Santa portrayed as having a gay, black husband...
Neil Roy

This honestly, made me laugh out loud. It doesn't really bother me as I don't celebrate Xmas, but... it does show an attack on every tradition and everything we ever grew up with. A sign of things to come.

https://www.mrctv.org/videos/cnn-hypes-childrens-book-portraying-santa-claus-gay-man

Just when you thought you seen it all... ;D

Eric Johnson

I knew Santa was a black gay man all along. Who else would break into people's homes under the guise of magic and gift-giving? ::)

Neil Roy

No no, they're not saying Santa is black, they're saying HIS HUSBAND is. LMAO... what next... I wonder what sort of twist they will put on the Easter bunny?

It's so ridiculous it's humorous anymore.

Chris Katko
Derezo

A friend of mine often sings, in his best Jamaican accent: "I don't care what the white man say, Santi-claus was a black man!"

;D

I want to write a book too... but probably not about Santa Claus... might have the black guy from House of Phase that trimmed my beard before I went to Miami, though.

Chris Katko

That reminds me of some comedian taking a trip on a small plane with a Jamacian man and they hit turbulance and he's like "are we okay?" and the captain comes on the plane and says "Don't worry man, I ain't ever died in a plane crash yet."

bamccaig

Politically correct bedtime stories.

{"name":"facepalm.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/0\/1\/01958c2602472c01df900dd5112500f7.jpg","w":300,"h":300,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/0\/1\/01958c2602472c01df900dd5112500f7"}facepalm.jpg

I got excited because I thought for sure it was a joke, but apparently the author took it completely seriously... :-/

Chris Katko

No, it's a joke. =D It's just full deadpan satire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politically_Correct_Bedtime_Stories

But, what isn't a joke, is how much that 1994 book has become a reality.

bamccaig

The author doesn't seem to imply that it's satire at all. Maybe it was obvious in 1994, but sadly today it is not. In fact, today it looks like SJW writing. It's as if they were read to from this book as children and their brains warped. :D

Chris Katko
bamccaig said:

The author doesn't seem to imply that it's satire at all.

That's deadpan! :)

beoran

Isn't this what they call "Poe's Law"?

bamccaig

Even if he meant it to be satire, without saying so the book becomes material for SJWs. I found this quote on goodbooks.com:

I had wanted to use this book in a classroom setting, but since the stories were changed not only to include "politically correct" ideas, but also immorality and murder, I think I'll pass.

So apparently there was some kind of teacher or assistant that thought the PC language was perfect to teach her children. It's only saving grace being a sprinkling of apparently adult themes such as immorality and murder (according to her) that made her pass.

In a way, his work now becomes a weapon for the very thing he meant to stand against.

Chris Katko
bamccaig said:

In a way, his work now becomes a weapon for the very thing he meant to stand against.

Yeah, but careful, that's a SJW stance though. That teacher is a butthole and will FIND materials to support his or her political agenda--regardless of whether or not satire exists.

It's the SJW stance that "even if you don't INTEND to empower nazis/racists/sexists/bigots" you "still are IN EFFECT" "empowering" them, or "giving them a platform" and therefor you must be censored lest some moron, somewhere, uses your creation to further their stupidity.

And I firmly believe that this stance is a race to the bottom where we're left with nothing creative at all. There is no limit to human stupidity, so should we really censor even our greatest works of art, because some human is going to read a book and think, "I misinterpret this book to tell me I need to assassinate the president" like with Catcher-in-The-Rye?

99 times out of a 100, I'd say a good rule of thumb is, "people who ban books are the bad guys." (Likewise with banning ideas.)

{"name":"hitler2.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/1\/71167e05a8b2e955287ef8b56f8432e9.jpg","w":400,"h":257,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/1\/71167e05a8b2e955287ef8b56f8432e9"}hitler2.jpg

200

{"name":"trumpbooks.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/5\/65ca50b6e579f9550925514f9c96f40c.jpg","w":752,"h":440,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/5\/65ca50b6e579f9550925514f9c96f40c"}trumpbooks.jpg

If it were up to me, books like Mein Kampf would be taught in every school. (OMFG? WHAT? /MSM_out_of_context_snip) Because if we're ever going to defeat the ideas in that book, teenagers should be exposed to them and learn why those ideas are wrong, as opposed to simply hiding the bad books and hoping our "stupid" children never accidentally see a Nazi pamphlet and magically become a Neo-nazi overnight. (Does that ever !@$!@ing happen? I mean, how stupid do liberals think people are? Like all men need to do is see a "don't beat women!" billboard or NFL advertisement with a black-eyed woman crying, and they'll magically stop hitting their wives...) But I'm an outlier. I think children should actually learn and grow to think critically in school. Crazy idea, eh?

[edit] One more point about Mein Kampf. What would have more lasting effect? Hiding Mein Kampf and teaching kids to fear it like it has some sort of magical effect that will brainwash you if you read it. (Read: Treating it like it has power.) Or, showing kids texts from the book and how science and reality prove it's full of crap. Like how Germany's entire eugenics program couldn't even defeat our black athlete Jesse Owens--an "inferior" race according to him.

{"name":"Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-G00630%2C_Sommerolympiade%2C_Siegerehrung_Weitsprung.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/4\/448f4809d527754ef8e7fb01d49e73bf.jpg","w":798,"h":566,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/4\/448f4809d527754ef8e7fb01d49e73bf"}Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-G00630%2C_Sommerolympiade%2C_Siegerehrung_Weitsprung.jpg

Likewise, one reason I hold comedy (and art) sacred (and attack any political party that censors it, be it left or right wing) is the power of comedy to dethrown political figures--even ones as powerful as Hitler:

{"name":"rhetoric-does-not-get-you-anywhere-because-hitler-and-mussolini-are-just-as-good-at-rhetoric-but-if-you-can-bring-these-people-down-with-comedy-they-stand-no-chance-49329.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/f\/1\/f1f5b30cdd061134a41f9bc4e49b2c60.jpg","w":850,"h":440,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/f\/1\/f1f5b30cdd061134a41f9bc4e49b2c60"}rhetoric-does-not-get-you-anywhere-because-hitler-and-mussolini-are-just-as-good-at-rhetoric-but-if-you-can-bring-these-people-down-with-comedy-they-stand-no-chance-49329.jpg

Contrast that today with liberals going out of their way to PROTECT and APOLOGIZE to Kim Jong Il for the movie The Interview, a movie about comedians assassinating the leader of North Korea.

Imperialism and The Interview: The Racist Dehumanization of North Korea

bamccaig

I wasn't suggesting that he shouldn't have written it or even been allowed to. If anything, it should just reiterate to us to be careful what we say/write, and clarify (in a footnote or something) what you mean if it's intentionally misleading.

It doesn't really seem like a case of misunderstanding. I read the intro and first story: Little Red Riding Hood. The way its written makes it look sincere. In that sense, it's understandable to mistake it's meaning. That's what I mean by being careful about what you say. In this instance, the forward probably should have noted that this was satire so that the reader understood the tone of the book. Or it should have just been written in such a way to make it more clear that it wasn't serious. In any case, it's a somewhat dangerous work that walks the line.

What struck me is that it wasn't even very good; at least, from the one story I read. It wasn't just brilliant and funny. It was very dry (deadpan, as you put it). So what's the point? Perhaps it's just because I'm not much a reader to begin with, but I could barely stomach one of the short stories. :) Makes me wonder who the target audience was. Albeit, it was a different time in 1994 so it might have been more edgy then.

Neil Roy

I definitely have problems with anyone and any book like this which is clearly written to influence impressionable young minds.

They certainly have no place in our schools. This sort of thing should at the very least, be left up to parents to teach their children as they see fit.

Schools should be for learning the basics, read, writing and arithmetic. Period.

Chris Katko

To be clear, I'm not "really" suggesting Mein Kampf should be in schools. I'm using an extreme position to illustrate my points. Books aren't dangerous (dangerous people WILL FIND dangerous books), that literally everything is dangerous to a sociopath/psychopath so we're left with nothing at all, and that "evil" books should be exposed to young adults (highschool or college) so that they can understand them, in context, and realize they have no real power except the power we grant them, and that they're full of logical inconsistencies.

Mein Kampf should be learned from by every student... so we don't have another in the future.

We should all be aware of the failures that led to the creation of things like Hitler (and Stalin!) so we don't let them happen again. HOWEVER, it's not that simple because the reason Hitler happened is because they'd never had a Hitler before. Nobody is going to be Hitler again. The next Hitler is going to be unique and only by openly analyzing the signs/patterns that may lead to such an evil person, can we predict and stop the next one.

Neil Roy

Sadly, another "Hitler" is coming, and from the same nation that spawned the last one, due to a variety of factors, including the Muslim invasion in that and other nations as well as the tensions between the USA and Europe... WW3 is on the horizon.

Chris Katko

It is really funny to watch EU politics play out and how they don't realize they're literally creating the next generation of disenfranchised groups that create fascist wars.

The Treaty of Versailles after WW1 crippled Germany and literally created the environment that allowed "a Hitler" to become leader of Germany and every evil of WW2. They don't come out of no where like wizards. You crush people, you tell them they're "the bullies" even as you oppress them, you tell them their problems aren't real. The more innocent people you oppress, the more backlash emotions and willingness to act, you create.

The way liberals are pissing on conservatives, Christians, white people, straight people, and men, they're literally creating the environment for backlash. And there's NO guarantee that the backlash will be an ethical one.

Watch what feminists do any time 5-10 men who want "men's rights" get together. They outnumber them 20-to-1 and shout and scream at them as if a couple of guys getting together to talk about "men's issues" is somehow a threat. The more you bully those guys, the more of them are going to become bitter and want revenge.

Johan Halmén

{"name":"krampus.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/a\/3\/a3f8e9d895497a1e27a02f32b6b8371f.jpg","w":400,"h":364,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/a\/3\/a3f8e9d895497a1e27a02f32b6b8371f"}krampus.jpg
Well, we've all known that, but we've politely not discussed it openly. Santa and Krampus have always been lovers.

dusthillresident

Just wondering, what's wrong with Santa having a black husband?

Neil Roy said:

I definitely have problems with anyone and any book like this which is clearly written to influence impressionable young minds.

Would you have problems with impressionable young minds being influenced by other books, like for example, the bible?

raynebc

What's wrong is they're rewriting a very old traditional cultural figure for SJW purposes.

Chris Katko

Kind of like how George Takai was pissed they made Sulu gay in the new Star Trek.

He was like, [paraphrased] "I, the actor, am gay. Sulu, the character I was playing, was not gay. And they should create NEW compelling characters that are gay, instead of rewriting history and converting old characters."

Neil Roy

Would you have problems with impressionable young minds being influenced by other books, like for example, the bible?

Not at all, if what the books teach is right and good, like what the Bible teaches, than I don't have a problem with it at all. I only have a problem with teaching deviate, perverted behaviours and lies.

dusthillresident
Neil Roy said:

if what the books teach is right and good, like what the Bible teaches

With respect, I think we have polar opposite ideas about what's right and good.

Chris Katko

lul

"Don't murder"

dusthillresident: "Stop oppressing me!!!"

Neil Roy

With respect, I think we have polar opposite ideas about what's right and good.

LMAO, wow... yeah... don't steal, don't murder, don't fool around on your wife, don't lie to people, yeah, I see what you mean, how rotten to stop people from doing these things!

You have a twisted idea of what is good.

Derezo

Well, with the teachings in the Bible you are instructed to murder under various conditions where the other person has committed a sin.

torhu

Santa doesn't want black dick, he pops out to the reindeer stable when he's got urges.

Chris Katko
Derezo said:

Well, with the teachings in the Bible you are instructed to murder under various conditions where the other person has committed a sin.

Hell yeah there's dumb stuff in there. But "polar opposite" was what made me laugh.

dusthillresident

Waste of time, sorry.

Edgar Reynaldo
Derezo said:

Well, with the teachings in the Bible you are instructed to murder [biblehub.com] under various conditions where the other person has committed a sin.

If you look directly, and only at the law, then you are correct. But you are blindly ignoring the New Testament entirely, where Christ forgave the adulterous woman. The first covenant of the law has been replaced by a better covenant, the covenant of Christ and grace.

If you don't know the entire Bible from a broader context, there's not much point discussing it.

1 Samuel 2:6
"The LORD kills and makes alive; He brings down to Sheol and raises up.

Luke 14:11
For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted."

Eric Johnson

I'm genuinely surprised by your knowledge of differentiating the Old Testament versus the New Testament, Edgar. And I mean that without sarcasm. Are you a believer of Jesus / a Christian?

Edgar Reynaldo

Yes, I'm a Christian. I studied for several years with Pastor Arnold Murray of Shepherd's Chapel out of Gravette, Arkansas through his over the air broadcasts of Shepherd's Chapel. Line by line, verse by verse reading and teaching of the Bible.

It was a pretty dark time for me, but being able to spend an hour a day studying with Pastor Murray helped me tremendously.

Eric Johnson

Good on you. :) I'm also a Christian. I'm not familiar with Pastor Arnold Murray, but it's good to hear he was of great help to you.

Neil Roy

Oh no, another Bible debate has spawned. I'll resist all urges to post further in here. I don't need the Christians and the atheists angry at me. 8-)

Chris Katko

I tell people I'm a Christian Atheist.

So when I grow up, I'll be accepted by both groups!

Edgar Reynaldo

What debate? Unless you want to debate law / grace / etc. Christ set us free from the law of sin and death through forgiveness of sin upon repentance.

Most things people point out in the Bible as signs of God being 'unfair' or 'evil' are taken out of context. This is the grounds of cherry pickers. People pick one or two verses that they really hate and can't agree with and then push them on people like it's proof that God is a bad guy. Personally, it's a phase in your relationship with God, you're learning to trust Him, but you don't yet, because you don't understand him well enough yet.

There are so many ways to approach this :

1. God is our Father. We are his children. Does God want to kill his own children? No. He put us on Earth for a reason, to live and to learn, and so when God says to kill his own children, don't think that he takes it lightly.

2. Flesh life is not the end all be all of life. If you know of the three Earth ages, you know that we are now living in the Second Earth age, which starts in Genesis. But guess what? Genesis isn't the beginning of the story! There was a First Earth age before that where we all lived in our spiritual bodies. There are two bodies, the spiritual body, and the flesh body. When the flesh fails, the soul returns to its spiritual body in heaven, with Jesus, and all the other souls not currently in the flesh. Read about Lazarus and the Rich Man. No Neil, it's not a parable. Sometimes God actually gives you the literal interpretation. Not often mind you, because Jesus always spoke in parables, but that was because not everyone had eyes to see and ears to hear ie. understand the mysteries of heaven because it was not given to them.

3. In the First Earth age, Satan led a rebellion called the 'catabo' (sic) where 1/3 of God's children followed Satan and went against God. God now had the choice of killing one third of his children, or giving everyone another chance to make their own minds up about whether they would follow God or Satan. This is why we were made to live in the flesh.

4. The 'Apple' in the Garden of Eden was not an apple. It was the "fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" and symbolically, it represents Satan. When Satan tempted Eve first and then Adam second with the fruit, he convicted them of sin, because they had gone against God's wishes and eaten from the tree he told them not to eat from specifically out of all the rest. If you read the Greek, it says Eve was 'wholly seduced' - ie. Satan seduced her to poison her blood line and prevent the Messiah from being born. You know Cain and Able? Well Cain was the son of the devil, and Able was the son of Adam. Cain murdered his brother Able because he was jealous of his blessings. Christ said, "Ye are of your father the devil. A murderer he was from the beginning, and the works of your father ye shall do."

5. Satan comes first. Christ doesn't return until after Satan does, and all the vials of God's wrath are poured out. Then Heaven will be on Earth, we will all be in spiritual bodies, and the Lord's Day will commence, 1000 years of teaching with the devil locked away in the bottomless pit, so everyone gets a chance to repent and live.

There are just so many other things I wish I could go over with you guys, but I doubt many of you care.

Chris Katko

There are just so many other things I wish I could go over with you guys, but I doubt many of you care.

I care. I just don't think this is the audience. People who are Christian already believe what you do (unless you want to discuss specifics), and those that don't, don't want to discuss it.

Heck, if you'd want to discuss some finer points of Christianity, PM me or start a non-derailed thread on it and I'll join in. But general discussions, the second you post religion, it's pretty much going to fly off the rails. That's why most of us avoid it these days. Someone always gets really mad and it's never productive.

But for one point I'll immediately grant Christianity. I can't think of any other religion that's as adapted for modern civilization. Christians are told to integrate (by changing themselves) to fit into society, as opposed to bending society to fit their religion. So they're very passive and integrated into whatever society and culture and can change as cultural values change. The bible is a "living document" that changes as the needs change. It's pro-capitalism and pro-human-rights.

Hinduism "You suffer because you're supposed to from a past life pain." so there's no reward for trying harder. (And puritan work ethic is that taken to an absurd extreme where your only worth is your work output.) Buddhism is "desire is suffering, so to eliminate desire is the only way to not suffer". Which is kind of full of B.S. because that's like saying "Don't desire for your teeth to stop rotting away, instead of just going to the dentist."

And many people don't realize that Islam is an Abrahamic religion (ala like Judiasm and Christianity). However, it's ultra-ultra-ultra-conservative. Which is why I think it's hilarious that left-wing liberals hate US right-wing conservatives, but ally themselves with FAR MORE right-wing conservatives. If Rednecks were chopping off girls genitals, there would be no marches telling everyone to respect their culture. And where are all the aid missions to southern states full of rednecks? They're just as stubborn, conservative, and anti-science as many countries we send aid to.

I think that's all the religions ones, right? Scientology is pure lunacy and proof you can sell anything no matter how full-of-crap you are. Wiccans are the MySpace religion.

I also think it's really interesting that spirituality is a biological trait that's inherent in all humans. So secular people who claim to hate religion, do many of the same things as religious people they just don't call it religion. Plenty of people have spiritual experiences at concerts. Singing in a group together. And don't even get me started about Yoga... which is just religious meditating... for yuppie Atheists. And plenty of the modern liberal ideas regarding gender, illegal immigration, etc, have a striking resemblance to the "don't you dare question our dogma--there is no room for discussion" of 90's bible-thumping Christians. They're giving us the new "moral framework" for our lives. When the bad guys were shunned, they were "sinners," now they're "racists, sexists, and Nazis". But the purpose is still the same, shutting down debate and ostracizing "bad" members from the group and community.

Neil Roy

I care about what the Bible says, I just don't care to share it in here as I was foolish enough to do in the past. I hate debate, and it is pointless to voice my opinions when I already know what a few of you believe.

I will quote one Bible verse that is relevant to why I don't wish to voice my opinion (and trust me, it is taking all my willpower to resist)..

2 Timothy 2:23 (NIV)
Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.

Have a good one. :)

pkrcel

The bible is a "living document" that changes as the needs change.

Hey Chris, I'm impressed by this statement of yours, could you elaborate how'd you say that?

I'm a Roman Catholic "by education" (BUT: I haven't studied the bible I'm no Theologist) and in all honesty I can't see a way to agree.

torhu

In case any of you have lost your faith, this should clear it up:
https://www.emailsanta.com/Santa-Claus-FAQ/is-santa-real.asp

Chris Katko

If Santa wasn't real, why would the multi-billion dollar NORAD system track him every year?

https://www.noradsanta.org/

Point? Santa. Checkmate Atheists!

pkrcel said:

Hey Chris, I'm impressed by this statement of yours, could you elaborate how'd you say that?

People keep re-interpreting it by projecting their culture, and their generation's needs and wants against it. Things that used to be important, like avoiding pig meat (because it'd make you sick) are completely ignored. While things that are still applicable ("love thy neighbor") stick around.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Living-Word.html

Quote:

Question: "What is the living Word? What does it mean that the Bible is the living Word of God?"

Answer: According to Hebrews 4:12, “the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.” The “word of God” here is the written or spoken Word, not the Logos of John 1. The ESV says that the Bible is “living” and active.

[...]

The Bible is unlike other books, whatever emotional or social effects they may produce, in that it brings about lasting, supernatural change within a person.

For example, you hear a verse. You memorize that verse. Then, in some applicable life scenario, you'll remember that verse and it'll "speak to you" and give you guidance or comfort though that event. And each generation has their own unique trials and tribulations to go through, and they use their experiences as a lens into the document.

If you believe in the more Protestant side (not sure how many denominations, if all or only some / Catholics / etc), they say the "holy spirit" is what speaks to you and guides your interpretations when you read the Bible.

Best wishes, hope you're having a great day! :)

torhu

If you are a parent, you are God. God is the universal parent. And some other things. It' all about human psychology. The universe is not alive, it's just matter.

Imagine what it would be like if the Christan God was real. He would be Cartman and we would be his ant colony. What's so good about that?

bamccaig

It amuses me that people continue to assert the accuracy of the Bible and the existence of God and "Jesus Christ". We've already established time and time again that those beliefs are faith-based and cannot be verified. There is insufficient evidence for me to believe what you believe. This discussion makes you appear full-blown delusional, like that guy that walks alone downtown yelling to himself. :P

Edgar Reynaldo

Bam, can you honestly say that there is nothing you take on faith alone? If you were living in the dark ages would you put your faith in science? At that time they believed the Earth was the center of the solar system. Science isn't always right either.

There are plenty of things we don't have evidence for but that doesn't automatically make them false beliefs.

torhu

@Edgar: You don't know philosopy. Don't you think it's interesting. And what about science, don't you think that's interesting? There is a whole world out there that you don't know about. And you can start learning about it right now. Watch the new Cosmos series. Or Human Universe with Brian Cox. Or something about philosophy or particle accelerators. This is not the middle ages, man.

bamccaig

I am not living in the dark ages. It doesn't really matter what I would have done then, and I don't think that I can even speculate what that would be.

Science isn't always right. It can't be. However, science is honest about what it knows for certain, and what is still a work in progress, and it improves over time. A collection of books written thousands of years ago for a mysteriously absent omnipotent being cannot improve.

Name something that we lack evidence for and I'll tell you if I blindly believe in that.

torhu

You don't understand what science is. Basically, you think it is like alchemy. But it isn't. Science is the basis of computers, the Internet, satellites, and medicine. Alchemy only gives us some funny stories. It didn't work, because it wasn't true.

But please try to follow one of my suggestions. Curiosity only hurts cats ;D

bamccaig
torhu said:

Curiosity only hurts cats ;D

Not true. Science can actually be quite dangerous! Reading about it is quite safe. Experimenting with it requires adult supervision, safety precautions, and equipment!

torhu

Yes, but you don't know what science actually is . And science is perhaps the most important achievement of humanity. And philosophy is pretty important too. You are losing out on something here.

Art and music is about emotions. And science and (good, much of it is bad) philosophy is about knowledge and understanding.

bamccaig

I don't know why you keep saying that I don't know what science is. ??? Science is the collection of human knowledge about the universe as discovered by experimental and verifiable tests.

While some things that cannot be verified or tested are still classified as sciences, I personally don't put much faith in those. I.e., the touchy-feely sciences like social sciences.

torhu

No, science is a method. And social sciences don't have to be bad, it's just that they are often not practiced in a proper way. But think about the natural sciences, that's where we have most of our knowledge from, and that's the best kind of science we have. But like I said, it's not about the knowledge, it's about the method.

Edgar Reynaldo

Au Contrare, Mon Frere,

I've taken philosophy, it thinks it has disproved God through the problem of evil.

I've taken science, it doesn't disprove God to me. The Bible I know doesn't disagree with science.

None of you have given me any reason to give up my beliefs. That they aren't "verifiable" doesn't bother me.

bamccaig

Science is sort of like open source software. Anybody can "do" science. Anybody can "create" science. However, it's only as trustworthy as you are until others have peer reviewed your work and verified it to be correct.

If I write a banking program and tell you that it's safe how do you know that it really is? To start with you probably don't. If it's open source, you can review the code and verify that you trust it. Or other people you trust can verify it for you.

If it's proprietary you have no way of knowing. You have to just trust me or not.

Religion is like proprietary software. You have no way to verify that it does what it claims to do. You just have to trust the people selling it. I don't.

There is a lot of junk science in the world just as there is junk software. There's no way to prevent this. Science is peer-to-peer. There is no central authority on it for good reason. What is accepted as correct is what the overall scientific community agrees is correct based on peer review and reproduced results.

You can always find "scientists" to refute the scientific ideas you disagree with, but unless the scientific community respects and agrees with those individuals what they say doesn't matter. Trusting these people is like trusting Zhang Wei with your banking information without letting you review the code. :P

The problem with social sciences is that it's next to impossible to control the variables of the experiment. If you cannot control the experiment then you cannot fully rely on the results of the experiment. There's still value in trying to apply the scientific method to these areas of study and building upon the results, but the knowledge we gain from it is far more susceptible to biases. A certain amount of "faith" is needed to trust in these sciences. I tend not to trust them as much.

This is what empowers the pharmaceutical companies to sell us poisons at a premium. The science is inconclusive. The results are fuzzy and open to interpretation. It's healthy to be skeptical of these results. It's healthy to question science. It's just not healthy to outright reject the entire body of work based on a subset of faulty results.

Append:

I'm not trying to get you to give up your beliefs. I don't care what you believe. I believe that you should be free to believe what you want. I'm simply opposing attempts to assert the correctness of your beliefs. :P

Neil Roy

Yay! I dodged a bullet! ;D

bamccaig

Also: Freedom to believe doesn't mean freedom from scrutiny. :P

Neil Roy

I am free from scrutiny because I don't give a rats ass what a non-believer thinks. :)

Oh, and your logic is flawed. Because scientific ideas are "peer reviewed", what that means is that other scientists review it. By that logic, you have no right to review my religion unless you are a "peer", that is, a fellow believer.

You want to attack our beliefs using science. But you don't think it is okay for me to attack science using just my Bible. Unless we have an equal playing field, than forget it! When a religious person is allowed to be a part of the peer review system in science, than you will be allowed to review my beliefs, and not until then!

bamccaig

There are plenty of religious scientists that are part of the respected scientific community. They accept that science is about exploring the universe for the truth, and religion has no part in that. They separate their professional lives from their personal lives like most of us do.

You're welcome to scrutinize science all you want. Nobody is going to care what you say unless what you say actually works though. That goes for me as well. I'm not about to curb scientists minds either. They're the experts on the matter. I don't know much beyond high school science, which is already rusty.

You don't even need science to discredit the Bible though. The Bible does that to itself.

Edgar Reynaldo
bamccaig said:

You don't even need science to discredit the Bible though. The Bible does that to itself.

Neither science nor the Bible discredit itself. Stop gaslighting. >:(

Felix-The-Ghost

I'm curious if anyone here has read any of the various Lee Strobel books that are pretty much what this derailed thread is about.

@Black husband yeah I vaguely remember seeing that book, maybe in a Mark Dice video or something. Pretty funny teachers are reading it to children unironically ;D

Happy New Year.

Neil Roy
bamccaig said:

You don't even need science to discredit the Bible though. The Bible does that to itself.

Okay, a fair enough statement. Now I expect you to do what you would demand of me if I made an absolute statement like that, and I want to see your evidence, from the Bible, that discredits it.

1) First, I will need to see your definition of what exactly you mean by "discredit itself".

2) I will need to see your evidence from the Bible which you claim discredits it.

I have seen this attack before, so I am no newcomer to this. I have studied all the alleged contradictions and have yet to see a single contradiction I cannot explain. And I have actually read my Bible from cover to cover, a few times over, from different translations. I have studied the history of it etc... I am not bragging, just warning you that I am well prepared.

bamccaig
Neil Roy said:

I have studied all the alleged contradictions and have yet to see a single contradiction I cannot explain. And I have actually read my Bible from cover to cover, a few times over, from different translations. I have studied the history of it etc... I am not bragging, just warning you that I am well prepared.

All you really are is closed-minded with an excuse for everything. As you said, you've already heard the contradictions. You just can't comprehend them. I cannot help you with that. That doesn't change the fact that the Bible is self-defeating as far as myself and many other like minded people are concerned.

Chris Katko

Mark Dice video or something.

I have some of his politic stances... but God I HATE the way he speaks. It's so overly sarcastic. It's like... something my dad or grandfather would listen to. It's ... so revolting the way he normally speaks...

Here's a video of his I randomly selected:

video

Ugh.... uuuggghh.

Specter Phoenix

Late to the discussion, but I've not yet read Politically Correct Bedtime Stories, but I've heard of the author, James Finn Garner. PCBS is satire as is, I believe all of his work in one way or another. His web site is: http://jamesfinngarner.com/

Was reading his bio and started scratching my head when I read this line:

Quote:

His latest project is the clown noir mystery series starring “Rex Koko, Private Clown”.

piccolo

The World is going nuts go thing i have long signed out of it i am now signed into my own world. the libs can have the old world until it is destroyed

Neil Roy
bamccaig said:

All you really are is closed-minded with an excuse for everything.

That statement oozes irony! Are you open minded? Are you willing to accept that there may be an eternal God that created everything?

I am still waiting for your alleged contradictions or show me how the Bible discredits itself. I am not a pushover, I have studied these in depth, so be certain you have a valid claim before you post it.

Maybe you should stop attacking God's word and start studying it and believe it. It would do you much more good and you would be blessed in all you do if you turned back to God, for He is quick to forgive and full of mercy.

dusthillresident

Neil Roy, how did you become a christian - where did you first hear about christianity? And how old were you when you were convinced and started to believe? What proof was it that convinced you to start believing?

piccolo

Read the Bible and look around you

torhu

People all over the world believe in the same god their parents do, and they're all convinced that that god just happens to be the real deal. And it's usually a suspiciously human god, too.

Neil Roy

Neil Roy, how did you become a christian - where did you first hear about christianity? And how old were you when you were convinced and started to believe? What proof was it that convinced you to start believing?

Growing up, I couldn't stand church to be honest. And I still can't stand churches. :) I definitely do not believe the same as the rest of my family, we have butted heads many a time over it. Growing up I just never honestly gave it ANY thought at all really, at least until I was 14. The first time I ever thought at all about it, aside from the Sunday school I went to and hated, was when I was around 14 and a teacher asked a question in class, a science class of some sort, the details are fuzzy in my memory now (see what you remember in 38 years!). I don't recall what the question was, but it had something to do with evolution (PLEASE DO NOT START A DAMN EVOLUTION DEBATE!) and my answer at the time was to do with the human eye and asked the teacher, how could an organ evolve, to see something that it did not even knew existed, like the eye, how could it have evolved to sense light which it didn't know existed, and then, how would it go about evolving? And who or what is making all the descisions about how to evolve etc... etc... it just didn't make sense to me at all. That was the very first time I questioned everything and seen intelligent design, logically and how there had to be a greater power. But I still didn't like churches, and still don't. I had some questions about them at an even earlier age, like 12 or so when I seen a preacher with a cell phone in church in around 1977... yes... a cell phone... only this one was HUGE that required a breifcase to carry it and my first thought while watching him on stage was... "this is where the people's money is going". And that opinion never changed either.

I don't attend church of any sort, I am not affiliated with any of them. I just logically, and intelligently reasoned that there must be a powerful, eternal Creator. I call Him God but admittedly don't know His name.

torhu said:

People all over the world believe in the same god their parents do, and they're all convinced that that god just happens to be the real deal. And it's usually a suspiciously human god, too.

Nope. My mother never really went to church at all. Growing up she had different boyfriends and went out drinking every weekend and came home drunk. That is, until she got cancer, THEN she turned religious quickly. Not to demean her, she was an otherwise good mother, but she was far from religious.

And my father, well, he was, and still is an atheist. He's a good man as well, very kind a lot of fun to drink with (I had a few with him when I was younger), but he doesn't believe in God at all. He loves to joke with me about coming from monkeys and I just laugh it off. So, no, not everyone follows in their parents footsteps.

I have always said, given the way my parents were, it's a wonder I believe in anything at all! ;D

But, for some reason, my mind was opened to the truth. I studied the Bible; wasn't taught by some church, though I did get some insights from certain people but I never accepted anything that wasn't actually in the Bible. The logic I used at 14 where I realized there must be a God stuck with me and I thought deeply about many other things. Just looking at our bodies and how complex and intelligently they are designed just screams that there must be an all powerful, intelligent designer. Never in the history of mankind has anything randomly come together from nothing an a logical way to form some machine or being.

As programmers, most of us should be able to at least appreciate the fact that a program will NEVER write itself! ALL programs we have ever seem had an intellect behind them that designed, debugged and created them. What more can I say? I'm not trying to preach to anyone, but just stating that I arrived at my current belief using intellect and logic. I could give many many more examples and reasons behind my belief but this is already a lengthy message I am sure most will never read and most will probably scoff and laugh at. Been here before, but my beliefs will never change (actually, I hate the word "belief" as I KNOW there is a God, but...)

Important Note: I am NOT a Sunday Christian, not by a long shot! I only believe what is in my bible. I do not believe in going to heaven (John 3:13) or hell or going to church on Sunday (Genesis 2:2-3, Exodus 20:8-11, Hebrews 4:8-11). I bet I just made a few believers angry at this, but it is all based on what the Bible REALLY says.

torhu
Neil Roy said:

Never in the history of mankind has anything randomly come together from nothing an a logical way to form some machine or being.

Right, because humans did it. But there used to be no humans, no life, no earth, no sun, no universe. Maybe there was always something, though. But inserting a hyper-intelligent, super-powerful being there seems a bit... excessive. We don't have any evidence for it either.

Neil Roy
torhu said:

Right, because humans did it. But there used to be no humans, no life, no earth, no sun, no universe. Maybe there was always something, though. But inserting a hyper-intelligent, super-powerful being there seems a bit... excessive. We don't have any evidence for it either.

Perhaps. What makes more sense, that all intelligent design comes from an intelligence? Or that everything came from nothing and just came together randomly into logical arrangements which are more complex than anything man has created? The latter defies all logic. In fact, it is literally impossible for everything to have come from nothing, UNLESS you have an all powerful, eternal, super intelligent being to create it all. Saying everything came from nothing for no reason with no intellect to create the complex designs we see in every living thing, and the information encoded in DNA... just doesn't make sense. Information always has an intelligence to create it, intelligent design always requires an intelligent designer and the laws of physics state you cannot get something from nothing... heck, I don't need laws to figure that out, common sense tells me that.

In the end, it all boils down to beliefs doesn't it? You believe everything came from nothing and came together randomly, which defies logic (to me anyhow). I believe an all powerful, super intelligent creator designed and created it all, which makes more sense to me.

Which one of these ideas you find foolish is up to you, but both are religions as neither one of them has solid evidence to support them, but one of these ideas makes more sense than the other.

I'm not trying to slam your own beliefs, but I do wish to show that my own were not arrived at randomly and without thought. I have given this a great deal of thought. Even science is now starting to see the universe appears to have been intelligently designed, and so they have come up with a new theory that we are all living inside a computer simulation! I kid you not. I laughed when I first heard this and thought it was a joke, until I looked into it and discovered they were serious.

They just cannot bring themselves to admit the evidence points to a God.

bamccaig

It's not actually logical to conclude that there had to be an intelligent designer because you aren't able to explain where the designer came from. If the designer could always exist then life could always exist. You don't need the designer anymore. The designer is just lazy thinking. You don't know the answer, you can't imagine how life could occur on its own, so you dream up a magician to do it for you.

Chris Katko

We do exist.

So either a creator CAN come from no where, or OUR UNIVERSE can come from no where. Neither of which disproves the creator idea.

And Occam's Razor isn't a law, merely a reasoning tool. So it doesn't remove the creator either. Just because you "can" represent a system with a simpler model doesn't mean the model is complete. Occam's Razor only works when you're certain you have all the required data and the simpler model works. But we don't know what's outside the universe, so it's not applicable. We can't determine when a simpler model is more appropriate, if the don't even know all the facts we're trying to use as inputs and outputs.

"Occam's Razor is flawed or a fallacy":

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/08/occams-razor/495332/

http://scienceblogs.com/developingintelligence/2007/05/14/why-the-simplest-theory-is-alm/

https://www.quora.com/Is-Occams-Razor-a-fallacy-It-is-used-a-lot-in-the-debunking-of-religion-conspiracy-theories-and-pseudoscience-but-are-we-right-to-use-it-so-Is-it-really-just-another-psychological-bias-that-we-havent-recognized

Quote:

The point is to have the simplest theory that explains the available evidence. If additional evidence is introduced, then this certainly might overturn an older theory. But then the new theory is then the simplest one that explains all available facts, including the new evidence.

bamccaig

Agreed.

Just so it's clear, I'm not trying to disprove the existence of god. That cannot be done.

I don't know if god exists. We also don't know that he does exist. Which means it's at least as valid to not believe in any such being as it is to believe in one.

It's easy for me at least to see that the stories of the Bible come from fallible human minds instead of the all-knowing wisdom of an omnipotent being. Since the only reason we believe in any such god is the Bible and the history of Christianity based upon it we can pretty much rule out the existence of any such god.

If one exists, it likely has no active role in our lives and never did. Honestly, why would it even care about us? That alone doesn't make sense. That's the thinking of a human again (universe centered around me). Let alone, why would a god make us imperfect and then apparently care when we make wrong decisions that it already knows we're going to make?

Oh oh, don't worry, I know, he works "mysteriously". Mysteriously like he was imagined by many, stupid people.

Neil Roy

Bam.... I am still waiting for your alleged contradictions or show me how the Bible discredits itself.

In order to recognize than an explanation is the best. You don't have to have an explanation of the explanation. This is an elementary point in the philosophy of science. Suppose astronauts were to find on the backside of the moon a pile of machinery there that had not been left by American or Russian cosmonauts. What would be the best explanation for that machinery? Clearly it would be some sort of extraterrestrial intelligence that had left the machinery there. You don't have to have an explanation of who these extraterrestrials were or came from or how they got there or anything of that sort in order to recognize that the best explanation for this machinery is intelligent design. In order to recognize than an explanation is the best. You don't have to have an explanation of the explanation. In fact when you think about it, requiring that would immediately lead to an infinite regress of explanations. You would need an explanation of the explanation but in order to recognize that as best you would need an explanation of the explanation of the explanation. And then an explanation of the explanation of the explanation of the explanation! So that nothing could ever be explained! At one point you have to have an uncaused cause or there would be nothing in existence today.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Something cannot come into being out of nothing. The universe exists, therefore it has a cause. The cause has to be immaterial, beyond space and time.

If something is eternal and timeless than it doesn't need a cause. The concept of God is the concept of an eternal, self existent, necessary being and so the answer simply is that God is uncaused, He is self existent.

There had to have been a first cause. And that cause, I call GOD; though I will admit to not knowing His name, but then nobody does, I simply know that He exists, He must exist, or universe would not.

Now some may object to the idea of anything or anyone being "eternal". But I submit that the thermodynamic law of energy conservation proves that not only is the concept of something, or someone being eternal logical, it is actually the only thing that the laws of physics support! Let me explain. The law of energy conservation proves that ALL matter and energy IS ETERNAL... that is, the POWER that forms all matter IS eternal. The reason being that the thermodynamic law of energy conservation states that matter and energy CANNOT be created or destroyed! When you burn something for example, you do not destroy the matter and energy, you simply convert it to heat, smoke, ashes etc. The same goes for plants. When a plant dies, it decays and microbes, worms, insects, animals etc... consume it. We then kill the animal and eat it maybe. That matter then becomes a part of our body, we die, decay and what makes up our body is consumed and the cycle continues... and has continues all down through time.

The idea of a big bang for example clearly defies the proven thermodynamic law of energy conservation in the biggest possible way! Universally! HOWEVER, if an eternal creator God who used His power, which is eternal, to create everything, THAT would fit the facts perfectly. All energy and matter are eternal, we know that, it's been proven. So it HAD to have had an eternal source. The source I already talked about above, I call God. Surpremely intelligent. Without a beginning or an end, who has lived forever, which used to seem like a pretty ridiculous concept to me as well, until I realized that ALL energy and matter has already been proven to be eternal and that NOTHING has had a beginning or an end... oh we live and die, but all the energy and matter that makes us up has ALWAYS been here.... unless you wish me to believe that all energy and matter suddenly popped into existence out of NOTHING for NO REASON?! Now THAT is a ridiculous idea... and science... REAL science, proves that all energy and matter are eternal and so MUST have an eternal source. You simply cannot get around that fact.

Edgar Reynaldo

Gentlemen, it's time for a musical interlude :

Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon
[1]

Some nice space videos you can all appreciate.

dusthillresident

Edit: I want to be clear that I meant no disrespect or insult by this post, and I meant to be civil.

Neil Roy said:

Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Something cannot come into being out of nothing.

You say this, and then you immediately contradict yourself in the next paragraph where you use special pleading for god.

Neil Roy said:

If something is eternal and timeless than it doesn't need a cause. The concept of God is the concept of an eternal, self existent, necessary being and so the answer simply is that God is uncaused, He is self existent.

How do you know that god is uncaused? Why do you allow god to be 'self existent', but not the universe, or anything else?

Neil Roy said:

There had to have been a first cause.

The thing is that your god has the exact same problem, you've just moved it up a layer, and then you're trying to avoid it by arbitrarily declaring that your god is 'timeless and eternal' and 'self existent' and 'uncaused'. If we accept that it's possible for something to have those attributes, then it's possible the universe itself could have those attributes, or something else other than the god you believe in.

There are contradictions and discrepancies in the bible. They range from smaller things, like the number of chariots in an army, to larger, like Jesus's conflicting genealogies, and things like Jesus getting crucified on different days relative to the passover depending on what part of the new testament you read, with key details of the story being completely different as a result.

They're in there, whether you accept it or not - I know you won't. I know well about how religious apologetics works as I was a (more fundamentalist sort of) christian myself for many years. And not a 'I went to church now and then' christian, I mean a serious earnest and honest believer who literally lost sleep over thought about what the bible said about stuff. In fact, it's precisely because I took it seriously that I ended up losing my faith.

Neil Roy said:

Even science is now starting to see the universe appears to have been intelligently designed

No, it really isn't, unless you cherry pick scientists.

Quote:

and so they have come up with a new theory that we are all living inside a computer simulation! I kid you not. I laughed when I first heard this and thought it was a joke, until I looked into it and discovered they were serious.

This is not limited to atheistic scientists as you seem to be thinking. I encountered a (more fundamentalist sort of) christian who very enthusiastically believed this idea, and seemed to think it was proof for god. Not all (or even most) scientists accept this idea, and it's impossible to prove or disprove.

And supposing it's true, it doesn't mean a lot as an explanation for existence. It's similar to what I said earlier about your claims about your god. It pushes it up a layer. What's running the simulation? And what's running the thing that's running the simulation? And so on.

Edit: I want to be clear that I meant no disrespect or insult by this post, and I meant to be civil.

Neil Roy

And thus ends my involvement in this. It is impossible to convince a non-believer that there is a God. There will ALWAYS be some sort of argument against it. These sorts of conversations, however respectful, can never end in anything but frustration.

I stated my case and I stand by them. I could go on as there is much more I could say, but I have been here before and I have already posted more than I originally wanted to.

As I told my atheist father, "We will all find out the truth in the end, if I am wrong, than I have lived my life being the best person I can be and will never know it. But if he is wrong..."

John 12:40 (NIV)
“He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn—and I would heal them.”

Romans 1:20 (NIV)
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Psalm 14:1 (NIV)
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

dusthillresident
Neil Roy said:

Psalm 14:1 (NIV)
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

I don't appreciate this, it's regrettable that you would post this quote.
Regards,
Brian

Edgar Reynaldo

There are contradictions and discrepancies in the bible. They range from smaller things, like the number of chariots in an army, to larger, like Jesus's conflicting genealogies,

Not personally worried about these.

dusthillresident said:

and things like Jesus getting crucified on different days relative to the passover depending on what part of the new testament you read, with key details of the story being completely different as a result.

Which books are you referring to? Could you elaborate please?

Neil Roy said:

In the end, it all boils down to beliefs doesn't it? You believe everything came from nothing and came together randomly, which defies logic (to me anyhow). I believe an all powerful, super intelligent creator designed and created it all, which makes more sense to me.

I have to agree with Neil on this one. It makes more sense for God to exist, than not to. If you can't see a divine hand in the beauty of creation, I don't think you can ever see God. He's all around us!

bamccaig said:

It's easy for me at least to see that the stories of the Bible come from fallible human minds instead of the all-knowing wisdom of an omnipotent being. Since the only reason we believe in any such god is the Bible and the history of Christianity based upon it we can pretty much rule out the existence of any such god.

Have you read the New Testament bam? It is one of the largest collections of modern day moral guidance that there ever has been. The wisdom of Jesus couldn't have come from humanity, it's too corrupt.

Mark 1:21-28 said:

Jesus Expels an Unclean Spirit
(Luke 4:31-37)

21Then Jesus and His companions went to Capernaum, and as soon as the Sabbath began, Jesus entered the synagogue and began to teach.

22 The people were astonished at His teaching, because He taught as one who had authority, and not as the scribes.

23 Suddenly a man with an unclean spirit cried out in the synagogue:

24 “What do You want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are—the Holy One of God!”

25 But Jesus rebuked the spirit and said, “Be silent! Come out of him!”

26 At this, the unclean spirit threw the man into convulsions and came out with a loud shriek.

27 All the people were amazed and began to ask one another, “What is this? A new teaching with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey Him!”

28 And the news about Jesus spread quickly through the whole region of Galilee.

dusthillresident

Not personally worried about these.

I'm not suggesting you should be worried. You can very well be a Christian without subscribing to the idea of biblical inerrancy. That the bible has contradictions is a fact, and you might as well accept it.

Quote:

Which books are you referring to? Could you elaborate please?

This page explains it: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/passover_meal.html
Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman also mentions it in his book 'Jesus Interrupted'. It's an excellent book, which I highly recommend.

Quote:

It makes more sense for God to exist, than not to. If you can't see a divine hand in the beauty of creation, I don't think you can ever see God. He's all around us!

What you've written here reminds me of the song 'all things bright and beautiful'. This way of thinking seems to ignore the inconvenient details. I don't see a divine hand in nature (or 'creation' as you call it), I see a bitter and brutal struggle for survival. Insects whose life cycle is dependent on eating alive the young of other insects. Animals whose life is dependent on eating the flesh of other animals. I've seen a video of a pack of wolves attacking a pregnant wildebeest as it's in the process of giving birth. I hear news stories about wars, child sex abuse, etc. Televangelist cult leaders getting rich off donations. If this world was designed and created deliberately by something, in my opinion that thing is an utter monster. This is sometimes called 'the problem of evil' and I know religious apologists have many different 'answers' for it, I don't find any of them remotely convincing.

Quote:

It is one of the largest collections of modern day moral guidance that there ever has been. The wisdom of Jesus couldn't have come from humanity, it's too corrupt.

This isn't true. I'm not very impressed with much of the teachings of the Jesus character in the new testament. Some of them are obvious, some of them are good, and some of them are bad and harmful. Confucius had the 'golden rule' ('do unto others as you would have them do unto you') well before Jesus was born.

Neil Roy said:

As I told my atheist father, "We will all find out the truth in the end, if I am wrong, than I have lived my life being the best person I can be and will never know it. But if he is wrong..."

I know Neil Roy has left the thread, but I still want to address this. This is Pascal's Wager, and it's not a good argument. For instance - what if you die and then find yourself face to face with Allah? Or Zeus, or Thor, etc. Your belief in the bible would probably get you in trouble. It gets worse when you consider that there's many possible interpretations / variants of each religion. Maybe the Catholics are right - and in that case even though you're Christian, you'd still be going to hell.

I also want to address this:

Quote:

than I have lived my life being the best person I can be

I contest that. If you're wrong, you'll have spent your life hating gay people for no cause, and backhandedly calling people stupid with copy-pasted bible quotes because they didn't share your religious belief, thinking yourself superior to people who don't think like you do. What good are you doing that you wouldn't be if you weren't religious?

(No offense is meant by any of this. I mean to be civil. And I fully recognise that not all Christians hate gay people - what I wrote in the above paragraph is to Neil Roy specifically.)

LennyLen

I contest that. If you're wrong, you'll have spent your life hating gay people for no cause, and backhandedly calling people stupid with copy-pasted bible quotes because they didn't share your religious belief, thinking yourself superior to people who don't think like you do. What good are you doing that you wouldn't be if you weren't religious?

Further to this, it also highlights the moral inferiority of many christians who need the threat of eternal damnation and the promise of eternal reward to act like decent human beings.

The best person is the one who does good for no reason other than doing good.

beoran

Wow, what a derailment. From a parody book to a religious debate. Since my basic policy is that I am here mainly for Allegro, I'll refrain from making any comments except for pointing out that there are better forums for such debates.

I am worried about the polarization. Especially in the USA. The main reason why western culture and civilization works is that we don't let private opinions, especially on controversial subjects, interfere with public cooperation. That's the essence of western civility. And that valuable treasure is trampled on by most "sides" of the "divide".

Derezo
beoran said:

From a parody book to a religious debate.

It's really not that far off.

On New Years Eve I stopped in at my cousin's before going out to celebrate with friends, and she said "Hey! Did I give you a black Jesus!?"

"No..."

"Err, no, not black Jesus... a black Santa!"

Then she gave me this:
{"name":"611187","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/c\/3cc1240ff3b8c14026c9e5b090646e2c.jpg","w":1920,"h":1080,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/c\/3cc1240ff3b8c14026c9e5b090646e2c"}611187

It's really not a huge stretch from Santa to Jesus. :)

The wisdom of Jesus couldn't have come from humanity, it's too corrupt.

All of the religions came from humanity. It's more important to feel comfortable with your personal experience with it, and experience your personal spiritual journey. The path you take is just a path, other people of other spiritual paths are not inferior, and many would consider thinking like that to be immoral itself.

I go to church, a couple of them. I've missed the last 3 Sunday's, but intend on going again this week. I don't believe that Jesus was anything more than a human man who saw things differently than most other people of the time.

[Edit] For the record, I don't identify as atheist, but I believe you're just as much God as my couch and my cats, neither of which are mine yet. The words 'God', 'Universe', 'Love' and 'Spacetime' are interchangeable concepts used under different contexts to represent the same general thing. :)

Edgar Reynaldo

If you don't believe Jesus was the Son of God, then you're not Christian, so please don't pretend to be if you are.

Derezo

I never said or even implied I was Christian, I stated quite the opposite. He was a human man.

Edgar Reynaldo

If you don't believe Christ was the Son of God then there is no reason for you to go to church, or to even read the New Testament, because it would all be based on a false premise.

Remember when Israel tempted God in the Wilderness? They all died without reaching the promised land. They all failed because none of them had faith, and they didn't believe God's word, even after everything they witnessed. They fell away, and lost the prize. He delivered them out of Egypt, through the Red Sea, to Mount Sinai, where the mountain smoked and shook, where Moses came back with the Ten Commandments, where they worshipped a golden calf, etc...

LennyLen

If you don't believe Christ was the Son of God then there is no reason for you to go to church, or to even read the New Testament, because it would all be based on a false premise.

Ever heard the saying "a broken clock is correct twice a day at least?" Your bible might be mostly full of crap, but there are some good lessons in it.

Edgar Reynaldo

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/John-Chapter-3/

John 1:16-21 said:

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Derezo

If you don't believe Christ was the Son of God then there is no reason for you to go to church, or to even read the New Testament, because it would all be based on a false premise.

I don't always go to Christian church -- but my partner is Christian, so we often go together.

I realize a lot of churches and mosques are not welcoming to outsiders, but this is a very welcoming church, as is the Unitarian church I go to. I will also say that the leaders of both churches have spoken kindly of each other when I've talked to them about attending other churches.

LennyLen
Quote:

but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Go fuck yourself.

Edgar Reynaldo

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14&version=KJV

John 14:6 NIV said:

6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

LennyLen
Quote:

No one comes to the Father except through me.

Come visit me. I'll help you on your way to see him.

Chris Katko

Such unnecessary anger. :(

LennyLen

I've already tried to kill someone this year and am currently under a 7 day psych review, so I'm not in the best mood. Angry is an understatement.

Edgar Reynaldo

Instead of going psycho on everyone, why don't you ask Jesus to cast the unclean spirits out of you instead.

And really, threatening to murder me because I quote Jesus and it bothers you? That's pretty sad.

LennyLen

And really, threatening to murder me because I quote Jesus and it bothers you? That's pretty sad.

Being stupid enough to think I thought you would come here is even sadder.

Edgar Reynaldo

If I'm ever in NZ, I'll look you up. Wanna see where they filmed the Hobbit.

LennyLen

Wanna see where they filmed the Hobbit.

The mountain scenes were 45 mins from here. If I survive this, I'll show you.

Chris Katko

This is a whole new level of "off the rails"

Someone download Ruby. Boom. Tangent.

Hey, what does everyone perfer? GCC, Clang, or Microsoft Compiler, and why?

GCC has cool extensions for C. Not so many for C++. Clang has amazing error messages.

I'm using D these days so I can't get them unfortunately, even though LDC's backend is LLVM.

Edgar Reynaldo

I couldn't get Clang to work on Windows for the life of me. It kept trying to use cl to compile everything, and MSVC is a steaming pile of doo.

I would love to use Clang, but I can't get it to work.

I dabbled in D for college, nothing major. Like a lot of its improvements over C++ but it's compiler error messages were too cryptic and even farrer off the mark.

If I go a scripting, I will use Python for sure. Drop dead simple.

Chris Katko

I haven't figured what to use for a scripting language for a game with TONS of objects.

The backend is D and it's fast. So I'm trying to off-load as much to the engine as possible. No "iterate over a 2-D array to scan for stuff" using scripting. Have the engine do that, and give you the results.

Everyone uses Lua, so I've considered Lua since tons of modders will already be familiar with it. But Python is tempting.

[edit]

This link shows Lua at twice the speed and 1/10th the memory for one task.

https://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/compare.php?lang=lua&lang2=python3

OTOH, it's much slower in a few tasks.

Also, LuaJIT appears way faster:

http://luajit.org/performance_x86.html

l j

For a game I'm developing quite slowly, I'm creating my own JIT-compiled language. The parser works and now I'm trying to write an interpreter for testing purposes. After that I'll probably throw together a compiler using Reflection.Emit. It's probably more accurate to say I'm writing a game for my own language instead of the other way around.

Some bullet hell shmups seem to use lua for scripting, but on my laptop it will lag if a lot is going on. I'm not sure if it's the lua interpreter being too slow or if the rendering code is bad.

Chris Katko

I'm going to have to figure out some tests/benchmarks. I don't want to write code for 100/200/500+ separate objects and then find out I need to port or refactor them all.

I imagine Lua/Python is more than fast enough for 10 objects. Maybe... 100.

But what about 1,000? 10,000? 100,000?

I'll also need to do some estimates on how many objects I'll have. It'll be at least 1,000.

Another thing I will do is "off-load" as much as I can to the binary side. Particles? NO SCRIPTING. Particles will only be able to do a restricted subset of things (things that I have binary code for).

The game is designed to be extremely moddable because I'm basically remaking a game that features TONS of mod development. The original game is slow-as-balls because EVERYTHING is 1) single-threaded 2) interpreted (::vomit::) 3) SCRIPTED. Every object. Every particle. And worse, because this binary system was never designed for this level of code, they do insane things in scripting like finite-element analysis physics, and huge amounts of 2-D iteration/etc in scripts that if the underlying system weren't so general, they could be done in binary at 100x/1000x the speed.

The benefit of the "everything is code" of the original game is that while the codebase is a disgusting pile of spaghetti, they can implement tons of crazy things that the original engine was never designed to support.

I'm also trying to figure out how to multi-thread the code as much as possible. But since I'm also providing heavy modding support, how do I design a multi-threaded API that doesn't have tons of gotchas--especially for modders (entry-level programmers)? Everything could use subscriber/publisher interfaces but then, will I have 10,000/100,000/1,000,000 message queues... all updated every frame?!

I've got to decouple the interface from the expectation that objects will be called in any predictable order, yet keep it simple enough for modders, and fast enough for many objects.

Most objects won't be that complex--especially when I specialize them into categories of binary object types. "weapons", "bullets", etc as opposed to every weapon being a living code object that re-implements tons of general object scripting code 10-15 levels of inheritance deep.

Neil Roy

Bah, I just can't sit here and let comments like this go without challenge, damn you!!! ;)

That the bible has contradictions is a fact, and you might as well accept it.

I asked Bam, and now I asked you... QUOTE ME THE VERSES! SHOW me the alleged contradictions! Don't just make accusations and state that what you say "is a fact" without backing up what you say with evidence! That is, IF you have actually READ the Bible and are not just parroting what someone else said!

I have studied the Bible (I have read it cover to cover!). I have studied the alleged "contradictions" and proven the allegations to be false! I know EXACTLY which so called "contradictions" you are talking about, but I am not the one making the false claims against God's word, YOU ARE, so OUT WITH IT! SHOW ME the contradictions you claim exist or retract your statement. I won't sit here silent while someone LIES about the word of God. >:(

P.S: TRY and answer my question without a question, if that is at all possible!

I don't appreciate this, it's regrettable that you would post this quote.

Ah well. I stand on God's word. And God says that anyone that denies God is a fool. So I'll agree with HIM.

I await your "contradictions".

torhu

There are multiple sites that list bible contradictions, this one shows them graphically, with links to sources:
http://bibviz.com/

Edgar Reynaldo

Err, huh? Most of those weren't even contradictory.

Eh, well. I think you're missing the point. Jesus is the Passover Lamb. His blood is what kept the Destroyer at bay from striking down the first born of Egypt, and us, not the blood of an actual lamb. "I desire mercy, not sacrifice", and "the blood of bulls and goats could never wash away sin".

This goes over the timeline of Christ's death and resurrection quite plainly, and in detail :

http://letusreason.org/Doct145.htm

Chris Katko

So what do you guys think about newly popular concepts like coroutines?

They're functions that can be called, then they "yield" which pauses their execution, then the next time you call them it continues from that point. So you can actually model a state machine really clearly for like, loading data from a file format, or a network packet.

However, the "it has state" kind of worries me. It's the complete opposite of a pure function. Pure functions have no state and modify no global state. The same input = same output. Which makes them much safer, and, multi-threadable.

Meanwhile, coroutines are kind of neat. They're a hallmark of Python, with generators being basically a coroutine that works as an iterator. Like, you want "every other index" it'll give 0, 2, 4, 6, ... every time you call it in the loop.

bamccaig
Neil Roy said:

In order to recognize than an explanation is the best. You don't have to have an explanation of the explanation. This is an elementary point in the philosophy of science. Suppose astronauts were to find on the backside of the moon a pile of machinery there that had not been left by American or Russian cosmonauts. What would be the best explanation for that machinery? Clearly it would be some sort of extraterrestrial intelligence that had left the machinery there. You don't have to have an explanation of who these extraterrestrials were or came from or how they got there or anything of that sort in order to recognize that the best explanation for this machinery is intelligent design. In order to recognize than an explanation is the best. You don't have to have an explanation of the explanation. In fact when you think about it, requiring that would immediately lead to an infinite regress of explanations. You would need an explanation of the explanation but in order to recognize that as best you would need an explanation of the explanation of the explanation. And then an explanation of the explanation of the explanation of the explanation! So that nothing could ever be explained! At one point you have to have an uncaused cause or there would be nothing in existence today.

The reason extraterrestrials would be the "best" explanation (which is debatable; depending on what was found it might be smarter to guess it was another nation first) is not just that the machinery is complex and functional, but because we have reasons to believe that it could not have occurred naturally. There's a very distinct difference between a computer and a fly. They're both quite complex, and cannot spontaneously appear. The computer is assembled out of simpler parts, and simply fastened together rather crudely. The fly is not bolted together. The fly is built from the inside out. It begins as a pair of cells and develops into a fly through a series of reactions explainable by science without a "builder".

The only question is, could the fly have developed over billions of years through entirely natural processes? I believe it could, though science cannot yet explain every minute detail of it. It explains a lot more than "god" does. What remains to be seen is how "random" chaotic chemicals could form into simple organisms that eventually replicate into more complex life forms and eventually into the plants and animals that are so complex today. Of course, it's not a very common occurrence. There is evidence of simple lifeforms surviving on nearby planets or stellar objects, but nothing so complex as even a fly that we've found yet. There are still a lot of questions. The neat thing is that science offers us hope of eventually explaining more and more of this.

"Religion" offers no explanations at all. "Magic" isn't actually a very useful explanation for anything. You cannot control magic in the real world. Only in our fantasies. You can convince other people that you control it through deception and lies (which religious leaders have done for centuries), but we really have no evidence that magic even exists, let alone do we have any sense of control over it ourselves. Science still has a long way to go, but religion has even further to go.

Believe in your magician if you want to. It's lazy and ignorant, but at least it's easy to imagine.

Chris Katko

Anyone heard of TypeScript? It's pretty neat. It's a Javascript superset that compiles to Javascript. But, it adds static type checking.

Derezo

Anyone heard of TypeScript

Aww man... I was like 6 months too early in deciding the platform for my project. We wanted to go with Vue.js and TypeScript, but both were around the 1.0 mark (I think Vue.js was still 0.9) and in their infancy, so there wasn't enough support available and it felt too risky.

We ended up going with Kendo UI with jQuery, but our competitors bought us before we could fully develop the application and now I work for them... and we got raises and free lunch, but now I code in Python.

[edit] The bibvis.com project is pretty awesome! I really like how easy it is to use. I'm a little surprised that there are parts of the new testament that command believers to kill, I thought they had curated it pretty well against that.

Polybios

TypeScript is JavaScript plus compile time type checking and some more syntactic sugar. It is "transpiled" to JavaScript. Gives you the means to spot type errors while developing. I like it.

Chris Katko

Interestingly, TypeScript is written by the lead architect of C#... and Delphi... and Turbo Pascal.

And it's designed and operated by... Microsoft.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/TypeScript

So it's got big corporate backer. One guy (the one I found out about it from) mentioned for scripting he used to use LuaJIT (and maybe Python), but now he uses exclusively TypeScript and said he's quote, "twice as fast" writing working code.

He said Apple banned JIT by saying in the ToS no program can "download or install" any program and the ToS is confusing enough that some minimum-wage dropout working for iOS verification team might easily confuse it. Also, I think iOS disables running code in the heap and will possibly flag it with their anti-virus software running. So all JIT's are slow and LuaJIT is only 3x faster than Lua instead of 100x+ faster, on iOS platforms.

He said he used to fret it, but now that TypeScript is becoming popular, has huge platform support (it can run without any support and just run as Javascript which compiles away the typechecking), that he doesn't "need" Lua anymore and can work with it on his iOS target games.

Now, granted, can V8/JS/whatever run THOUSANDS of scripts quickly? Can it do it with low RAM usage? (Lua has a crazy low memory footprint for most stuff.) I don't know. But it's certainly worth considering. As much as I hate many of Javascript's decisions (object-based inheritance?! all numbers are floats?!?), the overall ecosystem is incredibly expressive and powerful.

And, with the shared community interest (JS needs to run fast for MANY multi-billion dollar companies to make their money), it makes sense to hop-on and ride the wake of an existing project instead of swimming on your own. The only real question is, is this wake travelling the direction we want to go, or, will we bump off the edges? That is, does JS have some hidden gotchas that using it as a scripting engine (not the normal purpose for JS) will blow up in our face?

If I ran JS--and I'm tempted to try--I'd want a modified JS. I'd want to throw away making new objects. In fact, 99% of the code structure should be STATIC. So I wonder if it'd be SLOW AS HELL to dynamically recreate what is a static structure of THOUSANDS of pre-coded objects.

If I only had say, 10-100 objects on the screen at any time, like a fighting game or whatever, I might be okay. But the loading time could be INSANE if I have to load 10,000 object types.

Come to think of it, there IS one game that is actually similar to my game--in a very abstract sense. Factorio. Which is Allegro + Lua. So there's another point in Lua's favor. It runs with tens of thousands of objects, all animated and interacting in the world. But they might be exploiting a specific design mechanic to optimize how often their scripts run, in a way that I might not be able to in my game.

Neil Roy

I didn't notice his LINK (couldn't think of a contradiction on his own). Fine, I'll reply with a link as well.

http://www.increasinglearning.com/blog/bible-contradiction-did-jesus-die-before-or-after-the-passover

Incidentally, if you check the video on the skeptics link, and go to the actual Youtube page, you will see I responded to all their videos three years ago. ;D

bamccaig said:

we have reasons to believe

Wow, lots of "beliefs" here. Not a lot of empiracle science.

Quote:

evelops into a fly through a series of reactions explainable by science without a "builder".

No, not one, but TWO builders, as you see, it takes TWO flies to make a baby fly. Perhaps you never heard the tale of the birds and the bees? All life, requires life. A fly has never popped MAGICALLY into existence out of nothing in the history of the world. It came from pre-existing life, two flies before it. This is an absolute fact.

Quote:

I believe it could

There goes that word "believe" again.

Quote:

Of course, it's not a very common occurrence.

That's an understatement. It's not common at all, in fact, it has NEVER BEEN OBSERVED TO HAPPEN EVER!!!

Quote:

There is evidence of simple lifeforms surviving on nearby planets

Wow! Do you make this stuff up as you go? Where's this evidence? There's no such thing as a "simple lifeform", even the "simplest" cell we know of is more complicated than the systems on the space shuttle! The idea of a so called "simple cell" that Darwin imagined, blobs of goo... was proven wrong once we invented powerful microscopes.

Quote:

"Magic" isn't actually a very useful explanation for anything.

I agree. And an entire universe magically popping into existence out of nothing is magic on the greatest scale possible! Science has proven that all energy and matter is eternal, and so requires an eternal source, not your MAGICAL big bang. And aliens that already live here doesn't answer the question of who made them, and who made the universe they live in... but then, belief in aliens is as much a religion as anything else as I have yet to see proof they exist. It's certainly a piss poor explanation, heck, it's laughable as it doesn't explain where the universe came from!!! ;D

You have a ton of BELIEFS, and a ton of pseudo-science with a whole lot of unproven theories, many which actually defy known laws of physics.

Law of biogenesis: Life only comes from pre-existing life. This has been observed and proven.

Law of thermodynamics: Energy conservation states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. The universe MAGICALLY popping into existence from absolutely nothing defies this law on the greatest scale possible. Plus there is absolutely no evidence for it what so ever.

Information (DNA) requires intelligence.

Intelligent design requires an intelligent designer. NEVER in the history of the world has ANYTHING with form and function been designed out of chaotic events. EVER.

Sorry buddy, but REAL science supports an intelligent, all powerful Creator, your pseudo-science has absolutely NO evidence what so ever to support it. Not even a shred. 8-)

Chris Katko

...

So...

How about them Mets?

dusthillresident
Neil Roy said:

Law of biogenesis

This is the same old tired garbage that fundamentalists have been spewing for decades, it's just absolute rubbish.

Also that link he posted is a prime example of what I was referring to earlier when I said 'I know how religious apologetics works'. It doesn't matter how blatant a contradiction is - whatever it is, extremist literalist religious people invent all kinds of 'reasons' for why it's not actually a contradiction, often stretching and twisting the words of their holy book beyond recognition in the process.

If you have two accounts of an event and the accounts don't agree on what day the event happened - yes, that is actually a contradiction. As I said already, you don't have to believe the bible has no contradictions in order to be a Christian. There are plenty of Christians who aren't extremist literalists. But it's just absolutely stupid to deny reality when it's right in front of you - the bible has contradictions. It's not my responsibility to convince you that the sky is blue.

And now I'm not going to waste another second on Neil Roy.

torhu

Religious logic: If I get a Christmas present that doesn't say who it's from, I'll take it as proof that Santa is real ;D

Derezo
Neil Roy said:

REAL science supports an intelligent, all powerful Creator

It absolutely does not.

Quote:

NEVER in the history of the world has ANYTHING with form and function been designed out of chaotic events. EVER.

You, sir, know nothing of Chaos. There is order and symmetry in everything, even chaos.

Edgar Reynaldo

It's really sad. God is all around us, but you'd rather worship the Creation, instead of the Creator, at the same time denying He had any hand in it.

Neil Roy

It's really sad. God is all around us, but you'd rather worship the Creation, instead of the Creator, at the same time denying He had any hand in it.

Good quote Edgar!

Romans 1:25 (NIV)
They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.

Chris Katko

I don't want to fuel the burning conversation, but I believe, abiogenesis and the Big Bang Theory are completely orthogonal to, and do not diminish or refute the idea of a Creator.

It's only if you believe in the strictest "this book of analogies and stories, somehow = literal" that it becomes a problem / "threat" to your worldview.

But there's no reason an abstract "Creator" that can create the entire universe over billions of years, can't guide single-cells to become the building blocks for us over the last few billion. If he built the entire universe, physical constants and relationships, and formed our planet to be within the habitable region... ensuring cells divide the right way is not unthinkable or much of a stretch.

jmasterx

Why must there only be one God that created everything? It's very hierarchical... The CEO of the Universe.....

Why do I never hear about creationism where it's a team of Gods that created it all?

Most innovation comes from teams; not individuals. We also tend to specialize.

Is it because it's easier to follow and describe a single entity than an array of them?

Greeks seemed to follow multiple Gods. Why in modern times do I only seem to hear about 1 God?

It's like Santa... it's far more reasonable to believe that Santa is a corporate figure (Mascot) of SantaCorp and that there are a lot of 'Santas' all around the world to actually deliver the toys. They all dress like the mascot.

Same with the reindeer... Every 'Santa' gets 8 reindeer, who are all employees of SantaCorp.

When I look at it like this, Santa is so much more plausible.

Same with religion. If I did believe in creationism, I could wrap my head a lot better that a collection of super-organisms created and crafted the Universe than 1 single entity.

I don't like God objects in programming. I don't like them in traditional hierarchical corporate structures, and I don't like them in religion.

In keeping with this theme, I personally find the bible to be a great set of guiding principals to have a happy, functional, homologous society. But it requires at least majority consensus to work. If I follow The Bible perfectly, but no one else does, then my being a perfect citizen is meaningless and does not practically help society as a whole. If everyone does though, then we have a great society >:(

Chris Katko
jmasterx said:

Why must there only be one God that created everything? It's very hierarchical... The CEO of the Universe.....

I never said there had to be.

Derezo
jmasterx said:

Why must there only be one God that created everything?

Because Mrs. Claus was a ho, and she got cut out of the will.

It's really sad. God is all around us, but you'd rather worship the Creation, instead of the Creator, at the same time denying He had any hand in it.

Why would one separate the two? God is everywhere, Edgar. :-/ I hope one day you will see the light.

jmasterx

I never said there had to be.

I was not really aiming that at you. It was a general observation :)

Derezo said:

Because Mrs. Claus was a ho

Huh... I didn't know she was of Asian descent.

Derezo

Well, in His jolly ways He never makes it a secret that she was a ho, ho ho...

bamccaig
Neil Roy said:

No, not one, but TWO builders, as you see, it takes TWO flies to make a baby fly. Perhaps you never heard the tale of the birds and the bees? All life, requires life. A fly has never popped MAGICALLY into existence out of nothing in the history of the world. It came from pre-existing life, two flies before it. This is an absolute fact.

The parent flies are not "building" the offspring flies. They are merely combining the biological ingredients for the natural processes to take over. For the natural laws of the universe to act upon the matter that the cells are composed of, morphing the matter into new forms. There's no intelligent creator needed here. The laws of the universe make everything happen automatically.

Women aren't making babies. Their bodies do that automatically. That's why even the biggest idiot parents can make a baby. The laws of the universe act upon the matter, the biological processes happen automatically, and a baby forms assuming its needs are sufficiently met.

Neil Roy said:

You have a ton of BELIEFS, and a ton of pseudo-science with a whole lot of unproven theories, many which actually defy known laws of physics.

Law of biogenesis: Life only comes from pre-existing life. This has been observed and proven.

Law of thermodynamics: Energy conservation states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. The universe MAGICALLY popping into existence from absolutely nothing defies this law on the greatest scale possible. Plus there is absolutely no evidence for it what so ever.

Information (DNA) requires intelligence.

Intelligent design requires an intelligent designer. NEVER in the history of the world has ANYTHING with form and function been designed out of chaotic events. EVER.

Sorry buddy, but REAL science supports an intelligent, all powerful Creator, your pseudo-science has absolutely NO evidence what so ever to support it. Not even a shred. 8-)

I'll just leave this here.

Edgar Reynaldo

Uh, why are we equating Santa with God now? The Bible doesn't do that. Christ doesn't do that. Christmas doesn't do that. St. Nicholas wouldn't do that.

Chris Katko

Wow, lots of posts.

Hindus believe in many Gods and they're a current, popular religion.

Edgar Reynaldo

At least God doesn't start Monday threads. >:(

Neil Roy

Moving my focus away from debate, as I have said all I wish to say as far as debating God's existence goes.

jmasterx said:

In keeping with this theme, I personally find the bible to be a great set of guiding principals to have a happy, functional, homologous society. But it requires at least majority consensus to work. If I follow The Bible perfectly, but no one else does, then my being a perfect citizen is meaningless and does not practically help society as a whole. If everyone does though, then we have a great society

I agree with your last sentence. But If you study what the Bible says and give it some honest thought, you would see that much of it is for your own health and well being. If you followed it perfectly, than you would have a longer, happier, healthier life. And if you believe there really is a God that is just, than you will be rewarded for your obedience and all those who were not, will be judged (doesn't mean they will all be destroyed in a lake of fire like many Sunday churches teach, I don't subscribe to that idea at all) and God will decide what will happen to them at that time. Many people will actually be forgiven, if Jesus' own life is any indication. He forgave many people on the spot who hadn't even repented. The man on the cross beside him, the adulterous woman, the Samaritan woman at the well as well as many more.

There is a common idea that the majority is always right, but in my own close to 53 years of life (as of Jan 20th), I have found the opposite to be true. The majority is almost always wrong and only a tiny minority tends to have it right. I have always said, if everyone agrees with me, I will sit down and re-examine my beliefs as I will know I am doing something wrong. But as it is, I usually get both Christians (Sunday Christians especially) and atheists angry at me. Which is fine by me. I don't follow any of this world's churches, most of them are so off track is pityful. I only follow the Bible. If you actually give it a chance, grab a modern translation (NIV and NKJV are good), they are easier to read and understand... then just read them, you will find what they teach often differs from what modern churches teach. MANY of this world's church doctrines are found NO WHERE in the Bible. Not when it is properly translated anyhow.

The Bible is a good read, I read the entire thing and loved it. Once you get past the books of law and genealogy, it gets really good, I couldn't put it down to be honest. I have an audio bible with each chapter of the NIV on MP3s and I will play it on a music player instead of music when I go for walks. I love it, what can I say.

Not trying to preach at anyone, just trying to get people to open their minds to other possibilities. I have had a few genuine miracles happen to me, the main one was that I had type 2 diabetes. I prayed about it and I was healed. I used to be on three meds a day (4 pills, metformin, januvia and lipitor). I haven't taken them or had symptoms of it for two years. I have been cured, by God, and nobody will ever convince me otherwise. I could list a bunch more things I prayed about and was cured, but this is already a lengthy post. One time I literally felt a wave of calm wash over me as soon as I got done praying when I was a nervous wreck that left me in a euphoria for days, that is something I will never forget. I don't bother seeing a family doctor anymore... anyhow... I'll await the attack and scoffer replies a now. ;)

bamccaig
Neil Roy said:

I have been cured, by God, and nobody will ever convince me otherwise. ... I don't bother seeing a family doctor anymore...

ClutteredPitifulCuscus-max-1mb.gif

Neil Roy

Wow, even praying for a cure and getting one won't convince you, wow, you are hopelessly lost. Unreal. I could die and be resurrected from the dead and I swear some scoffer could come up with a "rational" explanation as to how it happened. Unreal...

I am reminded why I don't even bother to tell people of the many miracles that happened to me as a direct result to prayer. I don't feel like being mocked for everything good that GOD did for me! I guess I shouldn't be surprised, apparantly people are totally cured of this every day where you come from, but in my country my oldest brother died from complications of a lifetime of diabetes, I have a friend who is missing a leg now, no thanks to it. But... yeah, Neil is just a crazy man, it's all in his imagination. Why, his diabetes would have vanished on it's own probably right?! ::)

Isaiah 29:20 (NIV)
The ruthless will vanish, the mockers will disappear, and all who have an eye for evil will be cut down

Acts 13:41 (NIV)
“‘Look, you scoffers, wonder and perish, for I am going to do something in your days that you would never believe, even if someone told you.’”

Keep it up, and some day you WILL be sorry.

Polybios
Quote:

I don't make resolutions, but I may this year. To stay out of religious debates.

Day 5 will give you another chance. Like every following day. :P

Johan Halmén
Neil Roy said:

I don't bother seeing a family doctor anymore...

Are you missing something?

jmasterx
Neil Roy said:

I prayed about it and I was healed

With the way I see the world, I would need 100 participants with type 2 diabetes. 50 that pray, and 50 that do not.

If a statistically significant amount of those that pray are healed, I now believe that, praying may not prove the existence of a God, but it could be releasing endorphins that help the body heal. A positive state of mine can heal a lot of things. And I think The Bible, and those beliefs can help someone stay positive even when they are at their lowest.

I like the idea of blending science and religion. I think both have value and play a role. I do not believe in choosing one or the other.

I do like a lot of what you said in your reply though. The Bible is certainly useful for an individual, too.

I would also say that, being in touch with your body, and having a positive state of mind, is in some respects better than living in fear and putting your fate in doctors. Modern medicine has its place in the world, and it can save lives, but so to can positive thinking that can be enhanced by following the Bible and having faith in a higher power. It's healthy for the mind, body, and spirit, and for a lot of people, religion is that thing that helps them generate those positive endorphins that help them win against cancer, diabetes, etc.

I myself have had loads of medical problems. All of which were caused by a malpractice at my birth. Neither of my parents are religious whatsoever. But I am a fighter, and today even with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spastic_hemiplegia I still manage to type with 1 hand. Now I get wrist pain, but I still can. And I have a really good software development job. Because I think positively. And I'm a fighter at heart. I never let anything get in my way. When I get sick, I never take any medication. I listen to my body, and think positive thoughts, and heal. I know, I sound like a hippy. But I just think people abuse of modern medicine. I do not need drugs when I have a cold or sore throat. Gosh.

Neil Roy
Polybios said:

Day 5 will give you another chance. Like every following day. :P

LMAO, yup! I'm restarting fresh today. ;) Only replying to you. I am tempted to respond further but it would be pointless.

Thanks for the light hearted reply, it was refreshing. :)

Specter Phoenix

I have to admit I had stopped paying much attention to this because debate breaks down to the same members going head to head over the religion discussion and quickly reaches beating a dead horse level of debating. Then I saw Edgar's quote and was absolutely dumbfounded...

If you don't believe Christ was the Son of God then there is no reason for you to go to church, or to even read the New Testament, because it would all be based on a false premise.

Do you realize that many Christians start out not believing in God, Christ, or any of that, and reading the bible is what changes their views?

One religious group I wish would go away are Jehovah's Witnesses. There are some Emmy award winning idiots, met a JW EMT when I was transporting my son via ambulance to a doctor's appointment in Indianapolis. I told him my faith was wavering because on one hand I can look around and see God's work, but then every time I almost lose my son due to one of his episodes it makes me question why God would allow an innocent child to suffer. The EMT then informed me, he could change my outlook, then proceeded to tell me that Earth is Satan's domain (ie Hell) and that people with disabilities were his children. Before I could say a word he then proceed to play a JW video that articulated in more detail what he had just said. At that point I exercised "turning the other cheek" because if I had reacted on what my gut was telling me, the EMT would've needed an EMT. Been sifting through their videos for a while now, but yet to find the one he played for me.

Chris Katko

:(

Edgar Reynaldo

Edgar Reynaldo said:

If you don't believe Christ was the Son of God then there is no reason for you to go to church, or to even read the New Testament, because it would all be based on a false premise.

Do you realize that many Christians start out not believing in God, Christ, or any of that, and reading the bible is what changes their views?

Yes, Specter, I realize that. I was speaking specifically to people who claim to be Christian but don't believe in Christ.

Edit
Likewise, if you don't believe Jesus came back to life, then you're not really Christian either, and if Christ didn't live again, surely you won't either. But if Christ did live again, then he has defeated Death, and we will live again with Him.

The Resurrection of the Dead

12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.

14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is worthless, and so is your faith.

15 In that case, we are also exposed as false witnesses about God. For we have testified about God that He raised Christ from the dead, but He did not raise Him if in fact the dead are not raised.

16 For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised.

17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.

19 If our hope in Christ is for this life alone, we are to be pitied more than all men.

Neil, pay attention to verse 18. What do you think that means?

Neil Roy

Neil, pay attention to verse 18. What do you think that means?

Whenever you read about someone "falling asleep", that means death. In this case, if Jesus was not raised up from the dead, than all those who believed in Him that have died have perished, that is, they will also never rise again (given the premise that Jesus did not rise). Note that they are referred to as "asleep" (which Jesus clarified means "dead"), not in heaven (contrary to John 3:13).

bamccaig

It baffles me why being "dead" "for real" is such a terrible thing. As far as we know, your brain stops functioning and your consciousness ceases to exist. No pleasure, but also no pain. If I had to gamble between eternal torture and eternal pleasure, I'd rather hedge my bet on nothing at all. I want to be happy as often as possible on Earth, but I am not so greedy that I need it to last forever. I'm happy for it all to end. I can imagine why ancient people would have feared the afterlife and imagined some graceful paradise to motivate them through life, but personally I don't need such a thing. Life here on Earth is pretty good so far. I'd rather it all ended in the end. Forever sounds like a really long time, and I don't imagine Heaven could ever be that interesting.

Neil Roy
bamccaig said:

If I had to gamble between eternal torture and eternal pleasure, I'd rather hedge my bet on nothing at all.

This is a topic that other "Christians" will argue against me. But it all fairness to you, there is no "eternal torture" mentioned in the Bible anywhere. That is entirely an invention of Roman Catholicism. The Catholics got most of their ideas from Roman gods and traditions, not from the Bible.

For example, the idea of "Hell" comes from a pagan goddess named "Hel" (one "L"), and she was the goddess of the underworld etc. The Greek word which many will recognize as meaning hell, is "hades", but if you research the word, you will discover that it actually means "the grave". The fact is, the wicked, those who disobey God and reject Him, even to His face when Jesus returns, will be destroyed in a lake of fire, but it will not be eternal torture, it is called the "second death". So if dying and staying dead doesn't bother you, than fear not, that is exactly what is coming to those who reject God. Personally, you seem like a nice guy, even in spite of our differences and I do not wish a fiery destruction on you. I think that when reality hits and you see Jesus some day after you are resurrected from the dead (and you're probably rolling your eyes at me now), you will at that time not want to die a final fiery death, but it may be too late. Also, many of this worlds churches teach about some sort of eternity in heaven, but that is also not taught in the Bible. A big a surprise as that may be. In fact, you can find a verse, John 3:13 where Jesus Himself stated that no man has ever been to heaven. Then when you study prophecies you find out that we don't go to heaven (or hell, hell doesn't exist), we die and we stay dead (just as you probably believe now), but Jesus resurrects the dead. Jesus actually rules right here, on Earth, and the nations still exist.

But, putting all that aside, I think there are some really good reasons to want to be resurrected to eternal life. For one, all the sadness, pain and death and everything negative will be gone. It will be a world unlike any you or I have ever seen. The Bible states that ALL will be restored and made new. So that means dinosaurs will be back, as well as many creatures we probably never knew existed. The nature of animals will be changed so they will no longer be afraid of us and no longer be a danger. The Bible even states that animals like tigers, wolves and even snakes will have their nature changed so they eat grass and not prey upon each other and that snakes will be so tame that they won't hurt a child. So that alone will be something to look forward to, but I also think that we may even venture out into the universe and possibly do some of our own creating, I don't know. I can only speculate. The Bible states that God is preparing something for us that we cannot even imagine right now.

I know this seems so far fetched, you're probably in tears laughing at me, but I really wish you would consider it as possibly true. Honestly give the idea of a Creator a chance, TRY prayer, in private so nobody knows, just to see... what harm could it do? I think if you examine God's laws you will see that if everyone kept them, it would be a MUCH better world. Heck, if just ONE of God's laws were kept universally it would be an immensely better world. But there are personal benefits to obeying them.

I don't know, not trying to preach to you, but just trying to get you to see reason. I know you don't believe me, but I was healed, several times. Type 2 diabetes, gone, I had a bad leg infection, gone, occular migraines, gone. I could give a lengthy list of things I have prayed for. Heck, my wife whom I will be married to for 33 years as of February 8th was a result of prayer! She said no to me when I asked her to marry me, so I prayed about her, I didn't want to lose her as a friend. Then suddenly, a couple months later, she came back to me and changed her mind. The first place we moved into had a brand new Bible sitting in it, almost like a sign. Again... I know you don't believe me, maybe ou think I am lying, I am not. But... there are benefits and believe it or not, you WILL want to enjoy the coming kingdom of God, which is not on a cloud in the sky, but here, on Earth, with nations that exist now. And God is NOT unmerciful an cruel, he does NOT burn people forever in some sort of "hell"; I can't stand that doctrine, it makes God out to be vicious and cruel, I wouldn't want to believe in Him either if He was that way, but He is not.

Anyhow... I didn't want to continue on in here, but I also can't just brush you off like that either when I genuinely care about your well being and the road you are on. Even if you don't see it yourself. The truth will someday hit home and I hope you don't wait until you are facing a fiery destruction. Because forever dead, is a very long time. To me, being wiped out of existence is frightening to contemplate, but an eternity in a better world with God only knows what to do... we will have an entire universe, who knows. Could be God's version of Minecraft with our own worlds for all I know. Put computer games to shame! ;) I personally can't wait.

Ah well... rambling on again, but I really wish I had a way to explain the truth better to people and open their minds to the logic and reality of God.

Specter Phoenix

Yes, Specter, I realize that. I was speaking specifically to people who claim to be Christian but don't believe in Christ.

Sorry, I had misunderstood the context of your argument.

Edgar Reynaldo
Neil Roy said:

Whenever you read about someone "falling asleep", that means death. In this case, if Jesus was not raised up from the dead, than all those who believed in Him that have died have perished, that is, they will also never rise again (given the premise that Jesus did not rise). Note that they are referred to as "asleep" (which Jesus clarified means "dead"), not in heaven (contrary to John 3:13).

Edgar Reynaldo said:

16 For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised.

17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.

This is a counter argument. If those who have "fallen asleep" in Christ (died in Christ) have died, then our faith is futile. However, it is saying that the dead in Christ have not perished. That means they are alive. If they are living, then why would they be in the ground? Elijah was taken up in a whirlwind. Where did he go? Where did Moses and Elijah come from if not heaven? They were witnessed with Jesus. Where did Jesus go? Where is Jesus now? Heaven is wherever God is.

John 14:2 said:

1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

4 And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.

5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?

If Jesus has prepared a place for us, and it is with him, and he is in Heaven, then where do you think people go when they die?

Neil Roy

If Jesus has prepared a place for us, and it is with him, and he is in Heaven, then where do you think people go when they die?

If everyone dies and goes to heaven or hell, who is in their graves that still need to be resurrected when Jesus returns?

Anyhow, you obviously really didn't want to know my opinion, you were just baiting me to get me involved in yet another biblical debate, except now, instead of an atheist, I am attacked by a "Christian". Well, if I tell you I am heading off to a factory I work at to build you a car, does that mean when it is time for you to receive your car, than you will have to come to the factory to get it? If Jesus says I go to prepare a place and return, that tells me that I am not going anywhere, but that He is coming back where I am. He didn't say "I go to prepare a place and then I will send someone to get you, or bring you to where I am", now did He?

I have some solid scriptures to back up all my beliefs, but I have had these "conversations" with you and MANY other Sunday Christians before (for literally decades, before the internet on BBSes in fact), and they lead absolutely nowhere good. Even though I may quote solid Scripture which cannot be debated against, I find people do anyhow and always find a way around it because they try and fit their beliefs into the Bible, instead of letting the Bible alter their beliefs.

You might be surprised at the number of ridiculous things I have heard about John 3:13 where by the time the person is done explaining their idea to me, they have it saying the exact opposite of what that verse, and the rest of the Bible states.

Anyhow, I'm not going to get into a verse war with you. Believe what you wish, if you don't want to believe what the Bible clearly says and you prefer what your church taught you, than have at it. I'll stick to what my Bible says and TRY to avoid these debates (though that seems like an uphill battle at the moment).

Have a good day.

Edgar Reynaldo

Fine, don't take the bait. However, I am genuinely intrigued why you continue to believe in such a thing as people living in the ground. I will try not to insult your knowledge of the Bible but I just can't understand where you are getting these ideas from. And if you want to piss me off by all means call me a Sunday Christian again.

Cheers

Derezo
Neil Roy said:

Wow, even praying for a cure and getting one won't convince you, wow, you are hopelessly lost.

I think this is one of the funniest things I've read in one of these discussions ;D

Neil Roy said:

TRY prayer, in private so nobody knows, just to see... what harm could it do?

Prayer actually is very powerful, and doing things like praying for a cure will help you to realign your own life to help make that happen (ie. by eating properly in the case of low grade diabetes).

Recently we started praying before meals, as I mentioned I'm in a relationship with a Christian, and some phenomenal things have happened. One particular incident has been dubbed 'a miracle' by many witnesses.

A homeless meth addict stole a bike from a friend of mine. I went to elementary school with said homeless guy and was considering messaging him on Facebook (even homeless people have Facebook here) and asking him to at least apologise. The following Thursday evening at dinner I prayed for this, that he would go to my friend's shop and apologise to him and try to correct his wrongs.

The next day, on Friday, I went to my friend's shop and he said the homeless guy had come in, trembling and terrified, apologised, and handed his wife a letter.

The letter read something along the lines of "I am deeply sorry for the immature acts I have done to you, and I ask for your forgiveness in Jesus glorious name.", and it was signed.

When I read the letter I was floored. I took pictures, showed it to everyone, it was amazing.

The following week he returned and paid my friend $200 to replace the bike. How he got that money I have no idea, but it happened.

There is much more to the story of how this came about than just me and my prayer. He was also refused entry to the homeless shelter and the staff there, who are also mutual friends and attend the same shop, told him he was no longer welcome until he repaid for the bike. They convinced him to do it...

... but, still, my prayer was answered.

GullRaDriel

While you're at pointless faith fighting (not believing is still a form of faith), what about Dinosaurs ? And the fact that the earth is a globe ?

And the fact that US French have both the wine AND the cheese ?

;D

fallenlight12

Well I think we're screwed. It breaks down to a simple principle. One person in a house and they can do just about anything. Two people and they watch their porn privately. Three people or more and they're wishing they lived on their own, or they're so drugged or inhibited they don't care anymore.

The more people are smashed together, the more they restrict their freedoms to interact peacefully. This is because while it might be ok for some, it's not for others. For example, somebody can eat peanuts but someone else can't and those peantus can't even be nearby. The result is NOBODY eats peanuts.

The more concentrated we're on this planet, the more freedoms we'll lose. I also think people will increasingly go into private worlds to enjoy fake freedoms. When that fails, there's really no other place to go right now. Even our own thoughts will be watched for 'dangerous' ones. So people will have to accept losing freedoms somehow. The only choice you have in this is whether you willingly accept or are forced to. Sucks, but this is what I see.

And even if our population remained unchanged or reduced, it changes almost nothing. The internet and other technologies--including brain/thought scanners--will increasingly shrink space/time--the processes on our planet. This produces the same result as if we were all moved closed together. We're doomed.

The only thing preventing a implosion and collapse of all individual freedom are laws of nature, like speed of light limit and other laws. This means there'll always be some amount of individual freedom across the universe. However, to what extent this is meaningful is a mystery to me. I shouldn't fail to mention even if everything did implode and all freedom is lost, it doesn't preclude the possiblity of a single entity existing, representing all existing life. Individual lifeforms, such as ourselves, would be its body parts, comprising its being. But what kind of life would this super being have, if it cannot interact with other super beings?

Neil Roy

And the fact that US French have both the wine AND the cheese ?

Impossible! Lies, all lies!!! ;D

And if you want to piss me off by all means call me a Sunday Christian again.

Hmmm... should I answer the dinosaur one or not... if I answer, I am sucked into yet another ongoing debate. If I don't, they claim "Ha, he doesn't know how to answer me!"... I think I'll take a pass on this and let you think what you wish. I do have an answer on this, and I think it is quite solid and I even have Biblical scripture which talks about them and when they were created and what wiped them out, and what they were called before the 1800s when the word "Dinosaur" was invented etc... etc... etc... but... maybe Edgar can answer that one for you. :)

Edit: Almost forgot, if you want to know the shape of the Earth, just review old Apollo video. As for what the Bible says, I have a good answer to that too, but... I'll let Edgar answer that. :P

Quote:

And if you want to piss me off by all means call me a Sunday Christian again.

My sincere apologies. But you do seem to be keeping the same doctrines they are so... <shrug> but I am sorry if that was an error.

As for why I believe the way I do. Instead of me answering that and getting sucked in and attacked over and over again. I recommend you study the Bible where it mentions Jesus returning to Earth, where He rules when He does, what is the first command He will give and where will He be when He gives it and to whome will He give it?

I MIGHT be persuaded to answer these questions... but only if you are willing to accept what the Bible says, otherwise, what's the point? Unless we have a common ground, like the Bible which we can agree that what it says is fact, than it's pointless. I have yet to see this sort of thing turn out good. Do you believe John 3:13 or do you make up a reason why it doesn't mean what it says? That's usually a good place to start. If you don't believe what it says than anything else I quote is pointless as that verse is as clear as it gets. I usually use it as a test verse to see if someone will believe it, or twist it to mean something else. Then I know if I can talk to them at all.

Have a good one, and again, no insult intended. If you don't believe what the Bible says and you're not a Sunday Christian... I am stumped... ;) But I would be as insulted as you if someone called me a Sunday Christian so I totally know where you're coming from in that regard at least! ;)

LennyLen
Derezo said:

A homeless meth addict stole a bike from a friend of mine. I went to elementary school with said homeless guy and was considering messaging him on Facebook (even homeless people have Facebook here) and asking him to at least apologise. The following Thursday evening at dinner I prayed for this, that he would go to my friend's shop and apologise to him and try to correct his wrongs.

The next day, on Friday, I went to my friend's shop and he said the homeless guy had come in, trembling and terrified, apologised, and handed his wife a letter.

The letter read something along the lines of "I am deeply sorry for the immature acts I have done to you, and I ask for your forgiveness in Jesus glorious name.", and it was signed.

When I read the letter I was floored. I took pictures, showed it to everyone, it was amazing.

The following week he returned and paid my friend $200 to replace the bike. How he got that money I have no idea, but it happened.

There is much more to the story of how this came about than just me and my prayer. He was also refused entry to the homeless shelter and the staff there, who are also mutual friends and attend the same shop, told him he was no longer welcome until he repaid for the bike. They convinced him to do it...

... but, still, my prayer was answered.

Here's another true story (and incidentally the origin of the name LennyLen). Make of it what you will.

This was many years ago, around the mid-90s. I was at a party with a friend and we decided head in to town and hit the clubs. We dropped our acid, hopped on our bikes and headed in. We got most of the way there (this was about 15 minutes later, for those who think the acid may have been a factor at this point; acid generally takes about 45 mins to kick in, and for me it's a bit longer as my digestive system doesn't work so well) when the chain on my bike snapped.

As we didn't have any tools with us to fix it, we dumped it in some bushes and continued on foot. The night passed, and around 6am I left to get my bike and wheel it home. When I got to it, I found that someone had repaired the chain, painted the bike in psychedelic patterns and had also painted LennyLen on the front mudguard. Thinking I was still tripping, I ran to a nearby friend's house and dragged him out of bed to come look at it. He confirmed it was real and not imaginary, so I attributed it at the time to tripping fairies. I've used the name ever since in hope that one day I'll find out who did it.

Nobody has ever come forward, so tripping fairies must exist.

bamccaig

That's fucking amazing. :D

Arvidsson

Can I join the Holy Church of the Tripping Fairy? It sounds nice :)

Neil Roy

{"name":"611198","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/f\/1f1c429e78cfc28015fd159ea23a9ec5.jpg","w":542,"h":300,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/f\/1f1c429e78cfc28015fd159ea23a9ec5"}611198

Derezo

Neil -- that is surprisingly appropriate ;D He had no idea what was going on.

Neil Roy

I try to play along and see the humour in all of this and you still find a way to turn my post into an insult? I think it's time I left these forums for good.

Edgar Reynaldo

I don't think it was really intended as an insult. That's just how they feel. I don't worry about trying to change people's minds, I just want to show them the truth. Maybe some will get it. If not, I tried. I just don't like lies or mis-teaching.

Derezo
Neil Roy said:

I try to play along and see the humour in all of this and you still find a way to turn my post into an insult?

I thought it was funny! I just found that Buzz Lightyear scene you posted to be very analogous to your situation. He believes in Star Command, and everyone around him doesn't and knows that it's just his toy story, but he continues believing anyways. If you remember, in the movie, the outcomes of his actions continue to support his beliefs even though it isn't real. That doesn't matter, because it is real for him.

Sorry if that's offensive, but it's just how I see it when you say that you believe in faith healing and things of that nature. It's exactly like Buzz believing his wings make him fly, even though he was really just bouncing off a ball.

That idea is what I described when I talked about my own experience with prayer. It was more than my prayer that created the results. One could see it as "The work of God", but what I am stressing is that there are both naive and sophisticated ways of arriving at that conclusion. I find that people who are quick to call it a miracle have a very naive understanding of God, as it is in my view anyway.

Quote:

I think it's time I left these forums for good.

Well, you did say your New Years Resolution was to avoid debates about religion. ;D

Neil Roy
Derezo said:

Well, you did say your New Years Resolution was to avoid debates about religion. ;D

True. I'll have to avoid such conversations totally as they never end well. I'm just feeling sick lately and have a low tolerance for debates and such. Sorry.

Thread #617180. Printed from Allegro.cc