Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Fragrant Harbour
Reload this Page >

Mainland Adults Bullying Young White Kid

Fragrant Harbour A forum for the large number of pilots (expats and locals) based with the various airlines in Hong Kong. Air Traffic Controllers are also warmly welcomed into the forum.

Mainland Adults Bullying Young White Kid

Old 20th Jul 2011, 22:38
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cupboard
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Giga and Profit,

Yes, I am serious. And, I doubt anybody was "blessed" (as if anyone ever is) before, during or after the incident in question, or any other atrocious behaviour, just as none of the boys (or girls) being raped by their Christian (appointed/chosen/inspired/led by/chosen by) leaders (or fathers or relatives, etc.) were receiving bogus "blessings" from your imaginary friend or any other imaginary source of bogus "blessings." Just remember that brainwashed American (and all, even enemy) soldiers hold prayer sessions before going into combat (air, ground or maritime) to kill and injure their opponents, often with great suffering....not counting the suffering of the survivors.

Obviously morals have nothing to do with religion, since morals are common among those of different religions, as well as bees, monkeys and cats. Morals are morals, and religious beliefs are religious beliefs.

You "may" suggest anything you want, but unless you provide evidence, it has no relevance in logical, rational, intelligent discussions.

Secular humanism is obviously not a religion. I assume you have a dictionary in your house, but since you are so incapable of understanding reality, I Googled it for you.

From Oxford online dictionary:
Religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Your brain may interpret this otherwise, but in English this is what the word "religion" means. You can Google "secular" and "humanism" yourself. Then you might start to see the difference between your understanding of words and things, and the truth.

As for the morality of kicking helpless kids in the head and crushing their fingers, obviously the objection to this is not faith-based on Jesus or any other imaginary, invisible friend/force/power. It is wrong all around the world regardless of the current imaginary friend/force/power controlling the local population's behaviour. The bottom line is that the world if full of idiots, and that's that. It's not because of some fairy tale you prefer over all the others: It is just the way it is. Your invented, unsupported, ridiculous explanation is irrelevant in a rational conversation.

What "Jesus" may or may not have said, in accordance with a totally unremarkable, contradictory and obviously bogus book, most of which was copied from earlier garbage, is irrelevant. The fact that you believe in this book or Jesus is also irrelevant: The guys who flew planes in the WTC believed every word of their books, and 100% of what they believed their god wanted, just as you do. Obviously, all fairy tale believers are fools.

As for Jesus opposing this kind of behaviour, thank you for proving you never read the book of his stories, other than what the brainwashing masters chose to paraphrase for you while collecting your money and raping little kids, among other atrocities. Google the thousands of examples, if you care to educate yourself.

Your perception of "real Christianity" and "religion" is irrelevant. The rest of us are participating in the real Universe, not your ignorant one.

As for rejecting "god" do you mean your god, or one of the other thousands of "gods" out there, who have come and gone with time, none of which has ever left a shred of evidence other than to prove how gullible and wanting humans are? Funny how such a strong, powerful, amazing power just can't seem to talk to us himself, or get anything done without our money being given to some human who says god told us to give him our money....Must I really go on?

It's hard to comprehend how otherwise intelligent people can be so ridiculously fooled by such total nonsense and stupidity. But just like computer viruses, that's one of the side-effects of evolution and having powerful hard drives/brains: They simply play whatever program your society/parents/teachers/etc. installed on them, unless you think for yourself and pay attention to the scientific method to determine what is true and what is not.

However, unlike religion, viruses make sense. Totally irrational, illogical, embarrassing fairy tales with no evidence, effect, results or anything are simply crazy and make no sense to anyone except the believer.

Believing something does not make it true: Evidence, experimentation and facts do. There is no need to list all the examples of why this is correct, and why faith-based opposition is totally flawed. Yet, the opponents of reality, science and truth will still not understand why I wrote this. And that is just another side-effect of evolution.


Last edited by Iron Skillet; 20th Jul 2011 at 22:51.
Iron Skillet is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2011, 00:26
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: No where
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
...Iron Skillet (aka: 'angry ant'). You had better hope you're right....
Air Profit is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2011, 00:34
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 540
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Iron....take a few breaths.

I 'm with Giga. Modern secular humanists are a religion, or if you object to being called religious.....then certainly exhibit cultish/fanatical/group think behaviour. For example, you began this thread drift with your rant.....

The bible and its followers have survived for thousands of years....I'm sure it will survive you and modern liberalism.
raven11 is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2011, 00:35
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Iron Skillet, sorry I have clearly touched a hot nerve for you but your post is so full of half truths and straight out untruths I’m not really sure where to start but start I must:

1. You still don’t seem to understand our fallen human nature. You seem to think that because there is evil in the world there can be no God. The bible explains this situation perfectly, but to accept that means also to accept the personal accountability that goes along with it, a tough ask for most of us.

