Atheists holding Reason Rally in Washington, D.C., this weekend

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**sirlynchmob**

Ronin-Sage wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:R-S, who is ridiculing whom? Are you planning to contribute to the thread, or just make negative characterizations of the participants?

What prompted the post was sirlynchmob's most recent comment.

way to jump in late to the party. why not start at the beginning. but its interesting to note how you can totally fail to see the faults in others that you think are on your side.

**Relapse**

For my own part, I'm enjoying the conversation. I can't say I've been attacked or ridiculed, but have liked the exchange of ideas I've had going on with the posters here.
Can't deny there has been a bit of a pissing match happening, in some of the posts, though.

**Mannahnin**

Fair enough. Sirlynchmob, please try to keep the tone a bit more friendly. These discussions can get heated, but we need to avoid making them too personal. Keep the focus on the arguments, not on the people.

**Ronin-Sage**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Ronin-Sage wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:R-S, who is ridiculing whom? Are you planning to contribute to the thread, or just make negative characterizations of the participants?

What prompted the post was sirlynchmob's most recent comment.

way to jump in late to the party. why not start at the beginning. but its interesting to note how you can totally fail to see the faults in others that you think are on your side.

I've been reading the thread every now and then since it was created. I did mention that both 'sides' are at fault, but it's interesting to see you make assumptions about me thinking others are on my 'side'.

**Mannahnin**

R-S, I do think it's a bit of an oversimplification to divide it into two sides. At the very least we've got Christian theists, non-Christian theists, and I think a couple of types of atheists and agnostics expressing their views.

**Relapse**

It's definitely an all comers type of thread.

**Ronin-Sage**

Mannahnin wrote:R-S, I do think it's a bit of an oversimplification to divide it into two sides. At the very least we've got Christian theists, non-Christian theists, and I think a couple of types of atheists and agnostics expressing their views.

Oh, sure there are sides, I was just responding to him/her assuming I was being impartial somehow.

Personally, I'm Christian(raised Catholic, but that's expressed only in terms of ritual and tradition more than anything else). I have fairly 'loose' interpretations of things and a barebones set of beliefs that I live by.

**generalgrog**

Ronin-Sage wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:R-S, who is ridiculing whom? Are you planning to contribute to the thread, or just make negative characterizations of the participants?

What prompted the post was sirlynchmob's most recent comment.

He was quite pejorative in his comments..I certainly didn't sink to that level.

GG

**Ronin-Sage**

generalgrog wrote:
Ronin-Sage wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:R-S, who is ridiculing whom? Are you planning to contribute to the thread, or just make negative characterizations of the participants?

What prompted the post was sirlynchmob's most recent comment.

He was quite pejorative in his comments..I certainly didn't sink to that level.

GG

For some reason I thought you were saying 'good game' at the end of every statement :p

**generalgrog**

Ronin-Sage wrote:
generalgrog wrote:
Ronin-Sage wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:R-S, who is ridiculing whom? Are you planning to contribute to the thread, or just make negative characterizations of the participants?

What prompted the post was sirlynchmob's most recent comment.

He was quite pejorative in his comments..I certainly didn't sink to that level.

GG

For some reason I thought you were saying 'good game' at the end of every statement :p

aprils fools!!

GG

**sirlynchmob**

generalgrog wrote:
Ronin-Sage wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:R-S, who is ridiculing whom? Are you planning to contribute to the thread, or just make negative characterizations of the participants?

What prompted the post was sirlynchmob's most recent comment.

He was quite pejorative in his comments..I certainly didn't sink to that level.

GG

There you go projecting again.

Kettle.

**frgsinwntr**

Melissia wrote:
generalgrog wrote:Carbon-14 dating is not that reliable
You don't have the expert knowledge to proclaim that, you're just regurgitating some junk you ate up off of a propaganda site.

Carbon-14 is a Carbon atom (six protons, six electrons, and six neutrons in its base state) with two extra neutrons (the electrons have mass, but they're quite negligible compared to a proton or neutron). The extra Neutrons turn the carbon's nucleus in to a radioactive isotope. Carbon-14 is quite rare, 1 part per trillion being quite common (trillion, as in, a million million). The decay itself is a method called beta decay, which is to say, it changes from Carbon-14 to Nitrogen-14-- without going in to too much detail, one of the excess neutrons becomes a proton, and this process takes 5,730 ± 40 years (that is, ~5,690-5770 years) for any given amount of carbon-14 to decay to half of its value. This value has been proven time and again to be quite precise, and there is no evidence to claim otherwise.

Carbon-14 dating machines need to be properly calibrated, however, because the amount of C14 has not been constant over the years (cosmic rays and variations in Earth's magnetosphere have an effect on it for example). Therefor they use a combination of other dating methods in concert with radiocarbon dating, in order to properly calibrate the radiocarbon dating machines. When properly calibrated, a carbon-14 dating is quite accurate, being able to accurately predict the age of, for example, wood from a royal Egyptian boat which was made in 1850 BC. Over the course of the 26,000 years in which radiocarbon dating is used, the total measurement error is plus or minus 163 years.

Not to mention they actually use Potassium Argon dating or zircon crystals for much deeper time

**Inquisitor Ehrenstein**

hotsauceman1 wrote:Hmm, An organized group seeking to convert others to their thinking?
Now what did i just describe there?
Really This is ridiculous. I dont hate atheists. I hate their Hypocrisy that seem to accompany many(note, NOT ALL) who follow that religion(face it, it sometimes is)

Christians are way more hypocritical.

Do not eat shrimp.

Eats shrimp.

Hate gays.

Subversively brainwashes everyone into hating gays and disguises it as "not hating gays but opposing the state of homosexuality."

**Relapse**

What's the deal with shrimp?

**Inquisitor Ehrenstein**

Relapse wrote:What's the deal with shrimp?

The Bible says that it is bad to eat shrimp. Not making this up. Right before the part about hating gays.

**Relapse**

You're talking Old Testiment, then.

**generalgrog**

Relapse wrote:You're talking Old Testiment, then.

yes a typical out of context attack.

GG

**Slarg232**

sirlynchmob wrote:
There you go projecting again.

Kettle.

The saying is "Pot calls the Kettle Black". So if he's the kettle......

**Inquisitor Ehrenstein**

generalgrog wrote:
Relapse wrote:You're talking Old Testiment, then.

yes a typical out of context attack.

GG

It's not "out of context" when it's what they actually believe.

**Relapse**

The thing that might be said about the differences between the Old Testament and New Testament is that they carried different laws as were perhaps needed for different times.
It wasn't just gays that got it rough. Idoloters, Jews that ran off for a frolic in the groves with foreign women, people that held out on their goods, etc., were all subject to severe punishments up to and including death.

Perhaps the peoples that were eliminated by the Jews on their Exodus, along with the residents of Sodomand Gommorrah were that ages equivelant of the Manson family.
A lot of the laws and punishments seem aimed at preserving the Jews as a people, in my own view.
I wonder if the Jews had not gone to Egypt, if the survivors would have become like the Canaanites?

**sirlynchmob**

generalgrog wrote:
Relapse wrote:You're talking Old Testiment, then.

yes a typical out of context attack.

GG

Please you're whole bible is taken out of context. Lets have some context shall we:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUEqszopCIo&feature=g-all-u&context=G2508ba8FAAAAAAAABAA

If its now ok for you to eat shrimp, please provide the quote where god changes his mind.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slarg232 wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
There you go projecting again.

Kettle.

The saying is "Pot calls the Kettle Black". So if he's the kettle......

You were so close on that one, I was signing my post kettle.

**generalgrog**

sirlynchmob wrote:
generalgrog wrote:
Relapse wrote:You're talking Old Testiment, then.

yes a typical out of context attack.

GG

Please you're whole bible is taken out of context. Lets have some context shall we:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUEqszopCIo&feature=g-all-u&context=G2508ba8FAAAAAAAABAA

If its now ok for you to eat shrimp, please provide the quote where god changes his mind.

.

Please explain what a simulated kidnapping(quite abhorrent) has to do with old covenant dietary laws?

GG

**sirlynchmob**

generalgrog wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
generalgrog wrote:
Relapse wrote:You're talking Old Testiment, then.

yes a typical out of context attack.

GG

Please you're whole bible is taken out of context. Lets have some context shall we:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUEqszopCIo&feature=g-all-u&context=G2508ba8FAAAAAAAABAA

If its now ok for you to eat shrimp, please provide the quote where god changes his mind.

.

Please explain what a simulated kidnapping(quite abhorrent) has to do with old covenant dietary laws?

GG

well you said the old testament was out of context, so I thought I'd show what todays church is teaching. I thought it was apropo.

now about the quote where god changes his mind?

**generalgrog**

sirlynchmob wrote:
generalgrog wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
generalgrog wrote:
Relapse wrote:You're talking Old Testiment, then.

yes a typical out of context attack.

GG

Please you're whole bible is taken out of context. Lets have some context shall we:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUEqszopCIo&feature=g-all-u&context=G2508ba8FAAAAAAAABAA

If its now ok for you to eat shrimp, please provide the quote where god changes his mind.

.

Please explain what a simulated kidnapping(quite abhorrent) has to do with old covenant dietary laws?

GG

well you said the old testament was out of context, so I thought I'd show what todays church is teaching. I thought it was apropo.

now about the quote where god changes his mind?

Ahh ok so one church youth minister, probably with the pastors approval, does something stupid... and all of sudden that becomes.."what todays church is teaching"

Wow....

GG

**sirlynchmob**

generalgrog wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
generalgrog wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
generalgrog wrote:
Relapse wrote:You're talking Old Testiment, then.

yes a typical out of context attack.

GG

Please you're whole bible is taken out of context. Lets have some context shall we:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUEqszopCIo&feature=g-all-u&context=G2508ba8FAAAAAAAABAA

If its now ok for you to eat shrimp, please provide the quote where god changes his mind.

.

Please explain what a simulated kidnapping(quite abhorrent) has to do with old covenant dietary laws?

GG

well you said the old testament was out of context, so I thought I'd show what todays church is teaching. I thought it was apropo.

now about the quote where god changes his mind?

Ahh ok so one church youth minister, probably with the pastors approval, does something stupid... and all of sudden that becomes.."what todays church is teaching"

Wow....

GG

yes, church, singular.

now can you provide the quote where god changes his mind on the shrimp?

**generalgrog**

sirlynchmob wrote:
now can you provide the quote where god changes his mind on the shrimp?

First off I just want to point out that there seems to be quite a bit of hostility on your part towards me. I don't believe I have done anything to deserve this reaction from you.

Having said that, I don't mind continuing a discussion about old testament dietary laws. But you may as well ask me why Christians don't sacrifice bulls and goats anymore, or why we don't stone people for certain sins anymore.

But to answer your question, of course there isn't anywhere in the bible where God says, "I am the Lord and I now allow you to eat shrimp". This could lead to a real deep and lengthy discussion on the new covenant vs the old covenant( which unfortunately I am no expert). Paul the apostle talked about the difference between the old and new in his epistle to the Hebrews. I recommend you read that.

The basic premise is that Christians are under a new covenant with God whereby we are under grace through Jesus Christ and we no longer are bound by the old covenant laws. So it is taking the bible out of context to say that Christians should not eat shrimp.

If you would like to continue this discussion you can PM me. I would prefer that, than taking this thread anymore offtopic than it allready is.

GG

**dogma**

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
Relapse wrote:What's the deal with shrimp?

The Bible says that it is bad to eat shrimp. Not making this up. Right before the part about hating gays.

Leviticus is really only a problem if you believe in Biblical inerrancy, and not even the biggest one.

**Ahtman**

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
Relapse wrote:What's the deal with shrimp?

The Bible says that it is bad to eat shrimp. Not making this up. Right before the part about hating gays.

Not every part of the Jewish texts are part of the The Bible; some are exclusive to their respective traditions. Judaism forbids the eating of shellfish, not Christianity. Islam has dietary restrictions that are from neither Judaism or Christianity even though it is from the same Abrahamic tradition.

**Inquisitor Ehrenstein**

generalgrog wrote:
Having said that, I don't mind continuing a discussion about old testament dietary laws. But you may as well ask me why Christians don't sacrifice bulls and goats anymore, or why we don't stone people for certain sins anymore.

GG

While no one does that any more, they still think it's acceptable to hate gays. It shows selective interpretation of the Bible.

**Goliath**

generalgrog wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:

Jesus is not a carbon copy of any one other god, he was a collection of a variety of gods and what people thought of when they thought of gods. With a few new bits thrown in to make him seem like the new thing.

Again this is the same mistake manny is making. You are making this grand statement based on your opinion and not proven fact.

I'm waiting for dogma to help with clarification on which logical fallacy is being made here.

GG

So what you're saying, is that for us to prove that something did happen (in this case the amalgamation of previous myths to form the stories around jesus), then the burden of proof is on us to prove that it did, but when we disbelieve the existance of some deity, the burden of proof is on us to prove that something didn't happen? (or exist)

That seems kind of Inconsistent.

Edit: Poor choice of words.