Friday, October 24, 2014

Re: [AvC] Re: ..."No! I don't think so." Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings.



On Friday, 24 October 2014 01:37:12 UTC+1, yar...@aol.com wrote:


On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 2:54:09 PM UTC-4, lawrey wrote:


On Wednesday, 22 October 2014 12:37:27 UTC+1, yar...@aol.com wrote:


On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 7:07:10 AM UTC-4, lawrey wrote:


On Wednesday, 22 October 2014 02:13:01 UTC+1, yar...@aol.com wrote:


On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 3:38:16 PM UTC-4, lawrey wrote:


On Tuesday, 21 October 2014 12:27:31 UTC+1, yar...@aol.com wrote:

                           
                                                    My, my, you are beginning to sound threatened, how pathetic, As most posters who know of me will tell you I never ever admit to any expertise,


   Now you seem to claim expertise in not having any. Fascinating. The gerbils in your head must be on crystal meth.
 
                                                    to the contrary I know that I know nothing.
  
No, by your own admission, you can't possibly know that. ;)
Are you going to keep throwing these kinds of claims at me that keep committing suicide? I am feeling a bit guilty even having this conversation with you. I don't like to torture defenseless little animals either and I certainly don't like a conversation where I have all the advantages...it amounts to the same thing. My advice to you is to get a good book on logic and reasoning and study really hard.

                     > > Just whom do you suppose you impress,

   You have a lot of trouble with language...the English language it seems. I am not trying to impress a who. I am trying ti impress on you some problems with logic that you are having, but you would have to have a proper grounding in the discipline before you could appreciate that. Take the advice I gave you to heart and follow through with it. Then, perhaps, once you have gained a proper education in the field, we can have a conversation on the same level.


                                 You poor, pathetic person, my heart bleeds for you, I did not quite appreciate how threatened you feel by me. All my students still pass with top grades in English.

    Strangely enough, so did I...pass with a top grade...not only in one language as I am bilingual and English is not my first language. You only teach English? How parochial and quaint is that.
 
                                 which would appear to contradict your failed attempt to belittle my level of English.

   I may have encountered some of your students, who generally comment that I use words no one understands and yet, they are found in the English dictionary. But never mind that. There is more to learning a language than just learning grammar, sentence diagramming, spelling and such. It has to do with proper understanding how it can be applied to such subjects as the study of history. There is the issue of ancient languages, their particular cultural color, of which you know nothing...as it is drawn from a vernacular long now dead. That is why one needs a grounding in historical and cultural contexts of the writings along with the context that comes along with who it was written for and how it tied to popular knowledge at that time. These things too are part of language and simply having mastered one, hardly puts you in a position to parse through translations that were originally penned in another language by another culture at another time far removed from our own. For that you do not only need expertise in one language, but a grasp of way more than just that and being parochially brought up in one culture can hardly prepare you to tackle such a thing.
 
Your obvious feelings of insecurity seem alarming, perhaps a psychologist could be of some service to you.

  You know, it is funny, but my idiot parents had exactly the same idea when I was young. So, they took me to a psychologist since they were pretty much convinced of the exactly the same thing you are. Well, "Gonna crack my knuckles and jump for joy - I got a clean bill of health from Dr. McCoy".  Yeah...the pro found me perfectly well  adjusted and psychologically sound, while others less learned insisted the finding was wrong. You really should stick with teaching English and not get into psychoanalyzing people. You run along the same moronic line that didn't realize that what problems I suffered from, please note past tense..."teacher", were physical in nature, not psychological and they were easily fixed once I managed to identify them. I had to identify them because over-educated and famously diplomad idiots failed to diagnose the problem(yes I am speaking of the medical profession). Strange how I didn't need four to eight years of education to best them at their own game. So, I'm not impressed by your academic credentials or the low bar that your students manage to get past.

 
                                  I have long since learned that you have nothing by way of intellectual expertise to offer to anyone on this site and in the same manner as others of your ilk here, your pathetic bluster becomes
                                 as with this last offering, embarrassingly crass gutter-dross. but perhaps better demonstrates your own inability and failure to communicate with any measure of intelligence.

