Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

How quint. Did I not tell you to carry on with the subjects and point any grief you have with my towards that little PM link under my posts?

On to the last relevant post. Tis from Douglas:

Great Commision? But could they not rely on local christians to do this for them? Not only do they speak the language better, but they also understand the culture of this country much better then a foreign missionary could.

Well, actually, most missionaries are sent to countries where there is very little to no Christian presence there. That's why we can't count on Christians in the country spreading the gospel, as they may be too afraid to come out into the open.

And you don't have to be a missionary in a different country. You can go to Toronto and witness on the streets.

Well, I don't know. Maybe someone should ask the question, "Why do atheists feel compelled to convert Christians?" While not exactly the subject of this thread, I think it applies.

_________________

On the contrary, Didymus. Looking at the title of the thread, I'd actually think it's about just that.

As far as I have tried to conver someone (yes, I am guilty ), I did this out of pure pity for this person's lack of knowledge. The only people I have ever tried to convert were so far gone they believed that the atom (yes, the ATOM) was a lie and that the cell was the smallest possibel object in the universe, and similar things. Attempting to deconvert a well-educated christian would be a waste of time, as obviously this person's religion hasn't gotten in the way of his education. I (and possibly others) only feel compelled to deconvert if we find people who are completely and utterly blinded by their religion, and are unaware of anything outside of god and Jesus and the lot.

EDIT: Douglas, we have our fair share of christians already, so I still find it curious missionaries are sent here where the vast amount of christians here could do the job. I too am aware they are usually sent to places where the christian faith is unknown. It just seems.. weird and pointless to send them to the Netherlands

So let me get this straight. It's not the religious aspect that bothers you so much as the lack of education that bothers you.

_________________

Oh, I would have indeed been eager to take this to a private conversation ... except that what I had to say has relevance to the discussion that is currently going on as of this post, as well as to the thread itself, which goes beyond my indignation with your behavior and attitude--as both of which you exude applies to MANY similar atheists I have had encounters with. Therefore I found it prudent to leave it public, however quaint that may seem to you.

Especially given your most recent post, of which I can only point you again back to my previous post, specifically the sentence in capital letters and big font. (Yes, I am aware you made a distinction between well-educated Christians and those who are not, however my message still stands regardless)

_________________

Well.. I can only assume that you too were at least shocked, if not frightened, by the story of the guy who flatly refused to believe in atoms, or smaller particles? It indeed bothers me, and I only attempt to 'save' the undereducated as you try to save those in need of comfort.

Trev: look in your inbox. Your post is addressed there.

Oh yes indeed. I hope all this proves that trying to "save" anyone from anything is pointless, and annoying to the one being saved, and makes the saviour just seem petty and inverted.

This only works if both paries simulataniously give up their goals. If one continues where the other does not, nothing has been accomplished

But human nature resists being "saved" by force - it is more receptive to reason and argument, not "goals". So you can't persuade by saying the other side is flatly wrong, it's important to consider where the other side is coming from.

Though I don't know why you'd want anyone to be an atheist, KN - I don't particularly believe in a higher power, and have resigned myself to the fact that we're living lonely pointless lives. That's not a good way of living at all.

EDIT: Dang, another wierd double-post incident. Must be this crappy iMac I'm using.

Ow, but life isn't empty and bleak! Well.. This can explain it better then I can......

I'd agree with the gist of that article - though the writer does betray some of the prejudices that he accuses theists of, and this is where the gulf between believers and unbelievers widens. Such as:



Actually, no mainstream religion has claimed possession of happiness and love. In fact, Christianity and Islam in particular teach that faith is a trial of suffering. This writer also needs to provide proof for statements such as:



Eh? This implies that all believers do is sit around waiting for death and judgment. Considering that religion has built nations and created great works of art (and also destroyed nations and great works of art), this statement is a bit of a jump.

But I'd agree that religion isn't what you need to be happy, because I don't have religion, and I'm happy.

But having that faith that there's is something out there looking out for you - I miss it a bit, as an unbeliever. (Well, I call myself agnostic, because I don't want to claim there is no God when I know nothing of the sort.)

I miss the idea of God I had when I was little especially. And it was nothing to do with what some priest or pope said, and I didn't particularly care about going to heaven. It was about having that personal connection with God - I do miss it sometimes. I'm not nihilist, and I don't have a "God-shaped hole" in my life. But I still don't know how I would feel to be On My Own in that sense. Doesn't really bother me now, but in the future, who knows.

HOWEVER - this shouldn't be construed as the experience of all unbelievers, and that I'm lacking in my spiritual life. It isn't, and I'm not.

