At 11/29/09 08:25 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/29/09 04:25 PM, Mechwarrior300 wrote: E) It is a proven fact that a person's mental and spiritual health is strongly correlated with physical health.

Yeah I think that was figured out the same day we discovered FIRE.

Well, don't forget about the humors. You, pox, are irritable. Your spleen must be acting up.

At 11/29/09 05:18 PM, Mechwarrior300 wrote: A) 1 Cor. 15:41 states that every star is unique to every other star. All stars look alike to the naked eye.

Really? The night sky looks like quite the collage to me - which may be all the passage is saying.

"The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor."

No. It must be foreshadowing the scientific analysis of stars by the color spectrum. < sarcasm

B) Job 26:7 states that the Earth is suspended in space. Quote: "He stretches out the north over empty space. He hangs the earth on nothing."

I suppose we should chalk up the word "hang" as poetic license then, or lack of a better word?

C.1) Job 28:25 (quoted): "To [establish] a weight for the wind, and apportion the waters by measure..." The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago.

First off. Across multiple translations weight is often referred to as force. And I find it kind of hard to believe no one had felt a hard breeze prior to the last 300 years. It's not exactly prophetic to describe the wind as having force, nor explicitly scientific, as one can describe it as such by mere sensation.

You don't need divine inspiration to realize this.

F) The Bible described the shape of the earth centuries before people thought that the earth was spherical in Isaiah 40:22.

Light reading...

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH 131.html

All I'm going to add is... don't talk about the shape and location of the earth as if they're the same thing.

***

That's about all I'm going to touch...

At 11/29/09 05:02 PM, Zarathushtra wrote: "2. That's not the butterfly effect.

it is the never changing, for-ever present law of the Universe"

I know, but, the butterfly effect is a law of the universe, and along with all other laws of this physical universe, they have not changed since they were first introduced to this new universe upon initiation way back during the big bang how many ever billions of years that was ago.
(That is what I was trying to imply, I should have gone more in-depth)

No. You said... "Every Action Has A Reaction, according to Zarathushtra. Good Actions Good, Bad Actions Bad. The Hindus know it as Karma and Science calls it the Butterfly Effect."

That is not the butterfly effect.

You argued that "Action=Reaction" (or otherwise termed by you as karma or the butterfly effect) was a never changing forever present law of the universe. While there may be plenty of things to safely assume constant in the universe, Zarathushtra's equation is not one of them.

And this theory is still standing and backed up by science. Astronomers who observe the farthest reaches of space note that even areas of the cosmos hundreds of millions of lightyears away behave with the same physical laws

This does not mean "action=reaction" is one of those constants.

Of course this is all theory! You could very well call Zoroastrianism a Theory. But, it is a Theory which still stands today, unbroken by science. In fact, Science has served Zoroastrianism well, and vice-versa. Religion and Science Co-Exist.
It is not Science VS. Religion,
it is Science AND Religion

This is exactly the argument that many Christians have made IN THIS THREAD. In fact, this argument applies solely to supernatural things, because it exploits an attribute that is exclusive to supernatural models.

Take a look through this thread. Don't reply to me until you find someone using your argument in defense of a different religion. And supposing you d find one, quote it.

At 11/29/09 03:53 PM, Zarathushtra wrote: There is nothing SuperNatural about any of Zarathushtra's teachings.
What is so SuperNatural about there being a God?

It's context beyond the scope of current physicalism. To quote the dictionary: of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena.

Nature is a manifestation of the Wise One's Supreme Intellect.

As per every other religion with that involves a God.

yes, Zarathushtra basically teaches a form of Intelligent Design.

Which is a supernatural model.

Every Action Has A Reaction, according to Zarathushtra. Good Actions Good, Bad Actions Bad. The Hindus know it as Karma and Science calls it the Butterfly Effect.
Therefor according to Zarathushtra, if you rob today, don't be surprised when you are robbed tomorrow.
Action=Reaction

1. You completely forgot about Newton, though he wouldn't apply here if you had.

2. That's not the butterfly effect.

it is the never changing, for-ever present law of the Universe

Yeah... you've yet to actually show science proving that.

According to Zarathushtra

Yeah I know. I read up.

More Interestingly, according to Zarathushtra, before our Universe was formed, there were two seperate universes. That of the Living (Mental Energy/Spirit) and that of the Not-Living (Physical Matter). Upon Cosmic Collision, There was a Big Bang. And this Big Bang exploded and kept on expanding into the beautiful Universe it is to day. And it is expanding right now as you read this.