    

 
Little wonder
                                  you are treated like the unclean biblical leper... Avoided like the plague.

  Very good...I was a leper...of a sort, but those who should have known the type of leprosy I suffered from, were too busy building their summer homes to worry about their patients. That's what the evils of capitalism bring to the table. And you are the same evil capitalist viper as the rest of them.


                      > > yar,
                                        Yet again your ignorance is forced upon us, and your assumptions presume too far although for the time you have frequented this site you should have by now be more
                                        informed.. Just because I admit to having so much more to learn does not mean I am totally ignorant neither should you assume that English is the only discipline I
                                        teach my students, you might have picked up that Psychology and Ancient History are also part of my small contribution to those that seek to indulge, but you do not
                                        know what other languages I practice which again points you out as a know-it-all-knows-nothing, malcontent out of your depth and floundering wildly to be noticed.

                                       So may I remind you again: when I say I know nothing I say so in order to remind myself that there is so much more to learn.
                                       I see nothing you say here that is laudable or worthy of recommendation such self praise of itself is only further demonstration of your self righteous pomposity.
                                       I happily take advise from anyone who is gracious enough to afford it to me and astute with and in knowledge. You live with by your own admission with belief and knowledge evades you.
                                       I have nothing further to say that would not be wasted upon the likes of you and your ilk, So I bid you the time of day and trust you have finished with your self glorification, because I have
                                       no intention to tolerate your arrogance further. Do you get the message yet?

 
Be gone now, there's a good fellow. know when you are beaten and try not to show more ignorance in responding.

  I think you have covered the ignorance portion of this discussion with expertise. So, find yourself an Indian gray mongoose and YOU be gone.

 
                                  It can't succeed, with insult and you intellectual capacity is wanting lamentably.  Cheerio old chap! Have a lovely day.

  Well, I would wish you the same thing, but in Britain there is never going to be any such a thing...or is it Australia you hail from...same thing.
 

 
                            when I say I know nothing I say so in order to remind myself that there is so much more to learn.
                            I see nothing you say here that is laudable or worthy of recommendation such self praise of itself is only further demonstration of your self righteous pomposity.
                            I happily take advise from anyone who is gracious enough to afford it to me and astute with and in knowledge. You live with by your own admission with belief and knowledge evades you.
                            I have nothing further to say that would not be wasted upon the likes of you and your ilk, So I bid you the time of day and trust you have finished with your self glorification, because I have
                            no intention to tolerate your arrogance further.
                          

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Re: Freethinking atheism



On Thursday, October 23, 2014 6:46:33 PM UTC-7, mspm...@comcast.net wrote:



I am not sure what the confusion here is.  Freethinkers do not profess a creed.  Other atheists may.

  I suppose it hinges on the question of whether groups like the Communists are atheists.  I believe they are.  Likewise I believe much of North Korea is atheist, and so forth. They are atheists, call themselves atheists, and possess a creed.


The confusion here is that free thinking isn't necessarily atheistic. You're apparently alluding to free-thought. Free-thought "is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, or other dogmas.[1][2][3] The cognitive application of freethought is known as "freethinking", and practitioners of freethought are known as "freethinkers".[1][4] , (from Wiki) "

North Korea is an atheist  state which has freedom of religion in their constitution. 2/3 of the people there are irreligious (in the traditionalist sense),  & 1/3 are not. 
"Traditionally religion in North Korea primarily consisted of Buddhism and Confucianism and Korean shamanism. Since the arrival of Europeans in the 18th century, there is a Christian minority. New religions have arisen during the last century, the most prominent one being Cheondoism, based on traditional shamanism. North Korea is purportedly an atheist state[2][3] North Korea sees organized religious activity as a potential challenge to the leadership.[4]", (from Wiki)  Also the cult of personality around their leadership is arguably quasi-religious.



Now how many atheists here express allegiance to a cult of personality? Probably none. But some atheists elsewhere apparently do. So you're trying to force a square peg down a round hole with your monolithic notions about atheism. You can call it a creed but not all creeds are created equal. So, if your tactic here is to signify that atheism is just a creed like theism,  so what? Which is sounder given apparent objective reality? Not believing in fairies is sounder position until proven otherwise. OTOH,  not all atheists have the same world view other than not believing in a god.

