentioning Corinthians. Are you presuming that this is the same event as Paul experienced on the Damascus road? There seems to be little support for that idea.
25. It wasn't momentary. It was three days, and only ended after God instructed Ananias to see Paul. Also, Paul explicitly says that he was blinded by the brightness of the light.
26. I guess that does answer the question "what 30 years", although I still don't know why they think it was necessarily that long. Also, that surely doesn't exclude earlier written records being used as a basis for the books after 30 years.
Of course what those scholars also often say is that oral repetition was common and, unlike today where it's not, was done accurately. So no, not evidence of legend development.
What suspension of the laws of physics? Also, why is legend development a more parsimonious explanation than it being done by an infinite being? Apart from not wanting to believe in that being, of course.
29. How is resurrection against the laws of physics? What physical laws are broken? After all, with modern medical equipment, we can revive dead people. Not after three days, but the point is that it's not against the laws of physics. Further, does Occam's Razor really select "God resurrected Jesus" better than "It didn't really happen, despite hundreds of people seeing Him alive after a very public crucifixion, and guarded tomb, plenty of people willing to call bull on it if they could find a way to, and disciples with a radically changed attitude who went to the grave holding that belief"? I think you're being selective and jumping to answers you prefer.
31. But "convincing them" implies thinking and the ability to choose, not determinism. When you flip a light switch to turn a light on or off, you're not doing any "convincing".
continued...
1
-
@timpieper5293
51. Aaron Ra? Oh please. He's not a reliable source. The first few minutes of the first video was a lot of bald assertions that basically dismissed the biblical view out of hand, with ridiculous claim such as "nothing can be shown to be true theologically" (blatantly false; I figure he means that nothing theological can be shown to be true, which is a massive hand-wave anyway), arguing on the basis of his own views (e.g. things that can't be shown to be true are not 'truths'; well of course not, but he hasn't established that they can't be shown as true), and that therefore there is no truth in Genesis (so I guess it's not true that living things reproduce after their kind, i.e. cats don't give birth to dogs, etc. and also not true that humans come in two forms, male and female).
The Gibbon video was too long to spend the time watching in full, and it was done in a very unscholarly and unprofessional way, and clearly trying to find fault even where none existed. The first comment when it finally got into the video went off on a tangent and didn't actually find fault. The second comment responded to the question of whether Lucy was our ancestor or "just an extinct ... ape". Gibbon said that "well she's both". But it can't be both, the way the question was framed. Note the "just" in "just an extinct ... ape". So no actual fault there, either. But then she said "She is of course an ape, because we are, of course apes". This is a typical illogical argument, where the creationist view is not compared to the facts, but to the competing view! In other words, the Bible is wrong because the secular view is right! Of course, by that logic, the secular view is wrong because the Bible is right. But of course if a creationist ever used that logic, they'd be pilloried no end.
The video wandered and side-tracked in a way that made things hard to follow. 18 minutes in they'd only covered 65 seconds of the creationist video.
Gibbon criticised a creationist reconstruction of Lucy, one of the criticisms being that the face structure appeared more gorilla-like than chimp-like, adding that it was probably intentional to distance it more from humans. She then took exception to the video pointing out that reconstructions of Lucy show white eyes, which only humans have, a claim that she later stressed was "so dumb!". After yet another side-track, she got around to 'debunking' the claim that only humans have white eyes by showing images of chimps with white eyes (no references or indications of where the pictures came from) and an image of a paper with the title "Gorillas with white sclera: A naturally occurring variation in a morphological trait linked to social cognitive functions", which she just showed for a few seconds as if that was the final word on the subject. What she didn't mention or point out was that the paper had the following introduction: "Human eye morphology is considered unique among the primates in that humans possess larger width/height ratios (WHR), expose a greater amount of visible sclera (SSI; width of exposed eyeball/width of visible iris), and critically, have a white sclera due to a lack of pigmentation. White sclera in humans amplifies gaze direction, whereas the all-dark eyes of apes are hypothesized to conceal gaze from others." Oops.
She then justified portraying Lucy with white eyes on the grounds that "this seems to be the evolutionary trend". In other words, evolutionists are portraying Lucy in a way that favours their view, but when the creationists portray Lucy in a way that favours the creationary view, that's bad. Double standards.
I doubt that the criticisms of Meyer are any more valid than those, but he's not even a creationist, so I skipped that one.
The first Paulogia video was a pain to watch (so I gave up six minutes in) not being clear on just what they were disagreeing with the creationists on. Again, it was also quite unprofessional and unscholarly.
The second Paulogia video was no better. At about the 1:50 mark they knock down a strawman.
I assume you're referring to the claim that they didn't read the research about language acquisition, because they referred to a turkey that wasn't in the research. However, as the video admitted, the word was used in the article about the research. The "failure" was not that they didn't read the research; the failure was that the referred to something in the article about the research. But how is this a problem? Unless you're scratching to find something to criticise. Further, they weren't trying to debunk anything! You're also inventing criticisms!
"There’s consistently no recognition of how isochron dating verifies the accuracies of radiometric dating,"
So now you're criticising them for not agreeing with the mainstream view? Well, duh! That's why it's a competing view!
"...or explaining index fossils, or endogenous retroviruses, or nested hierarchies in taxonomy from creationists."
Ho hum. More of the same. They don't agree with the naturalistic view, so they must be wrong.
So, in summary, you've provided no evidence that withstands scrutiny for your scurrilous charge that "Creationists will almost always ignore or twist the evidence for evolution,…"
"You will struggle long and hard to find me a creationist who can adequately articulate evolution or engage with the evidence for it."
Utter nonsense, that I have already refuted, in No. 55. Why are you repeating it?
And a comment you made to 122mneil:
"I just want to point out that the effort to become better is perfectly consistent with determinism, ..."
Only if you describe determinism in a way that makes it indistinguishable from free will. Which is probably what you're doing: Free will is imaginary, it's actually determinism, which looks like free will. So if you can't tell them apart, how do you know it's determinism?
1
-
@123mneil
"How are you so sure that you are not the one arrogantly claiming things that are not true and vilifying people that disagree?"
On the second point, because I make a point of attacking the argument, not vilifying the person. I never call them stupid, morons, liars, bigoted, deluded, uneducated, brainless, gullible, etc., which abusive ad hominems have often been levelled against me. And just to be clear, I wasn't accusing you of any of those things.
On the first point, because I back my claims with evidence, except when I'm replying to an evidence-free claim, in which case I provide as much evidence as the original claimant.
1
-
1
-
@timpieper5293
26. Legend development doesn't explain so many of the details, including how dispirited disciples were suddenly reinvigorated and went on to change the world. It's only 'parsimonious' by leaving out bits it can't explain.
29. They ARE facts that need to be accounted for. Wishing them away doesn't change that.
You are describing it as a "religious creed" in order to not address the claim. The fact is recorded in one of the letters of Paul which historians agree was written by him around AD 53/54. He also records that most of them were still alive. This indicates that the claim was checkable.
There IS corroborating evidence for the tomb: three of the four gospel writers talk about it
"There’s no possible way anyone could recover Jesus’s dead body if it was thrown into a mass grave,…"
But it wasn't in a mass grave. It was in a tomb.
"…even if someone could, and they came to a church and said “hey I checked into it; the resurrection didn’t happen”, are you telling me that would actually stop the believers from persisting?"
No, because they had seen the risen Jesus. Why would they believe someone claiming that it didn't happen when they had seen it with their own eyes?
" “People could’ve checked if it was false, so it must be true” isn’t a good argument."
It is a good supporting argument, actually. If you want to make up something and have people believe you, make it something that can't be checked. Leaving yourself open to being checked helps credibility.
"The changed attitudes of the disciples are easily accounted for as legend, as there’s no independent or reliable source for their post-crucifixion attitudes."
One of the points of agreement by historians is that "James, Jesus’ unbelieving brother, became a Christian due to his own experience that he thought was the resurrected Christ;" Another is that "the Christian persecutor Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus) also became a believer after a similar experience." Historians consider the sources reliable enough for that. (See the article "Minimal Facts on the Resurrection that Even Skeptics Accept" by Gary Habermas.)
"The die for a lie apologetic can’t get off the ground without establishing any of them died for their faith."
That has been established.
31. I don't accept that being convinced is not a choice. You can choose whether or not to believe the evidence. Yes, the evidence is a big factor, but it's not deterministic. You can still choose whether or not to accept it. How many people hear the same evidence but come to different conclusions?
51 Which correction? I gave examples to show why he is not reliable, and you have ignored them.
"The concept of kinds are used by creationists to make arbitrary distinctions between parent and daughter Clades in taxonomy, so in that sense, kinds aren’t coherent or mappable onto reality."
Which shows that you have no idea what you are talking about, given that peer-reviewed research is conducted to determine which living things are in the same kind as each other.
"I’m sorry you haven’t seen an explanation of what an ape is, but it’s a fact that we are apes. That’s not a “view”. "
It absolutely is a view, a naturalistic one. Okay, you have a point. It's possible to arbitrarily define "ape" to include human. But doing so is based on the evolutionary view.
"You just take the criteria of all apes’ morphology as distinguished from every other taxonomic family, and we fit those criteria."
That's rather vague and also selective. Why just morphology? Why not genetics, or behaviour, or etc.? I think what you're claiming is that we have a number of features in common with many of the apes. However, those features are not necessarily unique to apes or ubiquitous among the apes, and you overlook differences. For example, your first video starts off mentioning some common features, but it's rather vague, and then it lists differences. An example of each: "We have a unique appendix" Unique to what? Humans? That's a difference, not a common feature. Or unique to apes? Except that the appendix is not unique to apes. "In our locomotion living apes are highly diverse. Suspensory adaptations, high-speed brachiation, knuckle-walking quadrupedalism and obligate terrestrial bipedality all characterise our family". Huh? So what we have in common is a lot of different ways of getting around? That in itself contradicts your claim.
But then there are the things not mentioned, such as the big toe of humans, or the hairlessness of us, or our ability to hold our breath, or our subcutaneous fat layers, and of course our ability to use complex language.
"Creationists don’t engage honestly with this. They can’t."
Nonsense.
"I pointed out that creationists don’t address the tests or method of isochron dating and your facile retort is “they don’t agree? Well duh!” "
That is a strawman. You didn't claim that they don't address the tests or methods, but that they don't give " recognition of how isochron dating verifies the accuracies of radiometric dating" (my bolding). Your comment was not about the tests or methods, but about the naturalistic conclusions.
"…your comment just reeks of the very mentality you claim I haven’t provided evidence of…"
Your comment reeks of typical anti-creationist conflation of facts/evidence and conclusions.
"For an explanation of how this verification works:"
Or at least how it is supposed to work in theory.
"Creationists don’t engage with this honestly. They can’t."
And yet they do. If you search the creation dot com website for 'isochron dating' you'll find many articles and papers that 'engage with' isochron dating. And they do so honestly.
"You pull the same rewording with the creationists habitual refusal to engage with nested hierarchies."
You make the same claim that creations won't "engage" with various things, that presumably being a euphemism for not "agreeing", because they do in fact engage with with them. For just one example, that "unique appendix" of your first video link contradicts the nested hierarchy claim of evolutionists. According to an article on the Science website (i.e. they accept evolution), "They found that the 50 species ['now considered to have an appendix'] are scattered so widely across the tree that the structure must have evolved independently at least 32 times, and perhaps as many as 38 times.". This is of course known as convergent evolution, i.e. evolution that doesn't conform to a nested hierarchy.
"If you just call all the verifiable facts “the alternative view that creationists don’t agree with”…"
I'm not referring to facts, but to conclusions. I'm not referring to the methods of isochron dating, but the conclusion that it verifies the dates.
"…then you are proving my point again and again all on your own."
You're proving my point about conflating facts/evidence and conclusions.
"Here’s nested hierarchies explained with examples so you can see the facts you’re disagreeing with…"
I'm not disputing that there are, in general terms, nested hierarchies (in fact that's how the creationist Linnaeus was able to introduce the taxonomic system). I'm disputing the conclusion that it's good evidence for evolution.
"Creationists don’t engage honestly with this. They can’t."
You keep repeating a common anti-creationist mantra, with examples that are clearly false.
By the way, thanks for the timestamps on the videos.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@David-vi6fg
"wouldn't that definition of racism make the government ablist for giving disabled people money?"
Your question is not clear to me, but, I'll try answering this way. Being racist or sexist or agist (ageist?) etc. involves treating someone differently based on their (supposed) race or sex or age or etc. And if they are treated worse than others, that's discrimination. (Note: that if you treat someone better than someone else, then you're treating that someone else worse than the one you're treating better.)
And of course many people decry discrimination. But often overlooked is that there is nothing wrong with discrimination per se. For example, you discriminate against vanilla every time you choose chocolate ice cream over vanilla ice cream. More seriously, you discriminate against every applicant for a job other than the one you hire. But of course you have good reasons for doing that, with the accepted applicant being the most suitable.
When you choose a brown male actor to play the role of, say, Martin Luther King in a movie, you're discriminating against 'white' actors and all actresses.
The question is not whether discrimination itself is okay, but whether the particular discrimination that you're doing is fair. It's not fair to discriminate against an applicant for a typical job simply because of their sex or their race (but is fair in my example of an actor).
In the case of the 'voice', it's not fair to discriminate against non-aborigines by not giving them this second 'voice' that they wanted to give to aborigines. (They already had the 'voice' that everyone else had, being able to vote, etc.).
One of the attempted justifications for the 'voice' (and one that Chris Kenny used) was because of the disadvantage that aborigines suffer. The fatal flaw to this argument is that you have two groups of people who can be represented by a venn diagram. One circle has aborigines. The other circle has people who are disadvantaged. Those circles overlap. But they are not identical. So IF the goal is to alleviate disadvantage, to give a second 'voice' to the aborigines on that basis is to target the wrong characteristic. It is being done on the basis of (partial, supposed) race, not disadvantage. This makes it racist in the sense of not being a fair reason to discriminate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@svilponis
"siamese twins are not always the same sex. There are different methods of creating a siamese twin. Fission and fusion."
False.
Verywell Health: "Because conjoined twins develop from one fertilized egg, they are always identical."
Cleveland Clinic: "Conjoined twins are always identical." and "There are two theories of what causes conjoined twins: Fission: An early embryo, comprising a small sphere of identical cells, splits into two spheres but doesn’t separate completely. The two spheres each develop independently into the conjoined twins. Fusion: An identical twin pregnancy contains separate early twin embryo “spheres” that merge together and join at a random point of connection."
ScienceDirect: "Conjoined twins are the rare identical pairs that are not fully separate from one another."
Wikipedia: "Two possible explanations of the cause of conjoined twins have been proposed. The one that is generally accepted is fission, in which the fertilized egg splits partially. The other explanation, no longer believed to be accurate, is fusion, in which the fertilized egg completely separates, but stem cells (that search for similar cells) find similar stem cells on the other twin and fuse the twins together."
Also, you didn't answer what the third sex is.
"Siamese twins are also a chimera. They are not so rare."
Wikipedia: " Conjoined twins, popularly referred to as Siamese twins ... is a very rare phenomenon,"
1
-
@KristiTalk
"Science doesn’t speak truth, it’s blind faith."
Science is a rational study of God's creation, or the natural world. The scienTISTS are fallible humans who sometimes get things wrong. But science itself is not blind faith.
" “Billions and billions of years ago a small dot the size of a dot on a piece of paper exploded into an entire universe,” said with unholy awe."
Where scientists fall down is in attempting to make certain claims about past events (which is what you're referring to here) which they can't observe, measure, test, nor repeat, although they are normal requirements of science. That is, there is a difference between 'operational' science and 'historical' or 'origins' science. The former properly qualifies as science, and there is not too much to dispute with it. But when it delves into the past, it becomes a lot less certain.
"The evolutionary theory is just that a theory,...why is it still labeled “theory” and not law?"
Not a good argument, because in science, 'theory' does not mean something tentative or unproven. It means an explanation of why something is so. So you also have the theory of gravity, i.e. the explanation on what gravity is and how it works. It does not imply that gravity itself is in doubt. But you're correct to the extent that there is a lot of evidence against evolution.
1
-
1
-
@oldgolfer7435
"You are asking Wendy to throw all logic, science and common sense out of the window..."
No, he's not.
"...and accept a delusional, almost insane belief..."
What's your evidence that it's delusional and almost insane? It is, after all, what millions have believed for millennia, and which is the basis of Western Civilisation and of science.
"Just out of interests sake what is it that you expect to find in heaven, eternal life with the other billions supposedly already there."
For me, I expect to find a wonderful place that I will be very happy with for eternity, with plenty to keep my interest without getting bored.
"That does not sound much of a reward for being scared of offending your god while you are living the one life you have got."
That sounds like a great reward, actually. For simply believing God, because He loves me. Not because of me being scared of Him. I'm not scared of Him, because I know Him to be a very good God.
1
-
1
-
@oldgolfer7435
"My only proof is having lived for a long time, and experienced life as it is,..."
So only subjective feelings. Okay, got that.
" I can no more prove to you that God does not exist, any more than you can prove that he does."
What's your evidence that I can't prove that He does exist?
"However proof in a god, particularly a Catholic invention ..."
God is not a Catholic invention.
"...requires me to revere his representatives on earth, many of whom have committed abominable crimes against humanity."
You are not required to revere his representatives on earth. Well, maybe the Catholic church does (I don't know; I'm not Catholic), but God doesn't.
"Apart from that they all live in wealth and luxury, ..."
Nonsense. Sure, some would, but definitely not "all".
"Their God allows this, and is impotent in all other matters."
Yes, God allows this, by giving us free will. That He chooses not to override that free will doesn't make him impotent. That simply doesn't follow.
"Science explains the advent of the universe,..."
Yes, it does provide an explanation, but is it a correct one? I say no, because it a priori rejects one of the explanations and is contradicted by history. That's not scientific!
"Evolution explains life,..."
Except that it doesn't. Yes, it purports to, but completely fails to do so. It fails to explain, for example, the origin of the genetic information in all living things.
"You are kidding yourself though."
What's your evidence of that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jonatand2045
"The begining, if there is one, there are models in which the big bang isn't the absolute beginning, is the point when time stops so there is no before."
That's self-contradictory. If there was "no before", then it was the absolute beginning.
"If it is logically possible for a god that loves worship to exist, it also possible for one that hates it too."
Why?
"If not, then it is you who must prove why reality enforces such special case."
Huh? I think you're saying that God is subject to reality, whereas God is not subject to anything (except Himself), else He would not be the omnipotent God.
"The logical solution is that it would be contradictory to have all possible omnipotent gods existing, so no gods exist."
I don't see how that follows. Yes, the very idea of more than one omnipotent God is self-contradictory, but one omnipotent God is not a contradiction. Therefore, one God can exist.
"Or if you were asking for scientific evidence, there is none for god."
No, I was not asking for scientific evidence. I was asking for evidence (of any sort) for your claim. If you can't provide the requested evidence, then your claim is baseless. (And I disagree that there is no scientific evidence for God, although it is indirect evidence.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jonatand2045
"That is logical,"
Logic depends on whether the conclusion follows the premises. What are your premises?
"Why is 1 +1=2? It just is,..."
Or did God make it that way? Or is that an aspect of God's nature? Regardless, that's not the same as laws. A law says that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at a particular atmospheric level. But why at 100? That's not the same thing as 1+1=2.
"If god could do illogical things like squaring the circle there would be an omnipotence paradox, so he isn't the one who decides such things."
Not 1+1=2, but it's not in evidence that the laws are in the same category. One thing you've not mentioned is that God is not controlled or limited or restricted by anything outside Himself. So yes, a square circle is not a thing, but water that boils at 110 degrees might be if God had designed that differently.
"if you want to stick with science, no problem, it leaves god out too."
But not for good reason. In fact science is based on the assumption that God created an orderly universe capable of being studied and that we are capable of studying it. Without God, the basis of science is gone.
1
-
@jonatand2045
"You don't agree those 2 are equally logical."
They are not logical statements formed from premises and conclusions. They are just bald statements. If you claim that they are logically equal, then you're implying something that you haven't provided, that if the same unstated premises apply in both cases, you can draw the same conclusion. But what are those unstated premises that apply in both cases? You haven't said.
"Water boiling is not fundamental, it emerges from the basic physical rules. Those rules can be represented by an equation and are indistinguishable from it."
If you're saying that this is not the same sort of thing as mathematical rules, then yes, that was my point, to distinguish physical laws from mathematical rules. Perhaps I didn't need to point that out?
"Mathematical equations are true regardless of god,..."
But are they? This might be the key question here. Are you familiar with Euthyphro's Dilemma? In case you're not, it's a puzzle posed by Socrates. One source puts it this way:
"‘Is something good because the gods love it, or do the gods love it because it is good?’
The horns of the dilemma are:
If something is good merely because the gods like it, then goodness is arbitrary.
If the gods like something for its goodness, then goodness is a property that exists independently of, and above, the gods."
To put it in the context of this discussion, does maths work because that's the way God made it, or does work independently of God?
The solution is that the dilemma poses a false dichotomy, i.e. there is a third option. And that is that the rules of mathematics are actually reflections of God's nature and thought processes. That is, they are not arbitrary rules that God made up, but neither are they "true regardless of god". They come from the very way that God thinks. A different article from the same source as that quote says this: "mathematics reflects the logical, ordered, and good mind of God. As one of His forms of thought, God thinks mathematically. So, the existence of mathematics declares to mankind that God is behind the order in the universe. We can count and perform mathematical calculations because we are image-bearers of God, (Genesis 1:26–27) and can think God’s thoughts after Him."
No doubt you wouldn't agree with that. But your argument doesn't even address that option. It simply assumes maths' independence from God, and dismisses the God option by assuming arbitrariness, thereby falling into the fallacy of a false dichotomy.
1
-
@jonatand2045
"I am not claiming they are logical, i am claiming they are equally logical."
And I'm pointing out that they aren't even logical arguments, just assertions.
"Proof that "god loves/hates worship" is true hasn't been provided,..."
Ever, by anyone? Or by me? I haven't because that has not been the issue. If you mean ever, by anyone, then what's your evidence for that?
"math is "god" "
Maths doesn't design things. So no, maths doesn't qualify as God.
"things like good, evil amd free will are labels we give to phenomenons."
Of course they are labels, just like "God" is a label for the supreme being/creator. But that doesn't make them arbitrary labels.
"When such arbitrary properties are removed, ..."
Why do you think that they are arbitrary?
"existance is the god that remains."
Physical existence can't explain why physical existence exists.
1
-
@jonatand2045
"None of those assertions are self evident,..."
Which assertions? The ones of yours that I said were not logical arguments?
"...so that leaves scientific proof."
Why? Science is not the only way to determine the truth of something.
"Scientific consensus contradicts the holy books,..."
Scientific consensus is based in part on a philosophical position of naturalism. Scientific evidence doesn't contradict the Bible (I'm not talking about other so-called holy books).
"Would you be able to tell the difference between a god that lies and one that doesn't?"
By seeing if what He says matches reality?
"Math doesn't design things, but it contains all possibilities,..."
What does that last phrase even mean?
"The need to explain physical existance goes away once you recognize it is equivalent to its mathematical description."
Why? A description of what is, is not the same as explaining its origin.
"You probably imagine a physical substance that somehow brings equations into existance,..."
No, but I see equations as a description of what is, not a prescription.
"The properties of god are arbitrary because they are a special case that gets to exist,..."
Being a special case and being arbitrary are not the same thing.
"You say that is the nature of a supreme being, but you don't say why that has to be the case."
I don't know which statement of mine you are referring to there.
1
-
@jonatand2045
"I mean that god loves/hates worship is not self evident."
It's evident from what He has revealed to us in the Bible.
"Science does contradict the bible, as there is evidence humans evolved and that there wasn't a global flood."
What evidence? We have never observed goo-to-you evolution (what has been observed, such as a change in allele frequencies, is compatible with creation). And I know of plenty of evidence for a global flood. But you made the claim, so you first: what's your evidence?
"Anyways, if science is not the means by which such things are revealed and they aren't self evident, how can people know?"
By recorded observation and revelation.
"Would you know god is lying if he planted the evidence you see?"
I'm not sure that even makes sense. Perhaps you need to give me an example. If God said that He did something, then 'planted evidence', then He's actually done it! You might find a flaw in that argument, but this is why I want to elaborate on what you mean.
"The phrase means that all that is possible can be described by math."
Describing it does not include making it, yet it being made is possible.
"The thing it describes doesn't need an origin because it is true by default."
That's incoherent. You, a human being, had an origin. You're not "true by default". You had a cause.
"Is like asking what is the origin of the curve y=x^2 describes. What difference do you imagine between the equation and tge universe it describes?"
I don't "imagine" a difference. I see a difference. One is abstract and the other is physical.
"Yes it is arbitrary because it is a special case among other possibilities with no reason to be."
So you've now added the "no reason to be" bit that wasn't there before. But why is there no reason to be?
"It's as if god liked the number 5. Why not 4 or 6?"
Because He liked odd numbers or prime numbers? Because particular numbers have particular relationships with other numbers, that make them more suitable for particular purposes?
"You once said the supreme being loves worship. So far no evidence."
Okay, perhaps I did say that. But that's not the same as saying that any God loves worship; I was talking about the God, Yahweh. Second, you hadn't asked for evidence. But I have now provided evidence in my first response in this post.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cindyfaulkner5725
"what I am saying is that people should be chosen for their job on their merit not on their religious beliefs."
And I don't really disagree, but you obviously don't understand Christianity.
"Religion is a separate thing to politics ..."
I never suggested that they were synonymous. But politicians pass laws to stop (or allow) certain things because they believe those things to be wrong (or good). That is a moral judgement. Moral judgements come from our worldviews or religions.
"...in all fairness there are a great number of people who have no religious beliefs."
First, that depends on your definition of "religion". Its semantic range includes the core set of beliefs that you base your life on. By that definition, everyone has religious beliefs. But I'll put it another way. Theistic religions are worldviews, and we all have a worldview. So you're effectively saying some worldviews (theistic ones) should stay out of politics, whilst other worldviews (atheistic/agnostic ones) are okay. That's unfair and undemocratic.
Second, there are far more people holding theistic worldviews than non-theistic ones.
"Religion has caused more wars and discord than anything else."
That's an atheist myth, but it's not according to the scholarship. The three-volume Encyclopedia of Wars classifies only seven percent of wars as religious ones (and one particular non-Christian religion makes up more than half of that seven percent). Further, the greatest number of killings in history were by atheist regimes in the 20th century.
"Religion is a personal and private issue ..."
Says who? Atheists? They'd love that! But no, Christianity is explicitly a public matter. And as such, has done an enormous amount of good in the world. As one sociologist/historian wrote, “Christianity created Western Civilization. Had the followers of Jesus remained an obscure Jewish sect, most of you would not have learned to read and the rest of you would be reading from hand copied scrolls. Without a theology committed to reason, progress, and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800: A world with many astrologers and alchemists but no scientists. A world of despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys, and pianos. A world where most infants do not live to the age of five and many women die in childbirth–a world truly living in "dark ages."
The modern world arose only in Christian societies. Not in Islam. Not in Asia. Not in a "secular" society–there having been none. And all the modernization that has since occurred outside Christendom was imported from the West, often brought by colonizers and missionaries.”
"...personal private issues have no place in politics, ..."
Faulty premises typically lead to faulty conclusions, as in this case.
"...if you are in politics you are there to serve your constituents not yourself ..."
Yes, but that is a Christian view, not an atheistic/secular one. (I'm not suggesting that atheists don't hold that view, but they don't get it from atheism.)
"Take for example abortion if you are of religious belief you may be against it but if your constituents are for abortion then your religious views should not come into your vote as you will be going against your voters."
You have a low view of voters if you think that they are in favour of killing innocent humans. Because that's exactly what abortion is, and the reason that so many people are in favour of it is due to government and media propaganda. In other words, the voters have been misled about it. I recall reading about an American survey from about 40(?) years ago, which showed that about 80% of people were opposed to abortion, but 80% of journalists were in favour of it. So is it any surprise that now many more are in favour of it?
"So no religion should stay out of politics."
But atheist views are okay? Right? How self-serving!
"What happens in Scotland should the new first minister decide as he is Muslim that he wants to bring in sharia law because that is part of his religious laws?"
First, thanks in part to Christianity, Scotland is a democracy and he couldn't do that all by himself. Second, it should be opposed, because contrary to another atheist myth, not all religions are created equal. Christianity is, objectively, very good, and others—including atheist ones—are worse and wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mr4nders0n
"Considering the absolute wonder of the achievements of western civilisation, of which I would include Paganism, Druidism, Wicca, Magick, Alchemy..."
What makes any of those "achievements"? And what makes you think that they derived from Western Civilisation?
"...Christianity ..."
Christianity was not an achievement of Western Civilisation. Rather, Western Civilisation is an achievement (or product) of Christianity, which had its nominal beginnings in the Middle East (Israel, specifically).
"...as well as Logic, Reason, Arts & Sciences, ..."
Christianity embraced logic and reason, influenced art, and founded modern science.
"I suspect, that the present flow of effluence that spews forth from the woke culture isn't capable of destroying the depth and might of the incredible achievements of such a grand a civilisation as the west,..."
I hope and pray that it won't, but much of it is an attack on Christianity, which is the basis of Western Civilisation. Trying to defend the West without defending Christianity is like trying to preserve the fruit on a tree having cut the tree from its roots.
"... though it has grown, from infancy, from a place of arrogance, at least in its secular aspect, that it could benefit tremendously from eastern and far eastern philosophy augmentation,..."
In other words, go away from Christianity.
"Woke culture seems to be what has happened to western civilisation when it is so utterly devoid of humility."
No, not humility. As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said,
“More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.”
"Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.” ”
And of course much of the wokeness comes from Marxism, the very thing that brought the disasters on Russia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danieljoseph369
"The W is 2 sixes back to back,"
Or maybe it's just a W?
"the T has a six at the top,"
Looks just like a loop to me.
"the D is a backward six"
Not just a D? Why isn't it just a D? After all, a 6 doesn't have a straight line intersecting it.
"and then the dot on the I is a six"
It looks more like a 0 to me, the way computers sometimes have zeroes, with a line through it.
"the top of the Y is a six"
A 6 doesn't have two lines crossing. So no.
"3 of them are unbroken/undebateable sixes."
And yet I disputed every single one of them. So obviously not undebatable at all.
You missed at least one, by the way. The i is a six straightened out.
"I had provided the logo as evidence,..."
True. You have. And the evidence is shown to be as weak as wet tissue paper.
"this isn't a debate relying on evidence,"
Also true. It relies instead on seeing things that aren't there; on seeing almost any vaguely-similar shape as a six. Of course by that standard the S looks like a five, and the E is a 3 back to front. The I, if not a six, is a one. As is the L and the T, if you rotate them 180 degrees. The N is a 2 on its side. So you don't have six sixes—you have 66116165236.
Not to mention that the number of the antichrist is 666, not 666666.
"you either see it or you've cognitive dissonance"
No, you either don't see it or you imagine it.
1
-
@danieljoseph369
"Yeah a loop in the shape of a 6."
A six lying on its side and, unlike a 6, part of something else.
"I never said the letters were sixes just that sixes are in the letters."
Actually, you said that it is "made up of" six sixes.
"EDIT: it's only 3 Sixes unbroken facing the correct way"
Okay, so having been shown to be wrong, you're now changing your claim.
But which three are they? One of the (supposed) sixes in the W is back to front, which leaves five. The one in the D is back to front and broken, so that leaves four. The ones on the I, the T, and the Y are lying on their side, so that leaves one. Oops.
"It doesn't have 2 lines crossing it has a line below it"
The "line below" is continuous with the line above, so it crosses the more-horizontal part.
"It isn't a 6 without a hole"
It can be if we want it to be. And that's my point. You can argue as much as you like if you make up the rules as you go.
Besides, a 6 has one hole, not two. An 8 has two. So the dot on the I is an eight.
"I never said anything about changing the logo."
I didn't change the logo. Like you, I said that it could be considered a 6 if ... (e.g. you turn it round or reverse it). You don't like my 'ifs'? Well, I don't like yours.
1
-
1
-
@danieljoseph369
I have a problem. YouTube has long played funny with comments, accepting them but deleting them moments later, or (even worse) hiding them from everyone except the person posting them, which is deceptive. Lately it's been hiding lots of comments posted by various people. It says things like "View 3 replies", but when you click on that you see one or two replies.
Also, when I get a notification of a reply and click on the link, I can see the reply, but the other comments are hidden. When I show the other comments, the original one (often) disappears! Note that the same behaviour occurs even if I used a different browser that I'm not logged into YouTube with.
In addition to all that, I had a notification (now two notifications) that you had posted a reply to me in this thread that asked a question that was completely off-topic for this thread (at least as far as I recall, and as far as any of the visible comments are concerned), but on-topic for a different discussion I've been having with a different person below a different video. So with the first notification, I ignored it as a glitch. Now I have a second notification. Maybe it's not a glitch after all, but if not, that doesn't explain how come you're asking me a completely unrelated question.
So with that background out of the way, the questions I see from you are:
1. "who's more similar to the Chimps out of Humans and the other Primates?"
2. " more importantly do you believe us to be more like Chimps than the other Primates are?"
My answer to that would be that it depends on what you are comparing. Scientists do experiments on chimps (and other primates?) as alternatives to doing them on humans, because of their similarity to us. But they also do experiments on mice, guinea pigs, and pigs, because in particular ways, those animals are more similar to us.
'But', you're likely to ask, 'are chimps similar to us in a greater number of ways than with other primates?' The problem with that is, does anyone have an exhaustive list of similarities to do a count on?
And what counts as "similar" anyway? What about, hypothetically, something in which something in chimps and humans looks the same but acts differently? Or looks the same but has different developmental pathway, or different genes? Similarity is subjective.
So I don't believe that I can give an objective answer to that question.
1
-
@danieljoseph369
"it's happening to many people including myself."
I'm not surprised, given that it's happening to me even when I'm not logged in. But glitches like that made me wonder if there was a further glitch in it notifying me of a response by someone else in another thread but attributing it to you in this thread. So that's not the case—it really was you asking. I'm curious as to why.
"they haven't done a Chimp to other Primate DNA comparison,..."
Are you sure about that? I would have thought that they had.
"which is peculiar considering they're our closest relatives."
Well, considering that evolutionists believe that they (chimps) are our closest relatives.
"who shares more DNA? is what I mean by similar"
That's a question that has several answers. Originally, before the entire human and chimp genomes had been mapped, they had partial genome mappings only. So let's say that they had ten parts (ten different segments) of each genome, but they didn't know where in the genome each of those parts came from. So what they did is say "Part 1 of the human genome is similar to part 8 of the chimp genome, so let's see how similar they are. And human part 3 is similar to chimp part 6, so we'll compare them too. But human part 2 is rather different to any of the chimp parts, so let's assume that aligns with a chimp part that we don't have", and so on. So what they did is a) assume that they could align them in the first place on the grounds of evolutionary relationship, and b) only compare similar parts! When you only compare similar parts, then you're biasing the result towards similarity. So they came up with a figure of around 98%/99% similarity.
However, since then we have mapped the entire genomes. But most of the genome was considered 'junk DNA', i.e. non-functioning evolutionary leftovers. It wasn't just an assumption that there would be evolutionary leftovers; having 'junk DNA' helped to solve 'Haldane's Dilemma', a problem about how changes in the DNA would become 'fixed' in the population. So it was actually a requirement of evolution.
So when we had the entire genome, they compared more of it, although still not the supposed 'junk DNA'. And even then, they excluded certain differences from their studies.
But we've since learned that at least a large proportion of that supposed 'junk DNA' is not junk at all, but has function (albeit not protein production). And when you take it all into account and don't arbitrarily exclude certain types of differences, you find that the similarity drops to at least as low as around 85% and possibly as low as around 65%!
1
-
@danieljoseph369
"I can't find any DNA percentages of Pan to the other Primates except Humans..."
Okay. I thought that they would exist, but I haven't looked for them myself. Hang on, I'll have a quick look...
Okay, I found this on the Smithsonian website:
"The DNA difference [of humans] with gorillas, another of the African apes, is about 1.6%. Most importantly, chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans all show this same amount of difference from gorillas. A difference of 3.1% distinguishes us and the African apes from the Asian great ape, the orangutan. How do the monkeys stack up? All of the great apes and humans differ from rhesus monkeys, for example, by about 7% in their DNA."
Interestingly, it immediately goes on to point out that the figures are not of the entire genome (my bolding):
"Geneticists have come up with a variety of ways of calculating the percentages, which give different impressions about how similar chimpanzees and humans are. The 1.2% chimp-human distinction, for example, involves a measurement of only substitutions in the base building blocks of those genes that chimpanzees and humans share. A comparison of the entire genome, however, indicates that segments of DNA have also been deleted, duplicated over and over, or inserted from one part of the genome into another. When these differences are counted, there is an additional 4 to 5% distinction between the human and chimpanzee genomes."
"I wasn't aware of the fact some scientists are saying the percentages are lower as I've only seen the 98-99% videos."
Find the paper by Tomkins and Bergman titled "Genomic monkey business—estimates of nearly identical human–chimp DNA similarity re-evaluated using omitted data".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jfkfitirjdjjsisieirirjfjdj5967
"this is how a decent human being..."
Treating people who disagree with you as not being decent is to attack the other person rather than his argument, which is a logical fallacy and doesn't do your credibility any good.
"...us original peoples own the land,...
So you say, but at least you attempt some reasons this time.
"1,we was already ere when you people finally found us,..."
True, but how does that mean that you own the land?
"2,we told yas we’ve been ere forever,..."
Except you clearly haven't. Aborigines came here just as Europeans did later.
"...your science can verify at least 60 000 years,buddy..."
Except that it can't. You have no recorded history to show that, and the dates are derived from naturalistic assumptions (which assumptions are contrary to at least some of your Dreamtime legends), and supported by unreliable dating methods.
"...you know we own the land,..."
No, I don't. Which is why I'm asking for evidence. You at least attempted some this time, but it doesn't make your case.
"...your asking for a piece of paper to show ownership,..."
I'm asking for evidence. It could be recorded in clay tablets for all I care. But claims are not evidence.
"...even if we did have a deed it wouldn’t have stoped yas colinisation ere"
You're now engaging in hypotheticals.
1
-
@jfkfitirjdjjsisieirirjfjdj5967
"yeah you’ll never get it,..."
Not as long as you fail to provide evidence that withstands scrutiny.
"you people make all the rules to benefit you "
The rules of logic benefit us??
"...you have no right coming ere ..."
But you did? That suggests a double standard.
"and disrespect my peoples and stealing our property,"
I agree that nobody should have done that, but then only some people were guilty of that, and you haven't shown that it was, legally, your property anyway.
"we was ere first it’s ours,"
What's your evidence that you were here first? I believe that there is some evidence of another people group that Aborigines might have displaced.
"but I suppose you can make anything up because your wyt and ya say so"
I don't make things up, although I'm capable of it. Just as you are. So how do I know that you're not making things up? Well, evidence would tell me that, but that's what you're short on.
1
-
@jfkfitirjdjjsisieirirjfjdj5967
"yeah I’ve heard that there was many more tribes ere before you people came ere"
Which is clearly not what I asked about.
"have you got any skeletons or any evidence at all that another race of people was ere before us,..."
Not another race (we are all part of the human race), but yes, there are such skeletons. The Kow Swamp skeletons are different to aborigines. Not that that proves anything; it could simply be that aborigines had more variation than seen now. (And other experts disagree on it, but that could be because it's politically incorrect to suggest that aborigines weren't the first people.) So it's not proof, but it is evidence. Further, Tasmanian aborigines are often considered a separate group, and it could well be that they inhabited the mainland first, until a later group displaced them from the mainland. So the question is whether there's any good evidence of aborigines being the first humans here.
"there won’t be because I know for a fact my peoples have always been ere,..."
Not "always". As I said, Aborigines came here from elsewhere also.
"...doing what yas have been doing all over the world for the past thousand years with your bogus religion..."
What's bogus about it?
"...it was all about greed and power over other peoples,..."
Please provide evidence of it being "all about" greed and power. In fact settlement started, at least in part, as a way to be more humane to British convicts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@myday805
"What a load of rubbish and total failure in understanding the voting process."
Except that it's not.
"When you number the boxes say 1to 6 what that means is that you voted for every single one of them."
So you're saying that you cast six votes? No, that's incorrect. You only get one vote. You have cast your vote for the candidate you've put "1" against. If, and only if, that candidate gets eliminated (because nobody has received 50% of the vote), then your one vote gets transferred to the candidate you put "2" against. And so on.
"It doesn' matter that you've preferenced them they're still votes..."
No, "they" are not still "votes". You get one vote.
"...they're votes they'll use to haggle with the major parties."
Huh? No haggling is involved. You're one vote goes to whoever you have given it to. End of story.
"Labor got only about 30% of the votes in the last election and the Greens used all their votes, including the votes they got from people who preferenced them last, and gave them to Labor."
False. It is you who doesn't understand the voting process. The Greens did nothing with their votes. If the Greens were eliminated, then all the people who voted Greens had the voters' next preference reallocated to whichever candidate the voters preferenced next.
"I think that anyone who wouldn't prefer to vote one vote for just one candidate or party rather than this preference voting rort is an idiot.."
The idiots would be those who don't understand how the vote counting works.
Having said all that, that applies to the Legislative Assembly (the lower house), where you elect one person with your one vote. The Legislative Council (the upper house) has you electing five people, so you effectively get five votes. This process is more complicated, but the principle is similar. In the lower house, a candidate must get 50% of the vote. In the upper house, the quota is smaller. If a candidate gets more than the quota, then the next preference of the voter is used to select the next candidate. So if the top Liberal candidate (A) get's 40% of the vote and the quota is 16%, then the next preference of the people who voted for A are counted. As most people who vote Liberal will (explicitly or effectively) put the second Liberal candidate second, votes are passed onto them. And so on. If there are not five candidates getting the quota, then, as in the lower house, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and the voter's next preference is used.
The complication is that if you vote above the line (in the upper house), then you are telling the vote counters that you want your preferences allocated according to the parties' wishes. That's what his video is about—the deals done behind the scenes about those preference. That is where the haggling is done. Before the election. But that is only a problem if you vote above the line. Vote below the line and it's all under your control.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mattmatty4670
"lol I didn't think you would research Svante Paabo work."
I said that I wouldn't. Unless you explained the relevance of it to this discussion, which you never did before now.
"It does refute your magic invisible god."
I don't have a magic invisible god, so I'd obviously be wasting my time.
"Fact check me please. Cheers"
Okay, given that you have finally given a very tenuous idea of relevance, I had a look. The first problem was that there were a lot of videos about the bloke rather than him explaining his views, but I did find a TED Talk titled "Svante Pääbo: DNA clues to our inner neanderthal" and watched that.
But I saw nothing in it to refute the biblical account. For starters, he didn't mention God. Yes, there were some things where he spun a typical evolutionary story, but that's about it. Perhaps you should direct me to a particular video or document (not too long) and tell me precisely how he supposed refutes God. I suspect actually that he does no such thing, partly because you are simply ignorant of what fits with the biblical account and what doesn't. But go ahead, put me to the test with specific arguments.
1
-
@mattmatty4670
" lol more dribble ay buddy."
Not at all. You're just insulting me, presumably because you can't sensibly answer me.
"Don't be scared ok I know your a bit confused (religious indoctrination)"
I'm not scared and not confused and not indoctrinated. I look at both sides of an issue. Do you?
"Do yourself a favour n do a bit of research."
I've done plenty. How much have you done?
"Svante Paabo extracting DNA from Neanderthal, another human species is/dose refute Adam and Eve biblical story."
First, you don't explain how it refutes Adam and Eve. I suggested that you were ignorant of what fits the biblical account and what doesn't, and this confirms it. Neanderthals, like all humans, were descended from Adam and Eve.
Second, Neanderthals were not another human species, but a variety of the same species. The fact that they interbred with non-Neanderthals makes them the same species, and some scientists classify them as homo sapiens neanderthalensis
"No getting around those facts, ..."
You haven't shown that it's a fact that it refutes Adam and Eve.
"Denisovan, Neandthals, Sapiens are all human species..."
They are all the one species, homo sapiens.
"Facts buddy ok"
Opinions and half-truths are not facts. I fact-checked you. You were wrong.
1
-
@mattmatty4670
"buddy you n me are sapiens ok"
Yep. And, as I have mentioned, so are Neanderthals according to some scientists, and Denisovans have not been classified as not being sapiens.
"... according to your so called god offspring from Adam and Eve ok ..."
Not "so called" but otherwise yes.
"Neanderthal and the Denisovans are human species with their own mapped DNA. that's 3 human species"
What makes a "species"?
"Like I've said I think your a bit confused but do the research buddy."
Like I said, I've done it.
"3 human species not 1 human species."
As I asked, what makes a "species"? What makes one living thing the same or different species to another? And I hope you realise that, apart from identical twins, we all have different sets of DNA.
"If your god created us Sapiens what god created the Neandthals and what god created the Denisovans,"
God created Adam and Eve. Like many kinds of living things that He created, the design is that offspring get half of their DNA from their mother, and half from their father. But which actual bits they get from each is different for every person. Further, that means that they don't get some of each parent's DNA. They get half but miss out on the other half. But you might find that for a given bit if DNA, offspring 1 gets it and offspring 2 doesn't.
So the offspring's DNA is different to both parents. And that keeps happening generation after generation.
Natural selection and other factors can result in some offspring having DNA-based traits being better-suited to particular environments. Like having more hair in colder environments, perhaps. That doesn't mean that they've gained the DNA for long hair; it means that they've lost the DNA for short hair. You can also have mutations making random changes. These are often lethal or debilitating, but can sometimes make just a minor change that doesn't seriously damage them. Red hair is the result of a mutation, for example.
You could end up with the result that some groups of people are noticeably different to other groups of people. Like some having longer hair and others having shorter hair. Or some have more melanin in their skin and others have less melanin. And so on.
So Neanderthals and Denisovans are, like that, just different varieties of humans, with very similar, but somewhat different, DNA. As I said, Neanderthals and Denisovans and so-called 'modern' humans can all interbreed. That makes them all the one species, depending on how you define that. They are all much more similar than great danes are to chihuahuas are to bulldogs, yet domestic dogs are also all classified as the one species.
1
-
1
-
@mattmatty4670
"no they don't buddy."
Encyclopaedia Britannica starts its entry this way: "Neanderthal, ( Homo neanderthalensis, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis ),"
An article in New Scientist is headed "Welcome to the family, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis "
That treats them as the same species as us (but a different sub-species). True, not everybody agrees, but I never said everybody does.
"All three are classified as homo if that's what you mean."
No, that's not what I mean.
"There's another species found in china n another on the Philippines island BUT they have yet to extract DNA - - yet."
So how can you be sure that they are another species? And why haven't you explained what a 'species' is?
"Sapiens n Neanderthals have separate DNA."
You and I have separate DNA. Does that make us different species? I know I'm Homo sapiens, so what are you?
"Time to move on from a magic invisible god floating above this planet. "
Time for you to move on from mockery and repeating yourself to actual rational arguments. I have no knowledge of a magic invisible god floating above this planet. You made that up.
"research the other human species if you want."
There are no other human species. There is only one species, which we know as Homo sapiens.
"Do you want the other names ?"
You mean like Homo erectus? They were Homo sapiens as well. Or perhaps you can show that they can't interbreed with Homo sapiens? Oh, that's right, you can't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aiden777able
"did you no there are 40,000 christian religions all claiming to have the truth."
False. First, they are not 40,000 Christian religions, but around 40,000 Christian church organisations. For example, American Catholics and Australian Catholics are counted as two, because they are organisationally distinct.
Second, yes, they do all claim to have the truth—the same truth, that Jesus is God. So you point is ...?
"Does that mean there are 40,000 God's,?"
No.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@archive2500
"If there is lack of evidence then what is the sense of claiming something."
You're the one claiming a lack of evidence, not me.
"Christianity has the story of the Garden of Eve which features a talking snake."
Yes, it does (sort of). But that's not what you claimed. That is, you didn't claim that the snake in the Garden of Eden couldn't talk. You implicit claim was that Christianity says that snakes (plural) talk (present tense).
Further, you ignore that it was actually Satan talking through the snake.
"If Adam and Eve is perfect then it would not make sense that 8 billion people right now would suddenly be imperfect, would it?"
No, but then nobody claims that they would "right now ... suddenly" be imperfect. Instead, the claim is that they deteriorated over time, as genetic defects accumulated. This is supported by science, which has shown that each new generation gains around 100 additional mutations.
"Make it make sense."
God created everything without any fault or error, but then man rejected God, so He withdrew a bit, and this allowed things to start running down. Including genomes. Ignoring whether or not there is evidence for that, it is a quite rational position to take and therefore it makes sense.
"...mutations happen throughout the generations, therefore, the lineage would slowly degenerate like the royal bloodlines."
Exactly. Which is why we have many, many, genetic defects today. One paper I've read says "The Human Gene Mutation Database currently [this was in 2014] contains records of more than 141,000 mutations. New ones are being discovered at a rate of over 11,000 per year. A September 2012 summary reported that of these about 6,000 constitute ‘disease associated’ and ‘functional’ polymorphisms (different versions of a DNA sequence)."
"Your never disproved my counterarguments."
I don't need to disprove your counterarguments. All I need to do is show that your arguments are faulty. Your arguments could be based on faulty reasoning and yet still be right. If I show that they are based on faulty reasoning, then I've shown that they don't constitute evidence, even if they happen to be correct. But what counterarguments did I not rebut?
"Stop being in denial."
Why? What if you're wrong? Denial would be appropriate.
"Science easily disproves these non-sense."
Do you mean empirical science based on observation, measurement, testing, and repeatability? The sort of science that cannot be done on events in the past? That's not so easy. And of course you haven't shown it to be nonsense.
"To start there, there is no evidence of Adam and Eve,.."
So again, an evidence-free claim of a lack of evidence. And common sense, to quote you, easily debunks that. There is, for starters, the Bible. The very fact that this highly-regarded, proven-reliable, book records it, IS evidence. You can argue that the evidence is faulty in some way, but saying that there is no evidence is just you being in denial.
"I could go on and on about these baseless claims. Just adding more points to my claim."
I'm sure you could go on and on. But can you actually show that they are baseless? That's the point. So far you've failed.
What you don't realise or ignore is that these "baseless" claims were actually the basis for Western Civilisation and many of the advances it has made, including founding science. That is, many intelligent people have believed those claims and they have been studied intensely for a long time, and yet many intelligent people still believe those claims. Because the evidence is actually there, contrary to your claims of no evidence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stephenfitzpatrick3031
"OK , let us get educated ."
I was trying to do that!
" "Western civilization" was around long before Christianity ."
That depends on how you define it, but even if you define it in a way that allows for that, that doesn't contradict what I said. Christianity is the basis for Western Civilisation for most of the past 2000 years, even if it wasn't the original basis. Sociologist Rodney Stark wrote:
“Christianity created Western Civilization. Had the followers of Jesus remained an obscure Jewish sect, most of you would not have learned to read and the rest of you would be reading from hand copied scrolls. Without a theology committed to reason, progress, and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800: A world with many astrologers and alchemists but no scientists. A world of despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys, and pianos. A world where most infants do not live to the age of five and many women die in childbirth–a world truly living in "dark ages."
“The modern world arose only in Christian societies. Not in Islam. Not in Asia. Not in a "secular" society–there having been none. And all the modernization that has since occurred outside Christendom was imported from the West, often brought by colonizers and missionaries.”
"In our secular state atheism /agnosticism or any religion is not imposed on anyone ."
It is. Many of the values and principles that are taken as Western values and principles, and which we have made laws about, derive from Christianity. For example, historian Tom Holland points out that in ancient Rome, "The sexual economy is founded on the absolute right of free Roman males to have sex with anyone that they want any way that they like." Today we "impose" the idea that rape is wrong, and yet that idea came from Christianity, according to Holland. And I could cite atheists who admit that atheism has no basis for saying that rape is wrong.
But also Marxist (atheist) ideas such as transgenderism are imposed on people today, to give an example the other way.
"In our civilization , here in Australia , we have separation of state and religion ."
Yes, with the constitution using very similar wording to that of the U.S. constitution in that regard. The idea of that was that the state could not declare a particular "religion" (or church organisation) to be the state church. The purpose ws not to keep religion out of public life, though.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@msanthropic5401
"I still don’t believe that’s what actually happened."
Why not? I went looking for third-party evidence, and found it.
"It’ll turn out to be that she wasn’t following the rules in some obscure way or something, so they kicked her out."
And yet the speaker of the house apologised, saying that it wasn't against the rules.
"These stories always end up like that - it’s fake manufactured outrage designed to make people think that oppression surrounds them at every turn..."
Actually, what actually happens (and it's happened to me), is that someone expresses a politically-incorrect view, and are punished for it. But no, they are never punished for their view, but for violating club or company or etc. policy. But the policy essentially says that you can't express those views!
"...(usually from white men),..."
What does skin tone and sex have to do with it?
"All that’s remembered is the lie."
In cases that it was a lie, then yes. But when it's the truth, that's not remembered either, thanks to widely-promulgated obfuscation by the left and the mainstream media.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@baldmansopinion2007
I've seen the Veritasium video before: it's very interesting. I wouldn't hang my hat on that as conclusive evidence that we are not seeing into the "past', but it does refute the dogmatic position that we are seeing into the past.
I hadn't seen Sheldrake's talk. It's interesting, and makes good points about the materialistic views of most scientists, but I do have some issues with it. He claims that given that everything evolved, how can we be sure that the 'constants' are actually constant. The interesting thing is that the idea of constants and laws didn't come about they way he claims, but by the early scientists believing that they were laws and constants because God is a consistent God and a law-making God. Physics obey the laws not because physics is anthropomorphistic, but because God designed physics that way.
As Loren Eiseley said (my emphasis): "The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation … . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption. "
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Grumnut3
"If you sort by either "Top Comments" or "Newest First" you'll see it under Grumnut3 as the first entry."
Ah, I get you. "Top Comments" doesn't show it, but "Newest First" does.
"The point I was making was that all scientists at Antarctica were of one mind of the seriousness of global warming. "
So anybody who disagreed wasn't allowed to be there, or were censored or forced into silence. How does that help your argument?
"In fact, here's an exercise for you. Try searching Google Scholar for "Climate Change" and see if you can find 1 paper that states it's NOT due to anthropogenic causes."
Censorship in science means that that wouldn't prove anything. Lancet editor Richard Horton:
“The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.”
Note that I'm not knocking peer review per se, but with politically charged issues like this, you can't trust it—and therefore the journals—to be unbiased. And dissidents know this, so if they do manage to get a paper published that doesn't follow the party line, they are not going to blatantly state that it's not due to anthropogenic causes.
"I'll owe you a beer if you do."
No thanks. I'm a teetotaller.
"In Fact, seeing as I make a good home brew, I'll let you have that."
There's no such thing as a "good" home brew, given that it contains a dangerous, addictive, drug.
"No. It's not weather when its averaged over 30 years."
Why not? Or more to the point, why pick on 30 years? We know that weather/climate changes over even longer periods.
"Seeing as they have records in Antarctica that stretch back 800,000 years,..."
Who took those records 800,000 years ago? Yes, I know, it's not records from then, but ice cores etc. But they can be very open to interpretation, unlike actual records.
"In fact they can tell the climate at the equator 800,000 years ago."
They've invented a time machine?
"The point is that a particular PM TRIED to close it for ideological reasons."
I asked previously for evidence of motive, but you've still failed to provide that. And yet you repeat the claim of bad motivation. Also, perhaps his "ideology" was to stick with facts and evidence, not climate alarmism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrismurphy3124
"Cutting it back resulted in our internet being the same as it was before, we barely have any increase in speed."
Nonsense. I know I have considerably greater speed than before, and I'm not on the highest speed.
"Its not what 'I would prefer' its what is best for our country & our countries future."
According to your opinion. You haven't shown that.
"We spent billions of dollars on a subpar utility, it would have been better to finish the job rather than sabotage it."
It wasn't sabotaged, and it's not sub-par. Very few people need higher speed to their home than what copper can offer, and those that need more can get fibre. That makes more sense than giving everyone fibre even when they don't need it.
"Trinidad, Russia, Estonia and the Czech Republic have faster internet than us because of this."
Because of us? Or because they chose, not necessarily wisely, to have faster speeds? You know that envy is not a good thing?
"We spent most of the money anyway!!"
First, did we really? Second, was that foreseen, or due to bungling or change of scope?
"I never justified there support or claimed they support it, frankly its irrelevant."
Arguing that it's going to happen anyway as a reason to go along with it is justifying the support.
"We are not wasting it,..."
If we stopping using it, that's a waste.
"...unfortunately for Australia, many countries are taking up green energy/vehicles..."
Why is that unfortunate for Australia?
"...it is within our interest to pursue these technologies so we are positioned ahead of the rest."
Why is it? Why is pursuing uneconomical technology a good thing? To keep ahead of the Jones' There's that envy again.
"BHP can see that most countries/cities are moving towards electric vehicles and oil profits are on the decline, ..."
Okay, so it's the second reason I gave. That still doesn't make them a valid example of why we should go that way. That's basically saying that we should follow the crowd, whereas another commenter on this pages was telling me to think for myself. So which should it be?
"...they also foresee a food shortage in the future and are investing in potash."
More lefty lunacy. Again. food shortages have been predicted for decades, no more like centuries. Instead, we've actually reduce shortages.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dvr1382
"first of all, you should read the hospitals website."
Which parts? I have had a look, and they do have gender-affirming 'care' for children. And I didn't see anything about a minimum age.
"second thing, it cant be true because 3 year olds dont even know what gender is. toddlers start understanding the concept of gender at 4-5 years of age."
That doesn't stop their parents wanting gender-affirming 'care' for them.
"so gender affirming care at such a young age is literally just a haircut and clothes change."
As I asked you in another thread, please also explain why endorsing a lie can be called "just a haircut and clothes change".
"at the beginning of puberty, if the child identifies as trans, they can take hormone blockers, which basically works by blocking the hormones — testosterone and estrogen — that lead to puberty-related changes in your body."
And you don't see a problem with that?
"... its can also be reversed very easly..."
I've see that claim disputed.
"...also given to some cisgender children..."
That's "children". The "cisgender" adjective is completely superfluous, and shows your support for a child-abuse ideology.
"...when they are full grown adults they can have top or bottom surgery."
They can currently, in some places, get that before being adults. Which is part of the problem.
"...keep in mind that most people get hrt when they are already adults because not everyone lives in an upper class supportive household."
By "supportive household" I take it you're referring to supporting a delusion.
"another ps: to get any gender affirming care, years of therapy are needed. to have hormone blockers or do hrt you need to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria by a professional therapist."
A therapist who endorses such delusions, in most cases. And what does the "therapy" do? Endorse the delusion even earlier?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@naomiwaetford2719
"they have the three branches. We don’t. "
Incorrect. Australia has three branches also.
"also their 3rd branch, the judicial branch."
As do we. The court system. From "Infosheet 20 - The Australian system of government" on the australian government website: "The Constitution of Australia establishes the Federal Government by providing for the Parliament, the Executive Government and the Judicature (more usually called the Judiciary)—sometimes referred to as the ‘three arms of government’."
"What do we have from the monarchy to dictate within those frameworks when passing laws?"
I'm not sure that I understand the question. As I said, the President in America is political, whereas the Governor General in Australia is not, and simply rubber-stamps the legislation. Is that what you're getting at?
"To keep saying that it’s a democracy is to say that that is what it is solely,..."
Not at all. And that's missing the point in any case. See my next point.
"We’re not saying that it’s not a Democracy..."
Actually, that's precisely what the opening poster did say: "not a democracy". If he said that America has a constitutional republic, I would not have commented. But he didn't leave it at that. He explicitly said that it's "not a democracy". That is what I was disagreeing with.
"...THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE CONSTITUTION limits the majority and protects the minority."
But how is that a "difference"? Australia is also a democracy, and not a constitutional republic, but also has a constitution that does the same sort of thing.
"I always understood that the Queen now King is just a figurehead and they don’t have any bearing on our laws."
True in practice if not in principle. The king is also the "defender of the faith" and yet fails to block laws that attach Christianity (the foundation of Western Civilisation). And yes, as I have already agreed, that is a difference between the U.S. and Australia. But not a difference that means that it's "not a democracy".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@naomiwaetford2719
"Tucker Carlson did an excellent synopsis on American democracy just today."
Is that the video "Tucker: Biden is describing the Soviet version of democracy"?
First, I don't think that has any bearing on this discussion.
Second, maybe I'm being pedantic, but I don't agree with him drawing the contrast between American democracy and Soviet democracy. That is, Soviet 'democracy' is not another form of democracy just because they appropriate the term. Rather, it's pretending to be democracy but really isn't democracy at all. The contrast should be between actual democracy as in the U.S. (or Australia, or England, or various other places) and the undemocratic communist systems that claim to be democratic but really aren't.
He's right, of course, that Democrat claims that (U.S.) democracy is under threat is simply false political rhetoric. The main threat it's under is from the Democrats themselves (and in that sense Biden and the others are correct that this is an election about the future of democracy—if the Democrats win, democracy is in danger).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Brett Mitchell
So you haven't watched the video I pointed you to?
Here's another scholarly view, as related by journalist David Aikman:
---------------------
The eighteen American tourists visiting China weren’t expecting much from the evening’s lecture. They were already exhausted from a day of touring in Beijing. But what the speaker had to say astonished them.
“One of the things we were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world,” he said. “We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next, we focused on your economic system. But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West has been so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.”
This was not coming from some ultra-conservative think tank in Orange County, California or from Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. This was a scholar from China's premier academic research institute, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) in Beijing in 2002.
---------------------
Yes, Ancient Greece and Rome had personal property rights and lawful meritocracy for the elite. Not for everyone else, though.
No, Christianity did not have plenty of bloodthirsty wars. It mostly spread by preaching and by example. That's not to say that there were not exceptions to the rule, but that wasn't the rule.
"Slavery was not banned under Christianity either."
On the contrary, early Popes issued edicts against it, and although they had limited effect, the Christian worldview—which viewed slaves as equal to masters before God—resulted in it dying out. It came back centuries later, supported by atheists in the so-called Enlightenment, but it was Christians such as John Newton and William Wilberforce in particular who campaigned tirelessly against it, getting it abolished everywhere Britain could do something about it. America followed suit, with a lot of that being led by Christians too. Christianity is the only religion to have gotten rid of it, and did so twice. (ref: Unimaginable, Jeremiah Johnson.)
"Nor were women’s rights a thing!"
Again, wrong. Christian teaching is that women are equal to men before God. Christianity has alway treated women better than other religions, including passing laws to prevent them being used as pit ponies in mines, getting them the vote, educating them along with men, and more.
"Western Civilisation existed long before Monotheism."
On the contrary, monotheism started with creation. Polytheism and other isms came later.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nigelmcculloch3746
"... there really is a superior attitude with European culture that goes back centuries, ..."
True. And greatly magnified with Darwin's (1859) claims of evolution. Leading evolutionist the late Stephen J. Gould wrote:
"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory. The litany is familiar: cold, dispassionate, objective, modern science shows us that races can be ranked on a scale of superiority. If this offends Christian morality or a sentimental belief in human unity, so be it; science must be free to proclaim unpleasant truths."
"...look what Adolf Hitler and his cronies dreamed up,..."
Based in significant part on evolution. Anti-Nazi evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith wrote:
"The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution."
"correct me if I am wrong but wasn't it until the 1960,s that the Australian government outlawed the random shooting of indigenous people?"
I don't believe that it was ever legal, at least since Australia became a country (1901). But it did happen. Darwin considered aborigines to be in an early stage of development, so museums around the world wanted examples. Many bodies were dug up for the skulls or skeleton to be sent to museums, and even some live aborigines were shot for the same purpose. One article on this topic relates that:
"A German evolutionist, Amalie Dietrich (nicknamed the ‘Angel of Black Death’) came to Australia asking station owners for Aborigines to be shot for specimens, particularly skin for stuffing and mounting for her museum employers. Although evicted from at least one property, she shortly returned home with her specimens."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sydyidanton5873
"There are some in cases of assault, uninvited incest and a number of medical conditions not only isolated to ectopic pregnancies."
Ectopic pregnancies was an example of a situation where the life of the mother is in danger. I was not limiting it to ectopic pregnancies. However, in other cases, such as incest, the mother's life is not in danger, so there is no reason to kill the baby.
"Some will, and have, resort to all sorts of harmful potentially lethal methods if safer options are not available."
First, there is no safe option—all options are fatal (to the baby).
Second, yes, some will resort to other methods. But I was responding to your comment that they "have" to resort to other methods. No, they don't have to. The fact that they will in some cases is no reason to accommodate it.
"Their personal circumstances preclude them from taking the pregnancy to term."
How do those circumstances "preclude" it?
"Ultimately and most unfairly it always rests on the woman, her body and her life..."
Why? Would you make the same argument if the woman wanted to kill her toddler? Yes, the circumstances are a little different, but the point remains that if it's not okay to kill your two-year-old, why is it okay to kill your child a bit over a couple of years younger?
"The male involved bears just as much responsibility, but rarely elects to be involved."
True, but that doesn't justify it. And there are also cases where the girl doesn't want an abortion, but the boyfriend pressures them into it. And where the girl said that she wished it was illegal so that he couldn't do that.
"It’s very easy when not faced with the realities of these scenarios, for us particularly as men to state it should not be an option."
Again, what if the woman wanted to kill her toddler? Would you make the same argument?
"As I said the option for some situations are so extreme that prior to access to safe services, throughout the centuries and up until the 60s - 80s depending upon the location, many women opted for harmful choices, typically carried out by unqualified dangerous people."
Actually, many (most?) were carried out by qualified doctors who disagreed with the ban on abortion. The death rate (of the mother) dropped dramatically in the 1940s thanks to ready availability of antibiotics.
"When those who claim termination of pregnancy should not be available due to their religious convictions."
What is wrong with that? Most people overlook it, but in the West (at least) we consider certain things like robbery, murder, rape, etc. wrong because of the Christian heritage of Western Civilisation. Under a "non-religious" view, what actually makes it wrong?
"I consider though are they being judgemental? Because it’s written NOT to do so."
We are told to not judge hypocritically or unrighteously. Proverbs 31:9 says "Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy."
"As Christians would they not follow the example of Jesus, an extremely kind, non-judgmental man who went out of his way attend to less fortunate folk, even sinners, and with unconditional love help them?"
Of course Christians should help those less fortunate. And they've been doing so for 2000 years. Jesus treated the Old Testament (the Bible at the time) as authoritative. He did not say that the commandment to not murder no longer applied. The Bible contains an account of a prostitute who the religious officials tried to get Jesus to stone. He declined, but then told the woman to stop sinning. Loving sinners does not mean assisting or endorsing their sin. Sin is evil, and it is not loving to assist or endorse evil. If you are referring to how one approaches a mother about this, then yes, you're quite correct that it should be done in love. But as to what you tell them, it must be to not do the wrong thing.
"Those nuns in Ireland and indeed other countries sure demonstrated the complete opposite through their hateful, judgemental victimisation of those poor young women in their paid ‘care’."
I don't know which actual nuns you refer to, nor their actions which you criticise, but of course being a Christian doesn't make you perfect. And calling yourself a Christian doesn't mean that you are one.
"I sincerely believe though if Jesus was to walk this world today he would help these women explore their options, then graciously unconditionally support them with the options appropriate to each individual situation."
In the light of the example of the prostitute, how could you think that He would support them getting an abortion? Yes, He would support them in helping them through their pregnancy and in raising the child if she didn't adopt it out, just as many Christians actually do today.
"But I’m digressing ... and do not want to be inflammatory or misunderstood as disrespectful."
Yes, I can see that and appreciate that.
"Better to assess and assist than judge and harm"
Better to assess and assist them to do the right thing than to withhold judgement against sin and thereby harm.
1
-
@sydyidanton5873
"I wouldn’t advocate harm to any child,…"
No doubt. But the point is when childhood starts.
"Naturally I realise you are raising an extreme example,…"
I'm using reductio ad absurdum to make the point that your argument doesn't hold.
"There is a marked difference between a post natal infant and a developing zygote/embryo though,…"
But is there? At least from a moral perspective. I'll come back to that topic below.
"I’m uncertain from which resources you've collated your historical research. [snipped]"
I don't dispute anything you said. However, like me, you provided no actual figures. You say that "not as many [doctors were involved] as you might be lead to believe", but you don't know how many I might believe, so that's a rather vague claim. And pretty-well everything else you said on this was similarly vague as to its frequency.
The claim about antibiotics and doctors being involved was something I learned years ago, but in preparing my reply for you, I went looking for evidence. I later closed the page, but I think I've found the same one again, which was an article in the Washington Post titled "Planned Parenthood’s false stat: ‘Thousands’ of women died every year before Roe".
Here are some excerpts from it. You can find and read it yourself for more details.
------
"The data collected by Tietze showed 2,677 deaths from abortion in 1933, compared with 888 in 1945, with much of the decline in septic cases associated with illegal abortions."
"By 1959, a leading researcher wrote: 'Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure. This applies not just to therapeutic abortions as performed in hospitals but also to so-called illegal abortions as done by physicians. In 1957, there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind. In New York City in 1921, there were 144 abortion deaths, in 1951 there were only 15.'
"The writer was Mary Steichen Calderone, at the time medical director of Planned Parenthood. She attributed the decline in the mortality rate to antibiotics and the fact that 90 percent of illegal abortions were done by trained physicians."
"The CDC began collecting data on abortion mortality in 1972, the year before Roe was decided. In 1972, the number of deaths in the United States from legal abortions was 24 and from illegal abortions 39, according to the CDC."
------
"In genuine situations where this is the last and only option,..."
What situations would they be where this is the "only" option?
"This can be an isolating life destroying option."
So to avoid that you deliberately destroy a life. How does that make sense?
"…as they are safely not and never have been in this devastating situation themselves,…"
Despite having experience with your friend, you haven't been in the situation yourself either, and yet you deem it wrong for most abortions to take place. So why can't I? But not only that, judgements like this are often better made objectively, not in a difficult and emotional situation. That is best done by a third party. And thirdly, why doesn't that apply in all sorts of other cases? Are we not able to judge the actions of a murder because we've never been in his situation? This whole idea of others not being able to judge is nonsense.
"You may call it whatever you choose judgement is still judgement and in the absence of all the facts and context it most certainly is hypocritical and exceedingly arrogant."
Nobody has all the facts. Yes, it is judgment, just as you are judging most abortions. And again, this is what we do with other situations, such as murders, thefts, rapes, etc. It is not hypocritical and not exceedingly arrogant to rightly point out that such things are wrong.
"…you apparently believe non sentient developing embryonic tissue in its primordial state takes precedence over the established life of some poor individual…Before you argue it is human life and has a soul, I am referring purely to early first trimester events prior to it being categorised as a foetus (8-10 weeks gestation). …I believe you believe this is life irrespective."
This is the key point, I think. Yes, I do "believe" (give assent to the idea, just as I believe America exists) that it is life, because that is exactly what it is. It is life, and it is human life, which begins at conception. And yes, at some stage it gains a soul, and we have no reason to believe that that is not at or very close to conception. So what is the difference between the embryo and the toddler that is material to this issue? They are both human lives, and it is wrong to take innocent human lives.
"Life is far more complex than just its biological definition, there are spiritual, psychological, social and everlasting other dynamics one must take into consideration."
Exactly right! It is not just a bundle of cells. It is a spiritual being which will last for eternity. We have no right to take such a life.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RC-qf3mp
"your last statement is false and refutes your whole argument."
Except that it's not, and so it doesn't refute my argument at all.
"Humans aren’t designed."
Evidence please. How can such as complex organism come about by chance events?
"Evolution is random mutations."
True, but randomness does not produce order, which we see in living things.
"There’s no designer."
THAT is false, and therefore refutes your entire argument. Or perhaps you can produce evidence for your claim of no designer? Evolution is not evidence, because a) goo-to-you evolution has never been seen happening, and b) evolution is based on the premise that God didn't create. Using evolution to show that there is no designer is a circular argument, as it is based on the premise of no designer.
Further, there is plenty of evidence of design in living things, with even people like Richard Dawkins admitting that life looks like it was designed. His atheism, however, prevents him from accepting that it is as it looks.
"So your argument crumbles."
Your false premise has led to your false conclusion.
"Right — and that’s why what you should look at for knowing whether somebody is male or female is the ACTUAL genitalia that gets developed, not the chromosomes."
I'm not aware of any cases of XY producing normal females nor XX producing normal males. Rather, what you get is a bit of a mixture, such as males that have some characteristics of females.
"You basically have come full circle to my position."
No, I haven't, because I don't accept your claims.
'But you can’t put the cart before the horse. You have to look at the human body to figure out what sex it actually is."
Even if I grant that, what does that have to do with the original comment, which was true as a generalisation, and by "generalisation" I mean, according to you, 99.9% of the time. As I said in my first reply, the existence of someone having six toes on each foot does not refute the fact that people have five toes on each foot. The existence of exceptions to the rule about XX=female and XY=male does not make that fact wrong.
1
-
@RC-qf3mp
"you get people who have a mix of characteristics of both ‘typical’ male and ‘typical’ female, and so it creates a problem of how to categorize the WHOLE person by sex."
In the case of some of those specific exceptions to the rule.
"Biology has several dimensions of sex characteristics but the biology doesn’t compel any ONE standard."
It's unclear what you're getting at there, but biology does support that there are two sexes, and that they align with XX and XY chromosomes.
"The oldest standard humans have used is external genitalia — if you have a penis, you’re a male, otherwise, female."
Okay, but as you are pointing out, we now know that there are exceptions to that general rule. My point, however, is that those exceptions don't change that general rule.
"That’s what a ‘male’ and ‘female’ human were considered to be for all of civilization."
I disagree. That's how 'male' and 'female' were recognised for most of civilisation.
"If you want to change that, fine, but that is a radical change not justified by the science ..."
