Religion Debunked. - Page 20 - Snowboarding Forum

**Donutz** · 10-06-2012, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalvaryCougar

And not to be disrespectful but I am not going to take some guy on a snowboarding forum for fact. And I don't mean to bash you, I have studied the Bible for years and have never heard any of the stuff you stated. And my statement I just meant that, arguing on an internet forum is useless and I'm done.

If you're like most xians, you've studied the bible using books found in the church, reading books recommended by church members, possibly studied it in classes in private school (if you went to one) and learned about it in bible study, sunday school and listening to the priest/minister/pastor during the sermon. Been there, done that.

Xians learn a very carefully edited version of history. I had never heard of the counsel of Nicea for instance until I started ranging out on my own dime. Most xians don't know that Jesus was one of many wandering holy men who existed at that time who were preaching jewish reformism. John the baptist was another. But there were lots of them (this is recorded history, not speculation). Most xians don't realize that the main points of this reformism came into being because of the takeover of israel by the hellenistic greeks in the second century bc. (macabees I & II). Most of what you consider xian principles are imported from greece and predate jesus by more than a century (democracy, which I've actually heard xians claim is an invention of xianity, first came into being in athens in 500-450 bc). I could go on and on and on with this stuff, but the point is that I learned none of it through orthodox sources.

Slush Puppie · 10-06-2012, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donutz

If you're like most xians, you've studied the bible using books found in the church, reading books recommended by church members, possibly studied it in classes in private school (if you went to one) and learned about it in bible study, sunday school and listening to the priest/minister/pastor during the sermon. Been there, done that.

Xians learn a very carefully edited version of history. I had never heard of the counsel of Nicea for instance until I started ranging out on my own dime. Most xians don't know that Jesus was one of many wandering holy men who existed at that time who were preaching jewish reformism. John the baptist was another. But there were lots of them (this is recorded history, not speculation). Most xians don't realize that the main points of this reformism came into being because of the takeover of israel by the hellenistic greeks in the second century bc. Most of what you consider xian principles are imported from greece and predate jesus by more than a century (democracy, which I've actually heard xians claim is an invention of xianity, first came into being in athens in 500-540 bc). I could go on and on and on with this stuff, but the point is that I learned none of it through orthodox sources.

Well said.

I'd like to add to that, that if you take a broad look at all of the sources (not just the ones codified into the bible) and this is just my opinion... The message Jesus seemed to have was a lot more concerned with rejecting the notion of an omnipotent God that should be worshipped and taking responsibility for ourselves and each other as humans. Effectively rejecting and somewhat in contrast with religion to a degree. However his message and following was seized and twisted into one that served the church over following years. As i say this is just my opinion.

ShredLife · 10-06-2012, 10:47 AM

if they didn't focus so much on indoctrinating children i might agree.

ShredLife · 10-06-2012, 10:55 AM

well, in this case they're using snowboarding to do it... getting kids into the religion is the primary reason for groups like Calvary's to exist. its sick.

**Donutz** · 10-06-2012, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowolf

Just as there are friendship groups for gay and lesbian riders, I am totally okay with groups like this for the Christian snowboarders.

Just to expand on this, I criticize those xians who are down on gays because the laws that protect religious freedom are found in the same place as the laws that protect sexual orientation. Xians would scream bloody murder if we tried to trample their freedoms, so they should have the decency to apply the golden rule and treat the gays as they would like to be treated.

Having taken this stance, I am morally obligated to accept it when xians do something that I would accept if a gay group did it. Otherwise I'm a hypocrite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowolf

People like to socialize with like minded people and as a whole, us snowboarders are generally a bunch of drunken cunts with foul mouths.

Fuck off. Really? <BELCH!!!> Ya know, I said this to Martha.. Martha I sez... wait, what?

**Donutz** · 10-06-2012, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShredLife

if they didn't focus so much on indoctrinating children i might agree.

