Discussion:
Trying to calculate the age of the earth by Atheist " science " is a throw of the dice...
(too old to reply)
old man joe
2011-07-21 09:37:50 UTC
Permalink
just type in your browser... " how to calculate the age of the earth " and various miss and miss
conclusions come up... not hit and miss but miss and miss.

this is because science is testing the age of dead things by other dead things... duh. the
scientists will never find an answer with this methodology.

it's easy enough to understand that the age of the earth is calculated by genealogy... human birth
records. ( monkey's don't keep records, boys ) its meaningless to try and date a rock. and it's
just as meaningless to try and date fossils... they're nothing more than the remains of elements of
the earth which were never alive to begin with... the same stuff found in rocks are found in
bones... nonliving elements.

the only way to discover the age of the earth is through the genealogy of human beings.

going backwards from parents to grandparents to great grandparents and great, great grandparents and
so on back through time to our first parents... the starting points for calculating the age of the
earth is the only method giving accurate results since rocks didn't create themselves as the
Atheists say they did. the Big Bang is laughable nonsense. even more laughable is the Gnostic
philosophy that live humans came from nonliving elements.

the genealogy of humanity goes back to the first human, Adam. all of humanity came from humanity,
not rocks... not nonliving elements found in the earth. it's a fancy idea to create a God-less
existence but that's what Atheism is all about and that's how it's defined in the Bible in Eph.2:12.

while very few people can accurately determine at what time their distant ancestor's existed, God
has put in the Bible the genealogy of humanity giving times as to the birth of those who He's named
as what Bible students call " time keepers. "

we find in Gen.5 the births and deaths of certain men while leaving out the myriads of people living
contemporarily with them. we find that 6023 years passed from Adam to the Flood of Noah by
calculating the times given us there of those certain men. we know that Christ was crucified in 33
AD. this poster has not yet finished working out the times given in Holy Scripture between the
Flood and the crucifixion though some Bible students calculate this time to be in the vicinity of
5000 years.

nonetheless, life does not come from nonliving elements... its altogether absurd to suppose such...
living things are comprised of dead elements indeed, and these same elements are in a dead human
body as in a living human body yet one body is a dead as a stone while the other is alive... a fact
way, way beyond the knowledge base of ' scientists ' and their disciples that life is not in the
elements of the earth.

life is not of this world. life is in the Living God. life will never be found to come from
nonliving elements of the earth for that reason. and, wonderfully enough, God takes it upon Himself
to enlighten all peoples in all times to that knowledge, as He says... " that which may be known of
God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them... so that they are without excuse: "
Ro.1:18 and following.

cursing God as the Atheists like to do shows that they have heard from Him, given light, and
rejected Him just as Ro.1:18 and following says they would.
Errol
2011-07-21 10:11:19 UTC
Permalink
just type in your browser... " how to calculate the age of the earth " and various miss and >miss conclusions come up.
That gives 1.5 million hits

Try typing in "i am an ignorant christian"

