Poll: How did human life come about?

[Vic]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
not to mention that coming to a conclusion that something doesn't exists, like atheists do, is logically flawed.

So there is hope for the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny?

From a philosophical standpoint you could not prove to me that the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny DON'T exists. You can only prove if things DO exists and that is what we believe by default. Being agnostic is one thing, but coming to a conclusion that something doesn't exists is flawed. You cannot prove a negative. I'm not saying go hope for a tooth fairy, I'm saying don't try to claim that you have proof it doesn't exist.

Of course you can prove that the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny don't exist. Who puts the money under the pillow, the presents under the tree, and hides the painted eggs in the yard? It's not one of those 3, is it? So yes, you can prove a negative. The reason you can't prove that God doesn't exist is because (1) the concept (God) is not well-defined, and (2) the functions of the concept fall in areas outside the range of human knowledge and experience.

You can prove that it was your mom who put money under the pillow and not the Tooth Fairy. You cannot prove that the Tooth fairy doesn't exist in the same way that you cannot prove a purple stripped zebra doesn't exist because you have nothing to test.

If your mom puts the money under the pillow, then what does the Tooth Fairy do? That's your test right there.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: So
How did quoting the bible get into this thread? I know Christians are smart enough not to think that they will sway anyone with arguments from the bible, since no scientist is going to take a book as a valid reason to accept an argument.

Most devout Christians aren't that smart, hence the Bible quoting.

Where I usually weary of when talking with the devout is their constant use of the phrase, "We believe that... " Yeah, yeah, whatever. What do YOU believe? Usually nothing. They believe what they're told to believe. Religion is very collectivist that way. Which, unfortunately in the case of Christianity, is exactly the opposite of what Jesus actually taught.
Oh well... Christians are hardly unique that way. Just look at how every suggestion of God on these forums here turns into a flamefest solely about the Christian God and the Christian Bible, as though no other concepts of God existed!! It's the ultimate armchair scientist e-atheist straw man, because they know they can outrage and suck in the blind fundies, and thus turn the entire discussion into a battle over which side is more ignorant of their own professed beliefs.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Satchel

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Satchel

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Course it could be wrong. That is part of what makes an opinion an opinion. I never made a claim of absolute proof. That is what I am trying to get you fools to understand.

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
NO OPINION CAN BE DISCREDITED.

Do you not know what the word "could" mean?

It could be wrong, but you can't prove it wrong, hence discredit it. It remains someone's opinion. Feel free to disagree, but you can't disprove that the credit is a con any more than I can prove it. Therefore it must remain an opinion.

Seriously, have you not encountered opinions in your existence?

Sleep now, I mean it.

Seriously, how many words are you going to argue the definition of? Now you're arguing the semantics of the word "could." Maybe you should just put your pride aside and admit that you "could" be wrong.

I already said I could. An opinion is not a fact.

They aren't semantics. You don't seem to know what an opinion is. ELementary school should have explained it to you.

We can try it again...

Bush went to war with Iraq. With the same set of information you could have an opinion that:
he went with good intentions
he went with bad intentions
we are successful there.
we are unsuccessful there.

These cannot be proven nor disproven. They are opinion.

You CANNOT say
my opinion is that bush never went to Iraq.

Get it? It is a very very simple concept.

You can say the Bible was a con or that it is the absolute truth. Both are opinion of a stated view based on the same evidence, neither could be proven nor disproven. You cannot say there is no such thing as the bible.

Yep. Shadow9d9's "opinions" are not to be questioned but he may question the opinions of anyone who dares disagree with him.

:roll:

The Bible is neither a con nor the absolute truth. Saying that it has to be one or the other isn't an "opinion," it's a logical fallacy (false dilemma to be precise). OTOH, I suppose if you base all "opinions" off the logical fallacy of false dilemma, I can easily see how everything would appear to be very very simple concepts. Good, bad, black, white, etc. Your way or the highway! I'm sure it all makes sense to you. It's so easy!

Sorry, the writing of the Bible is very likely a con. Bunch of humans writing a book claiming to be the word of god... yeah, doesn't sound like a con!

My opinions could be questioned. Never said that. You claim they are outright wrong, which you just did again. That is not questioning.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Satchel

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Satchel

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Course it could be wrong. That is part of what makes an opinion an opinion. I never made a claim of absolute proof. That is what I am trying to get you fools to understand.

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
NO OPINION CAN BE DISCREDITED.

