FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-04-2003, 04:11 PM   #581
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,562
Default

Quote:
Ed:
No, persons, personal communication, and personal relationships are not made with dead matter. Living matter converts dead matter into living matter. Without living matter or in the case of humans personal living matter, persons cannot come into existence. Also, there is evidence that human life is more than a chemical construct.
Ed:
Living matter converts dead matter into living matter.


Exactly, Ed we are getting somewhere.


Ed:
Without living matter or in the case of humans personal living matter, persons cannot come into existence.


Human personal living matter is no different than animal living matter. Persons cannot come into existance without EDUCATION. If you leave a human child to grow without education he will be more like an animal than a person.

Ed:
there is evidence that human life is more than a chemical construct.


That is new to me. Please provide this evidence.
NOGO is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 04:54 PM   #582
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,562
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by NOGO
"the Israelites were God's representatives on earth"

This remains to be proven. It is part of the house of cards that is your faith.

Ed:
Read Genesis 17:7. Also throughout the scriptures God calls them "His people".
All this proves is that the people who wrote the Bible made themselves to be God's people. But Yahweh is a myth created by the people who wrote the Bible.

So my statement stands. You need to prove this before you call appeal to it as truth.


Quote:

Ed: If the vice president was sent to Iraq and Hussein killed him, the reaction by the US would be much more severe than if you went over and got killed.

ng: The point is that wiping out all Iraquis is strictly speaking an over-reaction. The punishment would simply not fit the crime.

What would fit the crime is to arrest and put on trial all who participated in the crime. But to wipe all Iraquis is a genocide.
YES the word is genocide, because not all participated in the crime which means that those who did not participate are being killed for just being Iraquis.

Ed:
First of all wiping out all the Iraquis for killing the vice president would be an over reaction. But he only represents a nation, the israelites were representing the King and Creator of the Universe, this is much more serious crime. Also read my posts to Jack and read Romans 6:23 and Romans 3:9-23.
The Israelites were the self-proclaimed representatives of the God which THEY created.

If you want to use this as an arguement you need to prove it.

Even so where does it say that killing an Israelite is a more serious crime than killing someone else. This is strictly speaking, racist. The nazis would be proud of you, Ed.


Romans 3:10
as it is written,
"THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;

How wrong can you be ...


Noah

Genesis 6:9
... Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God.

Genesis 7:1
Then the LORD said to Noah, "Enter the ark, you and all your household, for you alone I have seen to be righteous before Me in this time.


JOB

Job 2:3 The LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man fearing God and turning away from evil. And he still holds fast his integrity, although you incited Me against him to ruin him without cause."


Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous.

Luke 1:5-6 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.


All Christians

1 John 3
6 No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.
7 Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous;
8 the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.
9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
NOGO is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 07:51 PM   #583
Ed
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SC
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Beyelzu

Originally posted by Ed

No, you claimed that they passed on complex information about their origin, ie evolving from another species. No ape such as australopithecus could do such a thing.


Beyelzu: what about neanderthal?


clothes, tools, iirc and cromagnon as well.

Theoretically they could have done such a thing because neanderthals and cromagnons are humans. But of course they didnt because they didnt see any evidence that they had evolved.
Ed is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 08:36 PM   #584
Ed
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SC
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
...I wonder just how often you use the argument "it's never been observed, therefore it didn't happen" in everday life, Ed?

Fossilization of dinosaur bones has never been observed. So the existence of Tyrannosaurus Rex is an "unwarranted assumption" from natural rock formations that vaguely resemble bones?


Actually some of the beginnings of fossilization have been empirically observed so this analogy fails.

Quote:
jtb: No now-living observer saw Mohammed Atta's men at the controls of the airliners that hit the WTC and the Pentagon. So it's an "unwarranted assumption" that they were deliberately crashed into those buildings?
No, they were videotaped boarding the plane, ie empirical evidence, so this analogy fails miserably.
Ed is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 08:44 PM   #585
Ed
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SC
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Starboy
Ed, why do you do this? What do you hope to accomplish?
To demonstrate the rationality of Christianity.
Ed is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 08:56 PM   #586
Ed
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SC
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by winstonjen

Originally posted by Ed

You have yet to demonstrate he is nonexistent.

wj: Firstly, Ed, he doesn't have to - he's not making a positive claim. There is no reason for him to believe that the Xian god exists without decent proof. And no, the accounts of Jesus don't count - they could easily be fabricated. Would you believe rumours and hearsay without evidence?


No, he had already attempted to refute my logical demonstration that the Christian God exists and was unable to do so.