Just because you mention the Big Bang, doesn't mean everything you append to it is proven or natural. Are you getting the distinction yet?

Thus, the our Spirit/Mind has always existed and will always exist (even after it leaves our bodies).
Life after Death is real my friends.

This is disingenuous, and the implication is again supernatural.

A chair is defined as a composition of materials into a form conducive to one's comfort in sitting, and able to carry the individual's weight during such an activity.

If you chop the chair up into little chips, yes, the chair still exists, but not as a chair. To what effect are you calling your pile of woodchips a chair?

And Yes these articles are written by Human Beings, so there are bound to be errors.
But if you would be so kind as to enlighten me,
I would love to hear about the errors you found, please cite your sources as well.

I'll get around to it. This reply took up enough time as it is.

At 11/29/09 02:51 PM, Zarathushtra wrote: haha first off buddy let me just say that i am NOT Zarathushtra.

What made you think... that I thought... that you were trying to make yourself out to be... or that you were... Zarathushtra?

so you asked for some links that explicitly explain this.
http://www.vohuman.org/Article/Zoroastri anism%20in%20the%2021st%20Century.htm (this is the page from which i copied my quote)

So I've gotten about halfway down the page. May I pick it apart for its errors or was this just a read-only kind of thing?

If you go to zarathushtra.org

Oh so that's where you're getting all these passages. (Already found some issues with the evolution article)

There are some things science can not explain, such as an explanation for the beginning of life and the complexity of Nature on our planet, and for example what guides and promotes the forces of evolution and biology?

But yes, I agree, some religions attribute the Supernatural for that which they can't explain.

Which is like... one of the massive problems with religion, Zoroastrianism included.

er... due.

At 11/29/09 02:23 PM, Zarathushtra wrote: I believe its called Eco-Theology

PLACE CREDIT WHERE IT'S DO.

... troll.

At 11/29/09 02:05 PM, Zarathushtra wrote: "Zarathushtra based his spiritual laws on his perfect understanding of the human condition.

... says a person qualified in sociology and psychology to make such a statement?

Interestingly, Zarathushtra's concept of Asha and the newly discovered laws of physics are, as we shall see, one and the same.

We're going to need a link that explicitly explains this.

Zarathushtra's 3,700 year-old religion is therefore not only correct in its observations of the human condition, but also in 100% agreement with the achievements of modern science. No other religion can make a similar claim."

You're missing the other half of the religion/science conflict: that religion appends reality with things that science doesn't even deal with.

At 11/28/09 12:37 PM, Ericho wrote:

At 11/27/09 03:35 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: So then, do you retract this argument?

To be honest, I don't even know what retract means, but I assume it means take back and in that case yes.

Lovely. Thankyou.

So then do you retract the Trey Parker quote?

This quote did not specifically say that atheists were irrational, just that it didn't make any sense. I'm sure Trey Parker is friends with many an atheist (Penn & Teller of course).

Do you then retract this?

Uh, yes.

So how exactly do you retract...

"believing that we are all here just because is an irrational belief"

... and not retract the Trey Parker quote which is saying the exact same thing?

I thought it was strange. I didn't say it's wrong to be an atheist, if its fact then I have no choice but to accept it. I mean, Richard Dawkins said he was "baffled" at religious scientists like Francis Collins, but I don't believe he looks down on him.

Well just from this cursory knowledge of the thing I can point to one MASSIVE difference between what you said and what Dawkin's said.

You invoke a measure of intellect as the variable to cause question. The dichotomy in action here is: high IQ vs low IQ.

Dawkins invoked a competing ideal as the variable to cause question. The dichotomy in action here is (likely): supernaturalism vs physicalism.

There's a huge difference between...
... "how can smart people believe this?" ... and
... "how can a that-ist believe this?"

A supremacist is one who claims that you are better than someone else because of a right guaranteed by the constitution (religion, race, etc.).

Yes. For the definitions of words I have a dictionary. There's no reason for me to have to take your word for that. I guess I wasn't being specific enough.

It's hard to take your word when your word is qualifying something about you, because, as has been the point in large this entire time: what you say about yourself and what you say don't match up very well sometimes.

I didn't call you on this when you said it but - CASE IN POINT: "I have never said atheists were irrational" is a flat out lie regardless of whether you retract "believing that we are all here just because is an irrational belief" or not.

So, do you understand now what I meant when I said, "It's a little hard to take your word for anything right now." ??

The only reason I said this was because I was annoyed that everything kept saying religion is stupid. I do not believe I was the one who started this, but I will defend myself if attacked.

Let's travel back in time, shall we? Show me where, within decent proximity to your post introducing the word 'supremacist,' that you were attacked.

***

You missed one.

"if there's no reason, why not go and kill everybody? If everybody has no reason for being there, there's no point in letting them live, for crying out loud!"

Retract or no?

At 11/28/09 09:04 AM, Mechwarrior300 wrote: Time cannot reach infinity because infinity is endless. Unless you were to say time will go on forever

That's generally how vectors and infinity are treated.

So let's look at your argument again. First up...

"Because time is defined by finite value"

The extent to which we can measure a thing (live and directly) is not a limit on the extent of the thing itself. If you believe in God, you kind of have to go with me on that one.

And now the other one...

"If all dimensions incorporated the same time and had no beginning, then time itself must be infinite, and that is not possible."

Except one of the reasons (the one above) is (so far) invalid, and the other is irrelevant as it's talking about "reaching infinity," rather than the potential infinity inherent in a vector.

Though the second argument brings up an interesting point. If there was no beginning, then time has reached infinity. So the argument that time cannot reach infinity can't exactly be held against a beginning-less time-line.

At 11/27/09 11:38 PM, Mechwarrior300 wrote: Because time is defined by finite value. You cannot measure infinity in hours for example.

You realize that's an argument against infinity right? - not just infinite time?

(And in either case is still wrong?)

At 11/27/09 04:46 PM, Mechwarrior300 wrote: As far as I am concerned, all BB theories incorporate an infinite timeframe before the cause.

Such incorporation is conjecture and considered as such by anyone who actually understands how science works.

This argument is like holding abiogenesis against evolution, or the big bang against abiogenesis. Theories have a limit. The Big Bang Theory does not address what happened before or even during the singularity. When there's enough evidence to support some idea within that context, then maybe it'll be actually part of the Big Bang Theory.

At 11/27/09 12:00 PM, Ericho wrote: Woah, I am very sorry if I have offended anyone (as I have said)

We're not after an apology.

but I do not believe that atheists don't have morality and if I have ever said anything like it, I will gladly take it back.

Ok. Do you retract this argument?

YOU: And if there's no reason, why not go and kill everybody? If everybody has no reason for being there, there's no point in letting them live, for crying out loud!

I don't have a problem with atheists unless they say that it's wrong to be religious or that it's a neurological disorder like Bill Maher.

So then, do you retract this argument?

Studmuffin7: No matter how you slice it, atheism = EXTREME egotism.
YOU: I agree with you.

I believe that calling yourselves "rationalists" over someone else crosses the line and I will only fight back.

So then do you retract the Trey Parker quote?

I have never said atheists were irrational.

Do you then retract this?

YOU: believing that we are all here just because is an irrational belief

I just said that I thought it was strange how they considered themselves rational.

Actually you said this: I remain baffled at all the people who have high IQ's that possess this strange belief.

Baffled.

I am no supremacist.

It's a little hard to take your word for anything right now.

At 11/26/09 09:18 PM, Mechwarrior300 wrote: I already know what it is. The Big Bang isn't anywhere close to valid. It has more flaws in it than any scientific theory I've studied.

Ok. Start with the big ones.. or one. Yeah. Let's go through the flaws one a time. Let's start with the one you find to be the biggest.

[I'm getting kind of tired of the utter lack of specificity from your side of the argument.]

Guhhhh whoops. That was meant for PM. Forgot to copy paste into the PM box.

Mods do your thing.

I want you to read this, slowly, three times before replying. If you don't plan on replying, read it slowly three times anyway.

At 11/26/09 12:18 PM, Ericho wrote: Why do you have to act so antagonistic towards me?

How about some dramatic fable imagery?

I'm addressing the wolf; not the hollowed grandmother's outfit it's wearing*.

Forgive me if I am missing the point, but you're just going around looking at a guy's other posts and finding things that disagree with that person. That sounds like a personal attack to me. If you want to give a counter argument, you should give it yourself and not just go to other threads.

I've provided (counter) arguments in each of the threads in which I've replied to you.

The point of dredging up those "exhibits" was to demonstrate the disconnect between the way you present yourself and the way you act when you're actually arguing an issue*. The point is to ideally get you to do one of two things: either stop the rather blatantly self-promoting bullshit; or live up to your own standards with a bit more consistency.

This isn't the first time you've preached some kind of humility/fairness/etc, and since then you've come up way short of those messages.

And you know the 'exhibits' I found aren't that old.

And you know there's plenty more of them.

And the worst thing is that the things I dug up aren't minor little tangents. Some of them are your primary arguments against atheism.

More directly now... Your PRIMARY arguments against atheism violate your own ethic.

If you're looking for an argument against humility and fairness, look no further than yourself.

***

I watched your video today, by the way. In the description you write, " All I'm doing is trying to spread love and joy. If you are really offended by this (and you shouldn't be) [...]."

Now let's look at some of the things you said in the video...

Quoting and endorsing the view of Mr. Parker: "Of all the ridiculous things religion teaches, atheism is in fact worse."

Shortly following, message to atheists: "Do you really think that as an atheist you are rationalist [by believing something you, Ericho, hold to be inherent to atheism]. I don't think you are."

I suppose at this point I should mention the title of the video and your own sentiment expressed shortly after the last quote. That you're just defending religion.

And to top it all off... to atheists "Are you honestly so lazy you can't simply come up with your own holiday? [...] Or are you too lazy even for that?"

No. You're clearly not "just" defending religion, and to call anyone lazy, ridiculous, or irrational is perfect ground to garner offense.

Now that the 'personal attack' is out of the way, I'll follow your advice, but I'll ask first: would you like an actual counter-argument?

At 11/26/09 12:18 PM, Ericho wrote: you should give it yourself and not just go to other threads.

Says the guy who just ignored an actual counter argument to primarily focus on my activity in other threads.

It's like The Terminator meets The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. You start out with emotion and gradually turn into an unfeeling killing machine with every bit of human contact you have.

At 11/26/09 08:18 AM, Elfer wrote: you need to be willing ot be critical of your own ideas.

Oh this is an easy one.

LucidCity will be critical of his own ideas when you guys are critical of your own ideas.

Amiright LucidCity?

Guys guys guys! Stop picking out little specifications and ranting about them!

At 11/25/09 06:29 PM, LucidCity wrote: Since I first posted, the only thing that I've really seen anyone do was pick out little specifications and rant about them. There's really no room for imperfection when dealing with dates and numbers.

Would the whole... '2000 people on the planet at the time of the exodus' thing count toward one of these instances?

At 11/25/09 06:07 PM, LucidCity wrote: Settling the dispute on even ground.

1. You should let Lynx speak for himself. I'm still awaiting a response from him.

2. The circumstances surrounding Science and Religion are not equivalent. Setting the dispute on even ground seems inherently disingenuous.

3. If Science and Religion are completely different to the extent that disagreement between the two is inherently false, then it should follow that compromise is of the same nature. No?

I'm irritated by this back and forth battle of wits (and insults). I believe someone said something about "debate" etiquette [...] oh so superior evolutionists want everything 100% their way, and will argue even the slightest error. Someone said something about arrogance?

1. So stop stooping!

2. What were some of these slight errors that we unrelentingly assaulted you (and your friend) for?

At 11/25/09 05:49 PM, LynxPuppet wrote: Honestly, you people could argue about anything lol!

Yes. Let's please get away from this "who's who's alt" garbage and get back to the actual topic. I'll start...

If Science and Religion are completely different topics to the extent that they cannot validly be discussed as disagreeing with one another... then what validity is there in compromise in place of said disagreement(s)?

At 11/25/09 04:46 PM, LucidCity wrote: You are simply restating what I believe was mentioned several posts ago. The universe is at an apparent stage.

A dichotomy between absolute and effective truth is really nothing new. The problem you now face is that in claiming proof for something absolute, you are making it both absolute and effective. You are then well within the realm of science.

On the other hand, by holding that your claim has no proof, you can escape the context of physicalism, but then... well... what is the effect - why should it be looked at in a way that is utterly nonfunctional?

Ah. But it's not non-functional. As it's integrated with a larger set of beliefs, it is very functional under the assumption that several beliefs in that set are true. - like for instance whether or not you believe in God, or whether or not you believe the Bible is His literal word.

But then, if your basis for creationism is a matter that "should NOT be introduced into this debate, as that can only be personal opinion," then exactly what is there to discuss?

Now, I think it is also safe to say that the Bible is interpreted in so many different ways

Altering the word of God are we? Worst of all to fit... science (a study dedicated solely to the "apparent"/ effective)?

Why, on these grounds, can you not accept evolution? Oh... perhaps it's this next part...

I will never accept the theory of evolution until it is physically proven

And by what criteria is "physical proof" determined?

Does science deal with something other than physical proof?

Would you say you would accept the theory of evolution until it is proven to the extent that it is no longer just a theory?

I will honor your decision to follow the philosophy if you allow me to follow mine.

No one is stopping anyone from doing anything here.

At 11/25/09 02:46 PM, Ericho wrote: I'm not saying that finding Osama bin Laden would end it all, I'm just pointing out that we look incompetant as we have focused more attention on Saddam Hussein than the real problem. Capturing Osama would at least help us out.

I was more put off by the fact that you completely disregarded the fact that both endeavors were practically bottomless pits of despair by virtue of their being essentially nation-building occupations. Whether or not we catch a leader is honestly trivial compared to that.

[ I also left you some presents... P.155 of "Science vs Religion" in which Avie is also potentially waiting for a reply, and P.1 of "Environmentalism is a religion" ]

At 11/25/09 02:06 PM, Hybridization wrote: All you've ever said is "Evolution proves evolution." You can't figure out the date of a rock by looking at the date of bones. How does that work? What determines the date of the bones? As I said before, your only saying "We know these bones are millions of years old because the rocks are. But we know the rocks are because of the bones."

No. We know the ages of these things by various different means.

- radiocarbon dating
- uranium lead dating
- uranium thorium dating
- potassium argon dating
- optically stimulated luminescence
- cathodoluminescence
- thermoluminescence
- dendrochronology
- lichenometry
- ice cores
- varves

Of course, not all apply to any specific example.

Neither evolution or creation can be proven because there was no record of it.

Do you need video recording or something?

The vapor that encased the earth was not only water, but probably many protective gases (much denser than the ones we have today) which are....INVISIBLE. Water was probably trapped in this and acted as a barrier not thick enough to encase the Earth in darkness.

Can you list these protective gasses for us? Or explain how water becomes 'trapped' in gas? Or provide us the conditions that would be required for these other protective gasses to condense?

I love how all evolutionists stress time so much,

Both sides seem to be stressing it quite a bit. In fact, your friend LucidCity devoted a whole post to population growth as proof of a Biblical time line.

because it's the only thing they have on their side considering nobody saw 2 million years ago. 2,000,000 years!

Raise your hand if you saw 150 years ago.

No signs of intelligence until about 10 thousand years BC?

Stone tools date back over 2 million years.

Can you explain the spontaneous increase in intelligence?

None of us are saying anything is spontaneous. And as far as I can tell no one was talking about intelligence.

Surely a great number of people sitting in a cave making rock squeaky toys could have thought of something better to do for countless generations.

By this logic, there should be no third world countries today.

All you've accomplished this entire time was proving that evolution isn't false because it's not false.

I thought I was doing a pretty good job of not doing that.

That alone doesn't say much about your individual reasoning. You just like letting other people think for you apparently. Have you ever once thought about it for yourself? No.

*Cough*

See ya, guys. Have fun living a meaningless life based on chance :).

"Chance" doesn't suddenly render life meaningless.

But, as I should have done a long time ago, I'm finished with this thread.

Happy trails.

At 11/25/09 01:10 PM, LucidCity wrote: Do you realize that, according to that, the Bible time line is actually confirmed? If agriculture started in 7K BC, that only reinforces the fact that humans farmed immediately at the beginning (ie: Cain and Able).

The heretic is in the details I suppose. Agriculture popped up several places around the world within a three thousand year time frame following the end of an "intense humid phase." We're talking about plenty more than 4 people.

Here's some more detail.

At 11/25/09 11:59 AM, poxpower wrote: Lucid, the start of agriculture predates the bible by several thousand years.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/510189/Inven tion-of-Agriculture

Pfft. All that's proof of is that they're brainwashing high school kids systematically across several areas of study.

At 11/25/09 07:29 AM, LucidCity wrote: Yes, I did use the method that I had read before. I have found it to be correct in several cases.

Please tell us what these several cases are - at least a few of them.

I will not use that as proof if you will only dismiss it.

Is that what I did? Using the exact same logic as your source to extrapolate (mathematically) that there were only around 2,000 people on the planet during the Exodus is "only dismissing" your argument?

Gah... Lucid's method is a tad different. Let's go at this again.

1. According to Lucid it takes 168.3 years for the human race to double its numbers.

2. According to Lucid's source (census of 1922) it had been 5077 years since the flood - or more importantly 5177 years since there were only two of us.

3. 5177 - 1922 gives us the year 3255 BC (3155BC for the year of the flood).*

4. Assuming the date 3255 BC...
... and 1446 BC for the Exodus...
... gives us 3255-1446 = 1,809 years.
... 1809 / 168.3 = 10.75 doublings.
... 2 ^ 11 (doubling 2, 11 times) = 2,048 people.
Moses led less than 2,048 people out of Egypt.

* The first red flag this raises is that the current accepted dates for the flood hover around 2300 BC.