What really burns my butt are the charities. While secular charities that (for instance) feed the poor will just feed the poor, xian charities will feed you if you sit through a sermon or a prayer or some such. That's not charity, that's a business deal. Not illegal or even really immoral, but not something I'd consider that you could take a stance of moral superiority on.

sabatoa · 10-06-2012, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donutz

Just to expand on this, I criticize those xians who are down on gays because the laws that protect religious freedom are found in the same place as the laws that protect sexual orientation. Xians would scream bloody murder if we tried to trample their freedoms, so they should have the decency to apply the golden rule and treat the gays as they would like to be treated.

Having taken this stance, I am morally obligated to accept it when xians do something that I would accept if a gay group did it. Otherwise I'm a hypocrite.

My beef with some fellow Christians is that they've created this hierarchy of sin where homosexuality is viewed as more sinful than fornication or even gluttony.

There is no hierarchy of sin in the Bible, all sin keeps us from God whether it's me banging my girlfriend before we got married (guilty, a billion times over) or if it's my gay friends banging ass on the weekends.

Like snowie said, my faith is for me and I let God worry about what other people are doing. I disagree with anyone that wants to legislate morality onto the general population. I get in debates with my family all the time about this.

ARSENALFAN · 10-06-2012, 12:56 PM

I just refuse to judge homosexuals. They have it hard enough as it is. I will let them decide whether it is a sin or not. I'm just not going there.

sabatoa · 10-06-2012, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ARSENALFAN

I just refuse to judge homosexuals. They have it hard enough as it is. I will let them decide whether it is a sin or not. I'm just not going there.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not judging anyone. I worry about me and let others worry about their own situation. I've been to gay clubs with my gay friends (no homo) and don't really think much about it.

**Donutz** · 10-06-2012, 01:17 PM

Just some random thoughts on the evolution debate, mostly because I'm sitting here enjoying a coffee right now (mmmmmm..... coffee...) and I have the time.

Slush puppie alluded to the dendrological clock. For those who can't be bothered to look it up, basically it's reading tree rings. You cut down a large old tree and look at the tree rings and you can tell by their size what kind of a year it was. You can tell by pollutants in any particular ring whether there were (for instance) a lot of fires that year. By looking at a tree (fossilized or not) that died earlier, you can match up the ring patterns so that you could show for instance that the earlier tree died in the 50th year of the younger tree's life. Using available dead and fossilized wood they've been able to establish a continuous "tree ring" history back about 11K years.

Now, the first problem is the question of how these trees survived a universal flood. There's no indication of Noah saving seeds two by two (or five by five or seven by seven). And if the flood happened, you'd get a huge discontinuity where all the trees died 5000 years ago. No such discontinuity exists. And if the carbon-14 levels changed abruptly during/after the flood as Calvary's reference posutlates, you'd be able to detect that in the rings from before 5000 years ago. Again, no joy. The only possible response from the creationists is yet again to deny the science, based not on evidence or any actual expertise, but simply because it disagrees with their beliefs.

Now, on to DNA. If all animals were reduced to a couple of ancestors 5000 years ago, there would be a huge genetic bottleneck which would be easily detectable with modern science. In fact, cheetahs have had just this very thing happen -- except 11000 years ago, not 5000. See here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...01467-0064.pdf if you have the patience to wade through the verbiage. The point here is not that cheetahs have this bottleneck, but that no other animals have it. Again, the creationists respond by denying the science.

When you tot up all the different unrelated types of data that point to an old earth, you realize that creationists basically have to dismiss or deny most branches of science, including branches that give us practical results in non-religious-argument areas. How do you argue that microbiology is good enough and dependable enough to convict a person of murder and create frankencorn, but not good enough to detect (or not detect) a genetic bottleneck? How do you argue that physics is good enough to make an atomic clock that's accurate to some stupid small amount in a gazillion years but not good enough to figure out relative isotope levels over a small period of time? How do you argue that archeology is good enough to accurately reconstruct a history up to 5000 years ago (corroborated by independant means) but somehow not good enough to go beyond that? Especially when you can't describe exactly why these very convenient breakdowns happen?

