Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Is the mendacious Theistic accusation of Atheistic belief a facile attempt to validate their own irrational belief?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 3051-3068 of 3068 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 5 Sep 2013 14:47:00 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 12 Nov 2013 17:29:45 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Sep 2013 14:49:56 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Sep 2013 15:06:24 BDT
Norm Deplume says:
Not much. Development of, say, Equus from Eohippus *is* history. The whole idea of evolution is modifications in ancestral species eventually lead to new species.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Sep 2013 15:26:22 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 12 Nov 2013 17:29:47 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Sep 2013 15:59:55 BDT
Norm Deplume says:
Your explanation of the evolutionary process is incorrect. Changes from one generation to the next are random but then natural selection takes over and the spread of the changes is based on whether the change is favourable.

What you say about biblical ideas fails to take into account the fossil record. If there was nothing more than superficial change then you would expect the same mixture of forms in every layer - there would be no layers without birds and mammals - but this is not what is found; the older the fossil layer the fewer modern types can be found until you reach layers where there are only ancestral species, none of which now survive though many have some characteristics shared with later species (many do not have any descendants). Conversely the younger the fossil the more features it will share with extant creatures. It is possible to set dates before which there were no apes, no mammals, no amphibians, and so on. The explanation for this does not require magic.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Sep 2013 16:15:53 BDT
Bearman says:
A happy clappy chappy once tried to explain to me that dinosaur fossils were the evidence of what they called Pre-Adamite Creation. Apparantly god has a trial run at creating the earth which included dinosaurs, but for soem reason he didn't like it much so he wiped out everything and started again. There was some reference to obscure bible passages to support this theory, but they seemed a little vague to me. Well I suppose for some people, if you really really believe in something, no amount of contrary evidence is going to change your mind.

I do believe in fairies, I do I do I do.....

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Sep 2013 16:34:48 BDT
Last edited by the author on 5 Sep 2013 16:39:21 BDT
Now yesterday I was forced to put Spin on ignore as he persistently and deliberately misrepresented what I was posting. I am a reasonable person and want to give people the benefit of the doubt, however I have only so much patience. So consider yourself warned.

Mr. A. Slade says:
Doc

I didn't realize the Christians came up with the Indian Caste system, and Chinese Emperors and later communist party. My history books don't either.

1. I never claimed Christians came up with the caste system.
2. I never claimed that Christians came up with Chinese Imperialism.
3. I never claimed that Christians came up with the Chinese communist party.

If you persist in this deliberate misrepresentation of my posts you'll be on ignore. Christian countries exploited both China and India for their own gain, if you are unaware of this then perhaps you ought to try some more history books as yours can't be very thorough. Try the British Raj, and try looking at the British control of the Chinese opium trade, how is it do you think Great Britain came to have complete autonomy over Hong Kong?

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Sep 2013 16:37:42 BDT
In reply to an earlier post on 5 Sep 2013 15:26:22 BDT
Mr. A. Slade says:
Sure I get that, however the claim of evolutionists is that this process is random and blind which is where myself and others draw a line.

Nobody just thinks they're true, scientific research for almost 200 years has amassed and empirically verified an enormous amount of evidence to validate that very claim, of course if you wish to deny that in favour of beliefs, that's your right, but lets not pretend it's anything like a 50/50 premise, as that's simply not true.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Sep 2013 17:21:24 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 12 Nov 2013 17:29:55 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Sep 2013 17:25:11 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 12 Nov 2013 17:29:56 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Sep 2013 18:24:12 BDT
Mr. A. Slade says:
Doc

You complain of misrepresentation, but you are deliberately misrepresenting Christianity by asserting that Christians have manipulated these systems.

No, again you need to reread what I actually wrote, as that is not what I said, is it? Yours was a deliberate misrepresentation by making claims that I had not mentioned as if I had posted them, please stop it/ I don't do it to you after all.

***This was more to do with economy than religion, as I am sure you realise. You have to deal with Christianity on it's teaching and theology, not via what corrupt and detestable business people did in the name of European supremacy.

I dealt with it in exactly the context the discussion had taken, you are more than entitled to dispute any claims made, with evidence, what you're not entitled to do is make up claims pretending I'd posted them.

***As a Christian I have never thought British policy to have been based directly on the teachings of Christ or the Apostles, just as I don't equate the Taliban with mainstream Islam. I wish others wouldn't either. It's lame and is an attempt to dirty my religion to being something it is not. The Christianity I know stands up for this kind of injustice and can be found only in scripture, not nationalism.

This is because you've forgotten or not understood the context the post was made in, and in fairness the fact you feel your religion, or religion in general is being maligned is irrelevant, if it's a false claim then refute it, but don't resort to dishonest misrepresentation of my posts. Besides you fairly regularly misrepresent Atheism, with claims it's a belief system, and provide no evidence for the claim. You entirely misrepresent science, again claiming it requires faith, and you've done the same with evolution many times, so it's a bit of a double standard anyway.

If you don't want to be on ignore then please don't pretend I've made claims, when I had posted no such thing.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Sep 2013 18:27:08 BDT
It has nothing to do with culture, what you're denying has been established by evidence as solidly as the fact that the world is spherical, or that the chemical composition of water is H2O. Where you're born is irrelevant, other than you might be denied a decent education, and be indoctrinated with beliefs over facts.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Sep 2013 18:27:38 BDT
Norm Deplume says:
Schalk,

>>> The Christianity I know stands up for this kind of injustice
>>> and can be found only in scripture, not nationalism.

This would be a very strange cult indeed. I think you meant 'stands against', but who can tell?

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Sep 2013 19:11:54 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 12 Nov 2013 17:30:08 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Sep 2013 19:13:27 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 12 Nov 2013 17:30:09 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Sep 2013 20:46:48 BDT
Last edited by the author on 5 Sep 2013 20:49:44 BDT
Not to be unkind, however I started to respond but it's pointless, as you're either trolling or unable to grasp the difference between a scientifically validated fact and a faith based belief. Your claim you didn't intentionally misrepresent me is rather silly as you made three separate claims you said I'd made, and I'd done nothing of the sort, do you actually check previous posts before responding as your responses seem almost random, and sometimes tangential? Either way it'd be a pointless discourse, so I've better things to do with my time.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Sep 2013 21:00:13 BDT
Last edited by the author on 5 Sep 2013 21:01:25 BDT
I think it might be worth me quoting the relevant posts in the correct chronology:

C. W. Bradbury 4 Sep 2013 12:22:14 BDT For thousands of years those peoples/societies practising Biblical morality can be seen to have been successful in both good times and bad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply to an earlier post on 4 Sep 2013 12:25:16 BDT
Bearman says:
Both China and India seem to be doing quite well in recent years without the benefit of the bible
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now this was your odd response to Bearmen:

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Sep 2013 12:54:01 BDT
Mr. A. Slade says:

Bearman

Well at least their elites are doing okay. As for the peasants working in poor conditions, with little pay, long hours and no days off that's questionable. As long as we get our goods though who cares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your post, in reply to an earlier post on 5 Sep 2013 09:39:16 BDT
Dr Sheldon Cooper phd says:
They've been fairly callously exploited by more economically powerful and Christian nations for many years. So perhaps their poor have better prospects now than they've ever had. Which rather proves Bearman's, point I think.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now let's take a look at your response, the one I objected to:

In reply to your post on 5 Sep 2013 14:26:49 BDT
Mr. A. Slade says:
Doc

I didn't realize the Christians came up with the Indian Caste system, and Chinese Emperors and later communist party. My history books don't either.

Does this jog your memory for context, and help you see how bizarre and dishonest your response was?

Posted on 15 Sep 2013 12:14:39 BDT
I notice Slade is ignoring my question in the previous post, he's rather tardy in his responses when his illogical and poorly thought out posts are questioned. I'm starting to think he might join Spin on ignore, as he's starting to rival him in unwillingness to respond to posts that unravel his own.
‹ Previous 1 ... 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
ARRAY(0xba517210)
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  67
Total posts:  3068
Initial post:  19 May 2013
Latest post:  15 Sep 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions