Which is why I called them crazy, right? Oh, wait, no I didn't. I said they were biased. Again, reading comprehension FTL.

I really don't feel like validating your source - a source that is obviously crazy.

Right, just like wikipedia

Oh sure, change the topic because you can't find evidence rather than just admitting that the story isn't true. I get it.

Have you ever been online? Honestly? People say crap all the time that is completely wrong, even when they aren't anonymous. Hell, journalists prove that many times each and every day.

Really? Is that why Christian beliefs vary wildly from one church to another? Because contradictions are the only ones that make any sort of sense?

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

*takes the bait*
...

Oh, wait, yes you did. Again, short-term memory ftl. I'm also not sure I want to consider the implications of me having poor reading comprehension, though I'm certainly willing to admit the possibility, since I've consistently placed in the 99th percentile state and nationwide for the last 12 years or so. I guess our educational system is even more failtastic than I thought it was

Which also openly admits that Ouija boards have a long history of being associated with people developing serious psychological issues, which, interestingly enough, are the most common symptom of demon-posession in the Bible.

Wikipedia:
a) The primary purpose of Ouija boards is to communicate with spirits (obviously in context when they say purportedly they aren't challenging whether or not that is the main purpose, but whether or not they successfully accomplish that purpose)
b) Ouija boards can historically shown to be associated with the rise of serious psychological conditions
Christian tradition:
a) communicating with spirits is dangerous
b) the purpose of a Ouija board is to communicate with spirits
c) people who use Ouija boards frequently begin exhibiting symptoms of demon possession.

And regardless of whether or not beliefs about evil spirits and demonic possession are true, they should not be made light of as long as there are still places in the world where belief in spirits leads children to be ritually sacrificed.

People tend to do that when they have freedom of speech or a guarantee of anonymity. You don't say things like that publicly in support of a belief that's already gotten people killed unless you believe it. UFO conspiracies are all fun and games until the government starts arresting and assassinating anyone who talks about UFOs Which to my knowledge hasn't happened yet, leaving UFO conspiracists free to say whatever they want without fear of retribution.

I'd also like to mention that your recurrent smirking that Christians are slowly capitulating to science seems to be based on the same faulty Charles Darwin-centric view of history that gave rise to the current movement in the church against science.

Here are a couple quotes by St Augustine, dating from early 5^th century AD.



And both Philo and Augustine were seriously opposed to a literal 7-day interpretation of the creation story, though I'm having difficulty locating the related quotes from their writing.

Those two people don't support your stance of atheism, they say that science contradicts the bible sometimes, because the writers were not trying to explain science. I know my explanation is wordy, but basically, elf didn't contradict himself.

You said I called the google results crazy, I did no such thing.


Again, reading comprehension. I think Wal-Mart sells it now, go buy some.

If you honestly think that your crazy source reads at all similarly to the Wikipedia article, then there really is no point to debate as you can't actually think for yourself.

Bwahahahahaha, you have got to be shitting me. Seriously? People write and say things that aren't true that get them in trouble all the time. And the letters written back in Jesus' time pretty much are anonymous. Not that that actually matters, as people still said and made up crap that got them in trouble.

0x5 wut? What does Charles Darwain have to do with this? Please tell me you aren't so naive as to think Church vs. Science has been at all a recent development. 200 years before Darwin, Galileo was being shut down by the church for saying that the earth revolved around the sun for crying out loud.

I guess those 2 people define the Church's stance?

Really not sure what the point of that is, as you just provided two people who agree with me and not with you, but thanks.

Indeed I did not, funny how these things come back and bite you in the arse when you harp on them.

Furthermore your only basis for the claim that they are crazy stems from the fact that you yourself do not believe in anything spiritual.

You discuss Google Search and its lack of unbiased results, and then call my source on archaeological evidence of the Bible "obviously crazy" because the same site also discusses Ouija boards in a spiritual context.

I make a snide remark about your perception filter that everything is biased because you can't find any sources to validate your claims, and then return to discussing your own blatant bias against any claims of spiritual activity.

It has nothing to do with disagreeing with me, and instead has to do with their domain names being "ohmygodthebiblemakesmeorgasm.com". I didn't even bother to click on them to see if the agreed or disagreed, I just skipped them.

Did I say they read similarly? I was merely demonstrating that Wikipedia provides background information which supports their "crazy" claims in the light of a spiritual worldview.

Your ignorance of Biblical history is astounding. Paul was in no way writing those letters anonymously. And in fact a significant number of them were written while under house arrest for the content of his previous letters, and he demanded based on his status as a Roman citizen to testify before the emperor himself on the matter, a demand which eventually resulted in his execution.