1. That remains to be seen.

2. That argument was debunked decades ago. So many of these creationist arguments rest on taking a few decades worth of data and extrapolating them indefinitely into the past. That doesn't work. Here, read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE011.html

Provide sources for these events, don't just expect me to take your word on it.

Besides, I'm not even an athiest, I'm a deist.

Which is why the notion of 'God' shouldn't be confused with science, since science is all about what you can tangibly measure.

PLEASE don't double-post, Trog-dork. Even if you're replying to two separate posts. Check out Diddyman's quoting style, he's got it down pat.

EDIT: Whoa. Triple post. DEFINITELY don't do that.

_________________

1. Well then you realize how false that is? What if, for example, at the end of the Trogdor email, TBC added a note that said "This is not a myth. This really happened". Suddenly, you believe Trogdor is real?

2. The Bible is a book written by people who died over 2000 years ago, and is filled with stories of magic and supernatural events, none of which can be corroborated with actual evidence, and actual evidence does disprove many of the claims in the Bible, (here's another one, they stated insects have 4 legs). Taking a 2000 year old book of fairytales as evidence over actual evidence (collected from varied fields such as astronomy, biology, geology, paleontology, etc.) is just silly. Saying that it's proof that Jesus was resurrected because the Bible says so is the same thing as saying it's proof that Hercules fought and killed the Hydra because Greek mythology says so.

3. No, you apparently don't understand the concept of intellectual laziness. You're expecting me to do your homework for you. Concession accepted.

4. Of course there's no verifiable date, because it never happened! But according to creationists, the world was created around 6000 years ago, and the flood happened some time after that, however, the Egyptian and Sumerian civilizations date back to around 4500 BC (6500 years ago).

5. Provide links to these articles then, instead of just mentioning them and expecting me to take your word for it. As I understand it, before the Big Bang, all matter and energy was condensed into one point, a massive singularity, which, according to relativity theory, would mean that time had stopped. So there would be no speed of light or laws of physics, since nothing would be happening.

6. It's still you. You need to understand that you can't argue by saying "well, so - and - so says this, so you're wrong" without even backinng up your claims. How hard is it to make a simply hyperlink to your evidence? Not to mention that the second century is still 200 years too late.

7. So I ask again, if you're not taking everything in Bible literally, then why do you take Genesis literally? Oh, and as an aside, I suppose it was also an 'estimate' that insects had 4 legs? (Leviticus 11:23 in case you're wondering. See, I'm actually citing my sources! It's not so hard)

8. First of all, I'm not an athiest, I'm a deist, so you shouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions. And science does not pretend to know everything, it just does its best to continue gaining knowledge, however, it is obvious that science is a far more accurate source of information than your Bible, especially considering the multiple contradictions and inaccuracies contained within it. Also, you don't seem to know anything about debating. Debating isn't about 'finding out who you are and what makes you tick'. In a debate, you are supposed to address your opponent's arguments, not your opponent directly. However, you have apparently never heard of the ad hominem fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) which you are committing right now. How can you accuse me of being rude and not caring about anyone, when you are the one who goes out and directly insults me? Have I insulted you? No. Therefore it is YOU who needs to change your attitude.

Oh sorry, but I don't know how to use quote tags.

If you're a deist, then why are you arguing about Genesis? Unless dictionary.com is wrong, you should believe that God created the universe, even if he didn't stick around...

EDIT: Try copy-and-pasting the quotes. Double posting = spam.

P.O.S.T.E.R.S.!!

_________________

All's you have to do is copy & paste the text from the summary at the bottom of the post form page, highlight it, click Quote at the top of the post form page and do this:



Comme ca. S'il vous plait.

_________________

I believe that some type of higher being, not necessarily the Judeo - Christian God (in fact, considering all the atrocities He performs and condones in the Bible, I would much like it to not be Him) created the universe, at the time that science determined, and the Earth, Sun, other stars and planets were created naturally, as well as life.

Genesis could be taken as allegory, but not literal truth.

I certainly don't believe that the world was created in 6 days.

Okay, I'll keep that in mind.

I hope so, since double- and triple-posting is against the Forum Rules.

_________________

Neither do most Christians. Those are the Seventh-Day Adventists you're thinking of.

Which displays another misconception of yours- all Christians are not alike. For instance, Didyfriend is a Lutheran, while I'm a Methodist. Though the two denominations are similiar, they AREN'T THE SAME.

_________________

I know that, but he seemed to be arguing for the Bible as literal truth.

If that was not the case, then I simply misunderstood, although it sure seemed like that to me.

"For the Lord is good and His love endures forever; His faithfulness continues through all generations."-Psalm 100:5

The number of times God is seen as punishing or "Smiting" people in the Bible is greatly exaggerated; the number of times God reveals His undying love is quite more. People who assume the Bible as all "fire & brimstone" punishment are obviously ignorant & haven't read the Bible enough.

