Maybe it would be good for science to make up new words to describe laws, etc

[Keith&Co.]

Sholars / historians who are also believers don't seem to be taken seriously as the non-believer versions for some reason

You have any examples? Citations where someone's opinion is rejected exactly because of the faith he or she practices, rather than something like not being able to support their claims?

See, I find your claim a little suspect, but only because of your post history of claims and interpretations that far exceed your expertise, NOT just because you have a faith that you practice.

 

[Learner]

Sholars / historians who are also believers don't seem to be taken seriously as the non-believer versions for some reason

You have any examples? Citations where someone's opinion is rejected exactly because of the faith he or she practices, rather than something like not being able to support their claims?

See, I find your claim a little suspect, but only because of your post history of claims and interpretations that far exceed your expertise, NOT just because you have a faith that you practice.

Many on the forum, you know like: the case for Jesus Lee Strobel was not a real atheist etc.. etc.. similar on many threads.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Many on the forum, you know the case for Jesus was not a real atheist etc.. etc.. similar on many threads.

Um, Learner? If we're sure that he's not truly atheist, then that's the opposite of giving Christains less respect, isn't it? So, not an example to support your claim.

But aside from that, we did explain quite extensively why we think his arguments are just propped up pablum for the believers, not arguments to convince the faithless.
So, again, no one posted, and you haven't provided a reason to believe, that it was a case of 'Learner's a Xian, fuck him and his data.'

 

[Atheos]

Lee Stroebel is a lying sack of shit in my opinion, but he's a christian apologist lying sack of shit, same as Ken Hamm. I believe both are probably atheist inasmuch as neither of them actually believe in any of the snake oil they sell, so there is that.

Nothing about being an atheist means you have to be honest or have a conscience about scamming people. If there is a single biggest problem I have with religion it's that it is the most fertile breeding ground for scams that has ever been created.

 

[skepticalbip]

Lee Stroebel is a lying sack of shit in my opinion, but he's a christian apologist lying sack of shit, same as Ken Hamm. I believe both are probably atheist inasmuch as neither of them actually believe in any of the snake oil they sell, so there is that.

Nothing about being an atheist means you have to be honest or have a conscience about scamming people. If there is a single biggest problem I have with religion it's that it is the most fertile breeding ground for scams that has ever been created.

What better attraction for con artists than a large group that proudly proclaim and constantly demonstrate their gullibility?

 

[Atheos]

And therein lies the difference between religion and science. Religion breeds con artists. Science (through the peer review process) squashes them quickly.

 

[Keith&Co.]

And therein lies the difference between religion and science. Religion breeds con artists. Science (through the peer review process) squashes them quickly.

Compare the two camps' reaction to Onyate Man, if nothing else.

 

[Half-Life]

I can't tell you how many times over the years I was linked to ATHEIST WEBSITES as evidence of ATHEISM. How is that unbiased? I show you Christian sites that say Christianity is true. You laugh and say "bias!" So, why can't you do the same for atheist websites?

Hey, so when you suggested that the bible supported a nti-gay bigotry, Halfie, did FUCKING ANYONE 'scream' Bias!
Or did we ask you to support your claim?
The claim you still haven't supported? Never once finding that verse where Jesus used 'homosexual' and 'sin' in connection to each other?
I will stipulate laughing, but only at your utter failure, not your claim.

You ever heard of deductive reasoning?

Because Jesus agreed with the book of Genesis that marriage is between a man and a woman, this means He is against gay marriage. We also see this today with people who say, "marriage is between a man and a woman" and you guys call them bigots, despite the fact they never mentioned gay marriage.

How many times must this simple point be explained?

 

[Atheos]

This is not how deductive reasoning works. The passage to which you refer in Genesis does not specify that it is a sin for two men to marry each other. It says a man must leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. Deductive reasoning can infer the following:

1: If the man ever goes back to live with his father and mother after getting married he is transgressing the rule.
2: If the man ever stops cleaving to his wife he is transgressing the rule.

But this passage says nothing about two men marrying each other. Beyond these two conclusions deductive reasoning stops and interpretation (opinion) begins.

 

[Half-Life]

This is not how deductive reasoning works. The passage to which you refer in Genesis does not specify that it is a sin for two men to marry each other. It says a man must leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. Deductive reasoning can infer the following:

1: If the man ever goes back to live with his father and mother after getting married he is transgressing the rule.
2: If the man ever stops cleaving to his wife he is transgressing the rule.

But this passage says nothing about two men marrying each other. Beyond these two conclusions deductive reasoning stops and interpretation (opinion) begins.

Right. And when people hold up signs that say, "Marriage is between a man and a woman," by your logic, they are not against gay marriage because they never mentioned anything about gay marriage.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I can't tell you how many times over the years I was linked to ATHEIST WEBSITES as evidence of ATHEISM. How is that unbiased? I show you Christian sites that say Christianity is true. You laugh and say "bias!" So, why can't you do the same for atheist websites?

Hey, so when you suggested that the bible supported a nti-gay bigotry, Halfie, did FUCKING ANYONE 'scream' Bias!
Or did we ask you to support your claim?
The claim you still haven't supported? Never once finding that verse where Jesus used 'homosexual' and 'sin' in connection to each other?
I will stipulate laughing, but only at your utter failure, not your claim.

You ever heard of deductive reasoning?

Yes, but right here, the fact remains that your own experience on this board belies your claim.
No one screamed bias. Instead, we asked you to support your claim.

So, either admit error or link to someone screaming bias at you.

Because Jesus agreed with the book of Genesis that marriage is between a man and a woman, this means He is against gay marriage.

Except the quote you found was not DEFINING marriage as ONLY being a man/woman thing.
And even if it did, that does not make any other arrangement a sin.

So, your ckaim of what Jesus said remains unsupported.

We also see this today with people who say, "marriage is between a man and a woman" and you guys call them bigots, despite the fact they never mentioned gay marriage.

they say that TO DEFINE MARRIAGE usuallly at protests against gay marriage. It is a drastically different usage. And fairly obvious, unless you are foundering....

How many times must this simple point be explained?

Maybe enough times to actually change the facts to support your claim? I dunno how many that would be.

Or, just show where jesus says homosexual = sin.

 

[Politesse]

This is not how deductive reasoning works. The passage to which you refer in Genesis does not specify that it is a sin for two men to marry each other. It says a man must leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. Deductive reasoning can infer the following:

1: If the man ever goes back to live with his father and mother after getting married he is transgressing the rule.
2: If the man ever stops cleaving to his wife he is transgressing the rule.

But this passage says nothing about two men marrying each other. Beyond these two conclusions deductive reasoning stops and interpretation (opinion) begins.

Right. And when people hold up signs that say, "Marriage is between a man and a woman," by your logic, they are not against gay marriage because they never mentioned anything about gay marriage.

If all people did was say, "it's good when men and women marry", I would not have any problem with that. I agree with that even, presuming they know what they're getting into and it's not abusive.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But this passage says nothing about two men marrying each other. Beyond these two conclusions deductive reasoning stops and interpretation (opinion) begins.

Or inductive reasoning. Adding shit to the situation.
Problem is, if he wants to show that Xians are not bigoted because of what Jedus said, and he has to add shit to what Jesus said to make Him support the bigotry, it defeats the purpose of pretending it's a quote.
Bigoted Xians think Jesus smiles on their bigotry, becausebthey slipped their bigotry into the script.

 

[Half-Life]

But this passage says nothing about two men marrying each other. Beyond these two conclusions deductive reasoning stops and interpretation (opinion) begins.

Or inductive reasoning. Adding shit to the situation.
Problem is, if he wants to show that Xians are not bigoted because of what Jedus said, and he has to add shit to what Jesus said to make Him support the bigotry, it defeats the purpose of pretending it's a quote.
Bigoted Xians think Jesus smiles on their bigotry, becausebthey slipped their bigotry into the script.

Since this thread is about science, I want to mention how the left is getting anti-science these days. Basic biology says men are men and women are women. But, the left believes a man can be a woman and a woman can be a man. Look at all the men who pretend to be women DOMINATING women's sports and the biological women can't stand it. They are losing scholarships because colleges look at who the "best" are and the men pretending to be women are head and shoulders above the biological women. It's stupid, disgusting, sexist, anti-science, and bigoted.

the left gets stumped when you say, "I am 40 years old, but I identify as a 65 year old. When is the government going to give me my free social security check? I shouldn't have to conform to "age norms" if I feel a different age in my head."

 

[Keith&Co.]

Since this thread is about science

And you're losing your grip on the topic, let's derail!

, I want to mention how the left

And we're back to a sweeping generalization of Halfie's boogeyman.

is getting anti-science these days. Basic biology says men are men and women are women. But, the left believes a man can be a woman and a woman can be a man. Look at all the men who pretend to be women DOMINATING women's sports and the biological women can't stand it. They are losing scholarships because colleges look at who the "best" are and the men pretending to be women are head and shoulders above the biological women. It's stupid, disgusting, sexist, anti-science, and bigoted.

Citations for anynof this...?

the left gets stumped when you say, "I am 40 years old, but I identify as a 65 year old. When is the government going to give me my free social security check? I shouldn't have to conform to "age norms" if I feel a different age in my head."

Stumped? Who was ever stumped by this?

 

[Half-Life]

And you're losing your grip on the topic, let's derail! And we're back to a sweeping generalization of Halfie's boogeyman.

is getting anti-science these days. Basic biology says men are men and women are women. But, the left believes a man can be a woman and a woman can be a man. Look at all the men who pretend to be women DOMINATING women's sports and the biological women can't stand it. They are losing scholarships because colleges look at who the "best" are and the men pretending to be women are head and shoulders above the biological women. It's stupid, disgusting, sexist, anti-science, and bigoted.

Citations for anynof this...?

the left gets stumped when you say, "I am 40 years old, but I identify as a 65 year old. When is the government going to give me my free social security check? I shouldn't have to conform to "age norms" if I feel a different age in my head."

Stumped? Who was ever stumped by this?

It's the same logic of being a trans man or woman! They are born a man/woman but claim they are the opposite. We know what they were born as, so we know they are delusional.

Just like if someone is born on a certain date and when they grow up they identify as a different age. We know when they were born, so we know they are delusional.

 

[bilby]

And you're losing your grip on the topic, let's derail! And we're back to a sweeping generalization of Halfie's boogeyman.
Citations for anynof this...?Stumped? Who was ever stumped by this?

It's the same logic of being a trans man or woman! They are born a man/woman but claim they are the opposite. We know what they were born as, so we know they are delusional.

Just like if someone is born on a certain date and when they grow up they identify as a different age. We know when they were born, so we know they are delusional.

Unless, or course, we assign them a different age based on their mental development: "He's thirty five, but has the mind of a five year old".

When you over simplify everything, you shouldn't be surprised to discover that you are almost invariably wrong.

 

[Half-Life]

And you're losing your grip on the topic, let's derail! And we're back to a sweeping generalization of Halfie's boogeyman.
Citations for anynof this...?Stumped? Who was ever stumped by this?

It's the same logic of being a trans man or woman! They are born a man/woman but claim they are the opposite. We know what they were born as, so we know they are delusional.

Just like if someone is born on a certain date and when they grow up they identify as a different age. We know when they were born, so we know they are delusional.

Unless, or course, we assign them a different age based on their mental development: "He's thirty five, but has the mind of a five year old".

When you over simplify everything, you shouldn't be surprised to discover that you are almost invariably wrong.

Do you allow him to fully live like he's a 5 year old? He's old enough to drink a beer, but mentally he's 5. So should he not be allowed a beer? Or be allowed a beer?

If a 15 year old identifies as a 21 year old, should he be served beer in order to keep up his mental delusion that he's 21? Or do we say, "We can't allow this?"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ifies-20-years-younger-launches-legal-battle/

"Dutch man, 69, who 'identifies as 20 years younger' launches legal battle to change age "

Mr Ratelband was born on 11th March 1949, but says he feels at least 20 years younger and wants to change his birth date to 11th March 1969.

Mr Ratelband said: "I have done a check-up and what does it show? My biological age is 45 years.

"When I'm 69, I am limited. If I'm 49, then I can buy a new house, drive a different car. I can take up more work."

"Transgenders can now have their gender changed on their birth certificate, and in the same spirit there should be room for an age change."

The Dutchman said he is discriminated against because of his age, and that he encounters problems in society on a daily basis. The court is due to deliver a written ruling within four weeks.

 

[bilby]

Unless, or course, we assign them a different age based on their mental development: "He's thirty five, but has the mind of a five year old".

When you over simplify everything, you shouldn't be surprised to discover that you are almost invariably wrong.

Do you allow him to fully live like he's a 5 year old? He's old enough to drink a beer, but mentally he's 5. So should he not be allowed a beer? Or be allowed a beer?

If a 15 year old identifies as a 21 year old, should he be served beer in order to keep up his mental delusion that he's 21? Or do we say, "We can't allow this?"

I say you should butt the fuck out of telling people what is or is not allowed. It's not your fucking business.

You are talking about people just arbitrarily making a declaration that they are not as they appear. But that's not the topic - transsexuals are not people who arbitrarily declare themselves to be of a different gender to that indicated on their birth certificate, any more than developmentally sub-normal people are people who arbitrarily declare themselves to be of a different age to that indicated by their birth certificate.

As you are clearly unqualified to judge when or if the details on a person's birth certificate do not match their physiological, psychological or mental state, I strongly recommend that you shove your judgemental crap back up the arse from which you pulled it, and leave such determinations to the professional psychologists and psychiatrists who are qualified to make such judgements.

While you are about it, you should seriously consider not asking advice on peoples' mental states from tabloid journalists, shock-jocks, or other dimwits and simpletons. At least, if you prefer not to parade your foolishness like the capering ninny you currently present yourself to be.

 

[Keith&Co.]

And you're losing your grip on the topic, let's derail! And we're back to a sweeping generalization of Halfie's boogeyman.
Citations for anynof this...?Stumped? Who was ever stumped by this?

It's the same logic of being a trans man or woman! They are born a man/woman but claim they are the opposite. We know what they were born as, so we know they are delusional.

It's notbthe same logic, but i was asking for an example.
Who was 'stumped' by this?

Just like if someone is born on a certain date and when they grow up they identify as a different age. We know when they were born, so we know they are delusional.

Oi! Stumped, Halfie. Who?

Or 'bias!' Who screamed it?

Or homosexual = sin, when did Jesus actually fucking say this in the New Testament?

Seriously, fucking anything you have claimed. ANY support?