That gives 23 million hits (no misses)
the only way to discover the age of the earth is through the genealogy of human beings.
You go ole man joe!
always setting new and improved standards for ignorance and stupidity
 this poster has not yet finished working out the times given in Holy Scripture between the
Flood and the crucifixion though some Bible students calculate this time to be in the >vicinity of 5000 years.
What? miss and miss then?
Joe Bruno
2011-07-21 11:46:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
just type in your browser... " how to calculate the age of the earth " and various miss and miss
conclusions come up... not hit and miss but miss and miss.
this is because science is testing the age of dead things by other dead things... duh.  the
scientists will never find an answer with this methodology.
it's easy enough to understand that the age of the earth is calculated by genealogy... human birth
records. ( monkey's don't keep records, boys )  its meaningless to try and date a rock.  and it's
just as meaningless to try and date fossils... they're nothing more than the remains of elements of
the earth which were never alive to begin with... the same stuff found in rocks are found in
bones... nonliving elements.
the only way to discover the age of the earth is through the genealogy of human beings.
going backwards from parents to grandparents to great grandparents and great, great grandparents and
so on back through time to our first parents... the starting points for calculating the age of the
earth is the only method giving accurate results since rocks didn't create themselves as the
Atheists say they did.  the Big Bang is laughable nonsense.  even more laughable is the Gnostic
philosophy that live humans came from nonliving elements.
the genealogy of humanity goes back to the first human, Adam.  all of humanity came from humanity,
not rocks... not nonliving elements found in the earth.  it's a fancy idea to create a God-less
existence but that's what Atheism is all about and that's how it's defined in the Bible in Eph.2:12.
while very few people can accurately determine at what time their distant ancestor's existed, God
has put in the Bible the genealogy of humanity giving times as to the birth of those who He's named
as what Bible students call " time keepers. "  
we find in Gen.5 the births and deaths of certain men while leaving out the myriads of people living
contemporarily with them.  we find that 6023 years passed from Adam to the Flood of Noah by
calculating the times given us there of those certain men.  we know that Christ was crucified in 33
AD.  this poster has not yet finished working out the times given in Holy Scripture between the
Flood and the crucifixion though some Bible students calculate this time to be in the vicinity of
5000 years.
nonetheless, life does not come from nonliving elements... its altogether absurd to suppose such...
living things are comprised of dead elements indeed, and these same elements are in a dead human
body as in a living human body yet one body is a dead as a stone while the other is alive... a fact
way, way beyond the knowledge base of ' scientists ' and their disciples that life is not in the
elements of the earth.  
life is not of this world.  life is in the Living God.  life will never be found to come from
nonliving elements of the earth for that reason.  and, wonderfully enough, God takes it upon Himself
to enlighten all peoples in all times to that knowledge, as He says... " that which may be known of
God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them... so that they are without excuse: "
Ro.1:18 and following.
cursing God as the Atheists like to do shows that they have heard from Him, given light, and
rejected Him just as Ro.1:18 and following says they would.  
It's stupid to try and calculate the age of the earth with human birth
records because humans did not appear on the Earth until millions of
years after it's
creation.Even in the Book of Genesis, Adam and Eve didn't see any
dinosaurs.

When the bible was written, there was no paleontology or fossil
research and they didn't know about dinosaurs.

The Bible is not a science book and was never intended to be a science
book.
It's a book of moral lessons.
martin
2011-07-21 12:25:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bruno
It's stupid to try and calculate the age of the earth with human birth
records because humans did not appear on the Earth until millions of
years after it's
creation.
That's billions of years
Formed not created

Geez!
Post by Joe Bruno
Even in the Book of Genesis, Adam and Eve didn't see any
dinosaurs.
So you think Kent Hovind is a downright, dirty, disgusting liar then. Good.
Post by Joe Bruno
When the bible was written, there was no paleontology or fossil
research and they didn't know about dinosaurs.
Why not? They must have found fossilized bones just like we do today,
they would have recognised them for what they were, bloody big animals.
Post by Joe Bruno
The Bible is not a science book and was never intended to be a science
book.
It's a book of moral lessons.
Go and argue with The Vowel about that one
--
Vandals destroyed the mini-bus of a community project that I am
associated with in one of the most deprived areas of Brighton. Any help
would be appreciated - thanks.
http://t.co/B1SwMb8
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Moulsecoomb-Neighbourhood-Trust-Mini-Bus/244707952225870
Joe Bruno
2011-07-21 12:40:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by martin
Post by Joe Bruno
It's stupid to try and calculate the age of the earth with human birth
records because humans did not appear on the Earth until millions of
years after it's
creation.
That's billions of years
Formed not created
It was created by natural forces in the universe.
Post by martin
Geez!
Post by Joe Bruno
Even in the Book of Genesis, Adam and Eve didn't see any
dinosaurs.
So you think Kent Hovind is a downright, dirty, disgusting liar then. Good.
Post by Joe Bruno
When the bible was written, there was no paleontology or fossil
research and they didn't know about dinosaurs.
Why not? They must have found fossilized bones just like we do today,
I doubt it.Fossilized bones are not laying around on the surface. They
are mostly embedded in rock. If you don't know what to look for, you
don't find any.
Besides, the bible came out of the Middle East, which is not a good
place to find fossils.
Post by martin
they would have recognised them for what they were, bloody big animals.
Post by Joe Bruno
The Bible is not a science book and was never intended to be a science
book.
It's a book of moral lessons.
Go and argue with The Vowel about that one
--
Vandals destroyed the mini-bus of a community project that I am
associated with in one of the most deprived areas of Brighton. Any help
would be appreciated - thanks.http://t.co/B1SwMb8http://www.facebook.com/pages/Moulsecoomb-Neighbourhood-Trust-Mini-Bu...
Andrew W
2011-07-22 21:42:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by martin
Post by Joe Bruno
It's stupid to try and calculate the age of the earth with human
birth records because humans did not appear on the Earth until
millions of years after it's
creation.
That's billions of years
Formed not created
It was created by natural forces in the universe.
Which is another way of saying it was formed.
Creation is purely a religious terminology.
--
Every theist is an atheist when it comes to everyone else's gods.
Education cures religious fundamentalism.
Answer_42
2011-07-21 19:56:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by old man joe
just type in your browser... " how to calculate the age of the earth " and various miss and miss
conclusions come up... not hit and miss but miss and miss.
this is because science is testing the age of dead things by other dead things... duh.  the
scientists will never find an answer with this methodology.
it's easy enough to understand that the age of the earth is calculated by genealogy... human birth
records. ( monkey's don't keep records, boys )  its meaningless to try and date a rock.  and it's
just as meaningless to try and date fossils... they're nothing more than the remains of elements of
the earth which were never alive to begin with... the same stuff found in rocks are found in
bones... nonliving elements.
the only way to discover the age of the earth is through the genealogy of human beings.
going backwards from parents to grandparents to great grandparents and great, great grandparents and
so on back through time to our first parents... the starting points for calculating the age of the
earth is the only method giving accurate results since rocks didn't create themselves as the
Atheists say they did.  the Big Bang is laughable nonsense.  even more laughable is the Gnostic
philosophy that live humans came from nonliving elements.
the genealogy of humanity goes back to the first human, Adam.  all of humanity came from humanity,
not rocks... not nonliving elements found in the earth.  it's a fancy idea to create a God-less
existence but that's what Atheism is all about and that's how it's defined in the Bible in Eph.2:12.
while very few people can accurately determine at what time their distant ancestor's existed, God
has put in the Bible the genealogy of humanity giving times as to the birth of those who He's named
as what Bible students call " time keepers. "  
we find in Gen.5 the births and deaths of certain men while leaving out the myriads of people living
contemporarily with them.  we find that 6023 years passed from Adam to the Flood of Noah by
calculating the times given us there of those certain men.  we know that Christ was crucified in 33
AD.  this poster has not yet finished working out the times given in Holy Scripture between the
Flood and the crucifixion though some Bible students calculate this time to be in the vicinity of
5000 years.
nonetheless, life does not come from nonliving elements... its altogether absurd to suppose such...
living things are comprised of dead elements indeed, and these same elements are in a dead human
body as in a living human body yet one body is a dead as a stone while the other is alive... a fact
way, way beyond the knowledge base of ' scientists ' and their disciples that life is not in the
elements of the earth.  
life is not of this world.  life is in the Living God.  life will never be found to come from
nonliving elements of the earth for that reason.  and, wonderfully enough, God takes it upon Himself
to enlighten all peoples in all times to that knowledge, as He says... " that which may be known of
God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them... so that they are without excuse: "
Ro.1:18 and following.
cursing God as the Atheists like to do shows that they have heard from Him, given light, and
rejected Him just as Ro.1:18 and following says they would.  
It's stupid to try and calculate the age of the earth with human birth
records because humans did not appear on the Earth until millions of
years after it's
creation.Even in the Book of Genesis, Adam and Eve didn't see any
dinosaurs.
When the bible was written, there was no paleontology or fossil
research and they didn't know about dinosaurs.
The Bible is not a science book and was never intended to be a science
book.
It's a book of moral lessons.
And a bad one at that.
Andrew W
2011-07-22 21:47:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Answer_42
Post by Joe Bruno
The Bible is not a science book and was never intended to be a
science book.
It's a book of moral lessons.
And a bad one at that.
Yep. Its badly outdated.
It was for and by another culture long ago when things were very different.
We now have much better and more comprehensive moral codes and explanations
about how everything started.
The Bible should only be used as a book of curiosity on how people lived
long ago and what they believed.
That's its proper use.
--
Every theist is an atheist when it comes to everyone else's gods.
Education cures religious fundamentalism.
Joe Bruno
2011-07-23 01:46:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew W
Post by Answer_42
Post by Joe Bruno
The Bible is not a science book and was never intended to be a
science book.
It's a book of moral lessons.
And a bad one at that.
EH?
Post by Andrew W
Yep. Its badly outdated.
It was for and by another culture long ago when things were very different.
Really? How are the Ten Commandments "outdated"?

Here's a few of them:

Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Honor thy Father and thy Mother

Thou shalt not murder(that's how the original Hebrew read-
Jewish law permits killing in war and capital punishment)

Thou shalt not bow down to graven images
Thou shalt not swear a false oath(lying under oath)
I am the Lord Thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me
(The Christian claim that Jesus is divine sort of ignores this one,
but they get around it with their trinity game-saying jesus and god
and jesus ghost are all one person-Jews don't buy it but what the hell-
it's their religion)

Sounds like good rules to me.
Andrew W
2011-07-23 04:09:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Andrew W
Post by Answer_42
Post by Joe Bruno
The Bible is not a science book and was never intended to be a
science book.
It's a book of moral lessons.
And a bad one at that.
EH?
Post by Andrew W
Yep. Its badly outdated.
It was for and by another culture long ago when things were very different.
Really? How are the Ten Commandments "outdated"?
The Ten Commandments is just a very small part of the Bible.
Post by Joe Bruno
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not commit adultery
We already have more comprehensive laws than those in our modern laws.
Post by Joe Bruno
Honor thy Father and thy Mother
That's a societal guideline that adults usually teach their children.
Do you still need to be told to honour your father and mother?
I hope not.

Other cultures simply say respect your elders.
Post by Joe Bruno
Thou shalt not murder(that's how the original Hebrew read-
Jewish law permits killing in war and capital punishment)
We have more comprehensive laws now.
We don't need the Bible any more.
Post by Joe Bruno
Thou shalt not bow down to graven images
How does that help us?
People today have the right to bow to whatever they want as long as they
don't hurt anyone.
I'm sure you believe in freedom of religion.
How is that so called law going to disband all the thousands of religions in
this world that worship graven images?
And what's the point of it anyway?

And how do we define exactly what a graven image is against what is merely a
reminder to make us mindful of someone like a photo?
Do you have a photo in your wallet or picture on your night stand?
Post by Joe Bruno
Thou shalt not swear a false oath(lying under oath)
Our courts take care of that one.
Post by Joe Bruno
I am the Lord Thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me
(The Christian claim that Jesus is divine sort of ignores this one,
but they get around it with their trinity game-saying jesus and god
and jesus ghost are all one person-Jews don't buy it but what the
hell- it's their religion)
Sounds like good rules to me.
That last one cannot be followed any more at all because it was given when
God supposedly walked among us.
With all the religions and their gods now, that one is now totally useless.

The Bible is not much use to us any more.
Go on Amazon and search for books on God, spirituality and morality.
There's some really good ones.
You'll learn far more about God and morality there than from the Bible.
--
Every theist is an atheist when it comes to everyone else's gods.
Education cures religious fundamentalism.
Ralph
2011-07-23 14:02:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Andrew W
Post by Answer_42
Post by Joe Bruno
The Bible is not a science book and was never intended to be a
science book.
It's a book of moral lessons.
And a bad one at that.
EH?
Post by Andrew W
Yep. Its badly outdated.
It was for and by another culture long ago when things were very different.
Really? How are the Ten Commandments "outdated"?
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Honor thy Father and thy Mother
Thou shalt not murder(that's how the original Hebrew read-
Jewish law permits killing in war and capital punishment)
Thou shalt not bow down to graven images
Thou shalt not swear a false oath(lying under oath)
I am the Lord Thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me
(The Christian claim that Jesus is divine sort of ignores this one,
but they get around it with their trinity game-saying jesus and god
and jesus ghost are all one person-Jews don't buy it but what the hell-
it's their religion)
Sounds like good rules to me.
I think he said the bible was outdated. I saw no reference to the ten
commandments. I think a quick read through Leviticus will tell you how
out-dated it is.

MarkA
2011-07-21 13:10:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
just type in your browser... " how to calculate the age of the earth " and
various miss and miss conclusions come up... not hit and miss but miss and
miss.
this is because science is testing the age of dead things by other dead
things... duh. the scientists will never find an answer with this
methodology.
Old man joe is a museum piece demonstrating stone-age thinking. Read
his full post if you want an insight into how people looked at the world
before the Enlightenment. It's all there: the mystical distinction
between "dead" and "living", the assumption that people have been around
for the entire history of the Universe, invoking divine beings to explain
nature, etc.

Joe, people have actually learned stuff in the past 4,000 years. That's
why alt.atheism isn't mentioned in Genesis. Try to keep up, eh?
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
Immortalist
2011-07-21 14:29:43 UTC
Permalink
]The planet formed 4.54 billion years ago, and life appeared on its
surface within one billion years. Earth's biosphere has significantly
altered the atmosphere and other abiotic conditions on the planet,
enabling the proliferation of aerobic organisms as well as the
formation of the ozone layer which, together with Earth's magnetic
field, blocks harmful solar radiation, permitting life on land. The
physical properties of the Earth, as well as its geological history
and orbit, have allowed life to persist during this period. The planet
is expected to continue supporting life for at least another 500
million years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

The age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 10 9 years ± 1%).
This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite
material and is consistent with the ages ofthe oldest-known
terrestrial and lunar samples.

Following the scientific revolution and the development of radiometric
age dating, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that
some were in excess of a billion years old. [4] The oldest such
minerals analyzed to date – small crystals of zircon from the Jack
Hills of Western Australia – are at least 4.404 billion years old.
Comparing the mass and luminosity of the Sun to the multitudesofother
stars, it appears that the solar system cannotbe much olderthan
thoserocks. Ca-Al-rich inclusions (inclusions richin calcium and
aluminium) – the oldest known solid constituents within meteorites
that are formed within the solar system – are 4.567 billion years old,
[8][9] giving an age for the solar system and an upper limit for the
age of Earth. It is hypothesised that the accretion of Earth began
soon after the formation of the Ca-Al-rich inclusions andthe
meteorites. Because the exact accretion time of Earth is not yet
known, and the predictions from different accretion models range from
a few millions up to about 100 million years, the exact age of Earth
is difficult to determine. It is also difficult to determine the exact
age ofthe oldest rocks on Earth, exposed at the surface,as theyare
aggregates of minerals of possibly different ages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Why don't you idiots learn to challenge these Christian liars and
abusers who would use anything as a means to the ends of defending
their shared self deceptions. Maybe it begins to make sense why the
Romans fed the liars to lions as a festive past time.
Joe Bruno
2011-07-21 14:45:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Immortalist
Why don't you idiots learn to challenge these Christian liars and
abusers who would use anything as a means to the ends of defending
their shared self deceptions. Maybe it begins to make sense why the
Romans fed the liars to lions as a festive past time.
The Romans fed Christians to the lions because the Christians refused
to practice the polytheistic Roman religion and refused to acknowledge
the Roman Emperor as a god.

Go somewhere else and twist history into an unrecognizable shape,
jackass.
Immortalist
2011-07-21 16:39:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Immortalist
Why don't you idiots learn to challenge these Christian liars and
abusers who would use anything as a means to the ends of defending
their shared self deceptions. Maybe it begins to make sense why the
Romans fed the liars to lions as a festive past time.
The Romans fed Christians to the lions because the Christians refused
to practice the polytheistic Roman religion and refused to acknowledge
the Roman Emperor as a god.
Go somewhere else and twist history into an unrecognizable shape,
jackass.
Ya idiot prick, isn't kinda cool though, the image of lions eating
those bigot Christians ripping them limb from limb? And as for your
attempt to censor and limit free speech, fuck you.


Joe Bruno
2011-07-21 17:32:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Immortalist
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Immortalist
Why don't you idiots learn to challenge these Christian liars and
abusers who would use anything as a means to the ends of defending
their shared self deceptions. Maybe it begins to make sense why the
Romans fed the liars to lions as a festive past time.
The Romans fed Christians to the lions because the Christians refused
to practice the polytheistic Roman religion and refused to acknowledge
the Roman Emperor as a god.
Go somewhere else and twist history into an unrecognizable shape,
jackass.
Ya idiot prick, isn't kinda cool though, the image of lions eating
those bigot Christians ripping them limb from limb?
I's rather the lions eat you. At least the Christians were sincere.


And as for your
Post by Immortalist
attempt to censor and limit free speech, fuck you.
I don't have the power to censor or limit speech, so your claim is
ludicrous.
You spewed your crap and I told you, as is my free speech right, to
take it somewhere else. DAMN YOU ARE STUPID.
Andrew W
2011-07-22 21:55:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Immortalist
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Immortalist
Why don't you idiots learn to challenge these Christian liars and
abusers who would use anything as a means to the ends of defending
their shared self deceptions. Maybe it begins to make sense why the
Romans fed the liars to lions as a festive past time.
The Romans fed Christians to the lions because the Christians
refused to practice the polytheistic Roman religion and refused to
acknowledge the Roman Emperor as a god.
Go somewhere else and twist history into an unrecognizable shape,
jackass.
Ya idiot prick, isn't kinda cool though, the image of lions eating
those bigot Christians ripping them limb from limb?
I's rather the lions eat you. At least the Christians were sincere.
If you could watch anyone get eaten by a lion then you are just as sick as
he is (that's if he's not joking).
I find that many Christians have this mean callous attitude towards others
and are not Christ like at all.
--
Every theist is an atheist when it comes to everyone else's gods.
Education cures religious fundamentalism.
Immortalist
2011-07-23 01:09:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew W
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Immortalist
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Immortalist
Why don't you idiots learn to challenge these Christian liars and
abusers who would use anything as a means to the ends of defending
their shared self deceptions. Maybe it begins to make sense why the
Romans fed the liars to lions as a festive past time.
The Romans fed Christians to the lions because the Christians
refused to practice the polytheistic Roman religion and refused to
acknowledge the Roman Emperor as a god.
Go somewhere else and twist history into an unrecognizable shape,
jackass.
Ya idiot prick, isn't kinda cool though, the image of lions eating
those bigot Christians ripping them limb from limb?
I's rather the lions eat you. At least the Christians were sincere.
If you could watch anyone get eaten by a lion then you are just as sick as
he is (that's if he's not joking).
I find that many Christians have this mean callous attitude towards others
and are not Christ like at all.
True I was just being a stupid joker because the Christian idiots have
been spamming alt.philosophy recently and a lot. I have been spamming
back and that act commits the same fallacy as the poster you respomded
to did. This fallacy is just boring behavior unless someone uses it as
justification to argue strongly for some conclusion.

Description of Two Wrongs Make a Right

Two Wrongs Make a Right is a fallacy in which a person "justifies" an
action against a person by asserting that the person would do the same
thing to him/her, when the action is not necessary to prevent B from
doing X to A. This fallacy has the following pattern of "reasoning":

1. It is claimed that person B would do X to person A. 2. It is
acceptable for person A to do X to person B (when A's doing X to B is
not necessary to prevent B from doing X to A).

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because an action that is wrong
is wrong even if another person would also do it.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/two-wrongs-make-a-right.html

Post by Andrew W
--
Every theist is an atheist when it comes to everyone else's gods.
Education cures religious fundamentalism.
Joe Bruno
2011-07-23 01:50:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew W
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Immortalist
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Immortalist
Why don't you idiots learn to challenge these Christian liars and
abusers who would use anything as a means to the ends of defending
their shared self deceptions. Maybe it begins to make sense why the
Romans fed the liars to lions as a festive past time.
The Romans fed Christians to the lions because the Christians
refused to practice the polytheistic Roman religion and refused to
acknowledge the Roman Emperor as a god.
Go somewhere else and twist history into an unrecognizable shape,
jackass.
Ya idiot prick, isn't kinda cool though, the image of lions eating
those bigot Christians ripping them limb from limb?
I's rather the lions eat you. At least the Christians were sincere.
If you could watch anyone get eaten by a lion then you are just as sick as
he is (that's if he's not joking)
Actually, I've never seen a lion in person or seen one eat anybody
.
Post by Andrew W
I find that many Christians have this mean callous attitude towards others
and are not Christ like at all.
Well, I'm a Jew, not a Christian. We don't pretend to love everybody.
Frankly, we don't like Palestinians at all.
And we aren't very fond of atheists, either.
Post by Andrew W
--
Andrew W
2011-07-23 04:19:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Andrew W
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Immortalist
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Immortalist
Why don't you idiots learn to challenge these Christian liars and
abusers who would use anything as a means to the ends of
defending their shared self deceptions. Maybe it begins to make
sense why the Romans fed the liars to lions as a festive past
time.
The Romans fed Christians to the lions because the Christians
refused to practice the polytheistic Roman religion and refused to
acknowledge the Roman Emperor as a god.
Go somewhere else and twist history into an unrecognizable shape,
jackass.
Ya idiot prick, isn't kinda cool though, the image of lions eating
those bigot Christians ripping them limb from limb?
I's rather the lions eat you. At least the Christians were sincere.
If you could watch anyone get eaten by a lion then you are just as
sick as he is (that's if he's not joking)
Actually, I've never seen a lion in person or seen one eat anybody
.
Lol.
You made me laugh. :)
Very cute and funny response.
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Andrew W
I find that many Christians have this mean callous attitude towards
others and are not Christ like at all.
Well, I'm a Jew, not a Christian. We don't pretend to love everybody.
Frankly, we don't like Palestinians at all.
And we aren't very fond of atheists, either.
Heh. Hows your conflicts going over there in the mother land?
Are they going to be over some day?
(referring to the constant wars and conflicts in the middle east).
:)
--
Every theist is an atheist when it comes to everyone else's gods.
Education cures religious fundamentalism.
Immortalist
2011-07-23 00:53:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Immortalist
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Immortalist
Why don't you idiots learn to challenge these Christian liars and
abusers who would use anything as a means to the ends of defending
their shared self deceptions. Maybe it begins to make sense why the
Romans fed the liars to lions as a festive past time.
The Romans fed Christians to the lions because the Christians refused
to practice the polytheistic Roman religion and refused to acknowledge
the Roman Emperor as a god.
Go somewhere else and twist history into an unrecognizable shape,
jackass.
Ya idiot prick, isn't kinda cool though, the image of lions eating
those bigot Christians ripping them limb from limb?
I's rather the lions eat you. At least the Christians were sincere.
 And as for your
Post by Immortalist
attempt to censor and limit free speech, fuck you.
I don't have the power to censor or limit speech, so your claim is
ludicrous.
You spewed your crap and I told you, as is my free speech right, to
take it somewhere else. DAMN YOU ARE STUPID.
Feeding you Christians to the lions was treated as a festival.
Joe Bruno
2011-07-23 01:51:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Immortalist
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Immortalist
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Immortalist
Why don't you idiots learn to challenge these Christian liars and
abusers who would use anything as a means to the ends of defending
their shared self deceptions. Maybe it begins to make sense why the
Romans fed the liars to lions as a festive past time.
The Romans fed Christians to the lions because the Christians refused
to practice the polytheistic Roman religion and refused to acknowledge
the Roman Emperor as a god.
Go somewhere else and twist history into an unrecognizable shape,
jackass.
Ya idiot prick, isn't kinda cool though, the image of lions eating
those bigot Christians ripping them limb from limb?
I's rather the lions eat you. At least the Christians were sincere.
 And as for your
Post by Immortalist
attempt to censor and limit free speech, fuck you.
I don't have the power to censor or limit speech, so your claim is
ludicrous.
You spewed your crap and I told you, as is my free speech right, to
take it somewhere else. DAMN YOU ARE STUPID.
Feeding you Christians to the lions was treated as a festival.
I'm not a Christian.
Immortalist
2011-07-23 02:04:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Immortalist
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Immortalist
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Immortalist
Why don't you idiots learn to challenge these Christian liars and
abusers who would use anything as a means to the ends of defending
their shared self deceptions. Maybe it begins to make sense why the
Romans fed the liars to lions as a festive past time.
The Romans fed Christians to the lions because the Christians refused
to practice the polytheistic Roman religion and refused to acknowledge
the Roman Emperor as a god.
Go somewhere else and twist history into an unrecognizable shape,
jackass.
Ya idiot prick, isn't kinda cool though, the image of lions eating
those bigot Christians ripping them limb from limb?
I's rather the lions eat you. At least the Christians were sincere.
 And as for your
Post by Immortalist
attempt to censor and limit free speech, fuck you.
I don't have the power to censor or limit speech, so your claim is
ludicrous.
You spewed your crap and I told you, as is my free speech right, to
take it somewhere else. DAMN YOU ARE STUPID.
Feeding you Christians to the lions was treated as a festival.
I'm not a Christian.
Well in that case there might hope for you yet. If you knew any logic
at all you could have defeated my position without saying whether you
were a Christian or not.

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests
and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim
being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives
to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It
is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political
affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim.
This is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that
1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html
Ken
2011-07-21 15:49:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Immortalist
Why don't you idiots learn to challenge these Christian liars and
abusers who would use anything as a means to the ends of defending
their shared self deceptions. Maybe it begins to make sense why the
Romans fed the liars to lions as a festive past time.
Now that what In think is a great idea.
Let's bring back "The Happy Times"!
raven1
2011-07-21 14:39:06 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 05:37:50 -0400, old man joe
Post by old man joe
the only way to discover the age of the earth is through the genealogy of human beings.
As the Earth predates humans by several billion years, that's an epic
fail.
WangoTango
2011-07-21 15:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by old man joe
the only way to discover the age of the earth is through the genealogy of human beings.
Sorry, the Earth was here BEFORE people.
That is a know fact.
How much longer is SLIGHTLY in debate, but the debate is a few hundred
millions years of difference, not *BILLIONS* like you would attempt
here.
Answer_42
2011-07-21 19:52:10 UTC
Permalink
On Jul 21, 5:37 am, old man joe <***@themarketplace.com> wrote:

<snipping uninformed content>
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...