_________________

Except that it would be, regardless of what the TBC wrote at the end of it. Current history would testify that no such creature as Trogdor existed.


Except that we have historical evidence (Josephus and others) that Jesus of Nazareth did indeed exist, whereas we have none that Hercules did. Face it, simply claiming that the Bible is myth is not the same as disproving it. You and KN both attempted to tell me that I cannot cite the Bible as evidence for the fact of Jesus' resurrection, but you have offered no contrary historical evidence as to why I should not. Until you do so, I can only surmise that your claim this claim is unfounded.


Intellectual laziness? You might want to go back and read all these threads again, Trog-Dork. I've already answered these point numerous times before. You are not presenting anything that Upsilon, Zaius, or Fossile hasn't already. Go back and read my old posts and tell me then that I have not addressed these topics before.


What is your proof that it never happened? I do find it interesting that there are great flood accounts in numerous mythologies. Don't you think it remotely possible that it actually occurred and was recorded?

As for the dating of ancient civilizaions, I never claimed to be a 6-day person. Had you read posts I had made in other threads, you'd know that. But as it stands right now, I have no reason to believe that the flood did not occur other than you telling me it didn't. And the same is true for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

As for various theories of the Big Bang, these are books I read years ago. Give me time and I'll see if I can find them online. I'll have to check with my brother; he's the astronomer of the family, and they were his books. But the way I understand it, the only way that the right conditions could exist for the Big Bang to occur would be if the natural laws as we know them now were not in place at the time. Think about it: matter and energy infinitely compressed into a singularity, and in a moment released. The mathematics behind that must be phenomenal.


Because, like I said before, I have already done that. When I was conversing with King Nintendoid. Give me a minute or two; it might not have been this thread I posted them on. But I actually provided links to at least three or four papyri. Here's a link that might be helpful for now: http://www.kchanson.com/papyri.html#NTP. I would also add that the early existence of manuscripts is not the only evidence to support authorship. The dissemination of the copies also adds its weight as well.


Actually, I reiterate my prior point: I do not take all of Genesis 1 to be literal. Remember what I said about literary genre? Genesis 1 is a song. The repitition of certain key words and phrases indicates this. Again, I do believe I've made this point before on this thread.

However, I do not believe that the rest of Genesis should be so easily dismissed as that. It's written in prose for the most part. While, as I said before, I do believe that the serpent more or less represents Satan (or, just as likely, is a form he assumed when tempting them). We do know from other parts of the Bible that this was no ordinary garden-variety snake they were dealing with.

And I do owe you an apology. Your sudden appearance on the forum, coupled with some of the ways you addressed issues, reminded me of Dr. Zaius. Believe me, I know what ad hominem attacks are: I was the object of many of Zaius', (and one from Upsilon, which totally shocked me at the time). But as I stated, I've seen this pattern at least three times before: people who suddenly come out of nowhere and start trying to refute everything that everyone else says. The latest one being King Nintendoid, whose first post on the forum basically said that all Christians were idiots, and that he intended to start arguments with us just so he could ignore what we had to say. And in these cases, it just leads to frustration and tension between members of the forum. Zaius finally got himself banned, though I don't know the exact circumstances. I guess I was projecting all of this onto you, and for that, I am sorry.

But here's a question for you to consider: if God did indeed create the universe, then should he not have supreme power within that universe? If so, then the very existence of God means that the miraculous can (and quite possibly should) occur.

_________________

I have to say I agree with Ean. I wouldn't say that the bible is bad, because it's not. I belive I have said before than Christianity, much like the vast majority or world religions, pretty much support being a good person.

I haven't been back to this thread in so long, I just skimmed a lot of the past entries, so forgive me if I'm not completely up to date.

Either way, there's no point in argueing about the truth of the bible, or attempting to prove it false for that matter. Those who belive are going to belive, n\and what harm does that do to you? Live and let live.

I'm kind of sitting on the fence as far as position here goes. I'm an agnostic, not an athiest, so I suppose I do belive in a god of soem sort. I just really hate people being mean to each other.

But that's beside.

My argument is, if you're looking for proof of gods existance, it's in the hot water heater. mmm...

_________________

Just out of curiosity, Didy, since so many other cultures have the flood story, why are they all so different? If Noah and his family were the only survivors, how are there so many different stories from so many different cultures around the world? For example, the Epic of Gilgamesh, from 3000 years prior to Genesis, involves Utnapishtim and his wife surviving a flood. Only Utnapishtim was a king.

I'm not trying to start an argument (though I do not personally believe a GLOBAL flood occurred), but I am curious as to how you would explain these things.

Sorry, toastpaint.

_________________
beep beep I'm a Jeep