Posts made by FinsterniS

No need to listen to them.

They are of the most funny people, i will certainly continue to listen to them :) (note CC that NO, i don’t want to bash on your religion, i just find these guys amusing, like any fanatic).

About Hitler, he (Pat Paterson) said something VERY similar to what Hitler was saying, but not to justify the genocide of the jews, but to justify the genocide of the Midianites (or the Canaanites i’m not sure).

"The wars of extermination have given a lot of people trouble unless they know what was going on. The people in the land of Palestine was very wicked. They were given over idolatry; they sacrificed their childrend; they had all kinds of abominable sex pratices; they were having sex, apparently, with animals, they were having sex men with men, and women with women; they were committing adultery, fornication; they were worshipping idols, offering their children up; and they were forsaking God. God told the Israelites to kil them all - men, woman and children, to destroy them. And that seems to be a terrible thing to do. Is it ? Or isn’t it ? Well, let us assume there were 2,000 of them. I don’t have the exact number. Pick a number. God said, ‘Kill them all.’ Well, that would seem hard, wouldn’t it ? That would be 10,000 who would probably go to Hell. But, if they stayed and reproduced, in 30 or 40 or 50 or 60 or 100 more years, they could conceivably be - 10,000 would go to a 100,000 - 100,000 could conceivably go to a million. And then, there would be a million people who would have to spend eternity in Hell ! And it’s far more merciful to take away a few than to see in the future a 100 years down the road, and say, “Well, I have to take away a million people that would forever be apart from God, " because the abomination was there like a contagium, God saw that there was no cure for it. It wasn’t going to chance; their hearts weren’t going to chance; and all they would do is cause trouble for the Israelites, and pull the Israelites away from God, and prevent the truth of God from reaching the Earth. So, God, in love, took away a small number that he might not have to take away a large number.”

“The 700 Club” television program, May 6 1985

“How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?”

“The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.”

“I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that’s the way it is, period.”

I think you can definetely make a stronger argument (by way of evidence) that Islam is a much more violent religion than the other big three.

Islamic violence is nothing compare to our inquisition, to our crusade, to hitler and to our medieval age, you can obviously say that’s because they are not following their religion, but it’s the same with islam. You cannot take only the present, to say Islam, as a whole was much more violent in history. Aslo Jesus “said” he was here to bring the sword, he “said” he was here to bring division, that is not violent i assume ? Words for words it’s not worst than the quote EmuGod bring down.

And we don’t have to go really far to see christians fanatic, promoting violence and intolerance.

First CC, did Islam said to kill ? No (well maybe, but not as i know). I’m just saying that the quote EmuGod made could be interpret by anybody, just like each time i quote the bible you make some interpretation. Maybe Jesus did not said to kill, but you must forget “god” have killed lots of people, any fanatic can do the same and jusfitied his action with “god’s” action ! So Islam is violent ? Not more than christianism or judaism, it’s just in a dark time. I, personnaly, have less disrespect for Islam because it make science advance at least some time in history…

@EmuGod:

seems very imbellished as to how the evil Jews wanted to kill Jesus.

You know i don’t think jews are evil.

3. It’s not a matter of the “evil Jews” wanting to kill Jesus. This is a popular refrain by white supremacists. No, Jesus and all of the important early Christians were Jewish. There was more going on than a nation of evil Jews. Christ was sent to earth to die, and the Romans killed him at the request of some very powerful, fanatical Jews.

I think it’s a good resumé (exept the “he was send to earth”).

The Roman records never mention Jesus, which means either he didn’t exist or he wasnt important enough to be put into their records. I prefer the latter because I doubt there was no historical Jesus.

This support the scenario CC just said.

You still did’nt anwser my question about the legitimacy of the jew in palestine, i am very curious (sorry).

I’ll post some more quotes for you to analyze Yanny, but this one is kind of violent, wouldnt you say?

