1
   

How do we know that Christians are Delusional?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 03:17 pm
It's interesting to watch these religionists like Scott777 who has only one idea in their heads about god and creation, but are unable to respond with any logic or common sense to questions about creation or the bible. When they get pushed into a corner, they parrot the same old refrain that god did this or god did that; god knows all!

They eventually set a trap for themselves and their claims, but are able to rationalize in their own minds that what they claim is still the "truth." Mostly "truth" without any supporting evidence or outside support from other than the "bible."

They will refute all facts and evidence presented, because if they admit they were wrong, it means their lifelong belief has been shattered. That can be very scary.
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 04:27 pm
I agree, c.i. Religionists are necessarily closed-minded in regard to their faith. I remember being told that it was dangerous to consider alternatives to Catholicism. I have since learned to be especially skeptical of such warnings. Oddly enough, I think the good values I learned from the Church -- responsibility, honesty, sincerity, even loyalty -- actually helped me to transcend that way of thinking.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Aug, 2007 04:32 pm
echi wrote:
I agree, c.i. Religionists are necessarily closed-minded in regard to their faith. I remember being told that it was dangerous to consider alternatives to Catholicism. I have since learned to be especially skeptical of such warnings. Oddly enough, I think the good values I learned from the Church -- responsibility, honesty, sincerity, even loyalty -- actually helped me to transcend that way of thinking.


For that reason, I had my two sons go to Buddhist church while young with the proviso that they can make up their minds about religion after they are old enough to decide for themselves. I felt it wouldn't hurt them to be exposed to and learn some of the "good teachings" of the church. Both our sons do not belong to any church today.
0 Replies
 
Scott777ab
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 01:26 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
This is what we now know about the evolution of cats.

January 6, 2006
DNA Offers New Insight Concerning Cat Evolution
By NICHOLAS WADE
Researchers have gained a major insight into the evolution of cats by showing how they migrated to new continents and developed new species as sea levels rose and fell.

About nine million years ago - two million years after the cat family first appeared in Asia - these successful predators invaded North America by crossing the Beringian land bridge connecting Siberia and Alaska, a team of geneticists writes in the journal Science today.

Later, several American cat lineages returned to Asia. With each migration, evolutionary forces morphed the pantherlike patriarch of all cats into a rainbow of species, from ocelots and lynxes to leopards, lions and the lineage that led to the most successful cat of all, even though it has mostly forsaken its predatory heritage: the cat that has induced people to pay for its board and lodging in return for frugal displays of affection.

This new history of the family, known as Felidae, is based on DNA analyses of the 37 living species performed by Warren E. Johnson and Stephen J. O'Brien of the National Cancer Institute and colleagues elsewhere.

Before DNA, taxonomists had considerable difficulty in classifying the cat family. The fossil record was sparse and many of the skulls lacked distinctiveness. One scheme divided the family into Big Cats and Little Cats. Then, in 1997, Dr. Johnson and Dr. O'Brien said they thought most living cats fell into one of eight lineages, based on the genetic element known as mitochondrial DNA.

Having made further DNA analyses, the researchers have drawn a full family tree that assigns every cat species to one of the lineages. They have also integrated their tree, which is based solely on changes in DNA, with the fossil record. The fossils, which are securely dated, allow dates to be assigned to each fork in the genetic family tree.

Knowing when each species came into existence, the Johnson-O'Brien team has been able to reconstruct a series of at least 10 intercontinental migrations by which cats colonized the world. The cheetah, for instance, now found in Africa, belongs to a lineage that originated in North America and some three million years ago migrated back across the Bering land bridge to Asia and then Africa.

Dr. O'Brien said the cats were very successful predators, second only to humans, and quickly explored new territories as opportunity arose. Sea levels were low from 11 million to 6 million years ago, enabling the first modern cats, in paleontologists' perspective (saber-tooth tigers are ancient cats), to spread from Asia west into Africa, creating the caracal lineage, and east into North America, generating the ocelot, lynx and puma lineages.

The leopard lineage appeared around 6.5 million years ago in Asia. The youngest of the eight lineages, which led eventually to the domestic cat, emerged some 6.2 million years ago in Asia and Africa, either from ancestors that had never left Asia or more probably from North American cats that had trekked back across the Bering land bridge.

Sea levels then rose, confining each cat species to its own continent, but sank again some three million years ago, allowing a second round of cat migrations. It was at this time that the ancestors of the cheetah and the Eurasian lynxes colonized the Old World from the New.