2. Morals are common to all of todays religions because we are all made in God’s image, no matter what you believe, yes even Secular Humanists Iron. We are descended from that first pair of humans so does it not make sense we would have the same nature? Even evolutionists acknowledge we are all descended from the same group of people in Africa, although the whole ‘out of Africa’ model was simply devised to avoid the intrinsic racism of the multi regional theory of human origins, despite there being no fossil evidence. And while animals show signs of instinct, that is all it is, instinct, not some moral awareness that will someday evolve into a ‘human’ style moral code.

3. Secular Humanism, like all religions, holds at it’s core unproven and unprovable pre suppositions. I know what the Oxford dictionary definition is and I acknowledge you don’t worship a god, although in reality you actually put mankind on this pedestal. You believe by faith that there is no God and matter and energy spontaneously formed by themselves out of nothing for no reason where I believe there is a God, He has revealed himself to us in the bible and He created the entire universe ex nihilo specifically to have relationship with us. Can either of us prove our positions, no but I’m sure we both believe them none the less, this, my friend is faith.

4. So what exactly is your ‘real’ universe Iron? You don’t understand worldview do you? You obviously consider the Secular Humanist explanation for our existence as the ‘default’ fact where I accept the biblical version. There can be little hope of reconciliation when ones worldview clashes.

5. The New Testament is the most reliable, in terms of knowing what was originally written, set of writings known from the ancient world. There is more manuscript evidence from far closer to the events they describe than absolutely anything else. The ‘pagan myth’ theory to which you allude is so discredited by real historians, frankly it’s not even worth wasting my time rebutting it. Logically the whole resurrection story stands up to scrutiny as well, consider the following:

- If Jesus was really dead, why didn’t the Romans or the Jews just produce the body? Both had huge interests in stopping a new religion in it’s tracks which a dead Jesus would have certainly done.
- The disciples stole the body I hear you scream, well consider the inconvenient fact of the professional Roman guard, placed at the tomb specifically to prevent this occurring. Or are you suggesting that hardened Roman soldiers were unable to stop a bunch of fishermen and tax collectors?
- Many of the NT letters written by the apostle Paul were written within one lifetime of Jesus Himself, so if any falsehoods were preached they would have been corrected by those who were there to see it.

6. I’m sorry to say Iron but the facts of science to which you elude are not on your side either. I know the current paradigm in modern science is completely controlled by the philosophy of naturalism, so it’s understandable that you think they are but just have a think about the following:

- Where did matter and energy come from for the ‘big bang’ to occur? All our laws of physics show that the universe and time itself had a beginning, so logically if something begins in time, there must be a creator.
- How did the first life form? Real chemistry shows non living chemicals do not come together to form living ones all by themselves. We as fairly intelligent humans can’t even get this to happen artificially.
- Whilst the new science of information is only just taking off, and we really don’t understand how little we know, where did all the information in DNA come from when mutations and natural selection only ever decrease it?
- Could you please explain why zircon crystals have been found to contain helium, which should leach out in only thousands of years but is still present after millions? Or perhaps why original, as indicated by a recently published paper, dinosaur soft tissue is still in fossils supposedly millions of years old when observable science shows it decays in thousands? Or why there are no stage three super nova remnants when if the universe were millions of years old there should be thousands? I could go on but I think you get the point.

With respect Iron we are both ‘religious’ in that we hold our beliefs by faith, but I would say that to believe in no god at all, based on history and real observable science, is to hold a faith that can only be described as blind. Given the angry tone of your posts I suspect deep down you know this to be true.

Last edited by Gigaboomer; 21st Jul 2011 at 01:46.
Gigaboomer is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2011, 00:43
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: pre-dep area
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Humans seem to have a natural abhorrence of an infinite regression of causes, and this distaste is at the root of the most famous and the most
effective demonstrations of the existence of God by Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. But these thinkers lived before the infinite series was a mathematical commonplace.
If the differential and integral calculus or transfinite arithmetic had been invented in Greece in the 5th century B.C., we would have seen less of the pretension that theological doctrine can be convincingly demonstrated by rational argument to those who reject alleged divine revelation, as Aquinas attempted in the Summa Contra Gentiles.
capt. solipsist is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2011, 00:49
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: with the other ex-CX pond scum (a zoologist was once head of Flight Ops)
Posts: 1,850
Received 48 Likes on 20 Posts
And to make this thread relevant to aviation in the Fragrant Harbour, would the simpleton who posts religious tracts on the crew room noticeboard please desist?

I, along with many other crew, find it offensive.
Captain Dart is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2011, 00:59
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
19weeler and Sqwak, what I am saying is that morality is pointless without a higher law maker, if you find this offensive then so be it. It has nothing to do with it being ‘weak’ Sqwak, the point is that it is there at all for without God it stands on absolutely no logical basis. You do correctly point out though that this fact is strong evidence for the existence of God. Whilst I agree none of the atrocities by Stalin et al were done specifically in the name of atheism, atheism was the ruling philosophy and their actions were completely consistent with it. Think about it, if we are nothing more than a cosmic accident, evolved pond scum as some would say, then why should there be any value at all for human life?

As I have said to Iron Skillet, we are all religious in that we hold some beliefs by faith, weather that is the God of the bible, Allah or random chance. And I agree all religions can’t all be right but it does not logically follow that they must all therefore be wrong.
Gigaboomer is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2011, 01:38
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
capt. solipsist, I am certainly no mathematics professor but may I suggest one flaw in your argument. Mathematics, like all physical laws, is really just a way to describe how the universe functions, but before the universe there were no physical laws and no mathematics, nothing can be involved in the creation of itself. Of course I hear you saying then where did God come from? God is eternal, only something that has a beginning in time needs a cause and since God created time along with the universe He is outside of it and not governed by it.

Ultimately science has no hope of discovering how the universe was created as real science requires observation and experimentation in the present. All we have in the present is this universe and no matter what we discover, be it quantum mechanics or string theory, they will always be part of this universe and as has already been stated nothing can be involved in the creation of itself.
Gigaboomer is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2011, 03:24
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: away all the time
Age: 64
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If a tour guide verbally upsets a group of mainlanders on a 30 Yuan bus tour of HKG, a whole city is on the uproar and it is in every news report for weeks.

A few years ago a man was video taped skinning his dog alive on a rooftop in HKG to make soup because it was a very cold day and you must eat dog to stay warm, every animal rights group in the world was involved bringing the man to justice.

A dog has more rights than a poor white kid??? Why is this not in the news??
H8HKG is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2011, 03:50
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Planet Earth, mostly
Posts: 467
Received 6 Likes on 3 Posts
Iron Skillet, good post. You're quite right, but not surprisingly some people find the truth threatening.
etrang is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2011, 03:57
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Paradise
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thumbs down Whoop whoop, thread drift, PULL UP!

Giga,

I can only assume by your embarrassing post "refuting" IronSkillet that you are a young earth creationist.

If so, you are what I, and most educated people, like to call wrong.

Your ignorant "claims" are the standard inane drivel spouted by a dying breed of anti-evolutionists whose grasp of science and The natural world is inversely proportional to their dogmatic belief in a book cobbled together by hundreds of semi-literate desert dwellers over several hundred years, then copied/translated/reproduced/revised by hand over a thousand more before the advent of high fidelity print copying. A book which is so glaring in its contradictions, which displays neither unity of style nor internal consistency, that it can't even provide an accurate date of birth OR death for your "messiah".

The amount of complete rubbish in your supposed "scientific facts" purporting to "disprove" the age of the Earth/Universe are too numerous to cover, so here's just a couple to illustrate how pathetically ill-informed you are:

Ref your point 6.
The "supernova" bull**** claim (I like how you guys have given up on the "dating" errors!):

Reference supernova (and their remnant ) types, this is the theoretical model. In reality astronomers have found that most SNRs do not follow this standard model (Harrus et al. 2001). Some of the reasons for this are:
The ISM in which supernovae occur is rarely isotropic or of a uniform consistency and density, which leads to asymmetry and differences within the remnant (Dohm-Palmer & Jones 1996; Maciejewski & Cox 1999; Slavin et al. 2000).
If a supernova occurs in a pre-existing bubble of interstellar material surrounded by a massive shell of gas then the Sedov phase will not necessarily occur (Wheeler et al. 1980; Franco et al. 1991; Franco 1994; Gvaramadze 2000), indeed, the SNR may not be detectable at all in this scenario unless it hits the walls of the shell (Fich 1986; Koo & Heiles 1995; Chu 1997).
If the density of the medium in which the SNR is located is low enough, it is possible for the SNR to finish its life by merging with the ISM before cooling becomes important (Asvarov 2000).
Different stages can occur simultaneously in different locations within a single remnant (Cioffi et al. 1988; Tenorio-Tagle et al. 1990; Franco et al. 1994; Jones et al. 1998; Asvarov 2000; Bykov et al. 2000; Reynoso & Mangum 2001).
If the ISM is strongly magnetized, then the evolution of the SNR will differ in terms of the length of the various phases and the overall shape of the remnant (Insertis & Rees 1991).


Sorry it wasn't a pretty soundbite from one of your moronic Discovery Institute websites, but proper science relies on hard data, references and the peer review process.

Reference your false Dino "soft tissue" claim (Christ, do ANY of you nutters bother to check facts?!):

Red blood cells and hemoglobin were most definitely NOT found. Instead they found signatures of these blood remnants, sort of like footprints, but not the actual tissues. Additionally, the age of the fossilized (and yes, it was fossilized) dinosaur bone mentioned above (amino acid dating was used) was concurrent with all of the other mountains of evidence that say dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago. Soft tissues and cell-like microstructures derived from skeletal elements of a well-preserved Tyrannosaurus rex (MOR 1125) were represented by four components in fragments of demineralized cortical and/or medullary bone: flexible and fibrous bone matrix; transparent, hollow and pliable blood vessels; intravascular material, including in some cases, structures morphologically reminiscent of vertebrate red blood cells; and osteocytes with intracellular contents and flexible filipodia. . Sources: "Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present"
Mary Higby Schweitzer, Jennifer L Wittmeyer and John R Horner.

"Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone"
Mary H. Schweitzer*, Mark Marshall†, Keith Carron‡, D. Scott Bohle‡, Scott C. Busse§, Ernst V. Arnold‡, Darlene Barnard†, J. R. Horner*, and Jean R. Starkey¶

Try reading some non "answers in genesis" literature from, oh, I don't know... Scientists perhaps? You, those men and women who actually further human knowledge in their endeavours.

Finally, to all the "there is no morality without god" brigade: you are terrifying, disgusting individuals. If ANY human being can't look at what happened to that child in the video and inherently KNOW that it is wrong without reference to CCTV camera in the sky, then we as a species are surely doomed. Indeed, we get an insight into "religious morality" from the likes of Air Prophet, with his thinly veiled "you had better hope you're right" dig. Such a perfect example of hypocritical religious morality: claiming to be loving and understanding whilst simultaneously showing the capriciousness and schadenfreude that comes with knowing an all-loving god will "get his revenge" on you.
superfrozo is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2011, 05:37
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Superfrozo, with respect it seems those 'moronic' creationists websites have you a little worried. I will however disregard your blatant hostility and simply deal with the facts.

1. Your response to the missing SNR is really nothing more than a bunch of evolutionist hand waving. We don't see what is predicted so they come up with 'what if's' and 'maybes' to explain it. Just look at the language used in your quotes, 'not necessarily' and 'it is possible' is common of the language used. Now I know all science is tentative but this hardly constitutes 'hard data' as you assert. Even allowing for only 19 odd percent of stage three SNR being observable, there are still zero, you know none, where even by evolutionary calculations there should be in the order of 5000. These are the facts.

2. In regards to dinosaur soft tissue may I suggest you are a little behind the times? Have a look at the article 'Dinosaur Peptides Suggest Mechanisms of Protein Survival' in the secular peer reviewed PLoS One online journal. I think you will find they readily acknowledge the tissue is in fact original dinosaur material, and this is based on real observable science. Of course due to their evolutionary indoctrination they come up with another 'maybe' to explain why it has survived millions of years despite observed degeneration rates. And this 'maybe' of course is not based on any observable science. Oh and Mary Schweitzer, the original discoverer of this material co authored this paper.

3. I'm sorry but I simply can't allow your dig at dating error critiques to go unanswered. I didn't mention that because quite frankly there is so much evidence for a young universe and so little space, but since you bring it up by all means lets discuss it. Firstly carbon dating. This method measures the ratio of C12 to C14 in a specimen, and this must have been a previously living thing. We can very accurately measure this ratio today but we don't know what the original ratio in the world was when the specimen died, that has to be assumed and we have no way of knowing if we are right. Also the rate of decay is assumed to have been constant, again an unknown assumption and if either of these are in error the whole thing is wrong. The final nail is the fact that the half life is about 5700 odd years so after only about 80,000 years there should be no detectable radiocarbon left, but here's the rub, every specimen tested has detectable quantities of radiocarbon, how so after millions of years? And radioisotope testing of volcanic rocks have very similar unprovable assumptions, like the ratio of parent to daughter isotopes, rates of decay etc. In fact volcanic rock formed in the 1980 Mt St Helens volcanic eruption has been dated at 25,000 years old by this method.

4. You don't seem to understand my point about morality at all. We all clearly have an in built knowledge of right and wrong but we certainly don't agree on exactly what this is. Despite what you or I think of the actions of the people in this video, and I think we agree, clearly those involved don't. So whose going to decide? This example to most people is pretty clear cut but what about abortion, or euthanasia? Why is your sense of right better than anyone else's? These are questions atheists will never be able to logically answer.

I'm not going to waste my time responding to your ignorant claims about the bible, I fully understand that to deny accountability to your creator you need to deny the history of the biblical record. But sincerely I do hope that you can break out of your bubble for just a minute and see that no science is interpreted independent of one's worldview.

Perhaps the moderator might consider removing this thread as it has very little to do with aviation and is really just stirring up much deep seated resentment as indicated by Iron Skillet's original angry thread drift.

Regards
Gigaboomer is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2011, 06:42
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Age: 47
Posts: 1,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This show starts off a bit slow and slightly annoyingly but is in fact fascinating once it gets going. A documentary showing on the aircraft about the moon. Has some great theories about life etc.
SloppyJoe is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2011, 06:45
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ironskillett,
Let me get this right. You hijack a post about a young boy ( in a mainland atheist state in all probability) getting bashed and use it as a catalyst to prove that all religion is to blame. I am astounded at the one eyed-ness of your argument. You seem to want to neglect mentioning the good things religion has done for the world for example aid agencies ( anglicare, caritas, icare to name but a few)but I guess that wouldn't support your contrived argument. I for one as a believer would agree a lot of bad things have happened in the name of religion but one would have to ask is this what was intended or were they true believers. You can't have your cake and eat it. Meaning you cannot on one hand denounce religion and point to your "god" of secular atheism as being flawless. Atrocities such as the cultural revolution, pol pot, Hitler shows that history has said otherwise. Enough said.

SuperFrozo
I'd just like to point out a few things. Firstly you attack Giga for his views stating that proper science relies on "hard data, references and a peer review process" but on the other hand you want to discredit the authenticity of the bibles claims in-effect dismissing true ancient history scholarship. On this point you are being a hypocritical and you need to do more research before you make such sweeping statements.The truth is that most MAINSTREAM professional ancient history scholars ie not skeptics and NOT apologists, treat the bible and it's sources as a valid historical text and give it far more credit than the mainstream media. Academics such as Martin Hengel( the university of Tubingen, Germany), James Charles-worth, Princton), christopher tuckett, Oxford to name but a few.You would do well to perhaps to read "Christ Files" by John Dickson for a basic overview. It is a sad fact that most good scholarship does take place out of the pop culture media because it is time-consuming, subtle and boring to rate a mention in today's headline grabbing world.
As far as asserting your boldness that somehow belief disqualifies you from the science world and to hold to a good makes you "uninlighted" or "uneducated" I'm sure John Lennox Professor of Mathematics, Fellow in Mathematics, Philosophy and Science at templeton college would have something to say on the matter as a professional academic and a christian.I'll leave that argument to professional scientists to debate. I would also like to point out that a lot of the science today with regards to these arguments are still "theories". That is they are not able to be repoduced in a science lab like science you learnt at school or observable science. You may say in all probability this looks possible no more or less than an ancient historian may look at the available facts and conclude an outcome.
In my opinion a lot of these posts seem to stem from today's post-modern atheists who seem to think they have reached this new found realm of scientific reason. I would put money down in this forum that most critics on this post have read pop culture books by chris hitchins, dawkins and co and think they have stumbled on some original idea. I'm sorry believers have been dealing with this stuff for centuries ( in real academic PEER reviewed circles as well) and you would do well to research your own athiest history. I find it hard to beleive when you stand back and look at the earth and really think about all it's complex systems, the chemical processes that take place in the human body, even the mere fact that the earth is on a tilt which gives our weather patterns, the individualistic details of each person you walk past in the street and say its just "random chance"is akin to seeing a clock washed up on a beach and saying it put itself together. In the words of another un-educated throwback (who never thought about science) Rick Husband (shuttle commander-columbia sts-109 ,killed on re- entry)"it seems you have to have more faith not to believe".I think this post should get back somewhat on topic.
lemondog is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2011, 07:12
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cupboard
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Since it is not possible to continue a rational discussion with a delusional person, I am finished talking to Giga and this is just posted to assist others in seeing through his postings' nonsense, in case any others are so easily fooled by junk science (not actually science) and other confusing misinformation:

You still don’t seem to understand our fallen human nature.
Just a silly story. There is no longer any respectable debate whether humans and all species have evolved. Nobody fell from anywhere. While not quite everything about evolution is fully known or understood yet, there is no debate that all the evidence supports evolution, and all that we see is rationally explained by evidence-filled evolution rather than invalid supernatural beliefs from a silly old story.
You seem to think that because there is evil in the world there can be no God.
Just another illogical non-statement. And no, I think there is no god because there is no evidence, and rational explanations have overwhelmed Bronze Age supernatural silliness a long time ago.

Similar illogical non-statements: Do people think that because there are no unicorns in the world that there is a god? Do people think that because there are motorcycles in the world that there can be no unicorns?

The bible explains this situation perfectly, but to accept that means also to accept the personal accountability that goes along with it, a tough ask for most of us.
No it doesn't. The situation is created in the silly story itself, then justifies itself in its own silly story.

Morals are common to all of todays religions because we are all made in God’s image, no matter what you believe, yes even Secular Humanists Iron.
Morals are morals, so religious beliefs are not morals. Morals are not common in all of today's religions. We are not made in anyone's image: See above about there being no more respectable debate regarding evolution of species. Review the definition of religion to see that non-belief in fairy tales does not constitute a religion.

We are descended from that first pair of humans so does it not make sense we would have the same nature?
No. This is just another silly story with no evidence that is contradicted by all the evidence we have. Clearly, the Bronze Age silly writers knew nothing about genetics. Study the evidence for evolution to understand why science is real but silly bible stories are not. Also, no, actual descendents of real people do not always have the same nature as their ancestors.

Even evolutionists acknowledge we are all descended from the same group of people in Africa, although the whole ‘out of Africa’ model was simply devised to avoid the intrinsic racism of the multi regional theory of human origins, despite there being no fossil evidence.
Study the evidence for evolution to understand why the above nonsense is meaningless. Go to any respectable natural history museum (or biology book) to see the fossil evidence of real evolution, and note that fossil evidence is just a miniscule part of the evidence that is barely even needed anymore in consideration of the mountains of evidence that have ended the debate over evolution, particularly the genetic evidence.

And while animals show signs of instinct, that is all it is, instinct, not some moral awareness that will someday evolve into a ‘human’ style moral code.
There is no debate that animals have instinct, thanks to evolution. Why would the instinct of a rabbit or bacteria or eel have anything to do with human morals? It doesn't.

Secular Humanism, like all religions, holds at it’s core unproven and unprovable pre suppositions.
Repeat: Humanism is not a religion. From Oxford dictionary, humanism: a rationalist outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters.

I know what the Oxford dictionary definition is and I acknowledge you don’t worship a god, although in reality you actually put mankind on this pedestal.
The presumption is that there is a god to worship. I do not believe in your silly story or imaginary friend, because there is no evidence of any god and no reason to hang out worshiping one. Silly stories do not constitute evidence even if they are written down. Anyone can write anything down. Real things have real evidence, even intangible things. Gods do not. No, I don't put mankind on the pedestal you put your imaginary friend on. There is no pedestal in reality.

You believe by faith that there is no God...
No, this is an illogical non-statement. I believe in things that have evidence. There is no evidence for god just as there is no evidence that an invisible unicorn is in my kitchen. It does not take faith to dismiss things without evidence. Instead, it takes evidence to support claims that are made. Believers in gods bear the burden of providing evidence for their beliefs, not the other way around. Most people do not believe there is an invisible unicorn in my kitchen, and that's without even looking, but if I claim to have one there, then I have to support that claim with evidence. It does not take faith to dismiss crazy superstitious nonsense.

...and matter and energy spontaneously formed by themselves out of nothing for no reason...
No, I didn't say that. I do not know where matter and energy came from, just as a long time ago, nobody knew where most things came from. Inventing a superstitious silly story does not accomplish anything. Scientific study does.

...where I believe there is a God, He has revealed himself to us in the bible and He created the entire universe ex nihilo specifically to have relationship with us.
Believing in something does not make it true. Reading a silly story does not make it true. Having a relationship with an imaginary friend does not make the imaginary friend real. Evidence proves things true.

Can either of us prove our positions, no but I’m sure we both believe them none the less, this, my friend is faith.
No, faith-based beliefs in silly stories and imaginary friends is faith. Having faith in real things, like a friend or refrigerator light is different, and evidence can be collected to support faith in real things. Evidence-based understanding of the things around us is science. And yes, I can prove my positions, because I believe in things that are supported by evidence, not silly stories and imaginary friends.

So what exactly is your ‘real’ universe Iron? You don’t understand worldview do you? You obviously consider the Secular Humanist explanation for our existence as the ‘default’ fact where I accept the biblical version. There can be little hope of reconciliation when ones worldview clashes.
Evidence-based reality is all around us. I accept evidence-based, rational explanations for reality, not supernatural silly stories like the bible or any of the other thousands of similar books and stories that people are randomly born into.

The New Testament is the most reliable, in terms of knowing what was originally written, set of writings known from the ancient world.
Bogus assumption with no evidence. The NT is so flawed, contradictory and wrong, and has been rewritten, edited, changed, manipulated, translated and varied so many times that there is no point even referring to it. Plus, it is just a collection of silly stories. Writing something down does not make it true.

There is more manuscript evidence from far closer to the events they describe than absolutely anything else.
Written silly stories do not constitute evidence, they simply constitute written silly stories, of which there are countless examples. Perhaps now is a good time to look up the definition of evidence. See above about all the contradictions and errors in the NT, and google them yourself.

The ‘pagan myth’ theory to which you allude is so discredited by real historians, frankly it’s not even worth wasting my time rebutting it.
Bogus distraction. I did not refer to any pagan myth theory.

Logically the whole resurrection story stands up to scrutiny as well, consider the following:
Use of the word "logically" when discussing supernatural silly nonsense like resurrection is simply crazy.

- If Jesus was really dead, why didn’t the Romans or the Jews just produce the body? Both had huge interests in stopping a new religion in it’s tracks which a dead Jesus would have certainly done.
References to silly stories that are contradicted within their own collection of stories doesn't impress intelligent people. Who cares if Jesus was dead or not? It's just a silly story about some guy. The little cult of Christianity didn't really get going until the 4th century anyways, due to Constantine.

The disciples stole the body I hear you scream, well consider the inconvenient fact of the professional Roman guard, placed at the tomb specifically to prevent this occurring. Or are you suggesting that hardened Roman soldiers were unable to stop a bunch of fishermen and tax collectors?
Nope, I am not impressed by silly stories from a long time ago about dead people vanishing from a cave. Roman soldiers, fishermen, tax collectors? Seriously...will people believe anything just cause it is written down?

Many of the NT letters written by the apostle Paul were written within one lifetime of Jesus Himself, so if any falsehoods were preached they would have been corrected by those who were there to see it.
It's better to go spend a few days reading about the real history of the NT. Then, let's just put all the silly old stories to bed and rejoin reality.

I’m sorry to say Iron but the facts of science to which you elude are not on your side either. I know the current paradigm in modern science is completely controlled by the philosophy of naturalism, so it’s understandable that you think they are but just have a think about the following:
Elude? I am not alluding to the facts of science, I am referring to them as evidence in the real world, whereas others prefer to ignore science and stick with silly supernatural stories because they are written down. Repeat: Evidence-based understanding of the things around us is science. Faith-based belief in supernatural silliness, while ignoring the facts of science, is delusional.

Where did matter and energy come from for the ‘big bang’ to occur?
I don't know. But I am not inventing a silly story or imaginary friend to falsely explain it. Just as we now know the sun and moon and earthquakes and fire are not gods, and have all been explained by evidence-based investigations and conclusions, this question will probably be answered one day. In the meantime, please educate yourselves about the most up to date understanding of the big bang theory, which is far removed from what most people think it is.

All our laws of physics show that the universe and time itself had a beginning, so logically if something begins in time, there must be a creator.
Bogus, illogical, distracting conclusion. First, I doubt you know all the laws of physics or the most recent understanding and theories of time and space, matter and energy. Regardless, your assumption about creation is invalid, and flows from faith-based supernatural beliefs rather than evidence. However, if the presumption is that all things require a creator, then who created the creator? And so on...Obviously, this is an infinite non-explanation for which there is no logical conclusion or rational explanation, which is why there is no evidence of a creator.

How did the first life form? Real chemistry shows non living chemicals do not come together to form living ones all by themselves. We as fairly intelligent humans can’t even get this to happen artificially.
We don't know yet for sure. Still, you are misinformed about real chemistry. First, please note that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, only what happens to living things over time, after they began to exist. Evidence-based scientists have shown that ribonucleotides can be formed in a laboratory as well as spontaneously in the environment as we understood it to be a long time ago. This is the basis of self-replicating RNA, which makes up the simplest of living things filling the gap between pre-biotic chemicals and DNA. Lots of stuff to google, but remember to avoid "junk science" sites, which are not peer-reviewed, evidence-based, unbiased real science which is always in search of the truth.

Whilst the new science of information is only just taking off, and we really don’t understand how little we know, where did all the information in DNA come from when mutations and natural selection only ever decrease it?
First, the point is that scientists do not invent silly supernatural stories and imaginary friends to explain things. Scientists use observation and experimentation to draw evidence-based conclusions. The answer to the question is that DNA evolved, mistakes during replication occur (mutation), and natural selection fuels evolution, although other things affect it as well (artificial selection, environmental catastrophes, etc.) This is what is proven by the evidence, without any reliance on silly supernatural stories or imaginary friends.

Could you please explain why zircon crystals have been found to contain helium, which should leach out in only thousands of years but is still present after millions? Or perhaps why original, as indicated by a recently published paper, dinosaur soft tissue is still in fossils supposedly millions of years old when observable science shows it decays in thousands? Or why there are no stage three super nova remnants when if the universe were millions of years old there should be thousands? I could go on but I think you get the point.
No. Invalid creationists' junk science quotes are not relevant in rational, evidence-based discussions about real science.

With respect Iron we are both ‘religious’ in that we hold our beliefs by faith...
No, I am not religious. Refer above if a refresher is needed to understand why non-belief in imaginary friends is not a religion and it does not require supernatural faith to trust in evidence-based science.

...but I would say that to believe in no god at all, based on history and real observable science, is to hold a faith that can only be described as blind.
No. Blind faith is what supernatural silly story believers have. Evidence-based trust in facts, rational thinking, science and reality are not a faith-based way of understanding our world.

Given the angry tone of your posts I suspect deep down you know this to be true.
If my tone comes across as angry, good: I am truly offended that our societies, governments, parents and schools so stupidly continue to propagate silly supernatural stories, crazy religions and imaginary gods instead of embracing the wonders of modern knowledge, science and comprehension of our amazing, natural, awesome Universe with rational, evidence-based thinking.

...what I am saying is that morality is pointless without a higher law maker...
Just because you say it does not make it true, specially since it is not true. Morality has evolved for obviously rational reasons.

It has nothing to do with it being ‘weak’ Sqwak, the point is that it is there at all for without God it stands on absolutely no logical basis.
Repeating nonsense does not make it true. Morals have a logical (and rational) reason to have evolved, with or without faith in supernatural imaginary friends.

You do correctly point out though that this fact is strong evidence for the existence of God.
There is absolutely not one bit of evidence (real evidence, not silly stories and beliefs and preferences) for the existence of any god, only invalid and illogical arguments that ignore reason, rational thinking and evidence-based real science.

Whilst I agree none of the atrocities by Stalin et al were done specifically in the name of atheism, atheism was the ruling philosophy and their actions were completely consistent with it.
Bogus non-statement. The ruling philosophies of Stalin et al was craziness, greed, power, disrespect, stupidity, etc...not atheism. Stalin and Hitler has mustaches, so was all they did in the name of mustaches? Invasion, genocide, murder, etc., are not consistent with atheism, as atheism is simply non-belief in any god, as opposed to theism, the belief in a god or gods.

Non-belief in silly supernatural stories and imaginary friends is consistent with atheism.

Think about it, if we are nothing more than a cosmic accident, evolved pond scum as some would say, then why should there be any value at all for human life?
Who said there is value? It just is. Gravity just is. The speed of light just is. Life just is. Evolution just is. If arrogant self-importance makes someone feel better and special, that does not mean their supernatural stories and imaginary friends are real.

As I have said to Iron Skillet, we are all religious in that we hold some beliefs by faith, weather that is the God of the bible, Allah or random chance.
Yes, that was said. But no, it is not true. Incidentally, "God of the Bible" and "Allah" are the same imaginary friend, just in different silly stories in different books in different languages and cultures. How's that working out lately?

And I agree all religions can’t all be right but it does not logically follow that they must all therefore be wrong.
Yes, it does logically follow that at least all of them must be wrong except possibly one. Except there is no evidence for any of them. How arrogant for someone to believe that whatever religion was installed in their brains by their parents/society/friends/TV show/whatever is correct and all the thousands of others are wrong, particularly foolish considering there is no evidence for any of these crazy beliefs.

God is eternal, only something that has a beginning in time needs a cause and since God created time along with the universe He is outside of it and not governed by it.
Saying invalid nonsense about imaginary friends does not make it true. It is convenient that believers think god can be eternal with no beginning, but matter, energy and time need god to create their beginning? Then again, uneducated, Bronze Age people thought all kinds of crazy things until science proved them wrong, with evidence.

Ultimately science has no hope of discovering how the universe was created as real science requires observation and experimentation in the present.
Invalid non-statement. Just as detectives can find the criminal long after the crime, using rational thinking, observation and collection of evidence, scientists can look back in time....specially when light from billions of years ago is just arriving at our eyes today from all across the Universe, not to mention all the non-visible radiation we can now detect, analyze and interpret using the scientific methods based on peer-reviewed evidence.

All we have in the present is this universe and no matter what we discover, be it quantum mechanics or string theory, they will always be part of this universe and as has already been stated nothing can be involved in the creation of itself.
More invalid non-statements. Common diversion tactic, though.

One last thing...As for Air Profit and his absurd yet very common, silly statement:
You had better hope you're right....
I'm as worried about being wrong about your religion/god/etc. as you are worried about being wrong about Zeus, Apollo, Thor, Aray, Kaskuh, Omoikane, Ikenga and the zillions of other imaginary friends people have invented, as well as Mazdakism, Shinto, Babism, Jainism, Inuit mythology, Islam, Shamanism and the zillions of other collections of silly supernatural stories. In other words, I am not worried at all, because they are all so obviously bogus.

If you still think this mass insanity of religions has nothing to do with the video, think again.

Apologies for any typing errors.

Have a nice day!

Last edited by Iron Skillet; 21st Jul 2011 at 15:42.
Iron Skillet is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2011, 07:57
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: No where
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Captain Dart. Seriously....your 'offended'....? No, what you are is a thin-skinned moron. No one forces you to read it. What is offended is your conscience. Perhaps you should ponder that a bit more...instead of your easily 'offended' sensibilities.
Air Profit is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2011, 08:16
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hongkers
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Somebody's gunna mention Hitler in a minute. OOOPS. Too late!
bekolblockage is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2011, 09:21
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Miffed at being an online internet comedy ....
Age: 69
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That video looks like perfectly good CRM to me? Kind of like dispatch when I catch the guy making annotations on the flight plan ... I'll step on his fingers and kick him round a bit as well
Capt Toss Parker is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2011, 10:27
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK.
Posts: 4,390
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Seriously....your (sic) 'offended'....? No, what you are is a thin-skinned moron.
He's off again!

Ah, I miss the jolly banter of CX flight crew
Basil is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2011, 12:04
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Oh dear Skillet, based on that last rant I think we can both see who is being irrational. In all honesty your obsession with rebutting every sentence I posted raises series questions about your security, or lack thereof. Seriously I don't think jumping up and down and screaming 'silly little story' quite makes the point you intend.

Anyway I think I will call it quits here as a rational debate, as you say, is probably not possible when our worldviews differ as much as ours. God bless and good luck.
Gigaboomer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.