Says the person who promotes the radical change of evolution, when most people for most of history have believed that they were created. And that change is also not justified by the science. It's a product of naturalism.
"Are you really arguing in favor of God to settle this dispute?"
On the assumption that you're an atheist, no, I don't expect that to settle the dispute. But in the sense that the fact should settle the dispute, yes.
"The whole insight of evolution is that you’d expect this to happen (“this” being life on earth) from RANDOM mutations."
Evidence for that expectation please.
"It’s about how this can happen WITHOUT design,..."
I know. That's my point—it's an attempt to explain life WITHOUT design, because that's the (naturalistic) presupposition. I noticed that you failed to address that point that I made last time.
"... and why it was so controversial and threatened Christianity."
Agreed. It also explains why the creationary view is so controversial—because the overwhelming evidence for design threatens atheism. And I notice that my challenge for you to show evidence that there is no designer went unanswered.
"If you want to believe in God, fine, have fun with that,..."
I don't believe in God because I "want to", but because that's what the evidence strongly supports.
"....but you don’t understand evolution."
What have I said to show that I don't understand it? On the contrary, I've shown that I don't agree with it, and that's because I do understand it. So do scientists who have been trained in it, even taught it, even written textbooks about it, who then were convinced by the evidence that it is a wrong idea. On no planet is it reasonable to dismiss those scientists on the basis of not understanding it.
1
-
1
-
@FranksHairSalon
"How was Frank arrested when the cop let Frank go and have his lunch?"
As I said, I don't know what the legal technicalities are. I did suggest that perhaps he was "unarrested". That is, arrested but then released. I did point out that Franks said that the policeman explicitly told him that he was under arrest. You've not explained that. You're concentrating on the ultimate outcome rather than the process which often has the effect of discouraging people without actually punishing them. Just like when you get taken to court on ridiculous charges, have to hire lawyers, spend time and effort preparing, only to then have the case dropped (probably because it would have failed anyway). The process is the punishment, and, intentionally or not, that seems to be the case here, but you're ignoring that and appear to be saying that because he was let off, nothing untoward happened.
1
-
1
-
@Tiny_and_Reese
"…if you were hoping I didn't have reasons…"
It was more a case of not expecting you to have legitimate reasons.
"Firstly, PragerU is a propaganda mill…"
So right off the bat, you fail. This is supposed to examples of the untruthfulness, but your "first" point is to make another allegation.
"…that was astroterfed by fracking billionaires Dan and Farris Wilks, so their content is always going to be a little wrong in support of the narrative that old money wants you to hear."
Yeah? So what is it that causes it to be "a little bit wrong"? That the money came from fracking? Or that it came from billionaires? Or that it came from those two gentlemen in particular? Or that "old money" is necessarily wrong? My point is, you haven't actually pointed out anything wrong! But it seems that simply describing a situation means that something is wrong.
"Next, they have on equally flawed speakers like…"
Hmmm, more description. What is flawed about Shapiro's comment? You don't say. I can see why you thing Owen is inconsistent, but then given your lack of substance so far, I'd assume you're likely taking things out of context. As for Crowder, you might have a point if he selected individuals to put on the spot, but when he leaves it open for people to self-select, they can always not offer their views if they are not themselves well-versed in the topic. And Ruben—well, you didn't actually point out anything wrong. So it seems that PragerU is lying for money because they have people on that you don't agree with. Which of course is not evidence of them lying, let alone for money.
"Here's what they get right, because lying is always easier when you mix it with some truth:"
So you admit that you're original claim that it "just can't seem to ever tell the truth" was itself a—well, an exaggeration, to be nice.
"…what isn't is the notion that most of them are teenage girls that are coming out, as the CDC study didn't include that in their categorizations. That's the lie she's selling that supports her narrative."
It seems that you are correct that the CDC study didn't show that bit. But that might be an error of attribution. You've not shown that it's a lie (something known to be untrue in order to deceive).
"That's the "a little bit wrong" that you can see in all of PragerU's videos."
So the "little bit wrong" is actually a correct statement according to the reports of the time? Sorry, that's not evidence of lying.
Regarding the Section 230 video and their position, you completely miss the point. They are not saying anything in contradiction to a free market position.
"But anyway, where they're wrong is in the citing of that quote. See that is in the bill Section 230.... in the Findings" section."
I see your point, but again, is it a clear-cut case of lying? That finding is not included arbitrarily; the findings are there to provide rationale for the law. Yes, it's not directly stated as a requirement, but it's reasonable to infer that the intent of the law is that it applies to companies doing that, and as such is an implied requirement. So I'm not saying you can't argue against that, but it appears that their claim is a reasonable argument, not a bald lie or even clearly a half-truth.
"Well PragerU, until recently, was suing google for censorship. And was citing Section 230 as their main complaint." As is their right and reasonably so.
"Of course nowadays PragerU, Donald Trump and the like are trying to get rid of it…"
I've heard suggestions like that, but also the claim that section 230 protection ought to be withdrawn for companies acting like publishers, but remain for other companies that are offering a genuine open forum.
"The very premise of her book implies that there's anything dangerous about the process, but there isn't."
Yeah, pull the other one. Mutilating their bodies because of a delusion is clearly not a good thing to be doing, and is irreversible.
"She outright says these kids are able to get testosterone from any local 7/11 but they're not."
Where does she say that? It's not in the video.
"Puberty blockers until you're older which have NONE, 0, NADA side effects,…"
Googling easily shows that to be false. (So are you lying, or merely mistaken? By your own standard, I'd have to say you're lying). Potential side effects include lower bone density, delayed growth plate closure, less development of genital tissue, headache, fatigue, insomnia, future fertility, and more. Oh, by the way, yes, I Googled to get that. But didn't get it just anywhere. I listed side effects mentioned on the web-sites of the Children's Hospital of St. Louis and the Mayo Clinic.
That social media can be a bad influence and at the same time provide some useful information is not a contradiction. So nothing wrong there.
"All this, along with the entire notion that any transgender individuals who've stopped transitioning isn't a result of how they are now treated differently by their peers, family, and general support group,… is laughable on it's face."
So stopping transitioning could be due to pressure, but transitioning never is? You're indulging in the same kind of apparent contradiction that you're accusing Shrier of.
So all in all, some possibly -accurate but mild criticisms, a fair dollop of non-faults presented as though they were, and nothing even approaching the claim that they are lying for money.
It seems that my expectation was essentially correct.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@turnerfamilyinozi
"There are two creation stories in Genesis."
That's not what you said. And no, there are not two stories. The one story starts off with an overview of what happened on each day of creation week. Then it continues by focusing in with more detail of what happened on day 6. It's all one story, not two.
"In one, man is created before other animals. In the other, man is God's final creation."
In first part of the one account, thing are given in order. In the second part, the order is not the main issue. The AV translates the start of Genesis 2:19 as "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; ..." However the Hebrew can be understood as speaking in the context of Genesis 1 and therefore be read as in the NIV, "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. ..." (my bolding in both cases).
It's a bit like if you meet me at the railway station when my train arrives, and as I get off the train I say to you "I haven't ridden the train today". That seems like a blatantly false statement given that I've just alighted from the train. But if, earlier in the day, I'd told you "Today I'm going to be riding on a new train on a test run", you would realise that my reference to "the train" was not to the one I'd just alighted from, but the one I had earlier mentioned. Seemingly-straightforward statements can mean something quite different depending on the context.
So as far as the two "stories" in Genesis are concerned, you first have to assume that they are different stories in order to read them as being contradictory. Essentially, a circular argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AudioGardenSlave123
"In the forest, and such areas with large plant growth, the death of vegetation slowly covers an object in new soil year after year and it will slowly descend into the ground."
Yes, soil and other matter will build up over something, but that is different to it sinking into the ground.
Also grass (etc.) doesn't turn into new soil. But to the extent that it's not rotted and/or eaten, it will get incorporated into any new soil that is deposited there.
But there's two other important factors here.
A creature will not become fossilised like this (relatively intact) unless it is quickly and deeply buried. If it dies on the surface and waits to being slowly covered as you describe, it will rot, be eaten, and disarticulated (the bones will be scattered). And even the bones will be destroyed eventually.
But if it is buried deeply to start with, it will not be sinking further. If it happened to be buried deeply in soft mud, there will still be microorganisms in that mud that would eat the remains.
The second factor is that you're not allowing for erosion after burial removing the material above the fossil. It might have been buried kilometres deep, and then kilometres of rock above was later eroded away.
1
-
@AudioGardenSlave123
"don't care for having my own words copied back to me for no reason..."
What makes you think that there is no reason? On the contrary, there are two reasons for this legitimate and often-used practice:
1) It makes clear which actual part of your comment I'm replying to.
2) My comment makes sense in the context of your comment if your comment is deleted or hidden.
I've often had people reply to me without such a context and I can't tell which of my comments the are replying to.
"...your answer to my first point with the "incorporated" into the soil is literally saying that it becomes soil. All top soil is broken down vegetation."
First, not it is not saying that at all. It is saying that the vegetation becomes part of the soil.
Second, you're incorrect. Google found me a document from the Maine government which says "All soils are made up of four components: air, water, mineral grains, and organic matter. The percentage of each component in an ideal topsoil is shown in Figure 1.". I can't reproduce the figure here, but it gives the percentages as follows:
* Air 25%
* Water 25%
* Mineral grains 45%
* Organic matter 5%
So the vegetation may contribute some of that water , but otherwise the vegetation comprises only five % of the soil, with nearly half being mineral grains, i.e. sand, silt, and clay.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MontyI
"Women who have been victims to rape have a right to say if they want an abortion,..."
Why? In what other crime do you execute the innocent offspring of the criminal?
"..the alternative is they grow up with a mum who don't love them truly..."
What makes you think that? Why shouldn't a mum love her own child? By that logic, you can justify all abortions.
"or in case of incest grow up with severe health problems, abortion is kinder."
The medical problem with incest is the risk of health problems. They are not a given. And since when is it kinder to kill a human being?
"I don't force my religious views onto others,..."
Well, if you're not passing laws, that's probably true. But if you're passing laws, that is typically what you're doing—passing a law on what you think is right, and that judgment of what is right and wrong typically comes from religion. If it's not coming from God, it's coming from subjective opinion.
"people have to decide for themselves what they want to do"
Including murderers, thieves, rapists, fraudsters, etc.?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It was Christianity, not the so-called Enlightenment, that made the West what it is.
Take it, for example, from sociologist Rodney Stark: “Christianity created Western Civilization. Had the followers of Jesus remained an obscure Jewish sect, most of you would not have learned to read and the rest of you would be reading from hand copied scrolls. Without a theology committed to reason, progress, and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800: A world with many astrologers and alchemists but no scientists. A world of despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys, and pianos. A world where most infants do not live to the age of five and many women die in childbirth–a world truly living in 'dark ages.' "
Or from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences: "we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West has been so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.”
Or from historian Tom Holland: "...compacted into this very very small amount of writing [the apostle Paul's letters in the New Testament], was almost everything that explains the modern world..."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Quick Draw McGraw
"I don't believe in your religious christian beliefs,..."
Yes, I figured that. Doesn't mean that they are wrong, of course.
"...just like you don't believe in Islam, or the Hindu gods, or Jewdaism etc etc. You think they are wrong don't you?"
Of course. But the question is why I think they are wrong and Christianity right. And that is because the evidence supports Christianity.
"Well I go just one step further than you and think you are ALL wrong."
But you think atheism (or something along that line) is right. So you, like me, reject all views that contradict the one you hold. You don't go one step further. If, for the sake of argument, pretend that there are six views, being Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Scientology, and Secular Humanism, and also for the sake of argument, presume that you accept the atheistic secular humanism view, then we both reject five of those six views. They question is why we both accept the particular exclusionary view that we do.
"It's ALL man made."
Well, that's part of your particular view, which you admit is simply your opinion, i.e. it's apparently not a reasoned, evidence-base view, unlike mine.
"And nothing you say will convince me otherwise."
I appreciate your admission that your mind is closed to alternative views.
"The bible hasn't convinced me. Attending church with an open mind and heart for years hasn't convinced me either."
Well, some churches don't do a good job of presenting the evidence, so I can understand that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lapisexulis
"Re-read what you’ve written, reflect on the questions and statements you’ve made, and answer your own questions."
The questions are about your claims. They are for you to answer. If you're refusing, I'm entitled to think that you have no answer, and your claims are therefore baseless.
"... rather than participating in silly, unwholesome quarrels over trivial controversies with someone who only talks at me and doesn’t listen."
Says the person who is talking at me but won't explain his comments when asked! I think the word for that is "hypocrite".
"There is no historical evidence outside of Christian texts that directly supports Jesus' divinity, resurrection, or the fulfillment of messianic prophecies."
First, we weren't talking specifically about those things.
Second, so what? There IS historical evidence from those texts. So your argument seems to be that there's no evidence other than the evidence that exists! Well, duh! Simply waving the evidence away as though it doesn't count, for some unexplained reason, is not going to get us anywhere.
"The concept of a coming Messiah is entirely based on faith and belief, rather than historical or physical evidence."
What's your evidence for that? On the contrary, the concept is documented in the history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kevincrouch3956
"Thanks for the paraphrasing,..."
What paraphrasing? I paraphrased nothing.
"...a shame your English comprehension is so feeble."
You've shown nothing feeble about it. So that's now two baseless claims.
"And of course, 'the West' is not a success because of the adherence to any church/state policy..."
I didn't say it was. It seems that you're the one with a problem with English comprehension. I asked what was wrong with promoting "the worldview", that being a reference to your comment about "promoting Christianity". The west is the success it is because of Christianity, not church/state separation.
"So, in fact, the 'success of Western democracy is due to its removal of the church from its political decision making."
The scholarship says otherwise. Here are just two examples:
Sociologist Rodney Stark:
“Christianity created Western Civilization. Had the followers of Jesus remained an obscure Jewish sect, most of you would not have learned to read and the rest of you would be reading from hand copied scrolls. Without a theology committed to reason, progress, and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800: A world with many astrologers and alchemists but no scientists. A world of despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys, and pianos. A world where most infants do not live to the age of five and many women die in childbirth–a world truly living in 'dark ages.' "
Former award-winning Time journalist David Aikman:
“The eighteen American tourists visiting China weren’t expecting much from the evening’s lecture. They were already exhausted from a day of touring in Beijing. But what the speaker had to say astonished them.
'One of the things we were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world,' he said. 'We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next, we focused on your economic system. But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West has been so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this.'
This was not coming from some ultra-conservative think tank in Orange County, California ... This was a scholar from China's premier academic research institute, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) in Beijing in 2002.”
1
-
1
-
"Religion has no place where human rights and equal access for citizens is concerned."
Huh? How do you figure that? Where do you think the idea of humans rights came from?
"Homosexuality can be a sin in abrahamic religions,..."
Can be? It IS a sin, because God created us heterosexual.
"Any religious doctrine that discriminates against citizens, particularly minorities, and subjugates a section of people, is a doctrine that has no place in modern society."
Because you say so? Christianity doesn't unfairly discriminate against people, and doesn't subjugate people.
"Any doctrine that clashes with human rights, in particular, is a doctrine that should be rejected in modern day policy and governance."
Your view has come from Christianity, which championed human rights.
"There have always been three genders since the beginning of time. "
Oh? God created male and female. What third sex did He create?
"Eunuchs are born with a certain genital makeup. That is from God."
Eunuch is not a sex, and not part of God's design.
"The problem isn’t LGBT."
No, that's not "the" problem, but it is one of the problems.
"But the indoctrination of a sexual orientation, at an impressionable age."
Yes, that's one reason people are so opposed to the trans indoctrination.
"This must be done free from the imposition of religious doctrine or religious bias."
So it should be done with an atheistic bias? How is that better?
"All citizens do not share the same faith or religious beliefs."
Duh!
"Some do not have faith, at all."
Many have (blind) faith that there is no god. Who are these people who do not have faith at all?
"Citizens and nationals cannot be bound by one particular religious doctrine,..."
What do you mean by "bound"? Imposed on them? Agreed. That's a Christian principle.
"It is counterproductive for the state or any institution to discriminate against the LGBT community."
Who's discriminating? It's counterproductive for the state or any institution to endorse the delusion and immorality of the LGBT supporters.
"Discrimination against homosexuals during the hiring process leads to an increase in unemployment."
How so? If one person doesn't get a given job, another will. Employment levels stay the same.
"No country can afford to have a section of its people discriminated against due to religious bias or preconceived notions."
Like happens against Christians? Like has happened to me, for holding Christian views?
"Sexual orientation is not a reason to deny any citizen healthcare, education, employment or the chance to be productive community members."
For the most part, that doesn't happen. But you also said that there is a problem with "the indoctrination of a sexual orientation, at an impressionable age.", so why should homosexuals have teaching positions, for example?
"To withhold that opportunity from any citizen, especially a minority that is often persecuted, is incredibly insulting and a violation of the constitution."
Do you campaign against Christians being persecuted?
"To make statements against a group of people, who are citizens, is unbecoming of a PM or president of any nation."
Even if it's warranted? How do you figure that?
"All citizens must enjoy equal access to resources and state owned institutions."
Exactly. Equal access. Not access on the basis of their sexual orientation or sex or beliefs, as been happening and which Trump has just stopped insofar as the U.S. government is concerned.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stephendoherty981
"Indeed I do but I'm not entirely clear you know what that word means."
I do.
"They have the ultimate authority."
What does that mean? They don't have absolute authority. They have been granted authority by many countries, but not complete authority. For one, they can only investigate actions by or against member states. Israel is not a member state, but even though it's not a state, the Palestinian authorities is a state.
"You Zions cant wriggle your way out of this one on the dubious grounds of jurisdiction."
Nothing dubious. In my first attempt to reply to you, I quoted from the ICC itself. I'll find it again and try quoting it again.
Found it: "The ICC is intended to complement, not to replace, national criminal systems; it prosecutes cases only when States do not are unwilling or unable to do so genuinely."
And as I said, Israel is both capable and willing to prosecute such crimes. Therefore the ICC should not be doing it in this case.
"Gaza is signed up to the ICC where these war crimes are taking place."
What war crimes? You've not shown any, except for the biased claims of the ICC.
"And as for Israel being a democracy???? Lmao!!"
That shows how twisted your view is. Of course it's a democracy. It has regular elections, all its adult citizens (which includes Arabs and other non-Jews) are entitled to vote and to hold political office, and there are multiple parties. What's not democratic about it?
"It would appear that denial isn't just the name of a river in Egypt."
So you can't answer my question. Okay, got that. So there is no deliberate starvation.
"Evidence of this 'bias'?? Oh, thats right, I forgot. Israel's evidence?"
Clearly you can't read. My basis for saying that was, explicitly, the court exceeding it's jurisdiction. I did not appeal to anything Israel said. If you have to misrepresent my argument in your response, you have no valid response.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Bork_Cruk
"I’m sorry but you don’t provide evidence that something doesn’t exist, that makes no sense. "
Then it also doesn't make sense to claim that it doesn't exist. So I take it that this is a tacit admission that you have no evidence for your claim?
Besides, it's not always nonsensical. I could show you a matchbox, claim that no matches exist in it, then open the matchbox as evidence for my claim. I can also produce evidence that perpetual motion machines don't exist, as such things contradict the laws of physics.
"If you want to claim something exists then it’s on you to provide evidence."
True. And if you want to claim that something doesn't exist, then it's on you to provide evidence. You've failed to do so.
"I’m saying god doesn’t exist the same way I would say dragons don’t exist."
So? One evidence-free claim doesn't justify another.
"Do you have evidence that dragons don’t exist?"
No, but then I never claimed that they didn't. So I have no onus to provide evidence for a claim that I didn't make. You did make a claim, so you have the onus to provide evidence for it.
"Sure lay your evidence that he’s real on me."
You first. You made the claim that He doesn't exist. You have the first onus to provide evidence. If you do, or if you admit that your claim was without foundation and withdraw it, then I will provide evidence for God.
"It will have to be better than the evidence for dragons."
Actually, widespread descriptions of dragons largely fit descriptions of dinosaurs, and are probably based on dinosaurs. That would actually be good evidence for dragons.
1
-
@Bork_Cruk
"No, that would be evidence for dinosaurs 😂"
And for dragons, if they are the same thing.
"And your matchbox example would be evidence that an empty matchbox exists 😂"
That too, but also that no matches exist in the matchbox, answering your claim that you can't provide evidence for something that doesn't exist.
"I’ll indulge you a bit, I agree that I can’t say for certain god doesn’t exist."
That's a start, but it doesn't go as far as saying that that you have no evidence that God doesn't exist, nor does it amount to retracting the claim. (And just to be clear, I'm NOT asking you to concede that God does exist.)
"But god exists in the same category as superman."
Not true. For one, we know exactly how Superman came to be; we know who invented the character (Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster); we know why or how they came to invent the character; and we know when they invented the character. That is, we have actual evidence of the fictional state of Superman. None of that applies to God. Further, there is lots of positive evidence for God being real, unlike with Superman.
"I can’t prove he doesn’t exist, but there is no evidence that he does outside of comics, cartoons, etc."
As I've pointed out in my previous paragraph, the situation is not a lack of evidence for Superman being real, but of evidence of him being fiction. You could even put this in the category of "provid[iving] evidence that something doesn’t exist,", which you claimed was not something that can be done. You've produced nothing equivalent for God.
So, where's your evidence for your claim—that you've not retracted—that God doesn't exist? You still have the onus, and I'm still waiting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anonnemo2504
"There is so much, far too much to cover in the couple of minutes I allow myself to type this reply..."
That's okay. I didn't ask for every bit of evidence.
"...essentially, the vastly superior credibility of rigorously tested science over two thousand year old myths."
That's a bald assertion, not evidence, and cites a discipline created on the basis of Christianity (i.e. science) to supposedly disprove Christianity! You'll need to do better than that!
And what's your evidence that they are myths?
"Thunder and lightning are examples of many phenomena we used to attribute to "supernatural gods", i.e. things we could not explain."
I realise that you were not answering me there, but in my case, I asked for evidence in the case of Christianity. Interesting that you didn't provide that answer to me. Is that because you realised that was not the case with Christianity?
"The list of these is becoming shorter and, theoretically, if we survive as a species for long enough, the list may cease to exist, as will religion."
No, it will simply be replaced with an atheistic religion.
"Excellent point, well made."
How is a completely wrong argument an excellent, well-made, point?
So, I'm still waiting for evidence of your claim.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anonnemo2504
"There also seems to be a profound ignorance amongst the religionists that takes no account of the fact that proving a positive should always be possible"
What's your evidence that there is such a profound ignorance?
"(however, on this issue they consistently fail)"
What is your evidence for that? And there also seems to be a profound ignorance among atheists that takes no account of the fact that someone questioning their claim of no God is therefore claiming God exists. gilly5094 claimed that I said that God exists, but I made no such claim.
"Proving a positive, i.e. something that really exists, should always be possible..."
Agreed.
"Proving a negative, however, is not always possible."
Agreed. But there also seems to be a profound ignorance among atheists that takes no account of the fact that even if they claim a negative, they still have the burden of proof regarding that claim.
"...(however, on the issue of the existence of a supreme being, nobody has done this)."
What's your evidence that nobody has?
"Is it reasonable and logical, for example, to believe that there is a magic Grandpa in the sky?"
Probably not. But then we're not talking about a magic Grandpa, but about God.
"For my part, I do not think so."
As far as God is concerned, what is your reason and logic?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@burneraccount8698
"a simple google search shows the negative impact of enforced Catholicism in Europe and the genocide of cultures that followed. please do some research, "
How does that address anything I said? I have done a lot of research. The fact that you raise a point that I didn't even address does not show that I do no research.
"religion has been used throughout history to push an agenda under the guise of 'what God wants'."
I never said otherwise. However, not all religions are the same, and not all believe in God. Claiming that "religion" has been used is like saying that "people" have done bad things. Sure they have. They have also done a lot of good things too. And you might even find that the people who do good things generally tend to not be the same ones who do bad things (which is not to deny that there could be a lot of overlap).
"God gave us the freedom to choose our own path in life, the greatest gift of all."
Again, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything I said.
But yes, you're sort of correct about what He did. But I think a distinction needs to be made. God gave us the ability to choose our own path, but He didn't give us the right to. To put that another way, He never said "Do whatever you like". Rather, he said, in effect, "Do the right thing". That means not eating the fruit of one tree in the garden, it means not worshipping other gods, it means not killing others, and so on. But he didn't make us like robots. Unlike robots, we have the ability to disobey. That is what He gave us—that ability, not a right.
"...criticising others personal choices that DO NOT affect you goes against Him."
We are instructed to encourage others (doing the right thing of course), to judge righteously, to correct others, etc. For example, Galatians 6:1a says "Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness." and 1 Timothy 5:20 says "As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear." In fact much of the Bible is taken up with God's people pointing out what others are doing wrong. For example 1 Corinthians 5:1-2 says "It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@It's time ... again!
"Considering God exists in all of us (according to my Christian friends),..."
God is everywhere, but in another sense he is only "in" people who have allowed Him in (Revelation 3:20: "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him")
"...and as we are gender diverse (female, male, trans, non-binary, etc.), "
There are only two sexes (Genesis 1:27: "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.")
"then God is not just accepting of gender diversity,"
God is never accepting of sin. Yes, He loves the people, as we all should, but doesn't accept their sin.
"God themself is gender diverse."
God uses male pronouns of Himself.
"Cheers, that really clarified it for me, too."
It seems actually that you read into what you wanted to read into it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Theineluctable_SOME_CANT
"Christians are driven by their indoctrination."
Atheists can't be indoctrinated?
"Whether they admit it, or not."
And if you don't admit it, then I guess it's true!
" wow, you're a creep, aren't you?"
Says the person that just baselessly maligned Christians.
"We have better things to do than hating people for childish beliefs."
And yet so many of you do hate such people, and of course those "childish beliefs" are the basis of Western Civilisation, they founded universal education, started public hospitals, founded modern science, abolished slavery, and more. So much for being childish. Now, what did atheists do? Well, for one, atheist regimes hold the record for the largest slaughter of people in the 20th century.
"I hope one day you are not so bitter and irrational."
Says the person who is obviously being bitter and irrational.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@happycarnivore7922
"Just read two brief biographies of Dolt. From uni, cadetship, etc. Neither mention the ALP. "
Perhaps they were too brief. And perhaps I was technically incorrect. But from the Wikipedia article about him (which is referenced): "He worked for the Hawke Government on two election campaigns."
"You can deny it all you want, Dolt is cosy with the Libs, he's a family member and does all he can to get them elected."
And you can be vague (and rude) all you want. Yes, he favours the Liberals, because his views are aligned (somewhat) with theirs. And he runs commentary supporting them, because their policies are better. So what? What do you mean "he's a family member"?
"Name a person from Labor who has been on his show as often as the former State Lib president, or copped as many soft questions as Michael Kroger has."
First, Labor people generally despise him and won't come on his show. Second, when he has Kroger on, he also typically has a Labor person on as well (I forget who). Third, I recall he often used to have the former NSW Labor treasurer on.
Now how about you compare him to the ABC that mostly has Labor and Green types on? And the ABC, unlike Sky, is required to be balanced. Further, your criticism is directed to him personally, not to the arguments he makes. Why is that? Because it's easier to vilify the person that to refute his arguments?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@turnerfamilyinozi
"No comment on fish or the flood?"
I have commented above. I'm still waiting to see your comment on my response.
"The major principle of science is that it should be challenged and that those that make claims should be able to prove they are correct."
Those principles were brought to science by Christians acting on their Christian principles.
"Does this happen in your church?"
Of course. It's a Christian church.
"Please explain you how science is based on Christianity?"
In numerous ways:
1) Christians believed that God was separate to His creation, so dissecting creation is not dissecting God.
2) God told us to study His creation.
3) God is a law-making God, so it seemed likely that God would have made laws for His creation to follow. So Christians set out to discover those laws of nature.
4) God is a rational God, so it was expected that His creation could be studied in a rational way.
5) God is a consistent God, so it was expected that He wouldn't keep changing things on a whim, unlike, say, the Ancient Greek gods who could get upset so that if you, say, measured the temperature that water boiled, it might not hold true tomorrow as the gods might change that.
6) Being a consistent and law-making God, we would expect those laws to apply throughout the universe, which is a principle that science holds.
7) Being made in God's image, we could expect to comprehend God's creation, and to be able to rely on our senses when studying it. As C.S. Lewis put it, “If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of materialism and astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.”
As Einstein put it, "The most incomprehensible thing about the Universe is that it is comprehensible."
This is why numerous scholars have agreed that Christians founded science. Agnostic scientist Paul Davies put it this way (my bolding): “In the ensuing three hundred years the theological dimension of science has faded [note that science began with a "theological dimension"]. People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given as brute facts. Nobody asks where they come from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd that there is rational basis to physical existence manifested as lawlike order in nature that is at least part comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological world view. ”
Or, if you prefer, agnostic Loren Eiseley (my bolding): “The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation … . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption. ”
Where is your response to my rebuttal of your claims about evolution? I still haven't seen it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dmarshall8366
"You are a disgrace, ..."
For daring to question you?
"if it were to be 30000 or 20000 would that be more acceptable to you?"
Of course! The smaller the number, the better! Why on earth would you think otherwise?
"Maybe it's just not happening, no innocent civilians slaughtered,..."
Sounds like you're yet another one who won't answer the question. Which likely means that the figure has no real basis.
"We might know if the press were allowed in by the IDF."
So you're admitting that you don't know? Did you just make up the figure?
"So Gaza is not an open air prison, Palestinians can leave their cage whenever they want?"
Why can't they? Who is forcing them to stay there? (Note that not allowing them to enter Israel or Egypt is not the same as forcing them to stay; they're on the coast, and so could go somewhere by boat.)
"You are either blind or deliberately ignorant."
How can I see and learn if, when I ask for information, none is forthcoming? Notice that I asked "What open prison?" I didn't say "It's not a prison". I asked, and you've not shown that it is.
"As for bias? Have you looked in a mirror lately?"
Asking questions, as I did, is not good evidence of bias. Making claims that you refuse to back up, as you did, IS good evidence of bias.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Whilst this is useful information for what it covers, it unfortunately takes a rather secular view of history.
The entire concept of a bronze age and an iron age is secular. According to the Bible people were working in bronze and iron just a few generations from Adam. But with the flood, a lot of working knowledge of such technology would have been lost. Further, with the dispersal from Babel resulting from the confusion of languages, you had family groups (presumably) setting out on their own, each with an incomplete working knowledge of pre-flood technology. As they settled, it would take time to rediscover both the technology and the resources needed to produce it. But generations, not ages.
Further, the video places Adam and Eve in the period from 3300 BC (but secularises that to BCE), even though it is clear from a study of the time periods listed in the Bible that they dated from about 4000 BC.
It also claims that "the Hebrew Bible is basically an iron-age book" (i.e. from 1200 BC onwards, according to the video), which ignores that Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and Job all describe events mostly prior to this period, and there is no good reason for thinking that they date from later. Those books are about 30% of the Old Testament.
Similarly, the claim that the "bronze age" stories of the Bible read more like myth and legend seems to be baseless. Certainly the video didn't justify that claim. How is it "more like myth and legend" to provide names, dates, and genealogies? Further, the accounts of the Israelites in Egypt include details, such as place names, that have been shown to have existed at the time but which had changed in later times, showing that the accounts are contemporary.
In addition, other names are also known from extra-biblical sources, including Noah's son Japheth and all the people listed in the 'table of nations' in Genesis 10. Further, some of the events recorded in the Bible are known from other sources, including creation itself (there is, for just one example, an Australian Aboriginal story of the first woman bringing death and suffering into the world by eating the forbidden produce of a tree), the flood (literally hundreds of stories from around the world, some with some remarkably similar details), and a few mentioning the confusion of languages.
1
-
@UsefulCharts
"What is the Bronze Age extra-biblical source for him?"
Bronze Age? I've already rejected use of that term.
"Can you provide me a source for where the name Japheth can be found in a contemporary extra-biblical source?"
No. I said extra-biblical sources, not contemporary sources.
Bill Cooper's After the Flood says "... we find that the early Greeks worshipped him as Iapetos, or Iapetus, whom they regarded as the son of heaven and earth, the father of many nations. Likewise, in the ancient Sanskrit vedas of India he is remembered as Pra-Japati, the sun and ostensible Lord of Creation. As time went by, his name was further corrupted, being assimilated into the Roman pantheon as Iupater, and eventually Jupiter ... None of these names are of Greek, Indian, or Latin origins, but are merely corruptions of the original name of Japeth. Both the early Irish Celts and the early Britons traced the descent of their royal houses from Japheth, as did also the early Saxons who corrupted his name to Sceaf ..."
"You also said every name in the Table of Nations can be found as well. So, I'm curious about Arphaxad."
From an online article about the grandsons of Noah, "Arphaxad was the progenitor of the Chaldeans. This ‘is confirmed by the Hurrian (Nuzi) tablets, which render the name as Arip-hurra—the founder of Chaldea.’ "
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@frankwren8215
"the entire video, as said in the OP. "
Nope. Too sweeping a claim.
"Scomo doesn't even govern his own country with principles, happy to allow illegal lockdowns and mandates for no reason other than bribes."
You cite one problem, and even that without evidence, I believe. The Federal government has, in principle, no power over the states, which are the ones that have been having the lockdowns and mandates, which have been legal as far as I can tell (but immoral, being a denial of our God-given rights). (Closing state borders was illegal, I believe though.) However, I do accept that he could have spoken out more against that and even applied pressure, so I'm not actually defending his actions there. But I see no evidence of bribes. I suspect that part of the problem, however, was the principle that he should work in conjunction with the states, rather than leaving everything to them or trying to do it all himself, and therefore set up the special cabinet. But I believe that approach, although well-intentioned, has backfired.
"The dude has never had a principle in his life,..."
One example of doing the wrong thing does not show that. And you've still not pointed out anything wrong in the video.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Abortions will continue to be performed, only now they will happen like they used to before Roe v. Wade."
You mean that a lot fewer babies will be killed? That's a good thing!
"Thanks to the Re•pedo•tards and their ilk, ..."
Okay, so you're not making a serious comment. You're name-calling.
"...that means back alleys, empty warehouses, backs of vans, all kinds of gnarly places where medical procedures shouldn't happen."
Instead of abortion clinics, where they shouldn't happen either?
"And if something goes sideways during the procedure, too bad."
Something always goes sideways. The baby is killed.
"This is better? THEY'RE STILL GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT WITH NO MEDICAL OVERSIGHT!!!"
Yes, happening a lot less is better.
"Why do right-wing conservatives want to see drug and alcohol addicted babies with all of their health woes, needing lots of medical help when there's none to be had?"
They don't. You're making stuff up. Don't you have a real argument?
"Let's not forget that once they ARE born, Re•pedo•tards are 'anti-entitlements' for low income people (health care, food assistance, housing assistance, direct temporary cash payments)."
Actually, 'religious' (read: mostly Christian) people provide more aid, money, and blood than others, according to studies. Rather than leave it to the government using other people's money, they do it themselves.
And in all of that, you're obviously deliberately ignoring all the innocent babies who are being killed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A pardon releases a person convicted of a crime from being punished for it. It does not overturn the conviction. Consider, for example, Lindy Chamberlain, who was pardoned after Azaria's matinee jacket was found, but not happy with that (she was still a convicted felon), she demanded that the case be reopened, and so a court subsequently quashed her conviction.
So in principle, I believe, Hunter, and Joe for that matter, could still be charged with (further) crimes, and could be found guilty. Joe's pardon would stop Hunter from being punished, but he would still be convicted.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ponera-Sama
So you're conflating wisdom with "knowing good and evil"? Solomon asked for wisdom, and God granted it. In James it says "If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him." and "the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere." Does this sound like something God would punish man for wanting?
Are you familiar with the biblical expression that someone "knew his wife", as in "Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain,"? It doesn't mean that he had met her and was aware of who she was. It is referring to a close intimate relationship. That is what Adam gained, a close intimate relationship with evil.
1
-
@Ponera-Sama I would say that yes, God also has that knowledge, being well acquainted with Satan, experiencing evil first-hand as a human (Jesus). It would seem to me that the reference to "good and evil" would be to the contrast between them. Already being acquainted with good but not evil, Adam had no experience of the contrast. Or, to put it another way, one often doesn't appreciate the good until one has experienced the evil. So although Adam already knew good, he now understood it a lot better, having also experienced evil.
But all this is missing the point that God punished them for disobedience, not for gaining wisdom, which is something good.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RJ1234-d1s
"Why should I bother to prove anything to you."
If you make a claim, you have the onus to back it up.
And I'd like evidence of your claim too. And for what it's worth, I'm coming from a completely opposite worldview that turnerfamilyinozi.
According to Wikipedia (not an unbiased source when it comes to politics, but sometimes correct), the parents of Kamala's father Donald were "Afro-Jamaicans", which I think is not terribly helpful. Interestingly, Donald's mother's maiden name was Finegan, which does suggest Irish heritage.
Donald also says that his mother was descended from Irish-born Hamilton Brown, a slave owner. Although another source suggests that she was the product of rape of a slave.
Many people are of mixed heritage, and there is only one race, the human race. Although cultures vary significantly, we are all extremely similar, genetically, and one's race is of little significance. I don't care about what Kamala's genetic heritage is—it's irrelevant. But she's the one that makes something of it.
Incidentally, Trump has also said that he doesn't care. What he has questioned is the truthfulness and consistency of Kamala's claims about it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@simonharris4873
"Funny though that the people who would be upset at this tweet being removed would be the same ones to complain about such a natural act. They hate breastfeeding mothers,..."
Utter nonsense. But I guess you're someone who can't distinguish between doing something, and doing it visibly in public. Yes, many of us would object to it being done visibly in public, but that is not the same thing as objecting to it being done at all.
Further, something being natural does not mean that it's okay to be done in public. 99.9% of the population would disagree with urinating and defecating in public, but those are very natural actions.
And for what it's worth, the first time I ever saw a mother breastfeeding was in (a conservative evangelical) church. But she had a shawl over the baby's head, so you could see nothing.
"Attracting a mate is their secondary function. It's a byproduct of their primary function, which is to provide sustenance to offspring."
I'm not agreeing nor disagreeing with Selwyn or you, but have you asked the designer of humans which is primary and what is secondary? If not, I would think that you're both just speculating.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@beldiman5870
"I believe your ideas fit only in small, religious, homogenous groups such as the Amish where everyone is treated equally, where everyone contributes as much as they can, where all the rules are unwritten."
Not so. Christianity is the basis of Western Civilization, and that's hardly a small group. Being treated equally, etc. comes from Christian views. You're claiming that these Christian views only work in those sorts of societies, but it's Christian views that create those sorts of societies.
"To make a bigger, multicultural society to work you need a strong government which will in force written rules and give people some rights by default whether they"deserve" them or not."
First, John Adams, (the second American president) said "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." So yes, you need a strong government which will enforce it's laws. But that will only work if the people go along with that (generally speaking; the point of the laws is to set limits as a guide and also to control the few who don't agree with the rest).
Second, yes, those people have rights. Such as the right to justice (i.e. when someone does something wrong to them) and safety from attack. Whether those rights extend to being given material things is another matter.
Third, those rights should be part of being human, not something they only get because the government decides to grant those rights.
Fourth, yes a government will give rights beyond those. But the question here is whether they should, not whether they do.
"Does the veteran deserve to be helped by religious organizations, if they choose to love him, or should this be his right secured by the government? What is your take on this?"
A war veteran (i.e. fighting for his country, I'm not talking about people who go off and fight for someone else like Isis, but I'm sure you weren't talking about them either) does deserve to be helped by those he suffered for. In biblical language, "the labourer deserves his wages." If that war veteran has worked to the point of suffering for his country, his country (i.e. the people of this country) owes him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jfkfitirjdjjsisieirirjfjdj5967
"never made it up,"
You DID make up the claim that I said that "it’s factual because you people say so".
"...history doesn’t just happen,peoples decisions and actions create history,..."
I never said otherwise. That's a strawman.
"...you people didn’t invent nothing..."
You're right. We didn't invent nothing. We invented something.
"...only reinvented the old tech created by black peoples,..."
Evidence please. Or do "we just have to accept it" because you say so? After all, I asked for evidence of one of your claims last time, and you've not provided it.
"Christianity isn’t God..."
I never said it was. Another strawman.
"...God is nothing like us to be classified as anything created,..."
Huh?
"...the media ya invented to deliver propaganda,..."
No, information. Or perhaps you can supply evidence to the contrary? Or do "we just have to accept it" because you say so?
"...yes I’ve always challenged your kinds claims,from my years of research it appears you people have yt washed everything like the bible..."
I don't understand that, but evidence please. Or do "we just have to accept it" because you say so?
"...so yeah a bit suspect ya know,how you people have all the glory of wars and conkuest,..."
War is not glorious.
"...and gifted the world with everything good and righteous and just laws,wow,that is quite a resume bud,coming from anyone but black peoples"
And yet it's largely true. Or perhaps you can supply evidence to the contrary? Or do "we just have to accept it" because you say so?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Australians are mostly still very sceptical of these newer evangelical/pentecostal Christian outlets, that seem mainly influenced by US churches of the same broad type."
Yes, the media and others have made Australians sceptical, but evangelical Christianity is not new, and in fact was a major influence in the early Australian colonies, as well as the later moves that led to federation. Pentecostalism actually started in Wales over 100 years ago. (Not to deny that it's big in the U.S.)
..."proudly and loudly do declare that there is no separation there..."
That might be because that "separation" was that the state was to have no control over the church establishment. It was not meant to keep Christianity out of politics.
"...and that they are moving under and with some divine warrant..."
Maybe they are. Have you considered that possibility?
"It's that type of Christianity in the US, and it's explicit want and need for influence (and ultimately, money money money), and the way it's politician members behave, that people do not like, and that is what is reflecting here."
Yes, that would be part of it, but it's a long way from being the whole story. I'd say that what some people (such as the media and many politicians) don't like is Christians who actually stand up as biblical Christians, as opposed to the "pew warmers", or CINOs (Christians in name only). So people are happy with 'Christians' who are just like them. Pentecostal churches tend to be ones that stand up, but they are not the only ones.
"As Bolt mentions here, most recent Australian PMs have been Christian - and 'publicly' Christian ..."
Well, claimed to be at least. I would accept that Howard, Abbott, and Morrison are, but would reject Rudd, Gillard, and Turnbull as being anything more than CINOs (and Gillard not even that).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@schrenk-d
"Who's goal was this and why?"
The climate alarmists, as a way to wean/force people off using fossil fuels.
"Is it obvious though?"
I believe that it is. See more below.
"If you were pointing to coal ... . There is still a chance that demand rises while supply falls, the coal plants we have to need a lot of investment.
The cost of generating energy from coal is optimised in its current state."
I take your point, but then here in Victoria we have massive amounts of brown coal which it's not economic to use for much else. There is no (real) international demand for brown coal. So the price would not change much. But we've now destroyed two of our three main power stations (I think those figures are right) using that brown coal. Also, John Woodrow earlier in this thread pointed out that the price in some Queensland mines is not tied to international prices either, so rising demand doesn't really affect even those black coal prices.
"The cost of renewables and storage is falling and continues to fall."
From a very high starting point, and I get the impression that it's not falling that much. Sure, some aspects of it would be, but with new power lines, replacement of equipment, the massive amounts of battery storage required, etc., the impression I get is that the true cost is still very high. And with much of the world wanting to go to renewable energy, demand for some of that (e.g. batteries, solar panels) will be going up, which surely would tend to drive prices up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anovino1992
"...God is the creator of all things."
In a very real sense, that is true. But in another sense it's not. Who created the Mona Lisa? God or Leonardo da Vinci? It was of course Leonardo, using his God-created abilities and skills and materials.
"If we all look the same, what a boring world it would be."
Granted. But God created Adam and Eve, with the built-in ability for their offspring to look similar to, but not identical to, their parents, and to be able to adapt (within limits) to their environment. Does that mean that God made some people with lots of melanin and others with little? No, not any more so than God painted the Mona Lisa. It's like you program a computer game, and include a function to randomly produce different scenarios. Did you directly generate all those different scenarios? No, you programmed the mechanism for those scenarios to be produced by the game. God did the same (or very similar) with our genomes. He didn't create us in a variety of colours or heights or etc.; He created us with a mechanism to produce a variety of these things.
(In addition, that mechanism sometimes produces errors (thanks to the Fall), in the form of mutations. Many mutations can be deadly or harmful, but you also have some that are benign. And some of those mildly-harmful ones can be beneficial in some circumstances. Red hair, for example, is due to a mutation. Resistance to malaria is a benefit caused by the otherwise harmful sickle cell mutation.)
"I judge them on the character,..."
As we all should.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Anyone who follows any sort of religion should be eternally ashamed of themselves."
Does that include atheistic religions?
"Religion is only for morons."
And yet it was followers of Christianity who, based on their Christian beliefs, founded public hospitals, many charities, the university system, modern science, and universal education, and who twice abolished slavery, raised the status of women, gave people more freedom, and spread democracy. But you think they were all morons? Perhaps you need to justify your claim if you want to be taken seriously.
1
-
1
-
@russellparratt9859
"Genesis is Jewish creation mythology."
No, it's history, shared by all people. You claimed essentially this previously, and I asked for evidence. Instead, you simply repeat the claim.
"You can't claim the Jewish creation mythology as factual, and be taken seriously."
And yet millions take it seriously, so yes, I can.
"All civilisations have some form of creation mythology, invented ..."
What's your evidence that it was invented, and not also based on the actual creation? Many of those accounts actually agree in some remarkable details with the genesis account (despite there also being many differences).
"The Jewish creation mythology has no more credibility than any other such mythologies."
Again, what's your evidence? Repeating your beliefs over and over is not evidence.
"If you choose to believe in fairy tales, then I am wasting my time replying to you."
I choose to believe in reality. Including the reality recorded in the Bible. You have failed to show that they are fairy tales. So yes, without providing evidence for your claims, you are wasting your time. And mine.
1
-
1
-
@medialcanthus9681
"my point is Christians ... must adhere to their ... values and be a good testimony to other[s] ..."
I agree 100% with the part that I've quoted.
"my point is Christians ( and their nations) must adhere to their ... values and be a good testimony to other (heathen) nations"
I also agree with this, but with reservations, because Christians don't always control their nations. That is, even nations with a strong Christian basis includes non-Christians to varying degrees, so how much you can blame a 'Christian' nation for not being Christian enough is a debatable point.
But also, things need to be kept in perspective. No Christian, let alone a 'Christian nation' is going to be perfect. They are all going to fail in some way. This applies also to non-Christian nations, of course. But nations with a strong Christian heritage have, on the whole, been much better than many others.
So I see four problems:
1) The failures are highlighted and given disproportional weight.
2) The failures might be attributed to a 'Christian nation', that is actually rather influenced by other ideologies than just Christianity.
3) Some of the purported failures may not be failures at all. For example, you mention wars and bombings, but sometimes such things are necessary for the sake of justice.
4) Failures of the past being brought up as though they are grounds to criticise the present.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mikem9001
"I would add further, that the reason churches get public money..."
They don't get public money. Their schools do, and their charities sometimes do, but the churches don't.
"Our social welfare system would collapse overnight if religious organizations vanished."
Very true.
"I believe the largest are the Sallies, Anglicare, St Vincent de Paul and Uniting Care, but there are many others, including the non-Christian ones - Buddhists, Muslim, Jewish etc."
There are also many individual churches that don't have separate charity organisations, but still do local charity work. As they are not separate charity organisations, they are not entitled to taxpayer money. Although sometimes a local council might help out in some way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eric5901
"Aus is living in lala land and cant comprehend that this region is heavily influenced by China ..."
Some Australians seem to be living in lala land, but clearly not all. And clearly I understand that this regions is heavily influenced by China. And that is the problem.
"... that also shows by your comment"
On the contrary, it shows the opposite.
"it's not RHETORIC, it's REALITY. Wake up! "
Because you say so? Sorry, not good enough.
"Aus has a stance that anything Chinese is bad."
Yep. That's why we've traded with China so much, both buying and selling. Oh wait, that doesn't fit with think thinking that anything Chinese is bad. So much for your 'reality'.
"Well the trend is there for Chinese influence to grow over the decades to come."
Given the communist aspect of their government, that is not a good thing.
"This is why I said, if you dont like that Aus is geographically located in this area, then leave."
Okay, that's why you said it. That doesn't make it a good solution, however. Rather than running from a problem, we ought to face it and deal with it.
"Again, Australia doesn't seem to realise that they are located in ASIA, not EUROPE."
Of course Australia realises that. So that's not reality either. However, what is reality is that our culture and values are more aligned to Europe than Asia.
"Aus is clearly more concerned about Europe than their own backyard."
That doesn't necessarily follow from your example.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@antonmiles8167
"And as far as all things Christians do wrong being demonic,I don’t believe I’ve said that or alluded to it."
Apart from talking about the act rather than the Christians, my two options above remain. But for clarity, I'll restate them:
1) All things that Christians do wrong are demonic. And as all Christians do wrong things, all Christians do demonic things.
2) You treat this particular act of speaking in tongues as different to other things Christians do wrong.
Given that I don't expect you'd claim that 1) was correct (although that's a bigger possibility with the rephrasing), it appears that you believe 2) to be correct. I want to know why you think that. This question remains unanswered.
"What does “all things”even mean?"
All things that Christians do wrong. As I said, Christians are not perfect, and do wrong things. Speak in tongues, swear, fail to stand up for God, tell lies, whatever.
"Now,you have two questions to answer."
You haven't answered mine yet. As I say above, it remains unanswered. However, I will indulge you again.
I take it that the "all things" question was the second one?
So the first of those two was: "Who has the most to gain from perverting the word of God and turning Bible history into a farce?"
Obviously the answer you are looking for is Satan. And I can't say that's wrong. However, I think if you conclude from that that Satan is the direct cause of it, you are jumping to unwarranted conclusions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ronaldbercilla1993
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit have different roles. Just like at my work I have a different role to my boss. It doesn't mean that I'm inferior to him.
Jesus didn't explicitly claim to be God, but He did do things that the Jews understood that only God could do, such as forgive sins, so they clearly understood Him to be (indirectly) claiming to be God, hence they considered Him to be blaspheming by claiming to be God.
"holy spirit is never mentioned in the Bible as a person"
The Holy Spirit is referred to by personal pronouns, not as an "it". Further, Peter told Ananias that he had lied to the Holy Spirit, telling him off for lying to God, equating the two.
For more, see the article "Our Triune God" by Lita Cosner.
"...Jesus can never be equal to his Father,there is only one Sovereign person in the whole universe, it's the CREATOR Jehovah God.( Rev.4:11)."
And yet, Jesus is the creator (Colossians 1:16-17). So Jesus must be God.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sc1450
"It's Religion that said Earth is flat."
No, it did not. Rather, that was a flat-out lie invented by atheists in order to discredit Christians who believed the Bible. See the article "The Myth of the Flat Earth" by
Jeffrey Burton Russell on the website of the American Scientific Affiliation.
"It's Religion that said Earth is the centre of the universe..."
No again. That came from ancient Greek views.
"...& threatened the scientists who said Earth revolves around sun."
The Christian Galileo who said that the Earth revolves around the sun was challenging the scientific establishment of the day that had adopted the old Greek idea. But others in the scientific establishment and the church supported Galileo, and it was even taught at the church universities. However, Galileo was somewhat arrogant, and upset the pope, so Galileo was arrested and charged.
"Ok, then where did God came from?"
That's a nonsense question, like asking who the bachelor is married to. God had no beginning, so didn't come from anywhere; He wasn't created. He is the creator.
"If you say 'God has been there always'. Then that means it's possible that this world was always there too & it doesn't need a Creator just like god."
No, that simply doesn't follow. I've already explained why the world could not have always been there, because, thanks to the laws of thermodynamics, the universe is running down, and hasn't yet fully run down, so has not always been here. However, that is a physical (material) issue. God is not physical, but spirit, so the laws of physics don't apply to Him.
"I am sorry, Because to me, if God can exist without a beginning so can the universe."
So do you now see why you can't equate the two? Or are you going to wave that away for no good reason, like you've done before?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Andrew Armand
"The definition of marriage has nothin to do with the bible."
Except that the Bible records God creating it in the beginning. That kind of counts.
"You try getting married without a secular licence and many Muslim women have now found out they are not married as they have only had a religious ceremony."
Governments have codified it, so without a government licence, you're not legally married. But that doesn't mean that you're not married in God's sight.
"Many countries were not Christian and they still had marriage."
Given that God created it with Adam and Eve, from whom people in all countries are descended, that's a baseless argument.
"In Britain the church was only involved in marriages from the 11 th century as it was seen as a money making scheme which it still is for them."
No, it's not. When I got married, I was not charged by the church for it, from memory. And if I am wrong, it was only a nominal fee to cover expenses.
"There is the law of the land which gives marriage equality in most decent western country."
No, they changed the definition of marriage, in defiance of God. People already had marriage equality. The law (consistent with God's design) was that in order to be married, you had to be of suitable age, not already married, not marrying someone closely related, and not marrying someone of the same sex. That law applied equally to all. What they did is remove one of those requirements, but not the rest (isn't that discrimination?).
"This religious bigot was not correct."
You sound like the bigot. He was not a bigot, and was completely correct. Government laws come under God's law. That was one of the bases for the Magna Carta, which helped give us democracy.
1
-
Andrew Armand
"These are fairy stories and made up nonsense by primitive men."
What's your evidence for that?
And how did fairy stories inspire great architecture, great artwork, great music, great literature, public hospitals, charities, science, universal education, equality of people, the abolition of slavery, and more? It would seem that there might be more to it than fairy stories.
"The oldest documents are less than a thousand years old"
Simply false. The Dead Sea Scrolls are 2000 years old. The oldest New Testament fragments go back to around 100 AD.
"Jesus wasn’t even mention until 400 years after his death. We don’t know if he existed and you saying he does doesn’t make it true."
Virtually every historian of the period agrees that Jesus lived, was crucified, buried, His grave found empty, and people claimed to see Him alive after His grave was found empty. You are at odds with the scholarship.
So again, what's your evidence that they are fairy stories, that they are made up nonsense, and that they were written by primitive men?
1
-
Olufi
"dO homosexuals vilify the church so much? OR IS IT THE OTHER WAY AROUND?"
In my experience, it's homosexuals who do. By contrast, the church puts up rational arguments. They are both generalisations with exceptions, but still accurate.
"You know homossexuality exists loooong before 2000 years ago, ..."
Homosexual acts did, but not the idea that people are born homosexual and that others have to accept it as legitimate, I believe.
"...and in several other species other than ours."
Irrelevant. Unlike animals, humans are made in God's image.
"Are you calling God dumb and telling me He doesn´t know what He creates?"
God didn't create homosexuality (in humans at least). That has arisen since.
"Yes, of course, we had a saviour come to earth to save everyone, except the gays!!!.."
Categorically false.
"Says the book that was written by the hands of men claiming to know God and calling it the Word of God, ..."
No, it does not say that.
"Though God Himself NEVER wrote a single word of it neither He signed His name on it."
That is false. The Ten Commandments were written by God Himself. Jesus referred to the Scriptures as God's Word.
"I´m claiming nothing,..."
And yet you just claimed a number of things, such as God not writing any of the Bible.
"...you all just [deleted] off with your religions and stop bossing others about what they can or cannot do. "
You mean like your telling us what we can and cannot do? That sounds like you're bossing us.
"Keep your faiths and your beliefs and opinions to yourselves,..."
Like you're not keeping your beliefs to yourself? How is that not blatant hypocrisy?
"since marriage is a commitment between two beings that love each other. "
According to who? Not according to God who created it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sc1450
"When was it established that universe cant be forever."
It was around the 1950s that the Big Bang came to be accepted.
"Scientists are open minded about the posibility of a universe with no beginning & ending."
What's your evidence of that?
"This is just an opinion & not a fact. Understand the difference between Fact & Opinion"
No, those are facts I cited. Scientists have studied these things and run the maths and admitted that these things cannot occur naturally.
"No idea what you were trying to tell here. What information?"
Genetic information. The instructions on the genome that control what amino acids get combined in what ways to make particular proteins, and how they all get assembled together. The genome is basically an instruction book for the construction of the body of the living thing. Bill gates says that the information is akin to an operating system, but more complicated. Richard Dawkins was asked to provide an example of a mechanism that could produce the information. He was not able to. Paul Davies says that the laws of physics can't explain where this information came from.
"And there are thousands of people in India who claims that they saw a Godman perform miracle by their own eyes. "
Are there? Names? Documents supporting that? Did that include returning to life days after being executed?
"No it doesnt. I already explained this above. Scientists like Stephen Hawkings has proposed such theories that involve universes with no beginning & ending."
That is incorrect. Hawking supported that the universe had a beginning. But because this makes no scientific sense, Hawking and others have proposed completely untestable (i.e. unscientific) ideas such as a series of universes or multiple universes. But each of those universes had a beginning. And it doesn't actually solve the problem posed by the laws of thermodynamics. How did this series of universes that have supposedly been going on for infinity not run down too? They are all physical worlds, after all, not supernatural ones. One way around this is to propose that these other universes have different laws of physics, another completely unscientific idea. Science is built on the idea (derived from a Christian understanding) that the laws of physics are consistent and able to be discovered and studied. Proposing that there are or were other universes that have different laws is not an argument from science, but from desperation trying to explain the existence of everything without resorting to God. As such it is a metaphysical belief, not science.
You asked for proof. I said that science doesn't do proofs, but that I could cite evidence. And I did cite evidence. Proposing hypothetical alternatives for which there is no evidence is not a refutation. The evidence I cited stands unrefuted.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Olufi
"Right, that is your experience, your own opinion, which doesn´t even compare to the opinions of thousands (maybe millions) of gays and lesbians who were tortured and murdered through out the times because of what you people read from that book. "
Comparing my experience alone with the claimed experience of an unknown-but-supposedly-large number of others is hardly a valid comparison. Further, it's not in evidence that all those claimed people were tortured and murdered because of what the Bible teaches.
"well, if you are not born homossexual, then you aren´t born heterossexual aswell."
That is a non-sequitur.
"At what point of your life did you decide you wanted to be a hetero?"
We don't decide. We were designed to be heterosexual. Anything else is against that design.
"i don´t need anyone´s acceptance based on their (human and failable) opinions and ideas."
You're misrepresenting me. I'm not citing my fallible human opinion. I'm citing the infallible opinion of the One who made us.
"So, are you saying God isn´t perfect afterall? Or do you know a human being that is perfect?"
No, I didn't even hint at that. As I've already mentioned, God made us perfect, but after we rejected Him, things started to run down. Imperfections then started to appear.
"So, God created the whole universe and everything that exists, but not homossexuality?!?... - Right!
God made everything that exists in the sense of all matter, energy, life, humans, stars, etc. However, things have deteriorated since (because we rejected Him), and of course humans have also made things out of what God made (i.e. we didn't make our stuff from nothing like He did). So we have made weapons, caused diseases, built buildings, written books, and so on. That deterioration includes deterioration of the genomes in living things, so IF homosexuality has a genetic basis (something that I understand there is no good evidence for) then that would be a result of that deterioration. (Otherwise it's the result of human decisions.) So no, God did not make homosexuality (or a whole lot of other things such as what I've listed above).
"No, that is what YOU people preach!... "
Incorrect. You claimed that the Bible "was written by the hands of men claiming to know God and calling it the Word of God,", implying that the claims were baseless and that God had no involvement. Rather (and what Christians teach) the Bible was written by men under the 'inspiration' of God, meaning that it is God's book using human "ghost writers". A good analogy is when a celebrity decides to write his autobiography but hires a professional author to do the actual writing. The book's author is shown as the celebrity, not the hired writer, and the celebrity has decided what goes in it and what doesn't. But much of the actual wording will be that of the professional writer. Similarly, God used human writers, but God was in control of what was in it. It is God's book, not man's.
"...where none of you has really met Him or know Him directly."
Are you talking about Christians today, or biblical authors? The authors had close relationships with God.
"Where you there when God wrote them? Did you see it happen? Or did you meet Jesus in secret and He Himself told you that? "
The Bible records that God wrote them. You claimed as a matter of fact that God wrote none of it, yet the Bible itself says that He did. So you didn't point out a pertinent fact, but made a claim without evidence that directly contradicted the accepted understanding.
But not only that, Jesus (who is God) endorsed the Scriptures as being from God. If the claim about God writing the Ten Commandments was false, Jesus would not have endorsed it.
"Well, show me proof then."
So you admit that you have no evidence for your claims?
"Where is this book that has God´s hand signature?"
I've already told you a) that God personally wrote the Ten Commandments, and b) that God indirectly wrote the rest of the Bible. I don't know how literally you are asking for a signature, but there are two problems. First, I didn't claim that He literally signed it, so you're asking for evidence that I never claimed existed. Second, what would that prove anyway? If He had signed it, you wouldn't know what His signature looked like to check it.
But perhaps you don't mean it literally? In which case, what sort of "signature" would you be expecting?
"Oh, so you don´t like to be told what to do, yet you dictate what gays can or cannot do?!?...."
Oh dear. I never said that I didn't like to be told what to do. I pointed out that you were doing what you accuse us of doing. Second, I'm not dictating anything. I'm merely telling you what God thinks of it.
"What gives you such authority? Is it your book that men wrote?... (Ain´t so funny when the roles are reversed, is it?)"
No roles have been reversed. I never claimed any authority for myself. I'm claiming that God has authority, and quoting Him. What's your evidence that God didn't write it?
"Well, if you have the right to preach your beliefs to the entire world and speak them openly and shape society based on those, why don´t we all have those rights?..."
Your question is invalid. We have the right to TRY to shape society. And I never claimed that you didn't have the same right. But just as you have the right to express your views (something that Christianity has allowed), we also have the right to express opposing views.
"Or you think you are special because you have a book? Again: not so funny when the roles are reversed, is it?"
You have not managed to reverse roles. You have misrepresented me.
"Again, did He Himself tell you that?"
Yes, in the sense that I have read the book that He wrote where he said that.
"Or is that your opinion based on that book written by men that you read and want others to believe blindly???"
As I have pointed out, it wa written by God, and yet again, you misrepresent me, as I have never said that people should believe it blindly. Rather, they should follow the evidence, because the evidence shows it to be God's accurate testimony.
1
-
1
-
Andrew Armand
"You bandy left and right about."
I don't use the term "right" much, but it is hard to put accurate labels on various views, so I won't argue that I've always got that right. But in the past the push for homosexuality came more from the left, and I still see the push for LGBT+ coming mainly from the left. But yes, I have noticed that there are a lot of homosexuals on the conservative side.
"This was passed with 3% opposition in Parliament."
And I know a minister (of religion) who was told by a number of those MPs that they didn't agree with the change but did not dare oppose it.
"Most of this was NI DUPs which are in general quite homophobic."
What's your evidence that they have an irrational fear of homosexuality rather than simply disagreeing with it for possibly-good reasons? I ask because I often see that slur bandied around for no good reason.
"In the US there are nearly 200,000 children being brought up by mostly married same sex couples."
Except of course they are not married, as marriage is, by definition, a lifelong union between a man and a woman. And that's very unfortunate as families were designed to have a mother and father, not two fathers or two mothers.
I'm not disputing your figures (in this case at least). I'm disputing the legitimacy of homosexuality on the grounds that God designed us to be heterosexual and condemns homosexuality (meaning homosexual acts at least).
"If the vote had gone your way would you’d have argued it was a plebiscite?"
There is no argument. That is exactly what it was. The government proposed a referendum, in which voting would be compulsory and the government would be obliged to follow the result. This required legislation but the opposition opposed it, not wanting the public to have a say. So the government, not needing legislation to do so, held a plebiscite instead. Voting was not compulsory, and the government was not legally obliged to act on the result (but they committed to doing so anyway). In my opinion and understanding, the significant difference was that if there was a referendum, the legislation would have provided funding for both sides to put their case. As a plebiscite, this wasn't possible. Given that the mainstream media had for years been only putting the argument for SSM, the other side was behind the eight ball to start with. Even a referendum would not have been a fair result in that sense, but the plebiscite was that much worse. When people only get to hear one side, of course they are going to vote that way. (I'm not saying that it was so black and white that they never heard the other side, but it was very much skewed in favour of SSM, complete with misleading slogans and claims such as it being about equality.)
"They cherry pick the nice bits and gloss over the extermination of the heathens and forced conversions."
The anti-Christians highlight the relatively-infrequent bad bits that are aberrations and gloss over the enormous good. How often do you hear from normal sources that Christianity is responsible for founding public hospitals, most charities, science, universal education and literacy, freedoms and human right, spreading democracy, equality, abolishing slavery, documenting and preserving hundreds of languages, and so on? Instead, they usually cite the same handful of apparently-negative claims, like the 20 or so women burned for supposedly being witches (a practice also stopped by Christians), the Crusades (which started as a legitimate exercise in freeing Jerusalem from Islam control after Islam invaded it, but did deteriorate afterwards), and a few others, often grossly exaggerated. Then there are outright lies like the atheist invention that the church used to teach that the earth was flat. It's those sorts of negatives that I encounter far more than I hear about the good that it has done.
"Religion is the opiate of the masses."
Which religion? An atheistic one? Besides, misquoting a a throw-away line from an atheist is not an argument.
"I just realised you said the left tried to stop you having a say. How is that possible with a postal vote???"
I was referring to the details I've given above of how they blocked legislation for a referendum.
1
-
Olufi
"So now you need evidence?"
What do you mean "now"? Of course I need evidence. I always have.
"So where is the evidence that the bible was written by God?"
I asked you first. If you can't or won't give evidence for your claims, why should I give evidence for my claims?
"So far, i´ve seen none, even historians have seen none."
Have you looked? And what's your evidence that even historians have seen none?
"And how would you know that? were you ever gay?"
I don't need to be homosexual to understand logic.
"Says who?"
God, who designed us.
"and where did you learn this opinion of the one who made us? in that book that men wrote?"
In the book that God wrote (using human writers).
"- So, gays are born straight and then become an imperfection that decided to be that way, is that what you think?"
Humans are designed to be heterosexual, but we are all imperfect and choose to sin in various ways (ignore God, lie, steal, be selfish, get angry, lust, and/or whatever), much of which is influenced (but not controlled) by others. Some people, for whatever reason (probably to do with upbringing) feel that they are sexually attracted to the same sex, and choose to act on that.
"- That is what you believe in, or rather, were taught to believe."
That is what I believe, but not because I was taught it. Rather, I looked at the logic, evidence, and rationale, which made sense and appeared to be correct.
"You weren´t there, you have no proof that that is true."
Please define "proof". In most cases 'proof' is not some absolute thing, but merely enough evidence to convince. But then you weren't there either, so what's your 'proof' (or evidence)?
"Same thing in other religions."
No, not necessarily, and not with the same evidence. Not all religions nor all 'holy books' can make the same claims. It's an atheist myth that you can treat them all the same. It's like saying that this particular upmarket handbag, say, is the genuine article, but all these fakes also claim to be the genuine article, so why does the first one have any special claim? It's simply not logical to claim that if various religions or their books make similar claims then you can't tell which claim is correct and which are wrong. You look at the evidence and decide.
"How do you know yours is the right book? "
By looking at the evidence.
"So far, we have no proof or evidence that these books were at all written by God."
What's your evidence for your claim that we have no such evidence?
"- How do you know this? Were you there to see God inspire them?"
Because the Bible says so, and Jesus (God) Himself endorsed that as correct.
"Again, so does the Quran."
The claims of the Quran are different. The claim is that God directly dictated the Quran word for word to one person at one point in time, not multiple people over hundreds of years. And God didn't endorse it.
"And, that is a BIG non-sequitur: assuming that it is true that a book was written by God just because the same book says so. "
It's just as well then that I didn't use that argument.
" - Neither do you."
Except that I do.
"- Again, you can´t state those a) and b) as a fact, that is what you believe in, you weren´t there to witness it."
I can state them as fact, even though I didn't see it for myself, because I have a reliable source.
"No, i mean LITERALLY!... If He was capable of writing the ten commandments, He surely would be capable to write a book by His hand and sign it also."
Okay, so there are two problems. One I already mentioned: how would that help, because you wouldn't know what his signature looked like to verify it? You could simply claim that a human could have signed claiming to be God. So that is a completely useless requirement. The second is that just because He'd be capable of signing it doesn't mean that He should or did. So not only is the requirement useless, you haven't even shown that it should be expected.
"- Again, when did you meet Him, and when did He gave you such authority?"
I believe that I have already sufficiently answered that.
" You aren´t quoting Him, you never heard Him, you´re quoting the men you BELIEVE wrote what God wanted them to write. Again, it´s is your belief, you have no proof of that, so you can´t claim it as truth."
Yet again what is your 'proof' (or evidence) that I have no evidence of that. And by your standard, if you can't prove your own claim that I have no proof, then you can't claim it as truth.
"- No it isn´t, it is very valid."
It was invalid in that you claimed that we believe we have the right to change society. Not just to try and change it, but to change it.
"Gays had to fight and die to be accepted in christian societies."
That does not answer my point, which was that you claimed that we thought you had no right to be heard. Now you're talking about having to convince Christians that homosexuality was legitimate (which is different to being accepted as people). Okay, so you had to try and convince Christians. That doesn't mean that you weren't allowed to speak, which is the claim I was refuting.
"No, i haven´t."
I explained how you did misrepresent me. Simply denying it is not an argument.
"And one more time: THAT IS WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN..."
Yes, and for one more time: for good reason.
"THERE IS NOOOOO EVIDENCE THAT THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN BY GOD! "
As someone said, that's "your belief, you have no proof of that, so you can´t claim it as truth."
"And that is why i told you you can´t force your beliefs on others,..."
Which I'm sure I've said we are not doing. Repeating the claim doesn't make it true.
"...religious people should keep their beliefs to themselves."
But atheists can express their own beliefs? How generous you are!
1
-
@sc1450
"There is no point in debating you. You are right out denying anything you don't like and making claims that makes no sense."
Utterly false. I'm not simply denying; I'm giving reasons for my rejection of your claims. This is a typical tactic of critics: you can't answer, so you falsely accuse the person giving you reasons for their views. And accuse the other person of doing what you yourself do.
"If it was proved that Universe has a beginning, then Hawking must be an Idiot to put on theories that say otherwise."
Perhap you could cite exactly what Hawking said?
"It's just like the other guy said, you are just using lots of logical fallacies like circular reasoning etc."
Except that he failed to show that I was. And you haven't shown it either. It's easy to falsely accuse, but not so easy to produce evidence.
"What are the names of the people who saw Jesus coming back to life?"
We don't have all their names, but they included Peter, Thomas, Paul, and others that I couldn't be bothered looking up at the moment. And I didn't say that they saw him "coming back to" life. I said that they saw him alive after he was executed.
"Also prove their existence first."
Again with the "proof" rather than 'evidence'. Look for the YouTube 'video' titled "Atheist Refuted by Agnostic Historian (Bart Ehrman) on the Existence of Jesus." Ehrman is one of the most sceptical scholars of Jesus life that exists, but he accepts much of the history. I don't recall if that video (only seven minutes) specifically addresses your question, but in general terms it does.
"Genetic Information proves nothing."
What did you say about "right out denying anything you don't like"? Isn't that what you're doing right here? On the other hand, I mentioned actual scientists and what they said.
"If god created Man in his image, then what does his ... do? 🙄 What are they for?"
God is not physical, and it's not talking about physical image. It's talking about such things as being able to think abstractly, plan, talk, create things, and so on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blankfaces256
"it's called manners, normally we ask first rather than be intrusive, if they can't be respectful then it is ordered."
Being respectful doesn't mean agreeing to any and every request you get, only the reasonable ones.
No, it's not manners to ask then demand if you don't get your way.
"to cause distress to others where multiple complaints were made as advised in the videos"
What distress? People not liking to hear the truth?
"The police have every right to ask someone to move if they are causing distress as it is classed as a public nuisance or public disorder."
That would be very subjective.
"this is your responsibilty to check for yourself in which cagatory this falls in to. "
Why is it my responsibility? By your own admission you're commenting without knowing for certain.
"He could of continued to practice his religion respectfully ..."
What's the evidence that he wasn't? Merely that people didn't like what he was saying?
"...he decided to soil the religion by being intrusive with the bible,..."
Again, how was he being intrusive?
"I doubt the bible was ever invented as a weapon..."
Hebrews 4:12: "For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart."
Ephesians 6:10-20: "Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end, keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak."
The Bible itself declares it to be a weapon—against evil.
"without forcing their religon on other people."
Telling people about it is not forcing it.
And that's the problem here—the overreaction to and demonising of something that is actually quite okay by people who don't like to hear the truth.
1
-
Andrew Armand
"All the weight of the child abuse, killing and forced conversion to Christianity, the vast wealth of the Church and the starving people and the dying children."
Please, stop with the demonising. The child abuse is an aberration, not typical of Christianity. Christians, as a rule, have never killed and forced people to convert to Christianity. The church is not particularly wealthy. Most of the claimed wealth is in property that was, in many cases, donated, and which has appreciated in value over the centuries, but is not readily transformed into liquid assets. Many churches actually struggle to even pay their pastors a decent wage. And Christians have done more to help the starving and the dying than any other group, from financially supporting widows in the first century, creating the first public hospitals soon after, founding most charities, and still donating more of their time, money, and blood than the "non religious".
"If there is an afterlife you are right about us going to different places. I’m not the one that’s worried."
You should be. Everything we have is ultimately from God. If you're not going to be with Him you will be without Him and everything that He provides. And that will be, literally, hell. Please don't choose that option.
"I’m not religious so I do not have these biblical passages at hand. I will make a note of them. Thank you"
You mean that you're not a Christian. (You are, by a broad definition, religious.) The problem with Sho's comment is that he is taking passages out of context with no understanding of them. You repeat them only if you wish to make a fool of yourself.
1
-
1
-
@sc1450
"So Atheists don't believe,"
And yet I listed some things that they believe. So you are clearly wrong.
"An person can call himself an Atheist if the doesn't believe in anything."
A person who doesn't believe in anything is not thinking, like in a coma or dead.
"Anyone who says 'I don't know' when asked whether there is a god qualifies as an Atheist."
Agnostic is the term for that. Atheism is more of a belief in God's non-existence, although I agree that the word is used loosely at times.
"If asked Earth is 6000 years old? If a person says 'I don't know & I don't care'"
Okay, I get your point. A person that doesn't have an opinion on a particular detail can still be an atheist. True enough. But that doesn't mean that they don't believe anything.
"You believe Earth is 6000 years."
I didn't say that. I was pointing out that an atheist will believe that it's not 6000 years old. The only exceptions are those few who have never ever thought about the age of the earth. Do you believe that the world is older than 6000 years? Or do you believe that it could be 6000 years old? Nevermind, you've made your view clear with your insult. You believe that the world is not 6000 years old.
"No sane person will."
And that is flatly false, given that there are many, many, sane people who do, including many scientists and other clearly-sane people. So that is not a fact-based claim, but merely vilfication. Which is stock-in-trade for many atheists and many other anti-Christians.
1
-
@blankfaces256
"Firstly I never implied the man was respectful,"
I didn't say nor imply that you did. On the contrary, you were accusing him of being disrespectful for no apparent reason, like it was just a given.
"The fact that you are quoting bible verses to insure that it is seen as a weapon shows the disrespect you have for your own religion. "
How does it show disrespect? It seems that you've first decided that that's a bad thing, again for no apparent reason. Now in many cases that would be a bad thing, but the police carry weapons, don't they? And yet that's a good thing, because weapons are good when they are used for good. The same with the Bible.
"I had the understanding that the bible was written to better the world and live how god implies..."
Sort of. But it's really to show us what we are like and what God is like, and to show us a way back to Him. That way back to Him is not based on what we do ("living how god implies") but on whether we are prepared to repent of our sins and make Him Lord. Sure, if people do that, that will have the effect of making the world better. Which it has, in spades.
"...but to you it's a weapon and you actually admitted to that so you are of the understanding that those verses were there to hurt another and cause distress."
Did you miss the bit where I said that the weapons are to fight evil? That's a good thing. It's not intended to hurt, but to heal. I guess an analogy might be that it's like taking a foul-tasting medicine. It might seem bad, but it's actually good.
"So why complain about something that you wanted to happen?"
What makes you think that I wanted that to happen, beyond your own misunderstanding of what actually going on?
"He hurt people and caused offence..."
No, he did not physically hurt people. Yes, he probably caused offence and hurt their feelings. But that's not grounds to silence someone. What if he said that he was offended by their objections? Does that mean that he's hurting them, or that they should stop just because he says or feels that?
"...with his interpritation of the bible."
What makes you think he was misinterpreting it? Please. I want to know. (Or admit that you had no grounds for saying that.)
"I wonder, do you have male neihbours? Do you love the niehbour? if sooo don't that make you kinda gay?"
I'm having a hard time believing that that is meant as a serious comment, because it's ridiculous nonsense, utterly failing to distinguish between different types of love. The 'love' of love your neighbour is agapē in the Greek, which is unconditional love, or willful, sacrificial, love. What you are talking about is the Greek eros, or sexual/romantic love.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Andrew Armand
And that does not apply to atheists and others too?
But you assume too much. Yes, brainwashing can occur, such as government schools brainwashing students to leftist views or atheistic views such as evolution. This occurs when they only get to hear one side. But in most places it's rarely the case now that people only get to hear the Christian side, so that's hardly an argument for why Christians are Christians, but it does explain why atheists are atheists.
But that doesn't mean that that's always the case. The number of Christians in China grew from four million at the start of the atheistic Revolution to around 100 million today. That is not a predominantly Christian country, so how does your theory explain that? In many other parts of the world the number of Christians is also growing rapidly.
Dedicated Muslims won't allow their children convert to anything else on pain of death. Christianity has no such enforcement. People accept it because of their personal experience of God (personal evidence) or because of other evidence. Not a few atheists and agnostics have rejected that view because of the evidence.
And in my case, I was raised in a Christian family, but I was taught the evidence for it. I did not believe just because my parents did. In fact, even though I believed, there was still one occasion I particularly recall when I questioned how something was the case. That is, I was thinking for myself and questioning. But I got an answer that made sense.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@caboose2569
"Brain activity and structure in transgender adolescents more closely resembles the typical activation patterns of their desired gender, ..."
And yet, their brain activity is obviously within the range of people of their (actual) sex. To put it another way, what determines a female vs. a male "activation pattern" of a brain?
"They dont think theyre female or male,..."
Clearly they do think that, otherwise they wouldn't have any dysphoria.
"they literally THINK and develop like a female or male."
But what determines how a female or male thinks? If a female thinks like X, then X is like a female thinks (even if it's also like a male thinks).
"...as you so clearly love to cling to purely observable constants,..."
Yes, I do love to cling to things we observe as opposed to those we make up.
"not evidence enough for you that it is QUITE different from the baseless comparisons youre making?"
Because you haven't made your case, and you haven't shown how my comparison is baseless. Have anorexic brain activity and activation patterns been studied in anorexics? Maybe they are different too? When you have an entire industry devoted to finding differences, you're sure to find some. But if you don't look, you won't. After all, an anorexic (to stick with that analogy) clearly has something going wrong in their brain too. But you don't have an industry trying to find justifications for anorexia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@caboose2569
"See this is how i know you dont want to actually learn and are in fact biased..."
Because I disagree with you?
"(and an actual biggot too... I mean who would defend pathologizing homosexuality?)"
I didn't defend it. I pointed out why it was changed.
But in any case, we were designed to be heterosexual. Homosexuality is going against our design.
"You dont like the facts so you call them bias and you dont want to research from unbias'd sources like government websites..."
It's not in evidence that they are facts. What makes government websites unbiased? They can be as biased as anyone else.
"(which is where a simple google of those quotes would show they originated from (silly lazy boy)"
You're right, although I've looked into such studies before and seen that they don't stack up, so get lazy about looking into even more. After all, the field is rife with invention. For example, Christopher Dummitt, a researcher in the field, said "Everyone was (and is) making it up. That’s how the gender-studies field works."
But I've Googled it, and found the study. As I suspected, it was asking people what they thought/remembered, with no apparent controls on their thoughts/memories being accurate. But that's not the only problem. Here are more:
* They didn't seek people who had been exposed to "gender identity conversion efforts", but people from so-called transgender people. That is, they selected people where those efforts had failed, not where those efforts had succeeded. There's a methodological bias right there.
* They didn't distinguish between different types of efforts. Some efforts could clearly have a bad effect, but it doesn't follow that all will.
* As a critique of the study ("NEW STUDY LINKING CONVERSION THERAPY TO DEPRESSION IN TRANS ADULTS & CRITICISM") pointed out, "The key limitation is that the study did not control for comorbid psychiatric illness, the greatest single predictor of suicidality. While mental health conditions are acknowledged as confounders, they are declared unlikely based on the spurious idea that this would require internalized transphobia. Rather, it seems likely that professionals encountering persons with gender dysphoria (GD) and significant mental health problems were more likely to engage in conversations about the merits of transition, which may later be recalled as a conversion effort. Thus, the association found is arguably more likely due to reverse causation."
* The study is clearly done by people with an agenda, given that they accept the trans-activist lie that "Transgender persons are those whose sex assigned at birth differs from their gender identity..." Sex is NOT "assigned" at birth or any other time. That is simply one of those inventions.
"There is nothing more to say on the issue."
Good. Let's see if you stick to that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RoseSharon7777
"How can the Son be the father?"
Because "the Son" is not referring to a biological relationship, but to a role. The son is one who obeys the father and who is the heir to the father.
"If Jesus was Yhwh his name would be Yhwh."
You've never heard of anyone having more than one name?
"You can't just change the meaning of language then nothing would mean anything."
I'm not. But the vast majority of words have more than one meaning.
"A table could an airplane, a blanket could be a spoon, and a dog could be a fan."
Or a table could be both what you learned in school and something you eat dinner off. A blanket could be a bit of cloth that you use to keep warm, or metaphorically anything that gives you comfort. A fan can be a non-mechanical thing you wave to cool yourself, a mechanical device that rotates to achieve the same purpose, or a person who adores another.
"Language is God used to speak to man and he used the proper understanding of Language."
Of course. But as I said, words can have more than one meaning. In Genesis 1, the word yom is defined both as a normal day (an evening and a morning) and as the daylight portion of that normal day.
"Youre twisting scripture to fit your doctrine ..."
I claim that you haven't shown to be true.
"Yhwh is Elohiem and he has no equals..."
I've already agreed. But Jesus is Yahweh.
"The father our Elohiem never changes nor did the 1st commandment. "
He never changes, but that doesn't mean that He doesn't change some things for changed circumstances. The classic example is the shepherd and the sheep. The shepherd looked after sheep in an unfenced field, except for a fence beside a cliff, because he wanted to keep the sheep safe. Then wolves moved into the area, so he put a fence around the other sides too. Did the shepherd change, or did the shepherd simply respond to changed circumstances?
"You might try learning greek and hebrew to discover the deception you inherited from church fathers as prophevied by Jer 16:19-21."
You haven't shown that I have inherited deception, and I can't see that those verses refer to church fathers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oldgolfer7435
"Renewables are actually cheaper, ..."
That is hotly disputed.
"I think you actually know that."
No, I don't.
"How does it fit with your reasoning the fact that the Coalition has governed this country for 10n of the past 11 years. "
I already answered that, in my preemptive parenthetical remark.
"As for spending more and more money, it seems that the next budget will be in surplus!"
True, but how did that come about?
"Of course you will credit the Libs for that,..."
Perhaps because they deserve it?
"...but even so it does not fit with your statement."
On the contrary, it does fit with my preemptive claim that the Liberals haven't been much better.
"Even if they found gas you will be decades older before you saw the benefit."
First, they could have 'found' it years ago, if they'd been allowed to.
Second, finding it is not the problem. It's known that there is gas there. They are not allowed to make use of it.
"I happen to believe that the environment comes before my personal comfort."
So you're a nature worshipper? What makes you think that that the environment is more important?
"However under Labor I must admit I have a better chance of getting both."
Given that Labor sending us towards energy poverty, that "admission" appears to be contrary to the evidence.
1
-
1
-
@emilioincerto
"I am not a protected class because of who I sleep with!!"
For example, when a homosexual asked a cake maker in the U.S. to make a cake with a message supporting so-called same-sex marriage, and the baker refused, the government took the shop to court and destroyed their business. When others called cake shops run by homosexuals asking them to make a cake with a message supporting traditional marriage, they also refused, but the government took no action.
"made me think 'i must be different' "
Not wanting to make you feel worse, but the fact is that you are different—to the way that we were designed to be.
"My body feels hardwired for it."
I won't dispute that it feels that way, but there is no good evidence that anyone's body is hardwired for it. And there are people who used to be homosexual but who no longer are.
"Christians by a moral code modelled after the good news of Christ."
That's partly correct, but there's more to it than that. Christ is the creator of the world, including people. He created us heterosexual, and without any faults. However, we rejected Him, and so things have deteriorated since. Now we all have faults, including both moral and genetic (mutations accumulate at the rate of about 100 per generation, so we are a long way from the way we were created). That moral code is based on the way that God designed us to be, which is why homosexuality is a sin (and to be absolutely clear, we all sin in some way or another; homosexuals are not necessarily 'worse' sinners than others).
"I will defend your right to hate me. No joke."
You shouldn't, and as he pointed out, he didn't say that he does/would anyway. Nobody has a right to hate anyone else. However, you should defend others' right to disagree with you (it sounds like you would do that anyway).
"I quit my current job literally because of D E I..."
I've had my job threatened for speaking out against the LGBT+ agenda at work, and was explicitly told that I'm not allowed to share my views with my work colleagues. I greatly appreciate your comments about opposing the "weaponized evil".
1
-
@willdevine8266
"so for example if you were a religious school and you came out saying you were going to expel anyone who was gay or transgender, that would be discrimination."
Discrimination is something that we all do all the time, and there is nothing in principle wrong with it. It's only wrong when you discriminate on unfair grounds. You haven't shown that this is unfair grounds.
"so for one thing, affirmative action is not racism."
True. It can be sexism too.
"Affirmative action is if you have 2 people at identical skill levels, then you assumption is the person of colour has had to overcome more systemic issues to get to that point, making them the better candidate."
Pull the other one. Affirmative action is when you decide before choosing a candidate that you will hire a person from a particular group.
"i mean I don't think it is acceptable to ban gay or trans people from an institution purely on the basis of your religious belief?"
No, you do it on the basis of right and wrong.
"since this is an issue only affect gay or trans people, they clearly need protection against it because it isnt something that impacts regular, straight people?"
As a general rule, everything we do affects or influences others. By accepting people who are doing the wrong thing you are sending a message that those things are okay.
"having a more diverse group of workers from different backgrounds actually increases company profits and productivity more than hiring more qualified workers from identical backgrounds."
We're not talking about different backgrounds, but about different genders or supposed racial groups. Different genders would make some sense, except that the same people argue that there is no difference between men and women, so how would that help?
Different cultures does make some sense too, but only if those cultures bring new insights or attitudes, not simply because they are different.
"except they are because hiring minorities is better for the company by all available data."
What data?
"you know the majority of politicians in this country are white, right? how would it help them stay in power?"
By pandering to the influential extreme left in the media and academia. You notice how the most vociferous on these issues are 'white' but don't give up their own jobs to someone else?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SMHman666
"It's very average as a history book too."
Yet you don't say what's 'average' about it.
"Different set of standards I guess"
Correct. Because they are doing different things. Science works with the scientific method, key parts of which are to observe, measure, test, and repeat. (Okay, I failed to explain why I mentioned those particular things.) Contrary to your claim, you can't observe, measure, nor test the past (nor repeat those tests), because you don't have the past to do any of those things with.
But as the Bible is not a science textbook, it doesn't need to do most of those things. The one thing a historical record can do, however (and again contrary to your claim), is observe. That is, the authors can observe things when then happen (i.e. in our past but their present) and record them for later generations.
So the Bible is, in that respect, actually a better source of information about the past than is science.
1
-
@SMHman666
"The bible, quran and similar texts have all been shown to have historical flaws, which you wouldn't expect from a divine being. "
Neither would I expect a divine being to be the author of books that contradict each other. Only one of those is from God, that being the Bible. What historical flaws do you think it has? It has been accused of many, only for many of those to turn out, upon further archaeological discovery, to not be flaws after all.
"Science can observe (indirectly), test and measure what has happened in the past and it does that by means of the tools at it's disposal. This is common knowledge and it is how science operates as a whole."
You're just repeating your claim without explaining what makes it true. Repeating it does not make it true. But to clarify, I'm not claiming that science can't assist with understanding what happened in the past. In many cases it can provide some additional information, and even eliminate some options. But it's quite limited, given its inability to observe, etc. the past.
"By your reasoning if I see some footprints in the mud then I cannot conclude that something walked by because I wasn't there/happened in the past."
No, that is not my reasoning. First, footprints are clearly the result of feet walking on the ground. Otherwise they wouldn't be footprints. (It's like asking, 'how do you know that this bachelor is not marred? Well, if they were married, they wouldn't be a bachelor! The way you worded it, the question presumes the answer.) But why do you think that the shapes you see in the ground are actually footprints?
Second, my reasoning is that the scientific method cannot observe, measure, or test what actually happened. That doesn't mean that we can't draw a reasonable conclusion that they are footprints. But that's not necessarily a scientific deduction.
I'll give you a counter-example. In the trial of Oscar Pistorius a few years ago, both the prosecution and the defence introduced scientific experts who had studied the available evidence but those experts reached very different conclusions. Isn't science supposed to be able to test and repeat, so that one can objectively determine what is actually the case? If not, then we'd find bridges and buildings collapsing because the scientists who test material strength and the like couldn't be trusted to get it right.
"Your original comment is stated with no corroborating evidence."
Not true. My point was that there are no aliens. I provided the corroborating evidence that God created life only on this planet. Of course it's impracticable to provide supporting evidence for every single thing I say. (You didn't provide corroborating evidence for your claims of the Bible being only average history nor of it having historical flaws.) If you want evidence for a particular claim, you can ask for it. Like I did for your historical flaw claim and like I'm going to do now...
"It's just one in a multitude of legends that early civilisations created to comfort their curiosity."
What's your evidence that the biblical account was created to comfort curiosity?
"Many adversaries of science..."
I'm not an adversary of science, by the way. I strongly believe in the usefulness of this Christian invention, to the extent that it's applied to things that it can test in the present.
"If you don't require evidence then any book, story, etc can suffice to build your views upon."
True. Which is why I require evidence. And that's why I believe what the Bible says, because there is evidence to back it up.
"I prefer reality over myths..."
As do I. Which is why I posted my original comment.
"...I was once deeply religious myself."
I'd suspect that you still are. But that depends on which meaning of "religious" we are each using. The range of meanings include the set of beliefs on which you base your life (which means that atheistic views can be considered religious, and why I suspect you are still deeply religious), belief in God or gods (which is a definition that atheists often use, but which would exclude Secular Humanism, Zen Buddhism, Scientology, and others from being religions), and a system of rites and rituals (by which meaning many Christians reject the idea that Christianity is a religion).
1
-
@SMHman666
"It's clear we're not going to find an agreement on this..."
Especially if you won't support your claims that I challenged you on.
"... I appreciate your thoughtful replies."
Thank you.
"Haha, I certainly don't believe in any supernatural benevolent being/s now although I used to."
But you provide no good reason for changing your mind.
"I think you "see" evidence because that's what you want to see."
Or maybe you do?
"I'll just mention 1 point as an example of this.....The Grand Canyon. YEC claim they have evidence for the recent development of that landmark yet scientists the world over see it as ancient."
And I'll give you an example of your failure to make your point objectively. You claim that "YEC" says one thing and "scientists" say another. That completely hides the fact that there are scientists on the "YEC" side. A more accurate claim would be that creationary scientists say one thing and evolutionary scientists say another. But all of a sudden, your point is neutered.
Of course, I could also add two more points: a) science is about evidence, not consensus, and b) those evolutionary scientists never observed the formation of the canyon, neither have they measured how long it took or how much water was involved, and neither have they tested their ideas by forming a similar canyon to show that their views actually work.
"There is a multitude of proofs across various sciences..."
Science doesn't do proofs. So no.
"...the YEC I've spoken with dismiss that..."
No, they reject that, with reason and evidence.
"...while pushing the few bits they think confirms their belief. It doesn't..."
What's your evidence? Oh, wait, I've asked that a couple of times already, and you don't provide any.
"...but they can make it fit with their ideas to keep themselves comfortable."
And the evolutionary scientists are not doing that? After all, they all have the same evidence. It's how you explain that evidence that differs. Creationary scientists are open-minded—they can consider whether the cause was natural or involved the supernatural. Evolutionary scientists, on the other hand, adopt the principle of methodological naturalism which means that they are not allowed to consider an explanation involving the supernatural. As such, citing the views of those scientists as evidence that the Bible has errors is a circular argument, as they have presumed a natural answer before even considering the evidence.
"Anyway I'll leave it at that as we'll just go around in circles and I find that pointless."
You might go in circles. I address the claims and try and move forward. But thanks for the discussion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stephenarbon2227 I remember Foolscap and Quarto sizes, but never had to deal with paper sizes too much before we went metric. I've never heard of Double Elephant!
Railways (here in Victoria at least) had lengths designated in miles, chains, and links, and curve radii were in chains. I've been to a museum that has an actual surveyor's chain of 100 links. It's also useful that one chain is very close to 20 metres (20.1168), and railway rail, which was described by weight in pounds (per foot) is now in kg (per metre), which you can convert roughly by increasing by 50%, so, for example, 60lb rail is 90kg rail (actually 89.29kg).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@StofStuiver
"Please pay attention... "Ruthless" here is a subjective term as it relates to a thinking process and not to an action. I think in getting to truth, one has to be 'ruthless', otherwise you are biased and wont get anywhere."
In a different context, that might be so. But given that this is Marx, I don't accept that whitewashing. Which takes me back to an earlier remark of yours:
"Feminism was a forced idea that did not sprout from any enlightened thinker, or Marx after that. It is a pushed narrative to divide peoples, that has no (sound) philosophical basis."
You seem to be treating "enlightenment" thinking and Marx as sound philosophy. Marx wasn't, and much of the so-called enlightenment wasn't either.
"The difference here is the traditional 'trade' that always existed IN a social group and between social groups. There was never any open market there, nor should there be. Once it turned into 'capitalism' in the 18th century,..."
It didn't. Capitalism's origins are in the ninth century, and by the thirteenth century was well accepted. In the 14th century the word "capital" was in use to mean funds that had the capacity to return income. In the 19th century, the word 'capitalism' was used by leftists to condemn wealth and privilege. (Stark, Rodney, 'The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success', pp55—.)
"bc that is when people went from small production (hand crafted) to factory production (machined). That is where the big flows of 'capital' accumulated to which 'capitalism' lends its name."
The industrial revolution obviously increased production a lot, but there were 'big' flows of capital well before that.
"There is nothing 'voluntary' about it. Where in older times people had a choice to either aid another farmer or work your own fields,..."
Only they didn't. They were often serfs working the lord's fields. But that's why I referred to Israel in Old Testament times, because that was probably the case then.
"when peoples moved en masse to cities because of those production means, the children of those found themselves without a choice pretty soon."
Except, as I have pointed out, capitalism began well before that, when they were able to work for themselves instead of the lords of the manor.
"The rest is all about the nature of capitalism and how it is flawed. Remarkable that you cant even see it in that documentary..."
I can't see it because what you call 'capitalism' is something different to what capitalism actually is, which might be why even that video doesn't use the term. One other aspect of capitalism that Stark gives is this: "But in addition to being investors, capitalists usually take a more active role in their enterprises as compared to with a pure investor such as a moneylender." The video made lots of claims about a handful of companies/people controlling almost everything, but what it failed to do is show that they actually controlled everything, rather than simply investing in everything. And if they are merely investing, they don't fully qualify as capitalists.
"There could be no excessive richess IN that group as any social group will up to some extent force the richer to share with the poorer."
Even allowing for your qualification around "forced", the problem is that if that ends up penalising those who work hard and rewarding those who slacken, the result is that those who work hard won't bother and everyone will be poorer. (If the aid to the poor is on the basis of, say, disability, i.e. the aid can be selective, that doesn't have to apply.
"This benefits the group."
Not if everyone is poorer. The alternative of course is that the wealthier are not 'forced' to share their wealth, but being wealthy, will spend more money within the group, and this does help the group. Which is why capitalism has had the effect of reducing the number of poor around the world.
"It were actually my people, the Dutch, who started the first 'investment' / trade organisation, VOC and WIC (not proud of that) and that was part bc of huge involvement of a certain group who i better not name, that are not Dutch."
I don't know what you're including in the term "investment organisation", but in the 1230s the Riccardo Company, run by Italians in northern Italy, was founded and before long had offices in Rome, Nimes, Bordeaux, Paris, Flanders, London, York, and Dublin and other places (Stark, p.117). That was about 300 years before Amsterdam became a major financial centre.
"It provided the opportunity to 'trade' without leaving your house. And thus gain wealth without labor. No, rich people do not 'work'. They tell others to work and benefit from their labor."
No, that's what the feudal lords did. Capitalists worked, and although they also hired others to work too, the capitalists remained heavily involved. So no, that's not stealing. And the worker could choose to work for the capitalist, whereas the serf had to, because he lived on the lord's land.
"relatively shortly after the middle ages, when the problems of 'capitalism' first emerged."
Or when atheists started to try and demonise Christianity and Christian enterprises.
"Capitalism always leads to a flow of poor to rich. (bottom to top), ..."
False. As I explained above, where the rich spends more, the poor benefit from this.
"...or redistribution of goods as ALL nations in Europe were forced to do."
Who forced them?
"....which is why you see a shift to what Americans use(d) to call socialism in Europe. It is not socialism and never was."
It's not full-blown socialism, but it has been heading in that direction.
"Now the US gets into the same situation. It will find that it is cheaper to increase taxes and pay the poor,..."
Increasing taxes means that the rich lose motivation to make money (or move somewhere else), and everyone ends up poorer. Decreasing taxes means that people can invest and spend more and make more money, and this circulates through society making everyone richer.
"We are now in a situation where (Wef) the rich came up with a new plan to turn everyone into slaves again."
Yes, by getting rid of capitalism. Because they are socialists.
"That is the result of capitalism. Its major flaw."
Except that socialism, which is what is driving this, is not capitalism.
"...last century that moved to internationality > multi nationals."
Like the Riccardo company did in the 13th century?
"Those 2, money flowing from poor to rich...are the major flaws in capitalism."
False premises usually lead to false conclusions.
"It is no longer valid as the entire world is now 'limited resources' "
One of the most important resources is human intelligence, which, in quantity at least, is still growing. It's human intelligence that innovates, which is a major factor in capitalism. Further, although natural resources may be limited a bit. renewable and recycled resources are not. And apart from land itself, we've yet to show much sign of running out of natural resources. Oil, for example, was supposed to run out decades ago, but we still have plenty. The doomsayers have often turned out to be wrong.
"You think its normal or good for any man to have an amount of richess that in todays measuring exceeds 1 billion?"
It's clearly not normal, but whether or not it's good depends on what they do with that money.
"That means they can buy 10 luxury villas. A ship with golden fawcets. A jet."
Which means that they are spending money, which helps to 'redistribute' that wealth throughout society.
"It also means they have enough money to bribe any politician and if they dont want, order a hit on them. And never spend a day in prison. In which world is that a good thing?"
What is wrong with having enough money to do that? Seriously? Sure, doing that with the money is bad, but having enough to do it is not bad in itself. You're faulting the wrong thing.
"Now you are going to say we need rich people to invest, but that is nonsense. There are lots of ways to accumulate large capital for a specific goal."
What are those ways that don't involve getting money from people who already have it? Sure, that may be by earning it (which means that someone has to pay you) or borrowing it, but it still has to come from somewhere.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DKG2
"Religion is the greatest evil of all,..."
Some are, but others have done a lot of good.
"...the beginning of so much war."
The three-volume Encyclopedia of War says that only seven percent of wars had a religious basis, and more than half of those were attributable to one particular religion. Meanwhile, atheists regimes have killed millions and millions of people.
"Religion is telling people being gay is wrong..."
Well, given that it is wrong, what's wrong with that?
"A Childs innocence is not compromised by knowing its ok to be gay,..."
Please explain how a child's innocence is not compromised by telling it lies.
"...not a choice..."
First, there is no good evidence that it's not a choice.
Second, even if there was good evidence of the tendency not being a choice, acting on it is a choice.
"...its certainly compromised by being taught a religion that says its not..."
Please explain how a child's innocence is compromised by telling it the truth.
"especially if the poor kid is gay"
And explain how it's wrong to tell a child that he needs to do right and not wrong.
1
-
@pwillis1589
"We don’t dump all religions into one,..."
The commenter literally said "Like religion?", as though they were all the same in the context of the discussion. And I've often seen atheists do similar.
"...you reject all other religions as nonsense except your on."
Yes, but if all the others are nonsense, then what's wrong with that? Stating that fact as though there's something wrong with that, but without explaining why it's wrong, is not an argument.
"Non belief is not a religion..."
First, what "non belief". Atheism is the belief that there is no God, and other beliefs necessarily flow from that.
Second, it depends on which definition of "religion" you are using. One definition is "the set of beliefs on which you base your life". That can apply to atheistic beliefs also.
Third, there are religions that don't involve a god, such as Confucianism, Marxism, Scientology, and Secular Humanism.
Fourth, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared atheism to be a religion.
"...it is nonsensical to suggest so."
Clearly false, given my points above.
"There are numerous studies going back decades suggesting there is no evidence to suggest same sex parenting has any harm on children. "
Sure. By biased researchers. I believe that there are also other studies showing otherwise.
"There are studies that show that the stigma children suffer from people like you does affect their mental health."
Name the studies, or at least two or three of them.
"And I’m sure there are studies that suggest same same parenting is harmful to children."
There are probably those too, but do they have any merit?
"Can you provide a reference to a study that suggests it is immoral?"
As far as I'm aware, immorality is not something that people make studies on. And many researchers are atheists who reject the basis of morality in any case, and consider it just an opinion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pwillis1589
"I make no claim that naturalism is the means of existence only it is plausible as is pantheism."
But it remains the case that you have not provided evidence for either.
"You need to read wider if you think Richard Carrier is a lone mythicist..."
I didn't say that he was. I said that he was the only one I know of. Who else is?
"Bart Ehrman has not addressed or refuted any of Richard Carriers arguments, Ehrman just continues with the some talking points."
I doubt that it's true that he has not addressed any of Carrier's arguments, but my point was his testimony on the fact that there is a consensus among the historians.
"None of the commentary on Christianity and Western culture had any evidence of Christianity having any influence on Modern secular Western liberal democracies."
That seems a rather vague claim, and yet prima facie false. For it to not have had any influence, all the previous influence—which you admit it had—would have had to be wiped away or replaced.
"Just give me one uniquely Judeo-Christian value you think is reflected in a modern secular Western liberal democracy."
I don't have to, because I never claimed that, for two reasons. First, the claim is to do with the set of values as a whole, not with specific unique ones. If I suggested X, you may be able to show that nation N also had that value. If I suggest Y, you might show that nation C had that value. And so on. But did any other nation have both X and Y and all the others?
Second, what you term "Judeo-Christian values" are really God's values, and God was teaching those values from the time of Adam. So all nations have them in their history. Most have lost most of them, but probably most people groups retained something of them, which might enable you to show that value X is not unique to "Judeo-Christian values", but that still wouldn't show that they don't come from God.
"See a valid argument that is completely untrue."
That's not even a logically-valid argument. Here's a logically-valid (but incorrect) argument:
1) All humans are purple.
2) Alan is a human
3) Therefore Alan is purple.
And of course I'm sure that Axle Axle.Australian.Patriot wasn't using "valid" in a logical sense, but as a synonym for "sound" argument.
"Try making a sound argument for a god. That's just not possible."
What's your evidence that it's not possible?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pwillis1589
"Yes I retract the statement that a sound argument can be made for god."
Good. It therefore follows that you'd have to accept that it might be possible to make a sound argument for God. Agreed?
"Yes you did you certainly implied that because it was not what someone was solely credited for they were not Jesus mythicists."
I definitely did not mean to imply that. I explicitly said "historian concerned with the period".
"I don't reject the scholarship, I'm highly sceptical of it."
Hmmm. The scholarship says that Jesus existed. You don't reject it, but you don't agree that He existed. That sounds like rejection to me.
"Large amounts of it are based on self interest and for a good deal of history blasphemy laws."
I don't know what you're saying there. I'm talking about the vast majority of all historians concerned with the period, whether Christian or not (Ehrman being an agnostic). Also, I'm talking about current (or recent) historians, not, say, ones from 100 yers ago. So I'm not sure what blasphemy laws have to do with it.
"Josephus writings are about a Christ person not Jesus ..."
Josephus is clearly talking about Jesus Christ. I don't believe that there is any doubt among historians about that.
"...there is also doubt about its authenticity."
A majority of the scholarship rejects the authenticity of one phrase in it, but not the rest.
"Paul certainly lived at the alleged time of Jesus but admits to never meeting him."
Except on the road to Damascus, but the point is that he wasn't later, but at the same time.
"There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus life or existence."
Apart from Matthew and John at least. That is, 50% of the gospel writers. And Ehrman, who probably rejects Matthew and John's authorship, nevertheless answers that very objection in that video.
"He may have existed, the evidence is just not there for are reasonable person to believe so."
So, again, you are rejecting the scholarship that says that the evidence is there. And again, Ehrman answers that, pointing out that there is more evidence for Jesus than for almost anybody from his time period.
1
-
@pwillis1589
"Yes a sound argument for an argument that god exists is not possible. Agreed."
That was not my question. My question is whether or not you agree that it might be possible to make a sound argument for God. Which I believe follows from your previous agreement, but I just want you to be clear.
"If you did not suggest or imply that a jesus mythicist can be both a biblical scholar/historian and mythicist then good."
Is that what you meant to write? I did not suggest that a historian of the period cannot also be a mythicist. Carrier is one (the only one, as far as I know).
"No there is not universal agreement that Jesus existed."
I think the word I used was consensus, and in reference to the historians concerned with that period. There IS such a consensus, according to one of the most sceptical of them, among others. But you deny the consensus anyway.
"I understand you desperately need him to have as it is essential for your belief/value system."
No, it's not. But it does make it easier to show that sceptics like you are wrong. You have to deny the consensus of the scholarship to say that Jesus never existed or that there is no evidence he ever existed.
"I don't even remotely care if he existed at all, ..."
Then why did you claim that He didn't? It seems that you desperately need him to not have existed to maintain your belief system.
"it make zero difference to my ability to tell right from wrong."
So how do you tell right from wrong that doesn't ultimately come down to opinion?
"The vast amount of Christian biblical scholars already start or presuppose the existence of Jesus, they approach the subject already with a bias."
First, so what? I wasn't talking about Christian biblical scholars. I was talking about historians concerned with the period. That you have to move the goalposts to make your point is telling.
"None of the gospels are eye witness accounts they are all written anonymously and in the third person."
What's your evidence that they are not eye-witnesses? Being written in the third person doesn't show that. Being formally anonymous (in that they don't say who they are in the text) doesn't show that. We do know who wrote them; that's why all Bibles have the author's names on them.
"The earliest fragments date to approximately 80CE and are written in Konic Greek, they cannot reasonably be considered first hand accounts."
The earliest fragments are not necessarily the originals, which would have been written before AD 80. That they are written in Koine Greek doesn't show that they are not first-hand accounts. So what's your evidence that they are not first-hand accounts?
"Finally if you have no understanding of Blasphemy laws and how they shape what someone says or writes publicly under the threat of imprisonment or death, then of course you can easily argue there has been little dissent about the existence of Jesus, ..."
What blasphemy laws? There used to be such laws, but there are none now, unless there are a few left that are not enforced anyway.
"... because you simply ignore history and live in your world."
That is just ad hominem. Not an argument.
"In the real world the west was still locking people up in the 1920s for Blasphemy and fining people for Blasphemy as late as 1977."
Over 40 years ago, and I doubt that blasphemy laws were used against honest scholarship for a long time before that. Why weren't the mythicists you cited fined or locked up? There doesn't seem to have been any legal pressure on them to conform.
"The movie "The life of Brian" was briefly banned in several countries in 1979 for Blasphemy."
In Ireland, Norway, Malaysia, Singapore, and South Africa. I guess you have a point, given that those are the places that most of the historians lived, rather than Britain, France, Canada, U.S.A., Australia, Germany, etc. Not many historians there.
You're clutching at straws.
"Many western countries still have Blasphemy laws and restrictions on freedom of speech."
They don't have blasphemy laws that are enforced. Restrictions on freedom of speech, yes, but mainly against conservative speech. So you can't criticise Islam, LGBT+, global warming, etc., but you can criticise Christians and Christianity as much as you like.
"This dissent is exactly what the authors of the bible wanted to stop as they know their story was so thin."
Evidence?
"Lastly provide the same level of physical evidence for Jesus as Alexander the great or Ramesses II."
I can easily provide much more. Everything. The fact that anything exists at all is evidence.
"The idea there is more evidence for a Jesus character than any allenged contemporary flies in face of physical evidence."
I saw how you equivocated in that sentence. You switched from "evidence" to "physical evidence". Not playing nice.
"We have in existence contemporary Roman writings and sculptures of Roman emperors. Please reference me a sculpture of Jesus made when he was allegedly alive."
What contemporary Roman writings? And how 'contemporary'? Most of what we have is copies of copies from much later. And of course Jesus was not a emperor who would erect statues to Himself or mint coins with his picture. That is not a reasonable expectation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pwillis1589
"The premise "For an argument to be sound all the premises must be true" is correct ..."
Why? I disagree(d). It depends, I guess, on what you mean by "sound". In logic, an argument can be valid (sound?) if the conclusions flow from the premises. But that doesn't make the premises true. So I restated your claim in a way that is correct. I (rightly) said that for an argument to be correct (or true), all the premises must be true.
"...as I did not say for an argument to be correct all the premises must be correct..."
I know. I said that to correct your premise.
"...your reply to that is a strawman and fallacious."
It was not a strawman because I wasn't representing you as saying that. I was giving a corrected version of the premise. Ergo, it wasn't fallacious either.
"The second premise mentioned nothing about Atheism (another strawman) ..."
Again, I know. I introduced atheists as an example of people who won't agree to premises about God even if true. So again, it's not a strawman, because I wasn't representing you as saying that.
"...and your reply that just because people won't agree doesn't mean they can't agree is nonsensical."
No, it's not nonsensical. In principle, they can agree with the premises, but might not anyway. Think, for example, of someone who knows something is true, but disagrees anyway, perhaps just to be difficult, perhaps as a troll, or perhaps to play devil's advocate.
"So despite your nonsensical fallacious ramblings my argument is therefore both sound and factually correct."
Despite your vilification, you've not refuted what I said, instead misrepresenting it. My rebuttal stands.
1
-
@pwillis1589 I stand corrected on your first premise. My 'correction' of your first premise actually agreed with it, using different words. So yes, I accept your first premise. Introducing validity wasn't a strawman; it was, as you said at the end, more of a red herring (inadvertently).
I maintain that your second premise is not true, in principle. In practice, you're correct. But also, as I mention next, it doesn't support your conclusion.
Finally, your argument is not valid, in that your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. Your conclusion is based on the premise that no argument for the existence of God can be true, but that was not your second premise. An argument for the existence of God can be true even if not everyone agrees it is true. That was my point in mentioning atheists—they often won't agree that an argument is true even if it is.
"And finally you can't help yourself the presuppositionist pops out..."
What is presuppositionalist about that?
"I vilified nothing merely pointing out the absurdity of your argument"
My argument was not absurd, even if it was mistaken on one point.
1
-
@pwillis1589
"...my argument is not to the truth of a god, it is to soundness. Soundness and truth in argumentation are different things. Just because an argument can be valid and sound that there is no God, doesn't mean there is no God."
If the premises are true and the logic is valid, then the conclusion must also be true. What else does "sound" mean in this context? How can the conclusion of an argument with correct premises and valid logic not be true and correct?
"I maintain no sound argument has ever been made for a god,..."
A claim that I reject, and as far as your logic is concerned, for reasons I've already given. Further, numerous very intelligent people have found arguments for God compelling to the point of believing in God.
"I maintain no sound argument has ever been made for a god, that doesn't mean god doesn't exist just that you can't argue one into existence."
You're not helping clarity. You have now made three similar but different claims (my bolding):
* "...no sound argument can be made for the existence of a god." (NB: I agree that this doesn't mean that there is no God, but I reject the claim)
* "...no sound argument has ever been made for a god...". (NB: I again agree that this doesn't mean that there is no God, but again I reject the claim)
* "Just because an argument can be valid and sound that there is no God, doesn't mean there is no God." (It does, actually. Of course, I reject that such an argument can be made.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brandonwylie3995
"funny how everyone on sky news thinks that to capture more of the centre, the liberal party needs to go rightwards "
It might appear funny, but it can actually makes sense. First, if the Liberals are now left of centre, then moving to the right puts them back closer to the centre! Second, according to some views (I'd love to post a cartoon that Musk retweeted), the left has moved so far to the left that people who were left of centre now find themselves right of centre, not because they've moved, but because the centre has moved as the left dragged it leftwards. So if the Liberals go 'right', they'll drag the centre back with them.
"Your preferences will flow liberal anyways."
That depends on how he allocates preferences, or even whether he does.
"To win an election the Libs need to do a better job of capturing the swing votes."
That's not necessarily the case. There are apparently plenty of Liberal members and supporters who won't support the Liberals while they are like this. Yes, if they vote and allocate preferences to put the Liberals ahead of Labor, then those votes are safe. But what if those Liberal supporters don't get out to the voting booths to hand out how to vote cards, or otherwise promote the Liberal vote? In other words, they also need to recapture the Liberal vote that is not supporting them.
1
-
@brandonwylie3995
"I disagree that the liberals are left of centre;..."
My point was a hypothetical one. I said "IF" the Liberals are left of centre, then the Sky attitude makes sense. But I do believe that some of them are left of centre, with endorsing the so-called same-sex-marriage nonsense, the transgender ideology, support for the killing of babies, and the climate alarmism, to mention a few.
"While the may be more left than they were years ago, this represents the shift in political climate over time."
That begs the question of what is the cause and what is the effect. What caused the shift?
"So I understand what you're referring to with the people who may have identified as slightly left switching their vote post shift, but the new left voting generation far outweighs this proportion."
That's not in evidence.
"The argument of Liberals shifting right to drag the centre with them hinges on politicians having an influence on voters, ..."
Which of course they do.
"...but this is a fallacy as the politicians are meant to represent the views of the voting public."
That's a non-sequitur. It's a fallacy that the politicians do represent the views of the voting public (although I'll admit that's a big generalisation).
"While they do have some influence, people's views are more shaped by media."
I certainly agree that the media is a large part of it. But I don't think it's that black and white. They feed off and reinforce each other. Much of what the media does is report on what the politicians say, but selectively. That is, although the media is biasing the discussion, they couldn't say as much as they do if not for being able to quote the politicians that say the things that they like.
"I am also not entirely sure what you meant by "Liberal members who won't vote while they are like this."
I didn't say that. I referred to "Liberal members and supporters who won't support the Liberals while they are like this", and went on to mention supporting the party by helping at polling booths, etc. Not that I was limiting it to that. I was also referring to the likes of Sierra Victor Hotel and his comment.
"I agree, but by most accounts this is because they are too far right, not too far left."
No, no, and no. This is because they are too far to the left.
1
-
1
-
1
-
hedonismbot3274
"At least they don't think they are the chosen ones to safe the world."
Who? Atheists? What do you think all the wokeness is about?
"Atheism is no religion tho."
a) That depends on which definition of 'religion' you're using.
b) I said atheistic ones (religions), i.e. an adjective, not the noun. Just like you wouldn't say that theism is a religion, but a category of religions.
c) There are atheistic religions, such as Confucianism, Marxism, Scientology, Zen Buddhism, and Secular Humanism. The founding documents of that last one described it as a 'secular religion'.
d) The U.S. Supreme Court has decided that atheism is a religion.
"I just don't like whenever people talk about their importance or superiority. Especially with religion."
And yet Christianity has been very important for the world, Western Civilisation in particular. It founded public hospitals, many charities, the university system, universal education, and modern science, and it twice abolished slavery, it spread democracy, it gave people freedoms and human rights, and it raised the status of women.
"Guess what islam thinks :)"
You're not right just because you claim to be right or think you're right. But then claiming to be right or thinking you're right doesn't mean that you're not right either. It's the evidence that counts, not the claims/thoughts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@resurrectedone7463
"Show us on the map?"
"The" map? What map? And I can't post a map here in any case.
"we both know there was never Israel before 1948."
We both know that there wasn't an Israel for some time before 1948, but there was an Israel there in the past, as I explained.
"There are 1800's maps stating specifically that the land is named Palestine,..."
A country, or an area? My understanding is that there was never a country with that name, but yes, the area was called Palestine by the Romans after they kicked the Jews out in the 1st century, as an insult to the Jews (the name being based on that of a former enemy of Israel, the Philistines).
"...plus the natives had coins with PALESTINE printed on them".
Yes, the British, who controlled that area at the time, minted coins with 'Palestine' between 1927 and 1948. But it was a British-mandate area, not a country named Palestine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nioengland
"it don't matter which way round they are.."
It seems to matter to you, as you're arguing that they are the opposite way around to what I said.
"you are incorrect.. "
The scholarship on the history of Western Civilisation says otherwise. Here is one such scholar, Tom Holland, a (non-Christian) historian. He is referring to the New Testament letters of the Apostle Paul.
“...this is not a very lengthy amount of writing, but compacted into this very very small amount of writing, was almost everything that explains the modern world [the Western world] but also the way that the West has moved on to shape concepts like international law, for instance, ... concepts of human rights, all these kinds of things. Ultimately they don’t go back to Greek philosophers; they don’t go back to Roman empiricism. They go back to Paul. Paul, really, his letters are, I think, are, along with the four gospels, the most influential, the most impactful, the most revolutionary writings that have emerged from the ancient world.”
"normal is always the primary.. "
Normal is what is widely accepted. But where did it come from in the first place?
"religion is an addition so it is secondary"
What makes you think it's an addition?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrBadintentionss
"good idea. let's have faith in a dusty old tome..."
Are you bigoted against old things?
"...written by conservative religious zealots."
No, written by witnesses to the events of history or by people who who interviewed those witnesses. The religion is based on the (events recorded in the) Bible, not the other way around.
"that will solve our dilemma."
Of course. It already has the runs on the board for that. Twice abolishing slavery, founding public hospitals and many charities, introducing universal education, spreading democracy, elevating the status of women, promoting human rights, inventing modern science, introducing the idea of compassion for strangers, and much more.
"...unless of course you'd like me to come to your church on a sunday and preach about atheism?"
Churches are where you lean the truth, not falsity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AACC-n7c
"so how successful have you been in converting your neighbours to the faith?"
Still getting off the point, I see.
"Churches across the country are emptying and sold off ... "
First, yes that's true for some churches, but others are growing and new ones are being built. The difference is between the more liberal traditional churches that don't really believe (they are shrinking and closing) and the more bible-believing ones that are growing and expanding.
"... because local people no longer believe."
Yet plenty still do. And the reason there aren't more is in large part because of anti-Christian propaganda from the media, the government, and people like you.
"If locals themselves are not believer of the faith how can you ask newcomers to be?"
Easily. As I said, there are still lots of local believers, and you "ask" newcomers on the basis of it being a good thing, not on popularity.
"It's like telling migrants to obey the law but we locals don't have to....that is the problem my brother"
But us locals do have to; your confusing requirement with action. But yes, we also need more locals, but see above about the anti-Christian propaganda.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pwillis1589
"No, evidence of only one census exists."
It seems to me that you're aware that there are problems claimed for Luke's account, but don't really know the details. There is evidence for numerous Roman censuses. I believe that the problem is a) that there is no record of a census around 4 BC, and b) that records show that Quirinius was not the governor around then anyway.
So yes, there is a conflict between Luke and the available evidence, and not just one of silence on the issue (which means that this is actually one of the small handful of better arguments against the accuracy of the Bible). However, as I said, Luke has accused of being wrong before and turned out to be right, so this is hardly a slam dunk case. One website has this:
---------
Luke has often been criticised for being unhistorical—only for subsequent archaeology to confirm the accuracy of his record, in particular in relation to the names and titles of Roman officials.
• It was thought Luke was in error in mentioning ‘Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene’ (Luke 3.1) as there was no record of such a person—until an inscription was found near Damascus which speaks of “Freedman of Lysanias the tetrarch” dated to the right period.
• In Acts 14, Paul and Barnabas go to ‘Iconium in Phrygia’, for which there was no archaeological evidence—until a monument was found in 1910 by Ramsay which confirmed this was the case.
• In Acts 17, the leaders of Thessalonica are called ‘politarchs’. It was thought that Luke had made this term up, until it was confirmed in inscription—19 in all, one of which can be seen in the museum in the modern city [...].
• Luke’s references to ‘proconsul Sergius Paulus’ in Acts 13.7 and ‘Gallio was proconsul of Achaia’ in Acts 18.12 were both thought to be mistaken until confirmed by inscriptional evidence. The dating of the year in which Gallio was proconsul, 51/52, in fact now forms a major fixed point in confirming the chronology of Paul’s life and writings.
-------
I believe that the Bible is inerrant in its original form, not in all the translations of it. One suggestion, supported by one of the world's leading theologians, is that it's a mistranslation, and that it should read "this was the census before Quirinius was governor", as the Greek word can sometimes mean "before". Perhaps that explanation is wrong, but the point remains that Luke has been shown to be a very reliable historian (see also below), so what you have is one reliable source saying something that other reliable(?) sources don't record, or record differently. So rather than jump to the conclusion that the "religious" one must be wrong, the sensible thing would be to say that this issue is not yet resolved to the satisfaction of a large majority of scholars.
"The writer of Luke was just wrong..."
One of the most famous archaeologists (mentioned above), Sir William Ramsay, said this: “Luke is a historian of the first rank ; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy ; he is possessed of the true historic sense ; he fixes his mind on the idea and plan that rules in the evolution of history ; and proportions the scale of his treatment to the importance of each incident. He seizes the important and critical events and shows their true nature at greater length, while he touches lightly or omits entirely much that was valueless for his purpose. In short, this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians”
1
-
1
-
1
-
@magnumrepia537
"No faith that the true God can keep his holy scriptures clean n holy...."
My first reaction was to think the following:
Incorrect. I know that God could do that. The question is whether or not he would do that. And there could be good reasons to not do that, such as people then treating the Bible itself as something to be worshipped; the sort of thinking that in centuries past saw hundreds if not thousands of 'holy relics' being traded and displayed.
But there is also reason to think that God couldn't do that. If your reaction is that "God can do anything", then you'd be wrong, as God can't do logically contradictory or nonsensical things, like make a circular square. God can't sin, or lie. God can't make a rock too big for Him to move. All of those aren't actually things, or would be contrary to His nature, which is also logically impossible.
How is God going to guarantee that translations of His Word are 100% accurate, when the same words mean different things to different people (that's why you have English and American versions of the same translation) or when words change over time? If the meaning of a word changes over time (as 'meat' in the Authorised version refers to what we now call 'food'), at what point does God update all the Bibles in existence? Or if it means different things in different places? An example might be 'bathroom', which in Australian English means the room that contains a bath but in U.S. English means the place you do your ablutions. So if an American English translation uses 'bathroom', is that translation accurate in Australia? How would God handle that?
Of course God might 'freeze' the language so that the meanings of words never change from time to time or place to place, but then how do people apply new meanings to words, such as 'run' referring to a cricket score as well as what runners do in a race?
Then what if a person sets out to make a new translation of the Bible that makes deliberate changes, as some have done? Does God stop that idea entering his head in the first place (denying his free will), or not allow a printer to print it (denying his free will), or what?
The whole idea, when you get into the nitty gritty, is riddled with problems.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@simonharris4873
"I've identified an incessant hatred within you..."
As I've just replied to you in another thread, disagreement does not equal hatred. At least for me; I can't be sure about you.
"...towards people who are doing you absolutely no harm."
Evidence, please, that they are doing me no harm.
"They are your morals, and you're trying to project them onto society as a whole."
No, they are God's morals, which are therefore applicable to all societies.
"Do you even know where the word "moral" comes from? perhaps you should go look it up. Maybe then you'll work out why you're so wrong on that score."
Okay, I've looked it up. A word's origin can be instructive, but doesn't change the way it's used in a current context. So what's your point?
"I've answered everything you've questioned me one,..."
False. You haven't answered what your evidence is for your claim that I have no evidence for God's existence.
You haven't answered what your evidence is for your claim that "There are no harm to any third party in the original context, ..."
You haven't answered "...why should I provide evidence for my claim when you won't provide evidence for your claim?"
1
-
@simonharris4873
"If you think this sort of discrimination is Ok, then you're that one who should be rethinking their country of choice."
Why?
"There's no place in Australia for this sort of discrimination."
Oh, that's why. Because you say so (given that mikem9001 has pointed out that what they are doing is legal).
"Rubbish, there's nothing object (sic) about religion."
Evidence please (with regard to Christianity).
"It's called "faith" because it's belief without a shred of evidence."
Utterly false. One definition of 'faith' (beloved by atheists) is belief without or contrary to the evidence (like your faith in God's non-existence) (also known as blind faith), but another—and the one used in the Bible—is trust in a trustworthy person (God in this case), with that trust being based on evidence of the person being trustworthy. You're basically changing the meaning of the word to make your case.
"...you wont call him out on a single one of his ridiculous points,..."
You haven't shown that they are ridiculous, so why should he?
"There is zero proof the God exists."
What is your evidence for that? Or do you hold that position on blind faith?
"There is bucket loads of proof that the bible is wrong on so many fronts."
Then please cite the evidence. Because I've yet to see a single convincing case.
"I believe the legislation you're looking for is the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, specifically CHPT 2, PT2 Section 7n?"
What about Part 4 Division 3? How does it fit in that? And what about Part 5 section 109? How does it fit in with that?
"You're saying PJ is being objective. I'm saying he's not, and providing reasons for my answers."
Like the 'faith' reason that you have completely wrong?
"You say it doesn't apply, but can't provide any reasons why it doesn't apply."
Perhaps the parts I mentioned above?
"You don't need facts to support your beliefs, or to consider them "objective"."
False. The Bible teaches that facts are important. See Paul's comments about our faith being in vain if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, Thomas' request for evidence to believe which was granted, and the Bereans being complimented for checking that what Paul said was true.
"LOL What a joke."
Your misunderstanding of the meaning of 'faith' in this context? Yes, what a joke.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@simonharris4873
"asked you for evidence as soon as you made the claim."
What claim? I didn't claim that God exists, as I have pointed out. I claimed that I have evidence for God's existence. Maybe a subtle difference, but different nevertheless.
Your first response was not "What's your evidence". Your response was "No you don't." That is not asking for evidence. That's simply outright rejection of my claim; or a counter-claim if you like.
"If you can't provide evidence for your claims, then there's nothing further to discuss."
But I can provide evidence. It's just that I don't see why I should when you won't provide evidence for your claims, starting with your claim of "No you don't." I reject the notion that I must provide evidence for my claim when you won't provide evidence for your claim that you were challenged on first.
"BTW, the earth wasn't created in 6 days, as your religion claims it was, ..."
Evidence please. And simply citing a competing view is not evidence.
"...so there's no question about it, the bible is wrong."
Well, until you can support your claim that it wasn't, then there IS a question about it.
And by the way, it's the Bible that claims that, not the religion. The religion simply accepts what the Bible records.
1
-
@simonharris4873
"And when you made that claim, I asked you to provide that evidence,"
No, you did not, as I pointed out in my last reply, supported by the actual quote of what you said.
"Your claim came first, which means you have the burden of proof."
I have no onus to provide evidence for a claim that has not been challenged. So what matters is which challenge came first. My challenge to you came first.
"That which can be asserted without evidence can be refuted and dismissed without evidence. "
Refuting and dismissing without evidence are, essentially at least, two mutually-exclusive actions. But yes, and that is why I can dismiss your claim of "No you don't." without me producing evidence. Because you have not provided evidence for that assertion.
"Anyway, there's no point in debating someone who refuses to support his claims with evidence, ..."
Which is why I said I wouldn't debate you any further, until you provided evidence for your claim that I challenged.
"...and discounts empirical evidence as "a competing view", ..."
I discounted " simply citing a competing view", but I did not discount citing empirical evidence for a competing view. Rather, I asked for "evidence". So that challenge for evidence still stands unfulfilled.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GragoryBell89
"people dont make decisions on what gender they want to be."
Nobody forces it on them, so no, they make the decision.
"sometimes that gender and sex don't line up."
Well, given that sex is reality and gender is fiction, that's understandable.
"until other research proves otherwise i would agree with the medical professionals."
And yet the medical professionals are split on this issue.
"I trust the people who do the research, because it's their job to do the research."
Why? Blind faith? Because they reinforce your prejudices? Here's what one of those researchers admitted:
“The problem is: I was wrong. Or, to be a bit more accurate, I got things partly right. But then, for the rest, I basically just made it up.
In my defence, I wasn’t alone. Everyone was (and is) making it up. That’s how the gender-studies field works.”
Of course they are obviously wrong, because they obviously don't believe in the clear reality that there are only two sexes.
"You need to understand that this isn't the 60s anymore. we dont just put random [stuff] together and say it works. there are countless trials and tests for all of these treatments,..."
Evidence-based medicine has been around for a lot longer than the past sixty years. And yes, they still bypass that at times, as shown by this very issue with the attempts to change one's body to match the patients' faulty views of themselves.
"...the reason they are recommended by doctors is because the treatments have continuously produced effective results for their patients."
And yet there are many for whom it hasn't worked and now regret it and are now suing for malpractice.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thebillryan
"1. The onus is on you to prove god exists. It's your assertion after all."
False. The onus is on the one making a claim. user-fx7vp3ix3q claimed that God doesn't exist, so he has the onus. And I didn't actually claim that God exists; I just claimed to have plenty of evidence for Him. And I'm quite prepared to defend that claim IF AND WHEN prior claims by others that He doesn't exist are answered. But if they won't provide evidence for their claim, why should I for mine??
"2. If you just had a basic rudimentary understanding of logic, math or philosophy ..."
Which I do.
"... you would know you can't prove a negative."
Also false, and also irrelevant.
It's false because it's quite possible to prove a negative. For example, if I show you a matchbox and claim that there are no matches in it, all I have to do is open it and prove my negative claim. If I claim that perpetual motion machines don't exist, I can prove that by citing the laws of physics. If you had a basic understanding, you'd know that your claim should be that you can't prove some universal negatives (such as me claiming that there are no matches anywhere).
It's irrelevant, because the point is, if you can't prove it, then you're being intellectually dishonest to claim a universal negative. If you can't prove that God doesn't exist, then how can you rationally claim that God doesn't exist. If someone does claim that, I'm perfectly entitled to challenge them for evidence for that claim.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"whats wrong with rugby keeping religion ... out of the game?"
Who said that there was a problem? The problem was that Rugby Australia punished and discriminated against someone for things he said outside of the game.
"misinformation about some made up ancient story's "
It wasn't misinformation.
"Religions are made up fairy tales and only weak minded dumb [deleted] hide behind or believe in any of the bullshit. just saying"
First, what's your evidence? Or is that your blind faith?
Second, how do you explain Christians changing the world in ways that I'm sure you support, starting public hospitals, many charities, universal education, spreading democracy, founding modern science (yes, only weak-minded dumb people would do that, wouldn't they?), abolishing slavery, lifting the status of women, and so much more?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@indiathylane2158
"Stingray Bay, because this year I see a concentrated effort by the right to drag the focus on the First Fleet arriving near Sydney Cove on Jan 26 off to something else, 1949."
I don't know about a "concentrated [concerted?] effort", but yes, I've seen a few comments along that line myself, and refuted them. But I wasn't making that argument (and it is irrelevant anyway, as that is not the source of the date), so the comment was still irrelevant in your reply to me.
"The whole focus on Jan 26 1949 is an attempt to switch focus and muddy the waters."
By whoever started that, yes, probably so. But by other commenters, probably just uncritically repeating what they've heard.
"So what? There was little cohesion between the states on celebrating the same day. I doubt there were many celebrations in WA on January 26."
My point, however, is that it existed before 1949.
"How does anything you said indicate Australia Day is more related to the citizenship act."
It doesn't. Because I was not making that claim.
"...black Aussies couldn't vote..."
Some couldn't vote. There was no blanket ban. It varied from state to state.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MickRhodes-ml5cm
"I guess I look at rights and values differently. I don’t view religion as the main driver of values."
Why don't you?
"Yes Christianity is the faith that most of us in the west follow but unless we all live our lives to the letter of gospel (which let’s face it, very few of us do) our values are more about what is really important to us."
But Christianity hasn't influenced what is important to us? HIstorian Tom Holland says that the letters of the Apostle Paul in the New Testament, along with the gospels, is what changed society from what it was to what it became. See the video "Tom Holland tells NT Wright: Why I changed my mind about Christianity". (It's a five-minute clip of a much longer discussion.) In that video, he touches on how different society was before Christianity.
"The collective of our values is what drives our rights in that our rights are initially determined by a constitution based on what the collective values were at the time of writing..."
Yes, but those collective values were based on Christian values.
"I think values and rights can differ quite considerably between different western societies."
When things look the same, we tend to notice the minor differences more than the major similarities. I think that's what's happening here. If you watch that video I mentioned, you should understand my point better.
"Americans value the ability to say whatever they want whenever they want and have developed a right to do so..."
I disagree. Yes, they value that ability (as has the rest of the West), but they always had that right (rights come from God), and, unlike other places, they didn't "develop a right"; they wrote that existing right into their constitution. I saw a comment just the other day pointing out that under Common Law, you were considered to have rights to do whatever you like, unless the law took that right away from you. So America didn't develop that right. It simply documented it in the constitution.
Some people argue that Australia needs a 'bill of rights'. I've seen the counter argument that we don't need it, as we already have those rights, and a 'bill of rights' gives the false impression that those rights come from the constitution or government. However, another way of looking at it is that a 'bill of rights', rather than giving us rights, prevents a government removing those rights. That's the way I now see it.
"Europeans on the other hand also want free speech but as long as that free speech isn’t untruthful with a view to causing offence or harm..."
I disagree there too. What Europeans? Yes, most of the people also want it, but like America has the exception that you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre, the left tries to undermine that by things like saying that hate speech is an exception, but using that term to cover many things that are not hate speech, but which they simply disagree with.
"Australians value affordable tertiary education (college), free healthcare,..."
Limited "free" (taxpayer-funded) healthcare, but also paid healthcare. I can choose, for example, to go to a taxpayer funded emergency department and wait hours to be attended to, or go to a private hospital emergency department (for a fee) and be attended to almost immediately.
"...limiting influence of corporations on government ..."
No more so that in America, in my view. And with the left in power, government and corporations often working hand in hand (e.g. all the corporations that pushed the current Australian government's line on the 'voice' referendum.)
"There are also things that Americans value that don’t strike a chord with Aussies. Australians as a collective don’t care about gun ownership (although roo and pig shooting is fun), don’t seem to value military service to the extent Americans do (which is strange given the roles Australia played in both world wars), and tend not to identify themselves by the political party that they last voted for."
Agreed. But I refer you back to my comment about about noticing differences more than similarities.
"...different geographical locations (Australia doesn’t share a border), ..."
True, but that's a difference of circumstances, not values. (Which you subsequently mention.)
" ...what I wrote ... was rather lazy of me as it gave the impression that I think were vastly different (which was wrong of me). Hence the more detailed and long winded response."
I appreciate you doing that.
"I appreciated your response. [snipped]"
Thank you.
"Have a great evening or day, wherever you may be"
You to. I'm in a suburb of Melbourne.
"my opinion based on my values are that the US is less progressive..."
My opinion is more that America is more polarised. Yes, overall the population is more conservative, but the left there is as much if not more "progressive" (a misnomer) than Australia, which seems to gets a lot of its loony ideas from the U.S. (CRT for one).
"...the US constitution is an albatross and hasn’t undergone sufficient change..."
Why do you think that?
"... (but again, that’s a value difference),..."
Your values? Or the U.S.'s generally?
"I’m a conservative, catholic, and I guess I do possess some degree of bigotry towards the US..."
You seem to be less conservative than me. I'm Protestant. I also possess "some" bigotry toward the U.S., but more in the area of their language infiltrating Oz, such as people calling toilets bathrooms, and pronouncing the last letter as zee instead of zed!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matthewlane
"Three thirds of the bible is fiction."
Evidence?
"There is no prophecy in the bible,..."
Evidence? (By the way, I don't know of any basis for the claim that two-thirds of the Bible is prophecy. But there is prophecy there.)
"Nope, that's just more of your religions prefered fiction."
Evidence?
"Before your religioon came along with their imaignary god, other people were running around worshipping other religions imaginary gods."
Evidence?
"Because that's all religion is, a complicated way for humans to plead with thunder storms."
Evidence (that that's the case with the Bible)?
"Nothing. You invented a grievance as imaginary as the deity you worship,"
What's your evidence that God is imaginary?
"because you couldn't answer the fact that marriage & the family unit long predate your religion & that your rleigion has no claim over either of them."
Christianity is a continuation of Judaism, which is a continuation of worship of the creator, going back to when God created man.
"...our religion is a work of fiction, that does not unpin western society..."
Evidence?
"No hun, christianity isn't any kind of competitior to government anything."
Evidence? Because I can quote actual cases of the exact opposite.
So many assertions in your comment that, for some reason, we are just supposed to accept. But can you back them up?
"Because nothing say love like a god who murders the entire planet beause of design choices he made,"
No, because man became evil.
"...murder everyone on the planet, barring like 5"
Murder is the killing of an innocent person. Capital punishment is not murder. And he saved eight.
"Oh hun, religion is already a parody. It's a parody of science."
Umm, no. Christianity invented science.
"It's human kinds pattern seeking behaviour anthropomorphising natural forces to create answers to questions primitive humans couldn't answer correctly."
Evidence?
"There is no such thing as soul. It's a fictional construct of religion."
Evidence (of both those claims)?
"All of religion on the other hand is jsut a complicated way humans have invented for pleading with Thunderstorms."
Evidence?
"God doesn't give anything, he's a fictional character, that only exists in the imagination of people who got obsessive over a single work of fiction, they have mistaken for a book of history."
Evidence (of each of those claims)?
"Of course we outgrew your book of ficiton, as written by ignorant superstitious humans who still thought the Earth was flat & the center of the universe."
Evidence (again, of each of those claims)?
"Hey here's a novel idea, instead of fighting arguments i didn't make, you could spend some time engaging with the things i did say."
Well, that's what I have done, so I hope that you'll engage with my challenges and provide actual good evidence for each and every one of your numerous assertions.
1
-
@bradbecker8982
"oh no of course not he and his daddy only demand our self-sacrifices lol."
On the contrary, Jesus sacrificed Himself so that we didn't have to. As a former Christian, you should know that.
"which inspires things like mass crusading against “heathens” and other lesser individual rights violations."
What are you talking about?
"Altruism is evil.."
Huh? Well, the Bible does say that people will say that people will call good evil and evil good. I guess you just showed the Bible to be correct on that detail.
"mankind’s “heart” pumps blood.."
So you don't recognise a euphemism?
"...the human consciousness ... has free will."
Given us by God.
"The universe is eternal..."
Not according to both the Bible and science. Both say it had a beginning.
"The universe ... was here before human consciousness existed."
Yes, by about five days. Your point...?
"Existence as such (the universe and everything within) cannot be created by a mere consciousness, godly or otherwise.."
Evidence?
"where was god residing when he created everything…?"
God is not a physical being that needs a place to reside in. Again, as a former Christian, you should know that.
"There is no logic to any creation story.."
Why not?
"In reality.. that story you cling to is akin to an abusive spiritual father telling his children that he loves them while he manipulates and uses them for his own entertainment."
Except that God is not abusive and does not use them for His own entertainment. So that analogy fails.
"Religion helps the state control you and mold you into a lamb, ripe for the slaughter.. or at least ripe for the picking."
All religions, or just some?
"You can’t claim reality when your views are based on faith.."
Why not? Given that biblically, faith is based on evidence.
"reality is knowable and your god is impossible to know."
And yet many people know God. So that kind of refutes that claim.
"As if my lack of faith in a god makes me bad somehow?"
Well, rejecting God IS bad.
"I was Catholic… then Christian… now I think for myself "
I was never Catholic, but have long been a Christian, and have always thought for myself.
"Trust me, I understand the propaganda stories.."
Given your claims quoted above, and your ignorance of biblical teaching despite claiming to have been a Christian, I don't know why I should simply trust you.
"it requires faith to conclude that my free will came from God. There is no way to know."
Yes, it requires faith. Evidence-based faith that I can believe God when He tells me that. As such, there IS a way to know.
1
-
@glenwillson5073
"But the bible doesn't say ... that the universe & the earth are only 6000 years old."
It does indicate that the earth and universe are only 6000 years old. No, of course it doesn't say that in so many words, because if it did say that in Jesus' time, then it would be 8000 years old now. In other words, the figure keeps changing, so the Bible doesn't put a current figure on it.
However, it does say that the earth was created in six days, and it also gives time periods from then until later points in history, and from those we can calculate that it was created approximately 6000 years ago from now.
But you're certainly correct that it doesn't say that the earth is flat, nor that the earth is at the centre of the universe. However, there is scientific evidence that the Milky Way galaxy is close to the centre of the universe!
"*The big bang theory - The biblical account says that God brought the universe into being from nothing in one instant. The bang don't get much bigger than that."
Yes, but not via the Big Bang. That is contrary to what God told us.
"There are lots of these biblical examples that give the correct basic scientific starting point to kick start further investigation."
True. Another is plate tectonics. The first person to suggest that the continents had moved did so partly on the basis of the description in Genesis.
1
-
@bradbecker8982
"You are assuming and arguing with me over an assumption that the Bible is true.."
I accept that it's true because of the evidence. It's not simply an assumption.
"faith is evil because it replaces your better reason with a guess.." and "Faith is the absence of evidence.."
False. Faith is trust based on evidence. It's definitely not a guess.
"If the universe is eternal, why are you claiming a 5 day, finite period before “creation?” "
Not before creation, but before humans. And the universe is not eternal. It had a beginning.
"God doesn’t have to be a physical being in order to need to have a place to reside in.."
No, and I didn't claim that, but you haven't shown that a non-physical being needs a place to reside. Your argument relies on an assumption (see next point) that is not self-evidently true.
"Consciousness is a product of existence, not the other way around."
Why do you think that?
"There is no logic to creation because logic follows the law of causality.. which rules out any random “poof” creation event."
God creating is not a random event.
"The earthly people that act out god’s will when they sacrifice babies is abusive, at best.."
Huh? God's will doesn't include sacrificing babies. In fact He explicitly opposed that.
"God having play things that cannot question him or kill in self defense (thou shalt not kill) is an arbitrary and abusive standard."
The commandment is against murder, not all killing.
"The only moral good is what’s good for an individual."
Which individuals? The victims of a con artist?
"Faith is the absence of evidence.. and is often held in spite of contrary evidence."
Atheist faith perhaps. Not Christian/biblical faith.
"The Bible is not evidence of anything other than human words in a human book.."
That presupposes that it's not God's revelation, which you haven't shown. But even as just human words, your argument could apply to every single book, but that's clearly false.
"No one knows God.."
Evidence?
"…you must be insane to think otherwise."
Evidence?
"Rejecting god is bad? The burden of proof is on you for making the godly claim."
Yes, rejecting our good creator is bad, as God Himself pointed out.
"You’re bad for brainwashing people into believing fairytales that contradict causality and logic."
You haven't shown that they are fairy tales nor that they contradict causality and logic.
"You don’t think for yourself if you have faith in the Bible.. thinking for yourself means reasoning.. and there is no logical reason to have faith. Reason and faith are mutually exclusive opposites."
Your last point is simply false, and therefore the rest of your claim is baseless.
"You should trust that I’m sticking to logic,…"
Why should I trust that, when I can see that you're not sticking to logic?
"Again, where there is evidence, no faith is required.."
I have already answered that. It is not logical to make a claim then ignore rebuttals.
"Ask “why” instead of take something on faith."
I'm asking you why you make the claims you do, because I don't take you on faith, given that you've not shown yourself to be a reliable source.
"I get that you love your faith.."
No, I love God.
"…but there is no good reason to tell other people to trust that which you cannot prove."
What's your evidence that I can't prove it?
"Claims without proof are propaganda.."
Then I guess much of your response is propaganda.
"I can tell you will maintain your faith.. so this is my last comment to you. Take care"
So you're not interested in having your views challenged. Okay, got that.
1
-
@glenwillson5073
"The six days in Genesis relating to the Earth are not an account of the original creation of the universe."
There was another creation? Where does it say that?
"Notice at the start of these six days the Earth already exists but it is in a state of chaos, confusion and darkness."
Err, no. At the start of those six days "God created the heavens and the earth."
"This darkness is not the result of there being no sun."
No, it's the result of there being no light. "God said, 'Let there be light.' " hadn't occurred yet.
"Genesis 1:1 is the original creation of the universe."
The only creation of the universe.
"From there on the rest of Genesis 1 is about fixing a destroyed earth to make it fit for human occupation."
Where does it say that it was destroyed? Oh, yes, six chapters later, at the time of Noah!
"Between verse 1:1 & the rest of chapter 1 any amount of time is possible."
Not at all. Exodus 20:11: "…in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them…" Everything was created in those six days. Including the universe and the earth.
"(interestingly the two Hebrew words describing the physical state of the Earth are only used in one other place in the bible and there decay/chaos etc. is the direct result of sin."
From the translation notes in the NET Bible, which uses the phrase "without shape and empty":
"Traditional translations have followed a more literal rendering of “waste and void.” The words describe a condition that is without form and empty. What we now know as “the earth” was actually an unfilled mass covered by water and darkness. Later תֹהוּ (tohu) and בֹּהוּ (bohu), when used in proximity, describe a situation resulting from judgment (Isa 34:11; Jer 4:23). Both prophets may be picturing judgment as the reversal of creation in which God’s judgment causes the world to revert to its primordial condition. This later use of the terms has led some to conclude that Gen 1:2 presupposes the judgment of a prior world, but it is unsound method to read the later application of the imagery (in a context of judgment) back into Gen 1:2."
Also, even though the two words together may be used in only one two other places, תֹהוּ (tohu) is used in several places.
"That would have to be Satan's rebellion as there were no humans in existence at that time)"
God's creation was "very good" at the end of creation week, which would mean that Satan had not yet rebelled.
"So because of the 6000 year count you mentioned, people assume the bible says the universe is only 6000 years old…"
Calculate; not assume.
"…and therefore say the bible is unscientific."
Which is a complete misunderstanding of the difference between (naturalistic) science and history. And what they really mean is that the Bible is wrong, which presupposes that naturalistic science (i.e. science that presumes that God didn't create) is somehow right. They are using the words of fallible men to conclude that the infallible God got it wrong.
"But with a more careful reading it becomes clear the bible implies no such thing."
And yet the world's top experts in the language disagree with you. Oriel Professor of the interpretation of the Holy Scripture at Oxford, James Barr, wrote "Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writers of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: a. creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; b. the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to late stages in the biblical story;…"
"it could be the case that the Big Bang concept is correct that that beginning could have been very small and then expanded."
I'm not clear what you're trying to say. You start by agreeing that I could be right (that the Big Bang is contrary to the Bible), and on that basis say that the Big Bang could be right! No, as I said, the Big Bang is contrary to the Bible. The Bible has the heavens and the earth first, and the stars, sun, and moon later. That is inconsistent with the secular just-so story.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Pocrocket54
I was talking generally, not about Texas specifically. So I don't know the answer to your question. However, I can make some comments.
First, I looked up the data. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services site has a spreadsheet that, from a quick look, seems to me to be saying that they have about 15,000 in care. That's a lot less than your 52,000.
Second, that's from age zero to age 17, so it's not in evidence that it's just unwanted babies.
Third, it's not at all clear why they are in foster care, although the spreadsheet may give some hints. That is, it's not necessarily the case that they are in care because there is nobody to adopt them; it's likely other reasons.
Fourth, I know here in Australia at least, there are a lot of children in long-term foster care that the government won't allow to be adopted, even though there are people willing to take them.
Finally, I not that you have questioned my first answer of three. What about the other two?
1
-
@Pocrocket54
"so you looked at one spread sheet ?"
Yes. I don't see a problem with that. Your question explicitly said "currently", so I looked at the most current figures. Why was that the wrong thing to do?
On the other hand, you've not cited current figures, but one from 18 months ago, and included a whole lot of things that don't fit your question of "children in care". So it seems that what I replied to you with does actually address your original question, even though not the now-moved goal posts.
On that point, your moved goal posts seem to have even less to do with the question of abortion than your original question.
"it is not for me to tell someone else how to live their life. I don’t walk in their shoes nor contribute to their life."
So you'd also be against laws against murder, given that they are also a case of telling someone else how to live their life? Revealing.
"of course not, a toddler is here, having lived and breathed"
An unborn baby is also here, alive, with a beating heart, operating muscles, etc. I don't see that breathing makes that much of a difference.
"if that toddler is here it means it’s loved."
If that's the case, why are there so many toddlers in Texas in care? Of those 15,000 I mentioned, over 4000 are aged 0 to 2. So by your logic, they are also not loved and it's therefore okay to kill them.
"That’s just a strawman argument."
Says the person that has just effectively contradicted herself.
1
-
@Pocrocket54
" I can give you up to date data as well."
As I said, what I cited was up to date data.
"The figures haven’t changed."
Then why were the figures I cited only 15,000? Okay, maybe there is something else I'm not aware of, but you've not said what that was.
"4000? And you want to bring more babies in ?"
I never said that. I said that it's wrong to kill babies (who already exist). I'm not arguing that the women ought to get pregnant and increase the number of babies. I'm saying that once they exist, they should not be killed.
"How sad and yes clearly they are not loved."
Thanks for conceding that you were wrong when you said "if that toddler is here it means it’s loved." We might be making progress. So given that you've conceded that your original answer was wrong, my question stands unanswered, "Do you use this argument in favour of a toddler being killed? Or only a younger (pre-born) child?"
"However they are here now..."
As are the babies I'm talking about.
"Abortion is harsh but it should be available to every women and past 6 weeks."
Abortion is killing, but it should be available to every woman? Please justify that.
"You don’t have to like it, understand it or condone it."
I don't like killing innocents, nor do I condone it. That's because I DO understand that it's killing innocents. As for what you understand, that may be another matter.
"Unless you’re planning on adopting every child that would’ve been aborted, I don’t believe you should get a say in how women go about their business of reproduction."
So even as a member of society, I have no right to demand that people stop being killed? Again, please justify that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@deniswauchope3788
"It sure seems worse though"
It's worse than we are used to in our lifetime, or even in Christian-era history. But we are less familiar with pre-Christian or non-Christian history. Historian Tom Holland said:
“In the age of Cicero, Cicero’s great contemporary Caesar is, by some accounts, slaughtering a million Gauls and enslaving another million in the cause of boosting his political career, and far from feeling in any way embarrassed about this he’s kind of promoting it, and so when he holds his triumph, people are going through the streets of Rome carrying billboards boasting about how many people he’s killed. This is a really terrifyingly alien world, and the more you look at it, the more you realise that it is built on systematic exploitation. So the entire economy is founded on slave labour. The sexual economy is founded on the absolute right of free Roman males to have sex with anyone that they want any way that they like. And in almost every way this is a world that is unspeakably cruel, to our way of thinking.”
This non-Christian historian goes on to credit Paul's letters and the gospels with changing the way that we see the world. See the video clip titled "Tom Holland tells NT Wright: Why I changed my mind about Christianity"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@donadistotudo5518
"Murray, I am sure, is delighted with your loyalty, (nothing wrong with that)."
It's not loyalty. I don't agree with him on everything (e.g. not bringing Australians home from India).
"Logical or illogical arguments, are opinions, not facts."
No, logical arguments are different to both facts and opinions. Logical arguments are based on premises, which may or may not be facts. Those premises could also be opinions. But logical arguments are distinct from opinions.
"Facts are, that the true is absolute - despite the anti-truth movement opinion,..."
Agreed.
"...and then, there are lies, that with some exception (compassion for instance), is the perversion of the true to justify evil)."
I agree with that too.
"Some wise man once said " The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist" "
Another point of agreement! However, another of his tricks is setting one person against another. Perhaps like, say, calling someone names instead of just civilly pointing out where and why you disagree.
"I love such discussion in person..."
Nothing wrong with preferring that. I was merely disagreeing that it couldn't be productive without being face-to-face.
"Regarding the similarities between legitimate protests, and sold out tools gathers, aiming at destroying what they can never build, it's all a question of perceived methodology."
Methodology of what? Making comparisons? Howso?
"The lockdown issue is the most important question here, as it speaks to the legitimacy of the people..."
I'd go more for saying that lockdowns are one symptom of the issue of personal freedom, although if you're using "lockdown" in a very broad sense of multiple restrictions (such as having to wear masks when you're alone), then perhaps so.
"And that is my opinion,..."
And a fair enough one too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidparker527
"...you will find an endless number of Bible fanatics and Christian loons in the comment section."
Which is a different claim entirely. And your characterisation only applies to some of the Bible-believers. Others are quite sensible. I would like to think of myself as being in that latter category. And by the way, there are plenty of atheist fanatics and loons in the comment section too. So what does that say about your assessment?
"Sky does indulge powerful Christian lobbies and institutions, such as the ACL."
Powerful? Compared to what? They are non-entities compared to, for example, the ABC, or the Greens, let alone the major political parties.
"Bolt once claimed that the last bulwark to tyranny in China was Christianity, all the while straining to convince his audience that he was an agnostic."
You think that claiming that and being an agnostic are contradictory? Then I guess arch-atheist Richard Dawkins must be a Christian, because he once said that "I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse." And the basis for that is that it historically has been.
"So, no, Sky ... definitely facilitates a politico-religious culture that is firmly on the right."
Unlike most of the rest of the media that is spread between the left and the far left. It's good to have at least a little bit of balance, isn't it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"There's a massive difference between upholding beliefs and discriminating."
Maybe true, but there's also nothing wrong with discriminating unless it's being done for a bad reason. You discriminate against vanilla ice cream every time you choose chocolate ice cream instead. Employers discriminate against all but one candidate for a job. Casting directors discriminate against women whenever they select a male for a father role or for a male historical figure role.
"What if it was changed to no black people allowed?"
That would be discrimination for a bad reason, unlike in this case.
"My point is, sexual orientation, like race, ISNT a choice."
First, there is no good genetic evidence for that. Or perhaps you can provide some?
Second, acting on your sexual orientation IS a choice.
"It's in our genetics..."
Unequivocal evidence please.
"We're all HUMAN."
Yes, and humans were designed to be heterosexual.
"Enough of the division because of stone age beliefs!"
What stone age beliefs? What stone age? That's an ahistorical concept.
"Children should be able to make their own choice when they reach adulthood whether they want to have a religion or not."
That depends on which definition of "religion" you're using. One definition is "the set of beliefs on which you base your life". That applies to everybody and hence you even have atheistic religions.
"And for those who are saying well why go to a catholic school, do you actually think it was their choice or the choice of their religious parents to send them there?"
Likely it was their parents (who were not necessarily Catholic), but so what? They should abide by their parents' wishes.
"I thought God was supposed to be about "love"."
You thought wrong. God is about a number of things, love being one of them, and justice being another. He is also opposed to sin.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Brentz12
"All you ever do is quote people and ask for evidence ..."
No, it's not all I do, but why do you seem to have a problem with me asking for evidence? Do you think that it's okay to make claims—especially when that's a criticism or insult—without any reason (evidence) for doing so? That is the real problem here. And if I'm going to ask for evidence, it's proper for me to be clear what I'm asking for evidence of, hence quoting them. Again, how is that a problem?
"all you ever do is reply short smug ... replies with no evidence, just your ... opinions and deflection"
Utterly false. First, if I make a claim, I'm prepared to provide evidence (except where the other person has made a prior claim that they haven't provided evidence for). Second, YOU asked ME for evidence, and I provided it. So to say that I never do is an outright lie.
"But I’ll bite, how about just today sky claiming “polls show coalition winning NSW election” then not citing a single poll they are referring to."
Is that meant to be the title of one of their videos on YouTube? Because I can't find it. If that's not the title, please give me the title and I'll have a look at your evidence.
"then not citing a single poll they are referring to."
That would be unusual, as they usually do cite them. But again, I want to see the evidence.
"Probably did a poll of 3 people in their lunch room, really credible"
That only demonstrates your cynicism, which you've yet to show is warranted.
"Back under your rock because that’s the last reply you’re getting"
Oh. So you won't actually clarify where I can find your evidence? A pity that. I will, therefore and obviously, remain unconvinced by your claim.
1
-
@Brentz12
"search “Coalition ‘on a winner’ by focusing on economy in New South Wales”"
Okay, found it thanks. So let's review what you claimed:
"But I’ll bite, how about just today sky claiming “polls show coalition winning NSW election” then not citing a single poll they are referring to."
Sky didn't claim that the polls show the coalition winning. The actual wording was "As long as the coalition talk on the economy their polling shows them they're on a winner". Admittedly it wasn't clear, but listening to it carefully, I believe that Clennell did refer to "their polling", i.e. polling that the coalition has done, and therefore Clennell did "cite" the polling. Secondly, he was saying what the coalition expected the outcome to be ("shows them ). He was reporting, not offering his own (or Sky's) view.
"Also, how about sky’s first hand “witness” in Alice springs the “outback nurse” who is nothing more than a beautician who lives in Darwin anyway. Now being charged for forgery and making false statements."
So you follow up one ambiguous claim (that I had to ask you to be specific about) with another! So again, specifics please, so I can check out what you're talking about.
"Oh so credible sky."
Says the person just shown to be wrong on the "coalition winning" claim.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Rohry27
"I prodcue evidence and you decry for evidence please. "
You linked to a claim that appeared to have no evidence supporting it, as I explained. I see you're still not providing evidence for those claims.
"The change from finite resources to sustianbaility is obviously not a switch that is turned on or off,..."
Obviously. You can't simply switch off the "finite" resources. And yet you asked why we couldn't do just that.
"Encourage investment and research further into the field of sustainability and innovation..."
What do you mean by "encourage"? Throw lots of taxpayer money at it?
"...so that our human society across the planet can do incredible things without destroying the delicate ecosystem and balance that is on this planet."
It's not as delicate as you seem to think.
"You claim [sic] green energy for the gas prices going up but I think you may want to switch on to a broader picture to see the geopolitical tensions amongst the rest of the world."
You blame geopolitical tension around the world, but I think you may want to look a bit closer to home and see how Australian governments are causing prices to go up in Australia.
"Russia invaded Ukraine causing supply shocks to Europe and global supply, ..."
Yes, that didn't help, but prices were going up before that, thanks to woke left policies.
"...the Middle East, a close western ally or puppet of fuel resources from the region is currently in an arms race and wartime economy as ethnic cleansing continues in Palestine. "
You destroy your credibility and show your irrational bias with that last bit. THERE IS NO ETHNIC CLEANSING IN PALESTINE.
"The sun will shine and the wind will blow, ..."
Only during the day and intermittently respectively.
"... whilst it might not always be the case we have transmission lines across the Eastern Seaboard that transfer energy across state's,..."
Where it's nighttime all over at the same time.
"...yet that is the price we pay for power generation and the transmission of energy."
A greater price than we were before without wind and solar.
"Battery solutions through LFP or Pumped Hydro is growing..."
Both are very expensive (see, "free" power is costly), and yes, the price of pumped hydro is growing.
"...private investment across the world to develop these continues to push our understandings of what is possible."
If it really was purely private investment and not subsidised and not the result of government policy, I'd have no problem with that.
"Would we be in the position we are today if we continued using our hands instead of tools, or the horse and cart before steam and the automobile?"
All those innovations were the result of capitalism, not government programs and subsidies.
"Solar Panel and Battery recycling continues to evolve..."
It would be better if it was intelligently designed! 😛
"...the consumer market for solutions is certainly there..."
Then why does it need to be forced onto people, or they need to be subsidised to accept it?
"...we need a plan because how else do you transition?"
By leaving it to the market, as has almost always been the case.
"You are exactly right that flicking the switch would cause untold societal collapse, ..."
Which means that you were wrong to suggest flicking the switch.
"...a generational impact of colonial exploitation by the Western world."
So you hate the West too. You mention "exploitation", but fail to mention all the good that the West has done.
"A just transition is important so consultation must occur with that industry, yet allowing them to dictate how we do transition is allowing the fox in the hen house."
So you provide a different fox (government) to do the dictating. That's not better.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tambinia7777
"Yahuwah is the father's name..
Yahsuwah is his son's name."
God has various names, and there are various translations of those name. יהוה is the name that the Hebrew Bible uses. In English, LORD (in small caps) is normally substituted, and Jehovah is used in places, but Yahweh is a better translation insofar as the pronunciation of the Hebrew is concerned.
The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures, used Kyrios (Lord) for יהוה. In the New Testament, the authors referred to Jesus as Kyrios, essentially calling Jesus יהוה (Yahweh). That is, Jesus IS Yahweh. The name applies to God, whether that be the Father or the Son.
The Son's human name (if I can call it that), Jesus, is actually the Greek version of the Hebrew name (Yeshua) that we call Joshua. That is, Jesus has the same name as Joshua, but Joshua is the English translation of the Hebrew, and Jesus is the English translation of the Greek.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jakestablettableto9453
"no wonder you endee up believing such a thing"
What thing? Your claim about a magical dragon? I never said that I believed it. Rather, I said that I had not made any claim about it, therefore had nothing to justify. That is, I never said that I believed it nor that I disbelieved it.
"Could you explain to me how you managed to misunderstand that?"
I didn't misunderstand anything.
"You made a claim about god being real so by you're own logic, prove it."
My "logic" was not to "prove" something, but to produce evidence for something. Whether or not you consider it "proved" depends on how strong my evidence is, and on how open to the evidence you are. In a court case, both sides produce evidence, but not all evidence is found to be convincing. In a jury, some people will be convinced by the evidence (i.e. consider the case 'proved'), whilst others won't be (consider it not 'proved'). This shows that evidence is not synonymous with proof, and that even with the same evidence, it may or may not be considered 'proved', depending on the individual. I have no doubt that you will reject my evidence, but the point is that I can provide evidence.
But sure, I can give you evidence. There's lots of it, and in a comment like this I can only put some bullet-points about the type of evidence, but this gives you some idea.
* The fact that the universe exists. Nothing can make itself, so without a universe, there is no way that a universe can begin to exist without it being caused by something external to the universe, i.e. something SUPERnatural.
* The fact that the universe exhibits evidence of design, such as various universal constants (such as the strengths of the strong and weak nuclear forces) being set just right for the universe to exist.
* The fact that living things contain massive amounts of (genetic) information, while we know that information only comes from an intelligence.
* The fact that Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead, showing that He was God.
See that's the sort of thing one should provide when challenged to provide evidence. The opening poster failed to do any such thing. I, however, CAN back my claims with evidence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RAINRDY
"That makes absolutely no sense, especially as he doesn't actually "make a point",..."
I believe that making a point is what he's doing, even though it's not explicitly stated.
"... nor is there even remotely a "double standard", considering he's comparing apples to, I don't know, *cars*,..."
No, he's comparing religious schools to political parties. They want to force schools to employ people opposed to their beliefs (assuming they apply, etc.), but there is no such requirement for political parties to accept people opposed to their beliefs. A clear double standard.
"... it doesn't even make sense to even try to draw such a comparison between them give how fundamentally different they are."
Comparisons like this are based on similarities, not differences. No matter how different they are, they are similar in that they expect to be able to employ people who share their views.
"They're not even remotely comparable in this context at all, and trying to do so is at best disingenuous, intolerant, ignorant, and ridiculous."
I have pointed out how they are similar. You have not explained how they are not comparable; you've just claimed that it's self-evident and thrown insults instead.
The above also answers your point 2.
"He just doesn't like the fact that catholic schools can't discriminate when it comes to staffing, which they shouldn't, ..."
Why not? You've not explained that.
"... it's wildly unlikely that someone with opposing views would even seek out employment at a place with views diametrically opposed to their own,..."
Why is it so unlikely? First, they might want to undermine the views with their own. Second, they might simply want a job and if that one's available, why not?
Further, if it was that unlikely, why would this even be an issue? Why the proposed laws?
"So, it's just not a reasonable, informed comparison to make. It's just ignorant."
You keep insulting, but your reasons don't withstand scrutiny.
"You must be joking."
Not at all.
"I'm sorry if you think I'm supposed to be respectful to someone who doesn't deserve it, and prefers to put out ignorance and intolerance into the world,..."
I'll grant that is "verbal diarrhoea" comment was unbecoming, but that was his only such comment, compared to your "beyond goofy", "deliberate ignorance and intolerance", and "I suggest you work on that." And that's not including anything in your original comment that he replied to, as that is hidden, nor the ones you've made since.
And you've not shown any ignorance nor intolerance on his part.
"If you can't acknowledge that, then that's on you."
If you can't acknowledge that he's clearly correct, that's on you. See, we can both express opinions like that, but backing them up seems to be a problem for you.
1
-
@freethinker8274
"There is no good or evil."
So it's okay to torture babies? Or to murder you?
"These are morality ideals based on a subjective point of view."
Is that your subjective point of view?
"Yet not one of you can produce any evidence that will hold up to scientific scrutiny."
Science involves observation, measurement, testing, and repeatability. You can't do that with history. Science also can only directly study the natural, not the supernatural. You're using the wrong tool to assess God's existence. Recorded, eye-witness, history provides plenty of evidence.
"The answer every time I ask for prove is, "prove there is none"."
I'll admit I often see that too. But that is never my answer. Further, I often ask critics for evidence of their claims of God's non-existence, and they almost never provide any. Are you going to be different?
"If you can't answer the question, you should stay quiet. Or here is an even better idea. Admit there is none."
Good point. Can you come with me and say that to the many atheists who fail to answer the questions I put to them?
"Your Bibl claims our planet is the center of the universe and that the sun revolves around it."
Here's your chance: what's your evidence? Because I reject that.
"Since the Bible is always right, should I be able to sell my wife?"
Where does the Bible say you can do that? In any case, you're ignorant of what the Bible teaches. It includes reports of people doing wrong things (e.g. Cain murdering Abel) and it includes the Mosaic Law, a body of law that God gave for the pre-Christian nation of Israel. That law no longer applies.
"How about should I be able to stone adulters?"
Even the Mosaic Law never said that you, personally, could.
"The Ten Commandments say there is only one God, yet you worship three."
False. There is only one God. He is three persons in one, but not three Gods.
"The Ten Commandments say not to worship idols, yet you worship to a cross."
False again. The cross is a symbol—a reminder—of what Christ has done for us. Christ, not the cross, is the focus of our worship.
"The Bible says let he who is without sin cast the first stone, yet Christians can't wait to judge others and cast stones."
That second part is wrong again. Casting the first stone refers to a punishment under the Mosaic law. Christians do not take the law into their own hands (I'm speaking generally, of course). And we are also instructed to judge, albeit to judge righteously. Although even there, that refers to proper, authoritative, judgement (e.g. like a court), not to forming opinions and expressing them.
"Right there is another contradiction. The Bible says to stone people in one part, then in another says not to."
More ignorance of what it teaches. The Mosaic Law provided the law and sets out (maximum) penalties. Jesus' comment about not casting the first stone was actually in the context of the Jewish authorities trying to catch Jesus out. Their goal was not to dish out proper punishment, but to use that to trick Jesus. But he got out of it very cleverly, neither denying that the woman deserved punishment, nor allowing Himself to be used in that way. And also providing an example of grace and forgiveness. (Note that there is nothing to forgive if nothing wrong has been done. You can only forgive when something has been done wrong.) The Mosaic law defined what was wrong. Jesus taught that it is better to forgive rather than punish, but that is not a denial of punishment being deserved. So no contradiction (even if I didn't explain that as well as perhaps I could have).
"I thought the Bible was absolute and always right."
It is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@UnrealNarcissist
"how is a marriage between two loving adults an oxymoron or contrary to the way we 'were designed"
Because we were designed to be heterosexual and marriage is, by definition, a lifelong union between a man and a woman.
"Our Lord designed people interested in different loving relationships,..."
He designed us hetersexual, and condemned homosexuality.
"...while you may prefer a single man/woman, your beliefs have no relevance to reality."
And yet you don't say why. So I'm guessing that that's just your opinion.
"...there is no foundation for government to deny equal rights "
That completely avoids the argument I made in my previous comment.
"It's like saying that you can vote if you are a white male."
Well, white males can still vote, can't they? But why is it "like" that anyway? You don't say.
"You are so predictable in your foolish ignorance."
Yet you've shown no foolish ignorance on my part. So that is just insult where there should be argument.
"You tried but failed to explain why same sex couples should not have the same right as other couples..."
No, I explained why they already had the same rights. You are distorting what I said to be the opposite of what I said.
"There is no compelling argument provided so far other than a circular one that would allow one to discriminate based on mere definition."
You've not shown any circularity in my argument (because there is none) and given that the same rules applied to everyone, then there is no discrimination.
"Black people were not considered able to vote, or be free and these requirements applied equally to all."
Blatantly false. The right to vote was granted to one group and not the other. The right to marry was already granted to all adults. And they all equally had to meet the requirements or conditions.
"That's basically what you are promoting"
Except that it's not. You've drawn a false equivalence as your argument.
"Learn to love your neighbor"
I do. You've not shown otherwise. Disagreement does not equate to a lack of love.
1
-
@UnrealNarcissist
"Uh, you must be aware of the simple fact that our Lord design us and nature to definitely not be exclusively heterosexual."
No, I'm not aware of that, and you've provided no evidence for that.
"...the right to marry is not granted to one group, namely non-heterosexuals."
That is false. They have the right to marry as long as they meet the conditions. There is nothing in the conditions to stop a homosexual man marrying a woman. He still has that right, exactly the same as every other man. The fact that he doesn't like that condition doesn't change that fact.
"Your logic is quite poor, ..."
You've not shown anything poor with my logic.
"...your excuses to deny equal rights ..."
What denial of equal rights? I've pointed out that they already had equal rights. You mightn't like the implications, but that's completely logical.
"...was rejected by the courts, the majority of the people in the US and Congress."
But not by the highest authority, to whom all those are subject.
"And yes, you do not love your neighbors because you insist that your gay neighbors do not have the right to be married."
And yet I have explicitly said the opposite. They DO have the right to be married, as long as they meet the conditions. Just as a man who loves his sister has the right to marry another person, as long as they meet the conditions. There is no law that says that a person who loves his sister cannot get married. It's true that he can't marry his sister, but he is allowed to marry any other woman as long as the conditions are met.
And you never did answer why not being allowed to marry a child, someone already married, or a close relative was not a denial of equal rights. Why not?
1
-
@UnrealNarcissist
"nature is full of examples of non-heterosexual behavior and science has found that non-heterosexual behavior is quite prevalent."
That's animals, not humans.
"I know that you want to believe that heterosexual is the design,..."
How do you know that? I'm arguing that not because it's what I want, but because that's what the evidence says.
"our Lord works in mysterious ways and has created a large variety of gender identities..."
What gender identities? There are only two sexes. That's the way we were created, and science shows that to be the case. Or doesn't science matter in this case?
"Our Lord not only has created this variety but it's an inherent part of nature."
You've not shown that God did create this variety, and there is no good evidence of people being born that way, despite lots of looking.
"There is a law that restricts marriage between siblings and the reason is that such comes with increased risks of genetic complications."
True. All those conditions have good reason. None are arbitrary. Pointing out that one is not arbitrary doesn't mean that the others are.
"...there is no good reason to limit marriage between same sexes ..."
Except there is good reason, that being that we were designed to be heterosexual (a claim you've denied but not shown to be wrong), and that God condemned homosexuality, and also that he designed marriage to be between a man and a woman.
"Of course with genetic testing, the latter may become less of an objection,..."
Genetic testing of the parents to determine if their children have increased risks of genetic complications is a long way off.
"it would not surprise me if this and polygamous/polyamorous relationships will be granted similar protection."
Which wouldn't make it right.
"You make arbitrary rules..."
False. I didn't make the rules, and they are not arbitrary, as you've already conceded in one case.
"Thus the rule that people with black skin cannot vote unless they have white skin still is not discriminatory because it's the rule."
People who have 'black' skin can't have 'white' skin. That's a logical impossibility, and therefore a ridiculous example.
"Because a group of people is singled out for no valid reason and deprived of their rights."
You've not shown that there is no valid reason, and I have provided a valid reason that you've not refuted, only denied.
"Your arbitrary rules, combined with your unfounded beliefs, have caused you reject marriage to same sex couples."
Except that they are not arbitrary, not mine, and not unfounded. Simply asserting that they are does not make them so.
"...,you do not have the right to let your believes result in unequal treatment under our laws for no valid reason."
As I have pointed out, there is no unequal treatment.
"Same sex couples do not have the right to marry ..."
Yes they do. Just not marry each other. The two people concerned are not barred from marrying people who meet the requirements.
"You do understand that rights can be restricted by government if it serves a valid purpose."
Of course.
"Religious beliefs are not a valid government purpose."
Please define "religious beliefs". Because I didn't cite religious beliefs. I cited design and God. And yes, there IS a difference. And, according to you, what beliefs do constitute a valid government purpose?
"Oh and you have a right to vote however the rule is that you cannot vote republican. Fair?"
You've now switched from equality to fairness. If that rule applies equally to everyone, then you have equality. Fairness is a different concern.
"20% of today's youth identifies as non-exclusively-heterosexual."
I doubt that figure. The homosexual activists have been citing wrong figures for decades. But even if the figure is correct, so what? That doesn't make it right.
"And while a smaller percentage of people in this nation have identified as homosexual, due to its social stigmas ..."
How do you know that it's due to social stigmas? Homosexuals have been celebrated in the media and other places for decades now. What is stigmatised is to disagree with it.
"Impressive to see how our Lord's creation includes a wide variety of relationships"
What's impressive about it? And do you understand the implications of The Fall? Because that's what you're overlooking here.
1
-
@UnrealNarcissist
"Humans are animals."
That depends on your definitions. Is Pluto a planet?
"What you fail to comprehend is that homosexual behavior is quite natural and that this is part of our Lord's Creation."
And yet God explicitly rejected it. And nowhere does it say that He created it.
"Some people have decided that based on their ignorance of science, which reveals to us His Creation, we have a right to deny equal rights to same sex couples to be married."
No, some people have studied history and creation and simply repeat God's view on the matter. And I've pointed out multiple times that same sex couples already had equal rights. But you keep repeating that lie.
"You have shown no evidence the heterosexual is the design."
You've shown no evidence to the contrary. But God made a man and a woman, not a man and a man, and Jesus said "But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,...".
"You claim I am overlooking the Fall here? Please explain because you seem to be desperate in trying to judge without understanding the concept of the Fall."
The Fall means that His creation is deteriorating. "To the woman he said, 'I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.' " and "cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;" and "For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now." Therefore, some of what we see today is not part of God's original design. It therefore doesn't follow that because homosexuality exists, it was part of His creation.
"...we should love not judge our neighbors lest we want to be judged."
"Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgement.". We are supposed to judge, if done correctly.
"...a world where our Lord has inspired millions, hundreds of millions and a super majority in Congress, and even religious organizations to codify equal rights for same sex couples."
Please provide the evidence that God is behind that.
"While there are some dark forces ..."
You repeatedly use very negative terms about people where you should be sticking to the argument. This in itself shows that you have a very negatively-biased view of people who disagree with you.
"...who have opposed equality ..."
Again this is not about equality, but about redefining what God has defined as marriage.
"And Praise be to the Lord , we continue to expand equal rights to all regardless of color, sex, natural origin, gender, ..."
And yet Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world. I don't see an expansion of equal rights there. And gender is a fiction anyway.
"We are not longer a white male evangelical society ..."
We never were. Christianity, including evangelical Christianity, includes both men and women, as well as people with different amounts of melanin in their skin.
"You have no support for your claims, neither from science nor for religion."
I didn't claim support from religion, nor from science so far I think. I claimed it from history and design.
"No longer, you are right,..."
I didn't say no longer. I said that there wasn't before, and I said that there isn't by referring to what I had already said.
"...same sex couples are now allowed to legally get married but before this they were treated unequally..."
I have repeatedly pointed out that there was no unequal treatment. Continuing to repeat the lie does not make it true.
"...denied access to the protection of the contract of marriage for no valid government reason."
Not denied. If they got married, they got whatever protections that provided.
"Your argument is nothing more than: You have the right to vote, just not Republican"
Nonsense. God never said that we couldn't vote Republican. He DID say that homosexuality is wrong.
"Fool."
Again, attacking the messenger instead of addressing the argument. Name-calling does not help your credibility.
"Our children have freed themselves from the societal prejudices..."
Negative rhetoric, not argument.
"They are abandoning the artificial concepts of binary gender and sex ..."
Nothing artificial about binary sex. There is male, and female, and ... nothing.
And gender is an invention with no basis in reality.
"...in favor of recognition that our Lord has created a broad spectrum."
"male and female he created them." Nothing there about a spectrum. And of course science agrees.
"They truly understand the concept of loving your neighbor and not judging them any longer based on foolish beliefs and ignorance."
More negative rhetoric. I'm basing what I'm saying on what I know from the Bible (and science). Not on foolish beliefs nor ignorance.
"You are so ignorant of science. Wow..."
And yet you don't show that I'm wrong.
"As the Supreme Court explained, the restriction to limit marriage to a man and woman was artificial ..."
Okay, so the beliefs that supposedly constitute a valid government purpose are atheistic ones. In other words, not valid at all.
"...and benefits, and there is no valid government purpose provided, the state can no longer deny the right to marriage to same sex couples."
How about the purpose of not allowing or at least not encouraging society to descend into evil?
"Just like you cannot deny the right to vote republican just because you believe that this still means that people have equal rights to vote..."
I never said that I thought anybody should. Your question was about equality, so what I said was that it would be equal. I never said that it would be right.
" The Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects,... "
Quite correct. But marriage is, by divine definition, between a man and a woman, so that doesn't apply to same-sex couples.
" it safeguards children and families by according legal recognition to building a home and raising children, and it has historically been recognized as the keystone of social order. "
Yes, the lifelong union between a man and a woman has historically (and biblically) been recognised as the keystone of social order. Between two people of the same sex is against the social order.
"Because there are no differences between a same-sex union and an opposite-sex union with respect to these principles,..."
Except for that social order bit, not to mention same-sex couples being unable to have children, and being unable to provide the children that they might adopt with both a mother and a father (a key point of marriage which the court seems ignorant of).
"Of course, the recent stacking of the Supreme Court..."
So when Democrats put activist judges on the court who treat the constitution as something they can interpret according to their own prejudices, that's okay, but when Republicans put originalist judges on the court who treat the constitution as the guiding rules, that's 'stacking'? I can see your prejudices right there.
"...just like it has denied the woman's right to control her own body ..."
Oh dear. More misinformation.
First, what right? There never was the right to abortion. The recent ruling made that quite clear. Roe vs. Wade was the product of those aforementioned activist judges, and many legal experts, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg said it was a bad decision.
Second, it didn't deny any rights. Rather, it handed the decision back to the states.
Third, that abortion is about a woman's right to control her own body is one of the biggest and most ridiculous lies of the pro-abortion movement, as it is clearly about her baby's body, not her body!
Didn't you know that killing an innocent human was wrong? Even the U.S. constitution says that.
"...places no harm on anyone and recognizes the autonomy of the individual over the beliefs of some."
So you're under the complete delusion that the baby doesn't get harmed in the process?
"...recognizing the equal rights of same sex couples,..."
For the umpteenth time, they have always had equal rights.
"...but then again we do have a rather sordid history in which religious prejudices were allowed to deny rights equally to all."
Like what? Assuming that you're talking about Christianity, the religion that promoted human rights, twice abolished slavery, introduced universal education, spread democracy, and elevated the status or women.
1
-
@UnrealNarcissist
"The definition on animal is simple, ..."
So where's your answer to my Pluto question?
"...we descend from a common ancestor..."
That's the naturalistic story, not the biblical account.
"So you doubt that the Lord created?"
Of course He created. But He created a man and a woman, and created them heterosexual. And He created them separate to the animals, from the dust of the ground and, unlike the animals, in His image.
"Fine, but the fact is that nature is full of examples of behaviors that you believe are somehow more sinful than others."
Thanks to the Fall. Or that are sinful in the only moral creatures, humans, not in animals.
"While you deny equal rights for same sex couples to be married, ..."
Which I have repeatedly pointed out that I don't.
"our Lord has inspired 70+% of our nation to support such rights. Our Lord has inspired a supermajority in Senate and many religious institutions to support what was long due."
A claim that you've already made and which I've asked for evidence for, but which you haven't provided. My guess is that you have none.
"Your revisionism of christianity is fascinating...
your ignorance of our Lord's teachings fascinating."
What revisionism? You're the one who goes against the Bible is claiming that we descend from a common ancestor with animals, and that God created only male and female.
And what ignorance? You've not shown that I have any.
"Wow... You are quite the troll"
Says the person who denies what the Bible records.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LisaAnn777
"I don't believe accepting a blood sacrifice will absolve you of crimes,"
If you're referring to Jesus being the ultimate and final sacrifice, what you're saying is that you don't believe God.
"teaching kids that in the 21st century seem nonsensical to me."
Why? Things like that don't change according to the century.
"Separate Church and state."
It is. But that doesn't mean that the state should be atheistic, i.e. without God. Church-state separation was about the state not controlling the church.
"We need to teach critical thinking not agendas based on your personal feeling whether Marxist or Religious,..."
True, but critical thinking is not contrary to Christianity. And Christianity is not about personal feeling, but about reality.
"Neither have any evidence in reality and are merely forms of control."
What is your evidence that Christianity has no evidence in reality? Or does your claim have no evidence in reality?
"Its time to put away childish things, Christians."
Then put away anti-Christian ideas. Christianity is based on reality.
"if your making assumptions then that's called bad science,"
Yes. That's the point.
"It should be based on observation and tests."
Exactly. Not on naturalism, as so much of historical science is based on. That is precisely my point.
"What God are you even talking about?"
There is only one. Only one God was involved in creating everything; only one God is supreme.
"there are thousands of mythological figures and deities out there."
True. I'm talking about the real one.
"The bible was made by bronze age goat herders who didn't understand the world..."
What's your evidence that they didn't understand the world? The very concept of a "bronze age" comes from an anti-Christian viewpoint. The Bible was written by numerous people, including princes, kings, national leaders, preachers, and doctors.
"We are not in the bronze age."
We never were. The very idea is wrong, or at least a distortion.
"The earth is not flat ..."
Of course not. Christians never believed that it was. Rather, that was an atheist invention with the goal of vilifying Christians.
"...its not 6000 years old,"
Evidence?
"Evolution is based on what we have observed in the fossil record."
No, it's based on a view that intentionally rejects the biblical account. It was invented based on living creatures, not fossils. Fossils are interpreted as supporting it, but the fossils themselves don't show that, and the fossils can be explained in other ways.
"If the Earth really flooded, then its amazing that's so many ancient cultures like Egypt lived right through it without noticing they were underwater, Strange."
A common atheist fallacious argument. There are two views: the naturalistic one and the biblical one. The naturalistic one comes up with dates that don't match the biblical one. Then you argue that the Bible got it wrong because it doesn't agree with the competing view! Duh! Of course they won't agree! The Egyptians didn't exist at the time of the flood. They came later. Your argument is based on the dates of the Egyptians according to the competing view!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@peterstafford4426
"How?"
Promoting the LGBT+ agenda. Promoting killing babies. Portraying America as weak (e.g. Afghanistan pull-out). Cutting fuel production. There's a few for starters.
"Inflation is world-wide. ... High gas prices are world wide."
Thanks in part to Biden. He cut energy production, which meant that American had to import fuel, and the law of supply and demand meant that prices went up. World wide. Helping lead to inflation, world-wide.
"Crime started to rise under Trump."
In Democrat-led cities, no doubt.
"The bills that were passed are quite good."
What bills were good and what made them good?
"He did better in the midterms than any President since 1934."
Which is irrelevant to whether he's doing good for America.
"He strengthened NATO."
How? Trump did that.
"He is leading a very successful defense against Russia."
I wouldn't say he's "leading" it (Ukraine is doing that), but yes, supporting Ukraine is one thing he's done good. On the other hand, as I understand it, he caused the problem in the first place. Russia had an oil pipeline to Europe that went through Ukraine. If Russia invaded Ukraine, Ukraine could turn off the pipe and therefore Russia's income from the oil. So Russia wanted to build a new pipeline bypassing Ukraine. America blocked that from happening. But as soon as Biden got in, he not only stopped an American pipeline, in a act of gross hypocrisy, he removed the barrier to completion of the Russian pipeline. That allowed the Russians to complete the pipeline which removed their barrier to invading Ukraine.
And that's ignoring that he also "caused" it by showing weakness.
"By actual measures, he is doing an incredible job."
Incredibly bad.
"But who cares."
You obviously don't. You're under the delusion he's doing a great job!
"Praise for Biden is not good for youtube revenue. Money is all that matters to youtube political channels."
YouTube supports the left, as has been documented many times. Support for Trump is what gets demonetised.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mcirelandosharma7411
"you can't comply with one part of this and dissent from another. This is a package deal."
First, I wasn't suggesting that. Second, you can, actually. You may disagree with some of it and not other parts of it.
"You are either for outright authoritarianism or you are against it."
Even that's not true. You can legitimately be authoritarian in specific circumstances, and not others. That's why Victoria (for example) has legislation for a state of emergency situation. However, that legislation specifically says (or said) that it's for a very limited period (a few weeks; I forget the length) and although it could be reinstated when it expired, it could not be reinstated beyond six months in total. Something "authoritarian" like that is probably reasonable. But we've gone well beyond that (which required new legislation), and that I disagree with.
But more to the point here, we are not talking about just authoritarianism, but several specific (albeit related) issues, such as you listed in your previous comment.
"How does it make sense to disagree with lockdowns but obey them because they are law?"
It makes very good sense. You can protest things without breaking the law (in most cases). I've done it a number of times, taking part in protests against abortion.
"Why wouldn't a tyrannical govt use a lockdown to end protests or dissent for other things if they know people would obey them?"
My argument from my very first comment was about whether the situation is serious enough to break the law. I didn't argue that it's never okay to break the law.
"It sets a precedent that people must obey any law regardless of whether it has any moral standing or not."
It might. But if you break the law on the basis that it has no moral standing, you have to be very sure that your moral values are correct. How do you determine that?
"Which is the whole point of this whole covid charade."
I don't accept that. Yes, I think they are going way overboard. Yes, I think that they are letting the power go to their heads. Yes, I think they are not giving enough weight to human rights and freedoms. Yes, I think that they are happy to be authoritarian. But I don't see good evidence that their prime motive is anything other than the health of the community.
"Training us like dogs."
I do think it's having that effect, and I don't like it. I just don't see evidence that that's the goal.
1
-
@mcirelandosharma7411
"I wish you could show me evidence that would prove we are not heading into a social credit system ..."
Well, I never said that we weren't. All I've said is that I don't see that being the (current) goal, but that doesn't mean that that won't become a goal in the future, and the current situation might help facilitate that.
"I'm sure you think the idea of procreation licences is conspiracy theory?"
I don't, but then I've not heard that claim and therefore not even considered the possibility. But my initial reaction would be that I don't see any evidence of that being in view at present. The future, however, is more open.
"By the time you realise that this is maybe the ultimate goal..."
The ultimate goal of who? We are talking here about a lot of people, including but not limited to state premiers, the Prime Minister, and equivalents overseas. You are implying one of three things: a) a vast conspiracy among all these people. That seems impossible to accept. b) a common mindset among all those people, so they are not actually colluding, just all thinking in similar ways. That's more believable, but still a big stretch to accept as being that widespread. c) the goal of a small group behind the scenes. Even if that's the case, that means that it's not the goal of those actually making the current rules.
1
-
@mcirelandosharma7411
Australia is an exception to the two parties of many systems, and yet it's Australia we are primarily talking about. Second, I don't agree with your opinion that nothing changes. Yes, there are sometimes too much similarity, but there is also a fair bit of difference. One glaring example—in a two-party system—was Trump.
Further, the similarity can be explained in other ways, such as similar worldviews and media pressure.
It's not true that they never fulfill their promises. Yes, there are often promises that they don't keep, and arguably too many of those, but there are also others that are kept.
How do you define 'normal' people? Depending on that, I would disagree that we never do.
1
-
@mcirelandosharma7411
"most 2 party "democratic" societies have more than 2 parties"
Then they are not two-party states then.
"but only 2 ever have the majority."
Only one ever has a majority, unless you have a hung election.
"Are you aware of why that is?"
I don't accept the premise of the question.
"What did Trump actually achieve? What did he actually change?"
He started building the wall. He improved the economy. He stopped some teaching of CRT. He did lots of things.
"The similar worldviews you mention are the exact reason they are given a leg up into the hot seat. They are vetted, trained and financed to say and do the approved things..."
That seems like a contradiction. You're implying that they are similar because someone's controlling them. I'm arguing that they are more likely similar because of a similar worldview, not because someone's controlling them. You're now claiming that that someone is controlling them because they have similar worldviews.
And who is vetting, training, and financing them?
"Not to mention the clear family and close connections so many world leaders have with banks, media moguls and global mega corporations."
I'm not denying that those things exist, but I don't accept that it's as widespread as you're implying.
"I have never heard of any politician who went to school..."
Huh? You're suggesting that they didn't go to school?
"...or knew anyone that I know as a kid."
I'm not clear on what you're saying.
"I have never heard of anyone else knowing a past or present politician before they were in power."
My parents were acquainted with Peter (and Tim) Costello's parents in earlier days. I think my (late) Mum said that my brother and I once got some hand-me-down clothes from them. I'm about a year younger than Tim. Or maybe it was for my younger brother who is about a year younger than Peter.
"Never seen anyone ever mention it online..."
Well, I guess you have now.
"That's because people in the political cess pit are not brought up in the same world as the rest of us. I.e. Not 'normal'. It is a big incestuous club, and we ain't in it."
He's not a pollie (yet), but there is a bloke in my church who has stood for preselection. I think he came second in the vote, and has been touted as a likely candidate after another particular senator retires.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brantleyfoster021
"Questioning my point without the full context or outright changing my points to suit yourself, doesn't change the fact's of what transpired that day..."
In other words, I'm not allowed to question whether your "facts" are really facts? I just have to believe you because you say so?
"The Hannibal directive was engaged, but used weapon's that were illegal for that directive."
What makes them illegal?
"It was also engaged without authorisation or intel from the ground on what was actually happening."
Evidence please, and why that matters.
"The Hannibal directive is not self defense, it's a directive deployed to mass murder their own Illegal settler's in order to prevent them from being hostages instead of valuing their lives."
Evidence please. The Wikipedia article on it doesn't say any such thing.
"It's why the news highlights that it's controversial as a form of self defense. Duh!"
There could be numerous reasons why it's supposedly "controversial" (often a description applied by the left to anything they disagree with).
"It's why people question if it was a coincidence that Hamas attacked on a day that Israel was planning to attack their own to frame them..."
I asked for evidence of that, and you've simply repeated the claim without providing evidence.
"Israel has been specific that the attacks they were responsible for that day, was something they blamed Hamas for."
That's the case with any response to being attacked. So what's the problem?
"It's a disservice to the victim's families to frame someone else to their own crime's."
Calling them crimes doesn't mean that they are. What makes them crimes?
"The mass murder of their own hostages in Gaza,..."
What mass murder?
"..., as well as the Palestinian hostages they are holding ..."
What mass murder? You make a lot of claims, but provide almost no evidence for them, despite being challenged to do so.
"...- is further proof that Israel disregards human life entirely. "
No, your claims are not proof. And you ignore the evidence that Israel has great regard for human life, such as notifying the residents of attacks so that they can get to safety first. It's been said by experts that Israel goes to greater lengths than any other military to prevent loss of innocent lives.
"The initial thread comment was specifically highlighting massacres within Palestine,..."
Highlighting something that's not in evidence. You need evidence. And what is "Palestine"? There's no such country.
1
-
1
-
@brantleyfoster021
Second attempt to post
"Questioning my point without the full context or outright changing my points to suit yourself, doesn't change the fact's of what transpired that day..."
In other words, I'm not allowed to question whether your "facts" are really facts? I just have to believe you because you say so?
And how did I change your points??
"The Hannibal directive was engaged, but used weapon's that were illegal for that directive."
What makes them illegal?
"It was also engaged without authorisation or intel from the ground on what was actually happening."
Evidence please, and why that matters.
"The Hannibal directive is not self defense, it's a directive deployed to mass murder their own Illegal settler's in order to prevent them from being hostages instead of valuing their lives."
Evidence please. The Wikipedia article on it doesn't say any such thing.
"It's why the news highlights that it's controversial as a form of self defense. Duh!"
There could be numerous reasons why it's supposedly "controversial" (often a description applied by the left to anything they disagree with).
"It's why people question if it was a coincidence that Hamas attacked on a day that Israel was planning to attack their own to frame them..."
I asked for evidence of that, and you've simply repeated the claim without providing evidence.
"Israel has been specific that the attacks they were responsible for that day, was something they blamed Hamas for."
That's the case with any response to being attacked. So what's the problem?
"It's a disservice to the victim's families to frame someone else to their own crime's."
Calling them crimes doesn't mean that they are. What makes them crimes?
"The mass murder of their own hostages in Gaza,..."
What mass murder?
"..., as well as the Palestinian hostages they are holding ..."
What mass murder? You make a lot of claims, but provide almost no evidence for them, despite being challenged to do so.
"...- is further proof that Israel disregards human life entirely. "
No, your claims are not proof. And you ignore the evidence that Israel has great regard for human life, such as notifying the residents of attacks so that they can get to safety first. It's been said by experts that Israel goes to greater lengths than any other military to prevent loss of innocent lives.
"The initial thread comment was specifically highlighting massacres within Palestine,..."
Highlighting something that's not in evidence. You need evidence. And what is "Palestine"? There's no such country.
1
-
1
-
@brantleyfoster021
Third attempt to post, part 2
"It's why people question if it was a coincidence that Hamas attacked on a day that Israel was planning to attack their own to frame them..."
I asked for evidence of that, and you've simply repeated the claim without providing evidence.
"Israel has been specific that the attacks they were responsible for that day, was something they blamed Hamas for."
That's the case with any response to being attacked. So what's the problem?
"It's a disservice to the victim's families to frame someone else to their own crime's."
Calling them crimes doesn't mean that they are. What makes them crimes?
"The mass murder of their own hostages in Gaza,..."
What mass murder?
"..., as well as the Palestinian hostages they are holding ..."
What mass murder? You make a lot of claims, but provide almost no evidence for them, despite being challenged to do so.
"...- is further proof that Israel disregards human life entirely. "
No, your claims are not proof. And you ignore the evidence that Israel has great regard for human life, such as notifying the residents of attacks so that they can get to safety first. It's been said by experts that Israel goes to greater lengths than any other military to prevent loss of innocent lives.
"The initial thread comment was specifically highlighting massacres within Palestine,..."
Highlighting something that's not in evidence. You need evidence. And what is "Palestine"? There's no such country.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brantleyfoster021
"You responded to 1 reply of mine 3 times, I have it in my inbox. "
Oh, is that what you're referring to. Yes, I did that, because my first two attempts got hidden. That's why my second and third ones are prefixed as being second and third attempts.
"You deleted one of the replies or it was removed possibly. "
Not deleted; two of my replies were hidden by YT.
"You can't call anyone else out on bullying other's with that in mind."
That was not bullying (even if it seemed like it to you). That was simply trying to repost what YT removed (hid).
"As for proof, even the ABC was putting on record that Israel engaged the Hannibal directive using weapon's that were illegal."
"Even" the ABC?? They'd be more likely to promote such propaganda. And that's a claim of evidence, not evidence.
"For example, they stated that the Apachi Helicopter destroyed 70 vehicle's alone."
And perhaps that's true, but your claim is that using that is illegal; that's what I asked for evidence of.
"Israel's own Haaretz newspaper also says the same. "
That they were used? That doesn't show that they were illegal.
"Al-Jazeera, TRT World, Middle East Eye, HRW in NY & even the Israeli government put it on record."
I wouldn't trust the first, I don't know the next three, and again I would want evidence of the government saying it (that it's illegal), not just a claim of evidence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brantleyfoster021
Second attempt, part 2
"As for proof, even the ABC was putting on record that Israel engaged the Hannibal directive using weapon's that were illegal."
"Even" the ABC?? They'd be more likely to promote such propaganda. And that's a claim of evidence, not evidence.
"For example, they stated that the Apachi Helicopter destroyed 70 vehicle's alone."
And perhaps that's true, but your claim is that using that is illegal; that's what I asked for evidence of.
"Israel's own Haaretz newspaper also says the same. "
That they were used? That doesn't show that they were illegal.
"Al-Jazeera, TRT World, Middle East Eye, HRW in NY & even the Israeli government put it on record."
I wouldn't trust the first, I don't know the next three, and again I would want evidence of the government saying it (that it's illegal), not just a claim of evidence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@karlm9584
"Homo sapiens and homo sapiens sapiens are distinctly different species of humans."
That is incorrect. "Homo" is the genus, and the following "sapiens" is the species. So Homo sapiens is a species, and Homo sapiens sapiens is a subspecies (insofar as the naming is concerned), not a different species.
"While homo sapiens can date back before 250K years, homo sapiens sapiens is generally 160K years old."
Only if you accept the naturalistic dates; not all scientists accept that philosophy.
"If Australian Aborigines are homo sapiens and not homo sapiens sapiens then from a purely scientific point of view, that's pretty awesome..."
That's a naturalistic point of view (accepted by a majority of scientists), not a scientific point of view.
Further, aborigines are just as human as the rest of us; the distinction you are suggesting is false.
"Have any tests been performed, though?"
Yes. Genetically, there is no significant difference between aborigines and non-aborigines.
"However, if they are homo sapiens sapiens then the 250K claim is pretty much bunk."
It is anyway.
1
-
1
-
@pwillis1589
"Hilarious."
Laugh all you want, but looking at the evidence should remove that laughter.
The point is that Western Civilisation is based on Christianity. Science is based on Christianity, including the belief that God created as the Bible describes. It is the New Testament that "was almost everything that explains the modern world" according historian Tom Holland. "Christianity created Western Civilization" wrote sociologist Rodney Stark, without which "most of you would not have learned to read and ... [we'd have] A world of despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys, and pianos". Indian scholar Vishal Mangalwadi wrote that Christianity "is what made the West a thinking civilization."
Meanwhile, atheist regimes have been disasters for their countries.
All of which backs up my comment that "The truth can be dangerous to your beliefs." Laughing it off doesn't refute that.
1
-
1
-
@pwillis1589
"you talk some absolute garbage."
And yet you didn't point out anything incorrect in it.
Second attempt to post the following
"Hilarious."
Laugh all you want, but looking at the evidence should remove that laughter.
The point is that Western Civilisation is based on Christianity. Science is based on Christianity, including the belief that God created as the Bible describes. It is the New Testament that "was almost everything that explains the modern world" according historian Tom Holland. "Christianity created Western Civilization" wrote sociologist Rodney Stark, without which "most of you would not have learned to read and ... [we'd have] A world of despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys, and pianos". Indian scholar Vishal Mangalwadi wrote that Christianity "is what made the West a thinking civilization."
Meanwhile, atheist regimes have been disasters for their countries.
All of which backs up my comment that "The truth can be dangerous to your beliefs." Laughing it off doesn't refute that.
1
-
@pwillis1589
"you talk some absolute garbage."
And yet you didn't point out anything incorrect in it.
Third attempt to post the following
"Hilarious."
Laugh all you want, but looking at the evidence should remove that laughter.
Historian Tom Holland says that New Testament books have "almost everything that explains the modern world". "Christianity created Western Civilization" wrote sociologist Rodney Stark, without which "most of you would not have learned to read and ... [we'd have] A world of despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys, and pianos". He also includes science. Indian scholar Vishal Mangalwadi wrote that Christianity "is what made the West a thinking civilization."
Meanwhile, atheist regimes have been disasters for their countries.
All of which backs up my comment that "The truth can be dangerous to your beliefs." Laughing it off doesn't refute that.
-------------
"...you tried to compare the the history and culture of England with the history and culture of Australia pre 1788, and that is absurd."
Why?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rosshitchen-ij6en
"The study you’re referring to was published in 1981."
False. It was published in 2000, based on samples found in 1993 and tested about 1996.
"Since then, there have been many advances in dating technology, and they are very accurate."
What have they been calibrated against (other than other dating methods that the same question could be asked of)?
"Isochron Dating [snipped]" — Was already in use then.
"Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) Dating" — Introduced in 1975
Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) Dating" — Developed in the mid 1980s
"Thermoluminescence Dating" — Developed in the 1960s.
"Uranium-Series Dating" — In use in the 1960s.
"Combining these methods with careful sample handling and cross-checking results can help resolve discrepancies and provide a more accurate picture of the sample’s age."
And yet there are plenty of cases where they disagree, such as the Crinum example.
"Advances in dating technology have made it possible for scientists to revise some Aboriginal artifacts to up to 65,000 years."
Begging the question. The point is, the methods are inconsistent and unreliable.
"Studies conducted 43 years ago hold very little weight compared to nowadays."
Nowadays, we can carbon date coal, diamonds, and some dinosaur fossils, producing results within the range of carbon dating, i.e. less than about 60,000 years. Do you accept the accuracy of those dates?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rosshitchen-ij6en
"No I mixed the study up with another."
Duh!
"The one your refering to is this one..."
Yes, I know. I gave you the title of it.
"was published in 1999"
No, 2000, as I said. August 2000 to be more precise.
"...a geologist associated with creationist organizations."
Do you always say who a geologists is associated with, or only when you're trying to marginalise them? I expect an answer to that.
"The dating methods, including carbon-14 dating for the wood and potassium-argon dating for the basalt,..."
Yes, just as I said.
"...would have been conducted prior to this publication, likely in the mid to late 1990s."
"likely"? I've already told you that the samples were found in 1993, obtained in 1994, and tested around 1996.
So you've spent 64 words telling you what I've already told you, and yet you still got some of it wrong!
"it’s important to note that this study has been criticized for its methodology and interpretation,..."
Of course. It was done by a creationist. How dare they do science? It's unacceptable to not be criticised! But you don't actually point out anything incorrect with it. So that point is dismissed as baseless.
"... as it was conducted within a creationist framework that questions conventional geological time scales."
As opposed to an evolutionist framework that questions historically-recorded timescales. Again, more insinuation without a relevant fact.
"The discrepancy in ages between the wood and basalt remains a subject of debate, especially regarding the assumptions of dating methods."
By who? People who hold to the philosophy of naturalism? Sure. Just as non-naturalists dispute the claims of naturalists. Still nothing of substance in what you've said.
"Most scientists dispute it due to: Misapplication of Dating Methods"
What misapplication? You've provided no evidence of that. And, you indirectly smear the mainstream dating laboratories who did the actual dating.
"Carbon-14 dating is only effective for dating organic materials that are less than about 50,000 years old. Beyond this, the method becomes unreliable due to the limits of detectable carbon-14 isotopes."
I know. I guess I was being generous in mentioning 60,000 years. Did you miss that bit too?
"Geologists explain that younger organic material can be introduced into older rock formations through processes like erosion, burial, or groundwater activity."
Ah! So you're explaining why dates can be unreliable! Great! You've just supported my point!
"This could result in younger wood being trapped in an older geological context, explaining the difference in dates."
Did you even read the paper (apparently not, given your mistakes above—are you simply regurgitating some anti-creationist rhetoric?) The wood was charred (and some ash) from being in the basalt while is was still molten! THEY ARE THE SAME AGE. When you have to invent excuses, you've got no case.
"Beyond this range, the amount of carbon-14 left in the sample becomes too small to measure accurately, limiting its usefulness."
I know. So how do you explain finding it in coal, diamond, and dinosaur bones?
"You should do some study on the subject, as you're wrong on most of your points."
And yet you've not pointed out one thing wrong, in all of your 270 words to this point!
"You're basing your entire argument on Carbon-14 dating."
False. I also mentioned the K-Ar dating of the basalt, remember?
"This was invented in 1946 by a man named Willard Libby;"
I know. What's your point? More attempt to avoid actually answering the evidence?
"...it’s like comparing an X-ray to an MRI."
That latter, incidentally, being invented by a creationist. Who was apparently denied a Nobel prize for it simply because he was a creationist, such is the prejudice.
"You accept this old method ..."
Where did I say that I accepted it? Answer: I never did.
"...because it fits your narrative..."
No, I accept carbon dating only for the range that can be calibrated against other dates known from history. Which reminds me—you never answered how these methods are calibrated.
"...but don’t accept other methods that are more advanced and were invented much later than 1946."
What does when they were invented have to do with it? You're making things up about me, presumably because you can't point to any actual error in the example (one of many) that I gave.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rosshitchen-ij6en
"No need to write an encyclopedia."
Says the person who spent 270 words that failed to actually show anything I said to be wrong! Clearly there IS a need when you keep claiming things that you can't back up.
"Uranium-Lead Dating can date material from a million years to over 4.5 billion years."
And you continue to do that. I never disputed its supposed range, did I? I only disputed its reliability.
"Has Dr Ian Mcdougall refruted this method."
How is he relevant?
"Which dates from history are you referring to?"
Various, but I don't have specific ones. We have reliable dates that could be used back for about three to four thousand years.
"There is a tree (Pando) said to be 80,000 years old."
Estimated by modelling (and Wikipedia says that the 80,000 is wrong, and it's no more than 14,000). What assumptions went into that modelling? Why believe the 14,000 when the previous 80,000 was wrong?
"Dendrochronology was used, as well as carbon dating and genetic analysis, to date the tree. "
No, it wasn't. At least not dendrochronology nor carbon dating.
"Dendrochronology is used to create calibration curves for carbon-14 dating."
True. And carbon dating has been used to figure out the dendrochronology dating. That becomes circular.
Why wasn't the effects of the flood on atmospheric levels of of C14 used in the creation of those calibration curves?
"Arguing about science usually goes nowhere;..."
And yet here you are arguing about such things!
"It’s easier just to have your own beliefs and keep them to yourself."
And yet you're sharing yours with the world. And still haven't explained how anything other than carbon dating has been calibrated (and your carbon dating explanation is based on a circular argument). Neither have you explained C14 dating results for coal, diamonds, and dinosaur bones.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@luciferblack1524
"Deves promotes boy are better than girls in sport, she's wrong."
And yet the overwhelming evidence says otherwise for lots of sports.
"Chloe McCardle is one example of women's superiority."
No, she's not. That is, she's not evidence against men's general superiority over women in lots of sports. Nobody rejects the idea that some women are better than some men, or even that women might be better than men in some sports.
"The point is politicians and political candidates take an oath to represent All Australians.."
A claim that you've made numerous times, but never shown how that is applicable here.
"Deves has broken that oath before the votes were even cast.."
You have not shown that she has broken that oath.
"Transgender Australians in sport is the sporting bodies responsibility not Deves."
It is the government responsibility to apply justice. Men competing against women in women's competition is not just. Further, Deve's proposal, as I understand it, does not stop sporting bodies doing what they like. Rather, it frees them to do what they like, so that they are not forced to accept men into women's competitions. If you really thought that it was an issue for the sporting bodies, then you would oppose any legislation that appears to require that sporting bodies to allow men to compete in women's sports.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The problem I have is with his use of the word "religion". To lump all "religions" in together as if they are all the same (even just in this regard) is intellectually dishonest. They vary widely, and can include atheistic religions such as Marxism, Scientology, Confucianism, Zen Buddhism, and Secular Humanism. How many religions do actually have pursuit of truth as a goal? What basis do atheists have for pursuing truth?
Living in a historically Christian country, he's probably thinking of Christianity, which clearly does pursue truth, and which founded science, to discover the truth of God's creation. And many atheists, who (like Dave) do want to pursue truth, do so because they've learned that from the Christian foundations of Western Civilisation, not from anything that atheism teaches.
1
-
1
-
@user-rc4nw6xy5p
"Basic rights - are just that."
But how do you decide what is a right and what isn't, and what makes it a right?
"That any of the accepted - mainstream religions - the people who practice them are free to do so."
To what extent? Okay, you've answered that: "freedom - of religion - should have the same boundaries as free speech." But that doesn't actually solve the problem. See my comments below about hate speech and harmful speech.
"Means everyone is treated the same way - not one group - gets "favoured status"..."
Yes, that's what it means, but you haven't explained why, which is what I asked.
"Again - if you keep something neutral. That's when things work."
Define 'neutral' in this context. Should, for example, you have Christian prayer in parliament, which favours Christianity, or no prayer, which favours atheism?
"The U.S. Supreme Court - allows such challenges."
As does the Australia High Court, as you mention.
"We should have the same - rights."
We do. In principle at least.
"Both former British colonies. So - that's - the common thread."
And both/all very much based on Judeo-Christian principles. Not Islamic. Not Hindu. Judeo-Christian.
"The cut off point - of what is - free speech. And hate speech. So any speech that incites violence to others - or to harm others - is not free speech."
But how do you define hate speech? For that matter, how do you define harm? The left these days claims that some ideas are harmful, and they seem to treat things that they disagree with as hate speech.
"Free speech is simply discussing ideas."
Well, it's being free (allowed) to discuss ideas, but yes.
"And again - it should not be up to any one politician. The High Court of Australia - should make the rulings - on these matters."
True, it should not be up to any one politician. But the role of the High Court is to rule on matters on the basis of the constitution and the laws. They are not supposed to rule on the basis of what they think is right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stevesandgroper3241
"Christopher Hitchens described your religion as "violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children"."
Which shows that he didn't know what he was talking about. How about asking his brother Peter what he thinks?
"I wholeheartedly agree."
Then you're as ignorant as he was. To pick just one claim, this "irrational" religion invented modern science.
"Nothing that would justify having someone else, thousands of years ago, to be nailed to a plank of wood."
You're absolutely right. YOU deserve the punishment. Simply denying God, to Whom you owe everything, is itself justification for that. But, God being loving and gracious, He took your punishment upon Himself. So you should be thanking Him, not denying and insulting Him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maximustrolleus9860
"ppl call bias to anything they disagree with."
Yes, some do. Not all.
"well then how do you even know what the truth even is."
How do we know anything? We look at evidence.
"Like i said its subjective as indoctrination can be anything that you simply disagree with."
Only if you're misusing the word. Indoctrination is to be taught to accept something uncritically. Alex Blaze is also wrong when he says "If something can be proven as true, then it’s not indoctrination". You can indoctrinate someone in true things. Although perhaps that's what he meant with his qualifier.
"The earth is proven to be round but to a flat earther that is indoctrination."
What "is indoctrination"? The earth being round? No, to be clear, a flat earther would say that the the acceptance of a round earth is because of indoctrination.
"To a creationist, evolution is indoctrination and to a scientist, it is truth."
No, to a creationist, evolution is accepted because of indoctrination, while an evolutionist believes it to be truth. The contrast is between creationist and evolutionist, not between creationist and scientist. There are scientists on both sides of that debate. And that is a good example. Evolution IS taught uncritically. Even teachers who have not taught creation, but have taught evolution with its problems have been fired or otherwise stopped from doing so, because dissent if forbidden.
"So you see how it can be subjective?"
No, it's not necessarily subjective. Sometimes it might be, but often it's simply people bandying the term about without evidence.
"...solipsism which basically states that nothing in this world is true..."
Which, if left at that, is obviously self-refuting.
"...and that the only thing you could ever truthfully know..."
So nothing is true except ... ?
"...is the fact that your mind exists and that everything else is subjective."
So if those two things are true, why can't other things be. I know you're only citing, not making, that argument, but...
"In fact there is a whole philosophy called solipsism..."
... citing an incoherent philosophy doesn't show that bias and indoctrination are subjective. Only that some people seem unable to be objective.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Kelly_Kapowski
"Except gays, trans people and women."
I don't know what you're claiming there. That homosexual, trans people, and women don't need protection?
"I challenge you to find ANY data which shows systemic child abuse in schools."
Please explain what you mean by "systemic", as the word is often misused.
"In all documented cases, people at the highest levels of the church hierarchy were not only aware of the abuse but helped cover it up over periods of time which often stretched into the decades. "
Not true. The archbishop George Pell, for instance, did not cover it up, instead setting up a world-leading arrangement for compensating victims.
"And it’s obviously still happening. Does Hillsong ring a bell?"
That is not evidence that it is still happening. The Hillsong allegation is that the founder of Hillsong covered up abuse by his late father that allegedly occurred in the 1970s, which is not current, and was before Hillsong was founded (1983).
"Like Gay conversion therapy?"
Not as far as I know, although it depends on how you define that.
"A practice which still occurs and has been consistently found to not only be completely ineffective ... but also a cause of lifelong trauma, PTSD and many MANY suicides."
Those claims relate to particular forms of conversion therapy, not to all. But critics like to obscure that detail.
"...(because you can’t reprogram sexuality)..."
That's not in evidence. And, as I said, there are former homosexuals.
"Don’t you dare suggest the church helps these people."
Why not? It's accurate.
"Being Gay is not a decision."
Acting on it is.
"Except when the women are told to obey their husbands demands..."
That is not a biblical/Christian thing to do.
"Not to mention being used as baby machines to further populate the church’s dwindling numbers."
Fantasy.
1
-
@davem3325
"The bible says that if your children refuse to believe in god, then you as a parent must TAKE THEM TO THE LOCAL TOWN CENTRE AND HAVE THEM STONED TO DEATH!"
Typical of an atheist, you either have no idea what you're talking about, or you're making stuff up. In this case I'll assume the former. Here is what is wrong with your claim, in the first case obviously so from the actual verses you quote:
1. It says nothing about his crime being refusal to believe in God. It's being "stubborn and rebellious" towards his parents.
2. It doesn't refer to "children", but to a "son", which, in the Hebrew, does not have to mean a child. It could be an adult son, and given that he is a glutton and a drunkard, an adult is most likely.
3. In that culture, adult sons were supposed to respect their parents, but this is talking about someone who refuses to.
4. It is talking about someone who is habitually like this; it's not about a one-off crime.
5. He is to be taken to the elders, who acted like a court in those times. He would only be stoned if he was found guilty.
6. You are judging the punishment for a crime by what you subjectively think is reasonable, and ignoring the context of the time.
7. The Bible is not giving us an instruction for today. This was part of the Mosaic Law that applied to the ancient nation of Israel. It does not apply to other people or Christian-era people. This refutes your claim that "The bible says ... you ... must"
""The error of their ways" that the problem. the whole reason gays are hated in the bible is simple! BIRTH CONTROL!!"
What's your evidence for that? On the contrary, it's not hate, and its because we were designed to be heterosexual, and homosexuality is a defiance of the way we were created.
"...because every child born ( in marriage) is another CHRISTIAN to COUNT ..."
False. In Christianity, people have to make their own decision to be Christian. You can't count them as Christian when they are born; it's when they make their own decision that counts.
"...this is why the church hates the following.."
You have given a reason, but what's your evidence for that reason?
"yes, the bible loves rape"
No, it condemns it.
"contraception"
That's a Catholic thing, not a Christian thing.
"atheist religions"?, NO SUCH THING??"
Except for things like Marxism, Secular Humanism, Scientology, Mary Baker Eddy's Christian Science, Confucianism, Zen Buddhism, and more.
"the BLIEBULL says that women are NOT ALLOWED to peak in PUBLIC,"
False
"they must tell their problems to their husbands, and if the husband decides its important, then the husband than can bring up this matter in church!"
That probably has as much truth as your claim about stoning children.
"CAN YOU PLEASE STOP TRYING TO PUT THE BLIEBULL ON A PEDESTAL Phil,"
Can you please stop misrepresenting and vilifying the book that made Western Civilisation?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@falconmclenny7284
"That interview ruined her political career for 20 years. There was even a song made about it, she made that big a fool of herself."
So the "she slur job the news is doing to her" (as you put it) had nothing to do with that? Sure. And pigs might fly.
"It's okay if you are young and don't know stuff mate, but just say that."
So not only did you make up things about me, but you ignored my denial.
"I'll make it easy for you, during that interview, she was asked to explain the term.. either jingoistic or jingoism, I can't remember. Her response? 'Please explain'."
No, that was xenophobic. It seems that I remember it better than you. And yet you are arrogant enough to lecture me!
But so what? Not being familiar with a particular not-that-common word doesn't justify your insults. And of course, it also doesn't follow that she hasn't learnt anything since.
"If you are a politician running on a racial platform, ..."
What racial platform? Again, that was "she slur job the news is doing to her".
"Also, listen to her speeches in the senate. She cannot form sentences"
Yet another slur, and so far not a single bit of evidence that withstands scrutiny. And from someone who obviously has little idea what they are talking about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Christian community does not "ignore" that commandment. Rather, it has various reasons to say that it no longer applies. Whether or not those reasons hold up is not a question that can't be answered in a few sentences, though. But one line of argument is that the entire Mosaic Law doesn't apply to Christians, or even to non-pre-Christ Jews. But that argument is that the specifics don't apply, or that certain parts of it don't apply (e.g. the ceremonial parts), but that the principles still do. So when the Mosaic law says that homosexuals should be stoned, that law no longer applies, but the principle that it's based on—that homosexuality is wrong—is still true.
How much of that is relevant to the Ten Commandments is not clear, given that it only espouses principles, not penalties, but Christians still agree with setting aside one day per week, which arguably is the principle involved. So that's not a conclusive answer, but may provide some aspects to consider or investigate more.
1
-
1
-
@masonkrejic5928
"British Parliament said it themselves they are asylum seekers..."
Yes, "asylum seekers" is the politically correct term, and they are ostensibly asylum seekers (else they wouldn't even be getting a look in), but in practice, most are not asylum seekers, at least in the sense of having any sort of claim on needing asylum. Further, to qualify as an asylum seeker, you're supposed to seek asylum in the nearest safe country. But many of these people are fleeing their own country and travelling through safe countries to the country of their choice, which shows that they are not genuine.
"Numbers don't matter when Israel took over Palestinian, Arabs when more in number. support matters."
Yes, population is not the only factor, but I'm not sure what you're saying here, given that the population of Gaza was about two million, and Israel's population approaching ten million.
"if those asylum seekers get armed then Rwanda will be done and we will have another Israel"
IF those asylum seekers get armed, then Rwanda (population around 14 million) may have a problem on its hands, but it does not follow that Rwanda "will be done". The point is that Australia started doing this years ago, sending illegal immigrants to Nauru (population less than 13 thousand ) and Manus Island (population 43 thousand ), but the illegal immigrants didn't take over. What happened instead is that the illegal immigrants stopped coming, because they knew that they had little or no chance of being accepted.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Bias against any religion is prohibited by law."
That doesn't stop the bias existing.
"No one religion is, by law, to be favored or hindered, over another."
And yet one seems to be hindered more than others.
"America was founded on Deism not Christianity. Look it up."
Where can I look that up? I know that only 'God', not Jesus, is mentioned, but that in itself doesn't make it founded on Deism.
"Freedom of religion.......for ALL RELIGIONS."
Under Christianity (which requires belief, not actions, and you can't force belief), you can have freedom for all religions, including atheistic ones. But Western Civilisation (which America is part of) is based on Christianity, and yet atheistic views (particularly Marxist ones) are pushed to the exclusion of other religions these days, and the history of atheistic regimes is that other religions are not free.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Frank-be1ye
"Take the first as hyperbole :D"
Okay.
"These similarities are noted online (I know Wiki isn't usually a good reliable source,. but it does actually reference these similarities overall, and specifically with some of the names & faces)."
It's not a good reliable source when a) it's an obscure topic with the article written by mainly just one person, and b) when it's a controversial topic, in which case it favours the leftist and/or atheistic views. And this topic falls into b).
However, I don't disagree that Sky is similar to Fox in a number of ways. Murdoch seems to have had an approach of giving the public what the majority want, not what the left wants. Which means that his outlets have tended to lean towards conservative views.
And yes, that can influence what sort of presenters are employed. But then even on Sky, I've seen viewpoints ranging from left to conservative, even if the most popular presenters tend to be more conservative, and the others less popular. But are the conservative ones given better timeslots, or are the most popular ones given better timeslots, and the conservative ones tend to be the most popular?
"...media outlets that are controlled (owned) by those who involve themselves in politics will not be independent, and will only give lip service to any opposing viewpoints..."
"Involved" to what extent? Yes, Rupert did get into politics to some extent, but not greatly. And as I said, he's been happy for his outlets to disagree with him. In fact I've also seen Sky presenters (well, Bolt at least) criticise the News Ltd website also owned by Murdoch.
"Q: Which media outlets in Australia actually questioned the 'science' (read, politicians) during covid?"
Well, Sky did for one. True, they didn't question every aspect of it, but they did question a fair bit of it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Fruit salad
"I always question my opinion, ...
I wasn't suggesting that you don't question your opinion. But you don't address what I did say.
"I already stated that it's your imagination, ..."
And I rejected that. Repeating it does not make it any more true.
"...everyone has an imagination'."
Duh!
"It's strange how you repeat everything btw, it's a clear indicator of ocd,"
Again, already explained, but you seem to ignore that. I find leftists (although not exclusively them) seem to think that there is only one possible explanation for a phenomenon, often a negative one, and (despite your comment about us all having an imagination), seem unable to imagine that there could be other explanations. It gets bizarre, however, when they are given another explanation, then pretend that it doesn't exist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"...wake up you lot. Trump is, without doubt, one of the worst human beings on the planet,"
Utter nonsense. Sure, he's not perfect, but no way is he one of the worst.
"he screws p0rn stars, he screws teens (“he likes them young”), cheats on his wife several times, grifts off uni students. "
Evidence, please, that he does these things, as opposed to perhaps occasionally having done them in the past. Sure, he's got something of a sordid history, but it doesn't follow that he is still like that.
"...his followers are blinkered to the facts."
No, it's the left that are blinkered.
"I hope your God saves you because nothing will save the US if this animal has a second term."
He did well in his first term; why would things be so bad in his second term?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@moonethealien
"It’s not wrong, because the videos implications were that the teen could get them “like candy” as said by the OP, which they can’t."
Who said "like candy"? That's not in the script of the video.
"No the teen cannot get the medication if the parent hasn’t provided them with trans affirming health consultants (endocrinologist, therapists, primary care doctor, etc). Therefore, the teen has the consent of the parent via these provided services. "
Are you saying that the teen has to have the consent of their parents to get assessed, but not to have the treatment?
"... if they worked and paid for these services themselves ... then by all means they seem mentally capable enough to assess what goes into their body and what doesn’t."
That doesn't follow. I suspect that the law allowing them to work that young would be on the basis that their parents have agreed to them working, or that they are working for their parents.
"So do you have a real argument against the lies shown within the video that I called out,..."
What lies? The only one you specifically claims was the age of consent, which they were correct on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Don.tKillTheMessanger
"Only you should have the freedom to live the life you want?"
We should all have that freedom, as long it's not denying reality and not negatively impinging on others in an unreasonable way. The left want to deny you that freedom.
"Whether you don't understand, or whether you fear transgenderism, if it causes you pain maybe you should just ignore it and find something worthwhile to fight for."
Most people don't fear "transgender" people, but they do, quite rightly, fear the discrimination and penalties that come from disagreeing with it. And that is hard to ignore. For example, if you get fired for disagreeing, how do you ignore getting fired?
"Fighting to take away the freedoms of others sounds very un-murican."
Which is one reason to oppose the transgender activism which does just that.
"Pretending it's because you care, is very disingenuous."
Pretending that people who disagree with you are trying to harm you is disingenuous. Pretending that there is nothing wrong with transgenderism is disingenuous.
"Whose streets?"
Everyone's streets. They're not just for the left.
"If it was up to the right wing, America would have no bloody streets. "
Yeah, pull the other one. Ridiculous.
"If you don't like what you see, don't look."
That doesn't solve the problem when it's shoved in your face all the time.
"No one goes to your church and tells you how to live your life..."
Not true. We've had many cases of governments trying to tell churches what to do. Where I live it's illegal to pray for a homosexual or transgender person that they would wake up.
Besides, what about employers telling you what you have to believe?
1
-
1
-
@Ididntaskforahandleyoutube
"Christianity founded science? Um, what?"
Yes, it did. Here are some quotes from the scholarship:
* Paul Davies: “In the ensuing three hundred years the theological dimension of science has faded [note that science began with a "theological dimension"]. People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature—the laws of physic—are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they come from; at least they don't in polite company. However even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd that there is rational basis to physical existence manifested as lawlike order in nature that is at least in part comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological world view.”
* Rodney Stark: “...theological assumptions unique to Christianity explain why science was born only in Christian Europe. Contrary to the received wisdom religion and science not only were compatible; they were inseparable.”
* Loren Eiseley: “The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation … . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.”
"Also, the West got at least as much of its backbone from Greece as it did Jarusalem."
Historian Tom Holland:
“... compacted into this very very small amount of writing [the Apostle Paul's letters in the New Testament], was almost everything that explains the modern world [the Western world] but also the way that the West has moved on to shape concepts like international law, for instance, ... concepts of human rights, all these kinds of things. Ultimately they don’t go back to Greek philosophers; they don’t go back to Roman empiricism. They go back to Paul. Paul, really, his letters are, I think, are, along with the four gospels, the most influential, the most impactful, the most revolutionary writings that have emerged from the ancient world.”
1
-
1
-
@MrAuskiwi101
"Yes Christianity is in major decline in the west while in less educated and more superstitions areas of the world it is infecting many."
So you admit that its growing in other parts (contrary to your original claim), but do your best to put a negative spin on it.
And yes, I'll even concede that some of that will be in less-educated areas. But the decline in the West is not education, but what is being taught—which is naturalism. In other words, people in the West are being indoctrinated with a competing view that does all it can to suppress the truth.
"In general, is clearly a lack of education that enhances Christianity's spread."
On the contrary, much of the spread is as a result of education. Protestant Christians wanted people to read the Bible for themselves, and to do that it had to be translated into the languages the people knew (so the entire Bible is now in over 700 languages and parts of it in over 1700 more; far exceeding any other book), and the people needed to be taught to read, so universal education was introduced. That education enhanced Christianity's spread. But atheists got onto the bandwagon and co-opted it to teach their views. And told lies about Christianity (such as the church believing in a flat earth) in order to denigrate it.
"Is truly a bizarre comment."
And yet you don't show anything bizarre about it. So that's just an insult because you've got no argument.
"One only has to understand its history and what its all about."
Which you don't seem to understand.
"Only a victim of the Christian version of the god virus would claim knowledge of the facts that expose Christianity for what it really is as "indoctrination" and "misinformation" . Is that you?"
That's a loaded question, presuming something that is not the case.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pineapplepenumbra
"How does he "know" that god is not to be mocked? As he believes that the bible is either literally the word of god, or the inspired word of god, he is claiming that god said god is not mocked,..."
That is all correct.
"...so therefore the claimed knowledge is circular reasoning."
No, it's not. He never claimed that the phrase he quoted proves that the Bible is God's word.
"There are about 3 or 4 different translations, ie, "god is not to be mocked", "god cannot be mocked", etc."
So what? Translation is not an "only one right way" process, given that there is very often not a one-to-one meaning of words or grammar.
"As the bible INSULTS any god that might exist, that's probably worse than merely mocking god."
A claim you've made in another discussion, but which you've not provide any good reason for.
"However, most posts I've seen are only mocking the main gods of the monotheistic beliefs, not an ACTUAL God."
Most posts (by Christians) are not mocking God at all. And there is, clearly, only one supreme being and creator.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@queenslander7756
"As a non-religious person I try to be logical,..."
I would say that you try to be logical despite holding an atheistic worldview/religion. (The word "religion" can include non-theistic beliefs.)
"...introducing God into a discussion always leads to distracting sentimentality and unhelpful commentary predicated on conditioning derived from one’s religious upbringing."
So you're saying that because atheists don't believe in God, we should never bring God into the commentary? I would suggest that your response is predicated on your conditioning derived from your anti-Christian upbringing.
"However, expression of faith was not helpful or pertinent in Jennifer’s reply."
Why is that? Simply because you don't hold the same views? And by the way, contrary to how atheists use the word, in the Bible 'faith' refers to trust based on evidence. The idea that faith is purely based on feelings or contrary to facts is an atheist myth.
"Non believers listening may have resented the reference ..."
Well, I "resent" (to use your word) atheists leaving out such references, and especially saying that others should leave them out.
"...was not helpful or pertinent in Jennifer’s reply. "
Assuming God exists and that what she said was correct, why is it not pertinent? Aren't you judging her comment on the basis of your on belief in no God, rather than on the basis of logic?
"...just as belief in Noah’s Ark has no place in a scientific discussion."
Why doesn't it? Isn't science supposed to be about reality? Again, you're making that judgement on the basis of your own belief that it didn't happen, rather than on logic.
Having said that, I do agree with you on that one. Science involves observation, measurement, testing, and repeatability. None of which can be done with unique past events, such as Noah's ark (or the origin of life, or the Big Bang, and so on). That is, Noah's ark is a topic for history, not science. Which is not to suggest, however, that science can't bring some helpful information to the subject, such as producing evidence for the flood and an analysis of the dimensions of the ark as being quite stable in heavy seas.
"To me, Jennifer’s reference to God was incongruent with the topic."
To me, the reference was completely on topic. Western Civilisation is based very heavily on Christianity and the views that it holds. I could point you to numerous scholars on that topic, but perhaps the easiest one is the video "Tom Holland tells NT Wright: Why I changed my mind about Christianity". It's a five-minute clip out of a longer video, of an agnostic historian relating how he came to that conclusion.
It was Christianity that founded public hospitals and many charities, that twice got slavery abolished, that introduced universal education, spread democracy, limited the power of tyrants, founded modern science, raised the status of women, and more. Many of the problems in the West today are very clearly due to people turning away from Christianity. As such her comment was not only on topic, but probably the most relevant of the comments she made.
1
-
@queenslander7756
"You’ve certainly extrapolated my comments and meaning we’ll beyond their original purpose."
I don't believe that I have.
"Such pedantic analysis of my post has led to your desperate defence of Christianity, as if it is the only pertinent world religion."
Well, I am a pedant, so I'll plead guilty there. But what makes you think that it's not the only pertinent world religion?
"You’ve even assumed I’m an atheist to reinforce your misdirected diatribe."
You said that you were "non religious", which implies atheism. But for the most part, I talking about an atheistic view, which you seem to accept even if you don't call yourself an atheist.
"My beliefs don’t deny the existence of a “God”...
But they do deny the existence of God as described in the Bible?
"...but I do see through the agenda of organised religion which claims special knowledge of what this God wants from us,..."
No, Christianity doesn't not claim special knowledge. It claims the knowledge that God Himself revealed in the Bible, which is a freely-available book.
"...and all we must do (following specific dogma/doctrines) to achieve his good graces."
God doesn't require us to follow specific dogma/doctrines. He requires us to repent of our sins and make Him Lord. That's all.
"As to your first point, Consumerism could be considered a a non-theistic “religion” when followed with great devotion as it is by many. But you distract with that observation so as to cram atheism into the narrow confines of your interpretation of “worldview/religion. As a non-religious/ non-atheist, I dispute your premise as false and deliberately misleading to make your point! "
Not misleading at all. Secular Humanism, when it was founded, described itself as a secular religion. Marxism is a religion based on atheism. The U.S. Supreme Court has declared that atheism is a religion.
"Furthermore, quoting my comments back at me while making random assumptions that simply reverse my reasoning is not original or creative at best, and a form of plagiarism at worst. Please try harder!"
Complete nonsense. Quoting you is not plagiarism. I didn't make random assumptions. And you haven't shown that I've reversed your reasoning.
"Of course the Bible would interpret “Faith” to be trust based on evidence."
No, it wouldn't. It's the Bible that uses the word. It's not "interpreting" the word. It's using the word, and using it in that way.
"It suits the purpose of organised religion to have their sheeple implicitly believe the “evidence” they provide on which to build their faith."
Why do you think it's not actually valid evidence?
"Having been raised a Christian, and investigating Christian “faiths” for myself, the corruption and arrogance of these churches alone was enough to dissuade me from believing anything they said."
I'm sorry if your experience was that negative, but my experience has not been like that. The existence of bad churches does not mean that Christianity itself is corrupt.
"Research for yourself the inner workings of the Catholic Church to find enough intrigue, narcissism and deception to cause God himself to blush."
I'm not Catholic.
"My comment on Noah’s Ark was meant to illustrate the naivety of the religious mind which can’t differentiate between allegory and reality. "
And in that you assume that Noah's Ark is not reality. Why? There's plenty of evidence for it.
"If one can take the New Testament at face value as many do, you can see my point that human beings can believe anything if they trust an accepted source of authority."
No, your point doesn't follow.
"Not even science accepts anything as absolute truth!"
Of course! Science is the product of fallible humans. The Bible is the product of the infallible God.
"Disagree vehemently with the proposal that the Christian church was the benevolent force you described."
So you're rejecting the scholarship on the issue. Would you like references? In fact, did you even bother looking at the one I pointed you to? Here's another, from a sociologist: “Christianity created Western Civilization. Had the followers of Jesus remained an obscure Jewish sect, most of you would not have learned to read and the rest of you would be reading from hand copied scrolls. Without a theology committed to reason, progress, and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800: A world with many astrologers and alchemists but no scientists. A world of despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys, and pianos. A world where most infants do not live to the age of five and many women die in childbirth–a world truly living in "dark ages."
The modern world arose only in Christian societies. Not in Islam. Not in Asia. Not in a "secular" society–there having been none. And all the modernization that has since occurred outside Christendom was imported from the West, often brought by colonizers and missionaries.”
"Its offences against human freedoms,..."
It supported freedoms.
"...the rights of women,..."
And yet it has improved to lot of women.
"...and in many other areas are too numerous to imply we owe the present standard of civilisation to the Church’s influence."
And yet it is the case.
"The Inquisition, ..."
A largely-governmental institution.
"...Papal intrigue and interference in political affairs (actually enabling tyrannical rulers)around the globe, the involvement with Mafia, Hitler etc, "
I'm not sure what "Papal intrigue" has to do with anything. And what "political interference" are you talking about?
The involvement with Hitler is badly overstated, and involvement with the Mafia is a minor blip.
"...organised pedophilia,...
What organised paedophilia? I don't know of any.
"...and that’s only the Catholic Church I’ve covered."
And that's part of your problem.
"Do you think people have become more enlightened as to the deleterious effects of organised religion on humanity,..."
You haven't shown that, on the whole, there is a deleterious effect.
"Just as we’re awakening to the manipulation of our governments by big corporations and self-serving lobbies, human beings are beginning to think for themselves and discover their own power."
Humans have been thinking for themselves ever since they've been around.
Your original comment was based entirely on your own beliefs about the non-existence of God (not "a 'God' "), and your argument since has been about organised religion, pointing out some bad things some of them have done, rejecting all the well-documented good that Christianity has done. But it appears that you're completely ignorant of the good that Christianity has done.
1
-
@queenslander7756
"Well I’ve reviewed your reply and must say that such drivel is an insult to even the most poorly educated who would discourse with you."
Yous said that "if it’s a debate you wish, I’m your huckleberry sir! ". Yet it's clear that you're not interested in debate. You're only interested in ramming your views down my throat and mocking and insulting me, and you're not interested in either the evidence I have provided nor the references I offered.
"...I have a feeling you argue only to be correct, ..."
While you argue to be incorrect?
"The Dhammapada, Quran, and sacred texts of all the great World Religions would dispute your dismissive treatment of their ancient wisdom which predates Christianity."
The Quran postdates Christianity by centuries. The Dhammapada may come from about the same time, but that is unknown, and the oldest copies come from the fifth century. And any that are older than that are considered to be older only by secular dating.
"The Supreme Court has never articulated a formal definition of “Religion”, ..."
In Kaufman v. McCaughtry, for example, the court said "We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion."
"I doubt you refer to any other source other than your Bible!"
And yet I gave you two sources that weren't the Bible! Your adherence to an anti-Christian view is blinding you.
"The Bible was originally transmitted orally, until it was written down by fallible human beings with their own agendas, and reinterpreted by differing warring sects of Christianity."
False. Unless you want to provide good evidence of that. But based on your past performance, you won't.
"Needless to say, our conversation has never reached the enlightening heights I had hoped,..."
Look in a mirror to see why that is. It seems that the "enlightening heights" you hoped for was me agreeing with you. But that's not debate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ATLMike94
"Propaganda -
information, especially of a biased [snipped]"
Yes. I didn't see "this video" or "PragerU" in that definition. Sure, information of a biased or misleading nature can be called propaganda, but it doesn't follow that this video is propaganda "by definition".
"Being blatantly biased and having bias are two different concepts you can't seem to understand."
And yet you don't explain that distinction. Are you basing that on the word "blatantly" or something else. Because I don't see the distinction between "being biased" and "having bias". They seem to me to be the same thing.
"Thanks for proving my point about PragerU subscribers not being too smart."
Except that I've done no such thing.
"f course everything has bias but a real journalist or educator doesn't purposely present things in an opinionated, biased manner."
Not strictly correct (unless a "real journalist or educator" is, by definition, one that is not biased), but ignoring that, you haven't shown that this video "purposely" presents itself that way. What's your evidence?
"If you're going to watch PragerU at least watch left leaning channels as well to balance it out."
Funny man! Most of the mainstream media and government education systems are left-leaning. It's difficult to avoid left-leaning sources. It's people on the left who should seek out conservative sources to get balance!
"Too much of a conservative bias isn't good whether you think it's the "correct bias" or not."
Given that conservative views are not infallible, I'll agree. But as I've pointed out already, it's mainly the left that lives in a bubble. See for example the video "bindi changes mind, bindi gets banned".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidlewocz7271
"Back in November prageru made a pro slavery video"
No, they did not. They made a video that argued against removing statues of Robert E. Lee, and explained a bit about what he did. Some of what he did, they pointed out, was supportive of slavery. The argument was barely coherent (in that it didn't actually make a case), but it wasn't pro-slavery. That is something that critics chose to read into it.
"Prageru has also spread massive amounts of fear mongering and misinformation about schools and politics. "
Allegedly. You got the first one (about slavery) wrong, so why should I believe you on this?
"They have also had Heather MacDonald, someone who has been against criminal justice reform and has also been denounced by using statistics in the wrong way."
Is this your way of saying "They had on a person that believes something that PragerU didn't mention (I don't know; I'm speculating), and who has people disagreeing with her"?
"The founder is Dennis prager, who wrote a column in 2008 saying that women should always say yes to sex to their parters whether or not they actually want to."
I would want to see that in context.
"There’s more but i just gave you objective evidence that shouldn’t be biased"
True, it (your evidence) shouldn't be biased. Doesn't mean that it isn't, though. Your slavery claim was wrong, your MacDonald claim was vague, and your Prager quote lacked context. Not really good evidence.
1
-
@mithrasrevisited4873
"What are you taliking about. "
As a Christian, I'm not sure. It seems somewhat confused.
"Another person believing fairy stories."
You mean that part about quantum entanglement?
"Just research on how the bible was put together,..."
I have. It's a fascinating story.
"...it so man made ..."
On the contrary, it's God's revelation to man, written using human authors, as a celebrity might hire a professional writer to write his AUTObiography.
"...all based on the dreams of Paul."
Maybe YOU should research how it was put together. First, two thirds of it was written before Paul's lifetime. Second, even the remaining third was not all written by Paul. Fourth, no, it was not written from dreams. Try asking a historian about that, and see what he says.
"The Gospels are late and cleric edited."
They are a few years later than some of Paul's letters, but still VERY early compared to many documents from ancient history. Evidence shows that they date from the first century. And I know of no evidence of them being "cleric edited". Do you have any?
"They are in Greek ..."
Which was a widely used language in that part of the world at that time. Nothing odd there. See more below.
"...and many stories copied from the Greek myths, ..."
Evidence please.
"...non of the so called witnesses spoke in Greek."
Evidence please. This is a summary of a heavily-referenced article I found online: "Contrary to contemporary scholarship, I find that Greek was more widely used in both written and oral form by Jesus, his disciples, and the Jews who inhabited first-century Palestine. Interestingly, the evidence reveals that Greek became the dominant language spoken among Jews and Gentiles in Galilee in the first century CE."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Skorion69
"... looks at the newborn's external genitalia and says male or female, therby assigning it."
As Ape Bass rightly says, that's observation, not assignment.
"Gender ... is scientifically proven to be dependent on brain structure hormone levels etc."
Really? Then why did one of the researchers (Christopher Dummitt) admit that "The problem is: I was wrong. Or, to be a bit more accurate, I got things partly right. But then, for the rest, I basically just made it up. ... Everyone was (and is) making it up. That’s how the gender-studies field works."
"You are asserting that sex and gender are the same thing,..."
They are, effectively. When gender is used to determine sex-based pronouns, to determine which sex-based toilets and change rooms are used, to determine what sex-based sports people should play in, to determine what sex-related hormones the body should have, to determine the sex-based physical appearance of the body through surgery, then I fail to see any real distinction.
"Furthermore as I stated in my original post women have fought and won to play on men's teams in the past, citing that they are as good, strong etc as men,..."
The fact is that, on average, they aren't, despite what those women have claimed.
"... you appear to be resting your opinion on a person's external physiological sex presentation at birth as the basis..."
That external appearance is reflective of their DNA, which is the ultimate determining factor.
"However trans gender people neither fall into the majority nor the average,..."
Who says that they have to? They fall within the range.
"I will let you debate that with anyone who defines themself as a feminist though I do hope you speak to one of the more hard core ones who strongly believe that women and men should be treated as equals."
How about a board member of the Women's Liberation Front? Kara Dansky says that "... gender identity is just utterly intellectually bankrupt; it really doesn’t have any meaning, and we should not be basing civil right laws on concepts that have no coherent meaning." See the video "Radical feminist: The Equality Act Would Hurt Women"
"You clearly refuse to consider new or additional facts which is indicative of someone that only accepts information that confirms their already chosen opinion, it is impossible to have a cogent debate with such persons as they will dismiss any and all information that doesn't support their viewpoint."
Sorry, did you just switch to talking about yourself?
"You know as much about my educational history as I know of yours: zero,"
So why did you tell him to "please educate yourself"?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DanielSMatthews
"There is no unified moral code followed by all groups of humans. "
You're right. Not everyone follows them.
"Morality is a complex and subjective concept, ..."
No, that's the atheistic view, because for atheists, there are no absolute standards (i.e. external to humans), so they must, unavoidably, be subjective for an atheist.
"Different cultures and religions have different moral codes,..."
True. But that doesn't contradict what I said.
"...and even within a single culture, there may be disagreement about what is right and wrong."
You're entire argument assumes that different views on morals are all equally valid. Why do you think that?
"Some people believe that morality is objective and based on universal principles, ..."
Which they are.
"...while others believe that morality is subjective and based on individual preferences."
Which you do. The point is, which of us is right? Why do you think that the mere fact that people think differently mean that you're correct about them being subjective?
"However, it is clear that morality is a complex and important issue, and it is something that we should all continue to think about."
What is clear is that unless the morals are absolute, there is no such thing as right and wrong. There are only opinions. You don't like someone taking your belongings, but if it's all subjective, then you can't say that it's wrong for them to take your belongings, and you have no right to impose your view (that they shouldn't do it) onto them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Fox.is.a.cesspool
"Yes, in 2019."
In many different years, actually.
"Only if you're an idiot who doesn't know what an election is."
Excuse me? I'm not an idiot. I asked what you thought based on your claim about what "fight" means. If you reject that fighting an election necessarily means using violence (which you should), then your claim that "there was no way to fight the election without violemce" is shown to be false.
"Then on 1/6/20, Trump incited a violent insurrection to try and overturn that election."
Repeating your claim does not make it true. You've yet to provide evidence that withstands scrutiny.
"I'm not denying anything, YOU are."
"Yes, he clearly was." is a straight-out denial. You provided no evidence in that response.
"I alreay did, as I always do.."
The only backing was to claim I didn't make. Further I asked for a source, which you never provided. And no, you don't always do. "Yes, he clearly was." was not backed by anything.
"Your ignorance of the established facts is your issue to remedy."
You haven't shown that they are established facts. And that is your responsibility, as you made that claim.
"Except that he factually did."
A claim that you have failed to substantiate. Simply claiming that it's fact does not make it so. The only evidence you provide was that he called on them to "fight", but you've now admitted that that word doesn't have to mean violence. So your evidence didn't withstand scrutiny.
"There is no argument here."
That's what I said. You've provided "no argument" in most of your response, just denigration.
"There is me providing the facts, ..."
No, it's you providing leftist claims and failing to provide evidence which withstands scrutiny.
"Sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "lalalalala" isn't a debate - it's an admission that you can't present one."
You're right. Which is why I'm challenging you to back your claims. But you're failing that, which is an admission that you can't present one.
"At some point you're going to have to come up with a bit more than "Nuh-uhh!" "
Only me? I already have. You're the one struggling there.
1
-
@Fox.is.a.cesspool
"No, the election refers to one."
Not in my use of it which referred to elections in general.
"Yes, you factually are."
More abuse. Which is riddled throughout your reply, and is the sign of someone who can't make a rational argument.
"No, you didn't."
Yes I did.
"You insisted that "fight" didn't mean violence on 1/6,..."
Yes, I insisted that "fight" didn't mean violence in Trump's speech, which was obvious from the context.
"...but simply a fight for the election"
False. I said that it means non-violent fighting as may be used in the context of fighting an election. I was not referring to fighting that election.
"It's not my claim, it's the testimony of a dozen of his own staff."
Anti-Trumpers who worked there?
"I gave you both names of the witnesses as well as what they testified to."
Agreed. But Googling produced all sorts of hits, and the ones I looked at didn't support your claim. And I said so. So I asked for a source of them making that claim. You never provided it.
"And second, it was YOUR claim, idiot."
Nonsense. That they are "established facts" was your claim.
"You never offered ANYTHING to indicate he ever had - not who he made the offer to, or who declined it."
True. But you never asked me to. On the other hand, I asked your for a source for your claim, and you failed to provide it. But see, for example, the article "Trump admin was ready to deploy National Guard on Jan 6, Capitol Police timeline shows" by Alec Schemmel.
"The LAST thing he wanted was someone there who could stop his armed violent minions."
Another evidence-free claim.
"As everyone can plainly see, It was YOU who said he called on them to fight, not me."
No, it was Simon Harris. I pointed out that he was wrong. You then took up Simon Harris' claim.
"Which we all know for a fact is exactly what he intended to do"
You know full well that I disagree, and should know that many others disagree, which means that your claim that "we all know" is a straight-out lie.
1
-
@Fox.is.a.cesspool
"A Trump chief of staffer lying his [backside] off about Pelosi?"
There is no evidence of lying there. Rather, it's likely a careless but honest mistake. Further, the mistake involved Pelosi, but was not about Pelosi. So does that mean that you're lying? Or was it a careless mistake.
"Yeah, real reliable source you got there."
The source is the timeline. The error was in a comment quoted by the article.
"So,.. no offer from Trump whatsoever - Just an inquiry from Corbin as to whether the CP thought they would be requesting any guard."
Which is an implied offer.
"The capital police knew days before the attack what they were coming there to do - and so did Trump."
False. They realised that there was potential for some troublemakers in the crowd. And there is evidence of non-Trump supporters instigating some of it. By the way, how many were in the protest march? Do you know? Because almost nobody seems to want to acknowledge that. It's as though the relatively few who went into the Capitol building would be seen in better perspective.
"... days before the attack ..."
According to the article "Memo: Trump Pentagon Offered National Guard to Capitol Four Days Before Jan. 6 Riots" by Frank Diez, "The rejection came as the Capitol Police department was beginning to change its assessment of the day, recognizing that the Trump rally protesting the Nov. 2020 election results planned for Jan. 6, 2021 had the potential for violence.
"Earlier analyses suggested such violence was unlikely and the Jan. 6 event was likely to be similar to previous Trump supporter marches."
"Why did the violent minions he gathered that day attack the capital?"
They didn't. That is, only a very small percentage went in, and most of them were not violent, and it's not clear that Trump supporters instigated it.
"Could it be something he told them as he sent them there?"
He didn't send them into the Capitol building. That is a lie.
"Your source not only debunked your own [claims], but confirmed the reality - that Trump incited a violent insurrection to overturn the election."
My source did not debunk what I said, and you've still now shown that Trump incited an insurrection.
"But at least now we all know why you never provide sources."
You accuse a Trump person of grossly lying, yet here you are lying. You have just looked up, quoted from, and responded to a source that I gave you. Meanwhile you have refused to provide a source for "The sworn testimony of both Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, and acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller" (unless it was in a response that was deleted before I saw it).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Fhurin
"None of what you typed made much sense?"
Is that a statement or a question?
You don't understand the question "What bigotry?"? Why not?
You don't understand the statement "You haven't shown any bigotry on their part."? Why not?
You don't understand the question "How is it bigoted to not want bad things taught to their children?"? Odd, given that you replied to it.
You don't understand the statement "Repeating the claim does not make it any more true."? It means that when I ask "How is the hit-job 'nothing'?", simply repeating the claim that "the "hit job" was nothing." does not explain how it is nothing.
"they were asked directly what their beliefs are and kept tap dancing around the question."
In this video they point out that they answered a question, only for it (or similar) to be asked again, when they didn't answer it (because they already had), and they only showed the second bit.
"What "bad" things are being taught to children?"
Megyn mentioned pornography, homosexuality, 'race essentialism', gender ideology, and the sexualisation of children.
"Even Mom's for liberty doesn't know what that means, ..."
Because 60 minutes didn't show them explaining what it means?
"...so I doubt you do as well..."
And yet I do. You have no idea what you're talking about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tommyn3522
"do you genuinely think people would become transgender as part of a brainwashing agenda when they can be ridiculed and bullied by half of a society of people like you?"
Yes, because they mostly interact with the other half that thinks it's a great thing. Many leftists live in leftist bubbles where all they ever hear are leftist views.
"when people talk about transphobia and hate crimes, you know they're talking about conservative viewer bases like this right?"
Yes, I for one know that. I also know that they are insulting labels put on those conservatives because they can't actually makes a reasoned argument. So instead they just try and shut them up.
"the difference between liberals and conservatives these days is simply that conservatives attack progressive movements while liberals rely heavily on humanity and emotions."
Let me fix that for you: "the difference between liberals and conservatives these days is simply that conservatives attack progressive movements with logic and evidence while liberals rely heavily on humanity and emotions."
"libtards hate the police - conservatards begin chanting blue lives matter and getting BlueLM flags "
That's called fighting back against the nonsense of the radical left.
"libtards chant "black lives matter!" - conservatards begin chanting "all lives matter" when everyone and their mother knows conservatives don't give a [deleted] and never did until the BLM movement became a thing. "
No, everybody does NOT know that. That's why, for example, conservatives have been opposing abortion for years, and helping pregnant women. Because they do care for people's lives. It's also why they donate more of their own money, time, and blood to helping others.
"libtards talk about any form of discrimination"
Not so. They don't talk about the massive discrimination suffered by Christians, not about the 'discrimination' (by denying them the chance at life) against unborn babies, nor about the discrimination they themselves inflict on conservatives, by vilifying them, getting the sacked, cancelling and censoring them, etc.
"...where they intellectually belittle people..."
You mean that they put reasoned arguments that the left can't answer? Yes, I can understand the left feeling belittled by that.
"...and deny that discrimination and hate crimes even exist..."
Complete nonsense.
"because they're white and have never experienced it themselves"
Ben Shapiro (a Jew who you named) has certainly been the recipient of discrimination. You are showing your ignorance and prejudice.
"... conservatives have a lot of "gotcha!" points and "I never said I believe that" points when everyone knows what their true intentions are."
No, not "everyone"; rather the left, who imagine what their true intentions are. The very fact that you think "everyone" knows, shows that you think that everyone is of the left, despite drawing a contrast between the left and conservatives! You contradict yourself!
"claiming that they simply CANNOT be racist because they don't hate black people - while continuing to do the things that black people are saying is racist."
Translation: saying that they are not racist (giving a reason), while black people continue to claim that they are racist anyway. That is, you are saying that two groups disagree, but presenting it as though one is wrong and the other is right, without explaining why.
"they're just things I've observed in conservative comment sections."
No, some of them are ascribing motive that you cannot "observe". You are imagining.
1
-
@unionpepe7864
"sex is your genitals."
No, it's whether you are male of female, determined at root by the presence or absence of a Y chromosome, and expressed physically in a number of ways, including by secretion of hormones, facial hair, skeletal build, and other things, including by the genitals.
"Gender is an inner expression of yourself."
Which means what? And if it's an "inner" expression, why express it out loud? And why express it in sexual terms? People are a lot more than just what sex they are. And why insist that others have to refer to them by the wrong sex (male/female pronouns have always referred to one's sex. )
"Without creativity and expression what's the meaning in life? Work sleep procreate die?"
I never suggested otherwise, but I don't see what relevance that has here.
"We're complex creatures and develop cultures that to our knowledge no other species in the galaxy has done."
There are no other species in the galaxy, apart from the non-human ones here on Earth. But yes, we were made extremely complex. Again, relevance?
"Basing who a person is down to just their genitals is down right creepy."
An argument from opinion, not fact, and incorrect anyway, as it's not down to just their genitals, as I've pointed out above.
"because attempting to express opinions to rally people to a cause that's removing the rights of African Americans is a violation of their liberty."
No it's not. Removing their rights would be a violation of their liberty (as is not allowing people to use correct pronouns, but the left doesn't care about that ), but expressing an opinion is not.
"Expressing ideas that limit the liberty of individuals or groups of people is hate speech."
Simply expressing ideas doesn't limit anyone's liberty. By your logic, expressing your ideas here is limiting my liberty, and is therefore hate speech. So you should be fined. By your logic. So are you going to turn yourself in to the hate police?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@venkateshc3795
"The WESTERN VIEW of democracy EVOLVED from many things INCLUDING CHRISTIANITY."
First, I wasn't talking just about democracy, but the values, standards, and ethos of the West as a whole.
Second, I wasn't saying that it came only from Christianity, but primarily from Christianity.
"In this matter, every religion, every faith in this world, UNIVERSE are very similar.....EXCEPT....EXCEPT....ONE RELIGION....you know which one :)"
Christianity is unique, so your statement fits that one, but I suspect that you're referring to the second-biggest religion. I completely reject that Christianity is "very similar" to most other religions.
And you didn't answer my question about atheism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tracygeddes5867
"so you are the expert after watching that trashy video rant,..."
Apart from your own opinion, you've not shown it to be trashy. And if I'm factually incorrect on anything, please correct with with reference to a good source.
"...not whithstanding the position I hold regarding the intent of the transphobe who made it."
There's that name-calling again, because, again, you've not shown that he has an irrational fear of 'trans'.
"if you are going to claim my comments are nonsense explain why,..."
I did.
"...sweeping statements are the purvey of transphobic Mat Walsh clones ..."
There's a sweeping statement right there, and, yet again, with no evidence of an irrational fear. And of course I am nobody's clone.
And failure to substantiate your own claims when challenged (which is what you have failed to do) seems to be a common approach of people who support leftist ideologies such as this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danquaylesitsspeltpotatoe8307
"Didnt have the second coming in the lifetime of those 2000 years ago!"
Even IF that was the correct understanding, that's not a requirement. (Also, see the article "Did Jesus Say He’d Return within His Disciples’ Lifetimes?" by Craig Blomberg.)
"Also not born in bethleham…"
So he doesn't meet the requirement because you reject that He met that requirement!
"The romans kept records and their history is extremely well know no mention of having to go back to another town!"
Not that well known; you're making an argument from ignorance. Luke was thought to be wrong in various other details too, but has been vindicated by further discoveries.
"Even your bible says no other gods before me! (tho they edit thta out online these days!)…"
No, it's not edited out. Yes, it does say that, because that's a reference to false claimants, not real gods.
"Elohiem is a word for multiple gods…"
No, it's a plural word for God. But then God is three persons in one, so that fits.
"BRAIN WASHED!"
As I've already said, repeating your claim does not make it true. Yet here you are doing it again.
"IT IS A BASELESS BELIEF RELIGION AN DYOU NEED TO BELVE WITHOUT THINK…"
No, it's not baseless. It has lots of evidence. Unless you can provide evidence that it's baseless?
"ITS NOT IN ANY SCIENCE BOOK"
So? Science studies the natural world, not religion.
"THEN PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR EVIDENCE!"
I asked you first. Why should I provide evidence when you don't? I asked for your evidence of God being as you described, but you haven't done so.
"YES LINEAGE ALL THE WAY FROM MARY AND GAY JOE TO ADAM AND EVE!"
As I said, those genealogies don't have age information. So you haven't answered the question.
"WOW A CHRISTIAN WHO DOESNT KNOW THEIR BIBLE WHATS NEW!"
I know it well enough to know that you can't get those ages from the genealogies of Joseph and Mary. You apparently don't know that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@larrybee7713
"My POINT is [that] emotional commenters on these platforms always say a lawsuit is frivolous that they have never read or say the justice system has been "weaponized" because those are the phrases of the day and NOT because they have any hard evidence to back up their emotional assertions. "
Always? No hard evidence? You'd be right that many do, but that wouldn't apply to every such comment, and obviously some do have good reason, albeit incomplete reason, for their assertions.
"I'm the type of guy that if I tell you something, I can promise you I'll share with you say 6 different sources to back up..."
Good! Many don't.
"Does that make sense?"
Up to a point, yes.
"I wish we could throw in the trash Trump, this new administration, DOGE and everything associated with disaster and start all over with some leadership who wants to do for the people and who has at least some morals and values."
People such as Trump and his team? Sure, Trump is not perfect. Nobody is. But he clearly does have some morals and values. Or can you provide evidence that he doesn't? I won't even ask for six sources. Two will do, if they are objective ones.
1
-
1
-
@paulchilds9137
"genetic studies show there is ... only the tiniest differ fences between humans, really tiny. So racism is rubbish."
Quite correct. More precisely, though, the concept of races is, genetically, rubbish, and therefore racism is rubbish.
"genetic studies show there is very little difference between humans and apes..."
This, however is incorrect. A figure of 98 to 99 percent similarity is often bandied around, but this figure dates from before either of the genomes had been mapped, and involved comparing similarity between similar parts of the genome (if there were two parts that were very different, the assumption was that those parts corresponded to parts in the other species that weren't available at that time, so were not included in the comparison). Also, only certain types of differences were compared. But both species have now been fully mapped, and better comparisons made, and the actual difference is at least as low as 85% and possibly as low as 65%.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@darrylschultz9395
"You presumably watched the bishop's talk."
I'll plead guilty to only seeing snippets of it.
"So it should be obvious my use of the word "law-abiding" was meant in the same way as "the majority of them are not criminals" ..."
But if they entered illegally, they are criminals. That's my point.
"How is she not someone who believes the Bible, when she's pleading for compassion to be shown?"
She clearly doesn't believe that there are only two sexes, that homosexuality is wrong, and that as well as compassion you need justice.
"But it's not even relevant whether or not she believes the Bible, ..."
Given that she's supposedly a Christian bishop, then it does matter whether or not she believes the Bible.
"... as it isn't necessary to believe the Bible to be a person who does good."
Except that without God, how do you determine, objectively, what "good" is?
"Compassion in this context is not to brutally disrupt the lives of people who have been law-abiding while in America, ..."
So if someone commits a crime, then commits no more, you should ignore the original crime?
"Check out the number of other people applauding this Bible-believing bishop's ..."
Huh? I've already pointed out that she doesn't believe the Bible (apart from the bits she chooses to believe, of course).
"...their bullying behaviour."
What bullying behaviour? You haven't shown any.
"It's millions of other people-so I just may have a point."
Were you never taught that the majority is not always right?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexpalaciossantos4940
"it is not a non sequitur."
And yet you've not explained how one follows from the other.
"...the usa was founded on slavery, the union would not have formed if slavery was not codified in the constitution."
It wasn't founded "on" slavery. You're arguing that it was founded because of slavery. That's not the same thing, or at very least is ambiguous.
"Slavery continues in the usa to this day, through prisons, ..."
Only if you redefine 'slavery'.
"...and supports the us economy as we enslave the rest of the world."
Except that you're not enslaving the rest of the world.
"if you believe the us was a democracy when it was founded, despite only landed white men being able to vote, ..."
I've been told that the U.S. is not a democracy, because the people arguing that consider 'democracy' to be what is known as a 'direct' or 'true' democracy, as they had in ancient Greece. And yet that democracy was not open to not just women, but also slaves and people not born in the city. In other words, not everyone being able to vote does not mean that you can't call it a democracy.
"you show you either lack understanding of the word democracy, or you intentionally paint oligarchy as democracy. "
And yet I'm showing that it is you who does not understand the word. An oligarchy is normally understood to be rule by a group of unelected people, and by that understanding, the U.S. is not an oligarchy, so I'm not painting it as a democracy.
"your final comment makes no sense."
Okay, I'll concede that, given that you were explicitly referring to unelected persons. However, there is nothing undemocratic about an unelected person representing their country at the behest of an elected government, So again, how does that support your claim?
"and it is appropriated, bc the people who pay those taxes have no say in wether the monarchy takes their money."
That is false for two reasons.
First, what the British royals get paid is a portion of what they contribute to the country. The income from the royal properties is paid to the government, and a portion of that is paid back to them for their expenses. They actually contribute to the country's finances, and that's not even taking into account the income from tourists visiting the country for royal events and the like.
Second, the people do have a say, in that such decisions are made by the elected government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That he is an atheist and not an agnostic has been pointed out by quite a few in these comments, but yes, you're correct on that.
And Dawkins does know the difference, even defining different levels of atheism, specifically, it seems, so that he can legitimately claim to be an atheist whilst still acknowledging that he can't actually show that God doesn't exist. From memory, he ranks himself as a 6 on a scale of 1 to 7, where 7 means someone who claims categorically that God doesn't exist. (as I said, from memory, so I may be wrong on some of those details.)
1
-
I was not impressed by the arguments in this video. Much was taken up with the problem of conversions, not of the system itself. (And if anyone is to blame for that, it's on the newer system.) Then there were the invented reasons (presumably excused as jokes), such as being invented by people who married their cousins.
The claim that "there is no room for error" is simply false. What if, for example, instead of shifting the decimal point over three places, you shift it four? Oops. Sure, mistakes may be a bit harder, but certainly not impossible.
The idea that it can supposedly measure everything in the universe is irrelevant. You don't need a metric system for doing that. A metric system is just one way of doing things, like categorising books according to the Dewey system or the American Library of Congress system. Either works, even if one has advantages over the other.
But also, how does the metric system measure (meaningful) information? This has been described as a fundamental entity, not covered by energy or mass. I'm not saying that the metric system is inferior in this regard, as the imperial system has no measure for it either. But the claims that the metric system can measure everything is wrong. We do not yet have a measure for meaningful information.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alfrede.neuman9082
"Christianity also looses points for using the bible to support slavery in the first place..."
That some Christians rationalised their slavery from the Bible doesn't mean that "Christianity" supported it. Slavery died out in Christendom because of biblical teaching on slavery, that slaves were equal to their masters. It came back centuries later in a racist form, supported (at least in part) by prominent non-Christians of the so-called Enlightenment, only to be again abolished by concerted campaigns by Christians.
"(which it does)"
It regulated slavery, which was in any case very different to the more recent race-based slavery.
"...suppressing modern science (Galileo and Darwin prove that),"
It has never suppressed modern science. It founded it and supported it. It was taught in church universities and cathedrals were used as solar observatories. Galileo got into trouble by being arrogant to the pope and his (partly-correct but then-unevidenced) views were an excuse.
Darwin was not suppressed, although he was (and is) opposed by some, but then goo-to-you evolution is a philosophical framework that is actually contradicted by the evidence and has no mechanism to drive the innovation required.
"...reducing women to chattels, ..."
They were already considered chattel. Christianity raised their status, right from the time of Christ. It's one of the marks of authenticity of the Bible that it records women being the ones to discover that the tomb was empty, something that a person inventing the story would not do because it would be less believable. And it also says that women are equal to men.
"...along with the crusades, ..."
Although the crusades descended into barbarism, originally they were a legitimate attempt to retake Jerusalem from the invading Muslims.
"...inquisition..."
A situation that was not as bad as made out (although I'm not trying to justify it).
"...and holocaust..."
No, that was Darwinism.
"Religion is the greatest cancer ever inflicted on humanity."
That's saying that worldviews are the greatest cancer ever to inflict humanity. But we all have worldviews, and worldviews/religions are not all the same. Christianity has been very beneficial, as I already pointed out in the comment that I presume you were replying to. Atheist religions, on the other hand, have slaughtered millions.
1
-
@alfrede.neuman9082
"Wow. I’m not sure if you’re trying to be … dense, or if you’re just naturally gifted."
How about simply accepting that I have a very different worldview to you?
"Atheism is NOT a religion."
I didn't say it was. Theism is not a religion either. However, theism is a category of religions, and, within the semantic range of the word 'religion', atheism is another category of religions. Atheist religions include Scientology, Mary Bake Eddy's Christian Science, Confucianism, Zen Buddhism, Marxism, and Secular Humanism. Also, the U.S. Supreme Court declared atheism (itself) to be a religion.
"It literally means ‘devoid of theism’ by definition."
Not true. Theism means belief in the existence of a god or gods. It comes from the Greek, in which theos refers to god and ism refers to doctrine. Atheism has the prefix a- which means without. So atheism means a without-god doctrine. Or a belief in no god.
But the question is what religion means, and one of the meanings is "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" Notice that there is no reference to God in there.
"And so yes, your cult is as much a cancer on progress and society as any other religion."
Except that it's not, as I have already pointed out, and it's not a cult.
"Secondly, let’s also be really clear about what compels people to commit genocide,…"
And yet you go on to make false claims. I have already pointed out that one of your examples (the holocaust) is wrong.
"…rather than only reading the ramblings of semi-literate Bronze-Age Palestinian goat enthusiasts…"
You again display your (willing) ignorance. The writers of the bible included kings, a prince, prophets, fishermen, a doctor, a tax collector, national leaders, etc. Your caricature is simply false. And of course they were literate, another falsehood on your part. If you can't debate rationally, you're destroying your own credibility. And there was no "Bronze age"—that's part of the secular view.
"…if you happened to read Mein Kampf…"
Not the best thing to read.
"…you MIGHT have some choice phrases like…"
I believe I have already addressed that claim.
"And then there’s Stalin, who was actually went to the seminary!"
Then rejected that and became an atheist. So your point is...?
"Let’s not forget also that every single German soldier wore a belt proudly inscribed…"
From the time when the Germans were Christian.
"So when you blame Darwinism for the holocaust, you are denying Christianity one of its greatest triumphs since the inquisition."
So you see the holocaust as a triumph? You're twisted.
"I am staggered by the breathtaking ignorance and moral relativism of people like you saying [stuff] like “we Christians ended slavery” whilst forgetting that Christians instituted it…"
Except that Christians didn't institute it. Unless you have good evidence of that. Further, I'm citing the scholarship on this. Try reading, for example, Rodney Stark's, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery.
"…ask yourself why is it that women can’t be ordained? It’s because your cult preaches that they are not worthy. "
Again, it's not a cult. And no, it's not because they are not worthy. And women can be ordained in many churches. Although men and women are equal in worth, they are not identical, and in some contexts have different roles. I'm not less worthy than my boss, but his role is as a manager and my role is as a subordinate. Different roles are not necessarily an indicator of worth.
"Even if you could prove that the biblical god were real (you won’t) ..."
No, I won't, because "proving" requires me to provide you with enough evidence to convince you, and your mind is already so opposed that you won't be convinced no matter how much evidence I give.
"…all of which the bible makes abundantly clear he is."
Except of course it doesn't. Or perhap you can prove me wrong with actual evidence?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"...are lgbtq people human..."
Of course.
"...if yes then sorry because they are entitled to human rites to feel safe,part of society,employment,happiness,well being and lort forbid a bit of representation in media and politics,..."
Of course are. But their evil are another matter. You pretend that the fact that they are people means that they do nothing wrong. That is a non-sequitur.
"i want to be free to pursue my happiness"
And the best way to do that is to do the right thing and face reality, not pretend you're something that you're not, and not expect others to affirm your delusion.
"...what's so dangerous about lgbtq exposure again,..."
That fact that it's a pack of lies.
"...my 13 year old is bi ..."
There is no such thing. There is only male and female. She they are bi, but she isn't. Therein is a danger.
"...she just wants to exist ..."
Nobody is threatening her existence.
"...and feel represented in society,..."
First, as a she is free to be represented. Second, the mainstream media, governments, educational establishments, and many corporations already exalt such delusions. What it seems such people (I'm not speaking specifically about your daughter here) want is not representation or acceptance, but no disagreement from anyone, i.e. they expect to agree with them.
"...she does enjoy buying the products that represent her type,..."
Female human? Nothing wrong with that.
"I asked her many times how does she know and she explains that she just knows,..."
So it's just a subjective (and distorted) feeling, nothing to do with objective reality.
"I'm glad there is education,representation and acceptance for my kid"
Unfortunately there is also a lot of misinformation. You should guard her from it, for her own sake.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@farangutan6773
"First past the post is fairer ."
No, it's not. Suppose there are three candidates standing for an election. A is of the left, and B and C are conservatives. Suppose also that 60% of people want a conservative. The votes might come out this way:
A gets 40% of the vote.
B gets 35% of the vote
C gets 25% of the vote.
Under first past the post, A wins, even though 60% don't want someone of the left.
Under preferential voting, nobody wins to start with, as nobody has a majority. So C (the one with the smallest vote) is eliminated, and those voters' second preferences are distributed (in this example) to B. B now has 60% of the vote (a majority), so he wins.
So which outcome is more in line with what the voters wanted?
"Because we have a preferential voting system doesn't mean it's fairer..."
Of course I never said that having that system is what makes it fairer.
"...the voters have no choice but to along with it ."
And if we had first past the post, they'd have no choice but to go along with that! So your point is...?
"It is ... put their to maintain the dominance of the two party system..."
Evidence for that being how it came about, please.
But as for the supposed two party system, that's false. The problem with first past the post in my example is that by having two conservative candidates (let's say one was Liberal and the other was One Nation), the conservative vote has been split. This very real likelihood of splitting the vote discourages other parties (e.g. One Nation) from standing. Also, it discourages voters from voting for the person that they would prefer, if they think that person has no chance. That's why you only ever hear about Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. That is (essentially) a two-party system. But thanks to preferential voting, we have a bigger choice here. If we didn't have preferential voting, we'd likely not have One Nation, Fishers and Shooters, Family First, Reason Party, and so on and so on. Thanks to preferential voting, we have a much bigger choice than other places (even if some of those choices are also bad ones).
Now, please show me where I am wrong in my reasoning.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elloowu6293
"Two FL women went in to the emergency room and one's amniotic fluid was leaking on the floor. Nothing could be done other than send them home. One woman almost died."
Evidence please (that it happened because of this law).
"Imagine not only potentially losing your unborn child, but your wife as well due to these laws."
I don't believe that the laws would be the cause of that outcome.
"Oh because you didn't hear about this it obviously didn't happen. Look it up, prove me wrong. "
The question is not whether it happened, but whether it happened because of the law.
"There was a woman who was forced to give birth to a baby ..."
You mean that she wasn't allowed to kill it. The only women forced to give birth to a baby (because it would be immoral to kill it) are rape victims. All others do it by choice. The spin you're putting on it is making you dizzy.
"...in Ohio A six-week abortion ban has forced people with cancer to travel out of state for abortions that are necessary to continue with life saving treatment."
Evidence please.
"In at least two cases, cancer patients have been blocked from receiving treatment until their pregnancies were terminated — and getting an abortion required them to leave the state."
Evidence please.
"An Idaho hospital said it will no longer be providing obstetrical care due in part to the state's "legal and political climate" -- obliquely referring to recent restrictions on abortions."
How would the law stop them providing obstetrical care? That smells of pro-baby-killing propaganda.
"And Women in rural areas face a higher risk of pregnancy-related complications, according to a study by the Commonwealth Fund."
How is that related to these laws?
"Those living in so-called maternity care deserts are three times as likely to die during pregnancy and the critical year afterward as those who are closer to care, according to a study of mothers in Louisiana."
How is a lack of maternity care caused by bans on killing babies?
"This is going to affect every woman living in a red state."
Evidence please. That sounds like hyperbole.
"It's not about saving babies it's about control."
Evidence for that motive please.
"So. If you or anyone you know is expecting a child and they live in a red state. Good luck."
If you are an unborn baby in a blue state, what protection do you have?
"First the woman's life NEEDS to be in danger. That entails that the woman is literally on the brink of death, ..."
How does that follow?
"This will not save babies,..."
That's a bizarre claim. Please provide evidence or rationale.
"...it will kill women, women you know and love."
No, the law won't kill women. Medical problems in relatively few cases kill women.
"If that's fine with you then you're a horrible person."
Doctors performing abortions kill babies. If that's fine with you then you're a horrible person. Or do lots of babies matter less to you than a relative handful of mothers, that you haven't conclusively shown are actually in danger in any case?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mariahewitt9787
"I'm not the only ONE who's blaming Netanyahu."
For "for everything that's happening around the world"? Yes, you probably are the only one. But if anyone else is as well, they are just as silly.
"Many Honest Jewish people are speaking to the truth."
A throw-away line. Of course many are. But then many of those are saying things that contradict what you said.
"ON A RAMPAGE"
Google can't find it for me.
" "ON Israels Genocidal War on Palestine " Katie Halper. "
I found that one, but I'm not about to watch nearly three hours to find evidence for your claim. You need to be more specific. I watched the first 25 minutes, and it doesn't support your claim. Yes, it shows problems on the West Bank, but that's nowhere near showing that Netanyahu is to blame "for everything that's happening around the world".
"An Israeli expert in modern Genocide, calls the assault on Gaza, a textbook case of, "Intent to commit Genocide "
I found that one too, but was not convinced. He seems to think that Israel's comments about destroying Hamas actually refer to destroying all the Palestinians in Gaza. That is, he is trying to make the case that Israel intends to commit genocide by citing evidence of them wanting to destroy Hamas.
"This is from the Bible."
Yes, it is. But how does that address anything I said?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@falconmclenny7284 You pay for what you use perhaps? You pay for water, power, food, clothes, homes, etc., so why not roads (tolls?), healthcare (actually that happens a fair bit now), education (many people pay to send their children to private schools; why not everyone else too?). Water, power, etc. are at least as necessary as those other things.
Instead of directly paying for some things (e.g. healthcare) you can pay for health insurance. This can be an option when you don't know how much you'll use it, unlike, say, education that everyone will use.
But that only addresses your examples. I believe that there should be taxation, to pay for justice and defence at least. So taxes will pay for the military, the police, courts, etc. as a minimum.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@redblaze8700 "Watch this and tell me that there is no evidence that proves evolution and disprove creation"
First, I pointed out the difference between evidence and proof, but you have ignored that. I never claimed that evolution doesn't have any evidence. I said that science doesn't do proofs, so evolution has not been "proven". Similarly, I never claimed that there is "no evidence" that goes against creation.
Second, having looked at numerous anti-creation videos that fail abysmally to make a sound argument, I'm not about to spend the best part of an hour watching this one. How much have you looked at the arguments for creation (from the creationists)?
However, having said that, I am prepared to look at a bit of it, and have done so. And, I must say, it starts of better than most I've seen. For about two minutes, then goes downhill. It adopts the fallacious position that science is the way to study the past (ignoring recorded history, for example) and it makes other disputable claims, and it does make claims for evolution that are not true. But I won't leave those points as bald claims; I'll give actual examples.
At about the 2-minute mark, it lists three "predictions" for evolution and creation. However, the predictions themselves have several problems.
1. (E) we should see a chain of gradual and progressively related fossils marking the evolutionary advancement of life.
(C) we would not expect to see a chain of morphing taxonomy. Creatures in the past should bear close resemblance to present-day organisms.
"progressively related" is not an observation, but a conclusion drawn from observations. "a chain of morphing taxonomy" is not possible in the sense that you can't see something static (the fossil record) morphing (changing). That A changed into B is not an observation, but a conclusion.
Yes, according to Darwin, we should observe a finely-graduated change of fossils. The problem is that we don't.
And yes, ignoring ones that have gone extinct, we do see creatures in the past bearing close resemblance to present-day organisms. Even one of the supposed oldest, blue-green algae (from memory) is indistinguishable from its living counterpart.
So no luck for evolution there.
2. (E)we should see objective proof of the uniformitarian principle – that natural laws have always operated invariably in the past as they do now in the present.
(C) we would see the principle of catastrophism – that evidence exists that demonstrates cataclysmic event left indelible marks upon the earth's geography.
The uniformitarian principle is not about the natural laws, but current processes. It's not about whether laws change or not, but whether processes (such as how much erosion occurs in a given time) operate at the same rate. The old (non-biblical) view of multiple catastrophes (the Bible only proposes one catastrophe) was abandoned because it tended to support the Bible, not because of observations contradicting it. Observations have, however, led geologists to re-embrace a limited form of catastrophism, because uniformitarianism is insufficient to explain it all.
So no luck to the evolutionary view there either.
3. (E) we should be able to accurately date rocks and fossils with simple dating methods that would yield expected and sufficient time for evolution
(C) we can closely estimate age of the earth based on biblical records.
It simply doesn't follow from evolution that one should be able to accurately date rocks and fossils, especially with simple dating methods. What it would predict is that if they can be dated, it should show sufficient time for evolution.
However, "age" is not a property of anything that can be measured. Rather, some other property, such as relative values of certain elements, can be measured, and from these measurements an age can be calculated if all the assumptions involved are correct. Some of those assumptions can be shown to be incorrect, and some of those assumptions assume the long-age view, which makes the argument circular. For example, carbon dating supposedly shows artefacts that have been around since before the time of Noah's flood, proving that the flood couldn't have happened. However, the flood would have upset the quantities of carbon 14, making the ages around then look older than they really are. But carbon dating assumes that the flood didn't happen, so doesn't adjust for that. As such, the claim that carbon dating contradicts the flood account is assuming what it attempts to prove, i.e. a circular argument.
Further, many/most dating done on items of a known age (i.e. known from history, not one of these dating methods) gives incorrect ages. So if it doesn't reliably work on objects of known age, why trust it on objects of unknown age?
The dates only support the evolutionary requirement because that's what they've been selected to do.
And of course you can closely estimate the age of the earth based on biblical records. Numerous people have done it for centuries with close agreement.
So no luck with the evolutionary view there either.
Whew! i watched up to about the six minute mark, and could point out other fallacies for most of that. But this is long enough already. If you have a particular claim or two in that video that you think are convincing, relate them and I'll address those. But I saw nothing in there that creationists have not already answered.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JoeRansom84
"I´m interested in the historical fact of the matter."
Good.
"That is, that Jesus started His Church, with Peter as head, ..."
But did He? That's a widely-accepted view, but not necessarily a correct view. Matthew records this: "He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
So is "this rock" a reference to Peter, or a reference to the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God?
"...that became known as ´Catholic´ (meaning Universal) ..."
But was that the only church? What about the Coptic church, for instance? But ignoring them, then yes, it became known as that. It wasn't called that at the time.
"The other Christian churches broke away later. Historical fact. Look it up."
But is that completely true? Yes, that is arguably true for Protestantism, but I think it's more accurate to describe the Orthodox churches as being the result of a split IN the Catholic church. That is, it's debatable as to which one broke away from the other.
But is it actually true for Protestantism? The start of that is attributed to Martin Luther. He didn't try to break away. He raised questions about some of the unbiblical views and practices of his church, and as a result they kicked him out. So he didn't break away; the church broke him away.
1
-
@JoeRansom84
"It´s a complicated topic, we could write a 500-page book on it."
Well I'm not sure that I could do that, but yes, I take your point.
"Don´t forget King Henry the VIII."
I haven't. And yes, that particular example could rightly be called a break-away. (Don't forget that the Anglican church has been classified by some as not part of Protestantism, for that very reason that it came about by a different means.)
"But the intention was still that Peter be head,..."
Two problems:
1) That ignores the question I raised above about what the text actually means.
2) Peter could only be the head while he was still alive. There is nothing in that comment that says that there can only be one single line of succession.
"Jesus wanted that the Church be one (see John 17)..."
This bit? "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us,..."
Hang on a moment. What is "the church"? Like most words, it has multiple meanings. "See that church down the road?" refers to either 1) the church building or 2) to the congregation that meets in that building. "The Methodist church" refers to 3) Methodism as a whole. "The Baptist Union of Victoria" refers to 4) as subset of Baptists, the association of them in Victoria. "The Christian church" refers to 5) the entire body of believers.
"...not thousands of different ones,..."
It's only thousands of different ones if you are using meanings 1, 2, or 4. But Jesus didn't say that He wanted one organisation. He said that he wanted us to all be "one", as in united as a body of believers. That is, He was, in my view, referring to meaning 5.
"...each with their own interpretations of scripture to suit their feelings on any given day. "
That's an unfair comment. The reasons for understanding things differently is far more serious than that flippant comment implies. But also, there are difference over things that are nothing to do with interpretation of scripture. Some churches, such as the Catholics, Methodists (at least in the former Australian Methodist church) and the Salvation Army have a "top down" structure where individual congregations are controlled by the denomination, while others, such as Baptists, make their own decisions locally, albeit being part of a 'federation' or 'union' of baptist churches.
Then there are differences not directly over scripture (although arguably indirectly over it). For example, there were church splits in the USA over the issue of slavery.
But in effect you're arguing that to avoid different interpretations, you need a singly hierarchy to deem what the correct interpretation is. This relies on human fallibility, and the very reason for Protestantism arising was the cases where the Catholic Church went off the rails in that regard. You admit as much yourself, when you say that "The Catholic leadership and various Popes through history have been far from perfect, even corrupted and we can see this in the current era too." Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, as the saying goes, and I think that's a factor in the Catholic church. They got too much power and got corrupted. Breaking it up into multiple smaller groups removes a lot of that power.
But there is another point to consider here, and that is how much different churches agree with each other. All the churches I've been involved with are in some sort of association with churches of other denominations in the area, typically by 'minister's fraternals', where the ministers of the church get together to arrange some events or etc. in common. Each church will recognise that people attending other churches are also Christians. Ministers sometimes change denominations (one of the current ministers at the Baptist church I attend was previously in an Anglican church). The difference between different denominations is not like the difference between eating good food vs. eating tainted or poisoned food, but more like the difference between choosing vanilla ice cream over chocolate ice cream. (Of course I'm not claiming that for every single church; there are some that believe that they are the only correct church, etc.)
"Anyway, good day to you, Sir. I´ll leave it at that."
And good day to you too. Feel free to respond further to what I've put in this comment.
1
-
@JoeRansom84
"I would add that the early churches all had more or less the same Orthodox beliefs, even if they were not all connected directly to Rome under Peter. "
I would like to agree. But then I'd say similar about the modern church. I guess it's a question, though, of how different you have to be for that claim to be wrong.
"the first segments of this interview basically explains my view point without me having to type it all."
It does appear interesting, although I don't want to spend the time watching all five hours of it! But I did watch the first hour. What it highlighted for me is the problem with teaching someone something without teaching them why it's so (a problem I've already been aware of). I'll be eternally grateful that my own parents taught me the evidence for Christianity. That is, not just what to believe, by why it's true. George Farmer said that was not the case with him. That is, he was taught that Catholicism was wrong, but not why it was wrong. At least not in much detail. And unfortunately that seems to have allowed him to fall for the false claims of Catholicism.
Just two of the things I noticed:
1) They discussed how Christians still can't agree on baptism, with Farmer supposedly quoting Scripture on "unless you are baptised by water and the spirit you cannot enter the kingdom of God" (I'm not quoting him verbatim). But checking three versions, the Bible does not say that. The ESV has "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." The other two versions that I checked also say "born", not "baptised". These are the AV and the NET, the latter which I find quite useful as it includes translator's notes wherever there is a translation uncertainty. It does have a note for the "water and spirit" phrase, but saying that the Greek for "spirit" can refer to wind. There is no comment about "born", which implies that there is no doubt that "born" is the correct translation. I then also tried a Catholic Bible, although I don't know what would be considered a good one. The one I looked at was the New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition. It also had "born".
Of course you could try arguing that baptism is what it is referring to, but I'm not convinced that you could make a good case for that.
2) Farmer said that he realised that Mary really was the "mother of God". But what does that mean? Yes, in a birth sense, she was. But it doesn't follow that it means anything more than that. If you take that a step further, Mary's parents were the grandparents of God! And their parents were the great grandparents of God, and ... Does any of that mean anything useful? (Actually, to be consistent, you could take that all the way back to Adam and Eve, and their parents were... Jesus! So you've gone full circle back to the starting point of worshipping or venerating God, not Mary.) He seems to think so, but the effect is to elevate Mary to at least the level of God, which certainly appears blasphemous. Sure, God chose Mary, and Mary therefore deserves a lot of respect, but nothing more than that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shannonnero
"There are several Abrahamic faiths."
Yes, I know that there are several given that misleading label.
"Abraham is considered to be the first Jew, hence Judaism was born."
What makes you think that? That would make all the Arabs Jews! No, the term "Jew" came much later.
One of Abraham's great grandsons was Judah, one of Jacob's (Israel's) twelve sons, which, a couple of hundred years later, gave his name to one of the twelve tribes of Israel. After Solomon died (now more than 500 years later than Abraham), the nation of Israel split into two, with the southern part comprising the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, but with Judah being the larger one, so this became the nation of Judah. Most people attribute the origin of the word "Jew" to being a reference to a member of this nation of Judah, although some attribute it to being a reference to a member of the tribe of Judah.
I expect that the term Judaism, would have originated around the same time, but I would consider the religion (not under that name) to date from the introduction of the Mosaic Law, a couple of hundred years after Jacob. But regardless, none of that changes that it's the worship of the creator, Yahweh, and that still traces back to Adam.
"Adam wasn’t a Jew."
Neither was Abraham. But, as I said, Judaism is the worship of the creator God (Yahweh), and that worship goes back to Adam.
"Come on now, apply some logic here."
I am applying logic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shannonnero
"Christianity is a religion."
Yes, I agree. But my point is that it has multiple definitions, and by one of those definitions, some Christians claim that it's not a religion.
"Never heard Christian’s say that."
Okay, you haven't. I have.
"Stop trying to grasp at straws."
I'm not. I'm making a point that the word can be understood in more than one way.
"Yahweh was the national god and he had a consort."
What consort? And what's your evidence?
"Like I said there was religion before the Abrahamic faiths. "
And like I said, Judaism traces its ancestry back through Noah to Adam. Repeating your claim simply means that I will repeat my response.
"The earliest written history, is older than scripture."
Again, you're repeating a claim that I've already answered. Repeating it does not make it true.
"Polytheistic religions were fully fledged in early civilisation..."
How early?
"so it’s pretty evident people were getting married as per the social customs and rituals of that time."
True. But that doesn't contradict anything I've said.
"Gods law was not even known to Abraham when he married Sarah. They were from Mesopotamia."
What law are you talking about? Some particular written body of law, or what? And what's your evidence that it wasn't (in any sense) known to Abraham? What does being from Mesopotamia have to do with it? People in Mesopotamia, like everyone else, had Noah and Adam in their history (and ancestry).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@yourlocaldolphin
"That's a feature of the Western propaganda model."
What is "the Western propaganda model"?
"Different press outlets and journalists might have superficial points of differentiation - "
They might also have very significant points of differentiation. And they do.
"...when really it's all just branding to hide the fact they're both campaigning for the same party."
What makes that reality?
"While Murdoch might not directly control what's published, editors at the Australian (the Murdoch masthead) might consider 'how would Murdoch want this to be spun?' "
Yes, they might. And they might not. So you're not actually making an argument that Murdoch IS controlling it.
"If it's in the Australian today, there's a decent chance it'll be picked up by the rest of the news tomorrow."
With news stories, yes. With commentators' arguments, not necessarily.
"It's not so much the slant that an outlet might superficially have, but who decides what the news is for that day."
We are, however, talking about things like the stances that commentators take on things. Like Chris Kenny being quite adamant that the 'voice' is the way to go, whilst other Sky commentators (but not all other media outlets) being vehemently against the 'voice'.
When Murdoch came out in favour of the global warming alarmism a few years ago, Bolt responded by publicly disagreeing with his boss, but also pointing out that Murdoch gave him the freedom to do that.
If someone claims that A is the case, it's a legitimate argument to respond with suggesting that B and/or C might also be true, and that one can't be certain of A.
But you can't argue that A is the case because, well, it could be A. That's what you're doing. And I'm not denying that it could be A, but I'm asking for evidence that it is A.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrAuskiwi101
Because Christianity is based on reality, and the Bible teaches us to study and reason. That's why.
But don't just take my word for it. Sociologist Rodney Stark, in his book The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success wrote:
"Christianity created Western Civilization. Had the followers of Jesus remained an obscure Jewish sect, most of you would not have learned to read and the rest of you would be reading from hand copied scrolls. Without a theology committed to reason, progress, and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800: A world with many astrologers and alchemists but no scientists. A world of despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys, and pianos. A world where most infants do not live to the age of five and many women die in childbirth–a world truly living in "dark ages."
Now, it's your turn. Why do you reject that reason and Christianity go hand in hand?
1
-
1
-
@MrAuskiwi101
"Nope its not my imagination because I work in reality."
I claim the same thing.
1. Where in the Bible does it say that? And you've ignored the YouTube 'video' I suggested you listen to.
Calling him mentally ill is an attempt to claim that He wasn't what He claimed to be. As such, it's tantamount to vilification.
2. I don't know what you're referring to with your reference to the bandwagon fallacy. And you're wrong about the earth being flat. That was a deliberate atheist deception. See veritas-ucsb . org/library/russell/FlatEarth.html (remove the spaces).
3. Repeating the claim does not make it true. I have already quoted a scholar who disagrees with your view. You have not shown him to be wrong; you've simply repeated your claim.
4. Again, simply repeating a claim without providing evidence. I didn't claim that Stalin and Mao killed anyone "for" atheism; but their atheism allowed them to do it.
5. And I've rejected it. Again, simply repeating it does not make it true.
"A history you deny to hold onto your 'Christianity is good' lie."
It's not a lie. It was Christians who founded public hospitals and many charities, spread democracy, introduced universal education, founded modern science, abolished slavery twice, elevated the status of women, and more. And because of their Christian beliefs. Christianity has undeniably done a lot of good.
"You can not get any more sick minded than that."
By what standard to you define that as "sick"?
"Yes evidence matters to me but you don't have any."
And yet I provided some. so you're simply in denial.
"I'm happy to read that book you referenced but from reviews it seems of a poor standard, like apologist material."
A dismissal by uninformed people who don't agree with him, probably. He's not the only scholar who has written similar things.
"I'm currently busy researching Christian anti Semitism from the gospel of John right through to the holocaust."
The Jew who was Jesus' disciple John, talking about the Jew named Jesus, promoted or employed anti-semitism? Yeah, pull the other one.
"Yes that's right, Christianity also brought on the Holocaust."
Martin Luther was a factor, but a bigger factor was the atheistic idea of evolution that was very popular in Germany at that time. This also led to the 'holocaust' against the Herero people of German South West Africa (Namibia) which had nothing to do with Jews.
"If you imagine JC existed lets hear the evidence that makes you imagine he did. I'd love to hear it."
So you didn't listen to the video? If I give you evidence and you ignore it, I'm not about to give you any more.
1
-
@MrAuskiwi101
"Yes, you claim that but of course you are deceiving yourself…"
Or perhap you're deceiving yourself?
"Your problem is you confuse your perceptions with reality. They are not the same thing."
A claim that you have yet to demonstrate.
1. So you're not going to tell me where you think it says that? Instead you insult me. Sorry, if you can't back your claim, I can dismiss it as baseless.
"That is also not "vilification" the same as deriding someone who claims they can fly is not "vilification". Understand?"
Except that it would be if they could fly. So you're actually begging the question.
2. I didn't ask what the bandwagon fallacy was. I asked what I said that fell into that category. And you haven't shown that the flat earth example flew right over my head. On the contrary, it seems that you have ignored the counter-evidence I provided. Laughing off what I said is not an argument. And no, it didn't come from the Bible.
3. Claiming that your claim is backed by evidence is simply another way of repeating the claim, which still doesn't make it true. Suggesting that it would take a 10,000-page explanation is just exaggeration to avoid doing the obvious—back your claim with some evidence.
4. Again simply claiming that your claim is backed by evidence. That YOU inferred something from my comments is your problem. What I said was accurate. Atheism was a factor, because as atheists they believed that they were not answerable to a higher power, giving them (in their minds) the freedom to do what they liked.
5. More repetition of your claims, and more claims without evidence. Slavery started by Christians? That's utter nonsense, given (for one) that slavery predated Christians. And again (in relation to women), you cite no actual evidence and simply laugh off what I said.
I asked about "sick minded" because it's very relevant, but I see that you failed to answer it. The point is that you judge the alleged actions of Christians on the basis of a standard that you can't justify, and which you almost certainly got from your historically-Christian culture and it's historically-Christian standards.
"You try to sell him as a balanced scholar. Of course, that is a lie."
No, it is not a lie (and I didn't use the term 'balanced'). Even if I'm mistaken, I wasn't saying something that I know to be false, so I was not lying.
"This fellow uses apologist deception similar to what victims of Christianity do."
And yet you point out no actual deception. You're good at making sweeping baseless claims, aren't you?
"You really expect someone to believe a fellow who wrote a book trying to justify the crusades is balanced?"
Given that you like claiming fallacies so much, this is (again) the fallacy of begging the question.
And more of the same with your claim of anti-semitism: no actual evidence (apart from Luther, which I'd already agreed to), just sweeping baseless claims.
"Yes how about what leads you to imagine JC existed, in your own words. Or does a lame video speak for you?"
How about you address the evidence of a sceptical expert instead of unreasonably trying to put it on me as a non-expert (in the sense of not having qualifications in that area)? There is nothing wrong with me citing an expert on this. There IS something wrong with dismissing an expert without reason.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I have already (under another video) pointed out you were wrong on that. But here you repeat it!
There was one new detail, however: "Wouldn’t a male rib only have male DNA? Wouldn’t the rib only have male chromosomes?"
Yes, but then why do you think that the God who could make a man out of dust and the world out of nothing and could make the incredible information storage system that is DNA, have a problem with altering the DNA?
"So science can quash that theory."
Ah, science, that wonderful tool invented by Christians to study God's creation, now co-opted by atheists to tell stories about the past that science cannot observe, measure, test, nor repeat. No, it doesn't squash that history. And in fact the genetic information is consistent with what you'd expect from the biblical account.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JoeyJoJoJrShabbado
"I really don’t believe outlawing something actually prevents said things occurring (like drugs)"
But what do you mean by that? There are three possibilities when outlawing something. That it a) has no effect at all, b) has some effect, c) completely stops it happening.
True, c) will generally not happen. But a) will generally not happen either. If b) is true (which it normally is) then you will stop many abortions. And that's lives saved that would otherwise be lost.
"It still occurs often in worse situations,..."
