SLD
Contributor
More from Facebook science of creation vs religion of evolution page:
Is there an English translation available? I don’t speak fundy.
Is there an English translation available? I don’t speak fundy.
-
Features
Does anyone speak fundy?
- Thread starter SLD
- Start date
SLD
Contributor
Been there a lot lately, myself.
Ruth Harris
Token Christian,retired bad-ass level tech support
I speak "fundy" fairly well, and this is not it.
This is someone's personal viewpoint stated in the format that philosophers use. Can you provide a link?
Ruth
This is someone's personal viewpoint stated in the format that philosophers use. Can you provide a link?
Ruth
ideologyhunter
Contributor
P1 through P5 sound very much like the call of the common American fundy. There are species that mimic the fundies, which may explain some of the divergent notes after P5.
The fundy was once a dominant U.S. species, commonly sighted in all 50 states. Their population peaked in the early 1980s and has noticeably decreased in the past 30 years, although they are still common residents in the Cotton Belt states, with heavy concentrations in South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and eastern Texas, and with strong colonies in Oklahoma.
Travel in flocks for protection. At large gatherings, will be seen dunking each other in ponds or streams and emitting what naturalists have described as 'strange, passionate, guttural utterances, with much wing flapping' (Dr. Emmett A. Belzers, Among the Fundies, Golden Press 1996.) A few factors have led to the decrease in population:
1- Destructive and even suicidal behavior from alpha males in the flock, first seen in the early 80s in such locales as Baton Rouge, LA and Fort Mill, SC (see Belzer, Are They Leaders...or Loons?, The New Republic, March 1984)
2- Expulsion of some young from nests, particularly youngsters with idiosyncratic behavior
3- Invasion of imitative species, which have learned to mimic the fundies' vocalisms and have moved into fundy nesting areas, exploiting their resources (See Belzer, Rise of the Orange-Thatched Booby, American Naturalist, spring 2017).
4- Resistance from other species, such as tool-users (crows, ravens, and jays) and birds that can actually speak coherent words and phrases (parrots, mynahs).
Still a colorful, typical American species, which many naturalists from Japan and Europe come to observe and marvel at.
The fundy was once a dominant U.S. species, commonly sighted in all 50 states. Their population peaked in the early 1980s and has noticeably decreased in the past 30 years, although they are still common residents in the Cotton Belt states, with heavy concentrations in South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, and eastern Texas, and with strong colonies in Oklahoma.
Travel in flocks for protection. At large gatherings, will be seen dunking each other in ponds or streams and emitting what naturalists have described as 'strange, passionate, guttural utterances, with much wing flapping' (Dr. Emmett A. Belzers, Among the Fundies, Golden Press 1996.) A few factors have led to the decrease in population:
1- Destructive and even suicidal behavior from alpha males in the flock, first seen in the early 80s in such locales as Baton Rouge, LA and Fort Mill, SC (see Belzer, Are They Leaders...or Loons?, The New Republic, March 1984)
2- Expulsion of some young from nests, particularly youngsters with idiosyncratic behavior
3- Invasion of imitative species, which have learned to mimic the fundies' vocalisms and have moved into fundy nesting areas, exploiting their resources (See Belzer, Rise of the Orange-Thatched Booby, American Naturalist, spring 2017).
4- Resistance from other species, such as tool-users (crows, ravens, and jays) and birds that can actually speak coherent words and phrases (parrots, mynahs).
Still a colorful, typical American species, which many naturalists from Japan and Europe come to observe and marvel at.
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 15,816
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
All of the premises assume the truth of the premises and as such this form can be used to prove anything, including outright contradictions.
Which is clearly the point because all their claims are contradictory with the evidence of reality.
Which is clearly the point because all their claims are contradictory with the evidence of reality.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 36,908
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 15,816
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Like, the first premise is that Jesus *demonstrated* that he wasn't a liar. But even then it does not follow from the fact rhat Jesus might have been truthful or correct about some things that he is truthful and correct about different things. That would be an argument from authority.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 36,908
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Well, if you can't accept that an actual God is an authority, then there's no hope for you.
And we know he is, because he said so, so he must be.
SLD
Contributor
It’s on a Facebook page called The Science of Creation and the Religion of Evolution. Please join us if you’re on Facebook. I’ll be on the lookout for you, Ruth!
Ruth Harris
Token Christian,retired bad-ass level tech support
@SLD - ugh. No thanks. I found it, and have no desire to inhabit the same place as people who think they can just rant louder to make everyone agree with them. And I was right; the person who posted the screed in your opening post is a philosopher at heart if not in real life.
Good heavens. What on earth are you doing there? Do you enjoy that? People like that give me the shivers.
Ruth
Good heavens. What on earth are you doing there? Do you enjoy that? People like that give me the shivers.
Ruth
SLD
Contributor
Our latest colloquy:
“P1: Jesus Christ is a real person of historicity who demonstrated himself to be trustworthy and true.”
Assuming arguendo that Jesus was a historical character, which is debatable, the rest of your premise is flat out false. What exactly about him is “true”? That he walked in water? That he changed water into wine? (But Dionysus didn’t). That he said blessed are the peacemakers? That he stopped the stoning of an adulterous woman? Is that really a true story? If not, how do we know any of it is true? If it is true, why is it not in the earliest version of the Bible?
“P2: Jesus Christ’s declared mind and ministry is evidently set forth in the objective public record of his words and works that are known and knowable to be trustworthy and true.”
How is this particularly different from premise 1? And what exactly do you mean by “public record”? The Gospel of John, or the Gospel of Mark? Because they contain very different versions of what supposedly happened. Even the character of Jesus is different. In Mark he denies being god, and in John he doesn’t. How can he be “true” when he says completely different things? And trustworthy? What do you mean by that? This guy has disappeared for 2,000 years, even though he promised to BRB. During those two millennia, there’ve been wars, famines and plague, not to mention the Holocaust and nuclear warfare even, and he doesn’t do a daggum thing. Not exactly trustworthy. Although I did hear that the Dow had dropped by about 2% and apparently that’s the signal he’s been waiting for. We will see.
“P3: Jesus Christ and the Christian’s own revelation to mankind, in due process of time, is that Jesus’s own words and works declare and demonstrate the testimony and works of God.”
And is this the best god can do? I’m sorry but disappearing for 2,000 years is more like a temp with a bad attitude than a supreme being.
“P4: Jesus Christ declared and demonstrated the known and knowable creations’ and creatures’ Creator is God, himself.”
Then why did he deny it in Mark? "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone". Mark 10:18.
‘’P5: Christians have evidently set forth the objective public testimony and record that Jesus is the Creator, himself manifest and come in the flesh, in due time.”
In due time? It’s been 2,000 years dude. Time to get over it.
“P6: Natural theology and the scientific method was developed to better understand HOW the mindful and made creations and the creatures are objectively moving and manifesting either in agreement with or in opposition to the declared and demonstrated eternal purposes of the Creator, the creation, and the creatures that exist freely and willfully, in reality, presently.”
Is there an English translation available?
“C: There is sufficient reason and evident public objective testimony and record to scientifically declare and demonstrate that Jesus Christ is the trustworthy and true Creator of any creation and creature found and known to be moving in reality, according to the eternal purposes revealed by the words and works of Christ manifest and come in the flesh in due time, also declared and demonstrated by Christians to be freely and willfully knowable in due process of time for all existing mankind to be shown either in agreement with or in opposition to God, himself, presently.’’
Your conclusion appear to be nothing but a rehashing of your premises. The only “evidence” you have is a set of books written almost 2,000 years ago that contradict each other, and appear to be ripoffs of other dying and rising savior gods of that time period. Books that have also undergone various edits, additions and deletions over the millennia. There is absolutely no proof or serious evidence that these contradicting stories happened. There’s only minimal evidence that the character you describe even existed, and if he did, he’s nothing but a failed Jewish revolutionary of that time frame who challenged the Roman Empire and learned the hard way what happens if you did.
I responded no.
I responded:
WADR you’ve not refuted anything. your premises are all fundamentally flawed. you use big language in a vain attempt to sound intellectual. but frankly your post is full of utter nonsense.
His latest response:
“P1: Jesus Christ is a real person of historicity who demonstrated himself to be trustworthy and true.”
Assuming arguendo that Jesus was a historical character, which is debatable, the rest of your premise is flat out false. What exactly about him is “true”? That he walked in water? That he changed water into wine? (But Dionysus didn’t). That he said blessed are the peacemakers? That he stopped the stoning of an adulterous woman? Is that really a true story? If not, how do we know any of it is true? If it is true, why is it not in the earliest version of the Bible?
“P2: Jesus Christ’s declared mind and ministry is evidently set forth in the objective public record of his words and works that are known and knowable to be trustworthy and true.”
How is this particularly different from premise 1? And what exactly do you mean by “public record”? The Gospel of John, or the Gospel of Mark? Because they contain very different versions of what supposedly happened. Even the character of Jesus is different. In Mark he denies being god, and in John he doesn’t. How can he be “true” when he says completely different things? And trustworthy? What do you mean by that? This guy has disappeared for 2,000 years, even though he promised to BRB. During those two millennia, there’ve been wars, famines and plague, not to mention the Holocaust and nuclear warfare even, and he doesn’t do a daggum thing. Not exactly trustworthy. Although I did hear that the Dow had dropped by about 2% and apparently that’s the signal he’s been waiting for. We will see.
“P3: Jesus Christ and the Christian’s own revelation to mankind, in due process of time, is that Jesus’s own words and works declare and demonstrate the testimony and works of God.”
And is this the best god can do? I’m sorry but disappearing for 2,000 years is more like a temp with a bad attitude than a supreme being.
“P4: Jesus Christ declared and demonstrated the known and knowable creations’ and creatures’ Creator is God, himself.”
Then why did he deny it in Mark? "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone". Mark 10:18.
‘’P5: Christians have evidently set forth the objective public testimony and record that Jesus is the Creator, himself manifest and come in the flesh, in due time.”
In due time? It’s been 2,000 years dude. Time to get over it.
“P6: Natural theology and the scientific method was developed to better understand HOW the mindful and made creations and the creatures are objectively moving and manifesting either in agreement with or in opposition to the declared and demonstrated eternal purposes of the Creator, the creation, and the creatures that exist freely and willfully, in reality, presently.”
Is there an English translation available?
“C: There is sufficient reason and evident public objective testimony and record to scientifically declare and demonstrate that Jesus Christ is the trustworthy and true Creator of any creation and creature found and known to be moving in reality, according to the eternal purposes revealed by the words and works of Christ manifest and come in the flesh in due time, also declared and demonstrated by Christians to be freely and willfully knowable in due process of time for all existing mankind to be shown either in agreement with or in opposition to God, himself, presently.’’
Your conclusion appear to be nothing but a rehashing of your premises. The only “evidence” you have is a set of books written almost 2,000 years ago that contradict each other, and appear to be ripoffs of other dying and rising savior gods of that time period. Books that have also undergone various edits, additions and deletions over the millennia. There is absolutely no proof or serious evidence that these contradicting stories happened. There’s only minimal evidence that the character you describe even existed, and if he did, he’s nothing but a failed Jewish revolutionary of that time frame who challenged the Roman Empire and learned the hard way what happens if you did.
I responded no.
I responded:
WADR you’ve not refuted anything. your premises are all fundamentally flawed. you use big language in a vain attempt to sound intellectual. but frankly your post is full of utter nonsense.
His latest response:
