Why I will be ignoring all "atheists" on this forum.

Agh, so if people point out, as there are dozens of quoted inappropriate comments that many atheists are haters of God and wantonly cruel ...

Well, you will prove them right be taking fake umbrage at the observation and call everyone noticing it a troll?

So, how exactly is the OP wrong? Because you just proved the observation correct ... again.

Everyone who disagrees with you is not a troll, and if you think so (and you do) then this is not the right place for you and your super victim cape. It really is that simple.

But go ahead, instead of hurling insults and and whining, go ahead and actually support the statements made by atheists on this thread.

Yep, nothing inappropriate there, jumping in with that as a comment is totally logical and not trolling in the slightest?

Seran Logic at its finest no doubt?

Umm hmm, so atheists are allowed to take pot shots at faith, angry rants, but Christian noticing these things is not allowed to ignore it?

And there are MANY, MANY more comments like these in this thread - all ignored by you.

Worse, Saint has clarified his position many times throughout the thread:

However, you continue to rationalize the miserable pricks and their behavior simply because they call themselves atheists?

All you are really doing is the standard atheist internet bully schtick. The opposite of whatever a Christian says, a bunch of insults (all justified in your mind), and then screaming like a super victim when called on it.

The comments laced throughout this thread made by atheists? Ignored. Because, as I have long said, when yoru self worth is derived solely by bashing others in order to make yourself feel better .... well, we have moder atheism.

The rea atheists like BlackRook? Lost admist the emotional acrinomy of far more numerous super victims and angry ranters devoid of logical reasoning.

 

There are no quoted comments in the OP, read it. It is an inciteful generalisation about the atheists on this forum, that you not only agree, but find this acceptable speaks volumes.

My"umbrage" is fake? Your mind-reading abilities need some fine-tuning. lols
By pointing out vitriol I "prove" its content?
Tsk, tsk.... what kind of 'logic' is this supposed to be?


Btw, I haven't called anyone a troll, least of all "everyone noticing" - learn to comprehend the specific meaning of what you read, these misinterpretations are happening far too often.

 

Btw, I am complaining about the OP and the tone set by it, pointing at atheist comments later on (am I somehow responsible for those?) is a rather transparent diversion attempt.

But then, accusing people like myself who criticise or complain, of being "guilty" and questioning their motives, are classic bullying tactics common in the schoolyard and army barracks, but they don't work so well on an adult debate forum.

The effort to turn this into a trial about me and my supposed attitudes is pathetic and easy to see through - a repeatedly exercised tactic which gets called out every time.

 

The problem is that "said Christian" viewed anything that did not validate his personal Christian beliefs as an attack.

What is an insult to the intelligence of Christians everywhere is the fickleness of "said Christian's" beliefs.

 

No G, the problem is actually the opposite. If you took the time to read ... anything, well, anything other than atheist web sites, you would see Stroll whining about how this entire thread is an anti-atheist diatribe - because someone notices the lot of you running around scrceaming blood murder at the drop of a hat.

But you guys aren't screaming bloody murder, and every Christian who stands up to you must be a flawed human being whom you instant and utterly hate.

Sorry brother, that is your bag, you deal with it.

 

You're emptying your shotgun at the wrong target here, Giftedone is a fellow Christian.
LOL LOL LOL

 

G is a known Jesus Myther (among other things), and he is about as Christian as Megadethfan (who has also claimed Christianity in the past, and whom has thankfully given up on that particularly malicious claim in his case). I am well aware of what he sometimes claims, but I am also very much aware of what he actually writes.

You are not. Glad we got that cleared up.

Glad you added nothing of substance to the discussion ... again.

 

It is my belief that Christians are only comfortable with blinders on, and ignoring people who do not share your beliefs, and indeed some who find them silly, is a cowardly way to address life.

Never be afraid of truth, even if it comes from whomever you consider "the enemy". I watch FOX and I watch RT. I think it is always wise to consider peoples opinions, especially when they disagree with me.

Ignorance is, in fact, NOT bliss.
What you call bliss, is simply wilful ignorance. You NEED faith because without it, that which you faith crumbles. You actually feel bad, for seeking truth. And I am, of course, a tool of the devil. If truth were the tool of my devil, I would question my God.