I don't believe that. Yes, there will be some occurrences, but not "often" (apart perhaps by travelling interstate) and not normally "in worse situations". The pro-abortion lobby is scaremongering when it claims that people will just go back to backyard abortions and that many mothers will die as a result. When abortion was illegal before Roe vs. Wade, most abortions were done in clinics by doctors breaking the law. And the deaths of mothers dropped not when it was made legal, and not when they moved from the supposed back yard, but when antibiotics became readily available.
"...the correct way to tackle this is prevention, teachings of morality and other initiatives."
Of course those things are important too (especially if you include teaching facts, not just morality). But if that was sufficient, then we wouldn't need laws against murder, rape, theft, and so on. You need both the education and the laws.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anonymous.anonymity.
"no it’s not,"
And yet history says otherwise.
"Christianity is from the Middle East."
Yes, from within the then Roman Empire, and it spread and "took over" the Roman Empire and beyond.
"Western civilisation is based on the renaissance and the ancient Greeks, who invented democracy."
Yes, there is influence from the ancient Greeks, and the Romans, and the renaissance too. But to quote just one of several academics on this (historian Tom Holland who studied the ancient Greek and Roman empires):
“... it was kind of like I was thinking well I’m clearly not ... the heir of the Greeks and Romans in any way, really. ... and I began to realise actually that in almost every way I am Christian.
“And I began to realise that actually, Paul [the apostle] ... compacted into this very very small amount of writing, was almost everything that explains the modern world [the Western world] but also the way that the West has moved on to shape concepts like international law, for instance, ... concepts of human rights, all these kinds of things. Ultimately they don’t go back to Greek philosophers; they don’t go back to Roman empiricism. They go back to Paul [and ...] the four gospels ...”
Yes, the Greeks apparently invented direct democracy (available only to male citizens, which excluded females, slaves, and most immigrants), but not the representative democracies that we have today, which appear to derive more from things like the Magna Carta, which was promoted by the bishops and was based on the principle that the king is also subject to God, and therefore his rule is not absolute.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Baerchenization
"It has nothing to do with the comma, it has to do with context... heard that one before? Language being context-dependant?"
It's absolutely context-dependent. But it's also punctuation dependent. It's not one or the other, but both.
"unless you are a peculiar character with mental issues, you will not have named your dogs grandpa and grandma. That is one general bit of context provided by life experience."
I do actually agree with you on that. I used that example being very similar to one I found on-line, but I also know that I've seen other cases where the context didn't help.
"So there really is no ambiguity, comma or not."
There can, however, be such ambiguity. But I don't keep a list of the ones I've seen, so used that as a (less-than-ideal) example of what can be an actual ambiguity by not using the Oxford Comma.
But I've looked further, and came up with a better example:
>>>I completed my research with the help of my supervisors, Alan and Roger.
Are his supervisors named Alan and Roger, or is he referring to at least four people?
>>>I completed my research with the help of my supervisors, Alan, and Roger.
This makes it clear that he is referring to at least four people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@inmundo6927
"oh you are sooo smart.. wow.. so much cleverness. so much "discussing seriously".. for the sake of?"
It doesn't take smartness to point out your failure to debate rationally.
And I thought you said goodbye?
"Still no proposal, no idea of your own..."
Still trying to move the onus onto me. You made the claims. You have the onus.
"...and still NO PROOF of god.. "
I don't have to prove God. Where did I claim that God exists?
"Oh so First, you were generalizing and assuming . What an example of rational debate...."
Where? You haven't shown that I was.
"Secondly.. more assuming about my upbringing.. from?? "was superficial" because ??"
Suggesting, not assuming.
"I dared say you dont have empirical proof or god?"
Given that you didn't say that (at least in this thread), no, that would not be it.
"If my christian upbriging was deeper there would have been NO WAY I could have questioned it? <--- again, another circular argument. "
Strawman. No, I didn't say that. Rather, I said that you'd not make the ridiculous claim that the whether or not religions have the truth is not even debatable.
"Is not a point and in no way furthers your argument.. (like most "points" you make)"
Again, that was an observation, not a point of argument.
"A very poor and hasty observation,..."
I reject your subjective opinion.
"...which leads you to the only course of action you've had from the begging: to antagonize what I (and any one else) have said."
Well, if you see your claims being challenged as antagonism, that's on you.
"Because without it, there is no OBJECTIVE PROOF.."
That depends on how you define "proof", and ignores the fact that science doesn't do proofs. For example, here's a quote from The Logic of Science:
“It is often the case that the most fundamental concepts in science are the ones that are the most misunderstood, and that is certainly true with the concept of “proof.” Many people accept the misconception that science is capable of providing proof, and I often hear people make claims like, “science has proved X” or “a fact is something that science has proved.” In reality, however, science is inherently incapable of proving anything.”
"only subjective.. your own experience. Period."
False. Recorded history is not my own experience.
"you really have not DISPROVED what I said about religions NOT HAVING HARD, DEMONSTRABLE AND MEASURABLE EVIDENCE.. ... And WHERE is your refutation??"
I don't have to refute. You need to provide evidence that your claim is true. If you do (even if the evidence is questionable), then I'm prepared to try and refute you. But until you actually make a case beyond a claim, I have no onus to refute you. As Christopher Hitchens said, “...what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” You have asserted without evidence, so I can dismiss without evidence (without refutation).
1
-
@inmundo-s4z
Part 1 of 2
"The burden of proof is on the proposer of a claim."
I don't know what you mean by "proposer". One makes claims; one does not propose claims. But yes, the onus is on the maker of a claim.
One source describes it this way: "A proposition is a statement that the author is proposing for further scrutiny, possibly a proof. A claim is a proposition that the author claims is true". You are claiming as true that there is no objective demonstrable measurable evidence.
"I am denying there is OBJECTIVE DEMONSTRABLE MEASURABLE EVIDENCE that a religion may hold objective truth.."
By denying that, you are making a claim of it being the case that there is no such evidence. Ergo, you have the burden of proof.
"Thats not a claim BUT ITS OPPOSITE. Im Denying, Rejecting the claim religions can be measurable, demonstrable and objective truth"
In denying or rejecting it, you are making a (counter) claim. I'd also point out that you are denying a claim that I never made.
"A claim: RELIGIONS CAN HAVE THE TRUTH (and this truth can be debated upon objectively...)."
Yes, that's a claim.
"A rejection: NOT OBJECTIVE TRUTH, NO, YOU DONT HAVE EVIDENCE (the bible is no evidence but only a form of circular logic.. yet again)"
And that is a (counter) claim. The mere fact that it is asserting the opposite of the original claim does not mean that it's not a claim.
"Do I need to provide evidence that UNICORNS DONT EXIST????"
If you claim that, and if you are challenged on it, yes. Of course neither has happened in this conversation. I would not challenge such a claim because I agree with it. But if I didn't agree (and if you did claim that), I would have a right to challenge you to provide evidence. You can't get out of that burden of proof simply because you believe your claim to be true.
"I am making NO CLAIM but that "I do not know the truth" (I dont see how you could possibly refute that claim)"
It is false that that is the only claim you made. For example, you also made the claim that nobody knows the truth.
"And that you DONT KNOW EITHER."
Yet another claim.
"I am DENYING YOU CAN PROVIDE THIS OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE.."
In doing so, you are claiming that I can't provide objective evidence. So you have the burden of proof on that claim.
"...and so far that has been the case!"
False. It's true that I haven't provide evidence, but I have said nothing to indicate that I can't provide the evidence. I don't have the burden of proof, as I didn't make that claim.
"YOU WHO CLAIM TO HAVE THIS EVIDENCE have to provide it."
If I did claim that, I still don't have to provide it until you have provided evidence for your prior claim that there is no such evidence.
"I cannot possibly provide you with something that DOES NOT EXIST."
True. So you're agreeing that you have no evidence for your claim that no evidence exists? Then why make such an evidence-free claim in the first place?
"But I can CHALLENGE your subjective notion it does simply by the fact you do not, after 1000 comments, care to provide this fascinating evidence WHICH WOULD ONCE AND FOR ALL END THIS DEBATE... "
I do not care to provide it because a) I never claimed it, and b) even if I did, I have no burden of proof to provide it when you refuse to provide evidence for your prior claim. That I am not providing it for those reasons means that my non-provision of such evidence is not itself evidence that I have no evidence.
"(no, circular logic is NOT evidence)"
Duh! Of course. I know that just like I know that a negative claim is still a claim.
1
-
@inmundo-s4z
Part 2 of 2
"Simple. You say religions can have objective truth.. you prove it."
If I did say that, then I would have the burden of proof. But if you claim the opposite ( as you did ), then YOU have the burden of proof. So why aren't you providing evidence for your claim? My guess is that you can't, because your claim is baseless.
"I say you dont have proof (and SO FAR that claim stands.. )."
So now you admit that what you said is a claim! So you have the burden of proof here.
"My proof is your lack of evidence, which is still sufficient."
No, it's not sufficient, because my lack of evidence is not because of my inability to provide it, but because I choose not to until you have provided evidence for your prior claim.
"The fact you can't answer straight, with simple science and objective, demonstrable, measurable data PROVES what I say to be true. "
It's false that I "can't", as I have just explained. Ergo, your conclusion is invalid.
"TRUTH IN RELIGION ISN'T debatable because it is not based in proof other than "personal and subjective" ..."
What's your evidence for your claim that "it is not based in proof other than "personal and subjective" "?
"or books you CHOSE to believe in, which is the same thing <-- circular logic: "god exists because it says in this "historical" book that god exists""
That is NOT circular logic. To use an analogy, it is not circular logic to say that Caesar existed because this history book says that Caesar existed. Depending on the book, that may or may not be a good argument, but it's not circular. I know that circular arguments are invalid, but it appears that you don't know what a circular argument actually is.
"science provides MOMENTARY proof... until proven otherwise (science refutes false claims rather.. thats right)."
Yes, science can refute false claims, but it can't provide proofs.
"In doing so it provides you with the MOST PROBABLE outcome SO FAR"
That's probably a fair enough claim, but science still has limits, such as only being able to investigate the natural, not the supernatural, and only being able to provide empirical evidence of things in the present. Part of the scientific method is to observe, measure, test, and repeat. But you can't observe, measure, test, nor repeat the evolution of dinosaurs into birds, for example, because it supposedly happened in the unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable, and unrepeatable past. Such things are the domain of history, not empirical science.
"since, like religions.. NOBODY KNOWS THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH, ..."
Is that absolutely true? If it is, you've contradicted yourself. If not, you have agreed that you are wrong.
"... neither do you or your religion, we can only grasp at approximations"
What do you mean by "absolute"? I agree that nobody (but God) knows the truth comprehensively, but that's not the same thing.
"The bible is not "recorded history" nor is it a "history book" EVEN IF MOST of what it is is based on HISTORICAL DATA (for obvious reasons... )"
So a book containing a lot of history is not a history book? No, that's not at all obvious. Rather, it seems more like a contradiction.
"Another huge fallacy of yours... comparing religious books with scientific history books.."
Nothing fallacious about comparing any two things. I can, for example, compare a smile with the moon and conclude that they are very different things. And I never said that "religious books" are equivalent to science books. (In fact I never even used the term "religious books".)
"But even if it was a scientific book, according to you,..."
False. I did not say that it was a scientific book. All I said is that it had some facts in it which the science agrees with.
"If science can't prove anything, neither can religion ..."
That doesn't follow. If I can't build a rocket, neither can Elon Musk. That's the logic that you just used.
"...(except via faith, again, circular logic)."
Except that biblically, 'faith' is trust based on evidence of the person being trustworthy. You were never taught that when being raised as a Christian?
"thats exactly my point, I dont need to provide evidence.."
That does not follow from what Hitchens said. And I didn't agree with your example question, so you have wrongly assumed my answer.
"I am rejecting your FALSE, ILLOGICAL claim that "religious truths" can be measured with objective tools,..."
So you're rejecting a claim that I never made. That's known as a strawman. But you're failing to provide evidence for claims that you did make.
"... therefore I reject that it can be objectively debated upon (no, the bible is not an objective tool..."
Because you don't believe it? That's not a valid reason.
"and codified the hydrological cycle, which has NOTHING DO TO WITH RELIGIOUS TRUTHS NOR DOES IT PROVE THEM."
I didn't say that it had anything to do with "religious truths", and neither did I claim that it proved them. You seem to be getting better at introducing strawmen.
"Ill repeat: DO I NEED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE UNICORNS DO NOT EXIST?"
So do I need to answer that three times simply because you asked it three times?
1
-
@inmundo6927
"Which does not take the burden of proof on your part either ... "
It does, actually. If you refuse to back your claim, then I have no obligation to back mine.
"... now the you also claim the opposite.. don't you."
Do I? Am I? Where?
"But you are wrong, mine is a NEGATIVE claim. The opposite of a positive claim, of the existence of something. "
That is irrelevant. Often, a negative claim can be rephrased as a positive claim, or vice versa. Being expressed as a negative claim does not remove the burden of proof.
"Plus, I already brought proof to that saying they all base themselves in "hearsay" or personal/subjective experience."
That's a further claim to back your original claim. If I accept that claim as true, then I would be accepting that as evidence, but evidence is not necessarily proof. However, I challenged you on that very claim. I'll give you an analogy.
Suppose I claimed (1) that there is a city in Fiji named "Rayment". You ask me for evidence of that claim. So I respond by saying (2) "I have a map that shows that". If you accept that second claim, then you effectively have evidence of my first claim. But if you can't see the map, then it's not really evidence for you, is it? So you might want to further challenge me for evidence of that map showing that. This is what's happening here. You made a claim, which I challenged you on. So you made a further claim that I also challenged you on, because that second claim is not, of itself, evidence for your first claim.
"That's my proof (not that I need it), incomplete or not, it has yet to be challenged by CONTRARY proof (according to you it seems)."
I have not refuted it, because that second claim is itself open to challenge.
But wait, there's more. You did not previously claim "hearsay". And why is "personal experience" not evidence? That is exactly the sort of evidence that is presented in courts all the time. It's called eye-witness testimony.
"Asking me to provide evidence for the NEGATION of a proposition is a logical mistake, because it would put me in the situation of citing every religious book there could possibly be. End to end."
Yes. So? If you make such a sweeping claim, the fact that you can't reasonably answer it is no justification for the claim. You're simply admitting that you can't support your claim!
"why UNICORNS DO NOT EXIST. (You very purposefully avoided that question, funnily since you have made remarks about 99% of my sentences...)"
False. First, you have no basis whatsoever for claiming that I "very purposefully"§ avoided it. For all you know, I simply overlooked it. Second, you should note that my reply was marked "Part 2 of 2". This is because I replied in two parts, and I see now that Part 1 has been hidden by YouTube. I did reply to that question in part 1. (Along with another 50% of your sentences!) This was my reply to your question about you needing to provide evidence that unicorns don't exist:
If you claim that, and if you are challenged on it, yes. Of course neither has happened in this conversation. I would not challenge such a claim because I agree with it. But if I didn't agree (and if you did claim that), I would have a right to challenge you to provide evidence. You can't get out of that burden of proof simply because you believe your claim to be true.
"wrong comparison between Caesar and "truth in religion". ... Secondly, if Jesus IS god. Then SO is Divus Julius."
False. That is a non-sequitur. If both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris claim to be president, it does not follow that because that's true of Biden it has to be true of Harris also. The comparison was not wrong.
"It appears you type a little bit more than you need to. "
Pot. Kettle. You're the one that makes up attitudes and motives for me (see places that I have marked with a §).
"You're twisting things again."
False
"What IS absolutely true is that KNOW ONE KNOWS what TRUTH (in caps) truly is."
A word doesn't change its meaning by being typed in all caps. Your claim that "nobody knows the absolute truth" is clearly self-contradictory.
"Twisting again. No, it means a book with historical data nonetheless, cannot be taken as representing by itself ALL TRUTH..."
You're the one twisting. You claimed that even if most of the book is historical, it's still not necessarily a history book. Nothing was said about "all truth".
"not is it necessarily a "scientificly" objective book. Let alone one written from hearsay and "mystical revelations" "
But what makes you think that the Bible was "written from hearsay and "mystical revelations" "? Why do you think it wasn't mostly either eyewitness testimony or by people who got the information from eyewitnesses?
"Is that not circular logic?"
No.
"Faith is trust in the person to be trusted???"
Yes. Nothing circular in that. A circular argument is an argument, not merely a definitional statement.
"what person?"
The person you have faith in.
"your derogative comments about my "incomplete christian upbringing", apart from continuing your prejudice,§ and bias over my background§ shows nothing but your high-horse attitude§ (very far from a true christian if I may add). "
It's simply a statement of what appears, from the evidence, to be the case. You're the one inventing my supposed bad attitude.
"ITS A MATTER OF BELIEF.. not of proof."
The two are not mutually exclusive. If something is proved to be true, the person then believes it to be true.
"That's exactly the point."
That it's a matter of belief for you, not proof? Therefore your beliefs have no evidence? You're questioning your own claim here.
"No, you only have to answer it ONCE. Which of course, you will not,§..."
Except that I did, in that hidden comment. So again, you're making up my supposed attitude.
"...since that would disprove your entire twisted logic about the DISPUTE of a positive claim"
And yet my answer, repeated above, does no such thing.
"Maybe they are like black swans.. maybe they exist, I just dont know it (my whole point the entire time)..."
Actually, that's my point: that you are making a claim that you might well be wrong about, and for which it seems that you can't provide evidence. Excusing your baseless claim on the grounds that you are unable to support it is just that: an excuse.
"...but so far, we don't know, ..."
Making up stuff again. YOU don't know, but for some reason you're projecting, and claiming that "we" don't know. Yes, Europeans didn't know about black swans, but that didn't mean that nobody did. People in Australia did know. To claim that nobody knows is irrational.
"you are not going to "show me the truth in religion" either so we are wasting our time.. (not that you could)."
Yet again, what's your evidence that I couldn't? You're making up things. Because you couldn't, you somehow assume that nobody can. Which is arrogance, actually.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MagnumPIfan
"Come on Phillip, we are more a part of Austral Asia, "
Geographically, yes. Culturally, no.
"Western Civilisation is on the decline, ..."
Yes, as I said. That's the problem.
"...we are evolving ."
Devolving would be a better word.
"You just have to look around to see that. Our planet is in trouble, "
Again, yes, that is my point. Funny how you seem to want to dispute what I said while agreeing with me!
"That’s more Important weather I’m Wrong and your Right."
Okay, do your point is more important than whether your point is right? Is that what you're confusingly saying? That's part of the problem—incoherence.
1
-
1
-
"Protect the religious? What about those who are not religious ..."
They are not under attack like Christians are. Rather, they are celebrated and encouraged.
"All we freaking hear from religious people is 'Oh my feelings! You insulted my idea of an omnipotent being! HOW DARE YOU!'"
Then you're listening to the wrong people. Our views are based on evidence and reason, not feelings. Also, all I hear from atheists is comment about "religious" people, as though Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, and so on all have very similar views, when clearly there are massive differences, but such atheists also exclude their own views as if somehow atheist views are in a different category altogether. That's an intellectually dishonest approach to the topic.
"Typical of religious people really, they only look after themselves"
On the contrary, Christianity initially spread because they looked after others. Compassion for strangers is a concept that came from Christianity, which would be why they founded the idea of public hospitals and charities, and introduced universal education and raised the status of women and twice abolished slavery, and so on.
"...which is why they can't live together peacefully."
I guess you're talking about some non-Christian religions, including Marxism (atheism) that slaughtered millions. That's not very peaceful, is it?
"'My god's better than yours!!"."
As opposed to "You're god doesn't exist", which is the view of those Marxists who slaughtered millions. Because if God doesn't exist, His rules against killing innocent people don't exist, so you are free to do what you like, including killing innocent humans if you have the power to do so.
"An now we have governments setting up laws to protect peoples ideas of their sky wizards."
What "sky wizards"? That you can't even rationally discuss the issue without using mockery shows that you're arguing from emotion, not reason.
"Pathetic and dangerous."
Your attitude, yes.
"Religious groups historically have been the ones who have been guilty of discrimination most of all."
Christians groups historically have been the ones who fought for freedom of thought and expression. Even today, try living in a country that hasn't historically been reformed Christian.
"Now they claim to be the most discriminated against...LOL."
Actually, it's widely acknowledged that Christians are the most-discriminated-against religious group. So it's not a hollow claim, but an accurate one.
"I wonder if I became a Jedi.. (yes, it's an actual religion)..."
Not really; it's just a modern made-up one.
"Or is it only for those religious businesses that either have money or are aggressive.."
Have money? In your dreams. You clearly have a very distorted view of reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"First off, no one should be signing petitions against any kind of speech regardless of whether it speaks poorly of other groups."
Why not?
"Criticism of Jews is not Antisemitism just as criticism of blacks is not racism."
That depends on whether the criticisms are valid or not.
"When a majority within a race, religious group, or ethnic nationality are doing something wrong then people have the right to trash them for it."
But if they are not doing something wrong, as in this case, what then?
"And trying to tell people who they're allowed to hate or dislike is just like trying to tell them who they're allowed to love."
Not really. People shouldn't hate anybody. Yes, they can hate their actions, but they shouldn't hate the people.
"The terms Antisemitism and Racism are nothing but communist buzzwords created to shut down the masses and force them to put up with [stuff] that they shouldn't have to put up with."
Racism, perhaps, given that the left is largely aligned with Marxism (Communism), but not anti-Semitism, which is more used by conservatives.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maxchurchward315
"inflation, rising"
That was from Biden's era. There's no way Trump can turn that around that quickly.
"stock market falling,"
It's been up and down. Unlike inflation, the stock market will react quickly, but like inflation, it will take a while to see what the longer-term trends really are.
"jobless numbers on the rise,"
If that's to do with sackings of federal employees, then that's a temporary situation.
"calling Zelensky a dictator and insulting him for a photo op."
Or did Zelensky start an argument with Trump?
"Now how is it a success?"
Banning men competing in women's sports, DOGE stopping billions of dollars being wasted, including on left-wing ideological causes, and curtailing illegal immigration are examples.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Eye of Horus
"Christianity never coerced anyone in the early days of the religion."
Generalising, it never did in any stage.
"...Jesus was against organised religion..."
Since when? Yes, he criticised the Pharisees for some things, but he also took part in synagogue and temple worship.
"...was more about just being a better human being who’s more gregarious."
No, He was about being reconciled to God (Himself) by fulfilling the Law, and being the final sacrifice for our sins.
"The religion formed well after his passing..."
Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism, which knew that a Messiah would come, Jesus being that Messiah. And there was Christian teaching circulating in the community in less than a decade or two after His death.
"...yet idiots of today attack Jesus for the abhorrent way the church has acted through the centuries."
Yes, but even that is not all that accurate. Yes, the church has done some abhorrent things, which it critics like to focus on while ignoring all else. But for the most part it has done a lot of good.
1
-
J
"Bull[deleted]"
He's probably close to correct. Sociologist Rodney Stark pointed out that...
"Had the followers of Jesus remained an obscure Jewish sect, most of you would not have learned to read and the rest of you would be reading from hand copied scrolls. Without a theology committed to reason, progress, and moral equality, today the entire world would be about where non-European societies were in, say, 1800: A world with many astrologers and alchemists but no scientists. A world of despots, lacking universities, banks, factories, eyeglasses, chimneys, and pianos. A world where most infants do not live to the age of five and many women die in childbirth–a world truly living in "dark ages." "
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JamielDeAbrew
"Normally investors invest where they will make the most return on investment. If a tax break incentivises investing in one area over another area then that tax break is skewing investment towards one area over another. "
I accept that, but your "skewing" is relative to another area. What if both areas got tax breaks? You couldn't then say that there was skewing. I said that you're assuming a norm. Your "norm" seems to be what some other area of investment has. Keep in mind that this "tax break" is simply offsetting expenses against income. As the Treasury Department site says,
"[Negative gearing] is a commonly used term used to describe a situation where expenses associated with an asset (including interest expenses) are greater than the income earned from the asset. Negative gearing can apply to any type of investment, not just housing.
"Individuals who are negatively geared can deduct their loss against other income, such as salary and wages. This is consistent with the broader operation of Australia’s personal income tax system.
"Australia’s tax system operates on the principle that people pay tax on their personal income, less any expenses (called deductions) in generating that income. This is similar to how business profits (that is, income less expenses) are taxed, ie tax is levied on the net profit of a business, not its gross revenue."
Would you describe all such offsets of expenses against income as "skewing" investment? The "norm" is that expenses are offset against income, which is what is happening here. Therefore, it's following the norm, and is thus not skewing.
"Fewer homes being built is a reduction in supply."
Yes, I know. My point being that if investors are building fewer homes, then presumably residents are building more. Therefore, in theory, the supply stays the same.
"Negative gearing doesn’t cause population growth. I never said that."
You said that "land investment is almost a debt and population growth Ponzi scheme." Why mention population growth if it doesn't affect that? Admittedly, what you said was not clear.
"Banking is very relevant to negative gearing because people can’t negatively gear without a loan."
I don't see why not, although I'll grant that the cost of servicing the loan would normally be a substantial part of the costs. What if you owned the property outright (i.e. no loan) but the maintenance costs, rates, etc. exceeded the rental income?
"Removing some tax breaks to fund other tax increases (or vice versa) can be good. It can also be bad. It just depends on the specifics."
The specifics are what is relevant here. The attitude of many is that negative gearing is inherently bad, rather than looking at the specifics.
"Removing payroll tax would be great. It would remove a disincentive to hiring and remove a task from business."
Reducing all taxes would be great. Remove various taxes entirely would be great. A lot of disincentives would be removed/reduced.
"Increasing GST so the government didn’t lose revenue would be perfect."
No, not perfect. First, the government takes too much tax as it is, and spends a lot of it on unnecessary things. Second, GST is a disincentive to people spending, so suppresses the economy. (I'm not arguing against GST; just the idea that greater GST has no negatives.)
"Removing payroll tax puts download pressure on prices."
So increasing taxes by removing negative gearing doesn't put upward pressure on prices, but removing a tax does put a downward pressure on prices? A cynic would say that it just increased company profits.
"Moving from stamp duty to a monthly land tax would be a great switch."
So a regular tax is better than a one-off tax? That sound suspect.
"It would reduce the disincentive to moving.if people move closer to their jobs, they use less transportation infrastructure. If people downsize, they free up rooms in the market, increasing use of buildings."
That's one way of putting it. Another is that people get forced to move from their family home because the monthly land tax goes up. Yes, this already happens with council rates, but a monthly land tax would make it even worse (and stamp duty was supposed to be abolished with the introduction of the GST). But hey, that makes sense, if you want the government to control a whole lot of stuff at the expense of individuals being free to do what they want. That is, if you lean more towards a command economy than individual freedoms. I don't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@here_we_go_again2571
"Early in it's existence Judaism combined religion and politics. Since the inception of the modern state of Israel, Judaism is now (again) joined with politics."
What do you mean by "combine religion and politics"?
When a government makes laws, for the most part they are codifying what is already considered wrong. For example, murder is not wrong because there is a law against it. There are laws against it because it is considered wrong.
But where do we get our ideas of right and wrong from? In most cases, from our religion. (Atheists often get it from their historically-Christian culture, but otherwise they get it from their own subjective opinion.)
From the time of Israel's monarchy, the religion and the state were separate entities. For example, Samuel then Nathan were the religious leaders, whilst Saul then David were the civil leaders.
I'm pretty sure that the modern state of Israel does not have Judaism joined with politics, although, like all worldviews/religions, I've no doubt that the religion attempts to influence the politics. Just as the atheist worldview does, quite successfully in the case of the Marxist variety that pushes anti-scientific ideas such as transgenderism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marvelstark3797
"it is a consensus, meaning a general agreement but not all voted to invite him. do you understand now the situation?"
I always understood it. If you're a member of the Labor party, you're supposed to support Labor party decisions even if you disagree with them. If you're the ambassador for a country, you're supposed to support your country's decision, even if you personally disagree with them . If you're a spokesman for a company, you're supposed to support the company's positions even if you disagree with them. If you're not able to do that in each case, you're free to resign. This is the same sort of thing. As a representative of the body that invited Marcos, you should publicly support it at least during the actual visit.
"If you think respect is required no matter what, no matter to whom or matter what the person has done, then you are delusional. say for example, do you respect a rapist, or child molester or someone who is a bully?"
I would nor respect their actions, but I would respect the fact that they are a person with rights, such as the right to a fair trial. So yes is my answer, and no, I'm not delusional.
"let give me gave you a situation as an example for your understanding.. two politicians debating and shouting inside the parliament compared to a silent protest who are just seating, which is one is worst do you think?"
It would depend on the justification for each. What about comparing a person shooting another person with a person hitting someone with a stick? Which is worse do you think? What if the shooter was carrying out a lawful execution or shooting in self defence and the hitter was hitting a baby with a stick? The circumstances and motives matter.
"you can only call her hypocrite if she made no protest to other human rights violator or motivator. that's a hypocrisy."
I wasn't saying that she was a hypocrite.
"again, just refer to my no. 3 reply for your better understanding."
And refer to my response for your better understanding.
"Then, i gave you the explanation, coz you find it hard to understand the words that your were referring."
When something is not clear, it's not necessarily the fault of the reader; it could be the fault of the writer. But it seems that you won't accept any responsibility.
Further, you didn't give me an explanation; you criticised me for not understanding what you wrote. And told me that I could understand if I read several other things. You said that "she heard that marcos jr one of the motivator of human rights abuse," I asked if you were saying that she relied on hearsay. You could have simply said "No, I mean that she found this out", or "No, she was informed of this by a reliable source", or some other clarification of your comment. But instead you chose to attack my comprehension and understanding.
"you need to understand that conducting a protest is still a right of any human being in democratic nation like australia right? do you agree?"
In an appropriate way and in appropriate circumstances, yes. I have never suggested otherwise. The issue is whether she did it in appropriate circumstances.
"protest is not a bad thing or a sin just like stealing as you imply in your example."
I gave an analogy from crimes; I was not implying that protest was a crime. Again, your ability to comprehend seems to be lacking. Not that I would normally say that, but given your propensity to criticise me on those grounds, I'm justified in doing so.
"protest can only bad if you hurt someone or if you cause chaos."
Or if you do it in an inappropriate way or circumstance.
"But she did it on a silent protest so again, i guess there’s nothing wrong about it."
Nothing wrong with it according to your standards, but I disagree with your standards.
"So, forget with your stealing example coz it doesnt make any sense."
To someone who seems to have a problem with comprehension.
"9. again, just refer to my no. 3 reply for your better understanding."
And refer to my response to that.
"i only answered the comment of the another commenter where she comments that “senator but no manners”. And reply is still correct."
Yes, I was agreeing with you that the other commenter went too far.
"if you say her manner is not enough, when do you think enough is enough when it comes to manner? Is that scalable? I don’t know. Maybe you can answer that."
Not protesting in the way that she did. Objecting to his invitation in the right forum.
"You also said, “And it's not simply a case of him not liking it.” who’s himthat your are referring to?"
The other commenter. Your reply to him included "just happens you don't like him too."
"i hope my addressed all your comment and concern appropriately"
Yes, you were thorough. No, you're missing the point in some cases and are criticising me rather than simply sticking to the arguments.
1
-
@marvelstark3797
"1. the word “supposed” implies that you have been asked and expected to do it."
Well, expected at least. In most of my examples it would be self-evidently expected, whether you've been asked or not.
"...but still at the end of the day, it is not required ..."
Huh? Why not?
"... and your decision still prevails."
No, that is the point of my examples. It's not your decision, you are required to toe the organisation's line.
"She doesn't need to support every decision or anything inside the parliamentary, ..."
She can of course vote against decisions, and protest in the proper way. But she is protesting a decision that has been made, in an inappropriate way.
"...where you owe your decision to your people and not to any party or group."
Except that in some cases you do have to accept the party line, per one of my examples.
"...unless you are a clown politician per se. but she is not. as simple as that."
That's begging the question, and being a Greens suggests that she is a "clown politician".
"...the company set up though is not comparable..."
That they are paid is not the critical factor. The point is that they are representing the company. Some organisations have unpaid board members. They would also be expected to toe the organisation's line.
"2. ... what if the whole world knows that that president is a corrupt politician [snipped]"
I believe that my previous answer covers that.
"3. again, your deadly or criminalize example makes no sense when you compare it to the protest."
And yet it does.
"... conducting a protest is a right of any human being in a democratic country."
Only if it's done in a suitable way.
"killing/shooting someone is an criminal act even in any other form of govt for sure. "
Not for a lawful execution or valid self defence, no it's not.
"you still didnt get it do you?"
You're the one who doesn't get that my shooting example was NOT of a criminal act.
"it is just a simple argument and still you find it hard to absorbed in your mind."
Says the person who things that a legal shooting is a criminal act!
"4-5 well, thank you. maybe you weren't saying it, but you imply it considering the instances that you gave?"
When I said "refer to my response for your better understanding", I was referring to my response to your No. 3.
No, I didn't imply it. All I said was that "Others are worse" is a "legitimate argument when pointing out hypocrisy" as opposed to this circumstance in which you are not doing that. There's that lack of comprehension again.
"6. ... i would assume that you do now have a better understanding and clarification about this concern? I hope so."
The way that you reacted would imply that you didn't mean to imply hearsay, but it's a pity you still haven't clarified just what you did mean.
"7. again, she did it in a silent protest. that is already enough to call it appropriate."
I said "The issue is whether she did it [in] appropriate circumstances." In response, you simply asserted that a silent protest is appropriate. By what standard? Your opinion?
"8. nope.. the very fact that you somewhat comparing a protest and stealing or any other criminal act is the very wrong about your argument."
When making an analogy, there will always be differences. Further, the point is to give a different case where the distinction is more obvious. In this case it was to point out that "better" does not mean "okay" or "acceptable". It can be better but still wrong. That's the point that analogy was making, not that a silent protest is comparable to a crime. There was nothing wrong with my argument by analogy.
"9-10. just refer to my no. 7 reply."
Which provided no rationale.
"14. maybe for you, what she did was wrong. but for her, that is the right way to protest with the consideration of doing it in a silent protest."
Something is wrong or not wrong regardless of a person's opinion. If it's wrong, you can't say it's right for her.
"again, the parliament is a democratic system."
That doesn't mean that you're free to do whatever you like. It means that you get to vote on decisions that are put to you to vote on.
"many commenters i dealt with on this topic alone, i cannot remember anymore who’s who has said that."
The same other commenter per your No. 13.
"16. i get, some of it you agree, some you don’t based on your stand. i am not criticizing you, i am just pointing it out."
Part of my response was that you have been criticising me, in particular my ability to comprehend things that you write. A rational debate addresses the arguments and not the people making the arguments.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@killbotone6210
"1- For lying."
I have to repent for something I didn't do?
"Keep googling!"
Nope. You need to supply the evidence to support your claims. It's not up to me to find the evidence.
"Irish Times- FFA is not a risk? Indeed it is. This is/was the issue."
The issue was that it put the mother's life at risk, which was already an allowed reason.
"And even in those case (suicide and rape) they had to travel outside of Ireland to actually have it done."
Suicide?
I think I've asked before, but why should the child of the rapist be executed for this father's crime?
"Even presenting with FFA and dying in front of your husband and parents wasn't enough to allow you attain an abortion."
It apparently was, apart from the medical people not recognising the danger in this case.
"What did I already tell you about reading the catholic influenced newspapers?"
You didn't say anything about Catholic-influenced. And you told me to look elsewhere, but I didn't find that and you've refused to give me better directions.
"4-Justify?? Why is it up to me to Justify reality?"
I dispute that it is reality that an unborn child does not have personhood.
"Do I need to justify the Moon?"
No, because I'm not questioning the moon.
"Not magical. Just typical. The change is circumstances."
That doesn't explain how exiting the birth canal magically changes the baby from a non-moral being to a moral being.
"Yes abortion needs consent. Consent of the mother and health team."
But not of the victim (the baby). So no relevant consent. Even in a rape, you have the consent of the rapist. In a pack rape, you have the consent of most of the participants. But the important and relevant point is that you don't have the consent of the victim, and that's the same with abortion.
"But if it makes you happy I'll certainly argue we should ask the unborn child for consent. How do you propose we communicate the ideas of consent, life, duty, morality, sacrifice and responsibility to an object which lacks the ability to receive or comprehend the request?"
Wait until it is capable of doing that. And recognise that it's not "an object", but a human being. Is it okay to kill a toddler because it doesn't have the ability to comprehend such a request and give informed consent? Of course not, and the same applies to an unborn baby.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@killbotone6210
1) No, YOU produce evidence that I'm lying. If you could, I should assume that you would have done so by now, so your accusation is obviously baseless.
4) The Bible has lots of stories in it. The fact that I don't remember one from an atheist's description of it doesn't mean that I'm not familiar with the Bible. Now that I know what you are talking about, I do remember it. And by the way, accusing me of being unfamiliar with it when you can't even get the reference correct is ironic.
The account doesn't say that the child suffered; you're simply assuming that. You also made up the bit that God wouldn't listen. God not responding the way David wanted doesn't mean that He wouldn't listen.
But to the heart of the matter, we, along with the rest of creation, were made by God and He has the absolute right to do with us as He will. He owes us nothing; we owe Him. We should be thankful that He allows us to live at all, especially given that we have rejected Him.
A lot of Christians believe—and David apparently believed this too (v. 23)—that God takes dead babies straight to heaven. This being the case, the baby was actually better off than all the other people who had to suffer throughout life and then die much later. As the apostle Paul later said, "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain." The one who really suffered was David, punished for his crimes.
5) Yet again, I never said that. You keep making up stuff.
6) You implicitly claimed that. If you're not claiming that, then why is it okay to kill the baby five minutes before its born but not okay five minutes after?
7) Your claim that it's illogical because there's no evidence begs the question, what's your evidence that there is no evidence? Because there is actually plenty of evidence, in which case it's not illogical at all. And you didn't explain what I asked you to explain.
8) More vilification that is complete invention and completely avoids my point, which you obviously have no answer for.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@czgibson3086
"The panel made their decision based on the cumulative effect of a number of Peterson's demeaning and degrading public remarks, which you can read about in the judge's ruling. (Peterson v. College of Psychologists of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 4685)"
Okay, I've had a read, and can see why you've made the comment you have. However, the report is clearly done from a "personal"* viewpoint that transgenderism is legitimate. It says "The ICRC ... expressed concern that by referring to Elliot Page as “her” and by their former name,..." Now the reference to using "her" is to the ICRC doing that, but this report is not criticising that, and glaringly avoids referring to Miss Page as "him" (" their former name").
* See below.
"No. That is not part of the judgement."
On the contrary, it is. Paragraph 71 says this:
"The ICRC’s concerns with Dr. Peterson addressing Elliot Page as “her” and by their prior name, ... arose from the language Dr. Peterson used, not his personal views." Note that it dismisses Peterson's comments as "his personal views" rather than as factual statements (which is why I referred to the report's langage above as a "personal" viewpoint—if they can characterise Peterson's factual use of words as a "personal views", I'm justified in calling their anti-reality viewpoint "personal").
"The panel that decided to discipline Peterson didn't contest the validity or otherwise of his statements, only their demeaning and degrading language, which they felt was unbecoming of a clinical psychologist in a public forum."
Well, that's what they say, and I can't definitively determine what their motive is, but there are plenty of examples of organisations censoring/disciplining someone for their views but pretending that it's just over not following the rules. In fact it's happened to me.
"...although it was sufficient to get flagged on Twitter for hateful content..."
Yes, but the left has the attitude that if you disagree with them, it must be due to hate. I'd take that flagging with a grain of salt. Many social media organisations are quite inconsistent in how they apply their rules.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@liljrae9684
"the world was created from stardust and we are simply slightly evolved primates."
That's the naturalistic view. I'm a Christian, not a believer in naturalism. The naturalistic view is contradicted by the evidence in numerous ways.
"homosexuality is observed in the animal kingdom amongst many species"
It's also observed in humans. So?
"who are christians to say what is right and wrong based on a book written in the stone ages?"
I reject your premise, because it's based on that naturalistic view. The concept of "stone ages" is part of the naturalistic view, which I don't hold. That view also holds that man progressed from primitive to intelligent, whereas the biblical view is that man was created intelligent and has gone downhill since. Further, that book claims to be, and is accepted by millions to be, the very testimony of God. Yet you refer to it as though it is self-evidently or accepted to not be that. That is another premise that you have not shown to be correct. As such, it is not Christians who say what is right and wrong, but God.
"what makes you guys so special and the be and end all of everything and the only right way to live?"
We're not. But God is. He is literally the be and end all, the "Alpha and Omega" the Bible refers to Him as; the beginning and the end (Alpha and Omega being the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet).
"love is love."
Duh! And dirt is dirt and water is water and a smile is a smile and a word is a word and...
"id rather go to hell than live a miserable life that pleases your so called loving "god". "
What makes you think that a life that pleases God would be miserable? You seem to have a very distorted view of God.
"he sounds like a judgemental [deleted]."
Actually, He is very forgiving; He Himself paid the 'fine' that we should have paid. But He is also a God of justice. Surely you want justice? And I pointed out that you are being very judgemental of my comments, so isn't that rather hypocritical?
"you think homosexuality is some kind of choice?"
First, there is no good evidence that it's anything but. Second, even if it's true that feeling that way is not a choice, acting on it most certainly is. The Bible tells us that we are (all) born sinners. So we are born that way. And yet, we are guilty of sinning, because we do choose to sin. We are all in that same boat, although we don't all sin in the same way. So we are all destined to die for our sin. As I mentioned, the good news is that Jesus has paid that price for us, so that we can be reconciled to Him, thanks to His gracious, non-judgemental, love for us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@keaton718
"It's why Christianity, or any supernatural belief, hasn't broken into the mainstream in Australia; ..."
Christianity was the mainstream in Australia. Which is why, even after drops in numbers of adherents, it's still as high as 43% (if your figure is correct).
Australia, like the rest of the West, is a historically-Christian country, with Western Civilisation being largely based on Christian principles, views, and values.
So it's not that Christianity hasn't broken into the mainstream. It's that people have stopped believing in God thanks to anti-Christian ideas being promoted in the education system, the media, and etc., accompanied by insufficient push-back from Christians.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@matthewlane
"Answer: They don't accept it."
I cited a historian saying that they do. You simply dismissed that with no argument or evidence whatsoever.
"What historians do accept is that the bible is NOT a historical text."
Also refuted by my references.
"Popularity of a book is not the basis of wether or not it's content is accurate."
True. But saying that Jesus is less popular than Harry Potter is not the basis of whether Jesus existed or not. And yet that was your argument!
"Correct, the bible isn't evidence for itself..."
This is you moving the goalposts. The claim wasn't that it wasn't evidence for itself, but that it wasn't evidence for Jesus. Clearly you cannot support your claim.
"Because it's a work of fiction."
But the Bible isn't, so your analogy fails.
"Hahahahahaha, no."
Evidence?
"It did not record anything of the sort..."
Evidence?
"historians do not accept the interpolation by later authors, ..."
True, but not all of it was interpolation of later authors. Historians accept that Josephus did record Jesus' existence, even though that part of the record has apparently been expanded since.
"even your own christian textual scholars don't accept it as credible, because it's clearly not."
Evidence?
"So now we've covered that, elts see that extra-biblical evidence for the histriocity of jesus."
Already provided, and dismissed without evidence.
"Were not contemporaneous sources. Which makes anything they have to say on the topic as immateiral as any account written more than 200 years after the supposed events they are speaking on."
Which would apply to most of ancient history. But that's not the way historians work.
"No such accounts of the life of Jesus exist. All writings about Jesus were written centuries after he was meant to have existed."
Factually false. All the writing was by people who knew Jesus. From memory, that video I pointed you to agrees for at least some of the New Testament.
"Nope, including the Gospels. They were written no less than 30 to 100 years after the supposed life of Jesus, by anonymous authors."
We know that they were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John respectively. And with the exception of John, the internal evidence is that they were written no later than AD 70.
"...if they were that still wouldn't make them historical accounts because they take place in a work of fiction."
Evidence?
1
-
@matthewlane
"And i can cite a flat earther who declares cosmologists accept the Earth sis flat."
How is a flat earther equivalent to a trained, experienced, historian?
"All it demonstrates is that you share an opinion with someone who is also wrong."
But you haven't shown that he is wrong.
"Nope. The bible is not a book of history, we know this categorically."
And yet you don't explain why it's not. (What you do instead is assert that it's history is wrong, which is not the same thing.)
"No garden of eden,…"
Evidence?
"…no tower of babble,…"
Evidence?
"…no jewish exodus from egypt,…"
Evidence? Because I know of archaeological evidence supporting it.
"…no Davidic empire,…"
Evidence? Because I believe that there is archaeological evidence supporting it.
"…no global flood."
Evidence? Because I know of plenty of geological and other evidence supporting it.
"No it's not. You were told to provide extra biblical evidence because a text cannot be evidence for itself."
As I have already pointed out, I'm not claiming that it's evidence for itself. The claim is that it's evidence for particular historical events. I've already said this. Why are you pretending I haven't?
"If it could, then every work of ficiton is now true, because every work of ficiton is now evidence for its self."
If you were right, then every historical account is not evidence for the things that the histories describe.
"Jesus only appears in the bible hun,…"
I've already refuted that. Why are you repeating the refuted claim?
"…he's a ficitonal character."
Not according to the historians. Didn't you see the video I told you about? If so, what's your evidence that he is wrong?
"But the bible Is fictional & demonstrably so by ACTUAL history."
A claim that you have failed to show to be true.
"Correct. All the parts not about Jesus are not interpolations. The parts about Jesus were added by later authors trying to insert jesus in to texts where he did not exist."
False. There are two references to Jesus, in 18.3.3. and 20.9.1. Peter Kirby, of the Early Christian Writings site, has surveyed the literature on this. Of the first, he writes "Opinion on the authenticity of this passage is varied. Louis H. Feldman surveyed the relevant literature from 1937 to 1980 in Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Feldman noted that 4 scholars regarded the Testimonium Flavianum as entirely genuine, 6 as mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations, and 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation." So that's only a quarter of the scholars who consider it entirely an interpolation.
Of the second, he writes "Although Rajak is an exception, most have granted that this passage is substantially authentic…"
"Hahahahahaha, no. Even christian biblical textual scholars don't accept it…"
Kirby and Feldman disagree with you.
"…& there standards are significantly lower than actual historians."
Evidence?
"LOL no. Even Jospheus was born AFTER the supposed date of death of Jesus."
I was referring to the Gospels. Josephus is hardly an account of the life of Jesus; it's a brief mention only.
"No we don't. We know, no such thing."
Yes, we do. Because that's what the longstanding evidence says.
"The catholic church has presumed it to be so,…"
The early, pre-Catholic, church, who knew the authors, said it to be so.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"when was it proved that there is a God, any God ???"
When He created the world, and many other times since.
"can you show scientific proof of a God"
Science deals with the natural, not the supernatural. Also, science does not do proofs. You're asking the wrong question.
"the problem with religious people is they hate logic."
Nonsense. Logic comes from God.
"I ask a simple, logical question about evidence, and never has a religious person proved themselves."
You asked a bogus question, as I pointed out above. You might as well ask for scientific proof that I had a hamburger for tea six weeks ago. Wrong discipline.
"if you can't answer my question with evidence, then don't answer at all."
I can answer with evidence, but not from an inappropriate discipline.
"PROVE God exists, if you can't, then stop replying."
Prove your great grandparents existed, else stop expecting us to prove God exists.
"I look around and I see children dying of cancer, or millions of people dying of starvation while viruses are killing millions. Why is God such an evil, sinister [person]?"
He isn't, and the fact that you fail to understand how God could exist alongside the negatives you mention means that you don't even understand the claims that you are demanding we 'prove'.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DesignBlockIT
"because we can’t explain something now does not mean we will never explain it."
I don't disagree with your statement, but that's not the situation. We already know that natural processes are opposed to it. That is, my argument is not from ignorance, but from knowledge. For example, we know, from lots of observations, that meaningful information (instruction manuals, recipe books, scientific descriptions, computer programs, and many more) only comes from intelligent sources. Genetic information is such information. It must have come from an intelligence.
So your comment was about something that we supposedly can't (yet) explain, not about things that we can explain, but for which atheists and the like refuse to accept the explanation because of their belief in no God.
"How do you know how matter formed?"
Because the One who formed it told us how it formed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DesignBlockIT
" the questions you are posing are an attempt to steer away from answering previous questions."
No, they are not; they are questions of clarification, as I said.
"There are just as many people as you that belive in other gods (faiths, sects and religions) and just as many again that beleive in nothing supernatural. You have asserted yours is the one and only, you would first need to prove the others do not exist before proving yours does to uphold your claim."
Do you believe that God exists? If I was talking to someone who believes God exists, but that it's not Yahweh, then I would indeed go straight into justifying that it is Yahweh. But when I'm talking to someone who doesn't even believe that God exists, it makes no sense to argue about which claimant is God before first establishing that God exists.
"Faith is a beleif without evidence, if there was evidence it would be fact, truth without the need for the word trust."
Not so. First, you do not and cannot check out every claim you hear. But you have evidence that some people are careful, accurate, people (e.g. a scientist), and so you have faith that a claim he is making is true. Even though he reports evidence in support of his claim, you have faith that he is accurately reporting that evidence. In 99.9999% of cases, you do not and normally cannot check out the evidence first-hand for yourself.
Second, even if you do check out the evidence for yourself, you have faith in your own ability to accurately observe and assess that evidence.
"Anything that would convince a rational person with no beleif, has not heard of your god or has beleif in another god that yours is correct and real. A method that can be repeated by anybody, anywhere with all coming to the exact same result."
Your last sentence, about a method that can be repeated anywhere, sounds like you're talking about scientific evidence. Are you limiting it to that? Or am I interpreting your comment too narrowly? What about, for example, documentary evidence that anybody can read (assuming that it is in a language they understand)?
But given that you have tried to answer that question, here is some of the evidence for God, albeit in very brief form which can be enlarged upon.
* The fact that anything exists at all. Scientists have concluded that the physical universe could not have existed forever, so it had a beginning. But before there was anything, nothing can't create anything.
* The 'fine tuning' of the universe, whereby a universe could not exist unless some physical constants were exactly or extremely close to their observed values.
* The existence of genetic information in living things. Meaningful information (i.e. not noise) which the genetic information is, only comes from an intelligence.
* The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, documented by numerous witnesses.
"you can add smoke to oxygen to see it,"
You're seeing the smoke, not the oxygen. But yes, you're correct that there are ways to detect it, but no more so than the commenters point that you can feel it. And of course that is analogous to being able to detect that God exists.
"If oxygen is not in the bible how can it be real?"
A bizarre question that implies that someone thinks that the Bible mentions every single thing that exists.
1
-
@DesignBlockIT
"You say I have ‘faith’ in science which is an assumption you are making about me. "
Yes, that is an assumption, but a pretty safe one.
"In my opinion Science is a ‘method’ to test true and false claims and is not a faith based system as you claim."
I didn't claim that it is a faith-based system. I say that you have faith that the system works.
"At this point I don’t have faith in your claim, I have sufficient evidence to base an opinion it might be true."
I think the problem is that I'm saying that 'faith' is different to what you say it is. I'm trying to explain that, but you're still thinking of 'faith' per your understanding.
"This is the method of science (or the scientific method)."
It is. But you don't test every single thing you are told. You can test the explanation of why a plane flies, but you don't check every plane to ensure that it works according to specifications. You trust (have faith in) the aircraft designers, mechanics and pilots. Because you have evidence that they know their job.
Again, I'm not trying to tell you that you accept science by faith. I'm trying to tell you that your acceptance of science based on evidence that science gives good results IS what the Bible refers to as faith. What you think of as 'faith' is not the same understanding that the Bible uses.
"At this point you may say there is no way we can set up a method to test for the supernatural."
A wouldn't have; you brought that up. And I would disagree, in the sense that I would say that we don't have a scientific way to directly test the supernatural.
"The next logical steps to prove your claim is true would be evidence that can be tested and repeated by anyone, anywhere at anytime. When this is achieved you will have evidence to support your claim."
I have already given you some evidence.
"I would be happy to discuss with you further when you have some evidence that all other god claims are not true and your god claim is true."
What other God claims? What we are talking about here is the supreme being and creator. There aren't that many candidates. The ancient Greek gods were offspring of other beings, so none of them qualified as the supreme being. The Jewish God is the same as the Christian God. The Islamic god is also the same in the sense that he is the supreme being and creator, although their understanding of him is rather different. There are the hindu gods that I couldn't tell you much about. Some of the other 'gods' such as the Norse(?) God were probably actually legendary accounts of former human leaders, such as Noah (some of their records go back to Noah or his sons).
Jesus died and rose from the dead as predicted earlier. That's pretty good evidence that He is God. Of course because that is a claim about an event in history, it can't be tested according to the scientific method, although much of it can be tested according to the historical method.
"If you find proof in the meantime..."
You defined proof as evidence that would convince a rational person. How would you define a rational person? That might seem a silly question, but in this context, I would not consider an atheist a rational person, because he already has a strong belief in the non-existence of God.
"you will receive your Nobel Prize for the proof of your god"
Which Nobel Prize? There are several. I'd receive the Nobel Prize because the Prize committee were convinced by the indirect evidence (such as I have cited)? I think not. Apart from anything, they have already shown their bias against biblical views, in failing to grant a prize to the inventor of MRI because he's a creationist.
"Until then we are simply going around in circles and not getting any closer to what is true or which god is true."
Well, as mentioned, I've already listed some evidence for God. If you keep saying that the claim needs evidence when I've already provided some, then yes, that is indeed going around in circles.
1
-
@DesignBlockIT
"Again our difinition of faith seems to be the linchpin."
That's what I've been trying to point out.
"I assume your definition comes from Hebrews?"
No, I don't consider that to be a definition.
"So literal interprestation from the words written on the page "things "hoped" and "conviction" of things not seen." "
I'll try yet another analogy. You have a friend who asks you to loan him $100. What is your evidence that he will pay you back? It might be that you consider him a trustworthy person. So you have faith in him. Or it might be that you don't have any expectation that he'll pay you back, but figure for the sake of the friendship you'll be happy to lose the $100. But he does pay you back, and some time later, he asks to borrow $500. Again, what is your evidence that he will pay you back? Yes, he did once before, but that was a smaller amount, and one case of him paying you back is not evidence that he always will. But you loan him the money anyway, and again, he does pay you back. Later he asks for $1000 loan. Again, you decide to trust him. And again, he pays you back. This keeps going, and one day he asks to borrow $10,000, which you have, but can't afford to lose. Do you trust him? Most likely you do, because you have evidence of his trustworthiness. But you have no evidence that he will repay you this particular time. So your faith in him is based on evidence of past loans, even though you have no evidence for this loan. Your faith in him is your "evidence" for your conviction that he will pay you back; the substance of your hope that he will. For a rather in-depth discussion of all this, see the article "what is faith" on the Tektonics website.
"We use dictionaries as a universal source to prevent misunderstandings of words to converse in the english language. "
We do, but dictionaries mostly give contemporary usage, not usage found in books 2000 years old.
But if you want to cite dictionaries, try these for "faith", and see where they have your definition (which was "belief in something without evidence")
Merriam-Webster: "strong belief or trust in someone or something"
Oxford: "Complete trust or confidence in someone or something."
Collins COBUILD: "If you have faith in someone or something, you feel confident about their ability or goodness."
By those definitions (not the only ones given, of course), the definition of faith I've been giving is even within modern understanding, and say nothing about a lack of evidence.
I'm happy to continue by email, although such discussions do get long and, for me at least, slow, so be ready for that. My address is PJ plus my surname at an Australian Yahoo address.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Fox.is.a.cesspool
"You don't have an argument."
Not in this conversation. Rather, I challenged someone's claim. You should learn to tell the difference.
"You never have."
Complete and utter nonsense, if for no other reason that you've not seen everything I've ever written or said. That is just a ludicrous claim.
"It's just your same tired old baseless "Nuh uhhh!" [nonsense]."
Asking a question about a claim is not "Nuh uhhh". Again, you should learn to tell the difference.
"Get back with us when you grow up , and actually have something of value to contribute to the discussion."
Says the person vilifying me and adding nothing to the discussion.
"Meanwhile, when some cluess Aussie [person] insists that Fox corp is an Austrailian company..."
Which he didn't do. You also need to learn some comprehension. He claimed that Sky News Australia is part of Foxtel, which is part of the Murdoch empire, and News Corp (owned by Murdoch) is itself an Australian company. That is, I believe (after checking) all correct. Fox Corporation is a separate company (also owned by Murdoch). He referred to FoxTel, an Australian cable channel, which you confused with the American Fox Corporation.
"...calling him a clown is a simple statement of fact."
Except that you are the one who got it wrong. So does that make you the clown?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bobhawke7373
"Evidence God exists please?"
I asked you first.
"Plenty of studies have shown prayer has the same odds as random chance. How have you missed that?"
I don't know. I'm not actually aware that there are "plenty" of such studies. i have heard of a few though.
However, there is a fatal flaw with any such studies. Do you understand the concept of double-blind tests? When a subject is being tested, the test should be "blind", i.e. the subject not know whether he's being given the drug (if that's what's being tested) or a placebo. But it's been shown that the tester can subtly and inadvertently influence the outcome if they know which product they are administering. So tests should be double blind, so that even the person administering the test doesn't know.
When you do a test for the effectiveness of prayer, what you're really doing is testing God, to see if He responds. (With the assumption that if He doesn't respond, it might indicate that He doesn't exist.). However, God is omniscient—He knows everything. So this is not only not a double-blind test, but it's not even a single-blind test. God knows that He's being tested. So, what if God doesn't want to be tested? The Bible actually says "You shall not put the Lord your God to the test...". Now that's a limited-case admonition, as testing what God wants in different circumstances is acceptable, but the point is, if God chooses to not cooperate, the test is worthless. And even if you think that God should cooperate, you can't rule out that He might have a different view.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RodFleming-World The New Testament doesn't contradict the Old. (Changing some old rules is a change, not a contradiction.)
You're confusing extra-biblical Jewish belief with what's in the Bible. Jesus often flaunted non-Mosaic Pharisaic law, but that's not the same thing.
Paul wrote to Timothy, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." The "Scripture" at the time was the Old Testament.
However, I suspect the issue is over the Mosaic Law. Parts if not all of the Mosaic Law were intended for the pre-Christ Jews, and do not apply to Christians. If that's what you're referring to, then we agree. But while rules (laws) can change, history cannot. Genesis and Job are history, and being from God who doesn't make mistakes, are still completely relevant to Christians, and are part of the Christian Bible.
1
-
@RodFleming-World
My first thought on reading your response was that you were talking about something different than I thought you were, which was where the Pharisees criticised Jesus for doing a few things against the "law".
However, on checking your references, it's worse than that, perhaps to the point of wilful misrepresentation.
First, Exodus 21:27 is about stoning an ox, which Jesus said nothing about.
Second, Exodus 19:12-13 was a specific instruction for a specific occasion; it wasn't part of the ongoing law.
Third, none of the remaining verses you supplied were to do with stoning an adulteress (although I'm not denying that might be elsewhere in the law).
Fourth, three of the five references did not invoke stoning as the method of execution.
Fifth, no, Jesus did not "prevent its process from being carried out". He invited those present to carry it out! But the Jews were not interested in carrying out the law; rather, they were trying to put Jesus on the spot. Jesus outwitted them by inviting them to start—if their own consciences were clear. As it turned out (as He would have known), they weren't clear.
Sixth, and perhaps most pertinently to your claim, Jesus did not "forbid" stoning as you claimed.
There are a couple of other arguments that could be made too.
First, a reasonable argument could be made that that passage doesn't belong in the Bible, and although I think it does belong there, it might be a little shaky to base your argument solely on that.
Second, the Mosaic law was given to the nation of Israel; I don't think it says anywhere that individuals—as opposed to appropriate civil authorities—had the right to carry out the law themselves.
1
-
1
-
@netecrivernetecassassins2945
You need to keep in mind that "religious history" is not some monolithic topic, because the topic includes a wildly-differing range of religions, including pantheistic, polytheistic, monotheistic, animistic, and atheistic religions, and each of those categories might include a wide variety of religions. Atheistic religions, for example, include Zen Buddhism, Confucianism, Marxist views, Secular Humanism, Scientology, so-called "Christian Science", etc. Some have long histories and others very short histories. Some include lots of requirements and rituals, such as Muslims praying at certain times of the day while facing Mecca or Orthodox Christian religions that dress up in robes and have the congregants kiss the ring worn by the priest, while others have few to none, such as Secular Humanism or evangelical Christianity.
Some teach equality (e.g. Christianity) while others impose a class system on their societies (e.g. Hinduism). I could easily list many more major differences.
But if you really believe that your religion comes from God, what right do you have to change it? When Martin Luther set off the Protestant Reformation, he wasn't saying that he wanted to update it or change it because he preferred something different. Rather, he wanted to get back to its roots in the Bible, so was questioning why his church's teachings differed from that.
Similarly, people have at times, probably naively, done things like portray Jesus as a Westerner while he was actually a Jew, and portrayed Adam and Eve as white when, genetically, they would have been mid-brown. But again, changing those things is not an update, but a correction, and not even a correction to the religion, but a correction to our portrayal of what the religion teaches. The Bible never taught that Jesus was a Westerner nor that Adam and Eve were white, for example, so it wasn't the religion itself being corrected, let alone updated.
I don't follow your reference to god of the gaps. That is a concept that critics routinely lob at Bible-believers, ignoring that (in better cases at least), us Bible-believers are not arguing from what we don't know, but from what we do know. For example, I would not argue that because we don't know how life got started, God must have done it. Rather, I would argue that we've studied biology and physics and chemistry enough to know that it cannot occur naturally (agnostic scientist Paul Davies says that the origin of life is contrary to the laws of physics), leaving a super-natural beginning as the only remaining option. Not only that, but we have a proven-reliable source that says that God did it. Those critics, however, often invoke an evolution-of-the-gaps argument: 'We don't know how it happened, but it must have been evolution'.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kevinwells5812 "Dawkins enjoys debates."
Probably true, but only if he thinks he's on a winner. After a debate with creationary scientists didn't go his way many years ago, he's refused to debate them, even though he continued to criticise that position.
"Maybe he’s responsible for helping to foster an environment where criticism of our cultural foundations is applauded ..."
And that is the sort of criticism that I would make. I agree that the wokeness has gone further than Dawkins, but he contributed to it by undermining the existing basis of our civilisation, Christianity.
"The new atheists never said religious people didn’t have a right to exist or were categorically evil."
I'm not convinced. They have at least come close. Dawkins said "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)." And according to Wikipedia, "The Root of All Evil?, later retitled The God Delusion, is a television documentary written and presented by Richard Dawkins in which he argues that humanity would be better off without religion or belief in God."
"They weren’t kicking religious professors out of university..."
Maybe not, but atheists have been targeting scientists who question evolution for many years, getting them fired where they could. In some ways it seems that the modern attempts to silence critics of global warming alarmism and woke views were honed previously by silencing critics of evolution.
"In the future, don’t call atheists as a group a “cult.” It’s a poor choice of words that undermines the points you are trying to make."
None of the comments I'm replying to here were directed at me, that one included, and I agree. But then I'd like to see someone tell the atheists that too when they refer to Christianity as a cult.
1
-
@kevinwells5812 Have you heard of paragraphs? By the way, I really appreciate some of the other comments you've put in this thread.
A big part of the issue here is whether one is talking about the past or the present. When Christians talk about faith, they are normally talking about the past (i.e. Bible times), whereas science typically involves observation, measurement, testing, and repeatability, all of which can only be done in the present.
True, scientific claims about the present can be verified, but how many of them do you verify? Very few, I imagine, which means that the rest you take on faith. And of course you can't scientifically verify anything in the past, because you can't repeat the past. However, scientific verification is not the only sort of verification. Reliable eyewitness testimony is widely accepted as sufficient for verification. Even in court cases involving scientific evidence, the judge or jury does not ask for the scientific tests to be repeated in court—they accept on (well-grounded) faith what the expert witness says. We have reliable eyewitness testimony of the supernatural. Not only that, but we have excellent in-principle scientific evidence of the supernatural, in that we know scientifically that the natural is incapable of creating certain things, like the universe itself, life, and the information in the genomes of living things. As the natural is incapable of this, then the cause must be super-natural.
Yes, science can make predictions about what we should see in the present as the result of past events, but it's not very good at that. Darwin himself said that we should find a finely-graduated chain of fossils, but we don't. Evolutionists have predicted that we wouldn't find wheels and magnets in living things, but we do. Evolutionists have said that a falsification of evolution is finding fossils "out of place", with the common example being rabbits in the Cambrian. We find plenty of "out of place" fossils, including pollen in the precambrian. Tiktaalik was predicted to be in a time before evidence of four-footed land animals. But after it was discovered, fossil tetrapod footprints found in Poland were dated to before Tiktaalik, so it wasn't actually found in the sequence predicted after all.
Another problem is that many of those predictions can fit more than one view. For example, evolution predicts that creatures will share similarities because they are related (and we do find that), but creation predicts that creatures will share similarities because they have a common designer. So both views make similar predictions, and therefore that prediction cannot be used to favour one over the other.
Taking that further, such prediction can be used to confirm supernatural explanations. For example, according to evolution, there is a continuum between all the different kinds of animals. According to creation, there are reproductive breaks between different kinds of animals, because they were created separately to reproduce "after their kind". So what do we see? We see reproductive separation, just as the creationary view predicts, and not as the evolutionary view would predict. There are many other such predictions that can be made from the creationary view, and many of which have been confirmed.
"Even firsthand accounts like diaries or news articles have to come from different sources to be considered trustworthy."
Not necessarily, but yes, multiple sources do significantly enhance trustworthiness. But then we have multiple sources for the evidence of Jesus being God.
"it’s not honest to equate evidence from an ancient text as having the same quality of evidence as modern science."
When you're talking about modern science's claims about the unobserved, unmeasurable, unrepeatable past, I disagree. You can't cite repeatability as a strength of science then treat historical science as having equivalent authority.
"... but we’re talking about a God-man coming to Earth ... big claims need big evidence..."
But what makes that a "big claim"? Given that God must exist (else nothing would exist), how is it a big claim that God would come to Earth as man?
"If takes FAR more faith to believe in that versus evolution..."
Absolutely not. The evidence (in total) is very much against evolution, and for God. (That is, goo-to-you evolution, or the evolutionary 'family tree'. If you define evolution as merely "change", then sure, but if that's what evolution is, every creationists is an evolutionist!. That makes the argument farcical.)
"You may see the NT authors as reliable, but a skeptic may reasonably not."
Why not? I'd suggest only because of their bias. Such sceptics are much more sceptical of the NT authors than they of other ancient sources.
"I think it’s a bad choice to assert that they are in a debate, especially when an atheist is using a higher standard for evidence."
But he's not using a higher standard. He's using a wrong standard—a standard that applies to the present and saying that the past doesn't meet that standard. That's illogical.
"Science cannot touch the supernatural."
Yes and no. Science cannot observe, measure, nor test the supernatural itself. However, science can assess explanations that involve the supernatural. For example, are the rock formations due to natural processes, or a global flood, as described in the Bible. Science can't test God, but it can test which explanation of the world's geology stacks up the best. But naturalistic science rules out such explanations even when the evidence supports them, simply because they involve the supernatural, not because they are not testable.
"All you need is enough evidence to make it PLAUSIBLE."
I'd rather say that all I need is enough evidence to make it more likely than not.
"it’s faith plus evidence"
In a sense yes, and perhaps this is getting down to semantics, but I maintain my previous point. It's faith based on evidence. Without evidence, the faith is blind. It's not blind faith + evidence; it's evidence-based faith. The evidence provides a reason to have the faith.
"TLDR: There are better approaches to debating atheists than asserting “evidence.” You are exercising faith. It doesn’t need to be objectively provable, just plausible."
I disagree. Atheists think we have blind faith. We don't, so I correct them by saying that we have evidence. I never deny having faith, but I deny having blind faith, because (non-blind) faith is evidence-based. Part of this is to disabuse them of the incorrect mindset that only scientific evidence counts as evidence. It is the evidence that makes the faith (at least) plausible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RodFleming-World
"do read some books please."
I've read lots. So that's taken care of.
"The Mesopotamian cultural tradition pre-dates anything in Hebrew Scripture."
I explained how it couldn't. Repeating the claim does not make it so.
"It could not be otherwise, since the latter is an oversetting of the former."
Oversetting? What's that?
"We know that the Sumerian myth cycles were written down prior to 3000bc"
No, we don't. Many people might believe that, but that date assumes a secular view of the world.
"we also know that Hebrew Scripture was written between 800bc and 300bc."
Again, no we don't. For one thing, Exodus mentions Egyptian place names that existed in the time of Moses but didn't exist by 800 BC. The idea that they were written in that period has been debunked.
"Do, please, read some books."
How about you read some sources that are not liberal ones?
"a cult is an organised belief system based around a set of beliefs and usually, some powerful characters."
Even by that definition, I wouldn't think atheism is a cult. Yes, they have a set of beliefs, but it's not an organised belief system (well, not atheism in general, but particular atheists groups like Secular Humanism might fit).
Definitions vary (dictionary definitions are very loose), but I've not seen one that involves "some powerful characters". Rather, it's one charismatic leader. By that definition atheism wouldn't qualify either.
The CultWatch organisation defines a cult as a group that "use[s] mind control as part of their day to day practice", and expands on that with "The modern definition of a mind control cult is any group which employs mind control and deceptive recruiting techniques. In other words cults trick people into joining and coerce them into staying. This is the definition that most people would agree with.". Again, I don't see atheism fitting that definition.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@catcollector719
"faith as defined as to believe without good cause, or evidence."
Faith is defined that way by whom? Answer: by atheists. That is not how the Bible uses the term. On the contrary, it cites the importance of evidence. Ergo, you are flatly wrong.
"There is no evidence for god, and plenty for evolution"
Again, flatly wrong. There is plenty of evidence for God, and the evidence for evolution is equivocal, plus there is plenty of evidence that contradicts evolution. For one, we know that nature is incapable of generating the massive amounts of new genetic information that evolution requires.
"If you’re gonna claim that trusting one’s senses of perception and observation is faith..."
I'm not sure what claim I made that you are referring to, but what empirical testing have you done to show that your senses of perception and observation are trustworthy? That is, what such testing have you done that didn't involve using those senses? That is something that you have to accept on faith. Being designed by God gives us reason to believe that (which is one of the reasons that Christians founded science), but being the result of series of accidents does not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kevinwells5812
Oh dear, three excellent responses to Rod Fleming and then you descend into this tripe.
1) "That's because you can't debate science with creationists."
Evidence?
2) "Creationism is a pseudo science that makes unfalsifiable claims."
Evidence?
3) "As soon as you show a creationist is wrong, they just argue God did things a different way."
Evidence?
4) "In science, if a scientist is shown to be wrong, they change their views."
Evidence (that this is universal)? And evidence that creationists don't?
5) "Creationists will never accept that they are wrong."
So no creationist has ever rejected creationism? Then why are there people who claim to have once been creationists but no longer are?
6) "They are the same as flat earthers in that regard."
Evidence for that comparison?
7) "They make up ridiculous, unfalsifiable claims, like there was a white hole…"
You mean like mainstream scientists make up similar unfalsifiable claims about multiverses, dark matter and energy, etc.?
8) "Or they will claim that God changed the radioactive decay rate to make the earth appear older than it actually is."
Evidence (that that is claimed as God's motive)?
9) "Those two are neither testable nor falsifiable."
How do you explain the supporting evidence?
10) "You can never prove them wrong, because what they are arguing is not real science."
Evidence?
11) "And there is no consistency. 100 different creationists will tell you 100 different things that the Flood or the Fall did,…"
And yet every mainstream scientist agrees on everything?
12) "…and they can never be proven wrong, because they will always change their story to match their priors."
Evidence that they will "always", and evidence that mainstream scientists never do?
13) "The consensus among my professors and scientists I have known is that debating with creationists is a waste of time."
Which proves what?
14) "It is also not surprising that he "lost," because his opponent would have been arguing something that could never be proven wrong."
Evidence?
15) "It's the EXACT same mentality as the flat earthers."
Evidence?
16) "…it is ultimately hollow (a pseudo science)…"
Evidence? (Yes, I know I'm repeating, but then so are you).
17) "There is no tolerance in wokeness."
Nor in anticreationism. Now there's a comparison for you.
18) "Now, see, I'm an evangelical Christian, but I accept evolution."
So you're an evangelical Christian who doesn't believe what Genesis clearly and unambiguously stresses, which was affirmed by Jesus?
19) "When Dawkins says evolution is an indisputable fact, he's correct."
Given that it's disputed by real scientists, how is that claim correct?
20) "Creationism is bad science, and it's bad theology."
Evidence (for both claims)?
21) "Sometime in the 70s, some misguided leaders in the evangelical movement decided to hitch their wagon to creationism and spread it broadly."
Evidence that they were misguided?
22) "…evangelical protestant Christians were too fragmented and did not have the scholarly tradition (or deep enough bench) to figure out a way to harmonize their view of scripture with science."
With secular views of deep time and evolution, you mean? Why do you call them, but not creation, science, given that they are all unobserved, untestalbe, past events?
23) "…but you cannot square that with modern science."
Evidence?
24) "There was no global flood."
So the BIble and Jesus got it wrong?
25) "Take any geology course with an open mind and you will see that there is NO evidence for it."
Why should I believe a naturalisti geology course? And what's your evidence that there is no evidence for it? And how do you explain geologists accepting it because of the evidence for it?
26) "We descended from monkeys."
Evidence?
27) "Chimps have 24 chromosomes. We have 23."
Relevance.
28) "Some time after our ancestors split off from the chimps, two of our chromosomes fused."
Evidence? That is, actual hard, observational evidence, not just invented stories to try and prove a view?
29) "How do the creationists explain that?"
THey don't need to explain an unproven claim.
30) "…the creationists spend most of their time cherry picking factoids and attempting to tear them apart…"
Evidence?
31) "…while at the same time constantly changing their position to fit the "evidence." That's not science. In science, you change your view to fit the evidence..."
I love it when critics contradict themselves! Typical of anti-creationists, though.
32) "Creationism affirms a literalist view."
Only where the text was meant to be taken literally. So what's the problem with that?
33) "Creationists start off wanting to believe that,…"
How does that explain the evolutionists who became creationists because of the evidence?
34) "If scripture is not inerrant,…"
So you're suggesting that God could have got it wrong?
35) "OF COURSE they will ALWAYS take scripture even over what can be empirically proved using science."
Evidence? Examples? That is examples where those past events can be proven empirically? And evidence that science ever proves anything?
1
-
@kevinwells5812
36) "They are the same as the flat earthers in that regard."
False premises typically lead to false conclusions.
37) "During a scientific revolution, the old view gets tossed out. We'll probably have one in particle physics. The Standard Model has been proven wrong more and more frequently ... but, evolution isn't going anywhere."
True. But that's because it's a protected species, because it is an alternative view to God.
38) "But you're wrong on creationism."
Evidence?
39) "It was rightfully slapped down as being anti-scientific."
Evidence?
40) "Evolution is no problem for mainline protestants of the Catholic church. It's JUST fundamentalists that take issue."
So how do you explain the Catholic creationists? And do you realise that, like "cult", "fundamentalist" is an ambiguous, often-misused, term?
41) "The science isn't wrong. The creationists are."
Evidence?
42) "I'm NOT saying scripture is wrong."
Given your denial of what it says about creation and the flood, that's exactly what you're doing.
43) "I'm saying the creationist's INTERPRETATION is wrong."
Given that Jesus was a creationist, you're saying that His "interpretation" is wrong too? And Paul's?
44) "They equate their literalist interpretation with the authority of scripture."
Evidence? That is, evidence that they believe that their interpretation is better than an accurate interpretation?
45) "Questioning their interpretation is tantamount to questioning God."
Evidence? Given that they've said that their motive is to accept what God has said over any misunderstandings that they might have?
46) "They claim that scripture is inerrant and infallible…"
As do evangelical Christians generally, because it's the revelation of an infallible, omniscient God. So you're point is?
47) "…they are elevating a book to become the fourth member of the trinity and worshiping it."
Evidence?
48) "Anyone who questions their book is deeply offensive, because they have equated their book to God. But that's NOT TRUE."
Well, you got something right. Your claim is NOT TRUE!
49) "All of the moral truths can STILL be authoritative and correct."
But not the historical claims that Jesus affirmed? So God doesn't get history correct? Okay, I get you now.
50) "I think much of the early parts of Genesis are parable."
Evidence? Or do you really have no basis for that?
51) "They don't have to be literally true in order to be true."
Another self-contradiction.
52) "God still inspired the scriptures."
But got some bits wrong. Yes, I got that.
53) "Also, science and reason are gifts from Him to us."
True. Creationists used Scripture and reason to create science.
54) "There is one truth. We shouldn't get into the business of denying truth in order to fit our preconceptions."
And yet here you are doing just that.
55) "The creationist teachers have done severe damage to the American evangelical church by pedaling their INTERPRETATION as truth."
Evidence? Specially given the scholars who have said that evolution and deep time have undermined Christianity, including turning England from a Christian nation into a pagan nation. Do you want quotes?
56) "Evolution does NOT diminish the Bible or scriptural authority."
Except that it does, as I have just mentioned.
57) "It's not fair to the ancient writers who communicated through epic stories to juxtapose your modern, scientific realism onto their writings."
Evidence that that's the basis of it, specially given the experts in Hebrew agree that the creation and flood accounts are meant to be understood literally?
58) "LOTS of people have gone through unnecessary crises of faith believing it had to be a literal interpretation or nothing."
Actually, many have testified that creation has restored their faith. Personally, it strengthened mine.
59) "The people who are intellectually honest and do the research, they figure it out."
And become creationists. Well, many have at least.
60) "The ones who believe the creationists are believing what they want to hear,…"
Apart from the ones who disagreed, until they found it convincing.
61) "…and it sounds convincing when you are ignorant on the topic and only hear from one side and MUST believe that side or else give up your faith…"
Sorry, have you switched to talking about evolutionists? They're the ones that fit that description, especially given that most have almost no idea of creation.
62) "…they are really no different from the flat earthers."
True, the evolutionists are. Then then the leader of the Flat Earth Society is an evolutionist, the last I heard.
63) "But, there is a better way."
Yes, believe what the Bible clearly, explicitly, and unambiguously teaches.
64) "…and their children don't lose their faith when they see the evidence for evolution in college."
Evidence? Because I've seen evidence to the contrary. And the atheists say that evolution is useful for that.
65) "I'm glad you try to take the high road."
Thank you. It's a pity you didn't do that here, providing a litany of baseless anti-creationist claims with not a whit of actual evidence. Admittedly, I haven't provided much in return, but then it's a long enough response as it is, and given that you haven't provided evidence, I don't see the need to in return. But I can provide evidence or examples pretty-well everything I've claimed in return. But I've asked you for evidence first, so you have the onus to answer that first.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@roberthayes5949
"Manly because you have answered using the Sky media propaganda information."
Translation: 'Because you question my views attacking Sky News, I'm free to ignore your questions.'
Sorry, that's not an excuse.
"So first, so where is the proof that the Labor party and the Australian Greens are in the pocket of Xi Jinping?"
I asked you first. You answer your claim, and then I'll answer yours. But I'll give you a hint: I suspect that I have the same evidence you do.
"Second, no when Rupert looses Australians win."
Sorry, repeating your claim doesn't make it true. Another fail.
"Just this week you party failed to stop the Solomon Government from letting China on there shores. Not a good look."
What's that got to do with Rupert?
"Third and fourth, Rupert is giving big to the LNP."
So? As I pointed out, lots of people give to various parties.
"In money and one side verbal messaging."
And yet Sky has people on both sides, and you seem to ignore the one-sided ABC which is required to be balanced.
"That’s is undeniable."
And yet I just denied it. So you're wrong. It is deniable.
"Scientists by the Hundreds are tell you this is a fact and a desperate situation."
Scientists being paid to have that view. You know, just like you're wrongly accusing Sky of being. If you want to research in favour of global warming, it's not that hard to get a grant (assuming you put a reasonable case). But if you want to research against global warming, you're chances of getting a grant are very slim, despite the merits of your case. So of course you'll get scientists saying that. And yet, despite that, there are also scientists saying the opposite, sometimes at the risk of getting sacked, losing funding, etc.
"Beautiful people like David Attenborough are begging us to take notice."
Okay, so you're happy to cite non-scientists when it suits you. Can I do that too?
"But you want to take what Ruperts Mob want tell you as fact."
Do I? What's your evidence that I take it as fact because I want to and not because it makes sense and has good evidence? Or are you just making up things about me?
"I feel that where you live and what you do for work and your age is definitely a factor in how you feel and see things."
How so?
"Yep I’m voting Australian Greens because I care about you."
I don't doubt that's your motive. But the Greens don't care about me, as I said.
"Cause Rupert don’t and Scott don’t either."
What's your evidence that they care less than the Green's do?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tammyheffner1354
"He didn’t get all those votes. The evidence was shown for everyone but a lot didn’t believe what they were seeing..."
I'm aware of the claims and of much of the evidence. Most of it was never tested in court (in some cases because the courts didn't want to touch it). Arizona did do a very detailed analysis of the voting in one county, and found many problems, but not enough to have changed the result in that county.
I'm also aware of evidence of dead people voting, of the problems with voter rolls and mailed-out ballots, with ballot harvesting and so on. And yes, much of that was true. But again, not necessarily enough to have changed the outcome. I also agree that the voting pattern was quite suspicious, but suspicion is not evidence. My point was that you don't need to rely on any of those judicially-untested claims to show that the election was "rigged", or manipulated. The Democrats claimed Russian interference in the 2016 election, which was proved to be false, but the clear interference of the mainstream media and social media, even just in the case of the Hunter Biden laptop, is clearly election interference which the Democrats and their media supporters would be making a huge deal about if it wasn't favouring their side.
I've also seen the footage of the open side door of the Capitol and people just walking in. And yes, the entire January 6 committee is a beat up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@simonharris4873
"Greta did exactly what this boy is doing, only with a different subject matter, and Paul accused her parents of using their child to fight their own political battles."
Assuming that Paul did that (and I can believe that he would have), then you've made a reasonable (if not conclusive) point. There is still a small difference, in that this student was defending a personal attack on him, unlike Greta, but I'm not sure that that detail really damages your point.
And while this is not a defence of the hypocrisy you claim, I would say Paul's error was not in supporting this student, but in his particular criticism of Greta. Sure, she is probably repeating things that her parents taught her, but I think it's pretty clear that she's doing what she does of her own volition.
"And if you weren't such a troll, you'd have seen that for yourself."
Given that I'm not a troll, and that you did not previously give Greta as a comparison point, I reject that as sheer nonsense and an abusive ad hominem.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blackriver2531
"you are the commentor who hates trans kids."
Except that I don't, so you are flatly wrong.
"You compared being a trans kid to bulimia or anorexia or believing that they can fly."
Yes, I likened them in one respect—that they are wrong about what they believe about themselves. Which they are, so how does that make your case?
"Obviously you're transphobic."
On the contrary, obviously you don't understand logic and words. Disagreeing with a viewpoint is not the same has having an irrational fear (phobia) of it. Basically, you are blatantly accusing someone of being something that they are not, on the basis of a false equivalence, apparently not understanding what words mean. This is name-calling, or guilt by false labelling, a completely illogical reason.
I'll be happy to accept your apology for your false and slanderous accusation.
"the scientific consensus is conclusive, transition is the only proven way to increase the quality of life of trans kids. "
Simply false. Or perhaps you can point to the rigorous scientific papers that demonstrate that conclusively.
1
-
1
-
@Shadow-go5ky
"because you're transphobic"
Except that, as I have pointed out already, I do NOT have an irrational fear of trans people. You are simply name-calling, and without providing any valid reason.
"if you think that being trans is anything more than normal??"
I'm not even sure what "more than normal" means in this context.
"These are real people with real lives you're talking about"
Yes. I agree. So what's your point?
"what causes trans suicide rates to go up broski, not cool dude."
One significant reason that they have high suicide rates is because they are trying to harmonise two contradictory ideas, that they are a particular sex but wrongly think that they are the other sex. This is what is known as gender dysphoria. That is, this particular reason has nothing to do with what other people think; it's a conflict between what they think and reality.
"Not very jesus of you."
Nonsense. Jesus is "the way, and the truth, and the life" (John 14:6) Jesus does not endorse lies or falsehoods. Yes, Jesus is also love, but the loving thing to do is speak the truth, not endorse falsehoods.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SandyGooen
"one debate is over views. The other is over personhood."
Ignoring the possibility that there might be someone, somewhere who denies a trans person's personhood, that claim is so ludicrous I don't know whether to laugh or cry. No, it is not over personhood. People who disagree with trans people don't deny that they are people. My employer has a policy that says that we have to respect the views of trans people. I objected to the policy, but in so doing say that I respect all people because they are people, not because of particular views they are hold. I was told that my views are not acceptable and was told that I could not share my views with my work colleagues. So I'm not allowed to tell my work colleagues that I respect all people! That is the sort of idiocy promoted by trans activists, and completely contradicts your claim.
"Christians in the west are so desperate to be oppressed. You’re really not."
Oh yes we are. We are vilified, discriminated against, fired from our jobs, denied jobs, denied membership in organisations, told to keep our views to ourselves (see my previous paragraph), taken to court and sued, and so on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@turnerfamilyinozi
"The real groomer problem appears to lie within the Republican Party."
How so?
"Kenny was lying, you can check it out for yourself."
Lying about what?
"Why do you think Trans story hours has any thing to do with grooming?"
It's teaching young children wrong ideas about sex.
"Ali Alexander, Milo Yiannopolous, Jason Boebart, Matt Schlapp, Rueben Verastigua. ... Donald Trump, Roy Moore, Missouri Republicans, Matt Gaetz, Dennis Hastet, Jim Jordan."
What are all those names supposed to prove or support?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Rank choice voting basically benefits the "consolidated" party."
Actually, the opposite is true. With first past the post, you'd be wasting your vote if you voted for someone unlikely to win. With preferential voting (which ranked choice seems to be another term for), you can safely vote for the person you'd most prefer, knowing that if they don't get in, your second preference can be counted instead (to overly simplify it). That means that you can have more choice.
"If one party only runs a single candidate and the other fields a dozen, that's an instant win for one side, ..."
Again, the opposite is true. That would be true for first past the post, which would split the votes for one side and so so the "consolidated" side gets in even if most people prefer someone else. With preferential voting, that is avoided.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"[why] are our politicians wasting time on this?"
Because it's an important issue. It's literally killing people, and it's part of an attempt to undermine Western Civilisation.
"I mean, seriously, how often has this taken place in Australia?"
More than the mainstream media usually bothers to tell you about.
"I haven't even heard of the person from NZ - which is exactly my point!!!!"
I have, and I'm not a sports follower. So I'm not sure that your ignorance of it is particularly relevant.
"When we are talking about single people here and there, then surely there are more important things to look into..."
I think that undermining Western Civilisation is rather important. And that's not to minimise the other things you mention.
"What do you mean "too"?"
(I presume) he means that we can tackle this problem as well as other problems.
"The problem I have, is that I'm seeing NO action on anything else, but this!"
I see almost no action on this until now! In fact I reckon that there has been more action on most of the other things you mentioned.
"...the edge is so thin at the moment that it's smaller than a razor,..."
No, it's not. You already have government schools teaching this stuff.
"Also, let's wait and see what the sporting organisations have to say - after all, I would have thought that the IOC would have blocked the Kiwi from competing in the female events. If the issue is being handled at the organisational level,..."
The sporting organisations are either too afraid too, or are run by woke people. They are not dealing with it. The IOC has not blocked it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jakeg3296
"Dictators are not exclusively atheist."
I never said that they were. I'm sure that the are or have been non-atheists dictators too, but atheism says that there is no God to set the rules, so atheists are free to decide for themselves that the rules are. So when you get one into power like those ones (not so much in a democracy), then there's no bounds, unlike a Christian leader. That's partly what the Magna Carta was about—limiting the power of the English kings on the grounds that they, too, were answerable to God.
"Crimes of humanity are irrelevant to religion or atheism."
As I've said, Christians (at least the ones acting like Christians) are not like those leaders, because they know that they are answerable to God, who sets the standards. Atheists, who are acting consistently with atheism (unlike many atheists raised in historically-Christian societies) don't have those standards—they can make their own.
"Genghis Kahn or any of the ancient leaders were obviously religious."
I'm not defending false religions (which includes atheistic religions, such as Scientology, Zen Buddhism, Confucianism, Secular Humanism, Marxism); I'm only talking about Christianity.
"There’s also the possibility that some leaders are religious only for appearances sake"
Absolutely!
"Also hypocrisy is more common with the religious."
I doubt that's true, unless you're suggesting that atheists always stick their standards because they have none!
"I’m in favour of secular societies, ..."
Which effectively means atheist. Keep God out, and that's what you have. So I'm glad to see you promoting your own atheistic views (not).
"If not , religious doctrine can create persecution against minorities."
Oh, atheist/secular regimes can very easily do that too.
"Isn’t there something in the Christian doctrine about worshiping by oneself."
Yes there is. In the negative—it says that you should worship with others.
"Why does Christianity or any religion need to be public..."
Because God is meant to be the basis of both individuals and societies, and because Christians are instructed to evangelise.
"not everyone wants proselytism. Especially atheists ."
True. So they try to impose that view on Christians. But what do you mean by that word anyway? That we should never tell you about God? Or that we should not force you to believe? You can't force someone to believe, and Christians don't do that anyway.
"Of course guessing you’re probably a Christian you would welcome persecution or antagonism against the other, particularly non believers."
Absolute not (welcoming it against others). See my line above about not forcing people. Christians, however, receive a lot of persecution and antagonism. In fact Christianity is the most persecuted religious group in the world.
"Your posts are indicative of your intolerance."
Says the person who indicates that they wouldn't tolerate being told about God, and who wants Christians to keep their views to themselves!
1
-
@jakeg3296
"the majority is never the most persecuted ."
Christians are no longer in a majority in most Western countries.
"Christians are only persecuted in countries where they are in the minority and by other religions."
There is persecution of Christians in Australia by the left. Christians have been taken to court, fired, and publicly vilified for expressing Christian views. I have been threatened with the sack for expressing my views.
"When in the majority they are the persecutors..."
As a general rule, I don't believe that there's good evidence for that.
"...just as blacks in America suffer systemic racism..."
Which they don't.
"... look no further than the previous point about atheist politicians in America, they don’t dare come out, otherwise their careers are over ."
People not wanting to vote them into office is hardly persecution.
"Christianity is the only true religion, doesn’t it occur to you that the thousands of other religions also think they are the only true religion."
I'm well aware that most people (including atheists) think that they have the correct view. But while obviously they can't all be right, it simply doesn't follow that none are right, and therefore it doesn't follow that Christianity is not the right one. To show that it's not right, you need to provide evidence, not just point out the obvious that most most be wrong.
"Your other assertion , evil doers ( I’m paraphrasing) are not true Christians . "
Christians are supposed to follow God's will. God condemns evil. People calling themselves Christian who are not following God's will in major ways (I'm not saying that they have to be perfect; nobody is) are likely not real Christians.
"Care to explain why pedophilia is disproportionate with religious leaders particularly Christianity. ?"
First, I'm not convinced that it is. The left strongly tends to play up Christian's failing in that way, while downplaying others being just as bad. Second, a lot of that was in a particular church organisation that doesn't allow married priests, which may be a factor. It's also been pointed out (likely with a fair bit of truth) that it's not the priests who are paedophiles so much as paedophiles have found that being a priest provides good opportunities. There's probably other factors too.
"Oh they are not true Christians doesn’t pass the smell test ."
There's a good chance that they are not. How would you judge them? Simply by what they call themselves? That's a rather trusting attitude for people who have proved to be untrustworthy.
1
-
@jakeg3296
1. "Religion belongs in church not in the political domain. "
Says who? Why are "religious" beliefs to be kept out of the political domain, but not other beliefs? Why is that not discrimination?
2. "The USA wouldn’t elect an atheist, ..."
That's their choice.
3. "It’s not healthy for one who welcomes Armageddon or an after life to have the nuclear button ."
Christians don't welcome Armageddon. And Christians are against taking life, except for cases such as self-defence etc., so Christians would be the best ones to have control of the button. Atheists, on the other hand, have no such underlying basis for not killing, which means when they get absolute power, they are the most murderous of the lot, with Stalin, Mao, etc. being outstanding examples.
4. "Politicians should be addressing policies not superstitions ."
It's not superstition.
5. "What’s the bet you wouldn’t support an openly Muslim politician."
Of course not. I support a Christian view, not other views such as Islam, atheism, etc.
6. "Unlike Christians the few Muslim politicians have the decency not to overly advertise their beliefs."
Decency? Or are worried about not being elected? And I don't actually see many politicians doing it either. For example, Morrison didn't do this—his critics did.
7. "In the Middle Ages every one was openly religious and answerable to God . Any true atheist dared not come out of the closet ."
Not everyone. But there were not many actual atheists, as there was no intellectual basis for it.
8. "As science has advanced “god “ has retreated."
I've heard that slogan before. I don't see any substance to it.
9. "Why don’t you stop believing in damaging religious beliefs and join the 21st century?"
I don't believe in damaging religious beliefs. I believe in God, and Christianity is not a damaging belief, but the basis of Western Civilisation.
10. "it doesn’t matter that you’re a fantasist ..."
I'm not.
11. "Look at the damage evangelicals have caused in the USA endorsing a mendacious megalomaniac."
What damage? You're looking at this through the jaundiced lenses of the left.
12. "Your comment only referenced atheist leaders so the implication was atheism was unhealthy in a leader ."
Yes. And your response made out that I was saying that all dictators were atheists, which I wasn't saying.
1
-
@jakeg3296
13. "Like most god fearers you are disingenuous, given enough rope with more comments you will expose your hypocrisy. "
Like most critics, you have throw-away lines that have not substance but make good sound bites.
14. "Atheists don’t decide for themselves they live by the norms of society as much as anyone religious or not. "
But they decide for themselves to live by the norms of society. Except when they don't. Christians can say that they live by God's standards, even if they conflict with the norms of society.
15. "They don’t need the carrot of an afterlife or eternal punishment to be good to their fellow humans..."
Neither do Christians. They do it out of love for their fellow humans, following God's example.
16. "...it comes with respect and solidarity with the species , it’s in the DNA."
No, it's not in the DNA. That's invention.
17. "Religion breeds hypocrisy and persecution against the other."
That may be true of some religions, including atheist ones, but a Christian following God's standards doesn't.
18. "Final point I want the religious to keep their views to themselves is entirely different than being intolerant to them."
A desire is different to intolerance, I agree. But it's a desire to be discriminatory, unless you want everyone to keep their views to themselves. But here you are expressing your own views, so that's hypocrisy.
19. "...don’t proselytise and I won’t criticise."
And yet here you are criticising simply because I express views that you don't agree with.
20. "Eighty million Americans thought the scam artist was unfit for office also. "
What scam artist? Biden? Trump wasn't, so if 80 million thought that he was, they were deceived. And the deceit of the mainstream media and social media been demonstrated, so there is no argument there.
21. "The majority of developed nations have a separation of church and state ..."
Yes, because that's a Christian principle that the state not control the church.
22. " “I need to show evidence Christianity is not the right religion? Huh ? Do you not understand the concept of “ the burden of proof “ ? "
I don't know who you're quoting, but I didn't say that. And yest, I do understand the concept. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If you claim that Christianity is false, that God doesn't exist, etc., then you have the burden of proof.
23. "In what western countries are Christians in the minority?"
Rather, in what Western countries are they in a majority? America perhaps. Not much else.
24. "If you’ve been proselytising at work and getting paid for it by your employer of course you’re likely to be threatened with the sack ."
I wasn't. I was objecting to my work proselytising its radical-left views.
1
-
@dougobrien8631
"...if the leader of our country believes that drought,floods ,bush fires etc are an act of God how can he possibly make sound judgement on what's needed when he believes he's undoing his makers work."
I wouldn't expect that he does believe that. He would believe that God is in control, and might allow those things for some reason, but even Jesus Himself "undid" some bad things that were in the world.
"If someone could show me the slightest bit of proof about there religion I'd take a look at it,but in 74 yrs they haven't managed to..."
I find that very hard to believe. The problem might be what you would expect as "proof", and how readily you dismiss any evidence offered. Here's some for you to dismiss out of hand (or, if you're genuine, cause you to agree that I've given you some evidence):
1. The fact that anything exists at all requires that there be a cause for what exists. As it is accepted that the universe (i.e. all of matter/energy/space/time) cannot have existed for ever, it requires a cause outside the universe. That cause must, by definition, be super-natural.
2. Living things have enormous amounts of genetic information. We know from observation that information (as opposed to noise) only comes from an intelligence. So the intelligence that created the genetic information must precede living things. That either means God, or super-intelligent aliens, except then you have to explain where those aliens came from. (You don't have to explain where God came from, because God, being spirit/supernatural, has no beginning.)
3. God came to earth as a man 2000 years ago, performed miracles, and after being executed returned to life, proving His claim to be God. Being alive after he was executed was witnessed by hundreds and recorded by several, making it about the most-attested event of ancient history. This resurrection caused his disheartened followers to gain new impetus and they went on to change the world, making it a much better place.
"...so I remain gobsmacked at the stupidity of religion no matter which one of there God's they blindly follow"
Except Christians are not stupid, and have the runs on the board at being intelligent, starting universities, founding modern science, and producing great results for much of the last 2000 years. And they do this because of evidence; it's not blind faith like the atheists who think that God doesn't exist.
"...should be ashamed of themselves over the havoc and death there [rubbish] causes."
Umm, it's the atheists who should be ashamed of themselves, with atheists responsible for more deaths in the 20th century than all other religions put together. And that's without even counting the abortion holocaust.
1
-
1
-
@jakeg3296
1. Please define what you mean by separation of church and state, and what you mean by secular society.
2. "You’re not doing that , and you have already confirmed you’re a fantasist and a bigot"
No, I'm not rejecting the idea of the state not controlling the church. And no, I have not confirmed that I'm a fantasist and a bigot. You, however, have shown that you readily resort to insults and name-calling without justifying doing so.
"Oh any beliefs in the supernatural are classed as superstition."
Only by bigots.
"God’s are supernatural. Ie non existent, "
Evidence? No, I didn't think you had any.
"Go and proselytise elsewhere."
So you're so bigoted that you think it's okay for you to tell Christians where to go, but it's not okay for Christians to express their views? Sorry, I can't agree to your views. They are inconsistent and baseless.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@suzyvegalicious5646
"please go away."
No. You're the one who made a claim (accusation) that you refuse to back up.
"I made the effort to find out exactly what is going on and what the truth is by doing my research."
Then why can't you present some of that here to back up your claim?
"You are just full of it and playing games."
No, I'm not. I'm challenging you on your claim, and not only are you failing to back it up, you're now abusing me for daring to ask. That's the tactic of someone who has nothing to back their claim.
"The whole world knows about the genocide taking place in Gaza and the horrors taking place."
What genocide? You have failed to produce a whit of evidence. And others here have disagreed with you too. On the contrary, as I have mentioned, there is evidence to the contrary, such as the evidence that the IDF contacts civilians in Gaza to warn them of attacks so that they can get to safety.
"Even millions of Jews are aware of this horror story and standing for the innocent Palestinian people."
Evidence for those millions please. Although your track record on providing evidence suggests that you will refuse.
As for the "innocent" Palestinian people, those people voted in Hamas, and polls show that a majority still support the terrorists, and even the son of a Hamas founder says that the Palestinian people are not innocent.
"I am one myself."
Okay, you're one. Where are the supposed "millions"? And where is the evidence to back your view?
"I merely stated something which is a fact."
Except that you're failing to provide evidence that it IS a fact, despite, as you now further claim, being familiar with that supposed evidence for yourself!
"Do not speak to me anymore about this subject."
I see no reason to allow you to get away with your baseless accusations. Please stop doing that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@adrianthom2073
"it very easy to prove the Abrahamic God Yahweh does not exist."
And yet your attempt fails.
"The Bible makes specific claims about the natural world that can be tested."
True. Despite many atheists claiming that one of the problems with the biblical view is that it's untestable. That's supposedly why creationism is unscientific—because it can't be tested. I'm glad you at least agree that some of it can be tested.
One of the claims that the Bible makes is that living things will reproduce "after their kind". And that is exactly what we see! Dogs give birth to other dogs, not cats, for example. I wonder why that would be? Oh, yes, the genetic code that science discovered, that encodes genetic information, and information only comes from an intelligence, confirming that we were, in fact, intelligently designed! So where the claims can be tested, they are shown to be true!
"When we test these claims (ie, Genesis Creation Story), we find me all the claims fail to match reality."
What there is a problem with is testing (in a scientific way) claims about the past. The scientific method involves observations, measurements, testing, and repeatability. But we can't observe the past, we can't measure the past, we can't test the past, and we can't repeat the past. So no, we have not scientifically tested the creation account. Rather, scientists wedded to a naturalistic view (a bias) have invented an alternative story, rejecting evidence that doesn't fit their story.
"You seem to think that rejection reality for the belief in fantasy is sufficient that Yahweh exist."
I don't reject reality. And the biblical account is not fantasy. It is observed history.
1
-
@adrianthom2073
"please define biblical kind?"
A type that cannot interbreed with other types.
"So if a person is infertile and unable to reproduce, are they a different kind?"
Of course not.
"The Bible does not describe reality but fantasy."
I've given you evidence that is consistent with reality. You respond with a bald assertion of your own evidence-free belief.
"How can you claim science is rejecting evidence that doesn’t fit its story?"
I've seen plenty of examples of where they do. But also, they admit it. Dr. Scott Todd wrote in the world's leading science journal, Nature, (my bolding): " Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." So the evidence doesn't matter, apparently.
"Do you even know what science is and it works?"
Yes, of course.
"Creationism is the rejection of any evidence that contradicts the Bible."
Then please cite some that of that evidence that creationism supposedly rejects. And I mean evidence, not beliefs of naturalistic scientists. That is, some observed fact of nature.
"SORRY BUT THAT IS NOT HOW YOU FIND TRUTH."
I agree, which is (a) why creationists don't do that, and (b) why naturalistic science is wrong.
"If evidence is found that contradicts the Bible, then whatever part of the Bible the evidence contradicts, that part is wrong."
True. But the evidence doesn't. It does, however, contradict a naturalistic view. I've already given you an example.
"And you will find that all claims the Bible makes regarding the natural world are wrong ..."
No, I have not found that. And you haven't shown any that are.
"...we have all the evidence to prove it’s wrong."
Then why haven't you provided any?
"Sorry reality does not match the claims of the Bible."
And yet I've given you two examples of reality matching the Bible. So someone's in denial.
"But the answer why is very simple. The Bible is a work of fiction."
What's your evidence for that? You seem big on claims but small on evidence.
"Information does not require a designer."
That's a bald assertion. Can you give me an example of information that we've observed forming without an intelligence?
1
-
@adrianthom2073
"if the Biblical definition of kind is a species that can interbreed."
I didn't use the word "species" which has a different definition.
"Then how can you then claim that a person who is infertile the same kind, when you just define that a kind is something that can interbreed / bring fourth?"
Because exceptions don't make the rule. The same applies to 'species', a common definition of which is two types of creatures that can interbreed in their natural environment. So does that mean that a human who is infertile is not the same species as another human? Of course not.
"How do you explain ring species?"
Easily. Although I should clarify the definition I gave. The biblical definition I gave referred to their original ability. However, as creatures have lost genetic information over time, they have, in some cases, become unable to interbreed with other creatures that they could originally interbreed with. Or in some cases they potentially can interbreed, but don't interbreed for various reasons. So ring species are all actually the same kind that could, once, freely interbreed.
"What kind is a horse?"
A horse kind? The question is unclear.
"What is the moon?"
You don't know?
"DNA forms without the need of a designer."
DNA is formed by biological processes that copy DNA from other DNA. But what evidence do you have that DNA itself didn't need a designer?
"I have provided you plenty of evidence the Bible is fictional."
No, you haven't.
"It’s claims do not match reality."
I have given you evidence that they do. And you have not shown that evidence to be wrong.
"Anything that contradicts the Bible is dismissed and rejected by Creationism."
Repeating your claim is not an argument. And I have given you evidence that naturalistic science does that. Which again, you have not refuted.
"You can see this in any Creationist website statement if faith."
No, you can't. And I note that you don't quote any such statement of faith to show that they do.
"Please advise how Creationism is accurate and the natural science wrong?"
I already have. Why are you pretending I haven't?
"No data points to an intelligent designer."
As I have already given you some, you're simply in denial there.
"And science currently is incapable of testing the supernatural."
I never suggested otherwise. But you yourself said that we can test biblical claims.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@adrianthom2073
" what evidence do you have that DNA does need a designer?"
I've already answered that.
"We can test biblical claims,..."
I've already addressed that. Yes, some we can. Others we can't (scientifically at least) because they occurred in the unobservable, untestable, unrepeatable, past.
"...like it’s claims regarding the moon, how stars were created and how life evolved."
It makes no claims about how life evolved, because it didn't. And how do you test the claim that God spoke the sun and stars into existence? Do you invent a time machine and go back in time and observe it happening differently? Or do you invent a story about how it happened naturalistically and hunt for evidence that you can selectively use to support your claim? Like claiming that stars form from the collapse of gas clouds, even though we know gas expands, not collapses? Or that gas could be compressed into a small space by the shock wave of an exploding supernova, which requires stars to make stars? Oops!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@birgittabirgersdatter8082
"It hasn’t been around long enough for anyone to prove that it is “safe”"
They have been used on millions around the world, and that has proved their safety. You're talking about long-term safety, but I'm not even sure that should be an issue in the sense that the vaccines prime your immune system and it's your immune system that is the long-term solution; the RNA vaccines shouldn't have long-term problems because RNA doesn't last very long; that's why it has to be deep frozen.
"a huge number of people have been harmed or killed by it"
Compared to the number that have taken them, no, that's not true.
"it is not “effective” either because it does absolutely nothing to prevent the spread and you can still get sick and you can still die."
They reduce the severity of the illness, so to that extent at least they are effective.
"I reserve the right to determine which risk I will accept"
I already agreed.
"...a virus with a 99,8% recovery rate for those who actually get sick from it, and not everyone does, doesn’t justify the risks of the so-called vaccine."
The recovery rate depends on other factors, including age. I tend to agree that there is not much point in young people getting vaccinated, but older people certainly should.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marcrud1250
"Her coherent words say quite a lot. Far from crazy and not who you want to call out..."
I wouldn't call her crazy or incoherent, but she's wrong. First, Vance did not have a go at childless cat ladies. He had a go at the Democrats having so many childless women.
Second, her comments are based on her left-leaning views. She thinks that wars, climate change, and democracy are more important than "childless cat ladies", but a) he was talking about the importance of the family, something that underlies the well-being of society, and b) climate change and democracy are leftist scare tactics. It's the left that is endangering democracy, and although the climate changes, the whole climate change agenda is nothing but an anti-democratic scare tactic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@indiathylane2158
"It is my life."
Repeating your claim does not make it true.
"God doesn't exist ..."
What's your evidence that He doesn't exist? Because I know of plenty of evidence that He does exist.
"...except in the mind of the superstitious."
Nonsense. Belief in God has been and is held by many, many, very intelligent and non-superstitious people.
"And you're a hypocrite, it is because you don't like it."
Simply telling me I'm wrong without showing that I'm wrong carries no weight, and certainly doesn't make me a hypocrite.
"God is your invention,..."
Nonsense. The idea of God has been around a lot longer than me.
"People DO have the right to kill me,..."
Another evidence-free claim.
"...if I face a terminal painful illness and if I ask them to."
Legally, in some jurisdictions, that is correct. But morally, no, you do not have that right, and the jurisdictions did not have the right to legally grant you that right.
"Again, this is you forcing your views onto somebody else because you don't like it."
Again, repeating your claim does not make it true.
I gave you reasons for my position (God doesn't allow it). You've provided no evidence for your position other than the evidence-free assertion that God doesn't exist. It is true that I haven't (yet) given you any evidence for God, but that I have already challenged you to support your claim ("What is pathetic about it?"), but you've not provided evidence for your position. You have the "burden of proof" to support your (prior) claim before I have any burden to support my subsequent claim.
So, what is your evidence for God's non-existence?
1
-
1
-
@indiathylane2158
"1, I haven't repeated my claim. The above was the first time I said it."
Sorry, you're right. I was confusing you with the opening poster.
"2, You denying it doesn't make it false."
Denying what? True, denying something doesn't make it false, but I never said that it did. But then claiming it's so doesn't make it true either. If someone can claim without evidence, then I can deny without evidence.
"3, and here's where we know you'll do some fancy footwork, please show evidence god exists."
Why, when you won't show evidence that He doesn't? You made the claim that I challenged, so you have the onus to back your claim.
"4, you pull the usual slimy [deleted] of making a statement you don't support, but want those with opposing views to support or prove their claim."
No, that was you. You claimed that God doesn't exist, but won't support that, wanting me with my opposing view to support my claim. See more below.
"First. It's a trick very obvious to all readers. You made the assertion first, it's up to you to provide proof."
Any assertions I made were in response to the opening poster; he was first. But see more below.
" 'God made the earth and we're on the earth' is not proof. Or evidence."
I completely agree. But then I never said that, did I?
"5, you're a hypocrite again, pulling the same stunt.You claim people are wrong but provide no supporting argument."
I provided as much supporting argument as they did. But it seems that you only expect me, not them, to provide supporting argument. That would be the hypocrisy.
"6, you even misquote me. I never said 'truly pathetic excuse'. Another grubby tactic,..."
No, not a grubby tactic, but an honest mistake. Again, I confused you with the original poster, who did say that. Again, I apologise for confusing you with him.
"...along with refusing to support your own opinions while repeatedly demanding others provide theirs."
I'm happy to support my own claims, except when the person demanding that support won't support their claims. Again, see more below.
"7, you know you're stuck in a hole on the god thing,..."
No, I don't know that I'm stuck in a hole. You're imagining that.
"8, I haven't made a prior claim. I was responding to yours. Once again, the burden of proof falls upon you."
Again, that was me confusing you with the original poster. However, although you responded to my claims that were made before you made yours, you didn't in your original comment demand evidence for my claims. Instead, you simply asserted your view. I then challenged you to support your claims. So I challenged you to provide evidence before you challenged me to provide evidence. You, therefore, have the burden of proof in this case.
But I'll throw you a bone. One piece of evidence for God is that anything exists at all. The alternative is that the universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere. That is clearly a denial of cause and effect. That the universe began to exist requires a cause outside the universe. And God is the only candidate that fits the bill.
Now, what's your evidence for your claim that "God doesn't exist ..." (and all your other claims that I've challenged).
"9, ivareskesner makes a great point. If he wants VAD, he decides if it's murder."
Why?
"Who would know better than the person involved?"
The omniscient creator of humans.
"Not me, not you, and not god."
Why wouldn't the omniscient (knowing everything) God know better?
1
-
1
-
@ivareskesner2019
"No. I said using it being a sin is a pathetic excuse."
But didn't say why, even after I challenged you on it.
"Because sin, just like God, is a claim that has never been proven."
But what's your evidence that they have never been proven? Because I would argue that God has been proven, many times over (although my argument does rest somewhat on what is meant by "prove").
"So now you have to prove two things. God and sin, if you want a fair argument."
Not really, as you go on to admit.
"Although I will settle for you just proving that God exists..."
What do you mean by "proving"? In logic, proof depends on the truth or otherwise of the premises. In science, there is no such thing as proof. In a criminal court case, proof is where the evidence convinces the judge or jury "beyond reasonable doubt", which means that it's actually biased in favour of freeing a guilty man over punishing an innocent man, but doesn't require absolutely no doubt. In a civil court case, proof is where the evidence convinces the judge or jury that the claim is more likely true than not. Which of course depends on the judge or jury's willingness to accept the evidence.
The fact is, there is evidence that has convinced many sceptics that God exists, which means that God's existence has been proved many times over. But whether you are sufficiently objective and open-minded to be convinced is something that I cannot yet tell.
"After you prove God exists we can decide why you think he gets to own me like livestock."
What makes you think that He thinks that you are like livestock?
"But let's get there first. Now for proof of God."
For starters, how about one bit of evidence, for God (which I've already given to india thylane above), given that your only rationale for your "truly pathetic excuse" claim is your evidence-free claim that God has never been proven.
One piece of evidence for God is that anything exists at all. The alternative is that the universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere. That is clearly a denial of cause and effect. That the universe began to exist requires a cause outside the universe. And God is the only candidate that fits the bill.
So, over to you. What's your evidence that God's existence has never been proven? (And for your claim that He thinks you are like livestock?)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EL_Duderino68
"You want examples fine:"
I want evidence, but examples are evidence, so yes.
"Advocates of child sex abuse survivors have slammed Sky News commentator Andrew Bolt for appearing to defend convicted child sex offender Peter Kehoe..."
First, you quote critics of him. Did he actually defend Kehoe? You don't say. Apparently the allegations are enough. But as you've seen, I want evidence, not allegations.
Second, how does that show that he's against democracy or against the Golden Rule? Or that he's not sincere?
"Eatock v Bolt..."
Again, how does that show that he's against democracy or the Golden Rule, or that he's not sincere?
Also, he actually showed that he had been treated unfairly in that case, and that the judge had got some facts wrong, and, as I've already pointed out, one of the complainants later apologised to him.
1
-
@EL_Duderino68
"OK, You believe the world was created 6000 years ago."
Yes, I go with the evidence.
"Wow, most Christians I know don't even believe that..."
True, there are many who have been compromised on that. But also many, including many scientists, who accept that.
"Again You can write what you want but what do you do with your life? What you do with your life is not important?"
It's important, but how is it important in this discussion?
"Is that not a big part of how we elect our "single source of power" as you put it."
My job? No. And no, I did not use the phrase "single source of power".
"Are you embarrassed and keeping it a secret?"
Not at all. I just don't like people I'm debating with going off on tangents.
"You obviously know how sketchy that seems."
On the contrary, you obviously don't know how pathetic that seems to be asking apparently-irrelevant questions when you've spent so much time refusing to answer my questions about your claims.
"Oh I forgot to write how the Golden Rule must be a Christian Invention since it was directly mentioned specifically so many times in the Bible or is that Zero times?"
I quoted where the Golden Rule was mentioned in the Bible. That is, the principle was mentioned, not the name "Golden Rule". You yourself claimed that it didn't originate with Christianity, and you were obviously referring to the principle, not the name. So why are you moving the goalposts now? The name itself is apparently a "Christian invention", having originated "in the early 17th century in Britain by Anglican theologians and preachers" according to Wikipedia.
"I guess if you think the world was created 6,000 years ago actual history must not seem real to you."
On the contrary, it makes history seem all the more real. Instead of thinking that such-and-such happened ages ago in the distant past, realising that it happened a lot more recently than one previously thought make it seem that much more real.
And as I said above, I believe that because that's what the preponderance of evidence supports.
1
-
@EL_Duderino68
"Bolt has never ever done anything wrong seems to be your position. You can see why I might think that right?"
Yes, I can see why you might think that—because for you any defence of someone you disagree with shows unwavering admiration. You made three allegations in your opening comment. I challenged you on them. You have not shown any of them to have any foundation. You made a vague claim about separation of powers, which I addressed. You then tried a different approach, citing what other critics of him have said (not evidence), and citing some facts about him that didn't actually support your claims.
For the record, I disagree with Bolt on several things, but there have also been others where I have initially disagreed, but had to reconsider once I saw the evidence he produced to make his case. And that is one of the things I do admire about him—that he provides evidence to back his claims (unlike you).
"To quote you "the judge had got some facts wrong" Wow. It's obvious you will never actually accept anything I say if you don't accept what a judge says."
So are you saying that you'll accept everything every judge ever says? Do you think that they are infallible? (Of course you'd then have to explain why some judges have their rulings overturned by a higher court, as happened in the Pell case where Bolt disagreed with the lower court judges.)
At the time of the court case, Bolt, despite being legally restricted in what he could say, produced actual evidence that the judge got some of his facts wrong.
"What constitutes evidence in your mind?"
Facts that can be shown to support (not necessarily prove) a case.
1
-
@EL_Duderino68
"What are facts in your mind? I asked you that already but you dodged answering."
No, you didn't ask that. You asked what is evidence in my mind, and I answered. But in both cases, the question is very broad and hard to answer in a few words. So here's more than a few words!
I guess a fact is something that can be shown to be true, on the basis of evidence, while evidence is, according to my previous answer, a fact that supports a case. That might sound circular, but it's not because we're not talking about the same facts and evidence all the time. So if we start with something we consider to be a fact, then that fact might be evidence supporting a claim. If that fact is convincing as evidence, then that evidence becomes a fact (in one's mind) that might then be further evidence for another claim, and so on.
So fact A is evidence for B, and if B is then considered a fact, that becomes evidence for C, and so on.
To give a hypothetical example from Bolt and his claims about Pascoe, if we accept fact A that a given document is Pascoe's birth certificate, then that might be evidence of claim B that Pascoe is the child of two Europeans (i.e. not aborigines), and then that fact B of his non-aboriginality is evidence of C, that Pascoe is a liar about his aboriginality.
So, working backwards, if you make claim C (e.g. something about Bolt), and I ask for evidence, then you could quote "fact" B of something that he's supposedly done that supports your claim. I might then ask for evidence of B, and you could then cite fact A. That could go on for some time, or it might be that at some point (e.g. A) you produce some evidence that I accept as factual.
Of course what that evidence might be could be all sorts of things. It might be an admission by Bolt, or a photograph or video. Or it might be a letter or other document. It might be an eye-witness. That's why it's hard to say what evidence is—it can vary a lot, depending on the issue being discussed.
Another factor to keep in mind is that evidence can be interpreted in different ways. For example, in the court case of Oscar Pistorius, both the prosecution and the defence employed scientists to study the forensic evidence of the case. They both reached different conclusions. Similarly, in discussing something like the age of the earth, we would have the evidence of the Grand Canyon, but is that evidence in support of a naturalistic view that a little bit of water (i.e. the Colorado River) cut the canyon over a lot of time, or of a biblical flood view that a lot of water (flood runoff) cut the canyon over a little bit of time (e.g. weeks)? Same evidence, but different interpretations of it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@manueldesousa5054
"her legal gender os female now,so yes, she's a woman."
That's about the best argument you can make, but then if they passed a law saying that 2+2=5, it wouldn't make it so. So no, even that does not mean that he is a woman.
"Not a biological one, but still one."
That there can be such a thing as a non-biological woman is part of the woke nonsense.
"In this interview she talks a lot of sense, but sadly still has to deal with trolls like you."
Yes, he does talk sense in this interview, but sadly he still pretends to be a woman, and you still wrongly dismiss me as a troll when I'm actually speaking the truth and making a rational argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@frankd2392
"Ephesians 6 - 5 'slaves obey your masters' "
Yes. Your point? That doesn't contradict anything I said. A few verses later, it says "Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him." As I said, slavery was a fact of life that the New Testament Christians had no power to stop, but they taught that slaves should do their jobs well and masters should treat the slaves well. When Christianity grew and became a lot more widespread, teaching such as this (including Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.") led to slavery dying out, because of considering slaves to be fellow humans equal to yourself.
1
-
@valeriuginghina5648
"The white race is the LAST to take part in this trade, ..."
I agree with everything you said up to this point. But there is no "white race". There is only the human race. And it seems that the key factor was not 'whiteness' nor something superior about being 'white'; the key factor was Christianity, that taught that all people are one. Slavery died out in Christendom because of biblical teaching that we are all equal under God, that we are all brothers in Christ, that we should have compassion for others, etc. And after it made a return (supported, in part at least, by 'Enlightenment' atheists), it was fought against in Britain explicitly on such biblical grounds.
References:
* Rodney Stark, "For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery" (And a quote from Stark: "Slavery ended in medieval Europe only because the church extended its sacraments to all slaves and then managed to impose a ban on the enslavement of Christians (and of Jews). Within the context of medieval Europe, that prohibition was effectively a rule of universal abolition.")
* Jeremiah J. Johnston, "Unimaginable"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@petebusch9069
"Your basing this off of what you saw in the news."
In part. So? That doesn't make it wrong.
"Do you even know the entire history of this fight?"
I doubt that many know the entire history, as it's long and complicated. But I know plenty.
"I doubt it ..."
Why? Simply because I disagree with you?
"...you came to a conclusion just like that after you watched a couple new stories that pulled at your emotions."
Evidence please, that that's how I came to my conclusion. Or admit that you just made that up.
"Both sides are guilty, that is a fact."
Only if, by that, you mean that neither side is perfect and has never done anything wrong. But if you mean that both sides are (roughly) equally as guilty, that is utter nonsense.
"Stand with the innocent people that are not and will not be involved in horror like this, its the third choice."
What does that mean? That I should ignore that one side wants to kill all Jews, whilst the other is simply trying to defend itself? That's an abhorrent position to take. I can side with Israel AND with innocent people. The two positions are not mutually exclusive.
And by the way, you've made up things about me, but you haven't explain where the equivalence is, the very question I asked. I'm left with the conclusion that you can't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@panayotisdamianakis3658
I have had the measles; they didn't have the vaccine for that when I was young. And yes, I was vaccinated against polio.
You seem to think I'm opposed to vaccines. I'm not. I've also had my first jab of a covid vaccine.
What I'm opposed to is forcing it on people or discriminating against those who don't want it. I believe that the covid vaccines are effective and very safe, but few medications are completely safe for everyone, and especially given that we don't know of long-term safety (not that there's much reason to worry), people should have the right to choose, and should not be discriminated against for not having it.
"If you get vaxxed, you can still get the virus, you have a considerably less chance, like 98% percent chance of ending up in hospital begging for a respirator,..."
98% chance of needing a respirator even if vaccinated? No. But I suspect that you meant that there's a 98% smaller chance of requiring a ventilator.
"If you get vaxxed, you can still get the virus, ... you can still pass it onto your loved ones, or a stranger."
And if they've been vaccinated too? The point is that the chances of you dying of this disease without being vaccinated are very low (depending on age and other factors) and the chances if you've been vaccinated are much lower. So how does that remaining small chance compare to, say, getting the flu, or some other disease you might catch from another person? Should people who haven't had the flu vaccine be discriminated against also? What about people who smoke? Or drink? Or....? Where should you stop?
1
-
1
-
@panayotisdamianakis3658
"Firstly, there's no guarantee that you are healthy and clean."
I never claimed otherwise.
"That's why everyone's wearing facemasks. To reduce the possibility of the wearer's germs from spreading to unsuspecting passer-byes."
Indirectly, yes. Directly it's because the government has said that they must.
"Also, I agree, if you don't want to be vaccinated, don't. That's your choice."
I agree that it's my choice, or should be. That's why I oppose mandating it, even though I agree with being vaccinated.
"However, also, respect the fact that there is a pandemic and you and other non-vaxxers,..."
I never said that I'm a non-vaxxer. I'm not. You're assuming too much.
"...because of your choice are probably at a higher risk of suffering from the symptoms of Covid-109 contact."
Higher than people not vaccinated against it. Yes, I agree. But not necessarily higher than suffering other diseases for which we don't impose the same sorts of restrictions.
"So, keep it to yourself, and don't let ignorance or arrogance be your ally in arms."
I don't intend to spread it (even assuming I catch it), and I aim to not be either ignorant nor arrogant. I can't necessarily say the same for some of the people wanting to mandate the vaccine. That suggests arrogance to me: they know best.
"If the manager says, stay out of my cafe unless you have a mask, and or, if you're vaccinated, then respect their choice too. It's their business and you may not share the responsibility of public health, however, they most likely do."
On the one hand I can accept that they can choose that, but the government making them do that is a different matter. On the other hand, I wish that choice was applied consistently. For example, the cases of cake makers being punished for refusing selected people service.
"An FYI, do you have a girlfriend?
If so, is she on the pill? Or, if so, has she ever been on the pill? If so she has a 1:3,000 chance of clotting. Have you ever had an operation? "
No, I have a wife. Yes, I've had an operation. I never claimed that the chances of blood clots or other side effects of medications was not as great as the covid vaccine. Again, you're assuming too much.
"Do you drive?
1:5,000 of dying in a car crash."
I prefer trains where I can. They are a much safer option. Do you drive when you could catch the train?
"if you don't vaccinate the chances of YOU dying from Covid is 1:43."
That figure seems far too high. I suspect, for one thing, that you are talking only about people who are confirmed to have caught it, not all who have caught it. And, of course, it also varies by age and other factors.
"Clearly, you're not a well know virologist, are you?"
No. But it seems that you are not either.
"I suggest you stop conducting your 'anti vaxxer' research while you are on the [toilet] with your iPhone."
I don't conduct anti-vaxxer research, I don't have an iPhone, and I don't do research on the toilet. Again, you assume too much.
"If the Covid-19 doesn't get you the Campylobacter, Enterococcus, Escherichia coli, Salmonella, Shigella, Staphylococcus, Streptococcus and Yersinia bacteria or norovirus, rotavirus, and hepatitis 'A' probably will."
Maybe, but again, you're assuming too much. And I've probably had at least one of them in any case.
"Again, it's your choice not to vaccinate, however, with Delta, if you do get the Covid Virus, there is a 92% chance of staying out of the hospital and not dying should you choose to vaccinate. "
And although you say it's my choice, you don't seem very convinced. I gather that with the Delta strain there's a better chance of a vaccinated person ending up in hospital than with other strains. But I'm not disputing the basic point you're making.
"A 1:1,000,000 chance of dying from a blood clot Vs a 1:43 chance of dying if you get Covid-19 unvaccinated is worth the very rare risk."
Again, I never suggested otherwise. So, to repeat myself, you're assuming too much.
"Re: double standards, Covid is not the flu! You do understand that, don't you?"
Of course. But it IS a potentially-fatal disease that many people die of every year, despite the existence of vaccines, and yet those vaccines are not made compulsory and we don't lock down millions of people and make them wear face masks etc. etc. for the flu. However, just to be clear, neither am I saying that Covid is no worse than the flu; my point is more along the lines of it not being so much worse that we need to impose restrictions that are that much harsher. Wearing face masks in close quarters to other people, washing hands so frequently, etc. are probably all reasonable requirements even though we don't require those for the flu. But requiring face masks outdoors when alone, Not allowing people to go to work, not allowing people out at night, not allowing people to visit sick relatives, and so much more, is over the top.
"The reason why Australia isn't having the same sort of numbers is, Draconian as it is, lockdowns and the ever-escalating doses of vaccines administered."
Is it? That is, if multiple different measures are being taken at the same time, how do we know which measure or measures are the effective ones? How does stopping someone fishing or playing golf by themselves help? Is the virus more virulent at night, when we are confined to our homes? Is it worse in supermarkets (allowed) than in churches (not allowed)? Why do many studies conclude that lockdowns don't work? Why does the virus allegedly not spread at BLM protests before we had a vaccine, but spread much worse at anti-lockdown protests now that we have vaccines? That wouldn't be at all political, would it?
"There's a difference between taking a risk that may help the society we live in Vs just being bloody-minded and stubbornly waving the flag of 'I'm not going to be told what to do'. That's just selfish arrogance. You're not that worldly, are you?"
Or maybe there's a difference between following totalitarian edicts based on medical advice that they won't reveal vs. standing up for the very freedoms that have made the West so successful, to the point that we can come up with a vaccine in so short a time. The arrogance is in telling people how they have to live their lives. I have no issue with encouraging people to take the vaccine. They should. But it should not be forced upon them, and we should not be treated like idiots for disagreeing with totalitarian-leaning governments that seemingly even defy the constitution.
"If you feel so strongly, become a doctor and learn some facts and then speak from an educated perspective instead of the pious podium of hubris and ignorance."
I do learn facts. Your assumption of my ignorance is your false assumption.
"Did I mention you have a 1:635 of being killed while you walk down the street?"
No. You said it was 1:637. It must be increasing! 😜
"Whatever you do Philip Rayment, don't go out for a walk. Statistics say you may be killed too. lol"
Ah yes. But a lot of accidents happen in the home too. So neither is it safe to stay inside!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oldgolfer7435
"I suppose it depends on what you want to believe."
Just like you want to believe that he's wrong?
"Personally I take a point of view from a reality stance,..."
I would disagree that you do.
"However logic, common sense, and life experience began to make me realise my gullibility."
Actually, they support that you were taught correctly.
"How could I have ever thought, for example, that there is an afterlife [snipped]"
Because that comes from a reliable source (Jesus).
"If not the alternative is a just as mythical "Hell" "
Okay, how does logic, common sense, and live experience tell you that hell is mythical?
"If being a Christian means I have to believe such tripe, no thanks, I am not prepared to lose my self respect."
You haven't shown that it's tripe.
"However I am left wo wonder how you can accept all the things I have outlined, ..."
(In my case) because the evidence supports it.
"... plus the other fantasies like virgin births, raising from the dead, feeding the masses, and the innumerable so called miracles that would be an impossibility in today's modern world."
They were impossible then too. The people of the time knew that they were impossible. Except, of course, for the One who had the ability to create everything in the first play. Please answer this: Assuming the existence of God as described in the Bible, why would such things be impossible for Him?
"Add to this the actual fact that ... God ... is so impotent that he/she/it cannot even protect children from the ravages of his representatives on earth."
What is your evidence that He is so impotent? Are you assuming that because He doesn't do something that must mean that He cannot do that? I would suggest that goes against your claim to involve logic. You could argue that you think that He would do that if He could, but that is now a claim to know all of God's reasoning, which is a huge claim to make.
" "Freedom of thought" Is the biggest cop out ever thought up by the religious industry."
Are you talking about free will? What's your evidence that it was "thought up by the religious industry"?
"...I believe that a bribe to "Be good" or else, is bad for humanity."
What bribe? A better analogy would be the law. Laws say "don't steal or else". But laws are not bribes, are they?
But even that is misleading. Why do you not steal? Because you're afraid of the legal consequences? Or because you know it's the wrong thing to do?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@oldgolfer7435
"The idea that he allowed him to be tortured on a cross so that deluded people in the future may live a pure life is fanciful."
I agree. Because that was not the idea.
The idea is that we, as sinners against the holy God, deserved death. But God, in His grace, took that punishment on Himself, so that He died instead of us. That doesn't result in us living a pure life (i.e. in this life), but it means that the penalty has already been paid.
Think of a father who pays the fine for his son's vandalism. The son deserved the fine, but his father, in love, paid it for him. That's what Jesus' death was—our Father God paying the penalty for our sins.
"Christian ethics ... are claimed by those with "Faith" as being their sole domain."
False. They claim (rightly) that it is God's domain.
"In actual fact they are what have grown out of natural evolution and self- preservation."
That's fact, is it? What's your evidence? Because that sounds to me like a Just-So story.
"Even animals believe in live and let live when it comes to their own kind."
Since when? What about the praying mantises that eat their mate after sex? What about the male lions that fight to the death for supremacy? And then sometimes kill some of the cubs?
"Unfortunately,(Apparently God) but actually nature, made many of them carnivores and that rule does not apply"
God made them vegetarian (Genesis 1:30). Carnivory is a product of degeneration.
"If you listen to Richard Dawkins,..."
Who is no theologian.
"...human kind has reached the position it has without the assistance of any extraterrestrial super being."
Again, what's your evidence?
"He is very convincing."
No, he's not. Even his God Delusion book was panned by some fellow atheists as showing his ignorance of the topic.
1
-
@daniangoodman-jones3931
"I was tryjng to explain, poorly, that religion, regardless of whether god exists, has had a profound impact on society."
I appreciate the sentiment and agree with most of your comments. I really do. But again, I want to point something out. Yes, religion has had a profound impact on society. But not all religions are created equal. Some have had a profound negative impact on society, while one or two have had a profound positive impact. Further, I am convinced that the reason that they've had that profound positive impact is because they correctly understand reality, and that includes that God exists. In other words, if not for that fact, those religions wouldn't have had the positive impact that they've had. First, because it is that belief that motivates and guides the people in that religion, and second, because part of their belief is a passion for the truth*, and they would not have survived if their beliefs were not based on solid evidence.
*—One of the Ten Commandments instructs us to "not bear false witness against our neighbour". Truth-telling is required.
—Jesus is described as "the way, the truth, and the life. If Jesus is the embodiment of truth, truth is obviously something to be held in high regard.
—When Jesus' disciple Thomas said that he would not accept that Jesus had risen from the dead unless he saw the evidence, he was not chastised for his lack of faith. Jesus Himself showed him the evidence.
—You'd likely be aware that much of the New Testament comprises some of the writings of the apostle Paul, to the extent that some claim he is really the founder of Christianity. He was a very important figure in the early church. But Acts 17 tells us that when Paul (and Silas) went to Berea, the people there didn't just blindly believe what Paul told them. They checked it out (against their Scriptures, the Old Testament) for themselves. And were commended for their attitude.
1
-
1
-
@daniangoodman-jones3931
"People are inherently different."
Because we weren't made as clones. Physically, our design ensures that we are different, with the genetics being designed in such a way that children are similar to both parents but identical to neither. And that's a problem for an evolutionary view. Why did sexual species arise in the first place when asexual species already existed (according to the evolutionary view) and very successfully, and are still with us?
Personality-wise, we are different due in large part to having free will, resulting in us all choosing different (non-identical) paths in life.
"A world of free choice will inevitably create inequality. I never understood the obsession with equality."
It depends on what you mean by "equality". The Bible teaches that all are equal before God ("Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.". We are all of equal worth to God. We are all made in His image (Genesis 1:26,27). So we are all equal in that sense. But we are not all identical. Politically, conservatives want all to have equal opportunity but 'progressives' want all to have equal outcomes. And like good socialists, will take from the rich and (say that they will) give to the poor in order to have equal outcomes.
"...it runs counter to the natural order. Competition, pain and suffering are all inevitable and necessary."
God created a world without pain and suffering (which then started with 'The Fall'—when man disobeyed God). So pain and suffering are now part of the natural order. However, trying to make things better will result in competition, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that.
"Yet we now are obsessed with removing all pain and suffering from people,..."
Christians know that in a fallen world we can't remove all pain and suffering. But we can and do try to alleviate the pain and suffering. That's why we have doctors and medicines and why we volunteer to help those in (real) need. And again, that is a good thing.
"...with no consideration for how they teach us the important lessons we need to grow."
True, up to a point at least. Pain is a response to something being wrong. A painkiller hides the pain (the symptoms) without addressing the cause. Nothing wrong with that if we use the painkiller as temporary relief until the cause if removed, but if we are just using that as the cure, that's not good. And I'm not talking just about medicinal painkillers for physical pain, but using that as an analogy for society. Nothing wrong with trying to minimise the pains of society, as long as we understand the root causes and are not just painting over the problem.
Sorry for all the philosophising.
1
-
@oldgolfer7435
"I am not likely to change my mind, certainly since I have matured enough to rid myself of the God delusion,..."
Why on earth do you think that it's a delusion? Many, many, very mature people believe in God.
"...which I had for fear of the consequences."
Okay. So that's where we differ. I believe in God because of the evidence supporting that He exists. Are you mature enough to look into that evidence?
"Second, reading material by Theists would drive me silly, because there would be nothing they could say on this issue that is not beyond of reality."
That sounds like a case of making up your mind before hearing their arguments and evidence.
"I saw the debate between Richard Dawkins, and George Pell. It was an embarrassment ."
Yes, for both. You had an atheist scientist who doesn't understand theology and history vs. a cardinal who doesn't understand science nor accept the Bible's history.
"Pell said we were descended from Neanderthals which is untrue,..."
It's not too far wrong actually, although I wouldn't agree with they way he was putting it, and Dawkins was flat-out wrong anyway. Neanderthals were humans ( homo sapiens ) who interbred with other humans. Some people today are indeed descended from Neanderthals, as shown by those people having some Neanderthal DNA in them.
"...but admitted the truth of the big bang,..."
Well, he did embarrass himself by endorsing that myth.
"Creationists rubbish to meet the challenge of science."
Creationists invented science, which doesn't contradict anything creationists say. What contradicts creationists is the philosophy of naturalism adopted by many scientists; the view that natural events can explain everything. But that's not science.
"Whilst you are convincing yourself of the existence of a superior ever loving extra- terrestrial God..."
For which there is heaps of evidence.
"...take stock of what you are actually believing, and consider what religion, particularly the Catholic Church expect you to believe."
I don't care what "religion" says, because "religion" is a reference to multiple different and contradictory sets of beliefs. I only care what God and the Bible say. And if Catholicism says something different to the Bible (which it does in some cases), then Catholicism is wrong.
"Also if somehow you, being as educated as you obviously are, were isolated on a desert island, outside the influences of any church, the story of a God would be as ridiculous as the wonders of nature would be apparent."
False. This was explored in the book "He who thinks has to believe", by triple-doctorate professor Arthur Wilder-Smith. He discussed how a 'primitive' tribe, finding a car I think it was, would have to conclude that it was created by an intelligent being. And that's one of the strong evidences for God—living things are clearly designed and the only possible designer is God. Not that it's only living things. The universe itself has so many values, such as the strong and weak nuclear forces, that if they were extremely-slightly different would mean that the universe couldn't exist. Sir Fred Hoyle said that "commonsense interpretation of the facts is that a super-intelligence has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology"
"If two people came along, one with the God myth, and the other with Darwin"s theory, which would you believe?"
I saw how you loaded that question. You didn't ask me to compare two explanations or theories, but a "myth" and a "theory". You should learn to ask unbiased, objective, questions.
But to answer, the one with the better evidence, which, it turns out, is the God explanation. It fits the facts, unlike Darwin's view, which is contradicted even on one of his own falsifications for it.
1
-
1
-
@oldgolfer7435
"Even in the Christian world, God has not evidenced himself for over 2000 years."
Not in human form, but it doesn't follow that He hasn't in any other way.
"Why the mystery when proof of his existence would put to rest all that now ails the world."
There is already sufficient evidence for those prepared to believe. And those not prepared to believe would find reason to not believe anyway.
"Is this God a psychopath, and enjoys watching the misery man is inflicting on itself."
Clearly not, given how He was saddened at various times in the past by man's suffering.
"Other religions and Gods have over the centuries been more peaceful than the Christian one."
What's your reasoning there? My understanding is that Christianity has largely spread through peaceful means.
"However they are just as unrealistic too."
What makes Christianity unrealistic? On the contrary, it was, and still provides, the basis for science.
"I have a natural skepticism, probably born from the obvious false preaching's of religious advocates, and their failures to practice what they preach."
Christianity is not based on what Christian leaders preach. It is based on the Bible. Christians are fallible beings. Yes, I understand that their failure to practise what they preach is not at all helpful. But logically, Christianity should be assessed on what the Bible says, not on what it's fallible preachers say or do.
1
-
1
-
@daniangoodman-jones3931
"it's a play on words. That's actually a Dennis Prager saying."
Okay.
"For anything to be right or wrong, god must exist ."
I accept that. I don't see how one can also say that "whether he exists or not is irrelevant."
"I didn't say the bible wasn't true."
You didn't say why you rejected Christianity. If you thought that the Bible was true, why did you do that? It therefore seemed reasonable to conclude that you thought it wasn't.
"I feel like you are trying to push me to make a commitment to a belief."
I'm trying to point you in the direction of ending up in heaven rather than hell.
"I cant. It would be a lie."
You can't at the moment. But you'd agree that could change?
"Dinosaurs did exist..."
Yes, I know.
"...our testing of the age of the earth and it's inhabitants are verifiably true."
So you don't believe the Bible on the age of the earth! A moment ago you said you're not sure.
Tests on the age of the earth assume uniformitarianism, which a priori rules out the supernatural, and therefore the Bible's claims, even when the evidence supports the biblical claims. And yet, there are so many problems with radiometric dating that even the scientists who use it only accept it if it suits them. (And yes, I can give you evidence of that.)
"That has no bearing on gods existence."
But it has a great bearing on the truth of the Bible, which is supposed to be the infallible God's revelation to us.
"I've heard many say that evolution is proof of no god."
Yes, some atheists will say that. But even if they are not that absolute, they will use evolution as reason to not believe in God. It is, after all, an idea intended to explain the variety of life without God being involved.
"I think you could make a strong argument that it is evidence of a god. Only the divine could come up with such a complex intricate system."
Yes, perhaps you could. Evidence of A god. But not the God of the Bible, as He told us that He created in a way that is incompatible with the evolution story. And people like Dawkins are right to argue that a god who used evolution used a particularly cruel method and is therefore incompatible with the loving God of the Bible.
"I don't take anybody's word for anything I question every thing. That has, at least made me an open minded person."
Good. That's actually a biblical position to take.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@youareawesome5236
"to make stupid claims like Religious people do. "
One stupid "claim" is to lump all religions in together, despite some believing the truth and others believing lies; despite some believing in multiple gods (polytheists), some in one god (monotheists), some in everything being god (pantheists) and some in no god (atheists). You might as well try mixing oil and water; they don't go together.
Christianity has done a world of good, whereas other religions not so much. Atheism has been particularly bad.
And yes, even Christianity is for gullible idiots. Because it's for everybody, whether gullible idiot, average person, scientist, or world leader. It's non-discriminatory in that sense. And of course being gullible is not a requirement; many very intelligent people have become convinced of its veracity on the basis of the evidence, which is considerable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@djinghiskhan9199
"Well actually, the industrial revolution triggered the warming effect known as global warming (a clear causative effect of our actions)."
Yet it's often claimed that the warming started in the 1960s, I think it was. But more to the point, if you want to show that it started with the industrial revolution, you need measurement from before that.
"Going back before that has and is measured and it's not like it's hidden data."
I didn't say that it wasn't measured, nor that it was hidden. Remember, you're replying to a question (why start at the industrial revolution?) that you've yet to actually supply an answer to.
"Climate deniers (like you) ..."
I don't deny that climate exists. I also don't even deny that it changes.
"...will go to effort in cheery picking historic data ..."
Actually, I've seen the alarmists do just that. There was even one case where some alarmists were citing historic Australian figures, and when a critic challenged them with actual data that show that they were wrong, they criticised him for citing Australian data rather than more local data!
"Historic warming and cooling has been linked to natural events - like the medieval warming period or the little ice age."
Yes, it has. Which is why the question about where one should start the measurements from.
"Once you account for natural variability and cyclic events, that leaves the current 100 year trend that's unexplained by natural phenomena."
Well, that's the claim, but again, that doesn't answer the question of why one should start the measurements with the industrial revolution.
"What happened 100 years ago? well the offset of CO2 balance in the atmosphere as we pumped billions of tons into the air."
That second sentence is incomplete. I don't know what you're trying to say.
"What do we know about CO2? it's a heat trapping gas that can stay atmospheric for 1000's of years."
Yes, we know a lot of things. That's just one of them.
"What do we know about heat trapping gas? well it has a doubling effect on warming. What do we know about the doubling effect? well it effects weather and melts ice caps accelerating the release of more CO2 and CH4 (another greenhouse gas)"
Actually we also know about negative feedback mechanisms. Such as when the temperature rises, there is more evaporation, and therefore more cloud cover, and therefore more sunlight is reflected back into space. This leads to a cooling effect, which means less evaporation, and therefore less cloud cover, and therefore more sunlight getting through. It's actually a well-designed system!
"Follow the science..."
But what do you do when the scientists disagree? And is it actually science anyway? Much of the global warming "science" has been computer modelling (so not actually observation, measurement, testing, and repeatability which are hallmarks of science), and with the passage of time, most of them have been shown to be quite wrong. Further, there is an obvious agenda behind all this. Extinction Rebellion (XR) co-founder, Stuart Basden said in 2019, “And I’m here to say that XR isn’t about the climate. You see, the climate’s breakdown is a symptom of a toxic system that has infected the ways we relate to each other as humans and to all life.”
And German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer said in 2010 (my emphasis), “But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”
It's socialism, not science. We've even seen alarmist scientists trying to rig the data.
" - not the "after dark" loons on SkyNews."
The Sky News people are more on the ball than most of the mainstream media who tow the alarmist line.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hjf3022
"you'd have to be a fool to believe they had any intention to actually go ahead with net zero."
I don't believe that I'm a fool, and yet I believe that they did have that intention. Not as strongly as Labor, and therefore they might well have changed their mind in the future, but I believe at the time that they meant it. But I'll clarify that I'm not talking about just net zero specifically, but swallowing the climate change alarmism stuff. And, do paraphrase you, you'd have to be a fool to think that Malcolm Turnbull (and various other Liberals) didn't want to go that way.
Even just not opposing it meant that they allowed things to happen that cost the economy.
"Small government is a libertarian position, not a left-right position."
I disagree. Yes, the libertarian position is strongly small government, but it's also the position of many other conservatives. And we see it in practice where Labor, more than the LNP, often makes the government bigger.
1
-
1
-
@baronvonaux8294
"You can blame the left as much as you want, but that is a factual list Please tell me which PMs in Australian history have a materially worse legacy?"
Your question is one of opinion. Yes, there are facts that support your opinion, but "worst" is a matter of opinion. Even the facts that you cite are subjective insofar as the weight you're putting on them is concerned. Plus it's not clear what you mean by "materially worse". Yes, one of Morrison's faults was the secret ministries, but apart from one instance, he didn't actually use those powers, so does that really count for "materially worse"? That's a matter of judgement (opinion).
He was also the PM during the covid crisis, a lot of which was in the hands of the states, including the Labor states. And responsibility for that lies with the states, including Labor states. That goes a fair way (albeit not all the way) to explaining the debt. And I'll remind you that the ALP wanted him to spend even more. The covid restrictions were also a major factor in the housing availability (and that would in turn affect the affordability). But the Morrison government cut immigration due to covid, which means that the demand for housing was suppressed. Meanwhile, the current government has dramatically increased immigration, increasing demand for housing at a time when availability was already low thanks to the covid restrictions. But you want to fault Morrison for that and pretend that what the Albanese government is doing in that space is clearly irresponsible.
As for energy investment, that's mainly the fault of the left with their irrational attempts to shut down coal. The Gillard and Rudd governments were a major part of the problem there, and more so than Morrison.
Another problem with Morrison was ignoring the social engineering of the LGBT+ brigade. But it's the left that's been pushing that, and Morrison's problem was in not fighting it.
1
-
@baronvonaux8294
"You seem to have a way of blaming the so called left for everything."
"so called"? That is a common term that means something.
And no, not everything. My previous reply faulted Morrison on a couple of things.
"I don't align myself to either the left or the right..."
I don't either. But I do recognise that the left is worse than the right.
"...rather just view things objectively."
Well, you think you do. And I think I do too.
"I think perhaps if you view everything through a left =bad and right = good lens it's very seriouslly colouring your reality."
No, left = mostly bad; right/conservative = not as bad.
Per my previous comment, your view is a matter of judgement and opinion. The question is, what views underlie how you judge something? If we have different starting points, we will come to different conclusions, not matter now objective we are, on matters that are inherently not purely objective. For example, we can be objective about what temperature water boils at, but views about what is "worse" or "better" depends on what our standards are for "good" and "bad".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pwillis1589
"Paley's creation argument and watchmaker analogy is full of fallacies, starting with a false analogy and false causes,…"
And yet you don't explain what's fallacious about it.
"Mostly though by the fact of evolution."
A false premise.
"It is not a matter about believing, evolution it is a fact."
People still believe or disbelieve facts. I believe America exists, even though America is a fact. The atheist view that "believe" only refers to things that can't be verified is false. Check a dictionary.
And goo-to-you evolution is not a fact.
"The scientific theory of evolution has shown to be 100% correct in its novel contestable predictions."
And yet many predictions have been shown to be wrong. It's definitely not 100% correct. For example, it said that dinosaur extinction preceded grass, until they found evidence of dinosaurs eating grass.
"There is no requirement to believe it as it is virtually undeniable."
And yet many deny it, including many scientists. So clearly it's not undeniable.
"You may not understand it, but that is simply your ignorance and is a fallacious argument."
Many people, including scientists were taught it, believed it, and even taught it themselves, and then realised that the evidence didn't support it. You can't use ignorance to explain disagreement.
"…some of the things said by Theists are as equally bad and often advocate for violence particularly against homosexuals based on their religious belief."
"often"? Apart from nutters like the Westboro Baptist group, I very rarely hear it.
"If all religous people reflected your views all would be good, and you would be a morally good person with or without religous belief."
Of course a morally good person is morally good whether or not they have "religion", but the question is whether, without Christianity, they are all that likely to be morally good.
1
-
1
-
@hawks1394
"they have been teaching about giants for thousands of years and still to this day…"
Yeah, okay. I'm not sure of your point.
"…they are not like our society where they change the history to fit the narrative or just don’t tell any one in the first place what really happened."
I still don't understand what your point is.
"Come back and talk me to again when this biblical prediction will come true. Every man rich or poor will have to be mark so they may buy or sale. Eventually this will take place it’s already among us"
I don't know if or when it will come true, but why should that stop me talking to you before then? I don't know if it will because the event you cite is in Revelation which is written in apocalyptic language to be obscure, so I'm not convinced that's going to literally happen. But neither am I denying that it will. As for when, I don't believe that it's happening yet, although I do agree that things are heading in that direction.
Regarding your video link, the explanation is not clear, but watching and listening carefully, it turns out that the RFID chip is NOT injected. It's part of the injection mechanism, but does not go into the person being injected. RFID chips are too big for a normal syringe needle. If you look at the bottom image at the 1:56 mark, you'll see the needle (on the left) is a normal-size needle (so too small for even the type of RFID chip that can be put under the skin) and the RFID chip is at the other end of the container, being far too big to go through the needle.
But as I said, there are things that are heading in that direction. Mandatory vaccination certificates could be softening up the population to accept that sort of thing (whether that is the goal or not), but this chip is not an example of that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pwillis1589
"Phil is a presuppositionalist."
A claim that you've not explained, and I pointed out that I never claimed that for myself.
"He runs of a script that has a god creator and nothing else is possible."
As opposed to your script that there is no God?
"He doesn't openly discuss honestly."
Utterly false.
"His entire world view, morals and self worth rely on a Jesus character and a god belief, ..."
Yes, that's true. But then that's true of millions of people, including people that have changed the world for the better over the last 2000 years, including founding science.
"hence he has no concept that a jesus character is not 100% historically factual,"
And you have no concept that He is 100% historically factual. So we are both just as certain as each other, but somehow that makes me pointless to engage with!
"In a 1000 years time at the current rate of scientific discovery all religious faith will be quaint thing people did back in the dark ages."
Yeah, well, people have been claiming that for centuries, and it hasn't happened yet. And scientific discovery doesn't disprove Christianity in any case; instead it supports it, so "at the current rate", more people will come to recognise Christianity as the only viable view.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jakejackson1980
"...why should we get in the way of others happiness and fulfilment?"
We shouldn't. But affirming a delusion is not a way to do that.
"It doesn’t affect us ..."
Two problems.
1) It does affect us when they expect us to affirm their delusion, misleads us about who they are, etc.
2) Since when is it okay to not help others who need help, just because "it doesn't affect us"?
"...we should be pushing everyone in society towards to being themselves"
Correct. But affirming that a man is actually a woman and vice versa is pushing them away from being themselves into being something that they are not.
"god also made us in his image and said to love thy neighbour like our selves."
And correcting someone in sin is a loving act (if done in the right way for the right reason).
"You don’t seem to understand."
It looks to me like you're the one who doesn't understand.
"the truth is that the bible is subjective ..."
False. That is not the truth.
"...a-lot of it has been mis translated."
False. There have been many, many people studying the ancient languages, comparing early translations, making new translations into English (and other languages, of course) from the original languages, and so on, all with the goal of making more accurate translations. No translation is perfect, but the Bible would be the most-carefully translated book ever.
"So either one of us could extract quotes and teachings to prove our view"
In most cases, only by taking things out of context.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@darthvader5532
"do you schmucks really not know the difference?"
I'm not a schmuck and I know the difference between different forms of government. In Australia we have a constitutional monarchy. In the U.S. you have a republic. Both are representative democracies, as opposed to pure democracies like the ancient Greeks had where every citizen (i.e. only free adult males excluding most immigrants) had the freedom to vote on every issue.
You malign democracies as producing just what the citizens want regardless of right and wrong, but apparently approve of a republic that produces just what the landowners want regardless of right and wrong. Oh wait, you did say that the law rules equally taking morality and ethics into account, but you don't explain why that works with just landowners voting rather than all citizens. So that seems to be special pleading.
You say that virtually all democracies have been guilty of slavery, genocide, and corruption, but in fact I believe that "all democracies" as a group have a better track record in that than do all republics. Probably because many republics are actually not very democratic. Consider for instance the People's Republic of China, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea), the Republic of Cuba, or the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
1
-
1
-
1
-
@youraveragebacon4897
"it was already attempted, and the American people were not having it."
That's incorrect. It was brought in as the result of a grass-roots movement by the American people. Before it was national, it was already in place in a number of states, so they were already aware of the benefits of it. After it came in, pro-prohibitions politicians won increased majorities, because the people supported it.
But the media moguls used their newspapers to campaign against it, on the rationale that the taxes from it would offset their own tax burdens, so they demonised it until politicians were convinced to repeal it.
"It also shows a prime example of what happens when you ban a product like that nationwide."
True, it did. Sales of school shoes went up, because fathers were coming home with all their pay instead of drinking it away before they got home. Accommodation rentals at hotels increased, because hotels became safe places for families to stay. Prisons were closed from lack of prisoners to put into them.
"The gangs around the country made liqour illegally and were making a killer profit off of it."
Yes, there was some of that, but not enough to outweigh the good. And even that was largely due to poor enforcement. Enforcement was in the hands of tax agents (such as Elliot Ness), not the police.
"It was only changed back because the government wanted to tax alcohol so they can have a piece of the money."
So not because the people were not having it! Glad you agree.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@classyrassy1790
"No, science has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. "
The scholarship says otherwise.
"Science is simply the practice of measurement and observation."
But what makes it okay to do that in the first place? If you have a pantheistic view, you'd be dissecting God, so that's a no-no. But Christianity says that creation is distinct from God, and able to be and worthwhile to be studied.
And what makes you think that you can discover reliable results? The ancient Greeks thought that the gods changes the rules of nature on a whim. So what's the point of discovering the boiling point of water? The gods might change it tomorrow. Christianity says that God is consistent and made laws even for nature to follow, and we can therefore rely on things we learn not changing. Atheism has no basis for thinking that there should be consistency.
What makes you think that our own senses give us reliable observations? If the atheist view was true, we are just the product of an enormous series of accidents, with no basis for thinking our senses are reliable. Christianity says that we were purposefully designed and created by God in His image, and therefore we can largely rely on our senses giving us accurate information.
And it's a fact of history that science was founded by Christians on the basis of their Christian beliefs.
It's for reasons such as these that scholars have said things like this, from Loren Eiseley (my bolding): “The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation … . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption. ”
"In the pre-Christian days, different gods were just seen as different interpretations of the same entities. "
Not completely, no. The different Greek gods were distinct beings, some being the offspring of others. But yes, the Roman gods and the Greek gods were the same with different names, or there was at least overlap. However, it's also the case that some 'gods' had their origins in what was likely ancestor worship, with Odin, if I recall correctly, actually being identified as Japheth, the son of Noah, from whom the followers of Odin where descended.
"The kinds of writings Christian scholars would make trying to disprove Pagan gods or different interpretations of their own god are identical in structure to how atheists debunk Jesus today. "
Except that those Christians scholars would use legitimate evidence and logic, unlike the atheists today.
"Christianity failed, ..."
On the contrary, it has been very successful, and the success of Western Civilisation is due to its foundation in Christianity, as numerous scholars acknowledge.
"And you with your ridiculous desire to try and tie it in with "western civilisation" and trying to claim its the moral foundation of our society is just destroying it faster."
The scholarship says otherwise. Do you want evidence of that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cherubycarilla7523
"Im sooooo ... sorry that a future for my kids is too expensive for you, ..."
Nobody is denying your kids a future. That's just some of the alarmism that we complain about.
"At the moment we are more at the stage of "some of us might have to sacrifice putting petrol in the luxury yacht, or perhaps forgo that jetting holiday to Europe, downsizing from the Ram to a Prius."
No, we're already at the stage that electricity for everyone has gotten a lot more expensive, include for poorer people who can least afford it. Besides, why should anyone have to forgo those things? Because you don't like people being successful and have to drag them down?
"There is just no possible way to continue at the rate we are."
Evidence?
"If every person in the world had the emissions level of an average Aussie, the world would already be totally uninhabitable."
If every person in the world was like the average Aussies, a lot of the world would be a lot better off. And I'm not convinced about your claim in any case. There would be less burning of firewood in less-developed countries, for one thing.
"...when you have been gone that long the amount of perceivable change to the environment and climate is extremely noticeable."
You've noticed how much better it has gotten? Good!
"Where I live there are hundreds of luxury yachts and plenty of people have the means to afford European holidays. This is just the middle class."
Again, decrying people being successful. That's called jealousy. It's not a good thing.
1
-
1
-
@cherubycarilla7523
"why would the world be better off If people were more like Australians?"
I didn't say that it would be. I said " a lot of the word". Like the places that can't afford proper homes, or decent education, or enough food to survive, or a lot of other things that the developing world is behind the developed world in.
"I have lived in, and travelled through quite a number of countries and have seen no evidence that Australian people are any better or any worse than those from other nations."
What sort of countries? Western, or developing, or what?
"Sure, our society is a little more balanced when it comes to religion and other extreme ideology,..."
Still lumping all religions except atheistic ones in together, despite the obvious extreme differences between them. Christian is not extreme; it's the basis of Western Civilisation. Atheism, on the other hand, has produced nothing but disaster when it gets control.
"...there is still a large degree of Western entitlement, especially in those from older generations."
Define what you mean by "entitlement", and evidence that it widely exists.
"We do also have it a lot easier than pretty well every other country on the planet, so perhaps we are a little more relaxed, but this also makes us lazy, and especially mentally."
It also causes us to forget why we have come to be like that, and belief in Yahweh has been documented as being a key factor in that.
1
-
1
-
@cherubycarilla7523
"Capitalism, the structuring of society around the interests of those who hold and control capital."
No, that's not the definition of capitalism. Capitalism is the freedom to use your own capital the way you choose rather than being told what to do. Like anything, it can be abused, but in principle that's what it is.
"Socialism, the structuring of society around the interests of all of those who are part of society."
No, socialism is controlling society so that those who innovate and struggle to get ahead have their proceeds taken from them and given to those who are not trying so hard, a policy which stifles innovation and effort. Just look at the history of socialist countries.
"Now, which should we be aspiring for again?"
Freedom. That is, capitalism.
"Consider another point, much of the world's resources and such have been already taken up,..."
"Much" is a very flexible word. Much is renewable (including innovation and effort), and much has yet to be taken up.
"...in large by those who sit at the top of the pile."
Who have gotten to the top of the pile through their efforts. Socialism wants to take that off them.
"There is not enough left for all the rest to get anything like that for themselves, ..."
Not in evidence.
"...hence, those of us that already have it, rich and powerful nations are morally obligated to share what they already have."
Yes, I agree with that. And many do just that. The rich nations give millions of dollars worth of money and goods and services to the poorer nations. But that is, as you said, a moral obligation, not one that should be forced on them.
"Any nonagreement with this idea can only be based on personal wants or greed. or feelings of entitlement."
Or fairness, or history. Not "only" the things you said. On the other hand, envying the rich their success IS greed and a feeling of entitlement.
"Yes, we have to change the way society functions. Most defilnitely."
Of course. It's not perfect. But we should improve it, not revert into a system where the government controls much of what you do, as in the days of emperors, dictators, and absolute monarchies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gooderspitman8052
"yes, evolution,"
I commend you on at least making the attempt.
However, evolution is an alternative view, not evidence of God's non-existence.
"but of course that will not alter your delusions."
You have yet to demonstrate that I'm deluded.
"Your book says the world is two thousand years old, ..."
No, it has chronological information in it allowing us to conclude that it's 6,000 years old.
"but the hard science says, it’s 5.5 billion years old."
No, science does not say that. Many (not all) scientists say that, but they are using a principle known as methodological naturalism, a principle that says that supernatural explanations must be excluded a priori. As such, using what scientists say as conclusion that God doesn't exist is a circular argument, because they start with essentially that position.
So do you have any actual evidence?
"But it will not change your view,..."
Because it's not evidence, but a viewpoint based on naturalism.
"...you evolved from a chimp,..."
Nope. Evolution doesn't work. The actual science is against it. For one, it has no mechanism to create the new information for things to evolve.
"Goodbye and may your god delusion go with you."
You're giving up already? Okay, if that's all you can provide, then you have no evidence. And I do not have a delusion about God.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@daniellebcooper7160
"if noah took every animal on earth into his ark, ..."
As I said, he didn't. He took pairs of every kind of animal. So two canines, two equines, and so on.
"...why did europeans not know about australias unique creatures until cook told them."
That's obvious. Because those animals lived in Australia, not Europe, and the Europeans were not familiar with them.
"There has never been any evedence found of kangaroos anywhere but in australia."
That's both irrelevant and incorrect. It's irrelevant because you're arguing not from evidence, but from a lack of evidence. That there is no evidence for them elsewhere doesn't mean that they were never in other places. We've not found lion fossils in the Middle East, but we know from history that they used to be there.
It's incorrect because cave art has been found in India that appears to have portrayals of kangaroos. Find the article "Did kangaroos ever live in India? A new discovery has some archaeologists hopping with excitement". It includes the comment "But there were also some figures that resembled creatures that have never before been sighted in Indian rock art finds – drawings that looked like erect-standing, pouch-bearing kangaroos."
Also, a fossil platypus tooth has been found in Patagonia, near the tip of South America.
"So how did noah get kangaroos?."
The history says that God brought them to Noah. Where He brought them from we have no idea, but given that the pre-flood world was quite different to the post-flood world, they might have lived near wherever it was that Noah was when he built the ark.
1
-
@robot336
"DUDE STOP IT , JUST STOP IT ,"
Why should I stop it? Why shouldn't you stop it?
Regarding your video link, even he said that oil has been found close to the surface. But your argument is clearer now. The argument in the video is not that oil is only ever found deeper than 16,000 feet, but that it is sometimes found below 16,000 feet, which is lower than fossils are found, and therefore oil is not from fossils.
However, that argument is faulty, as the main reason that fossils are not found that deep is that nobody spends the money to go looking for them that deep! We don't find them that deep because we don't look for them that deep.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kennethgoldston4643
"Aboriginal people are known to have occupied mainland Australia for at least 65,000 years. It is widely accepted that this predates the modern human settlement of Europe and the Americas."
Believed, not "known". And you've still not shown any aboriginal legends that say that.
"Increasingly sophisticated dating methods are helping us gain a more accurate understanding..."
As I said, such dating methods have been proved to be unreliable.
"This piece of ochre, excavated from the Madjebebe (Malakunanja II) site in Arnhem Land, is believed to be over 50,000 years old."
Believed on what basis? Those same dating methods?
Scientists once claimed that the Jinmium rock shelter was 116,000 years old, only to later change that to 5,000 years.
"Other sites of considerable antiquity such as Lake Mungo in New South Wales..."
Ah yes, Lake Mungo. The first dating there, done with carbon dating on bone, produced an age of 19,000 years, but the collagen dated to 24,700 years old! And charcoal slightly higher in the formation (and therefore younger) was dated at 26,500 years old! How can you trust those dating methods?
But then another skeleton was found nearby. It being in the same layer, it was given a similar date. But then thermoluminescence dating of the sand it was found in gave an age of 42,000 years! So both skeletons were then said to be that old.
But some scientists weren't convinced (i.e. didn't accept the dating methods' results), and did their own testing, with other dating methods. And voila! The skeletons were now 62,000 years old! Marvellous how you can come up with almost any date you like! Of course no dating method is perfect, and people make mistakes, blah blah blah. Which is true. But that being the case, how can you be sure that they have it right now?
And that's just one of many examples of dating methods giving wrong results.
But of course you're not allowed to disagree with the scientists!
1
-
@kennethgoldston4643
"After the Myall Creek massacres, 7 Europeans were found guilty by the courts and hanged at Sydney Jail."
Okay. That's at least one. They killed 28 aborigines. Martin Bryant killed 35 in his massacre at Port Arthur. It doesn't follow that it amounts to genocide.
But let's consider that a bit more. Yes, it was a terrible massacre. Your first comment in this thread regarding this was "No doubt European arrival signalled the onset of slaughter and genocide." The Myall Creek massacre was in 1838, 61 years after "European arrival" (Cook arriving) and 50 years after European settlement (First Fleet). True, 1838 was not the first massacre, but the point remains that it didn't start immediately. And the fault was not always on the Europeans. A previous massacre in the same year was in response to aborigines killing Europeans (albeit the response was out of proportion).
But your comment was not intended to simply state that there were some atrocities that happened, but that it was an "onset" of slaughter and genocide, as though that was the norm and widespread, if not deliberate and policy. But the massacre was carried out by people from outside the district, and the local Europeans were on good terms with the aborigines, even offering them some protection. The law at the time made killing an aborigine an act of murder, which is one of the reasons that many of the perpetrators were hanged. Yes, the sentiments in many in the society were against the aborigines, but the law wasn't and not all in the society were. I won't go as far as saying these killings were exception to the rule, but neither were they the rule, let alone were they policy or officially supported by the government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@martinportelance138
"No. 7th century AD is when they converted (they weren't sucked into the sky at some point, no)."
He said (as I quoted), "...having established a state there as early as 1,200 BCE, and that the Arabs did not occupy that land until the 7th century BCE, more than 1,800 years later.". But 1200 BC to 700 BC is only 500 years, not 1800 years.
"In fact, Jews became montheistic around 600 BC, after the Babylonian exile, when the Torah was assembled."
Nonsense. The Jews were monotheistic from the start of them being considered Jews.
"Before that, they were monolastric - that is, one favorite god over the rest of the recognized pantheon, as written on the Dan stele."
How does the stele show that?
"The rational persons, that's who."
Why would a rational person question what God has said? He is, after all God, who knows everything, so must be correct.
"God never 'spoke', to anyone, ever."
Evidence please. And reason as to why He wouldn't.
"If I were to tell you that contemporary conflicts or disasters were created or diverted by the Power of God, would you believe me?"
No.
"Why is it that people have no problems with common godly interventions as long as it is in the distant past?"
Because it is God relating them to us, not you.
"Gods have came and went for thousands years; that's because we, the humans, created them."
What is your evidence that we created 'them' (in the first place, i.e. the concept of God)?
"Jews were in fact Canaanites from the hilly country, distinguished by their lack of pork remains. All of their other customs, pottery etc is essentially Canaanite."
Evidence please.
"There was no Joshua ..."
Evidence please. After all, we have a book about him and which he appears to have written.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@martinportelance138
"1- Philistines were not Arabic, but Mycenian in origin."
So? I never suggested otherwise.
"They weren't sucked into the sky at some point,..."
So? I never suggested that they were.
"he Tel Dan stele stresses the rivalry between Hadad (Dan's protector god) and Yaweh (Israel's). Both are from the Canaanite pantheon. Make your own research."
So? That doesn't support your claim that the Israelites weren't monotheistic until then. And it's your responsibility, not mine, to support your claim.
"The whole Pentateuch is entirely myth, myths derived from other, older Mesopotamian and Egyptian myths,..."
I asked for evidence. Your opinion is not evidence.
"...unless you want to buy in the extreme, long-time debunked stuff that's in there."
That's still not evidence. So I guess you have none.
" "Judges' is where it starts to get closer to history, but otherwise the Torah can only be moderatly trusted in the times it was written down, that of the detention in Babylon."
That's an expansion of your claim, not evidence. Again, it appears that you have none.
"Before that, 'Jews' were 'Hebrews' as they continued to idolize many of their ancient Canaanite gods, like it is told in the Torah."
Why do you think that the Jews were Canaanites? And the fact that some did at times worship other gods doesn't change that they were essentially monotheistic. Exceptions don't make the rule.
"4- It is not mine to prove that something doesn't exist: It is yours to prove that it exists."
That is false. It is your responsibility to support a claim. If you claim something doesn't exist, then you have the onus to support that. If you can't, then you should not make the claim. Again, your attempt to avoid having to give evidence for your claim suggests that you have no evidence.
"Do you realize how relatively young the Abrahamic 'god' is in the History of humankind?"
That question assumes your premises, which you've yet to give evidence for.
"Why is it a more valid deity than much, much older and universal Gaea, for exemple?"
What's your evidence that Gaea is older?
"To all the "evidences, please" requests, I would redirect you to archeology,..."
That's a tactic known as 'elephant hurling', claiming to have a large body of evidence, but not citing anything specific (and "Israel Finkelstein's works" is still not very specific).
"...especially Israel Finkelstein's works, the leading expert in biblical archeology."
Do you think that necessarily makes him right? Or unbiased? An article said this of one of Finkelstein's claims:
"Such claims are often repeated to the public as if they have been proven beyond reasonable doubt. But they are actually based on highly controversial interpretations of the facts. In reality, skepticism about the early Israelite monarchy has been in continual retreat for a few decades, as more and more evidence has been unearthed to support the Bible’s detailed claims about Saul, David, and Solomon."
And also:
"However, while Finkelstein and other low chronology advocates continue to make their case in academic journals and exert much influence upon popular discussions of the evidence for David and Solomon, their arguments have been subjected to severe criticism from many other leading archaeologists.[ref] These responses have shown that, while the low chronology perspective threatens to undo much of the evidence for the united monarchy, the low chronology is itself seriously threatened by the strong evidence against it. The most reasonable interpretation of the archaeological data still supports a wealthy and powerful 10th century Israelite kingdom."
As someone once said, “...what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” Your claims are hereby dismissed as baseless.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@praapje
"Knowing is based on logical deduction, faith is based on filling in the blanks."
So, pretend that I haven't refuted your claim and shown that you contradicted yourself, and just make another evidence-free claim. Yes, you can know something based on logical deduction, I agree. And I can logically deduce that God exists, for example, as many, many, people have done. But biblically, faith is based on evidence. Your definition is wrong in this context at least.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@praapje
"We can actually see electricity..."
Oh? What colour is it? What shape does it appear as?
No, we can't see it.
"...(and feel it), we can feel the wind and see the effects it has, we can see America etc."
Yes, and we can see and feel the effects of God every day, as it was all made by Him. And thousands of people saw God when He took human form on earth 2000 years ago.
"Yes, there are things we cannot see, but can detect with hightech."
And even low tech, and our God-given senses.
"Apparently you experience the world around you and place the idea of a god at the beginning of it."
Well, that's what history records, and it's also the only idea that makes sense, that explains the observations.
"...you have to do better than your previous comment to convince me."
Thank you for at least making an attempt to address my argument, although you've still not explained why "You cannot logically deduce that God exists.".
Of course it will be difficult to convince someone who refuses to be convinced. Also obvious is that it would almost certainly take a lot more than a few YouTube replies to convince you. I didn't set out to convince you. I set out to show that your claims were wrong. I challenged your claims about 'faith' and your claim to not be able to logically deduce God's existence. You have still not supported those claims, and to quote you, "you have to do better than [that] to convince me."
1
-
@praapje
"There´s no point in arguing about fantasy."
What fantasy? You're prejudging it before looking at the evidence, even though I've already given you some and pointed out multiple times that there IS evidence.
"I can just as easily claim that Santa Clause created it all."
How so? Santa Claus...
* Is not capable of creating the universe.
* Is part of the universe, not external to it.
* Is known to be based on a 3rd/4th century bishop.
In other words, no, Santa Clause could not possibly have created it all. God, however, has the attributes required.
"To me it´s incomprehensible to believe in a god,..."
And yet you've given no reason why. Does that mean that, instead, you believe that the universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere? That is incomprehensible, to use your term.
"It´s just not for me and no I don´t think it´s just a matter of opening up to it, it´s a psychological need."
How you respond will result in where you spend eternity. It's not merely a psychological need. Yeah, I know, you don't believe that. But what if I'm right, and you reject it because you don't believe it without considering the evidence?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@julianpetkov8320 " "Western" culture is ancient Greek culture ..."
It owes something to ancient Greek culture, but no, Western culture is built on Christianity. See for example the video "Tom Holland tells NT Wright: Why I changed my mind about Christianity".
"Western civilisation is based on ancient Greek culture, Democracy, Philosophy, Science and Arts and ofcorse - extremely Liberal sexuality."
Ancient Greek democracy was a direct democracy (unlike our representative democracy) and was open only to adult male citizens, and to be a citizen you had to be descended from citizens, unless (occasionally) you were granted citizenship. It was not open to women, slave, immigrants, nor children of immigrants born there.
What the ancient Greeks had was not science as we know it, because it didn't involve theorizing and testing theories.
1
-
@julianpetkov8320
"Most of Europe did not have Christianity until the middle ages."
That's debatable, and depends on what you mean by "Europe". According to Wikipedia (yeah, I know, not the best source), "The term "Europe" is first used for a cultural sphere in the Carolingian Renaissance of the 9th century. From that time, the term designated the sphere of influence of the Western Church, as opposed to both the Eastern Orthodox churches and to the Islamic world."
In other words, Europe was always Christian, because it referred to where Western Christianity existed.
"At its best it was a political tool to demarcate zones of competing Greek influence (Banking)."
Banking came later.
"The bible itself is based on the ravings of Greek slave merchants at the councils of Carthage."
Complete and utter nonsense. Much of the Bible predates the Greeks, and none of it is of Greek origin, beyond some of it's authors speaking Greek and perhaps having some Greek influence in their lives.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rmoz2729
"and, it imposes itself. "
I don't deny that there have been some individual Christian rulers that have imposed Christianity, but that's the exception to the rule.
"Think of the Spanish Inquisition as a prime example, ..."
The Spanish Inquisition was primarily a tool to root out heresy among Christians. In other words, it wasn't forcing non-Christians to be Christians.
"It was the enlightenment, people such as Voltaire, that assisted in bring a separation of church and state."
And yet the Bible records King David as being in charge of civil matters, and the prophets Samuel and Nathan being the religious leaders. (But that's not to deny that Voltaire may have done something along those lines in a local level.)
"Western Civilisation is based on Greek culture, ..."
Not according to historian Tom Holland, who has studied this. He said "... the West has moved on to shape concepts like international law, for instance, ... concepts of human rights, all these kinds of things. Ultimately they don’t go back to Greek philosophers; they don’t go back to Roman empiricism. They go back to [the apostle] Paul".
"Christianity is an Eastern religion that has had to adapt to western ideology to survive."
What adaptation? And if it needed to do that to survive, why does it flourish today in many non-Western countries?
"...adultery is not illegal even the head of the Anglican Church is guilty of that and he is the King..."
All that says is that not all people who call themselves Christians follow what the Bible/Christianity teaches.
"...coveting possessions is the essence of capitalism"
False. Capitalism is the freedom to use your own capital (money, property, skills, etc.) the way you want, instead of in service to a slave master or serf lord.
"Obviously murder and stealing are illegal but that is not unique to countries with a Christian majority."
That it is not unique doesn't mean that Christianity is not behind them. Yes, other countries have and have had laws against murder, but often selectively applied. For example, I don't doubt that ancient Rome had laws against murder, but (I'm guessing) only if you were a Roman citizen, not a Jew or a slave or etc. Holland also pointed out that "... Caesar is, by some accounts, slaughtering a million Gauls and enslaving another million in the cause of boosting his political career, and far from feeling in any way embarrassed about this he’s kind of promoting it, and so when he holds his triumph, people are going through the streets of Rome carrying billboards boasting about how many people he’s killed."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pwillis1589
"The evidence of imaginary god is the lack of evidence."
First, lack of evidence is not evidence, except in very limited circumstances.
Second, what lack of evidence? You've provided no evidence for there being a lack of evidence!
"The data clearly shows there is absolutely no benefit to religious belief."
More denial.
"Evolutionary biology and psychology shows there was some benefit in to humans in a term called metaphorical truth, but that's it."
What's your evidence that "that's it"?
"On average cultures that are abandoning a god belief are doing extremely well, proving religious belief totally unnecessary."
But are they? They are becoming more totalitarian, more anti-science, having more fraud in science, etc.
"You don't need a god for objective morality."
Why not? You don't say how else you can have it.
"Anyway is something good because god told you? If so it is immediately subjective. If it was good already then god telling you is just an unnecessary intermediary."
Except that's not what we believe, so you're constructing a straw-man. It's good because it's consistent with what God is like. God is not the messenger, but the source.
"If you think god is real then that is being intellectually dishonest."
That is a non-sequitur and therefore makes no sense.
"The only thing you said that made sense at all was your last words. My belief and yes it it your belief."
Do you understand what "belief" is? It's assent to an idea. It does not require that the idea be unfounded. I also believe that America exists, because I have very good evidence of that. Just as I believe that God exists, because I have very good evidence of that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@coldandugly9251
"Read my post, I didn’t say god couldn’t prove he existed, I said it would be nice if he/she could prove they did exist,"
You also added that He's done "a horrible job of that so far".
The very fact that you said that it would be nice IF he could prove he exists is a clear implication that He can't, and your addition that He's done a horrible job of it is a clear implication that He hasn't. My initial challenge was why you thought He hadn't, not why you thought He couldn't. True, I subsequently said that my challenge was to show that He couldn't, but if you concede that He could and simply think He hasn't, at least answer that one.
"I’ve seen no evidence such a being does exist..."
Then you haven't looked.
"...you haven’t even tried to prove he/she does,..."
True, I haven't. But I also pointed out that I challenged you first. The ball remains in your court.
1
-
@sidecarmisanthrope5927
"You really don't know what the word "definition" means."
And yet I do.
"...today there are over 40,000 gods being worshipped."
Oh? Where do you get that from? Because a) there can be only one (by definition), b) most claimants (e.g. Zeus) don't even qualify as the supreme being and creator, and c) just because people imagine that they are worshipping a god doesn't mean that their god is real.
"What makes you think that any of the over 40,000 gods has proven that they exist?"
Evidence.
"Please show some concrete, tangible and irrefutable evidence for any of the gods."
* The fact that anything exists at all. The alternative that the universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada, and as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere, is arrant, anti-scientific, nonsense.
* The evidence of 'fine tuning' in the universe, whereby numerous constants, such as the strength of the strong nuclear force, have to have very precise values for the universe to even exist. The odds of the precise values occurring by chance is so astronomically low it can be discarded as fantasy to think that it could happen.
* The evidence of genetic information in living things. Information comes only from an intelligence.
* The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus (the resurrection being one of the best-documented events of ancient history).
That's just a few examples of the evidence off the top of my head.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@seanhammer6296
"Here's the very first thing that comes up in a simple search: "when was Torah written?":"
That's odd, because if I do the same search, that doesn't come up. Second, if I search for part of that result, it still doesn't find anything.
"This is based on a number of arguments, including the lack of archaeological evidence for the Exodus story..."
So the very first "argument" mentioned is an argument from silence? That's a very weak argument.
"...and inconsistencies in the stories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."
What inconsistencies?
"However, some scholars believe the Torah was written during the Hellenistic period (333–164 BCE)."
So you ignored my request to not provide sceptical opinions? My previous reply already provide some evidence contradicting that, and you haven't shown my evidence to be wrong.
"Ok, your turn. What makes you think Moses ever even existed?"
I've already given you some, and you've not refuted any of it. And yet you ask for more?
"...no citing the Bible."
Typical. "Give me evidence without citing the main source of evidence"! This shows your bias.
Famous archaeologist William Albright wrote “The excessive scepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, certain phases of which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history.”
Edward Musgrave Blaiklock, another famous archaeologist, wrote “Near Eastern archaeology has demonstrated the historical and geographical reliability of the Bible in many important areas. By clarifying the objectivity and factual accuracy of biblical authors, archaeology also helps correct the view that the Bible is avowedly partisan and subjective. It is now known, for instance, that, along with the Hittites, Hebrew scribes were the best historians in the entire ancient Near East, despite contrary propaganda that emerged from Assyria, Egypt, and elsewhere.”
So your turn again: what actual evidence is there that Moses didn't write the Pentateuch?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ozziecoops
"...all federal workers were exempt even your postie."
Saying "even your postie" suggests that they were the most likely to be mandated, but in fact the most likely are health-care or aged-care workers, so that doesn't convince me.
The site of The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners says this:
"Australia’s National Cabinet has mandated COVID-19 vaccinations for all residential aged care workers as a condition of working in a residential aged care facility."
I'm not sure whether the "National Cabinet" (a meeting of the Commonwealth and states) counts as the federal government, I would think that does support my view that there were some federal mandates.
"you talk federal that's corporation,..."
No, that's government.
"...i talk constitution commonwealth, Remember states gave up power at federation."
They gave up some powers, as spelt out in the (federal) constitution.
"51 23a is a law of the commonwealth the constitution .."
No, nothing in the Constitution is a law. Rather, it's a provision saying that the federal government can make laws in that area.
"...so if that's in place the states have to follow it."
I don't believe that denies the states the ability to also make laws in that area. Also, I'm not convinced that that paragraph really covers this sort of thing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SammySlamma92
"...animal lives lost,..."
Oh? Is that all animals, or livestock? If the former, where have we recorded animal lives lost in previous bushfires?
"There are other fires in recorded history that have killed more people or destroyed more land area, but none until the 2019-20 bushfire have taken such a toll and caused the sheer amount of destruction that has been done."
So no actual figures to support the claim. Just a feeling that it amounts to more than before. As you point out, other fires have killed more, covered more area, etc. So if a person has three watermelons and another person has 30 grapes, which has more fruit? Obviously the watermelon person if measuring weight or volume, but obviously the grape person if you're counting individual items. But how do you add all those together and sum such different measurements? It's all clearly very subjective.
"As for the relationship to wind farms..."
Sorry, my bad. Silly question.
"...whilst ignoring the actual worst ecological and most harmful event in Australian history to the environment."
However, there I do disagree. He wasn't comparing the damage done by wind farms to other problems (such as fires). He was commenting on the idea of people admiring them. Nobody (sane) admires bushfires.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rogerlayne8623
"I'm 68 years old,I was born into Christianity,..."
I'm also 68, and was born into a Christian family. One that, fortunately, didn't just teach me about God, but also gave me supporting evidence.
"... my mother would stand by and watch and do nothing to protect or prevent my father from BEATING ME..."
I'm sorry to hear that. Fortunately my situation was different to yours in that respect. But that doesn't make the Bible untrue.
"I got into a conversation with a person, and they ask me where in the book it tells of NUCLEAR POWER OR COMPUTERS?so what do I say?"
Say that the Bible tells about our relationship with God and what God has done for us. It doesn't get into future inventions. Why is that such a hard question to answer?
"...so I know well about hypocrisy and lies,so now I do not believe it to be true..."
Because you've encountered hypocritical people and liars? How does that make it not true?
"...now it all could have been prevented if the one that is called God had done something,..."
Illogical. It could have been prevented if God did that particular thing. Not "something", as God has done plenty. If you believe that it's God's job to impinge on the free will he gave us whenever someone is going to do something wrong, you were never taught very well.
"...if there is a god he's got to be a democrud..."
Why? You haven't given me a valid reason.
"...like I say I reckon I'll find out after I'm dead"
Of course it's too late then, and meanwhile, there's plenty of evidence for why it's true.
So I asked for evidence that the Bible's not true. Your response were comments that had no bearing on whether it's true or not. Do you have any evidence or not?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@peterremkes9376
"As for being taken out of context, isn't that standard fare for any politician?"
Perhaps. But so what? That doesn't legitimise it.
"As soon as they get criticised for whatever they said it's the standard answer, taken out of context."
That may be so. But whether or not that's claimed is not the point. The real question is, was it out of context or not? I didn't say that it was; I suggested that there was a good chance that it was.
"I assume you mean the transgender people."
Yes.
"Transgender people have been around for quite a while,..."
So? That does not make it legitimate. Murderers, thieves, rapists, and many others have been around for a lot longer, but being around for a while does not make them legitimate.
"...is is not going away."
Can I borrow your crystal ball?
"You have to be realistic. "
Says the person defending people who think that they are a sex that they are not! Ironic.
"...while you may not agree with it, sometimes we cannot have it all our own way."
It's not my way. It's a matter of what's right and wrong.
"She should not have brought anything else into it."
So she should have stuck with just what you agree with? Because that's the only rationale you gave.
"What I have the biggest problem with is her comparing the fight against gender fluidity with people who saw the trains go past with Jewish people on their way to an extermination camp and not doing anything about it."
What is wrong with that comparison? Sure, one's about people dying and the other isn't, but then no analogy is perfect. The comparable point is that people stood by and did nothing where they saw something wrong.
"People watching the trains were helpless because interfering would mean a firing squad instantly."
And yet many people did help, with smuggling Jews out and the like. So no, they weren't necessarily helpless.
"I can tell you that the comparison Deves made is. completely wrong."
A claim that you have not shown to be true. And I have just shown that there is some similarity. Okay, perhaps it's important to keep the scale in perspective, so you might have a point, but it's a matter of degree, not right or wrong.
"But like I said,I respect your views but do not agree with them ."
I appreciate your attempt to engage civilly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@royjohnson465
"... so called 'white people' are very diverse having all different shades of hair colors, also have all different shades of eye colors."
Paul Walters made a similar point, which I already answered.
"I have concluded ... 8% have a better genetic strength of inventing."
As far as I know there is no evidence for that. Rather, it's to do with culture, which is heavily influenced by religion. Europe (which is where the 'white' people are or migrated from in recent centuries) was Christian, and Christianity brought freedom, capitalism, and education. Other cultures thought that nature was divine, so you had to appease the gods before you took anything from nature, and you couldn't study it. Or, like the ancient Greeks, that the gods were capricious, and on a whim might change their mind about fundamental things like the temperature that water boils at. So it would be a waste of time figuring out what that temperature was. And so on. But the Bible, and therefore Christianity, taught that creation was separate to creation, that we were supposed to study God's creation, and that God was a law-making God and probably made law for nature to follow, so we could study nature and learn what those laws were. There were other factors also.
Christianity also taught that people were individuals who could worship God—and by extension do other things—individually, not just as a society. And so was born capitalism, which provided people with the wealth and the free time to study and invent. One of the things that Christianity came up with—and this is acknowledged by numerous scholars—is science.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Matt, I appreciate your defence of Vivek and his comment about Tik Tok. You're right, that he was criticising Nikki, not her daughter.
But regarding Nikki's tweet about Israel and America, I tend to agree with her. First, she doesn't say that Israel doesn't need America. She's saying that's not the point. Second, America arguably does need Israel. That is, America, along with the rest of the West, needs a democracy in that part of the world, even if just to show that a democracy can work there. I don't know what was in her mind, but the tweet does not say that America needs Israel simply in order to survive; America could obviously survive without Israel there, but having Israel there is is a big help for the West, including America.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@UCFmMAv3ahVmNRKQJoXFIUKg
"That's because at that point in the pandemic, being unvaccinated would put the community at risk. So the community had a right to restrict people based on their vaccination status."
So first you claim that nobody forced anyone to get vaccinated, then you switch to trying to justify why they did force people to get vaccinated! So which is it? Did they or did they not force people to get vaccinated? You can't have it both ways.
"being unvaccinated would put the community at risk"
Bein unvaccinated does not put anybody at risk. Having the virus put people at risk. (And you could still get the virus even when vaccinated.)
"To say vaccination was mandatory is definitely bending the reality of what happened."
How so? I've given you and example of it being mandatory, and instead of showing I was wrong, you attempted to justify it!
"Don't blame the government, blame the pandemic."
The pandemic didn't make the rules, such as the rules that people had to get vaccinated or lose rights.
"Abortion is different because it does not affect the community. it's a decision that only affects mother and fetus."
Not true. It also affects the father, and it affects others who would like to adopt but can't, and it affects those who have to support the mother in the many cases she suffers from it. And it affect society in telling society that some lives don't matter.
Further, abortion kills far, far, more people than covid does. That makes it a much more serious problem.
And why are you using a medical term (fetus) in a non-medical forum? The hide that what abortion kills is babies?
"all I hear is wah wah I'm a big baby who can't handle a little needle lol"
Where do hear that from? Because I think you're making that up. I, for one, chose to get vaccinated. I'm all for it. But not for forcing it on people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamesday967
"You're commenting on something you haven't actually seen."
Yes. So? People don't need to have personal experience of something to comment on it if they know enough about it.
"They weren't being taught that being naked in public is OK, they were in a private space."
First, I put 'public' in quotes, as I did in this sentence. I know it wasn't in public in the normal sense. But then to say that it was in 'a private space' when it's broadcast and available to the public around the world effectively makes it completely public anyway.
"However, since you mention it, being naked in public is totally legal."
That doesn't make it right.
"Scientific research has been conducted on the psychological effects on children who are brought up in a naturist environment. It found that they actually benefit from the experience in many ways."
What about the moral and spiritual effects?
"Why is being naked in front of others perverse?"
Because we are fallen human beings. Read Genesis 3:1-7.
"It happens all the time in changing rooms..."
Which are people of the same sex and not with the intention of being on display.
"...and art classes."
Which doesn't make it right.
"Prior to the show, the boys thought that they had to have a body like Dwayne 'the Rock' Johnson or John Cena to be acceptable. They now don't feel that pressure."
Given that that's not the only way to solve that problem for the sub-group that has it, how does that make it okay?
"In the previous episode, the same children saw a group of naked women."
Again, how does that make it okay?
"Do we really want children growing up with these mis-conceptions?"
As I said, that's not the only way to solve such issues. And we don't want them growing up thinking that it's okay to be naked in public.
"I assure you that the nudity wasn't sexualised, ..."
Public nudity is by definition sexualised.
1
-
@jamesday967
"If you didn’t watch the programme, you don’t know enough about it to be in a position to comment."
Why is that? Why can't I know enough about it from what others describe?
"Would you like me to comment on a church service if I hadn’t heard it?"
I wouldn't object on the grounds that you hadn't heard it, unless it was apparent that you understanding of it was faulty.
"Regardless, the venue was still private and the nudity was for a specific purpose, so there was no link to what they were doing and being naked in public."
And yet it was made very public (and that was clearly always the intention, else the cameras wouldn't have been there). Being for a specific purpose doesn't change what I said.
"You’re entitled to your opinion, however, you still haven’t explained why you think it’s so wrong."
I did, actually, with my reference to Genesis.
"Some people don’t like tattoos and body piercings, should they be made illegal just because someone, somewhere doesn't like them?"
I never said that it was anything to do with "someone, somewhere".
"Most people aren’t actually bothered if they encounter a naked person."
So?
"What’s immoral about being naked? It’s how God made us."
He also made us sinless, but we are now sinners. Did you read the Genesis reference?
"I don’t understand what you mean by spiritual, perhaps you could explain."
Spiritual has to do with our relationship with God.
"I assume from that comment that you don’t approve of art students being taught one of the most celebrated genres of art. What age do you think students should be allowed to draw nude models, assuming you don’t think it should be banned altogether?"
You assume wrong. (Although I'm not talking about whether or not the law should get involved.)
"The proof of the pudding, as they say. The boys (and probably many who saw the programme) now don’t feel the pressure to look a certain way and are more accepting of their own bodies. Surely that’s a good thing."
A house has termites in it. So the council demolishes every house in the street. The proof of the pudding is that the termites are now gone. Surely that's a good thing? Or is it?
"Read the rest of that particular comment and you’ll have the answer."
If that was the case, I wouldn't have asked the question. But YouTube is hiding the comment from me, so I can't refresh my memory now on what that was.
"No, it’s only sexualised if you make it so,..."
Which nudity does.
"it will only happen if you, personally, automatically associate nudity with sex. That’s in your mind, nowhere else."
The prime purpose of clothing is to cover the sexual aspects. Therefore nudity is by definition associated with sex.
1
-
@jamesday967
"What others describe isn’t necessarily accurate, that’s why."
True, but then I haven't seen you dispute the accuracy of any such description.
"If you haven’t seen the programme, how can you really know what the content was?"
From what others have described. This is the same old case as "if you haven't eaten rat poison, how do you know that it's bad for you?" I don't know how old you are, but I learnt that principle perhaps 50 years ago.
"...you have to accept that your understanding of it is faulty if I, someone who has seen it, is telling you it is."
Except you haven't. You've disagreed about the effects of it and the rightness or wrongness of it, but not shown that I have a faulty understanding of the facts.
"The point is that you object to it and believe it should be banned, therefore, by your logic, if someone objects to something, it should be banned."
That was not my logic at all. You simply made that up.
"Read the above in context. The point I was making was about the comments here not being representative of the wider view."
And my point is about the rightness or wrongness of it, not about what the popular opinion is.
"No, I didn’t, so I’d be grateful if you could explain."
Oh dear. If you don't bother reading sources I reference, you're not trying.
"So at what age should art students be [drawing] a nude model?"
You've already asked that question. You asked it "assuming" something. I said that your assumption was wrong. Ergo, the question is null and void.
"The comment was “All seemed surprised that the women had pubic hair because the porn they had viewed only had models who were shaven. Do we really want children growing up with these mis-conceptions?”"
Yes, I remember that now. My question of "How does that make it okay" stands. Keep in mind that for a similar question, I replied "Given that that's not the only way to solve that problem for the sub-group that has it, how does that make it okay?"
"How does nudity sexualise? Is it sexual when you shower? Is it sexual when you dress/undress? No. it isn’t, so why should, say swimming naked be any different?"
Clearly we are talking about nudity in public or in front of people of the other sex.
"Actually, the purpose of clothing is to keep us warm."
No, that is not how clothing started. Again, see the reference you refused to read.
"Now, can you stop with the quotes and just reply if you must keep arguing? I’ll know what you are referring to and it will stop the replies being sooooooo long!"
Apart from having written all the above before I saw this, I often find that it's not clear what someone is replying to, and also it provides a record for me of what I'm replying to if YouTube hides the comments.
1
-
@jamesday967
"I have very much disputed the accuracy of how others have been describing the programme."
Okay, let's forget about what you have supposedly disputed. Do you dispute any of the following:
* Adult males and females deliberately undressed in front of children and television cameras.
* This was filmed and broadcast on Britain's channel 4.
* This was done for children.
If you don't dispute the first point, my comments stand.
"You have asserted that the law has been broken, ..."
No, I didn't.
"...the models are guilty of gross indecency, the programme amounts to child abuse, the programme teaches being naked in public is OK and a lot else besides..."
Roughly correct.
"I have corrected you on a lot of that..."
No, you have disagreed with me on that.
"...and challenged you to explain your point of view which, aside from a few bible references, you have so far failed to do in a coherent fashion."
But with that Bible reference that you refuse to read, I've been coherent?
"I have done more than disagree, I have pointed to evidence to demonstrate what I am saying is correct."
Evidence that I have disputed is sufficient to justify it.
"I’m speaking from a factual standpoint, not giving a point of view."
What is factual about the morality of your position?
"For example, you asserted that the children would have suffered psychological damage from taking part."
Sort of, but due to loose wording. I didn't say "psychological", but "mental", by which I meant non-physical, which I later referred to as moral and spiritual effects. (Not that I'm ruling out "psychological" damage also.)
"You object to the programme, that isn’t an assumption, it’s very clear that you do, and you don’t believe it should be broadcast."
Correct. I didn't say otherwise. Given that you didn't quote me, I assume that this is a response to my comment that "That was not my logic at all. You simply made that up." It was not my logic that "if someone objects to something, it should be banned." Rather, it should not be broadcast because it's morally wrong and I object because it's morally wrong.
"In the absence of any reasonable, justifiable objections, e.g., health and safety or legality, there is no reason for banning it other than you don’t approve."
No, because it's morally wrong.
"The logic is, whether to realise it or not, that everything you don’t approve of should be banned. "
No, the logic is that things that are morally wrong should not be done.
"No, I didn’t read the biblical reference, ... For all you know, I might not own a bible."
You can very easily look it up on the Internet!
"...have you watched the programme yet?"
No, I don't see a need to. If you claim that my first bullet point at the start of this reply is incorrect, then I will reconsider.
"The question about drawing nude models isn’t null and void."
You put a condition on that question, and the condition wasn't met.
"What else is to be inferred from that other than you don’t approve of models being naked for an art class?"
That it's morally wrong. Why do you assume that my objection is a purely subjective opinion of mine? Why don't you assume that I might have a valid reason for my comment? After all, I didn't say "Which I don't like", but (as you quoted) “Which doesn’t make it right”. That is, I'm not talking about my opinion, but about right and wrong. But you have baselessly misrepresented my comment as merely subjective opinion.
"Do you remember science experiments at school? The teacher could have forgone all that and just told you what was going to happen. However, the real educational value came from actually doing the experiment as much more was learned and the pupils were able to witness the process and understand it better."
True.
"Well, the same applies here."
And I suppose the same would apply with teaching students that you should not take rat poison. Don't just tell them that, but get them to try it and see for themselves what the effect is. I agree—they'll remember that lesson much better that way.
"Being naked in public isn’t sexual, neither is being naked in front of the opposite sex."
Repeating your claim does not make it any more true.
"Is a dad being naked in front of his daughter sexual?"
I guess it depends on how you define "sexual", but yes. Exposing his sexual organs like that is wrong, and think that you could use the adjective 'sexual' for that.
"Is a brother being naked in front of his sister sexual?"
If they are old enough to understand, yes.
"Is it sexual if a male is naked in front of a female friend or vice versa?"
If they are not married, then yes.
"The only purpose of clothing is to keep us warm, whatever your as yet unexplained biblical reference says."
That is incorrect. People first started wearing clothing for a moral reason, as the Bible records.
"If it was about modesty, we would all be walking around in our underwear in summer instead because that would be sufficient."
If it was "only" about keeping us warm, we'd be walking around naked in hot weather. And yet most people still wear clothing even in hot weather. Even when they strip down to beach gear, they still wear some clothing, despite it doing nothing to keep them warm.
1
-
@jamesday967
"You might want to stand by your comments, but they don’t stand up to scrutiny! "
I stand by them because yours didn't stand up to scrutiny.
"...so yes, you have asserted the law has been broken."
I may have implied that, and perhaps it has, but I didn't assert that.
"You have given opinions,..."
I have given you facts.
"I have given you the facts and I’ve told you where you can find the information to confirm those facts, ..."
You have given me opinions and some facts, but not ones that manage to make your case.
"...so I’ve done more than disagreed with you, I’ve proved what you are saying was wrong."
No, your facts didn't address my claims. So you've proved nothing I said was wrong.
"You can dispute it all you like, it makes no difference, you are still wrong."
Back at you: You can dispute it all you like, it makes no difference, you are still wrong.
"Your frustration at me for not reading the bible reference would have more credibility if you had actually watched the programme you are complaining about. Until then, it’s just hypocritical."
Not hypocritical at all, as they are two different situations. I have sufficient knowledge of what was in the show (you haven't disputed my bullet points), but you don't have sufficient knowledge of what's in the Bible.
"You assume my position is immoral, it isn’t!"
No, I don't "assume" it. I'm concluding it is, based on facts.
"Neither is the programme immoral."
Another opinion of yours.
"It’s teaching children some very important lessons and correcting myths ..."
I've already addressed that by pointing out that there is more than one way to do that. So you're simply repeating a claim that I have already addressed.
"... that they have been ‘taught’ because people like you see the human body as something it isn’t."
Huh? What do you think "people like me" think it is? You've indicated that they've been "taught" that it's not as they have seen pictured, but I never endorsed how it's supposedly been pictured.
"I didn’t put any conditions on the art class question,..."
False. You asked me "What age do you think students should be allowed to draw nude models, assuming you don’t think it should be banned altogether? " Your assumption was wrong, hence the question was null and void.
"People only wear clothes when it’s hot because they have been socially conditioned to,..."
Maybe, but how and why did that social conditioning start? It must be something other than keeping warm, else we wouldn't have that social conditioning.
"No-one actually needs to wear clothes unless it is for warmth."
There's another opinion of yours.
"Drinking rat poison is dangerous and unhealthy,..."
I think so too. But how do you know if you haven't tried it?
"Anyway, I’m not going to keep going backwards and forwards with someone who can’t back up anything he says with facts,..."
Except that I have been backing it up with facts. But you refuse to acknowledge them.
"...sees our natural state as “exposing sexual organs” (which is a state of mind that is, frankly, dangerous and worrying)..."
Another fact-free opinion.
"and keeps referring to morals and the bible, so let’s cut to the chase."
What's wrong with that?
"What is immoral about our natural state? It’s what God gave us, yet you seem to feel shame and embarrassment about it. Don’t answer with biblical references, ..."
Translation: Don't answer with the truth, just make up an answer. In other words, why are you trying to dictate to me what my answer should be?
"...answer with quantifiable, provable facts."
And then you go and contradict yourself. What is not a quantifiable, provable, fact about answering with a Bible reference?
"Don’t answer anything else I’ve said except that one question."
Sorry, you don't get to dictate the conversation, and I had in any case written all the above before I read this, and further, I have already answered by citing the original and main source but you refuse to read it. (Although when you do, you'll probably still have questions.)
1
-
@sarabic5512
"- indigenous Jews who have lived alongside Armenian Christian’s, Palestinians of all faiths and the rest, can not be considered colonisers."
I was going to agree, and there is some truth to that, but then I remembered how Muslims attacked the area over 1000 years ago.
"The UK and US backed influx of European resettlers in the last 100 years caused a grave imbalance, ..."
What imbalance, and why is that the cause? Muslims live peacefully with their neighbours when they don't have the numbers to dominate. When the modern state of Israel was formed, neighbouring Muslim countries attacked. Why isn't the blame on them?
"Israelis are collectively punishing Palestinians of all faiths, also flattening churches, so this is an ethnic retribution."
And yet Arabs are allowed to stand for parliament and to be judges. So perhaps it's not ethnicity at all.
"Andrew made this about religion. Religion is smoke screen here."
No, it's very much about religion. Islam's ideology is to dominate by force.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ScottBub
"it’s a matter of logic."
I agree, which is why I use logic.
"I’m saying that fairies have not been demonstrated to exist and whatever has been asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence."
I agree with that too. Which is why I challenged you to provide evidence of your claim that Matt couldn't prove that pixies created the universe. You have failed to provide evidence that he couldn't, so your claim that he couldn't can be rejected without evidence. (Which of course doesn't mean that he can provide such evidence.)
"Therefore there is no reason to prove that fairies or god did or didn’t create the universe because it first has to be proven whether they or it exists first before moving on to a different claim."
Actually, it's not clear which claim comes first. If archaeologists find stones in shapes that they believe had not occurred naturally, that would be considered evidence that they were shaped by man. They don't have to show that men existed there before making that conclusion. The stones are themselves evidence for that.
Similarly, the existence of the universe not being able to form naturally IS evidence that it was created by an intelligent being, which we would call "God".
"Why is it that someone would need to prove that fairies didn’t create the universe if it’s never been demonstrated that they even exist first?"
Someone should prove that fairies didn't create the universe if that someone made a dogmatic claim that fairies didn't create the universe. As I said, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. And as you said, what has been asserted without evidence (that fairies didn't create the universe) can be rejected without evidence.
"...the way we evaluate existential claims is that nothing exists until it has been demonstrated it exists."
That depends on what you mean by "demonstrated". If "demonstration" means showing that it's more probable than not, then I agree with you. But again, you're contradicting yourself. Because you haven't demonstrated your claim that fairies didn't create the universe. Therefore, we can reject your claim. (Which doesn't mean that they did create the universe, just that we can't yet rule out that option.)
I'll also explain it this way. There are three options to the question "Did God create the universe?"
1) Yes, God created the universe.
2) No, God did not create the universe.
3) I don't know if God created the universe.
If someone makes either claim 1) or 2), they have a burden of proof. The only person who doesn't is they one that answers with 3). You are making claims like No. 2), but not accepting your onus to provide 'proof' (or evidence, at least).
1
-
@ScottBub
"I am not saying that god didn’t create the universe and that fairies didn’t create the universe."
I didn't say that you were saying that. Your claim (well, one of them) was that "I have no burden to prove that something that hasn’t been demonstrated to exist doesn’t exist." But that is incorrect. If you claim that something hasn't been demonstrated to exist, then you have a burden of proof to show that it hasn't been demonstrated to exist.
"I am saying why should we even make that valuation until it’s been demonstrated to exist."
It? The universe?
"Do we have to prove that everything that some random person asserts created the universe..."
The only think you have to "prove" is the claims that you make. If a random person asserts that X created the universe, they have the onus of proof. But similarly, if anyone says that X didn't create the universe, they have the onus of proof.
"Therefore there is no need to say “I don’t know” because making up random stuff that could potentially create universes is not something we need to waste our time on until it’s been demonstrated it potentially exists."
But we are not talking about "making up random stuff", are we? We are talking about a long-standing, well-accepted claim that has evidence to back it.
"You are trying to say that we need to leave room for skepticism..."
In the absence of reason to do otherwise, yes.
"I’m just saying do we have to say “it’s possible” or “I don’t know” if kermarblefluffins created the universe? No."
If someone makes a serious claim that kermarblefluffins created the universe, then yes, you have to say "I don't know" unless you can provide reason for it to be wrong. To simply assert that it's wrong without reason is not intellectually honest.
"Because it’s nonsense..."
While I don't doubt hat kermarblefluffins are something that you made up and therefore are nonsense, apart from that, you are begging the question by calling it 'nonsense'. Is it actually nonsense, or is that just your prejudice?
1
-
@eb2505
"Read a proper book, you might learn something."
Showing your ignorance, I see. The Bible is a proper book. It's been shown by archaeology to be correct in numerous previously-disputed claims, and its teachings became the basis of Western Civilisation, inspiring such improvements as the introduction of public hospitals, many charities, modern science, the university system, human rights and freedoms, the abolition of slavery, the spread of democracy, universal education, and more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Our LORD was not born Dec 25, ..."
Why do you think that? Christians have been using that date for over 1800 years.
"...no where in the Bible does it say when He was born."
Well, it kind of does. It indicates that Jesus was born six months after his cousin John, whose father was serving as priest at the time, and he "belonged to the priestly division of Abijah" (Luke 1:5), which division was eight in the list of 24 divisions (1 Chronicles 24:10). Some people have used that to try and work out when Jesus was born. In any case, the Bible doesn't say that it wasn't the 25th of December.
"Tammuz was born in December, ..."
So were lots of people, including my mother. Your point...?
"...this is a pagan celebration."
No, it's a celebration of the birth of Jesus.
"Santa anagram for satan."
And peach is an anagram of cheap. What does that prove? In fact Santa Claus is an anglicisation of the Dutch Sinterklass which is a reference to bishop Nicholas of Myra, known as Saint Nicholas. So Santa does not derive from Satan, but from Saint.
"The Bible tells us to not cut down a tree and decorate it."
Not exactly, and it is talking about making idols, not Christmas trees. It appears to be talking about cutting down a tree to get the wood to carve into an idol; not about displaying it as a tree.
"We need to walk in Spirit and TRUTH."
Absolutely. But saying that Christmas is unChristian is not truth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jackintosh
"I made a claim that you (not even you specifically but for sake of argument) cannot provided incontrovertible evidence that your Christian god exists, that is a fact."
Yes, it's a fact that you made that claim. And it's a fact that I asked you for evidence of that claim. But it seems that you're not willing to provide any evidence of it.
"I didn't make it up about you, its a fact of reality that Christians in over two thousand years have never provided such evidence, ..."
So your "evidence" is basically the same claim, but about all Christians. So you still need to provide evidence.
"...you're a chstitian that has not provided evidence, ..."
Again, you're making that up, because you don't know whether I have or haven't, beyond your evidence-free assertion that nobody has.
"...my claim and fact remains."
Well your claim remains, but without evidence. And I don't accept that it's a fact.
"Not to mention that if you had such information, you ... would have provided it, you've not."
What's your evidence that I "would have"? In fact, I rarely provide that evidence to someone who has failed to provide evidence for his own prior claim, as here. So no, I would NOT have in a circumstance such as this. You simply made that up.
" ... ( again not necessarily you, but the general Christian) ..."
And again, that's essentially the same claim, which I've asked for evidence of, but you're refusing to provide it.
"If I am wrong, you can prove me wrong very easily, ..."
It's not my job to prove you wrong until you have at least substantiated your own (prior) claim.
"I literally cited why you especially as a Christian should answer my question, did you miss that?"
Looking back through the comments, I can't see that you did say that to me. However, I can see where you said something like that to mrrogers1499. And I'm happy to answer that question, once you answer my (prior) request for evidence. But if you won't, why should I?
"Now I have been patient, ..."
As have I.
"...if your next reply doesn't provide my the answer i requested I will simply keep you on the list of Christians that still cannot provide the evidence requested."
Wrongly, given that you have no evidence that I can't, beyond your unevidenced assertion that no Christian can. That's not intellectually honest.
Further, I can put you on my list of atheists who make claims that can't back up with evidenced, when challenged to do so. After all, by your logic, "if you had such information [in support of your claim], you ... would have provided it, you've not."
1
-
@alanwatterson2850
"Then explain how you are going to be true to the "word of God" when you are told that retribution and forgiveness are both correct reactions?"
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but justice is what a person deserves for doing wrong, but as Christians, we are called on to forgive people who wrong us. You can only forgive wrongdoing, so there has to be the concept of justice before there's anything to forgive.
"If it's OK for you to believe in mythical beings..."
What's your evidence that God is mythical?
"I was trying to make the point that you can justify anything you like with a verse from the Bible, including murder."
Except that you can't. Or, again, perhaps you can provide evidence for your claim?
"...the whole story doesn't ring true to me."
And yet it does for many, many people.
"No need to [prove that God doesn't exist]. Just like unicorns and fairies at the bottom of the garden. Never been any evidence of existence and never will be."
There is a need to provide evidence for your claims, and you've just claimed that there has never been, and never will be, any evidence of His existence. So what's your evidence for that claim?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@daveo3122
I understand you not providing links, and the name was enough for me to find the first one (the only one I've looked at). However, I was not impressed with what I saw. Almost at the start, he claimed "A referendum is required under section 123 of the federal constitution. It states to increase or decrease the authority of the parliament of the state it requires a referendum in that state". I don't know if you've bothered looking at that section yourself, but I did, and he's misquoting it. The section doesn't mention "the authority of the parliament of the state". It doesn't mention authority or the parliament at all. It talks about the "limits of states", and it's in a chapter titled "New States". It's clearly talking about geographical limits, not power. And yet he's using it to claim that by passing a law providing for local governments, the state is increasing its power and therefore, under section 123, needs to have a referendum. But given that it's not claiming that at all, then there is nothing illegal about having local governments. As I said, the states have the power other than that outlined in the constitution for the federal government to have.
But I thought that I wouldn't hold one mistake against him, so I continued watching. The very next claim was that the voters rejected the idea of local governments in a referendum in 1988. This seemed odd to me, because I'm old enough to know that local governments were around well before that, and I didn't recall a referendum about that. This is what he says: "In 1988 when we had a referendum the people voted No in every state in Australia. 66.42 percent of Australians voted No to local government, No to the establishment of local government, No to the continuance of local government, No to the empowering of local government, and No to local government making by laws. They were the four sections of the referendum."
This has no more than a grain of truth to it. There was a referendum in 1988, and it had four questions, and they all failed to pass. However, the first was on four-year terms for federal parliament, the second was on fair and democratic elections, the third (only) was on local government, and the fourth was on extending rights to trial by jury, religions freedom, and fair compensation. So only one, not four, were on local government. And that one was not to do with authorising them, but with recognising them in the constitution. As the states have the authority and the federal government therefore had no control over local governments, this was an attempt to take some control off the states and give it to the commonwealth. So although the voters rejected that attempt, it was NOT a rejection of the idea of having local governments, as he claimed, let alone the specific claims he made about what the "four sections" were about.
With two false claims out of the first two, he'd blown his credibility, so I didn't watch any more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Louise Yvette
There is such a provision, but I don't believe it does what you think it might. You'd be referring to section 109 which says that a commonwealth law overrides a state law. It's about which law takes precedence, not about the constitution taking precedence.
First, as I mentioned, the constitution sets out what the Federal government can do and cannot do. It does not restrict the states, for the most part. It's not always as simple as that, though. Because there are cases where the federal government has been handed power by the agreement of the states, and other cases where the federal government has simply taken the power and not been challenged by the states.
But ignoring that complication, lets consider two hypothetical examples:
A) The federal government is allowed to make laws controlling the production of tomatoes. If a state also makes such laws, the federal law takes precedences.
B) The federal government makes laws controlling the production of potatoes, for which it has no authority. If a state government also makes such laws, the federal law would not apply, because the federal government doesn't have the authority to make such laws. If that was not the case, the federal government could make whatever laws it wanted and override the states in any way it chose.
So, if the constitution says that the federal government can't make a law making medical procedures compulsory, then we have situation B). The constitution therefore doesn't control what the state governments can do in this case.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thehairygolfer
You have to go back about 500 years for that to have been the case. And that was partly because the Catholic church had become very powerful and with that it had become corrupt.
But I referred to Christianity, not to the Catholic Church.
Christians within the church protested such things, which gave rise to protest-antism. This brought Christianity back to what the Bible taught, and in order to spread Christianity, the Protestants translated the Bible into the common languages and, to allow people to read it for themselves, they subsequently introduced universal education.
Vishal Mangalwadi writes about this:
"Almost every alehouse and tavern turned into a debating society. People started questioning and judging every tradition of the church and every decision of the king. People could question religious and political authorities because they now had in their hands the very Word of God. The Word of God was an authority higher than the authority of the church and the state combined. ...
Alehouses became debating clubs as people interpreted and applied the Bible differently to the intellectual and social issues of the day. Some were content to let the church settle their disputes. Others realized that the only way to determine which interpretation was correct was to read the Bible with valid rules of interpretation. This was a bottom-up intellectual revolution. It infused the minds of all literate Englishmen—not just those in the universities—with a new logical bent. It took no time for that revolution to spread into other aspects of people's lives. Until that time, England was only a middling power. But once the English people began using logic to interpret the Bible, they acquired a skill that propelled their nation to the forefront of world politics, economics, and thought.
"
"Mostly to leave religion out of their life."
Yes, but that came later. That was not a result of being able to read the Bible for themselves, as the quote above points out. The church at times was a hindrance. Christianity itself, though, was a liberator.
"A new religion had to be found!"
As I said before, that came earlier. The quote from Mangalwadi above refers to around the middle of the 16th century. The Deists (I consider them to be atheists without completely ditching God) around the end of the 18th century tried to find ways around believing the Bible. People started to invent other explanations for things, including the accuracy of the Bible. It was these sort of neo-atheist ideas that was the "new religion" that attacked Christianity. A "new religion" was not the consequence of the decline in Christianity, but the cause.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamiechippett1566
"read the Hebrew scriptures"
I don't read Hebrew, but I've read English translations.
"dead sea scrolls(book of giants),book of Enoch,book of jasher,book of jubilees,historian Josephus etc etc"
What will they prove?
"Tree of Knowledge,fruit,seed,procreation,don't you get it mate! "
I don't get what you're espousing.
"if you don't understand it's a seed war"
No, it's a battle between good and evil.
"Because they were rephaim giant seed! God didn't want Israel's seed to mix with the rephaimites. Don't you get it mate? Goliath is a giant!!."
Goliath came much later. And there is no evidence of the nephilim in the promised land. The only report was a claim by the ten spies who gave a false report. The nephilim were wiped out in the flood, and Goliath was well post-flood.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jakeg3296
"No , no , no communism is an ideology, not to be conflated with religion."
That depends on your definitions. Religion can be a set of core beliefs; it doesn't have to include belief in God, and you therefore have some atheist religions such as Confucianism, Scientology, Zen Buddhism, Secular Humanism, and the basis for Communism, Marxism.
"What communist states have outlawed religion. ?"
All of them (at some stage)? But to clarify, most communist states declared freedom of religion. And then actively suppressed it, saying one thing and doing another (as the left often does).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MK cargo
"If there was any sort of substantial evidence we would have it now. There isn't."
Except that I cited some, so clearly you are wrong.
Does that make you a liar, that we should therefore disbelieve on everything you say?
"And all one term presidents are considered failures."
By who?
"Although Trump is truly a failure. He never build the wall ..."
He has built some of it.
"So yes he was a failure."
Citing a few select things on which he allegedly failed and ignoring his successes does not mean that he was overall a failure.
"Trump is a con-man who only cares about himself. "
Not in evidence. Well, not in reliable evidence at least.
"Just look at what he's doing now. Acting like a spoiled little child who didn't get his way!"
Or acting like someone who has been cheated out of a win by the considerable anti-Trump forces that have been trying to take him down ever since he got elected. Using deceit to get rid of him is improper, and he should oppose that, else it will continue to flourish.
"He is willing to tear America apart for his own vanity. Selfish and grossly irresponsible."
Again, not in evidence. Obama also tore America apart, but the media, on-side with Obama, didn't report that, so they made it look like it was all roses, but it wasn't.
"He's a proven lier."
Probably 99% of people lie, and probably 99.9% of politicians lie. I don't dispute that he probably has. But worse than others? That's not in evidence. I've spot-checked the massive list of lies attributed to him, and they don't withstand scrutiny. Rather, it's the left that lie about him.
"Why would you ever imagine he'd tell the truth now"
The media and the left are proven liars, so why are you taking their word?
"And we should take his word with not evidence?"
No, we should test it in court. Why does the left have a problem with that? Afraid he may be proved to be right?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@16driver16
"yes if you build a garden you absolutely needed to..."
Huh? My example was choosing to build a garden. Why one earth would you say that I needed to?
"are you saying there is free will now after you completely proved whatever you do isn't your will it's God's... "
I proved no such thing.
"how's that for your first contradiction..."
You haven't shown a contradiction.
"if God's will is already gonna happen why do we have to do ANYTHING?!"
Okay, I said that I don't have the power to stop God's will, in the context of your comment that I'm "stopping" God's will. But God wants more than one thing. He wants all to be saved, but He also wants us to decide for ourselves. So He might allow some thingd that He doesn't want, in order to allow for free will. We can't stop God if He doesn't want to be stopped.
"why did God make Eve from Adam?"
Perhaps to show that males and females are not separate creations, but closely related. He made various animals, and He made man. If He made Eve separately, it might give the impression that women are as different to men as men are to animals, for example.
"He didn't use anything like that to create Adam isn't that strange?!"
Why would that be strange? Only because it doesn't fit your expectations? And He obviously couldn't make Eve from Adam and Adam from Eve, i.e. He couldn't use His approach for Eve for Adam also.
"he created man from dust and woman from what?!?"
From Adam, as you know. Perhaps from DNA (but altered) from the bone marrow in Adam's rib, which offers the greatest protection for the DNA.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AspenDarkfire
"a collection of books you say.... So the actual bible would also include the gospel of Thomas book."
That's illogical. The Bible being a collection of books doesn't mean that any other book you pick is therefore part of the Bible.
"It was part of the bible for 325 years, until it was removed at the council of nicaea."
That is false. Or can you provide evidence? Further, your dates are wrong.
Here's a couple of things that Britannica says about it:
1) "Gospel of Thomas, apocryphal (noncanonical) gospel containing 114 sayings attributed to the resurrected Jesus..."
The Council of Nicaea was in 325, so if Thomas was part of the Bible for 325 years, it must have been in the Bible since about 1 AD, when Jesus was about four years old, and therefore predates the Jesus' resurrection by about 30 years!
The rest of that sentence I quoted is that it was "...written in the mid-2nd century." So at the time of the Council of Nicea, it was only about 200 years old.
Britannica also says that:
"The Gospel of Thomas is grounded in gnosticism, the philosophical and religious movement of the 2nd century ce that stressed the redemptive power of esoteric knowledge acquired by divine revelation. Indeed, warnings against it as heretical were made by the Church Fathers in the 2nd–4th century."
So it was written in the mid 2nd century, and the church fathers were calling it heretical from the 2nd century!
So please, where is the evidence for your claim?
"Which "bible" actually contains the gospel of Thomas.... Or are all modern Bibles incomplete."
No Bibles contain it, because it's not, and has never been, part of the Bible. Which means that they are not incomplete.
If you want to find fault, be logical, and get your facts right. Atheist folklore is not a good source of information.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AspenDarkfire
" "the Church had taken her first great step to define revealed doctrine more precisely in response to a challenge from a heretical theology."[21]" Carrol 1987, page 12. "
Which doesn't support your claim, not even mentioning Thomas.
"Never in human history has there ever been a definitive version of "the bible" "
And yet there is very wide agreement on it.
"From the myths scribbled by desert scribes around the dead sea."
What myths? The Bible contains history, not myths.
"To the proclamations nailed to the door by Martin Luther, "the bible" is constantly changing, rewritten, retranslated, reinterpreted. "
Luther's proclamations were not a change to the content of the Bible, which doesn't need to be in scare quotes.
And no, it's not constantly changing nor being rewritten. Yes, there may be some limited reinterpretation, but that's not a change the to Bible. And yes, it's being retranslated, often because the language it's being translated into (e.g. English) changes. So the Authorised Version of 400 years ago used English words that have changed, such as using "meat" to refer to food, "flesh" to refer to meat, and "charity" to refer to love. So new translations of the same Bible are required. Those new translations are new translations of the old, early, manuscripts, not translations of translations of translations. So again, that doesn't mean that the BIble is being changed.
"To use "the bible" as support for anything, is at best highly disingenuous..."
Why is that? Historians and others use lots of ancient documents to support our understanding of history. Why should the BIble be an exception? Simply because atheists don't like it?
"...and at worst, just flat out ignorant of what "the bible" means and where it comes from."
You're the one with the ignorance. "Bible" derives from the ancient Greek for book. I have already explained where it came from, and you have not pointed out any error in my explanation. And that is not reason for your "disingenuous" comment, which was itself disingenuous.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1