Originally posted by Newjak
You're trying to say continue to say if we can find firepit 30000 years ago obviously we can find a city. You can use the much more generalized we have the technology to find such and such which is smaller than such and such therefore such and such can not exist cause we would have obviously found it or if it makes you feel better odds are we have found everything.That would be like saying we can go to the bottom of the ocean therefore we must have cataloged every living thing in the ocean.
Or maybe a better example for you would be this. Imagine if you will we are living decades ago. We have already discovered bacteria but we have not discovered the giant squid or found good evidence for it's existence.
By your very statement I could say well look how far our technology for discovering living organisms has progressed we can find bacteria which is older and smaller than the giant squid. Since the giant squid should be easier to find than bacteria I therefore make the claim that Giant squids can not exist and it's absolute.
ya, there is obviously an issue of communication here. Like I said, feel free to jettison the point, it is generally irrelevant to what my broader point is, and I obviously don't have the skills to make you understand
Originally posted by Newjak
Obviously there is some logic in the statement that makes sense but isn't sound enough to use it as a primary point for making your case that giant squids don't exist. In fact it's not even worth the words you have wasted typing it out.
my primary point was and still is, I don't believe in anything with no evidence, and you have provided me no evidence.
Originally posted by Newjak
Also teacher of statistics to undergrads when you look at my use of statistics what don't you like?
what is your alpha value? what would a reasonable N be for determining a non-biased p, and if you are breaking things down by group, how big is your n?
what type of test would you run? t? F? what means would you contrast? pre-planned or post hoc comparisons? are you worried more about type 1 or type 2 error?
you come up with these values of how confident you would be based on what data? how are you sampling this? is there a potential bias?
do you really want to get into a dick measuring contest about stats?
Originally posted by Galan007
Mormons do believe in Hell-- it's just a different type of Hell than the Christian rendition(Google it.) 🙂
I accept your concession. But you could do a bit better to admit you're wrong, in the future.
Originally posted by Galan007
No, I would not listen to some random joe who walked up to me on the street as said: "the end is near!" Just like I didn't listen to the morons who said the end of the world was 12/21/12. Stupidity existed then, just as it exists now. It takes an extremely naive person to whole-heartedly trust the word of any random schmuck they come across.
Here's why you fail:
1. It wasn't some random joe: he was known.
2. He didn't say the end was near, he said that they should repent of their sins or the city would be destroyed. Original most likely said to repent and escape.
3. You didn't acknowledge that what he said would happen, happened, and they chose to ignore it and got toasted. 🙂
Originally posted by Galan007
I'm not arguing with you; I'm merely stating fact. Christianity states that God destroyed those cities because he was unhappy with their people. Even though he could have undoubtedly saved the innocent(ie. children) of S&G he still opted to slaughter them just the same.There's really no justification to be had. OT God bordered on evil.
You are arguing with me and this is why you fail:
1. I argued from a perspective outside of Christianity and pointed out why the Christian interpretation was fail.
2. You argued against that by pretending I took the Christian perspective.
3. You continue to do so.
4. You're arguing against the wrong person.
Originally posted by Astner
The decision to invade the Middle East was a political one, not a religious one.
No no, you misunderstand, for thousands of years they have been fighting and murdering each other and they still are. So much for progress. smh.
Furthermore how can Christianity—which is the topic in question—be considered a means of control? Christianity teaches that it's only through the belief in Jesus Christ as the reincarnation of God that you can be saved. It doesn't matter who you serve or who you betray, as all sins can be forgiven through Christ.
That's up to the pastor to figure out while making his surman.
"You dang teens can't be listening tah that God forbidden music and dancin!! Leads tah sinfulness."
That's what would come to my mind.
Originally posted by dadudemonNice deflection
I accept your concession. But you could do a bit better to admit you're wrong, in the future.
Originally posted by dadudemonWhich... Doesn't change anything I said. Don't be purposefully obtuse.
Here's why you fail:1. It wasn't some random joe: he was known.
2. He didn't say the end was near, he said that they should repent of their sins or the city would be destroyed. Original most likely said to repent and escape.
3. You didn't acknowledge that what he said would happen, happened, and they chose to ignore it and got toasted. 🙂
'Known' academics have been predicting either the fall of their cities/empires, and/or the end of the world itself for THOUSANDS of years-- and most of those claims were largely disregarded by the consensus. Lot's claim, at first glance, would have been equally disregarded by most(esp. the citizens of S&G-- who didn't really care for anything but themselves.)
My point, though, is that it isn't a baby's fault if its parents refuse to remove it from harm. God could have effortlessly chose NOT to smite innocents... But like I said: they were killed just the same. And per the standards God himself supposedly set with the 10 commandments, killing an innocent baby would equate to a sin of the highest order.
...But apparently God can be a baby-killer if he wants. /shrug
Originally posted by dadudemonI'm not arguing with you at all; just stating fact. 👆
You are arguing with me and this is why you fail:1. I argued from a perspective outside of Christianity and pointed out why the Christian interpretation was fail.
2. You argued against that by pretending I took the Christian perspective.
3. You continue to do so.
4. You're arguing against the wrong person.
Originally posted by Dolos
No no, you misunderstand, for thousands of years they have been fighting and murdering each other and they still are. So much for progress. smh.
Originally posted by Dolos
That's up to the pastor to figure out while making his surman."You dang teens can't be listening tah that God forbidden music and dancin!! Leads tah sinfulness."
That's what would come to my mind.
As a side note, from reading your posts I'm inclined to believe that you have a very narrow perspective on religion.
Originally posted by Galan007
Nice deflection
That's my line, not yours.
Originally posted by Galan007
Lot's claim, at first glance, would have been equally disregarded by most(esp. the citizens of S&G-- who didn't really care for anything but themselves.)
But that was his mission: to find righteous people and/or convince them to repent/leave. Once the first part of his warning came true, any sane/normal person, at that time, would have left.
In order for a parallel to be drawn to the modern world, you'd have a person present scientific evidence, that was virtually inexorable, to you and then for the first half of that evidence to happen, on cue, and for you to ignore it. That's the parallel that you could draw, today.
Originally posted by Galan007
My point, though, is that it isn't a baby's fault if its parents refuse to remove it from harm. God could have effortlessly chose NOT to smite innocents... But like I said: they were killed just the same. And per the standards God himself supposedly set with the 10 commandments, killing an innocent baby would equate to a sin of the highest order.
God chose nothing: it was going to happen before the universe was even created according to how the contemporary Jews would have viewed the universe. The people chose to stay and be destroyed.
Also, who is to say there were any babies? Unless they were poop babies, you can't really have babies from man-on-man buttsex. 😐
Originally posted by Oliver North
well come on, it is kind of silly to point to any one section of humanity and be like "those violent savages". Its something we all seem to come by pretty naturally
Humans love their homicide. Seems almost innate. So God made humans with a strong propensity towards homicide?
Originally posted by dadudemonAnyone who has ever [wrongly] predicted the end of a city or empire has always believed their reasoning for the end of things was irrefutable, and they usually have some sort of 'evidence' to support their theory. That's nothing new.
But that was his mission: to find righteous people and/or convince them to repent/leave. Once the first part of his warning came true, any sane/normal person, at that time, would have left.In order for a parallel to be drawn to the modern world, you'd have a person present scientific evidence, that was virtually inexorable, to you and then for the first half of that evidence to happen, on cue, and for you to ignore it. That's the parallel that you could draw, today.
Now, its one thing to write-off their unsubstantiated claims as sheer BS(as the majority of people would.) It's another matter entirely not to flee the area if said prophecy actually begins coming into fruition. But who knows, maybe when God began his slaughter it was already too late for the inhabitants of the cities to leave..?
Originally posted by dadudemonCurious, what manuscript was this documented in? it must be one hell of a text to supersede the Bible itself.
God chose nothing: it was going to happen before the universe was even created according to how the contemporary Jews would have viewed the universe. The people chose to stay and be destroyed.
Originally posted by dadudemonIt's pretty hard to populate a full-fledged city without mass procreation transpiring. 😉
Also, who is to say there were any babies? Unless they were poop babies, you can't really have babies from man-on-man buttsex. 😐
Originally posted by Astner
As a side note, from reading your posts I'm inclined to believe that you have a very narrow perspective on religion.
I just fail to see it's relevance to my future.
As an agnostic, the nature of any religion is by very definition based on the unkown and perhaps the forever unknowable.
Originally posted by RobtardI sure think it would be. It would be a heroic sacrifice.
Hmmmm. Isn't a sacrifice willful though?Like if someone's about to shoot my wife and I willfully jump in the way to save her at the expense of my life. That would be a sacrifice, no?
Originally posted by RobtardIf it isn't willful it doesn't count as a sacrifice. Good luck / bad luck? Also depends on any life insurance policies.
But if someone were to shoot my wife and I unknowingly get in the way and save her life by stopping the bullet with my body nonetheless. Not sure that's a sacrifice, more akin to good luck or bad luck, depending how you view your marriage.
Religion can be used as a powerful instigator for political agendas. But between Middle Easterners, it's taken to the extreme in TODAY'S WORLD.
That's an example of the harm religion can do to societal progress, despite what's being taught to turn away from sin...religion is very scary to me. I don't like it, despite it's good it's very irrational in my mind...almost delusional.
Originally posted by Oliver North
do you really want to get into a dick measuring contest about stats?
Obviously that's going to depend on the prior distribution of theta for the "dick measuring about stats" paramater. I'll assume it's normally distributed around 50% and adjust my posteriors based on the number of posts that go by without a response.
😎