Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

[fatcat]

 I can see the hand of a Creator in the order of the Universe.  I can see a bunch of nonsense in what "man" in his "wisdom" comes up with to explain our surroundings.  "Man" can't even get "global warming" (or is it cooling?) correct.  How can we expect "men" who can't figure out that steeling $7 bil. from the working man and giving it to the ultra-rich is a BAD thing to be able to figure out anything else?

I guess when you put it like that blindly following the contradictory ramblings of a co-authored 2000+ year old book is a much more reliable way to get your information than any of that "figuring out" bullshit.

anyone else want to point out the glaring flaw in this argument or should i take it?

[Rillion]

 I can see the hand of a Creator in the order of the Universe.  I can see a bunch of nonsense in what "man" in his "wisdom" comes up with to explain our surroundings.  "Man" can't even get "global warming" (or is it cooling?) correct.  How can we expect "men" who can't figure out that steeling $7 bil. from the working man and giving it to the ultra-rich is a BAD thing to be able to figure out anything else?

anyone else want to point out the glaring flaw in this argument or should i take it?

Fallacy of personal incredulity? 

[fatcat]

 I can see the hand of a Creator in the order of the Universe.  I can see a bunch of nonsense in what "man" in his "wisdom" comes up with to explain our surroundings.  "Man" can't even get "global warming" (or is it cooling?) correct.  How can we expect "men" who can't figure out that steeling $7 bil. from the working man and giving it to the ultra-rich is a BAD thing to be able to figure out anything else?

anyone else want to point out the glaring flaw in this argument or should i take it?

Fallacy of personal incredulity? 

Theres that, but I think the more glaring fallacy is the "how can you expect men to figure things out" contradiction. If I had my where withall about me I'm pretty sure theres an apt Atlas Shrugged quotation for this exact fallacy.

Gene, assuming you are a human of some sorts, how did you figure out not to trust mans ability to figure out?

[ChristianAnarchist]

 I can see the hand of a Creator in the order of the Universe.  I can see a bunch of nonsense in what "man" in his "wisdom" comes up with to explain our surroundings.  "Man" can't even get "global warming" (or is it cooling?) correct.  How can we expect "men" who can't figure out that steeling $7 bil. from the working man and giving it to the ultra-rich is a BAD thing to be able to figure out anything else?

I guess when you put it like that blindly following the contradictory ramblings of a co-authored 2000+ year old book is a much more reliable way to get your information than any of that "figuring out" bullshit.

anyone else want to point out the glaring flaw in this argument or should i take it?

Of course if you take out some of what I wrote, it changes the meaning.  Wow.  Talk about integrity.  The meaning is quite clear.  That you should not trust "men" who have a poor record of "accuracy" to tell you how to think.  I have always stated that every man should make his own decisions using his own knowledge and experience.  If you use what others have said (as we all do to some extent) you must realize that you need to be aware that they may not be on the level.  I certainly apply this to my reading of the letters and scrolls complied into what is commonly known as "the Bible".  I only hope that someday you people will realize that you need to do the same when reading your "scriptures" from your "holy men" of the "cult of science"...

[sinceredagreat]

 I can see the hand of a Creator in the order of the Universe.  I can see a bunch of nonsense in what "man" in his "wisdom" comes up with to explain our surroundings.  "Man" can't even get "global warming" (or is it cooling?) correct.  How can we expect "men" who can't figure out that steeling $7 bil. from the working man and giving it to the ultra-rich is a BAD thing to be able to figure out anything else?

I guess when you put it like that blindly following the contradictory ramblings of a co-authored 2000+ year old book is a much more reliable way to get your information than any of that "figuring out" bullshit.

anyone else want to point out the glaring flaw in this argument or should i take it?

Of course if you take out some of what I wrote, it changes the meaning.  Wow.  Talk about integrity.  The meaning is quite clear.  That you should not trust "men" who have a poor record of "accuracy" to tell you how to think.  I have always stated that every man should make his own decisions using his own knowledge and experience.  If you use what others have said (as we all do to some extent) you must realize that you need to be aware that they may not be on the level.  I certainly apply this to my reading of the letters and scrolls complied into what is commonly known as "the Bible".  I only hope that someday you people will realize that you need to do the same when reading your "scriptures" from your "holy men" of the "cult of science"...

Einstien was a man.

He came up with the theory of relativity

I shouldn't believe it because he is a man and hence has a poor record of accuracy.

You just gave yourself every reason why you should be an atheist. Plus you refuse to do any research into your religion and how it basically copied every religion and myth before it.

There is this thing called empirical method, that scientists use, it ensures accuracy by having a crapload of people do the same experiments to produce the same results, therefore ensuring accuracy.

You claim men are inaccurate, but then you put your faith into a whole bunch of shit written by men. Highly inaccurate, racist, bigoted shit used to control the populace written by men. You don't question anything, because I guarantee you still haven't looked up the similarities between Jesus and Horus. You are just a blind follower to the State, just not the government.

You are an idiot.

Now let this thread die.

[fatcat]

Of course if you take out some of what I wrote, it changes the meaning.  Wow.  Talk about integrity.  The meaning is quite clear.  That you should not trust "men" who have a poor record of "accuracy" to tell you how to think.  I have always stated that every man should make his own decisions using his own knowledge and experience.  If you use what others have said (as we all do to some extent) you must realize that you need to be aware that they may not be on the level.  I certainly apply this to my reading of the letters and scrolls complied into what is commonly known as "the Bible".  I only hope that someday you people will realize that you need to do the same when reading your "scriptures" from your "holy men" of the "cult of science"...

Wait, let me get this straight,


so, peer review process with mountains of empirical evidence, the have been repeated hundreds of times in hundreds of ways = less reliable than a 2000 year old book with no empirical evidence and that can be shown to have vastly contradictory claims to the nature of the universe

It was you who suggested that "men" (im assuming you meant "science") is unreliable. no one hear claimed to believe everything global warming believers believe in, I can only assume that the talk about not being able to trust man was a veiled attempt at discrediting the scientific method through some really poor arguments of authority.

Why would you assume that anyone else here didn't think for themselves? Since when did it become a choice between believe in the bible and believing everything some guys who believe global warming to be true believe? Don't I get another choice?

That you should not trust "men" who have a poor record of "accuracy" to tell you how to think

I don't. I don't "trust" anyone record to tell me how to think. I look at how the evidence, I apply reason.

and please, if we're going to go on about records of accuracy, how about the book that claims the earth was made in less than a week (even though geological and atomic evidence all points to the earth being millions of yearas old), all life on earth was created at the same time(even though the fossil record shows there is life from hundreds of millions of years ago whereas the oldest human fossil is around 100,000 years), that the stars and suns are different entities (erm no), and that light was made before anything that could produce light.

they hold up well? It doesn't even matter if those claims where accurate, it still wouldn't do anything to prove completely baseless assumptions like

1. God exists somewhere but he doesn't have any measurable effects or properties, at least not any repeatable or falsifiable ones

2. Theres life after death.

3. Any miricales have ever happened (except ones that can actually be explained by science)

Arguments from authority are bullshit. Theres no reason for me to have to "trust" anyones record. If what they are saying it can stand up to rational intrigue without my trust.

Also if you're going to claim the above 3 claims cannot be proved or disproved, then I have some religious claims of my own.

1. Two gods exist one made everything bad in the universe, one made everything good in the universe, but they can't be measured in any way.

2. there are 2 afterlifes, when you die all your bad aspects go to the bad afterlife, and all your good ones go to the good afterlife

[Jetfire]

Now let this thread die.

Thats not gonna happen if everyone keeps posting on here man... You guys argue and insult him of course he's gonna respond... Thats human nature...

[sinceredagreat]

Of course if you take out some of what I wrote, it changes the meaning.  Wow.  Talk about integrity.  The meaning is quite clear.  That you should not trust "men" who have a poor record of "accuracy" to tell you how to think.  I have always stated that every man should make his own decisions using his own knowledge and experience.  If you use what others have said (as we all do to some extent) you must realize that you need to be aware that they may not be on the level.  I certainly apply this to my reading of the letters and scrolls complied into what is commonly known as "the Bible".  I only hope that someday you people will realize that you need to do the same when reading your "scriptures" from your "holy men" of the "cult of science"...

Wait, let me get this straight,


so, peer review process with mountains of empirical evidence, the have been repeated hundreds of times in hundreds of ways = less reliable than a 2000 year old book with no empirical evidence and that can be shown to have vastly contradictory claims to the nature of the universe

It was you who suggested that "men" (im assuming you meant "science") is unreliable. no one hear claimed to believe everything global warming believers believe in, I can only assume that the talk about not being able to trust man was a veiled attempt at discrediting the scientific method through some really poor arguments of authority.

Why would you assume that anyone else here didn't think for themselves? Since when did it become a choice between believe in the bible and believing everything some guys who believe global warming to be true believe? Don't I get another choice?

That you should not trust "men" who have a poor record of "accuracy" to tell you how to think

I don't. I don't "trust" anyone record to tell me how to think. I look at how the evidence, I apply reason.

and please, if we're going to go on about records of accuracy, how about the book that claims the earth was made in less than a week (even though geological and atomic evidence all points to the earth being millions of yearas old), all life on earth was created at the same time(even though the fossil record shows there is life from hundreds of millions of years ago whereas the oldest human fossil is around 100,000 years), that the stars and suns are different entities (erm no), and that light was made before anything that could produce light.

they hold up well? It doesn't even matter if those claims where accurate, it still wouldn't do anything to prove completely baseless assumptions like

1. God exists somewhere but he doesn't have any measurable effects or properties, at least not any repeatable or falsifiable ones

2. Theres life after death.

3. Any miricales have ever happened (except ones that can actually be explained by science)

Arguments from authority are bullshit. Theres no reason for me to have to "trust" anyones record. If what they are saying it can stand up to rational intrigue without my trust.

Also if you're going to claim the above 3 claims cannot be proved or disproved, then I have some religious claims of my own.

1. Two gods exist one made everything bad in the universe, one made everything good in the universe, but they can't be measured in any way.

2. there are 2 afterlifes, when you die all your bad aspects go to the bad afterlife, and all your good ones go to the good afterlife

Thank you for repeating everything I said in a much more intelligent answer.
You have a lot more patience for stupid people than I do.

You rock.

[NuroSlam]

Just use force to make him stop believing - better yet send the jackboots to confiscate his bible

[ChristianAnarchist]

 I can see the hand of a Creator in the order of the Universe.  I can see a bunch of nonsense in what "man" in his "wisdom" comes up with to explain our surroundings.  "Man" can't even get "global warming" (or is it cooling?) correct.  How can we expect "men" who can't figure out that steeling $7 bil. from the working man and giving it to the ultra-rich is a BAD thing to be able to figure out anything else?

I guess when you put it like that blindly following the contradictory ramblings of a co-authored 2000+ year old book is a much more reliable way to get your information than any of that "figuring out" bullshit.

anyone else want to point out the glaring flaw in this argument or should i take it?

Of course if you take out some of what I wrote, it changes the meaning.  Wow.  Talk about integrity.  The meaning is quite clear.  That you should not trust "men" who have a poor record of "accuracy" to tell you how to think.  I have always stated that every man should make his own decisions using his own knowledge and experience.  If you use what others have said (as we all do to some extent) you must realize that you need to be aware that they may not be on the level.  I certainly apply this to my reading of the letters and scrolls complied into what is commonly known as "the Bible".  I only hope that someday you people will realize that you need to do the same when reading your "scriptures" from your "holy men" of the "cult of science"...

Einstien was a man.

He came up with the theory of relativity

I shouldn't believe it because he is a man and hence has a poor record of accuracy.

You continue to miss the point (or you are just trying to be difficult).  Did Einstein have a poor record of accuracy?  If he did then you should take other things he said with some caution.  If he had a record that was impeccable, then you should take his words more seriously.  Now if Einstein were alive today and was spouting some of the nonsense we hear from his peers, then his accuracy would have to be questioned.

Do you get it now??

No??

Then there's not much help for you I'm afraid.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Of course if you take out some of what I wrote, it changes the meaning.  Wow.  Talk about integrity.  The meaning is quite clear.  That you should not trust "men" who have a poor record of "accuracy" to tell you how to think.  I have always stated that every man should make his own decisions using his own knowledge and experience.  If you use what others have said (as we all do to some extent) you must realize that you need to be aware that they may not be on the level.  I certainly apply this to my reading of the letters and scrolls complied into what is commonly known as "the Bible".  I only hope that someday you people will realize that you need to do the same when reading your "scriptures" from your "holy men" of the "cult of science"...

Wait, let me get this straight,


so, peer review process with mountains of empirical evidence, the have been repeated hundreds of times in hundreds of ways = less reliable than a 2000 year old book with no empirical evidence and that can be shown to have vastly contradictory claims to the nature of the universe

It was you who suggested that "men" (im assuming you meant "science") is unreliable. no one hear claimed to believe everything global warming believers believe in, I can only assume that the talk about not being able to trust man was a veiled attempt at discrediting the scientific method through some really poor arguments of authority.

Why would you assume that anyone else here didn't think for themselves? Since when did it become a choice between believe in the bible and believing everything some guys who believe global warming to be true believe? Don't I get another choice?

That you should not trust "men" who have a poor record of "accuracy" to tell you how to think

I don't. I don't "trust" anyone record to tell me how to think. I look at how the evidence, I apply reason.

and please, if we're going to go on about records of accuracy, how about the book that claims the earth was made in less than a week (even though geological and atomic evidence all points to the earth being millions of yearas old), all life on earth was created at the same time(even though the fossil record shows there is life from hundreds of millions of years ago whereas the oldest human fossil is around 100,000 years), that the stars and suns are different entities (erm no), and that light was made before anything that could produce light.

they hold up well? It doesn't even matter if those claims where accurate, it still wouldn't do anything to prove completely baseless assumptions like

1. God exists somewhere but he doesn't have any measurable effects or properties, at least not any repeatable or falsifiable ones

2. Theres life after death.

3. Any miricales have ever happened (except ones that can actually be explained by science)

Arguments from authority are bullshit. Theres no reason for me to have to "trust" anyones record. If what they are saying it can stand up to rational intrigue without my trust.

Also if you're going to claim the above 3 claims cannot be proved or disproved, then I have some religious claims of my own.

1. Two gods exist one made everything bad in the universe, one made everything good in the universe, but they can't be measured in any way.

2. there are 2 afterlifes, when you die all your bad aspects go to the bad afterlife, and all your good ones go to the good afterlife

I can make all the same arguments against your "long history" claims.  We have already discussed the radiometric dating (perhaps you missed it some pages back) in which I pointed out the "assumptions" made in order to come up with ANY number whether it's a million or a billion (I do believe that your own cult members claim the Earth is "billions" of years old, not "millions" as you claim above - I could be wrong but you should know as it's your position).

[Dylboz]

Based on you argument, Gene, no one, and I mean NO ONE, should take any claim made by a priest, pastor or reverend seriously. Their record of accuracy is far, far, FAR worse than any modern scientist's.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Based on you argument, Gene, no one, and I mean NO ONE, should take any claim made by a priest, pastor or reverend seriously. Their record of accuracy is far, far, FAR worse than any modern scientist's.

You have to look at each man's "record".  If you find that their record is unreliable, by all means, DO NOT listen to them (or do so at your own risk)...

[Dylboz]

Right off the bat, their means of determining truth from falsehood and their methodology for understanding the world around them is absurd, so really, it's a non-starter. I don't need to evaluate each man on his merits, because they've all already impeached themselves.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Right off the bat, their means of determining truth from falsehood and their methodology for understanding the world around them is absurd, so really, it's a non-starter. I don't need to evaluate each man on his merits, because they've all already impeached themselves.

Not really.  Their "means" is direct observation and testimony regarding what they saw.  You then have to determine if that testimony or observation is reliable.  Because what they claim to have witnesses is "absurd" by your definition doesn't mean that it did not happen.  If someone says they saw something and insists that it is true to the extent that they will die rather than recant, that's strong testimony.  It can be said that a crazy person might die rather than change their story, it is still unlikely that 12 (actually 10 I believe) unrelated persons would die for what they believed and NONE of them recant if they were not themselves convinced.  Most of the "history" we take for fact is nothing more than testimony written down by men who were there.  We seldom question the "history" about Rome even though there may only be one record from a given section of that timeline.  Some periods have many written records but some have only one.  Here we have several written records of the life of Christ and these "historians" put their lives on the line to record and transmit that record to us.  I guess that is pretty "absurd"...