reply to post by Anonymous ATS
Responding to his comments.
If he says it, I can respond to it unless a mod tells me not to.
Yet another slick manuever to shut up the opposition, eh?
Who's behind that mask, hmmm?
Now, if you're suggesting, in some offhand way, that we shouldn't respond to accusations regarding our own ability to think and reason, then I
would defer you to the definition of discussion.
Both sides already have texts they can shove under people's noses as evidence for their position, but when one side tells the other that it may only
read and not respond, that's where the REAL trouble starts.
Creationists Will Destroy ATS, page 12
privacy
reply posted on 31-5-2008 @ 04:42 PM by skyshow
reply to post by AshleyD
You did? Really? All of your posts? I don't remember that at all. What I do remember is a lot of passive aggressiveness and contempt for those who don't believe. Also seems to me the argument was you're debunking zeitgiest with bible passage based arguments that you posted links to multiple times. I pointed out that you can't debunk something based on the very material that was debunked in first place. Were you then basing your rebutals on something other than the bible? If so what was it, because historians would love to see some of that work I'm sure.
May I remind you that evolution came after creationism...as in thousands of years after. There are still far more "believers" then there are people trained in evolution. Surveys by professional statistical polling companies show this over and over again. The underdog most certainly is not the religious view, in fact such a view is quite frankly ludicrous besides being laughable. You don't honestly believe this do you? If so they've really got a hold on your head there on that one.
And as for the "hello again" I didn't leave ATS, I just have been avoiding the religious threads like no tomorrow. I'm glad you enjoy them and get pleasure out of the madness. I get tired of going back and forth like a bunch of democtrats and republicans, and the silly childish arguments that run in circular motion based on subjective material. I pretty close to 100% agree with the O.P. on this, and rather than constructive forward movement, the thread seems to once again be "stuck" with the Christians holding up progress yet again! Surprise surprise, who would have thought?
[edit on 31-5-2008 by skyshow]
In all of those threads I asked you to point out one of my many comments where I quoted just one passage from the Bible- not once did I ever get an answer from you.
You did? Really? All of your posts? I don't remember that at all. What I do remember is a lot of passive aggressiveness and contempt for those who don't believe. Also seems to me the argument was you're debunking zeitgiest with bible passage based arguments that you posted links to multiple times. I pointed out that you can't debunk something based on the very material that was debunked in first place. Were you then basing your rebutals on something other than the bible? If so what was it, because historians would love to see some of that work I'm sure.
Precisely. However, the status quo in this case is evolution, Skyshow. Therefore creationism is the alternative to the status quo. I'm sorry but your own words expose your bias. You are not interested in discussing alternative views when the underdog is a religious view. Your many anti-religious threads and posts throughout ATS speak volumes concerning where you stand on the issue.
May I remind you that evolution came after creationism...as in thousands of years after. There are still far more "believers" then there are people trained in evolution. Surveys by professional statistical polling companies show this over and over again. The underdog most certainly is not the religious view, in fact such a view is quite frankly ludicrous besides being laughable. You don't honestly believe this do you? If so they've really got a hold on your head there on that one.
And as for the "hello again" I didn't leave ATS, I just have been avoiding the religious threads like no tomorrow. I'm glad you enjoy them and get pleasure out of the madness. I get tired of going back and forth like a bunch of democtrats and republicans, and the silly childish arguments that run in circular motion based on subjective material. I pretty close to 100% agree with the O.P. on this, and rather than constructive forward movement, the thread seems to once again be "stuck" with the Christians holding up progress yet again! Surprise surprise, who would have thought?
[edit on 31-5-2008 by skyshow]
reply posted on 31-5-2008 @ 05:12 PM by skyshow
reply to post by AshleyD
I'm sorry you feel this way. I don't see it as a "personal" attack at all. If you take criticism and refutes of a belief system you share personal, then maybe you shouldn't debate people on them. When you say something to someone that they did this or that, and they make an honest reply, why is it you get upset and then leave a post for all to see claiming you were personally attacked? This isn't the first time either. Playing the victom and then trying to get moderators to feel sorry for you and then try and paint your opponent as the bad guy...I've played this game with you before, and I know I'm not the only one.
There is nothing wrong with discussing the material, nothing at all, but must you always try and make the person with the oposing viewpoint look like a bad guy just because he/she does not share in your belief? If this were baseball, that would most definately be a foul ball!
I'm sorry you feel this way. I don't see it as a "personal" attack at all. If you take criticism and refutes of a belief system you share personal, then maybe you shouldn't debate people on them. When you say something to someone that they did this or that, and they make an honest reply, why is it you get upset and then leave a post for all to see claiming you were personally attacked? This isn't the first time either. Playing the victom and then trying to get moderators to feel sorry for you and then try and paint your opponent as the bad guy...I've played this game with you before, and I know I'm not the only one.
There is nothing wrong with discussing the material, nothing at all, but must you always try and make the person with the oposing viewpoint look like a bad guy just because he/she does not share in your belief? If this were baseball, that would most definately be a foul ball!
reply posted on 31-5-2008 @ 05:17 PM by AshleyD
Originally posted by skyshow
If you take criticism and refutes of a belief system you share personal, then maybe you shouldn't debate people on them.
You're implying you think I am upset because my beliefs are being debated. If that were the case, I would answer your every argument like I have done in the past on numerous threads. I'm not exactly afraid of getting my hands dirty. However all it takes is one quick look at three of your four comments on this thread, strangely enough addressed to me, to see you are more interested in debating me as a person and not the topic.
Therefore, my apologies but I'm not going to play.
And since your memory seems to be foggy, I used the actual historical sources of the figures in question from Egyptian, Vedic, Greek, Roman, Zoroastrian, etc., texts. Not the Bible. All cited and sourced in external quotes. The threads are there for anyone to see. What does any of this have to do with this thread? Who knows. Good day.
[edit on 5/31/2008 by AshleyD]
reply posted on 31-5-2008 @ 05:32 PM by skyshow
reply to post by AshleyD
Oh my god you are relentless. If you recall, I responded to the first one about the "pot calling the kettle black" as I took issue with your reply to someone else who was backing up the O.P. Then you said that you had repetedly asked me in every reply to point out where you quoted scripture, so I responded to that...it's been back and forth ever since, but why oddly? You are very public and vocal in debates having to do with religion and I disagree with your posts often, so rather than debate the actual material, you want to turn this into something "personal". Well it's not so get over it. I post replies and rebutals to a lot of people that I both agree and disagree with, that's how blogs and forums work. If you don't wish to be responded to then why enter a debate and say that someone else being hipocritical (pot calling the kettle...) for being in agreement with the O.P. which by the way is supported entirely by what we are seeing here in all these pages and especially these later ones. When I made threads you certainly didn't waste time chirping in with your replies and rebutals, and never did I imply you were "oddly" selecting my "anti-religious" thread...
The reality is you can't debate on the facts, because the reality is that Christianity is not being attacked when it's in fact the attacker (a small minority have been refuting the ancient belief system and the vast empire of Christendom doesn't like it). Religion and belief is not the "underdog" as you said. You guys are the majority in Western culture with something like 85% of the people claiming a religious belief, and most of them Christian. That's what you should be talking about. I make no appology for calling B.S. on something when it is. If I'm wrong and you can show how religion indeed is the underdog in society then show me, but don't imply that your being personally attacked when your not. I would have responded to anyone who said these things that you did.
I hope that clears things up, now how is religion the underdog?
[edit on 31-5-2008 by skyshow]
Oh my god you are relentless. If you recall, I responded to the first one about the "pot calling the kettle black" as I took issue with your reply to someone else who was backing up the O.P. Then you said that you had repetedly asked me in every reply to point out where you quoted scripture, so I responded to that...it's been back and forth ever since, but why oddly? You are very public and vocal in debates having to do with religion and I disagree with your posts often, so rather than debate the actual material, you want to turn this into something "personal". Well it's not so get over it. I post replies and rebutals to a lot of people that I both agree and disagree with, that's how blogs and forums work. If you don't wish to be responded to then why enter a debate and say that someone else being hipocritical (pot calling the kettle...) for being in agreement with the O.P. which by the way is supported entirely by what we are seeing here in all these pages and especially these later ones. When I made threads you certainly didn't waste time chirping in with your replies and rebutals, and never did I imply you were "oddly" selecting my "anti-religious" thread...
The reality is you can't debate on the facts, because the reality is that Christianity is not being attacked when it's in fact the attacker (a small minority have been refuting the ancient belief system and the vast empire of Christendom doesn't like it). Religion and belief is not the "underdog" as you said. You guys are the majority in Western culture with something like 85% of the people claiming a religious belief, and most of them Christian. That's what you should be talking about. I make no appology for calling B.S. on something when it is. If I'm wrong and you can show how religion indeed is the underdog in society then show me, but don't imply that your being personally attacked when your not. I would have responded to anyone who said these things that you did.