Why suppose or believe things when facts about what you're making suppositions about are readily available? You're still trying to say communism is necessarily atheistic. Marxism-Leninism is,  but that ain't the only kind of communism. A website about Christian communism was even provided for you. So,  why don't you knock it off with the passive-aggressive red baiting.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[AvC] Re: Hubble peers to within a few 100 million years of big bang

On Friday, October 24, 2014 2:32:32 AM UTC-4, Kurt wrote:
I guess I'd better spell it out. There was no light for the first 300,000 years after the Big Bang, then it all burst forth.

For how many years after Earth was there no Universe? Earth's creation is recounted at the beginning of Genesis, in Genesis 1:1. According to Genesis, the Sun, Moon and the stars came later and are set in a firmament. Where is this firmament today?
 
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

That first light that "Let there be Light" is the Microwave Background Radiation that "proved" Big Bang/Genesis right. That radio telescope that first saw it was looking at the edge of the Universe. What the other telescopes would see if they could see that far, a wall of light you can never see beyond.

When we find the water above the firmament, meaning this water is also above the Sun, Moon and stars, we can be doubly sure that Genesis is right:

1:7 And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 

Genesis is deep. It's not the earth held up by Atlas or elephants on the back of a turtle etc. The typical myths of the time.

If that was typical, what was atypical about Earth having a foundation that includes pillars? 
Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? - Job 38:4
He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble. - Job 9:6
 
On Friday, October 24, 2014 2:23:36 AM UTC-4, Kurt wrote:
I'm old enough to remember when the "Let there be Light" right after Creation was thought to be superstitous nonsense. That of course light existed as long as the Universe existed, Big Bang or not. 

Then, they found the Microwave Background Radiation, the "Let there be Light" of Genesis. The edge of the Visible Universe, what you see if your telescope can see as far as can be seen. It's what is supposed to have proved the Big Bang Theory right, but what it proved right is Genesis which said it 3000 years before science.

On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 12:06:44 PM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 12:26:33 PM UTC-4, Kurt wrote:
We've already seen the edge of the visible Universe. It's what proved Genesis right. 

Then, for millenia, flat-earthers have missed something in Genesis. What did they miss? These are claimed to be pictorial descriptions of their understanding of the cosmos, from studying the Bible:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[AvC] Re: Ancient writings

nobody here is interested in you kursty boy ... they all think that you are a blow hard abusive troll ... you pump the "superiority of jesus" but if he ever met you he would turn away and run ... you are THE last type of person he (or any of us) want to associate with ... do you even realize that? 

On Friday, October 24, 2014 2:41:17 AM UTC-4, Kurt wrote:
You "get to the stage" where you post nothing but your obsessive fascination with all things Kurt. 

You need to get a life. I'm definitely not interested in you.

On Thursday, October 23, 2014 11:34:11 AM UTC-4, lawrey wrote:


On Wednesday, 22 October 2014 02:00:41 UTC+1, Timbo wrote:
You have no evidence the Abram was Sumerian either. You have no evidence that all people living in Samaria were Sumerians in 2000BC. The Bible post up the reason for his family to leave was to escape Chaldeans, in which did not enter the area till after Abram would have been dead. The Bible is trash.

 
                        > > Tim,

                                          I've got to the stage where I just ignore his outrageous arrogance, what ever you say he'll come up with something different to tell you you are wrong and know nothing.



On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 12:32:13 PM UTC-4, Kurt wrote:
What difference does it make where the precise location of Ur is? Abraham was Sumerian and Gilgamesh was Sumerian and Samaria was just upriver from the flooded Garden of Eden Persian Gulf.