Quote:
Secondly, the depiction of the Xian god does not exist - if you take it as being the omnimax god..
The only way you could know this is if you were omnimax.
Ed is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 09:06 PM   #587
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 3,425
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Ed

The only way you could know this is if you were omnimax.
By that argument, the only way you can show that the Xian god DOES exist is if you were omnimax. Are you claiming to be omnimax, Ed?
winstonjen is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 09:07 PM   #588
Ed
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SC
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

Ed:
The reason it is in the present is because he knows that they have already starting plotting against him and planning his death. And He also is a prophet. So by plotting to kill him they are doing exactly what their fathers did, even though at the same time they are denying it with their words, this is how they testify against themselves. He is using irony here. Their denial is actually a testimony to their guilt. Then later on he predicts that they will try to kill his followers in verse 34.

ng: Ed, you cannot argue a point by ignoring the evidence.
You have just fabricated a story as to why they are testifying against themselves. This is pure fiction.

Ed: My understanding is not unique, many scholars would agree with me, yours is however. I have never heard of your absurd interpretation even from the liberals!

jtb: This is what the Bible plainly states. Therefore this is what any unbiased Biblical scholar would assume the author meant.

Obviously, Christian Bible scholars would put a different "spin" on it, because they don't want to believe what the Bible says. But how many Bible scholars are Christians? Many are either Jews or atheist/agnostic.

I get the impression that you wish to pretend that non-Christian Biblical scholars do not exist.


Okay, cite one reputable biblical scholar, even a non-christian, who agrees with Nogo's interpretation and provide a quote that confirms it.

Quote:
[31] Thus you witness against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.

ng: This verse says that by admitting to be sons of those who murdered the prophets, they are testifying against themselves.

Ed: Exactly, because they were planning to kill Jesus and persecute his disciples, who were God's new testament prophets.

jtb: This claim is fiction, and contradicts the Biblical principle that children CAN be blamed (even punished) for the crimes of their parents.

Earlier, you had no problem with this. Surely it's OK because Jesus isn't a government (it's only wrong for governments to do this, right?). And, in any case, the murderers of the prophets would have their sin coded into their "spiritual DNA" for their descendants to inherit, right?

Occasionally, the absurdity of your position gets through to you and slaps you in the face, causing you to briefly wake up and connect with reality. In these brief lucid moments, you realize that the Bible is indefensible and abandon it to concoct an alternative story. Then the walls close in again, and you can't tell the difference between fact and fiction anymore.

Fascinating..
No, see my earlier posts.
Ed is offline  
Old 03-04-2003, 10:59 PM   #589
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,832
Default

After much due consideration, I'd like to vote this one as being the "Thread Most Likely To Survive A Nuclear Holocaust".
echidna is offline  
Old 03-05-2003, 01:45 AM   #590
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 5,815
Default

Quote:
Fossilization of dinosaur bones has never been observed. So the existence of Tyrannosaurus Rex is an "unwarranted assumption" from natural rock formations that vaguely resemble bones?

Actually some of the beginnings of fossilization have been empirically observed so this analogy fails.
Complete fossilization hasn't been observed, and fossilization of dinosaur bones has never been observed. Therefore, according to "Eddian logic", dinosaurs didn't exist. This refusal to extrapolate into the past is exactly what you do with the evidence for evolution happening in the present.
Quote:
jtb: No now-living observer saw Mohammed Atta's men at the controls of the airliners that hit the WTC and the Pentagon. So it's an "unwarranted assumption" that they were deliberately crashed into those buildings?

No, they were videotaped boarding the plane, ie empirical evidence, so this analogy fails miserably.
Nobody doubts that those men were passengers. But "Eddian logic" allows us to say that the assumption that they flew the planes is unwarranted, despite all the clues pointing in that direction. Simply waving away vast amounts of empirical evidence is something you do a LOT of.
Quote:
No, he had already attempted to refute my logical demonstration that the Christian God exists and was unable to do so.
You have never provided ANY logical demonstration that the Christian God exists. Therefore you are lying AGAIN.
Quote:
jtb: This is what the Bible plainly states. Therefore this is what any unbiased Biblical scholar would assume the author meant.

Obviously, Christian Bible scholars would put a different "spin" on it, because they don't want to believe what the Bible says. But how many Bible scholars are Christians? Many are either Jews or atheist/agnostic.

I get the impression that you wish to pretend that non-Christian Biblical scholars do not exist.


Okay, cite one reputable biblical scholar, even a non-christian, who agrees with Nogo's interpretation and provide a quote that confirms it.
I have already given you the names of several, and invited you to ASK THEM. Your ongoing refusal to do this speaks volumes.
Quote:
Occasionally, the absurdity of your position gets through to you and slaps you in the face, causing you to briefly wake up and connect with reality. In these brief lucid moments, you realize that the Bible is indefensible and abandon it to concoct an alternative story. Then the walls close in again, and you can't tell the difference between fact and fiction anymore.

Fascinating...


No, see my earlier posts.
I did. They support what I have said.
Jack the Bodiless is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:59 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.