It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Rated Greatest Scientist in History (a Christian)

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 12:27 AM
reply to post by Rustami

Originally posted by Rustami
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? can I be a liar? I don't even know if this guy actually existed, let alone what his character and/or metaphysical traits were. I mean, some of the stories about him say some pretty decent things, some of them are downright incredible for the time period. Of course, some of them had already been said by Confucius or Siddhartha centuries earlier.

He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

Which one? There are four. They aren't entirely the same. And in which language?

although easy enough to deduce using your own words in multiple posts not to mention knowing exactly what I've seen and heard

So I'm a liar because I don't believe in your religious text as absolute truth? Wow, you are an idolater!

- the scriptures are sufficient,

Except where they espouse slavery, genocide, tell of a mythical flood, get the origin of species wrong, get the order in which things in nature arose wrong, not to mention all the unnecessary misogyny.

beyond that one can always count on you getting it twisted and as stated before (like in the other thread where you could not answer another one of your twists),

[citation needed]

I have no interest in playing waste the time false propaganda games

I'm sorry, but if you can actually show me evidence that the first book of the Bible is anything beyond mythology, I'll revoke my statements.

psssst- (you may want to think things through a little longer before making remarks when it comes to studying books or a book and what common sense and a just weighted scale can accomplish!)

A weighted scale? A stick and a rock can accomplish a lot. Now, the Bible? That book is something I can comment a lot about as I've actually studied it. First book of it? Basically useless beyond allegory. And allegory is something that is not to be underestimated. The greatest stories have their meanings not in historical significance but in the meanings hidden beneath.

as for the rest of your bologne, yes people breath air bla bla bla

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

but you'll never get away from the bloodshed commited by the majority athiest and other unbelievers (in the Son) that exceeds all wars combined since Jesus was concieved and set foot in Jerusalem

Except...well, no. The Holocaust? Well, Hitler himself might have been some odd form of theist that wasn't a Christian, but the soldiers that actually followed the orders and killed people were mostly Christians...

And the appalling body counts which slaughter in modern times has racked up is quite easy to ascertain when you take into account two things: population and mechanization.

Had the Crusades been carried out with the technology and weaponry of the early 20th century they would have been infinitely bloodier.

Oh, and the other issue is that Christians are outnumbered by the rest of the world's population 2-1, of course more bloodshed will be caused by non-Christians when there are a lot more non-Christians than there are Christians. Duh.

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 12:49 AM
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

shall I go on again about the voice as the cover was being opened, what is written and the angel or the odds?

and for mankind sake please read some history and use some common sense! I feel embarrassed for you
edit on 14-2-2011 by Rustami because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 02:56 AM
reply to post by Rustami

Originally posted by Rustami
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

shall I go on again about the voice as the cover was being opened, what is written and the angel or the odds?

Um...only if you have any evidence for it.

and for mankind sake please read some history and use some common sense! I feel embarrassed for you

Hey look! A dismissive insult instead of an actual addressing of my points. I'm quite versed in history and I have no use for the common sense, as it's merely a collection of biases rather than any sort of reasonable thought. I'd rather use critical thinking.

Of course, you're the one here that's spouting off religious thoughts and then making baseless accusations about other users understanding of history...
Please, demonstrate where I've made a mistake of some sort or demonstrated some sort of ignorance.

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 07:51 AM

Originally posted by Rustami

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by Rustami

Originally posted by ijoyisback
Stop making this sight out of a religious war. You can't covert anyone to your beliefs.

facts are facts jack, "deny ignorance"!
edit on 9-2-2011 by Rustami because: (no reason given)

Returning to what probably is relevant to the thread (Rustami should know as the author), I question the above.

What 'facts'?

That Newton was a great scientist, not having all answers; .....

....or VIA Newton postulate, that theistic claims are 'facts'.

In that case define and clarify "facts" as precisely as possible.

"Rated Greatest Scientist in History" ???? (in my best Seinfeld voice) "H E L L O "
no one said anything about having all the answers and I alluded to that by mentioning the voice did'nt say "I am Isaac Newton"

You are ofcourse entitled to avoiding a direct answer to my posts by picking some point(s) of minor importance, which you then concentrate on.

My personal impression of this procedure is, that you don't really want to be part of a dialogue, which can be inconvenient to you. Supporting theist claims of doctrinal absolutes, presented in a book, which is so confused, that its followers fight and kill each other over its interpretation.....

....can't be easy, when you're up against rational reasoning.

Rational reasoning which with the naked eye, without any scientific training, unequivocally can prove the initial cornerstone of said book to be undiluted non-sense.

As you have used the expression 'common sense' as a reference-point in a recent post (though not defining its meaning), it would be interesting to know how you then will relate 'common sense' to the 'non-sense' in your religious manual.

Us un-believers can be terrible nitpicking about such details as reasoning. So I look forward to your explanation of the 'common sense' paradox, or (if that is your choice) an explanation of why you don't find rational reasoning necessary.

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in