Chris Wozencraft, an authority on the classification of carnivorous mammals, said the new cat family tree generally agreed with one that he had just published in Mammal Species of the World, a standard reference. Dr. Wozencraft, a taxonomist at Bethel College in Indiana, based his classification on fossil and zoological information, as well as on DNA data already published by Dr. O'Brien's laboratory.

Cat fossils are very hard to tell apart, because they differ mostly just in size, and the DNA data emerging over the last decade has helped bring the field from confusion to consensus, Dr. Wozencraft said.

Despite their evolutionary success, most of the large cats are in peril because their broad hunting ranges have brought them into collision with people. "With the exception of the house cat and a few other small cat species, nearly every one of the 37 species is considered endangered or threatened," Dr. Johnson and Dr. O'Brien write in the current Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics.

Fewer than 15,000 tigers, cheetahs and snow leopards remain in the wild, they estimate, and pumas and jaguar populations have been reduced to about 50,000 each.


Nice post. Very interesting and enlighting. But I already indirectly stated that ALL CATS COME FROM ONE COMMON ANCESTOR. And that is all this article shows.

And Pauligirl , this nonsense that you sent a link to is the most stupid thing I have ever read in my entire life. All it is, is nothing but a bunch of fantasy hoopla made up wishful thinking about how things happened and then described with uber fancy words to make it sound logical. If you really believe this bunch of GARBAGE you are the ones who are deluded beyond hope. I at least will try to accept a TRUE LOGICAL reason for macro evolution, but I have YET TO SEE ONE.

And the PROBLEM with Macro Evolution still rests within the BIG BANG PROBLEM. Where did the little dot of matter that everything else came from, COME FROM?

Quote:


THE MIACIDS

The various creodonts that have thus far been described shared their function of early Tertiary predators with still another group of carnivores, the miacids. These carnivorous mammals appeared in Paleocene times, and like many of the creodonts they continued through the Eocene epoch to become extinct at the close of that phase of geologic history. They had certain primitive characters, such as the general archaic structure, with a low skull, elongated body and tail, and short limbs. The miacids, however, were progressive in some very important features. For one thing, they seem to have had a proportionately larger and more highly developed brain than the typical creodonts, a feature that would have been of great advantage to them as beasts of prey. Of particular importance is the fact that in these carnivores the carnassial teeth were more anteriorly placed than in any of the other early Tertiary carnivores, for they consisted of the fourth upper premolar and the first lower molar. The molar teeth were tribosphenic in form, and the last upper molar was absent. These are exactly the conditions typical of carnivores, and for this reason the miacids are regarded by many authorities as the most primitive representatives of the Order. However, two primitive characters distinguish the miacids from the later carnivores to which they were ancestral. In the first place there was no ossified tympanic bulla that in later carnivores (and other mammals) forms a chamber that encloses the bones of the middle ear. And secondly the bones of the wrist were all separate, whereas in later carnivores there was a fusion of the scaphoid and lunar bones to form a single element. These may seem like small features of carnivore anatomy, but they are important in determining relationships, the details of the basicranium being particularly crucial.

The miacids were small carnivores of weasellike form. They were probably forest dwellers, preying upon small animals that lived in the dense undergrowth or in trees. Viverravus and Miacis were characteristic Eocene genera.
0 Replies
 
Scott777ab
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 01:38 am
Then you have garbage like this on the net.

Quote:

The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the universe whose primary assertion is that the universe has expanded into its current state from a primordial condition of enormous density and temperature.


Again I ask where did this PRIMORDIAL CONDITION OF ENORMOUS DENSITY AND TEMPERATURE........................ COME FROM??????

Quote:

The term is also used in a narrower sense to describe the fundamental "fireball" that erupted at or close to time t=0 in the history of the universe.[1]

Observational evidence for the Big Bang includes the analysis of the spectrum of light from galaxies, which reveal a shift towards longer wavelengths proportional to each galaxy's distance in a relationship described by Hubble's law. Combined with the assumption


Assumption not fact....

Quote:

that observers located anywhere in the universe would make similar observations (the Copernican principle), this suggests


But does not prove.

Quote:

that space itself is expanding. Extrapolation


Synonyms: calculation, computation, estimate, estimation, extrapolation, forecast, guess, prognostication, reckoning

And boy is it a BIG GUESS.

Quote:

of this expansion back in time yields a state in the distant past in which the universe was in a state of immense density and temperature. This hot, dense state is the key premise of the Big Bang.


PROVE IT OR SHUT UP ABOUT IT.

Quote:

Observations now place the age of the universe at around 13.7 billion years.


O this is even more funny.

Quote:

Theoretical support for the Big Bang comes from mathematical models, called Friedmann models. These models show that a Big Bang is consistent with general relativity and with the cosmological principle, which states that the properties of the universe should be independent of position or orientation.

The theory of Big Bang nucleosynthesis predicts the rates at which various light elements are created in models of the early universe and gives results that are generally consistent with observations. The Big Bang model also predicts the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), a background of weak microwave radiation filling the whole universe. The discovery of the CMB in 1964 led to general acceptance among physicists that the Big Bang is the best model for the origin and evolution of the universe.


No its not. It is the worst model ever thought of.

Like the frog in the blender says.
http://www.joecartoon.com/cartoons/67-frog_in_a_blender
"Like I said, No Balls."
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 05:38 am
Scott777ab wrote:
And the PROBLEM with Macro Evolution still rests within the BIG BANG PROBLEM. Where did the little dot of matter that everything else came from, COME FROM?

Cosmology and Biological evolution are not the same process.

How can we discuss things reasonably if you switch back and forth between two different topics.

Which thing are you asking about, and what exactly are you asking?
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 08:00 am
Scott

Try to understand that just because science and you don't have an answer to a question does not mean God is the answer. This type of "logic" is very primitive; no different than primitive man saying God made the sun rise over their flat earth and caused drought to punish them for their lack of worship.

Your logic is only as good as your database-what information you have stored in your brain. Your looking for answers to something that we, for the time being, don't have an answer to. It is illogical to automatically assign the answer God to whatever we don't understand. A more logical answer would be an honest and simple; "We don't know but someday we may find the answer."
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 08:08 am
Xingu, That's the "missing piece" with creationists. Their answer for the unknown is always "god." The problem with that answer is they have relegated their brains to laziness, and base all their answers to "god."

They'll never realize or acknowledge the weakness of their argument, because they are afraid the truth may crumble their world of religion. They still refuse to acknowledge that this world is some 4.5 billion years old - not 10,000 as revealed in the bible. I'm not sure how they manage to reconcile these discrepancies in their brains, but they have done so with great success.
0 Replies
 
Hamal
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 02:21 pm
I haven't been able to read the entire thread yet, however, that video is a bit insulting even though I agree with its point. If I was religious I would totally blow it off as a weak argument. I'm very strongly agnostic in my philosophy, but I don't think that religious people are necessarily insane. Yes, some clearly are, but I'd guess many of them would be with or without religion. I don't know, I need to think about it some more.

Anyway, I was linked to this the other day:

Zeitgeist Movie

And while again, in parts it is mocking and possibly insulting, this is still the best presentation I've ever seen that clearly and logically explains a possibility for the origins of religion. WARNING - it is also about the use of myth to control society and covers a lot. I just liked part one especially.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 03:58 pm
Hamal wrote:
Anyway, I was linked to this the other day:

Zeitgeist Movie

Interesting movie. Very long though.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 04:11 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
Hamal wrote:
Anyway, I was linked to this the other day:

Zeitgeist Movie

Interesting movie. Very long though.

How much of the religious information (egyptian and pagan) in this movie is accurate?
0 Replies
 
Scott777ab
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 05:53 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
How can we discuss things reasonably if you switch back and forth between two different topics.


It's all one topic.

Evolution & The Big Bang = One Topic.
The whole idea of Evo if you keep going backwards goes all the way back to the big bang.
And it is there I get to ask, where did the STUFF come from?
Evolution believers are unable to answer where the STUFF came from.
Evolution believers are completely at a loss to answer this major question.

While on the other hand, those who believe in a creation can answer that problem.
If a God created then let it all happen it makes sense.
Like I said earlier.
Without God nothing makes sense.
With God everything makes sense.

Then you get to throw your question then, "Ok, where did God come from?"
He came from the beginning is the best answer I can give you.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created.
Maybe right at that same moment is when God was born also.
BUT that is all speculation, just like every THEORY about the big bang and evolution is THEORY, not FACT.

Big Bang = Theory
Evolution = Theory
Creation = Theory
God = Theory


Which now brings us to Evolutions complete ruin with Occam's Razor.


Quote:
Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"):
" entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, "

which translates to:
" entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. "

This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one," or alternately, "the simplest explanation tends to be the right one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.


The only thing needed in the Creation model is one assumption.
That God exists.