And then there's the final indignity. Even if you manage to punch enough holes in conventional science to create some real doubt, you haven't proved the xian pov by default. It could be the hindu version that's right, or the muslim version, or the buddhist/shintoist/pangu version or the dream time or any of half a hundred first nation beliefs. Xianity doesn't have any priority.

10-06-2012, 10:47 AM	#193 (permalink)
ShredLife The Rooster King Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Oregon Posts: 2,349	if they didn't focus so much on indoctrinating children i might agree. __________________ get the hell off my lawn.

10-06-2012, 10:55 AM	#194 (permalink)
ShredLife The Rooster King Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Oregon Posts: 2,349	well, in this case they're using snowboarding to do it... getting kids into the religion is the primary reason for groups like Calvary's to exist. its sick. __________________ get the hell off my lawn.

10-06-2012, 12:56 PM	#198 (permalink)
ARSENALFAN -LIFETIME MEMBER- Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Calgary Posts: 604	Well not exactly..... I just refuse to judge homosexuals. They have it hard enough as it is. I will let them decide whether it is a sin or not. I'm just not going there.

10-06-2012, 01:17 PM	#200 (permalink)
Donutz Drunk with power...er beer. Join Date: May 2010 Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada Posts: 3,674 Blog Entries: 176	Just some random thoughts on the evolution debate, mostly because I'm sitting here enjoying a coffee right now (mmmmmm..... coffee...) and I have the time. Slush puppie alluded to the dendrological clock. For those who can't be bothered to look it up, basically it's reading tree rings. You cut down a large old tree and look at the tree rings and you can tell by their size what kind of a year it was. You can tell by pollutants in any particular ring whether there were (for instance) a lot of fires that year. By looking at a tree (fossilized or not) that died earlier, you can match up the ring patterns so that you could show for instance that the earlier tree died in the 50th year of the younger tree's life. Using available dead and fossilized wood they've been able to establish a continuous "tree ring" history back about 11K years. Now, the first problem is the question of how these trees survived a universal flood. There's no indication of Noah saving seeds two by two (or five by five or seven by seven). And if the flood happened, you'd get a huge discontinuity where all the trees died 5000 years ago. No such discontinuity exists. And if the carbon-14 levels changed abruptly during/after the flood as Calvary's reference posutlates, you'd be able to detect that in the rings from before 5000 years ago. Again, no joy. The only possible response from the creationists is yet again to deny the science, based not on evidence or any actual expertise, but simply because it disagrees with their beliefs. Now, on to DNA. If all animals were reduced to a couple of ancestors 5000 years ago, there would be a huge genetic bottleneck which would be easily detectable with modern science. In fact, cheetahs have had just this very thing happen -- except 11000 years ago, not 5000. See here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...01467-0064.pdf if you have the patience to wade through the verbiage. The point here is not that cheetahs have this bottleneck, but that no other animals have it. Again, the creationists respond by denying the science. When you tot up all the different unrelated types of data that point to an old earth, you realize that creationists basically have to dismiss or deny most branches of science, including branches that give us practical results in non-religious-argument areas. How do you argue that microbiology is good enough and dependable enough to convict a person of murder and create frankencorn, but not good enough to detect (or not detect) a genetic bottleneck? How do you argue that physics is good enough to make an atomic clock that's accurate to some stupid small amount in a gazillion years but not good enough to figure out relative isotope levels over a small period of time? How do you argue that archeology is good enough to accurately reconstruct a history up to 5000 years ago (corroborated by independant means) but somehow not good enough to go beyond that? Especially when you can't describe exactly why these very convenient breakdowns happen? And then there's the final indignity. Even if you manage to punch enough holes in conventional science to create some real doubt, you haven't proved the xian pov by default. It could be the hindu version that's right, or the muslim version, or the buddhist/shintoist/pangu version or the dream time or any of half a hundred first nation beliefs. Xianity doesn't have any priority. __________________ Illegitimi non carborundum Mountain Days: 30

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode