It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Idiot Christians

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2005 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997

Originally posted by riley
Jake,
Do not tell me what I 'really mean'.. or what I have been 'fed'. I am growing tired of your judgements on how I have been raised/corrupted or what I am really thinking.. it's rude not to mention irritating as the only basis for your assumptions about my life is limited to what I post.

Cool. But you did the same thing about AiG. You made a judgment that nothing from there is acceptable and then you equated them with the bible and gave a faulty math to show the same.
You told me not to do exactly what you had done.

Fair nuff?

No I didn't. I made a judgement on that [and other sites] after I had studied them thoroughly. You have repetitively made personal judgements on my charactor and that of others purely based on them being non christian.. [obviously I'm not talking about just this thread] you usually follow that with a pompous 'can tell a tree by it's fruit' quote which; sorry to break it to you but it does not somehow give you higher moral ground any more than being a 'christian' does.
Don't try absolve yourself by saying "but you did it first!" when I did not. I have not made judgements about your real life or alterior motives in posting.. though I admit I have made observations about how you interact with others on ATS and it has usually come off as judgemental and intollerent.

As for religion being scientifically accurate- does that mean the aborigines are right when they say snakes moving created the shape of rivers? Of course not.. that is why science has no bias to religion.. it has no relevence to it.

[edit on 21-5-2005 by riley]




posted on May, 21 2005 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Im not particulary into this debate as it is a moot point to me but there are some curious occurances from time to time that are somewhat telling by the silence that surrounds them.

The event that passes in total silence is the first moon landing. As I recall it was Neil Armstrong in Apollo 11.
What was theorized was that the moon ..assumed to be so many billions of years olde ...having no weather per se..or water to change the surface ..no atmosphere like earth to cause erosion...with so many meteorites bombarding the surface over billions of years the surface must be some 40 to 60 feet of dust. This is what was calculated by "experts" in the scientific community. Millions were spent on the landing pads for the lunar landers...to insure it would not sink into the dust of what was calculated by the given surety of how aged the moon actually was.
So Neil Armstrong after spending an eternity standing on the ladder with a tether line...finally takes the step..on to the surface. Wo..la...its only a half to a inch deep. What????? You never hear anything more about it. In summary..they just lost billions of years..total silence. Total silence from the community since these events.
Just a curiosity .for the consumption of the folks on this board..Bon Appetite. Not that this is all that important..you will not be able to use this much either way ..it is just a curiosity ..telling in the silence.
When these things happen it is the silence that is so telling. This is the give away.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Yes Riley ...I agree...you seem to have gotten the point finally. You did not however reply to my post about Salt. Like many you seem wont to pick and choose...and then disregard.

Your issue seems to be about god not being taught in schools. My issue is about god not being taught in science classes.. I thought that was actually what the thread leaned to. and thought I had made that clear yet you opted for the "Well Riley???????!!!!" interegation which was insulting.. and was quite illegible and confused. I vaguely remember your talking about morality being taught at schools as well.. religion does not have a monopoly on morality.. and 'lack of' god do not cause immorality.. and which 'god' would be chosen to be taught in a multicultural public school?

You claim to be an athiest.. To me this means Logic and Reason as the bulkwork of this system.

Strange that I do not actually fit into the system.. logic, reason, passion, intuition and a need to seperate fact from fiction are what define my opinions.. though if I were a politition I would want people to be free to believe in whatever they like so long as they allow others to do the same without condemnation.
Secular doesn't mean atheism. It means having no bias for religion in government.. kind of a must with the 'freedom of religion' thing in a democracy. If the system banned all churches, synogogs, mosks, buddhist and hindu temples and pagen crystal shops [usually have a meditation room] then I would agree with you that it was atheist.. but at present I would say that money is what is central to the system than anything else.
For the record I'm an Aussie not an American so the issue of religion in public education here is not that prevelant [though if in future we ever have a leader like Bush I'm sure it will be].

Nevertheless..stand your ground with me Riley..I can respect that more than this backpeddling dismissal. If you are a believer in your system..defened it...whether I agree or not.

I do not defend the system.. it keeps trying to push christianity [amongst other things] on me.

Thanks for being more articulate- it's much appreciated.


[edit on 21-5-2005 by riley]



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Whatever works for you riley.

Just dont use any argument that has been touched on by talkorigins.org because they have all been investigated and found lacking.

Now the whole show is over before it started

You guys always work that way..

If you cant overcome the information, then slander the source.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
Whatever works for you riley.

Just dont use any argument that has been touched on by talkorigins.org because they have all been investigated and found lacking.

[another edit] I had to re read.. I thought you meant talkorigins investigated AiG.. I kept fogetting which sites are creationalist and which aren't. If I were to research something I would probably go to research sites from universities etc.. not Q&A ones.
I don't need to use and have never ripped arguments off talkorigins..[not in my favourites] are you suggesting I have been? I use my own words and my own mind.. if I dig up facts I give the source credit.
So Jake.. who investigated talkorigins? A source would be helpful.


You guys always work that way..


And he tries to land on his feet with a 'Us and them' manouver.. :shk:


If you cant overcome the information, then slander the source.


Slander is making false accusations. That [aig] site is influenced by religious beliefs so facts that don't fit have to be discredited and thrown out to accomidate. Creationalist sites also slander science [whilst claiming to be a scientific source
] by falsly stating that dating is flawed/worthless when the methods they are talking about have been changed long ago to ensure accuracy.. but they would never mention that part.

[edit on 21-5-2005 by riley]



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Im not particulary into this debate as it is a moot point to me but there are some curious occurances from time to time that are somewhat telling by the silence that surrounds them.

The event that passes in total silence is the first moon landing. As I recall it was Neil Armstrong in Apollo 11.
What was theorized was that the moon ..assumed to be so many billions of years olde ...having no weather per se..or water to change the surface ..no atmosphere like earth to cause erosion...with so many meteorites bombarding the surface over billions of years the surface must be some 40 to 60 feet of dust. This is what was calculated by "experts" in the scientific community. Millions were spent on the landing pads for the lunar landers...to insure it would not sink into the dust of what was calculated by the given surety of how aged the moon actually was.
So Neil Armstrong after spending an eternity standing on the ladder with a tether line...finally takes the step..on to the surface. Wo..la...its only a half to a inch deep. What????? You never hear anything more about it. In summary..they just lost billions of years..total silence. Total silence from the community since these events.

Dust would solidify and turn to rock over billions of years.. doesn't need and atmosphere to do that.

[edit on 21-5-2005 by riley]



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 10:26 AM
link   
What?
You mean NASA science types and engineers didnt know that ??

As I recall Neil Armstrong stood on the ladder about 45 minutes to a hour before stepping down. Tether line and all. Yup..evolution is happening ..even at NASA!!

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
What?
You mean NASA science types and engineers didnt know that ??

No [if it's indeed true]. it's common sense. I'm not sure why they'd assume it would be that deep as dust would not 'stay' dust over billions of years.

As I recall Neil Armstrong stood on the ladder about 45 minutes to a hour before stepping down. Tether line and all.

That was umpteen years ago.. and it was the first time they'd stepped onto another world- of course they are going to miss judge things. Trial and error.

Yup..evolution is happening ..even at NASA!!


Are you being sarcastic about evolution or Nasa now? I gave an answer that completely explained why the dust wasn't deep for it's age- dust turns to rock- it's pretty simple really. Your moon argument failed.. why are you still trying to argue that point?



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   
You are joking about this answer format ..yes??

"Dust would solidify and turn to rock over billions of years.. doesn't need and atmosphere to do that. "

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
You are joking about this answer format ..yes??

"Dust would solidify and turn to rock over billions of years.. doesn't need and atmosphere to do that. "

I take it you don't know how some rocks are formed? :shk:

Whats wrong with my answer [apart from technicalities]?
Thats twice now that you've tried to argue the point without actually having an argument.

[edit on 24-5-2005 by riley]



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   
I'm soory, I thought I was being summoned into this thread. I'm an idiot who is also a Christian!

Y'all carry on!



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
I'm soory, I thought I was being summoned into this thread. I'm an idiot who is also a Christian!

Y'all carry on!


Thanks for letting us know



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Mentalus Reservatus...Mental reservation.

Riley,
The post was about how long it takes to make dust. Not about how long it takes to make rocks???


Mental reservation means one thinks of a answer to a position and then answers with another position...based on a slightly different line of thinking. This is often done with the hope that others are not versed in mental resevation. This is often done in politics accounting for why political answers seem to be so indirect. I first ran across mental reservation in a book about the Society of Jesus..the Jesuits.
Here in America our most famous recent example of mental reservation is
"I did not have sex with that girl".

By the way...while we are at it..how do you tell billions of years on the moon??? How does one confirm this as fact?? Curious about this ??

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999

Just a curiosity .for the consumption of the folks on this board..Bon Appetite. Not that this is all that important..you will not be able to use this much either way ..it is just a curiosity ..telling in the silence.
When these things happen it is the silence that is so telling. This is the give away.

Thanks,
Orangetom


So your point is that science doesn't always get it right? If so it's a perfectly valid point. However, you could say the scientific argument against religion is not that religious theory cannot be disproved by science, but rather that science cannot prove religious theory to be right.

People often mistakenly cast science as an opposing entity to religion. Science is merely the means by which humans come to understand their surroundings through logical investigation. Such investigation has never proved the existence of a supreme omnipresent creator.

Although I would not rule out the possibility of the existence of a "God", the scientific evidence - though by no means conclusive - leans more heavily towards the absence of such a being.

And as for the topic of the thread, I find idiots of all denominations equally infuriating.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 12:49 AM
link   
I've been looking for proof of this false estimation by Nasa [of course you didn't provide any] .. what I did find is evidence that this argument you're using isn't yours but one constructed by creationalist organisations. Can't you think for yourself?
www.answersingenesis.org...

Moon-dust argument no longer useful.
For years, a common and apparently valid argument for a recent creation was to use uniformitarian assumptions to argue that the amount of dust on the moon was less than 10,000 years’ worth.

Thats priceless.
It also says that most scientists at Nasa were not worried about moon dust.
As for 'how long dust takes to make'.. with the absence of wind for erosion alot less than it would here on earth.. but that again still doesn't counter my argument.

By the way...while we are at it..how do you tell billions of years on the moon??? How does one confirm this as fact?? Curious about this ??

The factual age of the earth.. old or young would be established in other ways.. not by 'how deep the dust is'.
You yourself haven't explained how my argument [actually my own] is wrong. Again.
You have not countered my point.. [again] I'll repeat myself to save doing it in the next four hundred posts:
You still have not countered my point.. you only started carrying on about mental reservation [when I've adressed everything relevent you've said] to avoid the point.
Please find another argument.. I imagine the author of this thread would really appreciate it...

[edit on 25-5-2005 by riley]



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 09:05 AM
link   
I am definitely not against science...no way. Science has produced many great inventions and products that have made our lives more comefortable and productive. It is difficult to debate against these facts of history.
What I disagree with is the method of so many attempting to place science in competition with religion. This comes across as if science is the new religion. The new faith. The two are not compatable. The Bible is not a scientific treatise. It is a guideline requiring Faith ...from begining to end.
Science is a mavelous and intresting field..constantly changing both in theory and practical application..by the very nature of what science is.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Then without faith there is no God?
The Bible requires faith, that is, an unquestioning belief without the need for absolute proof. Science does not require faith as the absolute proof is there to see where scientific fact is concerned.

The problem is, I suppose, that the origins of the universe are explained by scientific theory, rather than concrete facts. There are always those who are not content with not knowing for sure until definite proof arrives. This is where science and faith meet.

Absolute belief in both the "big bang" theory and creation theology require faith in some way. Neither theory can be proved.



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
I tend to agree with the premise of your posting.

However..dont let these people put you on a string ..this is what they specalize in. Causing confusion is what many of them take pride in.

They are themselves not scientists...the bulk of them..just people who like to read alot in this field. Most scientists are to busy in their fields to do postings on a forum like this.

There is a common fingerprint among these non believers...most of them.
There is a glaring lack of humility in them. Lots of self promotion in their postings. You can tell by the postings eventually being reduced to namecallng and labeling. This is a tactic you never want to allow them to drag you into JungleJake as it is confusion after the author of confusion. This is self explanatory if you are as knowlegable as I am assuming you are.
The Humanistic tendency is to boast and self promote. A proper scientist is humble/pragmatic and lets their work speak for them. A huge difference in that and what you see happening in many of these boards.

Thanks,
Orangetom




Ok I am bumping this thread up because I did a Google search on the term "Mentalus Reservatus" that OrangeTom has been using. I did not find much on the web but a few ATS threads popped up , with posts by Tom.

This particular post here is a gem! Especially,
"There is a glaring lack of humility in them. Lots of self promotion in their postings. You can tell by the postings eventually being reduced to namecallng and labeling. "

Oh how quickly the god of confusion defaults his minions to this tactic. And it's rather amusing how many wannabe scientists we have whose only qualification is they read the God Delusion three times. I have been trained in the sciences physics, chemistry at a major university yet I just got called an "idiot creationist" today. Funny thing is, I believe the standard model Big Bang cosmology - I just think I know who banged it. Yet just like Jake posted in the OP, I'm labeled an idiot.

...all in the name of "tolerance" :shk:





[edit on 11/18/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Ok I am bumping this thread up because I did a Google search on the term "Mentalus Reservatus" that OrangeTom has been using. I did not find much on the web but a few ATS threads popped up , with posts by Tom.

So you googled an insult and bumped an old thread to revive a three year old argument between myself and orangetom? things never change.


[edit on 18-11-2008 by riley]



posted on Nov, 18 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by riley
 


NEWSFLASH: The world doesn't revolve around you.

It had nothing to do with you, I didn't even notice you were in the thread until just now. I liked Jake's OP, and OrangeTom is a fountain of wisdom.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join