I think it’s very interesting… There is lots of violence and absurdities in Judaism and Christianism too, but people make interpretration to solve the problem when they want their religion to be as they like, even if some statement are very clear (note that they do not take “love all your neibourg” like it was a metaphor).

I’m not defending that Sura 9:29, i’m just observing that people seem to be far more objective when looking at other’s religion, it just make me think of that caricature of a french artist; a group of christians, with Jesus on the cross behind them, laughing at a pagan venerating a status.

God is dead. -Neitche

Nietche is dead. -God

Please, it’s Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche. And when “Nietzsche” said that god was dead, it was not from a “physical” dead, Nietzsche was an atheist, it was from a spiritual death; god was dead in the heart of man, but “he” is still in our shared culture. And he did not said that directly, it was in the mouth of a mad man. He later write that the christian conception of god was the most corrupted on earth. And anyway what’s the link with evolution ?

you know, i don’t see what you’re saying Yanny. In my mind by Israel not taking lives in exchange for lives lost, but by dropping a few buildings instead it seems that Israel is acting more humanely.

I agree but Israeli are killing more Palestinian than the opposite, AND are destroying infrastructure…

Also, even if it’s not a reason for palestinian to annihilate the jews, the jews have not legitimacy there, Zionists just chose to go to palestine, claiming it was “a land without people for a people without land”. Just like we had no legitimacy on Africa and America.

Still, the islamic world is’nt in a very good shape. But if we look all their history you are right, our dark religious era was far worst than theirs. In the middles age the arab world was highy advance and civilized (but not us).

Arab Muslims were able to make scientific and mathmatical advancements that rivaled the greeks.

I’m not sure they were not better than the greek. The greek love mathematic, but they did not brings lots of new concept outside somes in geometry (but not the theorem of Pythagoras btw it’s babylonian). Pretty much all the discoveries in mathematic were made in the middle east until the 17th century, exept some greeks, indians and egyptians.

many agnostics are nice

Do not forget evil atheist.

Wild2000; in your argumentation you are making serious errors. First, you take all thing i said (fossils, genetic) separately, it’s unthinkable. We have different fossils at different time. If you look at a species like the horse, you will have the Hyracotherium at a time X, at a time X + 2, no more of the ancient species, but you got the Miohippus, with some difference. How can you refute that evidence ?

Also you forget the main mecanism of evolution (i know) can be proven. Natural Selection & Mutations. That’s proven in a scientific way, like fossils are observed with scientific way. For me this is science. It’s not because you are unable to make a serious rebuttal that this is not science. Because it’s possible to refute Natural Selection, Mutations…, (but don’t take them out of context), it’s possible to refute evolution. It’s very hard because of the numbers of evidence, but it’s possible.

Before we go any further on this whale thing, it is important to note that whales with legs is a myth. I did some looking into this and have found only two species with references to whales with legs. One is the Ambulocetus. I think this is the one that Fin was referring to. The most important thing to note is that this species skeleton is incomplete in all the important areas. From looking at the picture of actual bones found, saying that even 40% of the skeleton was found would be generous. Here is a quote from Don Batten

A myth for who ? Anyway i was’nt speaking about Ambulocetus, it’s a walking whales, but there is also whales with little ridicoulus, useless legs. The Basilosaurus and the Dorudon for exemple.

So, to say that evolutionists have predicted the intermediates between land mammals and sea mammals, you are correct. However, this prediction is not falsifiable. Because no matter how many times we never find any intermediates, the evolutionists will just say we won’t find it because the record is incomplete.

Well we did found intermediates species. This is very hard to refute, when you got whales with little legs, there is a serious problem if you are a fixist.

They say evolution occurred via slow, gradual change

False, False and False.

They admit there is mainly two kind of evolution, it’s linked to the systemic (catastrophic evolution, homeostatic evolution)

you forgot number “4” we’re all different shades of crazy people. That’s fine. And number “5” some speak with God, others are influenced by Satan. That and number “2” make the mose sense to me right now.

haha, so in your mind, the anti-american arab speak with Satan, and they think EXACTLY the same thing of you. It’s quite interesting. Even more interesting is the fact both of you base your claim on the same thing, it show how much valor it has.

As for the “advancement of knowledge” - well, there is great knowledge in Christianity beyond its simple theology and the bible. It just is not meant to advance science, but human behaviour and interaction. The fact that it does not do this so well ALL of the time is no fault of Christianity’s so much as those who fail while practicing it.

I agree it’s not christianity’s fault if they were (are) such a problem for science, but don’t complain about angry secular humanist after.

Your contention that there is no good or evil - you sit on the fence with these issues. Like millions of others who watch, refusing to condemn evil when its RIGHT THERE, refusing to condone goodness as it may be someone else’s evil. That’s what i am talking about.

No, No, No, i’m an humanist, i’am against capital punishment, against killing/war, against explotation. I condone what i think is primitive and againts the developpement of science and humanity, i am for scientific and social evolution. But i will never use a black & white vision, it’s always a good reason to make superficial jugement, without thinking, it’s just “evil”, final. Nothing is as black and white.

Faith: You’re wrong. You have no idea the struggle that i (and billions of other Christians) have gone through to arrive at what we believe. Add to that the Bible, other experiences with spiritual powers and a relationship with God. These things are not testible, and were never meant to be. That’s fine.

It’s blind as you believe in something without any reason. And other peoples that are not doing like you (for exemple my cliché about anti-american arab) are just “wrong”, you have just no reason to say that, you just don’t accept they could be right as much as you are; i call that blind faith.

Science - beautiful. Well ordered and organized, does not hinder my faith, but i believe it complements it.

You forget all the blow it give to religion; Lamarck, Freud, Gallilea. From a purely statistical point of view christianism is fading, in part because of science, in part because of his dogmas. Also you forget that Satan, the adversary, can be interpet in lots of ways. Secular humanist, communist, atheist; they are all adversary of christianism, so we are “satan” ? Will you need to destroy us ? I’m maybe a little acid and direct, i am still not “evil”.

Logic - a handy tool. It works some times, but not all the time. You are married, no? You can not convince me that unless she is some kind of robot that logic works in all situations. All i’ve learned from my many relationships - if she’s bitchy, give her food. I don’t understand it, but it works.

hahaha, right, i’m married, and logic does not always work out you’re right (and it’s even dangerous on PMS), and for complexity; even the hardest integral does not match a woman (we still spend most of our time thinking about them)

I know logic is not perfect, but “god” is a philosophical question, that need the use of logic, we need to make critic, not to believe in the closest myth. Dogmas are not making thing advande, constructive critics is.

Humanism - Christ was the first great humanist. He preached love, caring, helping the poor, doing good things for other people. He preached against laws that tied people up. He loved the world so much he died for it. He taught us to do to others as we’d have done to us. If our enemy does something mean to us, we are to do something kind. Has any one in history acted or taught more humanistic things?

Lots of people are dying for what they believe in. Anyway he “said” himself he was here to bring fire and division. It does not enter in my definition of “humanism”. Socrate is the first humanist for me. He never menace nobody, never kill, he just question everything, he want developpement, mouvement, and as you seem to care for those who die for what they believe in; Socrate did. And if you read the Republic of Plato, you’ll know another humanist.

1. Christianity is not logical unless you view it as a Christian. I don’t care if you find it logical or not - completely beside the issue. It is a greater knowledge that works outside and beyond the confines you work in to consider things logical.

It’s easy to call a greater knowledge something no one use for the advancement of knowledge, no one saw, and when it’s perfectly illogical. You can speak to yourself 20, 25, 40 years, it will not make it greater knowledge. And don’t you think those who kill jews does not believe they speak to god ? So they are fool, they speak to themself, but not you ? I see only 3 options…

1. You are all fanatic, speaking to themself, without the start of a logical argument.
2. You speak to “god”, they speak to themself.
3. God has two face, he’s “good” and “evil”.

Also, if it’s “beyond” my logic, you’ll have to admit it’s still looking like the story we tell to children. Maybe the tooth fairy is also “beyond” our understanding, manipulating us like puppets on her large battle against the evil black tooth.

2. One must differentiate for themselves what good and evil is. And i will presume that i know what’s good for humanity, and that i know what “evil” is - it helps that the bible tells me. I think that irrespective of the fact that some people consider it good to kill people, that doesn’t change my knowledge of what good and evil is, and i don’t believe that one can honestly be a fence-sitter on these issues as you appear to be.

I don’t have any idea what you are talking about with your fence-sitter by the way. And sorry but i am defending what i believe is true.

3. Of course it’s pure faith, but not blind faith. Also i can look at what Hitler was doing to people, ask those who were witness to prison camps/are Polish if they enjoyed what Hitler did to them, and i’ll get a very vivid example of what evil is. As for the fight between good and evil at the end of it all, well, i don’t know exactly how it all will go down, but ultimately good will triumph over evil, God over Satan. Naturally as with all things there is a slim margin that i may be incorrect about this - that i’ll die and become wormfood and that’s it, but i don’t think so.

Faith is’nt always blind ? You believe in a mythology not more logic than any animist, odinist or satanist. And you justify it with a “feeling”, but it’s the end of the questionning ? Yes, it’s blind faith.

Also satan is the “adversary”, what it is… our natural instinct ? science ? logic ? humanism ? These 4 things are hurting your religion, they could easily be the adversary. Look how much religion was powerfull in the middle-age, now, with science and logic, it fade.

Why is it so unbelievable that the Jew want Jesus to die ?

The reason Darwin’s version was considered better was because Lamarckian Evolution was proven to be false. The current “version” of evolution has not been proven to be false because it is unfalsifiable.

That is as falsiafiable as the theory of the big bang. If you are able to refute every supporting evidence you will be able to refute evolution.

One thing people miss about evolution is that the theory does not predict anything. All it does is take the data and tries to explain it using a naturalistic approach.

Sure it’s a naturalistic approach, we cannot go and ask every shaman or priest what they think about X or Y. And it does make prediction (whales with legs, Darwin’s Finches, et cetera…).

However, the only explainations it has been able to provide thus far is not scientific. Many of the explainations contradict other explainations, are tautologies, or are metaphysical.

Like what ? There is nothign metaphysical about evolution. It’s a scientific theory base on indirect proof, fossils, embryology, vestigial organs, comparative anatomy, genetic.

Lamarckian Evolution in my opinion was science, because it made a hypothesis that was falsifiable. Evolution under this criteria of testability, is not.

His theory was base more on intuition than science, he said that “the need create the organ”, not that he was not a brilliant man, but i simply cannot understand how you can say he was scientific.

@cystic:

Wow FinsterniS!!!
i think that’s possibly the most objective post i’ve ever seen you present. Also i tended to agree with most of the statements you made (to some degree - at least those that i know something about.

It’s because we often speak of subject like God and thing i have a very firm position. But you will certainly not like the message i just write in “The end of the World” (or something like it).

And there must ultimately be a fight between good and evil. There will come a point when they can not be in the same universe at the same time.
And no. One side will win. That’s pre-determined.

woooooooooooo, what’s that, christian logic ? Sorry but i find the idea very funny, you never read anything about ethic or about history ? I mean, the concept of “good” and “evil” lack so much nuance, it’s so subjective, you think a guy killing an american is “evil”, while some believe it’s “good”, and in the end, nobody have anything to support there claim, i think it’s a barbarious act, but i don’t use concept like “good” and “evil”, i don’t need the support of a god to live, nor to caution my belief. I believe in humanity developpement, in everyone having somethign to wear, to eat and to learn, i don’t say it’s “good”, i don’t have the presumption to know what’s good for humanity, i just try to do my best.

Hitler think he was fighting evil. And you can try very hard, you can say he was wrong, you do not have anything to support your version of “evil”, just pure, blind, faith. Not that i think we should relativise murder, i just think you cannot fight for “good” of “evil”, and when we look deep into think, they are never as Black or White as some might wish they were.

There is way more to the evolutionary “theory” than what Darwin contributed. If the only thing you know about evolution is Darwin’s interpretation, I think you are misinformed.

Right ! Darwin’s explanation is out of date, science change, now we use different tools to understand evolution. You does not have a full understanding of evolution just by reading “the origin of species”… but anyway it’s an interesting book.

I don’t beleive that evolution contraditcs the bible.

The important is that the two does’nt go along in school, creationism “should” be taught in religion, evolutionism in biology.

also i understand that there were many inconsistancies w/ Darwin’s book, and there were also some lapses in scientific acumen.

Darwin was the second grand evolutionist, you cannot ask a theory to be perfect in the first time. It was still a lot better than Lamarck’s theory. And now our theory are far more advance than that.

@TG:

No. :roll:

In fact yes. You can believe evolution exist, but with the guidance of an anthropomorphic being (some people really need that). It’s what we call “Old Earth Creationism”, but there is also “Yougn Earth Creationism”, it’s the belief that evolution does’nt exist, just creation, it’s base on Fixism.

I don’t think Judaism has any bases in Egyptian mythology from what I’ve studied.

I know it is “based” or at least influenced by egyptian mythology, i just don’t know how much. Also yes it was a polytheistic religion, but centered around one core god (unlike the greek, celt, germans or romans) and there was also the roots of a manichean ethic.

But I have nto studied Egyptian mythology in detail. Unlike Yanny’s statements that all religions were started as a way to gain ower and ctonrol the masses, Judaism was not.

I think, like i said in a previous post, that yes power is a factor, but it’s at first a “primitive” explanation of the world. They did’nt have the knowledge we have, they need to explain why the sun was there, for them it was magic. They have stories for every natural phenomena, like in the greek mythology you’ll find stories to explain the sun, the seasons, how the land was created, et cetera…

As for Christianity, I’m not sure but it may have picked some thngs up from Ancient Rome. CC, could you shed some light on this?

It was influenced by Aristotle’s philosophy.

It’s nice in that we don’t have to worry about being persecuted for our beliefs, however with increasing secular humanism it is getting harder to stand by them without being labelled.

Hey, Secular Humanism is an high ideals. Anyway it’s just increasing in university, you are not seeing lots of secular humanist in the street. And even if they were in power, secular humanist would not get revenge on christians other than with logic and words, at least i wish, otherwise… they are not secular humanist.

i believe he was simply stating a difference between Christianity from other religions. Maybe there is a polytheistic pantheon of deities.

You are not a monotheist if you believe there is more than one true god.

CC, I understand what you are saying. However, Diferent said Christian beliefs are fundamentally different from the beliefs of every other religion I named, and therefore they are true.

There is also something typical, Christians (and jews, and muslims) often seem to believe that as they are sometime oppressed; they are in the god way, they are “martyr”, just like those palestinians kamikaze…

Germans (Norse) had lots of gods… Wuotan (Odin), Tyr, Loki… and very interesting stories about dwarfs… also stories with gods dying. In our mythology, Fenrir, a giant wolf, “will” kill Wuotan in Ragnarok (apocalyps), all gods knew they would die someday, it’s the core of ancient germanic philosophy; destiny. And there is a godess called “Hel”, sound familiar ?

I don’t know very much about egyptian mythology, but as far as i know they had lots of gods, but were mostly venerating only one. Ra… or Amon before (maybe after Ra i don’t remember). Judaism (and consequently Christianism) is based partially on egyptian mythology, so maybe EmuGod or Cryptic know more about it than i do.

which means your parents/guardians/caretakers are the “real problem~~” too, since they’ve raised you with some sort of preconceived bias.

Exept if they teach you to doupt, to question and to argue.~~