I hope that clears things up, now how is religion the underdog?
[edit on 31-5-2008 by skyshow]
reply posted on 31-5-2008 @ 05:48 PM by AshleyD
1). I am not relentless. I am taking what is called the high road and refusing to engage you in the personal sniping you are trying so hard to force
me into.
2). Your memory seems to be failing you again. The very first thing you said in this thread (shown here) was you singling me out and accusing me of always preaching. That is why I said (here) I recall you using the exact same accusation against me in multiple threads in the past but when I asked you in those threads to show me where I had been preaching or citing Scripture, you never once answered me. You began this tangent.
3). There is nothing else in your comment that is remotely on topic except for #4 below. The rest was just personal ranting. You can try to trick me by provoking my ego by saying what you did about my inability to debate the facts. However, the 'facts' you are trying to get me to debate are things about me personally. Therefore, I decline. Think of me what you will. It's none of my concern or business.
4). Finally something on topic however you terribly twisted my words by asking me to defend something I never said. You are asking me to show evidence how religion is the underdog in society. I said no such thing. I said creationism is the underdog in the field of science when it comes to our origins. And if anyone doesn't know this is true, then I cannot help them.
5). I am now going to be ignoring your future off topic comments to me. Something I have noticed about side-tracked tit for tats like these is that even when one party is completely correct and the other party is completely wrong, both parties end up looking foolish. Take care, Skyshow. And I sincerely mean that.
[edit on 5/31/2008 by AshleyD]
2). Your memory seems to be failing you again. The very first thing you said in this thread (shown here) was you singling me out and accusing me of always preaching. That is why I said (here) I recall you using the exact same accusation against me in multiple threads in the past but when I asked you in those threads to show me where I had been preaching or citing Scripture, you never once answered me. You began this tangent.
3). There is nothing else in your comment that is remotely on topic except for #4 below. The rest was just personal ranting. You can try to trick me by provoking my ego by saying what you did about my inability to debate the facts. However, the 'facts' you are trying to get me to debate are things about me personally. Therefore, I decline. Think of me what you will. It's none of my concern or business.
4). Finally something on topic however you terribly twisted my words by asking me to defend something I never said. You are asking me to show evidence how religion is the underdog in society. I said no such thing. I said creationism is the underdog in the field of science when it comes to our origins. And if anyone doesn't know this is true, then I cannot help them.
5). I am now going to be ignoring your future off topic comments to me. Something I have noticed about side-tracked tit for tats like these is that even when one party is completely correct and the other party is completely wrong, both parties end up looking foolish. Take care, Skyshow. And I sincerely mean that.
[edit on 5/31/2008 by AshleyD]
reply posted on 31-5-2008 @ 06:20 PM by skyshow
reply to post by AshleyD
Did your tag line, or did it not once read: Bible Thumper Extrodinair? What exactly is the meaning of "bible thumper" then? To me a bible thumper is somone who prostelitizes, I could be wrong however, and it wouldn't be the first time.
Did your tag line, or did it not once read: Bible Thumper Extrodinair? What exactly is the meaning of "bible thumper" then? To me a bible thumper is somone who prostelitizes, I could be wrong however, and it wouldn't be the first time.
reply posted on 31-5-2008 @ 06:34 PM by skyshow
reply to post by AshleyD
Ashley, I can't have a decent honest conversation with you because you keep changing all your posts. I go back to check, and it's a completely different post.
I won't put you on ignore, because I think that's just stupid and I'm not going to report you because I feel we are all adults here. I am going to point out to everyone though that she makes a statement, then after you reply to it, she goes back and changes her original one, tweaking a few words here and there, sometimes adding in whole new sections and taking a bunch of other ones out, to make it look like you're reply was the one that was obsurd...This same thing I think happened to John Lear.
As for my last word to you, I will say it one more time. Science came about long after religion. Science is based on observations and statistics, if you know something about the scientific method you might know something about "subjectivity" vs. "objectivity. It's all society, no matter what we are talking about...in our society we first had and still do have, relgion. Science is relatively new on the scene and a very small percentage of folks have advanced degrees in a scientific field. Larger percentages of people hold a religious belief and do so without much scientific training. Logically it follows then that religion can not be the underdog. Science is not conserned with relgion in the least little bit. Religion is the one concerned with science as she has everything to lose.
Ashley, I can't have a decent honest conversation with you because you keep changing all your posts. I go back to check, and it's a completely different post.