On Sunday, October 19, 2014 12:09:14 PM UTC-4, Timbo wrote:

How are you pinpointing where the Abrahamic Ur existed? The greatest linguistic mistake is to use like words or parts of words. The second greatest linguistic mistake is to characterize people, places and things out of correct timelime. The third and most disgusting of all is to claim you know for sure, when documented evidence is lacking. Some biblical regions can be documented while others lack methodological evidence. Ur is one that lacks methodological evidence. Depending on if Gen is referring to early written parts of Gen or later written parts of Gen, I would only theorize Ur as not being near Babylon, rather today's southern Turkey, northern Syrian border region. We also must be careful of where we think regions are located geographically on a historical timeline. Territorial lines can move 500-1000 miles from 1250 BC to 350 AD., depending on who won what war and if they did, what parts they chose to govern and what parts they gave back to the losers. 

  
On Saturday, October 18, 2014 6:24:45 PM UTC-4, Kurt wrote:
It's very strong evidence the Bible is right about Abraham coming from Ur, where Gilgamesh is from. It pushes the historical part of the Bible back 4000 years.

Gilgamesh got it from the same place the Torah got it alright. Probably the flooding of Eden/Persian Gulf 8000 years ago, just downriver from Ur.

On Saturday, October 18, 2014 5:53:01 PM UTC-4, MarinaM wrote:
I would be interested in finding out the opinions of christians on ancient writings, pre bible, writings like the Epic of Gilgamesh where it speaks of a flood very similar to the one found in the bible,from: http://danielmiessler.com/writing/bible_fiction/

Here are a number of elements that both Gilgamesh and the flood story in Genesis share:

  1. God decided to send a worldwide flood. This would drown men, women, children, babies and infants, as well as eliminate all of the land animals and birds.
  2. God knew of one righteous man, Ut-Napishtim or Noah.
  3. God ordered the hero to build a multi-story wooden ark (called a chest or box in the original Hebrew), and the hero initially complained about the assignment to build the boat.
  4. The arc would have many compartments, a single door, be sealed with pitch and would house one of every animal species.
  5. A great rain covered the land with water.
  6. The arc landed on a mountain in the Middle East.
  7. The first two birds returned to the ark. The third bird apparently found dry land because it did not return.
  8. The hero and his family left the ark, ritually killed an animal, offered it as a sacrifice.
  9. The Babylonian gods seemed genuinely sorry for the genocide that they had created. The God of Noah appears to have regretted his actions as well, because he promised never to do it again.

Keep in mind the level of detail in these similarities. It's not a matter of just a flood, but specific details: three birds sent out, resisting the call to build the arc, and a single man being chosen by God to build the arc. Then consider that the first story (Gilgamesh) came from Babylon — hundreds of years before the Bible was even written.

There are numerous other writings, osiris, mithra, all very much like the 'jesus' story.

What is your opinion on these? Do you think that the dates are wrong and these stories were copied from the bible, why the similarities, are they myths, but your stories aren't? I would really like to know!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[AvC] Re: Hubble peers to within a few 100 million years of big bang

but didn't your GOD create heaven and earth in 6 days kursy boy? ... sorry for top posting  ;-^)

On Friday, October 24, 2014 2:19:38 AM UTC-4, Kurt wrote:
Adam and ever weren't there at the Creation and Let there be Light, the edge of the visible Universe. Get a clue.

On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:25:08 PM UTC-4, e_space wrote:
what, hubble showed us proof of adam and eve walking around eden before they started wearing fig leaves? ... sorry for top posting ... ;-^)

On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 12:26:33 PM UTC-4, Kurt wrote:
We've already seen the edge of the visible Universe. It's what proved Genesis right. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Re: Ebola Proves Atheism is Pure Evil

and, from what i know, most blacks are christians ... square that with your theory ... sorry for top posting 

On Friday, October 24, 2014 2:45:42 AM UTC-4, Kurt wrote:
Nope, as a group, black Americans have garbage family values, 70% of black kids have no father in the house. And of course, that's why they are still down, the garbage family values. 

On Thursday, October 23, 2014 8:18:20 PM UTC-4, Loopflanger wrote:


On Thursday, October 23, 2014 3:46:04 PM UTC-7, Kurt wrote:
A woman and man living together for their lives and raising children, having religion, working hard, living clean. ALL ethnic groups in the US that do that, prosper and all that don't, don't. No exceptions. 

One doesn't need a religion to work hard. Working hard in of itself doesn't necessarily imply anything socially constructive being done. (One can work hard for the military-industrial complex, for instance.  Is this necessarily a good thing?) Members of all ethnic groups evidently do what you imply only some do. You're ignoring the effects of discrimination to justify a racist supposition. (How do you account for members of some ethnic groups & women in general being paid less for the same work done by those who are paid more? That isn't a matter of them working less hard. That's a matter of unwarranted privilege afforded some at the expense of others.)

You're one shit shoveling clown but all of that shit comes straight out of your own ass.  If you got a problem with so-called pure evil,  try dealing with your own degeneracy.

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[AvC] Re: Freethinking atheism



On Thursday, October 23, 2014 5:38:08 PM UTC-4, mspm...@comcast.net wrote:
Well, I could provide statistics that religiosity is down in the United States, or that more marriages are breaking up or that child abuse is up and so forth, but all of this must be pretty obvious to most people already.  The only thing that isn't obvious is the connection between the two, religion and community.  That is to say, is this just a coincidence?  And I agree this would be difficult to prove.

you are indicating that it isn't a coincidence ... 
 

Matt

On Thursday, October 23, 2014 3:45:53 PM UTC-5, e_space wrote:


On Thursday, October 23, 2014 4:30:01 PM UTC-4, mspm...@comcast.net wrote:


On Thursday, October 23, 2014 8:02:00 AM UTC-5, lawrey wrote:


On Thursday, 23 October 2014 00:21:14 UTC+1, mspm...@comcast.net wrote:
I believe that modern atheism, or freethinking atheism, has two main qualities:

1) Flexibility
2) Division

Flexibility:  Freethinking atheism can pertain to just about anything.  If you want it to be about literature it can be about literature.  If you want it to be about game theory it can be about game theory.  If you want it to be about mercy it can even be about that.  Freethinking atheism is more flexible that Christianity.

Division:  Freethinking atheism leads to division.  About the only thing modern atheists have in common is their species.  At best they can briefly unite around some particular issue or perhaps a little longer about opposition to a particular religion.  I am really concerned about the long-term effects this kind of psychology could have on a society.  I certainly don't see how you could have a 'freethinking nation' for example, which is what some people seem to hope for.

Matt


               > >     Matt,

                                      Reading your post and viewing your responses thus far, I must confess I am left a little perplexed.....OK Get over the giggle!......perhaps its because I am a staunch atheist and biased in
                                      favour of atheism.....but I do not see atheism the way you appear to behold it..... I might view it differently if it were a controlled organisation seeking power and political clout......but as long
                                     as atheism remains independent of rule of any kind and is left to develop as it has with individual autonomy,  (That is to say:)  " an idea that is generally understood to refer to the capacity
                                     to be one's own person, to live one's life according to reasons and motives that are taken as one's own and not the product of manipulative or distorting external forces". Such as or
                                     compared to some religions; Then I am as certain as I can be That the maximization of atheism would profit our world and eventually bring peace and harmony. I fervently believe, that
                                     within the confines of the atheistic outlook, there is a world view, which is second to none. There is no violence in atheism or its concept; to the contrary; as an individaulistic concept and
                                     because it is so, you find that atheists are among the most peace-loving and caring people and I believe that is solely because they are not bound to over-riding rules of atheism, nor do
                                     they have to kowtow to any governing body. Atheists accept responsibility for themselves and their own actions as ordinary folk their only dividing  differentiation is NO BELIEF IN GOD/S.

                                     What have you to say?

Freethinkers do seem to be peace loving.  Even the USSR was somewhat peaceful, but freethinkers particularly so.  I live in the United States and there seems to be a lot less community than when I was growing up.  There is also less religion.  It is not too difficult to make a connection. 

yep ... people are realizing that they don't need to congregate in social gatherings and worship a mythical figure to live a good ethical life ... 

the difficulty with your analogy is that you are not providing any statistics to support your claim ... so it is quite worthless at this point ... 
 

Matt

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.