lpetrich

First, RBH is right about the early parts of the Bible decreeing genocide -- "The Final Solution of the Canaanite Question", as it might be called. But that's more appropriate for BC&A.

VZ to scigirl:
... Now, you are indicating offense at the mention of afterlife. ...

Because you are presenting Pascal's Wager and threats of eternal damnation, O VZ.

... you will recall that you joined that thread after I made my contribution, and you started in with the same ol' insults and diversions.

Like what?

Then you insinuate that I am plagerizing.

VZ, some of your comments look too carefully-written.

You go even further by claiming to know precisely what I believe.

And, to top it off, you categorically reject all of the writers of the Bible as mere--how did you call it?--"sheephearders".

And what makes you think that they, and only they, know the secrets of the Universe?

You will see that I encourage people to find contradictions in the Bible, or demonstrate a "sub-optimal".

So why don't you show that the <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/errancy.html" target="_blank">Biblical Errancy</a> section of this site is all wrong?

And what do you call aortic arches, O VZ?

Again you insinuate that the Bible is in error. Care to substantiate that?

See above about Biblical errancy.

The human condition is that we are all corrupt. I'm sure that you have seen me write here that every human does regrettable things everyday. Many people inevitably experience guilt when they do or think wrong things. Now, what does your biology text have to say about that? Nothing.

And what is that supposed to prove?

Nat

"What you perceive as "smug" is nothing more than a certainty that comes with an intense, multi-faceted search."

"And, as expected, I have found only a few opponents in these forums who have been genuinely critical of their beliefs."

"And, as expected, I have found only a few opponents in these forums who have been genuinely critical of their beliefs."

These comments by our illustrious Vander have cemented my opinion that he is little but an arrogant ass. BUt this comment:

"However, it has become very clear to me that you have not examined things as carefully as you say. When I press some issues, you flatly avoid them. It is so very, very obvious that you are defensive."

Goes that one crucial step further to prove that he is a HYPOCRITICAL arrogant ass! Just how many topics and questions have you run away from - particularly here in the science oriented debates - that you were unable to answer? I can count dozens, but I'm sure you'll just say that you stopped responding because you were being insulted. Funny how you don't seem to mind insulting others en masse - even in opening posts to the group.

Face it buddy - you're a loser.

monkenstick

that reminds me, the urate oxidase thread, rewritten as per your request, is still awaiting your reply vanderzyden.

Camaban

Actually, if you think about it, quite a bit.

Guilt is learned, yes, but the capacity for guilt is a survival thing. Those that don't feel guilty about shafting over their fellow man shaft once too often and get lynched (or some equivalent thing)

Remember, we're a species that's obsessed with wiping out threats to us. Those that don't feel guilt when they harm one of us and repeat or look like they'll repeat that hurt are a threat to us.

Simple as that.

We've got morals for the same reason. In our society, as much as anything else, they're a survival aid.

At least, this is the way I see it/

Vanderzyden

Nat,

I cannot resist telling you that I enjoyed you post immensely. (LOL)

Vanderzyden

Vanderzyden

Monkenstick,

Yes, I will get to that eventually. Right now, I have several irons in the fire, and I have one more thread that I intend to post in EoG. After that, I will get to it. But it may be a while.

Thanks for your patience,

Vanderzyden

lpetrich

This could also be imperfectly-implemented, as it were, meaning that we do not have a firm-enough connection between the parts were experience as our conscience and our impulses.

It's worth noting that bees in a hive do not indiscriminately sting each other and that wolves in a pack do not indiscriminately hunt each other.

So being social means not attacking one's friends.

scigirl

Vanderzyden,

What I said was:
I wasn't upset that you brought up an afterlife. I was upset by the manner in which you brought it up. Quit trying to act all innocent - you didn't bring up the afterlife to MR Darwin to discuss it for fun.

Then I made the mistake of assuming you may have plagairized work, and I apologized for it. You said you accepted my apology, but then bring it up again in your argument to me here:
If you are going to continue to bring this up, I'm going to withdraw my apology and accuse you again.

I also want to point out that on numerous occasions, you did either insult me, or more frequently, misquote or misinterpret my statements. When I called you on this behavior, not once did I see an apology from you. Not once.
Insults and diversions? What insults?

And what diversions? Are we talking about the same thread? The thread in which I typed stuff directly from my Moore's anatomy book about fetal circulation? I think I did bring up female anatomy - but if you found that to be insulting, well EXCUSE me!

Well apparently you are the one who's confused. Mr Darwin, who incidentally started the thread, made the following comment on the second page (bold added by myself):
Hmm, what do you think he meant by design? Jesus or Vishnu? NO. You brought up God because you disagree that evolution is the designer. And because you brought God into it, we were free to critique your position. This does not mean we intended to debate God in the first place.

AS EXPECTED?? So you admit that you have pre-conceived notions and ideas about atheists, which you simply re-inforce by reading what you want to read.

Vanderzyden, just because a lot of us don't like your style, and don't agree with you, does NOT mean that we haven't examined our beliefs. I have posted a lot here, and posted a lot on the Baptist board, and I can tell you with all of my heart that people here have examined their beliefs way way more than most Christians will ever do. Unfortunately. It brings me no pleasure to say this. Read I Love Jesus sometime. Then read Sec Lifestyles and support - or read the atheist testimonies.

I challenge you - who lied awake at night wondering why, if God exists, he didn't send his son to the Americas if believing in him was essential for heaven? Who lied awake at night and wondered how, if all the religions claim to be true, how to go about finding the truth? Who agonized over the contractictions between the Bible, and science, in areas such as sin, disease, evolution, and homosexuality? Who read nearly every website and book she could get her hands on trying to find "The Truth?"

Well that was me, for years. YEARS - I thought about this stuff. Believe me, that list is only the tip of the iceberg. And I slowly came to be an atheist, after a lot of soul-searching and research and just thinking about things. And you come here and tell me that I haven't thought about things, just because I happen to disagree with you. You have no clue who I am.

Vanderzyden - people may seem hard-hearted to you because we have heard the same tiring arguments over and over and over again. You are nothing new or special. After we explain why we don't believe in pascal's wager, or why evolution isn't "random" for the 100th time, it becomes incredibly frustrating. As Deiter would say from SNL "Your routine has become tiresome."

On numerous occasions, you have criticized me for guessing at your beliefs, or assuming your beliefs. Yet you yourself have assumed many many things about me. Like just now, with your comment how I obviously haven't thought about things.

Vanderzyden, I made those comments about you in regards to the afterlife because it was bugging me for a long time. I did NOT bring them up because I want to debate theology with you in the E/C forum.

The fact that I haven't been debating theology with you does NOT mean that I haven't thought about these things thoroughly. If you think I haven't really examined the Bible, in addition to many other religions, than you are completely mistaken.

I am here to talk about evolution - it is you who wish to discuss religion, and frankly I don't care to discuss that topic with you - either here, or in EoG - unless it relates to ID or evolution.

Speaking of evolution - do you have any comments about the first post in this thread? Specifically, I would like to know your views on the human tail situation, and how this either supports Evolution or Intelligent Design. Any comments?

Actually my biology text DOES have some things to say about it.

Also, what is your point? So biology currently does not explain why we feel guilt. So? I will not make the mistake of putting words in your mouth, so why don't you tell me the implications of this fact?

scigirl

[ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

Nat

"I cannot resist telling you that I enjoyed you post immensely. (LOL)"

I am glad you did. One question: has anything anyone has said here made the slightest dent in your armor of arrogance? Have you taken single moment to reflect upon your own behavior in these threads after whining about how you have been treated? Have you ever wondered why many Christians on this board are treated far better than your are? Have you even thought for a second that it might not be your beliefs people object to, but your personality?

Introspection is an important trait that you obviously lack.

Cheers you ass

Dr Rick

Your evasive replies, your dismissal of the overwhelming evidence that refutes your inane positions on sky-daddies and intelligent design, and your insults are neither persuasive nor thought-provoking.

<strong> The former arises from reading some of your posts and their follow-ups which demonstrate that you may not have even a superficial understanding of what you are writing. The latter arises from both your Christian rantings with the implied hell-bounder threats and your blythe dismissals of science and facts.

<strong> You accept the errancy and hypocrisy of the Bible as a genuine substitute for knowledge and inquiry.

<strong> Yes, you are.

<strong> You are undaunted by knowledge and facts. Yours is a fixed faith-based belief system impervious to all the evidence that refutes it.

<strong> You ignore it!

<strong> You ignore those facts and arguments that poke large holes in your superstitions.

<strong> Pot, kettle, black.

<strong> Atheists don't insinuate the Bible is wrong; we flat out know it is. If we believed otherwise, we wouldn't be atheists.

How very typical of you: once again ignoring the many posts and links that have already substantiated our skepticism repeatedly.

Rick

[ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>