I won't put you on ignore, because I think that's just stupid and I'm not going to report you because I feel we are all adults here. I am going to point out to everyone though that she makes a statement, then after you reply to it, she goes back and changes her original one, tweaking a few words here and there, sometimes adding in whole new sections and taking a bunch of other ones out, to make it look like you're reply was the one that was obsurd...This same thing I think happened to John Lear.
As for my last word to you, I will say it one more time. Science came about long after religion. Science is based on observations and statistics, if you know something about the scientific method you might know something about "subjectivity" vs. "objectivity. It's all society, no matter what we are talking about...in our society we first had and still do have, relgion. Science is relatively new on the scene and a very small percentage of folks have advanced degrees in a scientific field. Larger percentages of people hold a religious belief and do so without much scientific training. Logically it follows then that religion can not be the underdog. Science is not conserned with relgion in the least little bit. Religion is the one concerned with science as she has everything to lose.
reply posted on 31-5-2008 @ 06:45 PM by AshleyD
reply to post by skyshow
Please report me, Skyshow. I would love to see how this one will turn out. What I took out in the post above was the large quote sections from your comment I was replying to because my post was huge. After doing that and numbering my points instead of quoting you, the comment was shortened to an acceptable length. Then I added in point five to excuse myself from the discussion because this tit for tat back and forth between the two of us is making us look ridiculous.
But, yes please. Let's bring a mod in and see what happens. This I have to see.
Please report me, Skyshow. I would love to see how this one will turn out. What I took out in the post above was the large quote sections from your comment I was replying to because my post was huge. After doing that and numbering my points instead of quoting you, the comment was shortened to an acceptable length. Then I added in point five to excuse myself from the discussion because this tit for tat back and forth between the two of us is making us look ridiculous.
But, yes please. Let's bring a mod in and see what happens. This I have to see.
reply posted on 31-5-2008 @ 09:39 PM by Bigwhammy
reply to post by Stormdancer777
Thank you for that! That is the main theme of my Science Meet Your Maker Thread.
If you brain is just a mere series of biological accidents and your thoughts are merely chemical reactions there is absolutely no reason at all to assume that brain can determine truth. There is no reason the law we observe her should apply light years away. Yet they do! The only possible reason is a common source of intelligence.
[edit on 5/31/2008 by Bigwhammy]
Thank you for that! That is the main theme of my Science Meet Your Maker Thread.
If you brain is just a mere series of biological accidents and your thoughts are merely chemical reactions there is absolutely no reason at all to assume that brain can determine truth. There is no reason the law we observe her should apply light years away. Yet they do! The only possible reason is a common source of intelligence.
[edit on 5/31/2008 by Bigwhammy]
reply posted on 31-5-2008 @ 10:03 PM by skyshow
reply to post by Bigwhammy
Um, that could just of easily read..."the only possible reason is a common source of...Biological accidents and chemical reactions". I would argue science doesn't need to find "the maker", it is employed to solve tasks a bit more down to earth. Perhaps in the future however, new ways of measuring the either, as it were, will be developed and more substantial hard evidence can be collected to help us not only identify, but better define the so called "creator". Science moves very slow however, and it's findings are not always agreeable and often come as a complete surprise to those who hold beliefs that science sometimes find to be in error.
Regardless, what difference does it make? If one truly has faith and believes that they have the truth, why the need to debate scientific findings? Science is not the mortal enemy of faith as so many think. It may be that items of your faith be modified to match up with scientific findings (ie: when we had to change the item from the sun rotating around the earth to the earth rotating around the sun...). Wouldn't one of the faith want to have this flexibility rather than being rigid and resistant to change?
There may be a god, and there may not be, but whatever the ultimate reality of it all is, what makes little people here on this one tiny planet orbiting this one average star out on the outskirts of one galaxy containing millions of star systems, and one galaxy out billions, think they hold the absolute truth?
So when people begin to question things on ATS, invite in a discussion. Celebrate diversity, and be willing to question what you have read or been told. Learn in depth what the scientific method is, and how evolution is applied to research in modern medicine, human and animal studies. Most of our modern developments as a species have come out of science and evolutionary theory. Chemistry, modern medicine, social sciences...all of it! This is why when you try and throw creationism at someone who is experienced in the sciences they tend to roll their eyes at you...you will not ever be able to definitively prove them wrong either, way too much evidence and advancements have come about from this theory. Does it explain everything? No...there is obviously some room left for other theories as too man's origins. I lean more into the star seeding one while even then evolution still is in play and can co-exist with genetic manipulation, but you pick what ever one works best for you. I put my faith in science, and perhaps some day science will back up your faith?
All I am saying (and apparently others) is to ease up a bit on it here and leave room for discussion to advance on what really matters. Besides if your belief is strong enough you don't have to constantly interject it on here and try to make it stand up to science.
The only possible reason is a common source of intelligence.
Um, that could just of easily read..."the only possible reason is a common source of...Biological accidents and chemical reactions". I would argue science doesn't need to find "the maker", it is employed to solve tasks a bit more down to earth. Perhaps in the future however, new ways of measuring the either, as it were, will be developed and more substantial hard evidence can be collected to help us not only identify, but better define the so called "creator". Science moves very slow however, and it's findings are not always agreeable and often come as a complete surprise to those who hold beliefs that science sometimes find to be in error.
Regardless, what difference does it make? If one truly has faith and believes that they have the truth, why the need to debate scientific findings? Science is not the mortal enemy of faith as so many think. It may be that items of your faith be modified to match up with scientific findings (ie: when we had to change the item from the sun rotating around the earth to the earth rotating around the sun...). Wouldn't one of the faith want to have this flexibility rather than being rigid and resistant to change?
There may be a god, and there may not be, but whatever the ultimate reality of it all is, what makes little people here on this one tiny planet orbiting this one average star out on the outskirts of one galaxy containing millions of star systems, and one galaxy out billions, think they hold the absolute truth?
So when people begin to question things on ATS, invite in a discussion. Celebrate diversity, and be willing to question what you have read or been told. Learn in depth what the scientific method is, and how evolution is applied to research in modern medicine, human and animal studies. Most of our modern developments as a species have come out of science and evolutionary theory. Chemistry, modern medicine, social sciences...all of it! This is why when you try and throw creationism at someone who is experienced in the sciences they tend to roll their eyes at you...you will not ever be able to definitively prove them wrong either, way too much evidence and advancements have come about from this theory. Does it explain everything? No...there is obviously some room left for other theories as too man's origins. I lean more into the star seeding one while even then evolution still is in play and can co-exist with genetic manipulation, but you pick what ever one works best for you. I put my faith in science, and perhaps some day science will back up your faith?
All I am saying (and apparently others) is to ease up a bit on it here and leave room for discussion to advance on what really matters. Besides if your belief is strong enough you don't have to constantly interject it on here and try to make it stand up to science.
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Can anyone recommend any good non kindle books on Philosophy and Metaphysics
Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 59 minutes ago
Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 59 minutes ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Renowned Geophysicist Says Strange Sky Sounds Are Real
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 13 hours ago, 37 flags
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 13 hours ago, 37 flags
CPAC; Ron Paul won 2 years in a row; they change to electronic voting and he comes in 4th today?
US Political Madness, Posted 10 hours ago, 30 flags
US Political Madness, Posted 10 hours ago, 30 flags
Book of Thoth. Secret Societies. truth seekers This is a good read!
Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 13 hours ago, 20 flags
Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 13 hours ago, 20 flags
ATS Live: 96: Super powers, Falklands Woes, Stan Deyo Interview, Syria, Telepathy, The Devils Chord.
ATS Live, Posted 14 hours ago, 19 flags
ATS Live, Posted 14 hours ago, 19 flags
Parenting 101: how to instill respect for others.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 17 hours ago, 17 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 17 hours ago, 17 flags
Why Argentina WILL Invade the Falklands & How Iran are Involved
General Conspiracies, Posted 17 hours ago, 10 flags
General Conspiracies, Posted 17 hours ago, 10 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Parenting 101: how to instill respect for others.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 17 hours ago, 136 replies
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 17 hours ago, 136 replies
Why Argentina WILL Invade the Falklands & How Iran are Involved
General Conspiracies, Posted 17 hours ago, 86 replies
General Conspiracies, Posted 17 hours ago, 86 replies
First thread, Possible Ghost picture I took myself, Would appreciate your opinion on this.
Paranormal Studies, Posted 14 hours ago, 77 replies
Paranormal Studies, Posted 14 hours ago, 77 replies
Mystery of the Masonic "hunnerts o' times" language of Orphan Annie
Secret Societies, Posted 7 hours ago, 51 replies
Secret Societies, Posted 7 hours ago, 51 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.009 seconds
Page processed in: 0.264 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.009 seconds
Page processed in: 0.264 seconds