But for the Evolution model the assumptions are astronomical. You could probably use the letter A for each assumption needed and completly ring the earth with A's for the number of assumptions needed to make evolution even possible.

So just based on Occam's Razor.
Evolution is a FAR FETCHED DELUDED DREAM WORLD for those who wish to think there is NO God.
While creation which is based on only one assumption ( the existence of God ), is the most logical and SANE theory to even believe in.

IT TAKES MORE FAITH TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, THAN TO BELIEVE IN GOD.
0 Replies
 
Scott777ab
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 05:56 pm
I will not be able to respond to any more posts after this one.
Back to work again, I drive a Semi-Truck, and have been off for 5 days.
I have found these few days off very informing coming here this time.
Thanks for your responses.

And may the peace of God be with you all.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 06:30 pm
Quote:
IT TAKES MORE FAITH TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, THAN TO BELIEVE IN GOD.
. No, it takes only understanding to sift the evidence. Otherwise your god is wholly a capricious little scamp who's given you a brain, and then F888ks you in the head for using it.


Makes sense to you maybe.


ANYWAY, for Creation to happen, it must happen a certain way, did someone record that anywhere? Oh the Bible you say" is that a recording of fact or legend and myth?
Does that recording state anywhere that this god will strew evidence around to fool you into screwing up your brain? Or does he give you intergalactic Attaboys for being smart by "taking dominion over the entire world?".

Creation is easy, to understand and therefore buy, science does take a bit more intellectual work to grasp, but hey, unless you like circular reasoning to prevail, then you are probably infinitely better off sticking with the "God's Creation Phantasy".
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 06:59 pm
rosborne, I watched Zeitgeist film about 85% of it, and got the jest of the show. I have visited Egypt twice, and the temple of Horus at Edfu. Our guide shared some of the same information as in the film including Isis and the virgin birth. The temple was constructed under Ptolemy III Euergetes in 237 BC (or before the time of Christ).

What was more interesting in the film were the other gods before Christ who were also of virgin births with 12 disciples, and how all of them relate to astronomy. Even the cross is a pagan symbol representing the cross of the Zodiac.

Finally, that there are no other mention of Christ by any of his so-called contemporary historians.

I enjoyed the joke about the age of the earth and dinosaur fossils. God put them there to test our faith.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Aug, 2007 09:30 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
What was more interesting in the film were the other gods before Christ who were also of virgin births with 12 disciples, and how all of them relate to astronomy. Even the cross is a pagan symbol representing the cross of the Zodiac.

Finally, that there are no other mention of Christ by any of his so-called contemporary historians.

I thought those parts were very interesting. But I just wondered how accurate they are.

The rest of the film is sadly lacking in objectivity and logic, so it undermines the veracity of the first part.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 06:25 am
ci

I haven't seen the movie yet but your comment about God putting fossils in the earth to test one's faith was an argument presented to me many years ago by an SDA adherent. She was married to a friend of mind (since divorced). Her father was a big shot in the church. At that time their headquarters was in Takoma Park, MD (since moved). She worked there and claimed she has never eaten a bite of meat her entire life. I gave her my sympathy.

They believe in the literal inerrant truth of the Bible and claim that Saturday is the correct day of worship. Any Christian who holds Sunday as a day of worship will be sent to Hell. No and's, if's or but's about it.

God is a loving God but he will not tolerate anyone breaking his rules.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 06:38 am
From what I've been able to dig up on Google so far, the facts presented in the Zeitgeist film seem to be a collection of truths, partial truths and outright errors, all mixed together, and all 'slanted' in a particular direction.

I had already heard that parts of Christianity were copied from ancient pagan religions, but this film seems to be embellishing on a lot of the details. It's not a balanced presentation by any means.

The Zeitgeist film is a very different type of film than the one I started the thread with. The "Christians are delusional" film does not rely on historic evidence to make its case. Instead it leverages the intolerance in each religion to show the irrationality of various viewpoints.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 07:17 am
Listening to some of the anti-Christian rants makes me wonder if they are as bad as Creationist rants. Seems like, prior to Christ, Gods was born on Dec. 25 to virgins; there were many Trinities and full body resurrections happened all the time.

I don't doubt that Christianity is a blend of Jewish and pagan beliefs but it seems like an overkill by those trying to discredit Christianity.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 07:43 am
xingu wrote:
I don't doubt that Christianity is a blend of Jewish and pagan beliefs but it seems like an overkill by those trying to discredit Christianity.

I agree. And I prefer more accuracy in my view of things.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 06:44:20