Religion Debunked. - Page 27 - Snowboarding Forum

Slush Puppie · 10-08-2012, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by backstop13

I read everything man, I just didn't respond.

Ah fair enough!

backstop13 · 10-08-2012, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KIRKRIDER

Dude.

You can pick and choose all you want, but when you start with an absurd claim where else can you go either than in an even more absurd claim? The belief system is absurd because it is based on absurdity! (age of the Earth). It's like starting a discussion on gravity claiming, for example, that gravity happens only during the day. That is absurd and will only lead to more absurd claims. Nothing else.

Dude, perhaps you don't understand me, because I don't believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

I don't know how to state it any more clearly than that.

Slush Puppie · 10-08-2012, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalvaryCougar

You do realize Copernicus believed in God right? As well as alot of other scientists in his age.

Famous Scientists Who Believed in God

This is an incredibly weak argument and I hope you can appreciate the difference between a strong one and a weak one. That's not meant as an insult, it's an important point.

Firstly it's no more proof than saying x is doest believe in god. I'm sure I could cite senior members of the church who have rejected god although that's not quite the exact opposite (it's close enough).

Plus there are many reasons that he may have maintained a facade of religion that was his business we can't say for certain.

However this is not really the point because it means little in itself.

People once thought the world was flat, the bible suggests it was, and a small minority people still believe it is today. Doesn't mean it is. It doesn't matter who once believed it was, that makes it no more or less true than it is.

The point is that as our understanding evolves and improves we can and do let go of old and outdated ideas that we once had no better explanation for. It can also be difficult and require a considerable amount of courage to challenge a predominantly accepted belief, let alone admit it publicly.

Do you believe the earth is flat?

KIRKRIDER · 10-08-2012, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by backstop13

Dude, perhaps you don't understand me, because I don't believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

I don't know how to state it any more clearly than that.

Didn't mean you, but the christian agenda and discussion method(s)

Slush Puppie · 10-08-2012, 04:33 PM

CalvaryCougar, I'm going to set you a challenge. More on that in a sec..

One thing I've noticed is that you've responded quite selectively and steered well away from the more challenging points. Focusing the opinions of others and bible quotes as support. There have been lots of points to respond to so I'm not judging your reasons for this, I understand if you prefer to discus the ones you are more familiar with.

In particular I'm interested to know what your thought on the ageing the earth by means of dendrology are. And furthermore the complete absence of evidence for a global flood (specifically in the tree clock) within the last 11,000 years.

Here's the challenge: Are you able to respond to without quoting or referencing the bible?

I have also taken a fair bit of time to review the material you have posted and I have to say I find no evidence or merit in any of it. I am interested to know - and its a simple question not related to any particular item you sent - what criteria you personally need for this type of information to pass before you accept it personally?

So that's 2 questions. It's obviously up to you if you answer. Neither is meant as an attack, like I said I'm genuinely quite interested in some of the psychology of belief systems and i'm interested in your answers here.

**Donutz** · 10-08-2012, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalvaryCougar

On side-note, I understand you don't believe in Christianity but i find it offensive that you purposely call us xians.

Sorry you are taking that badly, but as I've admintted in other threads, that's nothing more than laziness on my part. xian has fewer characters than christian and is easier to touch-type. You simply should not be reading anything more into it than that. And the 'X' as a symbol for the cross was a christian invention, just like the fish. So to take offense you have to be either misunderstanding or projecting, unless there's another way xian is being used somewhere else that I don't know about.

**Donutz** · 10-08-2012, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalvaryCougar

Also we know that Jesus claimed he was going to rise from the dead. The Romans knew this as well and guarded his tomb. If Jesus had truly not raised from the dead you had better believe when the Romans and Jews heard that people were claiming he rose from the dead, they would go and show his body to everyone squashing any form of Christianity we see today because it is all reliant upon his resurrection. But what happened is even far more fascinating, people were claiming to have seen him risen! The Bible says more than 500 people saw him! Then look at the persecution the early Christian church went through! Peter was even crucified upside down and other Christians were tortured but people would not be silent. How would a bunch of apostles who hid after Jesus was crucified for fear of execution turn into fearless preachers who preached that Jesus had risen even to the point of death?

There's no body to produce because if the Romans were true to form on this crucifixion (and no reason why they would have done different), then Jesus' body would have been thrown into a lime pit and disolved. This was done as regular policy in order to deprive the relatives of the body for any burial rituals. You have to understand that crucifixion was a Roman form of torture, execution, and message reserved for treason, which included challenging the Roman order. Which is also why the tale of the two thieves being crucified on either side of Jesus is an obvious myth. Thieves didn't get crucified.

BTW, the bible also said that the dead were revived and started walking around, but strangely other than the mention in one of the four gospels, there's no mention of it anywhere in any history by anyone. You'd think someone would have noticed.

**Donutz** · 10-08-2012, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalvaryCougar

Actually unless you can reproduce another functioning planet that was created without any intelligent influence then you cannot say that evolution as Darwin theory is testable.

Sure I can. I can say it's testable, I can say it's been tested, and I can say it's passed. Because that's all true. That's already been dealt with earlier in this thread.

Also, there are plenty of observed speciations, so that old canard is out the window as well. Use the interwebz, Luke!

KIRKRIDER · 10-08-2012, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donutz

There's no body to produce because if the Romans were true to form on this crucifixion (and no reason why they would have done different), then Jesus' body would have been thrown into a lime pit and disolved. This was done as regular policy in order to deprive the relatives of the body for any burial rituals.

Didn't know that! And being a Roman I should. ( born and lived there until '99)

**Donutz** · 10-08-2012, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ARSENALFAN

Yeah. Lets get Snowolf to nuke it good.

Good luck with that. He's on his third bag of popcorn.

10-08-2012, 04:33 PM	#265 (permalink)
Slush Puppie Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: looking west over the Atlantic Posts: 283	CalvaryCougar, I'm going to set you a challenge. More on that in a sec.. One thing I've noticed is that you've responded quite selectively and steered well away from the more challenging points. Focusing the opinions of others and bible quotes as support. There have been lots of points to respond to so I'm not judging your reasons for this, I understand if you prefer to discus the ones you are more familiar with. In particular I'm interested to know what your thought on the ageing the earth by means of dendrology are. And furthermore the complete absence of evidence for a global flood (specifically in the tree clock) within the last 11,000 years. Here's the challenge: Are you able to respond to without quoting or referencing the bible? I have also taken a fair bit of time to review the material you have posted and I have to say I find no evidence or merit in any of it. I am interested to know - and its a simple question not related to any particular item you sent - what criteria you personally need for this type of information to pass before you accept it personally? So that's 2 questions. It's obviously up to you if you answer. Neither is meant as an attack, like I said I'm genuinely quite interested in some of the psychology of belief systems and i'm interested in your answers here. Last edited by Slush Puppie; 10-08-2012 at 05:52 PM.

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