Thread: So, I think Christians are stupid.

Originally Posted by kookyinc

All that stuff up there

I think Ne-yo will understand now, and will agree with us.

I'm continuously facepalming myself.

It's true, my patience has run out. But instead of turning psychopath I'm just tired and staring blank eyed.

Originally Posted by kookyinc

Saying "the evidence suggests" means that they are pretty certain.

Which one of those articles you linked says "the evidence suggests" verbatim? Because I've must be blind I didn't see anything that stated what you just put in quotations.

Originally Posted by kookyinc

That's hardly an acceptable reason why the all good omnipotent king of everything does not stop suffering instantly, but I believe that this convoluted paradox is a useless thing to try and unravel.

It doesn't matter if it's an acceptable reason to you. This is what Jesus told his disciples on the mount of Olives regarding the end of days as indicated in Scripture
Matthew 24:3-31. Note: verse 14 where it says. "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." So maybe it's not acceptable to you but to be straight up with you, whether you accept this as a reason for why God hasn't done anything right at this very moment doesn't really matter. For those who have died as a result of starvation, pangs and distress within this system of wickedness are amongst the "meek" and will receive the blessing under the New Kingdom of Earth and they shall inherit the Earth.

Originally Posted by kookyinc

Also, I don't plan on the wrath of a nonexistent deity to hurt me anytime soon.

It doesn't matter what you plan. If it were to happen all I can say is, may God have mercy on your soul.

Originally Posted by kookyinc

I would like a counter-argument to Evid3nc3's premise that Judaism and subsequently Christianity are derivatives of ancient Babylonian mythology. Yale seems to agree with this idea.

This is not a counter-argument if you're using the same material as you've previously posted. I've already seen Superfly's biblical material links from your previous post which included Professor Christine Hayes Religious studies @ Yale University. I've also already explained to you that He and I have different views. I am an Old Earth Creationist and he is a Young Earth Creationist. It doesn't matter how much material he has, if he cannot understand it correctly it's useless. Christine Hayes is very intelligent and I have listened to her lectures before however her material is inconsistent with an old age earth view which is what I have believe. None of this has any strong support for what you are stating. Basically what you're telling me is just because Superfly and Evid3n3's video are in agreement with one another means that what they both are proposing is correct information? It doesn't matter how much material Superfly has as a resource, if you don't check the material for yourself and draw your own conclusions based off your very own terms of reasoning, then you're just a follower and will believe whatever. The Genesis account was written by Moses mid-second millennial BCE. The Enuma Elish is dated to have been established sometime during the later half of the 2nd millennial BCE. The ancient Babylonian mythology is more than likely taken from the Genesis account and not vice versa.

Originally Posted by kookyinc

Damnit, this is harder to avoid doing than I thought.

lol

Originally Posted by kookyinc

Thanks d00d. Will read and reply when I can.

Cool

Originally Posted by kookyinc

And of course, that is only one example of something that seems inconsistent. I'll look for others (I pledge to avoid Genesis and other non-literal chapters) if you want.

You don't have to avoid the Genesis text or any other accounts. I'll just correct you if you're inaccurate. That's what I'm here for.

Originally Posted by kookyinc

I did some research here and I guess being drowsy made me a friggin moron. I concede that the Bible largely does not mention hell as an eternal place of fire. That was invented by the Church. This was the lack of research part. And the metaphor of fire was not for non-existence itself, but rather for the obliteration that directly precedes non-existence. This was me being retarded part.

It's cool this isn't something you learn over night you know. My information is from years upon years of researching and putting things into perspective. I stumbled and had a multitude of errors along the way but I really believe God has given me direction and has thus allowed me to see his word in truth.

Originally Posted by kookyinc

No, Neanderthals are a distinct branch. Homo heidelbergensis (or, less likely, Homo rhodesiensis) was the species before Sapiens, and they look rather similar to modern humans. But it's all fuzzy. Not every species exists in a fossil (fossils are a b!tch to make) and there are no clear-cut lines between any two species. and things get bothersome with the "well this one is too like a modern human to be different" vs the "well this one is too different from a modern human, you need another intermediary." This is called moving the goalposts, and it can be a tricky trap to fall into if one is not careful.

If the discoveries are looked upon with biased eyes to start with then yes you will have that problem of moving the "goal post" and making a determination regarding where to put a particular species like Idaltu. However if you look at it for what it is. Which is obviously Human in nature then this is not a problem at all. With regards to Neanderthals, they're actually not that much of a distinct branch considering Scientist believe that Neanderthals has made some kind of contribution to the Human Gene Pool.

Originally Posted by kookyinc

Yeah, dating methods record time. Genome sequencing and the study of morphology determine how much a species has changed.

A determination regarding how much a species has changed over an elapsed time period. As I stated earlier, we do not have any DNA evidence for Idaltu, so to even mention Genome sequencing in the case of Idaltu is irrelevant. The mosaic fossils are more akin to human as I've pointed out within the last few posts.

Originally Posted by kookyinc

The coelacanth is expected to have evolved about 400 million years ago. It is largely the same now. Big time gap, little evolution. Some lizards were introduced to an island near Croatia, and within a few decades, they evolved a new organ to help process food. Big DNA change, little time.

The Coelacanth is not uncommon amongst other animals. Look at the bat, it has not evolved in millions of years either nor is there any evidence in Science that indicates a "true" origin for bats. i.e., who did bats evolve from.

The National Geographic article about the Lizard is not a case for "true naturalistic evolution" This is more like artificial selection. This is not an event that happened in nature naturally. They were moved to an island by outside human influences.

Originally Posted by kookyinc

No offense, I trust the trained morphologists with categorizing the fossils more than you. I was just giving as close to Homo sapiens sapiens (but not) as I could. I guess I was too close for what you wanted.

I can understand that, I trust Scientist as well until I figure out otherwise. Which is something you should always do. Try figuring things out for yourself and see where it takes you. I'm not saying a particular Scientist is wrong, but how is it, that when something seems inaccurate, you do not question the inaccurate nature of such a thing? I'm not discussing this with you to say "hey believe me instead of a Scientist", I'm pointing out some things that are inconsistent and if you believe in the Evolution of Man as it has been proposed then, these are question's that you should have answers for. The only game in town for you is "evidence".

Originally Posted by kookyinc

I can not comment on this. I've done months of reading and researching about evolution and whatnot, but I have essentially no experience with radiometric dating besides a half-life formula that I used for a week in my math class. This question can be answered infinitely better by someone else. Sorry to disappoint.

You're not disappointing me so no need to be sorry. However, I don't understand how you do not know the basic fundamental properties of dating methods regarding evolution and yet you believe in it.

Originally Posted by kookyinc

I'm not too studied in this sort of thing, but why not? Also, H. Sapiens Idaltu and H. Sapiens Sapiens can exist at the same time, as different subspecies.

Erh?? That's an impossibility right now, Who exactly would Idaltu and Homo Sapiens, Sapiens be subspecies to?

Originally Posted by kookyinc

Well, I commend you for using an article and not some crap like AnswesInGenesis or something.

I'll agree with you AnswersInGenesis is crap, which is why I disagree with them.

Originally Posted by kookyinc

Anyways, the article seems to suggest that H. S. Idaltu is close enough to H. S. Sapiens, right? There is no "real" difference between subspecies (the only "real" difference is the species level, after which two organisms can not breed and produce a fertile offspring), so the line is fuzzy. I'm not a paleontologist, so I can't say for certain, but that is my suggestion.

Well that article I've posted about Neanderthals adding to the Human gene pool would make your suggestion wrong. I'm not a paleontologist either but a bit of research can take you a long way. You cannot tell me that you do not question anything regarding evolution. You take everything for face value and thats it? If so, why?

Originally Posted by kookyinc

He seems to be procrastinating. My question is why later rather than sooner? What could he lose by acting now (hint: nothing, he's omnipotent).

I've already answered this one up there.

Originally Posted by kookyinc

All governments will have a share of problems. No government can stop every issue. But theocracies don't work. Again, look at the Middle East, where people cry for blood when someone names a bear after a prophet and where people get murdered for having rumors spread about them being an adulterer. Yes, these are extreme cases and yes the USA has engaged in barbarism on its own, but, imho, our worst thing was slavery, which we ended a century and a half ago (even further into the past in the Northern states, which should be its own country ). This stuff still goes on in theocracies, and it's all legal because the laws are religiously-inspired.
Following God politically is a dangerous idea, and it doesn't work when it comes to human rights.

Well to each his own.

Originally Posted by Raspberry

I'm continuously facepalming myself.

And why are you face palming yourself?

Originally Posted by Xei

What was your main argument against the validity of evolution, again? Distilled into a few lines?

Unsurprising response.

If you have many arguments, feel free to just summarise the main one or ones.

Anyone who actually thinks that things like "reason" "rational thought" and "rationalism" exist are fooling themselves. There is no such thing. All I see is arrogance and fallacies.

Originally Posted by smoothcriminal1

Anyone who actually thinks that things like "reason" "rational thought" and "rationalism" exist are fooling themselves. There is no such thing.

Fallacy.

Originally Posted by MindGames

Fallacy.

How so?

Because you can only establish fallacies via rational thought, which is something you just denied the existence of.

Gtfo, sophomore.

Originally Posted by Xei

Because you can only establish fallacies via rational thought, which is something you just denied the existence of.

Gtfo, sophomore.

How rude of you. Just because I joined today does not mean that I am a sophomore. I have been exploring this forum for a year now.

I also should have spoken with more detail when saying that rational thought does not exist. I did not mean to say it the way you interpreted it.

Then you are not a very good pedagogue and should probably explicate your previous statement rather than just saying I failed to understand it.

By sophomoric I simply meant your philosophical statement. Welcome to the forums; I didn't mean to be rude but your initial statement wasn't particularly endearing in that regard.

Originally Posted by smoothcriminal1

Anyone who actually thinks that things like "reason" "rational thought" and "rationalism" exist are fooling themselves. There is no such thing. All I see is arrogance and fallacies.

but you're using logic and reason to come to this conclusion...

jesus this thread sucks.

Originally Posted by Xei

Unsurprising response.

Ikr?

Originally Posted by Xei

By sophomoric I simply meant your philosophical statement. Welcome to the forums; I didn't mean to be rude but your initial statement wasn't particularly endearing in that regard.

yea, that's one of your own, you better recognize.

Having been Christian until 2009 when I decided I was an atheist, I think I have a well developed opinion on the matter. Religion was designed to scare people in the old days to be orderly and not do bad things, using something that just about everyone is worried about; death. And the reward is heaven, something that you can only see when you die-- in other words, a sneaky plot to give its followers a reward they will never see and can't disprove or prove. And its cleverly crafted over the years to try to manipulate people into believing it.

God is like Santa. He watches you at all times, rewards you when you are good, and punishes you when you are bad. The biggest thing God and Santa have in common is that they have a large following, they have been around for a bit, and they are both fake and appeal to people who don't know any better.

Are we ready to close this thread yet??

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Are we ready to close this thread yet??

yes please.

This ^

Done. Please direct any problems with this to my inbox.