Do you not know what the word "could" mean?

It could be wrong, but you can't prove it wrong, hence discredit it. It remains someone's opinion. Feel free to disagree, but you can't disprove that the credit is a con any more than I can prove it. Therefore it must remain an opinion.

Seriously, have you not encountered opinions in your existence?

Sleep now, I mean it.

Seriously, how many words are you going to argue the definition of? Now you're arguing the semantics of the word "could." Maybe you should just put your pride aside and admit that you "could" be wrong.

I already said I could. An opinion is not a fact.

They aren't semantics. You don't seem to know what an opinion is. ELementary school should have explained it to you.

We can try it again...

Bush went to war with Iraq. With the same set of information you could have an opinion that:
he went with good intentions
he went with bad intentions
we are successful there.
we are unsuccessful there.

These cannot be proven nor disproven. They are opinion.

You CANNOT say
my opinion is that bush never went to Iraq.

Get it? It is a very very simple concept.

You can say the Bible was a con or that it is the absolute truth. Both are opinion of a stated view based on the same evidence, neither could be proven nor disproven. You cannot say there is no such thing as the bible.

Yep. Shadow9d9's "opinions" are not to be questioned but he may question the opinions of anyone who dares disagree with him.

:roll:

The Bible is neither a con nor the absolute truth. Saying that it has to be one or the other isn't an "opinion," it's a logical fallacy (false dilemma to be precise). OTOH, I suppose if you base all "opinions" off the logical fallacy of false dilemma, I can easily see how everything would appear to be very very simple concepts. Good, bad, black, white, etc. Your way or the highway! I'm sure it all makes sense to you. It's so easy!

Sorry, the writing of the Bible is very likely a con. Bunch of humans writing a book claiming to be the word of god... yeah, doesn't sound like a con!

My opinions could be questioned. Never said that. You claim they are outright wrong, which you just did again. That is not questioning.

But it's my OPINION that you are wrong. How can you possibly have an issue with that?

You are still trying to defend the use of false dilemma BTW. There is always a 3rd option. The world is not your little black and white pretty picture. Why isn't it a possible answer for you that humans, lacking all knowledge of the sciences, passed down the histories of their people and believed them to be true? And wow! it isn't a con any more. And holy sh!t that explains all those other cultures (every single one earth in fact) that did the exact same fsckin' thing! That is simply amazing!...

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Satchel

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Satchel

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Course it could be wrong. That is part of what makes an opinion an opinion. I never made a claim of absolute proof. That is what I am trying to get you fools to understand.

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
NO OPINION CAN BE DISCREDITED.

Do you not know what the word "could" mean?

It could be wrong, but you can't prove it wrong, hence discredit it. It remains someone's opinion. Feel free to disagree, but you can't disprove that the credit is a con any more than I can prove it. Therefore it must remain an opinion.

Seriously, have you not encountered opinions in your existence?

Sleep now, I mean it.

Seriously, how many words are you going to argue the definition of? Now you're arguing the semantics of the word "could." Maybe you should just put your pride aside and admit that you "could" be wrong.

I already said I could. An opinion is not a fact.

They aren't semantics. You don't seem to know what an opinion is. ELementary school should have explained it to you.

We can try it again...

Bush went to war with Iraq. With the same set of information you could have an opinion that:
he went with good intentions
he went with bad intentions
we are successful there.
we are unsuccessful there.

These cannot be proven nor disproven. They are opinion.

You CANNOT say
my opinion is that bush never went to Iraq.

Get it? It is a very very simple concept.

You can say the Bible was a con or that it is the absolute truth. Both are opinion of a stated view based on the same evidence, neither could be proven nor disproven. You cannot say there is no such thing as the bible.

Yep. Shadow9d9's "opinions" are not to be questioned but he may question the opinions of anyone who dares disagree with him.

:roll:

The Bible is neither a con nor the absolute truth. Saying that it has to be one or the other isn't an "opinion," it's a logical fallacy (false dilemma to be precise). OTOH, I suppose if you base all "opinions" off the logical fallacy of false dilemma, I can easily see how everything would appear to be very very simple concepts. Good, bad, black, white, etc. Your way or the highway! I'm sure it all makes sense to you. It's so easy!

Sorry, the writing of the Bible is very likely a con. Bunch of humans writing a book claiming to be the word of god... yeah, doesn't sound like a con!

My opinions could be questioned. Never said that. You claim they are outright wrong, which you just did again. That is not questioning.

But it's my OPINION that you are wrong. How can you possibly have an issue with that?

You are still trying to defend the use of false dilemma BTW. There is always a 3rd option. The world is not your little black and white pretty picture. Why isn't it a possible answer for you that humans, lacking all knowledge of the sciences, passed down the histories of their people and believed them to be true? And wow! it isn't a con any more. And holy sh!t that explains all those other cultures (every single one earth in fact) that did the exact same fsckin' thing! That is simply amazing!...

Having the opinion I am wrong is perfectly fine.

Saying my opinion is not an opinion because you disagree with it is just silly nonsense..

"The Bible is neither a con nor the absolute truth. Saying that it has to be one or the other isn't an "opinion,""

Actually it is. Trying in more roundabout ways to say someone's opinion is not valid I see. You really are intolerant of other views.

Sad, but not all that surprising.

Keep trying to make my opinion seem less valid because you are intolerant.. it is accomplishing a ton!

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie

yhwh, or yahweh is the hebrew word for god's name, so i hardly believe the jews consider the tetragammon yhwh to be jesus' prehuman name.

Yes, the phrase 'YHWH Elohim', translated 'LORD God', is found in the Old Testament 915 times. Christ is Lord, God is God.

Elohim

uh, you just added the "christ is Lord" part. the article didn't say anything about jesus being God. that's the trinity nonsense.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie

uh, you just added the "christ is Lord" part. the article didn't say anything about jesus being God. that's the trinity nonsense.

Um, I don't believe in the trinity. I know the article didn't say anything about Jesus being God. They're two different people. The article was about Elohim, who is God. The article even showed how different religions view Elohim, and all of them referenced Elohim as referring to God, not Christ.

Elohim = God, Jehovah (yahweh) = Lord. God is God, Christ is the Lord.

Just curious, if you think yahweh is the name for God, then who is Elohim?

 

[Czar]

Guess Anandtech truly is smarter than the average american, and aparently it doesnt take much

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie

uh, you just added the "christ is Lord" part. the article didn't say anything about jesus being God. that's the trinity nonsense.

Um, I don't believe in the trinity. I know the article didn't say anything about Jesus being God. They're two different people. The article was about Elohim, who is God. The article even showed how different religions view Elohim, and all of them referenced Elohim as referring to God, not Christ.

Elohim = God, Jehovah (yahweh) = Lord. God is God, Christ is the Lord.

Just curious, if you think yahweh is the name for God, then who is Elohim?

it says plainly in your article that elohim is not a proper noun, it can be a reference to God (i.e. the fourth word of the bible as stated in the article) or refer to a divinity in general (used to refer to gods of polythiestic religions as also stated in the article).

yahweh is his actual name. like my name is james, i am a chef. one is my name, the other my title.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
it says plainly in your article that elohim is not a proper noun, it can be a reference to God (i.e. the fourth word of the bible as stated in the article) or refer to a divinity in general (used to refer to gods of polythiestic religions as also stated in the article).

Where does it say it's not a proper noun? "..it acts as a singular noun in Hebrew grammar, and is then generally understood to denote the single God of Israel." I would call that a proper noun.

Does it also have plural connotations? Yes it does, and there is a very good reason for that. However, such an explanation would take far too long for me to write, so you'll have to forgive me on that one. You're welcome to do the research yourself if you wish.

However, to help you understand, consider the following scriptures: Isa. 43:11, 45:21. These all refer to the Lord as the Savior. In each of these, the word translated to Lord was yahweh. So who was the Savior? Christ. These, along with several others, show the relationship between yahweh and his role as the Savior.

You're welcome to take whatever interpretation you wish, as there are plenty to choose from. But given the way yahweh is used in the scriptures, I find it very difficult to not make the connection between him and Christ.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Satchel

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Satchel

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Course it could be wrong. That is part of what makes an opinion an opinion. I never made a claim of absolute proof. That is what I am trying to get you fools to understand.

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
NO OPINION CAN BE DISCREDITED.

Do you not know what the word "could" mean?

It could be wrong, but you can't prove it wrong, hence discredit it. It remains someone's opinion. Feel free to disagree, but you can't disprove that the credit is a con any more than I can prove it. Therefore it must remain an opinion.

Seriously, have you not encountered opinions in your existence?

Sleep now, I mean it.

