Hugh Hefner is now in hell

[Adrift]

Your blindingly obvious long-standing hostility to Jesus the god/man puts the lie to your assertion. "Grain of salt"? You're reading lately an awful lot like a closet Christian/conservative pretending to be otherwise in order to make the opposition look bad.

Exactly. My question would be, what then could one be said to be rejecting, if not the reality of the thing that is being posited? To say, "I don't believe in your idea of the concept that you posit, namely the idea of the concept of a God", instead of the much simpler, "I don't believe in God", just so that you don't somehow accidently give credence in the concept of a "God", is just so much sophistry. The lady doth protest too much. And again, far unlike invisible pink unicorns, or leprechauns, most people in the world believe in some sort of divine, and always have. To pretend that this is a novel concept that he was absolutely naive about, and/or that was sprung upon him without his former knowledge of is just silliness. You simply do not argue every single night on a forum for YEARS with people who accept the reality of a thing without rejecting the reality of that thing.

[Tassman]

Your blindingly obvious long-standing hostility to Jesus the god/man puts the lie to your assertion. "Grain of salt"?

Nonsense! I have no hostility towards the concept of Jesus the god/man any more than I have for alleged pink unicorns. They’re both equally silly. What I do have a “long-standing hostility” towards is Christianity becoming politicised so that its religion-based beliefs can be enforced upon the rest of society, e.g. regarding its opposition to homosexual marriage or abortion on demand.

You're reading lately an awful lot like a closet Christian/conservative pretending to be otherwise in order to make the opposition look bad.

Christian conservatives need no help in looking bad, they’re quite capable of doing it all by themselves.

[Tassman]

So far all you have done is give me some science work done within the existing universe no evidence that ONLY science can can answer such questions. You have failed to meet my challenge.

I repeat: ONLY science can show, based upon verifiable evidence, that without doubt YEC is completely wrong. Also that the Adam and Eve story cannot possibly be true, given that biology shows definitively that humans are descended from a non-human ancestor...to give but two examples. No other discipline can do this.

[Adrift]

Nonsense! I have no hostility towards the concept of Jesus the god/man any more than I have for alleged pink unicorns.

Yes you do. No one on this planet defends alleged pink unicorns, but most of humanity accepts divinity. You are hostile towards the concept of the Judeo-Christian conception of God, otherwise you'd spend most of your time debating Buddhists where you live. You don't do that though.

What I do have a “long-standing hostility” towards is Christianity becoming politicised so that its religion-based beliefs can be enforced upon the rest of society, e.g. regarding its opposition to homosexual marriage or abortion on demand.

No one on this forum believes that. You've had a very long-standing objection to Christianity in general, regardless of politics. Everyone here knows that. Absolutely no one here if fooled by the idea that politics has been your modus operandi. No one. Why you act like that's been your reason for posting here from the start is totally bizarro. But more to the point, even if it were true (everyone knows it's not), Christians are permitted to vote in the United States defending their own beliefs regardless of your views. They are allowed to vote for concepts on marriage that see marriage as a holy matrimony between man and woman. They are allowed to vote on the right to life for the unborn. If you really have issues with these things, you'd move to the United States, and start your own protests against them. Complaining that you don't like them on this forum will do you absolutely no good at all. No one cares about some Australian living in the Orient shaking his fist at the heavens. What exactly do you think you're accomplishing?

Christian conservatives need no help in looking bad, they’re quite capable of doing it all by themselves.

The very same could be said of Australians living in Thailand. Australians have a relatively bad reputation in Thailand (and in other places abroad), but you don't see Americans pointing their finger at all Australians and saying "Australians need no help looking bad, they're quite cable of doing it themselves". We know that not all Australians are the same. It's disingenuous to point the finger at all Christian Conservatives and say the same, when, in fact, most Christian conservatives have done great good in the world. Far FAR greater good than they've done bad.

I repeat: ONLY science can show, based upon verifiable evidence, that without doubt YEC is completely wrong. Also that the Adam and Eve story cannot possibly be true, given that biology shows definitively that humans are descended from a non-human ancestor...to give but two examples. No other discipline can do this.

As I've demonstrated to you years ago, one can hold a literary view that alings with a Christian conception of Adam and Eve that also holds to a view of humanity descended from non-human ancestors. So this line of argument is really a non-starter.

[Tassman]

Yes you do. No one on this planet defends alleged pink unicorns, but most of humanity accepts divinity. You are hostile towards the concept of the Judeo-Christian conception of God, otherwise you'd spend most of your time debating Buddhists where you live. You don't do that though.

Oh well then, if you say so.

No one on this forum believes that. You've had a very long-standing objection to Christianity in general, regardless of politics. Everyone here knows that. Absolutely no one here if fooled by the idea that politics has been your modus operandi. No one. Why you act like that's been your reason for posting here from the start is totally bizarro. But more to the point, even if it were true (everyone knows it's not), Christians are permitted to vote in the United States defending their own beliefs regardless of your views. They are allowed to vote for concepts on marriage that see marriage as a holy matrimony between man and woman. They are allowed to vote on the right to life for the unborn. If you really have issues with these things, you'd move to the United States, and start your own protests against them. Complaining that you don't like them on this forum will do you absolutely no good at all. No one cares about some Australian living in the Orient shaking his fist at the heavens. What exactly do you think you're accomplishing?

My objection is the politicizing of Christianity, not the beliefs themselves. People are entitled to believe whatever nonsense they choose.

But there is a reason why the US, and the rest of the world, is stuck with a reckless sociopathic president Trump. Namely, to enable the Supreme Court to be stacked with judges who will be sympathetic to the Evangelical cause so as to force their notions on issues like homosexual marriage and abortion onto the rest of the populous. This, despite the the majority favouring these things!

The very same could be said of Australians living in Thailand. Australians have a relatively bad reputation in Thailand (and in other places abroad), but you don't see Americans pointing their finger at all Australians and saying "Australians need no help looking bad, they're quite cable of doing it themselves". We know that not all Australians are the same. It's disingenuous to point the finger at all Christian Conservatives and say the same, when, in fact, most Christian conservatives have done great good in the world. Far FAR greater good than they've done bad.

Your opinion!

My opinion is that Evangelicals demand conformity to their “God given” views...come what may.

As I've demonstrated to you years ago, one can hold a literary view that alings with a Christian conception of Adam and Eve that also holds to a view of humanity descended from non-human ancestors. So this line of argument is really a non-starter.

The question to which I was responding was: “Give me some scientific evidence that only science can answer". My response was that only science can provide verifiable evidence of such things as the age of the universe and demonstrate that the Genesis Adam and Eve story is a non-starter.

Hence your argument that A&E were not the first hominids but merely the first creatures "imbued with God's spirit", is unverifiable conjecture and therefore irrelevant to the question.

[Jedidiah]

I repeat: ONLY science can show, based upon verifiable evidence, that without doubt YEC is completely wrong. Also that the Adam and Eve story cannot possibly be true, given that biology shows definitively that humans are descended from a non-human ancestor...to give but two examples. No other discipline can do this.

But what you said was that only science can answer questions re the origins of the universe. You have only shown science working within the universe. You have not shown what you claimed.

Science is all that can answer questions re the origins of the universe. . . . snip . . .

See what I have bolded in your post.

[JimL]

But what you said was that only science can answer questions re the origins of the universe. You have only shown science working within the universe. You have not shown what you claimed.


See what I have bolded in your post.

I think that Tass's point Jed, is that if the question re the origins of the universe can be answered in the affirmative, it is only science that can possibly answer it..

[Jedidiah]

I think that Tass's point Jed, is that if the question re the origins of the universe can be answered in the affirmative, it is only science that can possibly answer it..

But that is not what he actually said, however he backs off of that claim.

[Tassman]

But that is not what he actually said, however he backs off of that claim.

You're being 'cute'. I think it was clear what was meant.

My response was that only science can provide verifiable evidence of such things as the age and origins of the universe and the biological impossibility of the Adam and Eve story as per Genesis. Biblical revelation cannot do this, which was the point being made.

[Sparko]

If you are so worried about homosexual marriage Tassy, why aren't you arguing about Australia's laws then? Since it is currently illegal there and legal in the US. Hmm?

You have been whining for years, mocking Christianity. You don't mock buddhism, or Islam, or any other religion other than in general terms of there not being a God. But you have always specifically attacked Christianity and you hang around a Christian-owned web site for over a decade doing so.

You hate Christianity and the Christian God more than anything else.

[Jedidiah]

You're being 'cute'. I think it was clear what was meant.

My response was that only science can provide verifiable evidence of such things as the age and origins of the universe and the biological impossibility of the Adam and Eve story as per Genesis. Biblical revelation cannot do this, which was the point being made.

Spin away

[Jedidiah]

If you are so worried about homosexual marriage Tassy, why aren't you arguing about Australia's laws then? Since it is currently illegal there and legal in the US. Hmm?

You have been whining for years, mocking Christianity. You don't mock buddhism, or Islam, or any other religion other than in general terms of there not being a God. But you have always specifically attacked Christianity and you hang around a Christian-owned web site for over a decade doing so.

You hate Christianity and the Christian God more than anything else.

Well Christianity is safe to attack, unlike Islam . . .

[Tassman]

If you are so worried about homosexual marriage Tassy, why aren't you arguing about Australia's laws then? Since it is currently illegal there and legal in the US. Hmm?

It is currently illegal in Australia, not primarily because of religion which has minimal influence in the great land of OZ, but sadly because of rampant homophobia. But it will be legalised in due course.

You have been whining for years, mocking Christianity. You don't mock buddhism, or Islam, or any other religion other than in general terms of there not being a God. But you have always specifically attacked Christianity and you hang around a Christian-owned web site for over a decade doing so.

Getting to you am I.

You hate Christianity and the Christian God more than anything else.

One doesn't hate something as silly as religion. What I object to is religion taking it upon itself the right to impose it's beliefs and moral codes on everyone else. This applies equally to Islam as to Christianity. Buddhism tends to be more gentle.

[One Bad Pig]

Getting to you am I.

Well, no. He's making an observation.

[Christianbookworm]

Well Christianity is safe to attack, unlike Islam . . .

Perhaps in the short term. Christians are as dangerous as a baby animal. It's the "Parent" you have to worry about.