 

The funny thing is .... the reason "said person" did not want to talk anymore was because of the info I posted from the Bible and history.

Labling/demonizing folks that have views that differ from your own does not help to support your beliefs.

If the foundation for ones beliefs is weak ... I guess this type denial is the normal defense mechanism.

Jesus said .. build your house upon rock.

 

Do not blame your lack of reading comprehension on me. I have always claimed Jesus was a real person.

You are just upset because you failed to support your claims.

 

No, the reason that people stopped engaging was because you made continuous claims that you could not back up, you stole OUR evidence sources and then maliciously and deliberately misquoted them, ignored several Christians who pointed out the larger statements from the sources you assured us you were expert in, and then repeatedly ripped statements out of the Bible to bash Christians after being rpeatedly exposed as being ignorant of what was actually in the Bible. You also, quite clearly, took Wells analysis as gospel and passed of his conclusions as fact without verifying a single thing he said, despite his near universal rejection by period historians.

Now, to once again demonstrate this point, lets take a look at what the Bible ACTUALLY says (which you should know as you are a self proclaimed expert on Matthew):

"24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.” (Matthew 7:24-27)

In sharp contrast to you faith, and the constant sway between atheism and Christianity, my faith remains rock steady. Whatever short coming there are in the foundation of my belief, at least those shortcomings do not include deliberte lies and misquotes. Hence, no one is accusing me of actually being an atheist.

 

Then what is this?

Tell us all what the statement that, "Jesus may have been some dude, but we cannot know anything about him and everything was forged, included a lie about Esuebius that was pointed out by several pososters!"
In other words, you are basing your current denial and a semantic bit of BS, even as you continue to make the same malicious claims over and over and over again - mis understanding the entire Biblical creation process time and again - just like Wells did.

I am not doing this with you again G, that is the last I will say about it in this thread. I will say that there is a pathology to this arguement for you, in which you have made one hell of reputation for yourself by continuously and disingenuously engaging in that line.

If you are wrondering why atheists are ignored, known and disingenuous Jesus Mythers would be a good place to begin that examination.

 

Nor spam other threads with it, promise?

 

Nice one line answer. Actually the evolution of today is just as much a fairy tale as it was when darwin proposed it. Anotehr nail in the coffin to the fairy tale of evolution was found recently and this just accentuates the fallacy of that rediculous whale chart.

They recently found a fully aquatic whale fossil that dates back from 49 million years back looooooooool. Hopefully people will wake up and see neo-darwinian evolution for what it is, a pile of garbage shoved down our throats mascaraded as scientific fact!!


http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...ion-ancient-whale-jawbone-found-in-antartica/


My posts here arent for the dogmatic atheists-evolutionists, its for the people that are sitting on the fence and are open minded and for the theistic evolutionists (like I used to be), to see how rediculous and devoid of logic and scientific fact the theory of neo-dawrinian evolution is. Read the bolded part very carefully.


Exert from article.


A Whale of a Problem for Evolution: Ancient Whale Jawbone Found in AntarticaOctober 14, 2011 Posted by Jonathan M under Intelligent Design 58 Comments

MSNBC.com is reporting on the discovery of a jawbone of an ancient whale in Antarctica: the oldest fully aquatic whale yet discovered. The news story reports,

The jawbone of an ancient whale found in Antarctica may be the oldest fully aquatic whale yet discovered, Argentine scientists said Tuesday.

A scientist not involved in the find said it could suggest that whales evolved much more quickly from their amphibian precursors than previously thought.

Argentine paleontologist Marcelo Reguero, who led a joint Argentine-Swedish team, said the fossilized archaeocete jawbone found in February dates back 49 million years. In evolutionary terms, that’s not far off from the fossils of even older proto-whales from 53 million years ago that have been found in South Asia and other warmer latitudes.

Those earlier proto-whales were amphibians, able to live on land as well as sea. This jawbone, in contrast, belongs to the Basilosauridae group of fully aquatic whales, said Reguero, who leads research for the Argentine Antarctic Institute.

“The relevance of this discovery is that it’s the oldest known completely aquatic whale found yet,” said Reguero, who shared the discovery with Argentine paleontologist Claudia Tambussi and Swedish paleontologists Thomas Mors and Jonas Hagstrom of the Natural History Museum in Stockholm.

Paul Sereno​, a University of Chicago paleontologist who wasn’t involved in the research, said that if the new find withstands the scrutiny of other scientists, it will suggest that archaeocetes evolved much more quickly than previously thought from their semi-aquatic origin in present-day India and Pakistan.

“The important thing is the location,” Sereno said. “To find one in Antarctica is very interesting.”

As many readers will doubtless be aware, the evolution of the whale has previously raised substantial problems because of the extremely abrupt timescale over which it occurred. Evolutionary Biologist Richard von Sternberg has previously applied the population genetic equations employed in a 2008 paper by Durrett and Schmidt to argue against the plausibility of the transition happening in such a short period of time. Indeed, the evolution of Dorudon and Basilosaurus (38 mya) from Pakicetus (53 mya) has been previously compressed into a period of less than 15 million years.

Previously, the whale series looked something like this:








































Such a transition is a fete of genetic rewiring and it is astonishing that it is presumed to have occurred by Darwinian processes in such a short span of time. This problem is accentuated when one considers that the majority of anatomical novelties unique to aquatic cetaceans (Pelagiceti) appeared during just a few million years – probably within 1-3 million years. The equations of population genetics predict that – assuming an effective population size of 100,000 individuals per generation, and a generation turnover time of 5 years (according to Richard Sternberg’s calculations and based on equations of population genetics applied in the Durrett and Schmidt paper), that one may reasonably expect two specific co-ordinated mutations to achieve fixation in the timeframe of around 43.3 million years. When one considers the magnitude of the engineering fete, such a scenario is found to be devoid of credibility. Whales require an intra-abdominal counter current heat exchange system (the testis are inside the body right next to the muscles that generate heat during swimming), they need to possess a ball vertebra because the tail has to move up and down instead of side-to-side, they require a re-organisation of kidney tissue to facilitate the intake of salt water, they require a re-orientation of the fetus for giving birth under water, they require a modification of the mammary glands for the nursing of young under water, the forelimbs have to be transformed into flippers, the hindlimbs need to be substantially reduced, they require a special lung surfactant (the lung has to re-expand very rapidly upon coming up to the surface), etc etc.

With this new fossil find, however, dating to 49 million years ago (bear in mind that Pakicetus lived around 53 million years ago), this means that the first fully aquatic whales now date to around the time when walking whales (Ambulocetus) first appear. This substantially reduces the window of time in which the Darwinian mechanism has to accomplish truly radical engineering innovations and genetic rewiring to perhaps just five million years — or perhaps even less. It also suggests that this fully aquatic whale existed before its previously-thought-to-be semi-aquatic archaeocetid ancestors.

Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.

Remember, if anyone is a theistic evolutionist (like I used to be), visit the uncommon descent blog and you will be awaken like I was.

 

LOL

If you are upset that your own evidence and sources refute your claims, then perhaps you should change your claim ?!

Name one claim I made that was not backed up !

The person who made erroneous claims was you for example: Your claim that manuscripts of Matthew exist dating to 60 AD.

My claims were properly referenced wheras your claims were not.

 

Yep, I love it when you use the sources I give you, only read part of them, take them totally out of context, ignore multiple posters who tell you that you are wrong, plagurize your 'arguements' from debunked sources, and littl make up defeinitions (like your definition of the 'literal' resuurection', chnage dates, (like nothing before 300 AD), and play semantic games about your Jesus Myth mentality and faith choice.

And your rebuttal, as always, is that my faith is weak. So, you can read minds but not words on pages? Atheism is truely magic.

 

This is an explanation of some of the issues with the stories about Jesus.
This does not mean that Jesus was not a real person. This does not mean that all of the stories of Jesus that come down to us are not true.

What I am suggesting, as have many others, is that we do not know which are true and which are not !

The second part relates to Church Doctrine. Church doctrine, the Trinity formulation given in the Nicene Creed, is accepted because of Constantine.

The first use of the Trinity doctrine as we know it was put for by Tertullian who lived (160-220AD) who was a Montanist.

This Trinity doctrine was "rejected as heresy by the Church at large" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian

It was the Pagan Emperor Constantine who made the Trinity Orthadoxy, at swordpoint, because he wanted to unify the empire under one religion and then give himself ultimate power by claiming himself "bishop of biships" - Pontifex Maxximus.

Constantine assumed the unchallengable position of Gods bishop on earth. If there are many Gods then Constantines claim could be challenged. If there is only one God then it could not.

The Persians had been very successfull uniting Persia under monotheism Zoroastrianism.

Constantine was a good student of History.

.

Eusebius and Jerome were the folks that selected what went into the NT.

We do not have much evidence for Christ that does not touch Eusebius in some way.

The discussion was in relation to the Trinity Doctrine. It is claimed, as we can see from the link above, that Tertullian is claimed to be the originator of this doctrine ( almost 2 centuries after Christ).

We do not actually have any manuscripts written by the hand of Tertullian.

The date of this manuscript ? Copied by Corbie around the end of of the 8th century.

We do not have anything written by the hand of Tertullian. Eusebius was the one first people (that we know of) to detail, and make copies of various Christian writings in any organized fashion.

Do I believe that parts of what comes to us from this Codex was originally written by Tertullian ? Sure, why not !

Also note that many portions of this codex are spurious. Folks making stuff up and embellishing or changing the original text to better fit with current orthadoxy was common.

The point is that we do not actually have manuscripts that were written by the hand of the author.

What we have is copies. The earliest record of the known Church fathers and the copies of their writing in relation to the Trinity Doctrine comes to us no earlier than Eusebius.

Information relating to which of the many Christian gospels were considered authentic comes to us no earlier than Eusebius meaning that without Eusebius we would not know anything about these folks.

The reason Eusebius (and the many helpers he had) was able to put all this stuff together was becuase he was funded by the Treasury of Constantine.

Eusebius was tasked with the job of getting together all the information he could to support the "story" that Constantine was promoting.

I think much of the work of the Eusebian copyists is legitimate .. but not all.

 

Dig your hole deeper .. Your claim is busted.

The Society of Biblical Literature, founded in 1880 to foster Bible scholarship, gives 14 References.

You on the other hand have given nothing valid to support your spurious claim of an extant copy of Matthew dating to the first century.

 

Oh look, no link - again. No referrel to the sources I posted for him, and no evidence backing up any of the claims he has made. Not a single one.

Just the continuance of a personal axe to grind, and desperate after the fact internet searching ... blissfully ignoring the fact that his arguementation sways no one and has no tarnished his reputation that no one even listens to his drivel on the subject anymore - but he'll keep coming back with it in one thread after another ... totally unable to move on or acknowledge the many mistakes he made.

I believe we call this a fatal attraction. Now, check out the thread title and see if you can figure out why folks ignore people like you?

 

http://www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=304

Your claim is a Joke, the link works, your claim is Busted.

The Society of Biblical Literature, founded in 1880 to foster Bible scholarship, gives 14 References.

You have no valid support your spurious claim of an extant copy of Matthew dating to the first century.

Give it up already

 

Only if you actually address the links that I gave you months ago (and you still haven't) and you address Eusebius's claims of that very thing - which you haven't - nor will you.

It the same thing it always is, you find one source, that advcances what? Oh, whatever it is that you thing you can toture people with. THat about right?

Do you see the thread title yet? Keep going, you are making my case for me.

 

Eusebius claims he heard a story about some fellow who went to India a century earlier who saw a manuscript of Matthew and the story told to this fellow was that the manuscript arrived in 60 AD.

You claimed that we actually have a copy of Matthew dated 60AD.

I have addressed your Eusebius claim 3 or 4 times already in a previous thread.

A story about a story about a story of a manuscript has zero to do with your claim that we actually have a copy of this manuscript.

Where is this copy located and what is the Codex called .. and so on.

Give it up already .. you are Busted. Move on.

 

I already have. Its you who keeps coming back.

And you still haven't addressed teh source I supplied you months ago - while still beating the same damb line. So Find it, as you insist on addressing it, and deal with wat was presented months ago.

Otherwise you are just chasing you tale Jesus Myther.