Charles Darwin is very much the source of the current reaction against science.

Galileo was doing just fine until rival academics bribed the church into taking action against him.

Have I, at any point, in this entire discussion, argued in favor of a literal 7 day creation, or faith trumping science in any way?

Saying it is in a "spiritual context" doesn't suddenly make crazy become sane. Its still crazy.

and that things like witchcraft are real (as in, they can actually cast spells and whatnot)

A christian website is obviously biased.

Because Paul was the *ONLY* one writing letters, right

And I'm not really sure how you can claim that people wouldn't make stuff up because they would get in trouble, only for those same people to *gasp* get in trouble.

And, of course, there is a difference between believing something is true and that something actually being true. Group hallucinations are not unheard of.

Or so you claim. I disagree, and say that the cause of the current reaction against science is the same as in Galileo's day: people who think religion is a substitute for science.

[citation needed]

One of the first suggestions of heresy that Galileo had to deal with came in 1613 from a professor of philosophy, Cosimo Boscaglia, who was neither a theologian nor a priest. In conversation with Galileo's patron, Cosimo II de' Medici, Boscaglia gave the opinion that the telescopic discoveries were valid, but the motion of the Earth was obviously contrary to Scripture. Galileo was defended on the spot by a Benedictine abbot, Benedetto Castelli, who was also a professor of mathematics and a former student of Galileo's. This exchange, reported to Galileo by Castelli, led Galileo to write a letter to Castelli, expounding his views on what he considered the most appropriate way of treating scriptural passages which made assertions about natural phenomena.[7] Later, in 1615, he expanded this into his much longer Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina.

Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, one of the most respected Catholic theologians of the time, was called on to adjudicate the dispute between Galileo and his opponents, including both religious zealots and secular university professors. The question of heliocentrism had first been raised with Cardinal Bellarmine, in the case of Paolo Antonio Foscarini, a Carmelite father; Foscarini had published a book, Lettera ... sopra l'opinione ... del Copernico, which took the dangerous step of attempting to reconcile Copernicus with the biblical passages that seemed to be in contradiction. Bellarmine at first expressed the opinion that Copernicus's book would not be banned, but would at most require some editing so as to present the theory purely as a calculating device for "saving the appearances".

Hence this topics revival

And in that quote I was not talking about your Google Search. ^_^ Reading comprehension fail.

"All the sources I can find disagree with me, so they must all be biased or lying about easy to check facts." Furthermore your only basis for the claim that they are crazy

A lot of "superstitious nonsense" actually has a good deal of reasoning behind it

but the caution against Ouija boards at least makes a good deal of sense.

You should avoid visiting the more remote parts of Haiti or Madagascar.

I'm sure it is, but you still have been unable to produce evidence that they're actually *wrong*

Did I cite any letters not by Paul?

Can you spot the circular reasoning?
kllrnohj: They made it up.
me: why would the give up their life for a fiction they invented? Maybe its not fiction.
kllrnohj: I'm not sure how you can claim they wouldn't do that, since they did.

Your conclusion (that they died for a fiction of their own invention) is based on the very thing you're trying to prove (that their story is a fiction of their own invention). Try again.

Group hallucinations over a geographically diverse area, for a week. Good call mate.

You'll notice that the two posts I have made to reinstate discussion in this thread were,

This is great. How much time do you guys have to spend on stuff like this every day? Seriously, we should be selling tickets to this. It just goes on and on and on...

mental m*....

Correction, writing fail. The "they" clearly refers to "all the search results"

No it doesn't, that is why its nonsense.

How so? How is my subconscious moving a piece of plastic going to cause untold evil?

Er, no. That was *your* reason. I was just pointing out that it contradicts itself. My reason is that they lied or embellished, its that simple. People lie all the time, I don't need a "reason" or "justification" for it - its human nature, especially since my explanation falls in line with what is known (dead people don't start walking and talking by themselves)

That said, can you say for *certain* that those 500 people saw the same guy who died, and not just someone who looked similar?

Answer is, of course, no, you can't. You have to have "faith" that it happened.

And no where does that say anything about a bribe. Again, [citation needed]

Kerm: stfu you know as well as anyone else that when someone is wrong on the Internet, it's a solemn duty to correct them.

Kerm: stfu Razz you know as well as anyone else that when someone is wrong on the Internet, it's a solemn duty to correct them.

A quick jab at the idea that it takes a large population to reproduce and carry on the human race.

Every non-African human is descended from a small tribe of about 200 people.