Seriously, how many words are you going to argue the definition of? Now you're arguing the semantics of the word "could." Maybe you should just put your pride aside and admit that you "could" be wrong.

I already said I could. An opinion is not a fact.

They aren't semantics. You don't seem to know what an opinion is. ELementary school should have explained it to you.

We can try it again...

Bush went to war with Iraq. With the same set of information you could have an opinion that:
he went with good intentions
he went with bad intentions
we are successful there.
we are unsuccessful there.

These cannot be proven nor disproven. They are opinion.

You CANNOT say
my opinion is that bush never went to Iraq.

Get it? It is a very very simple concept.

You can say the Bible was a con or that it is the absolute truth. Both are opinion of a stated view based on the same evidence, neither could be proven nor disproven. You cannot say there is no such thing as the bible.

Yep. Shadow9d9's "opinions" are not to be questioned but he may question the opinions of anyone who dares disagree with him.

:roll:

The Bible is neither a con nor the absolute truth. Saying that it has to be one or the other isn't an "opinion," it's a logical fallacy (false dilemma to be precise). OTOH, I suppose if you base all "opinions" off the logical fallacy of false dilemma, I can easily see how everything would appear to be very very simple concepts. Good, bad, black, white, etc. Your way or the highway! I'm sure it all makes sense to you. It's so easy!

Sorry, the writing of the Bible is very likely a con. Bunch of humans writing a book claiming to be the word of god... yeah, doesn't sound like a con!

My opinions could be questioned. Never said that. You claim they are outright wrong, which you just did again. That is not questioning.

But it's my OPINION that you are wrong. How can you possibly have an issue with that?

You are still trying to defend the use of false dilemma BTW. There is always a 3rd option. The world is not your little black and white pretty picture. Why isn't it a possible answer for you that humans, lacking all knowledge of the sciences, passed down the histories of their people and believed them to be true? And wow! it isn't a con any more. And holy sh!t that explains all those other cultures (every single one earth in fact) that did the exact same fsckin' thing! That is simply amazing!...

Oh, and you want another con? The whole immaculate conception idea... if someone claimed that nowadays theyd be a laughing stock. People have a romanticism about the past though...so they think magical things could have happened then. There is a 99.999999999999999999999% chance that she was either raped and was embarassed, was threatened by the father not to reveal him, or simply lied about being a virgin.

At least the Qur'an had some logical explanations...Muhammad could have just been a schizo when he thought he was hearing god's words...

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
it says plainly in your article that elohim is not a proper noun, it can be a reference to God (i.e. the fourth word of the bible as stated in the article) or refer to a divinity in general (used to refer to gods of polythiestic religions as also stated in the article).

Where does it say it's not a proper noun? "..it acts as a singular noun in Hebrew grammar, and is then generally understood to denote the single God of Israel." I would call that a proper noun.

Does it also have plural connotations? Yes it does, and there is a very good reason for that. However, such an explanation would take far too long for me to write, so you'll have to forgive me on that one. You're welcome to do the research yourself if you wish.

However, to help you understand, consider the following scriptures: Isa. 43:11, 45:21. These all refer to the Lord as the Savior. In each of these, the word translated to Lord was yahweh. So who was the Savior? Christ. These, along with several others, show the relationship between yahweh and his role as the Savior.

You're welcome to take whatever interpretation you wish, as there are plenty to choose from. But given the way yahweh is used in the scriptures, I find it very difficult to not make the connection between him and Christ.

here's something that discusses the nature of that translation. Text

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Satchel

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Satchel

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Course it could be wrong. That is part of what makes an opinion an opinion. I never made a claim of absolute proof. That is what I am trying to get you fools to understand.

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
NO OPINION CAN BE DISCREDITED.

Do you not know what the word "could" mean?

It could be wrong, but you can't prove it wrong, hence discredit it. It remains someone's opinion. Feel free to disagree, but you can't disprove that the credit is a con any more than I can prove it. Therefore it must remain an opinion.

Seriously, have you not encountered opinions in your existence?

Sleep now, I mean it.

Seriously, how many words are you going to argue the definition of? Now you're arguing the semantics of the word "could." Maybe you should just put your pride aside and admit that you "could" be wrong.

I already said I could. An opinion is not a fact.

They aren't semantics. You don't seem to know what an opinion is. ELementary school should have explained it to you.

We can try it again...

Bush went to war with Iraq. With the same set of information you could have an opinion that:
he went with good intentions
he went with bad intentions
we are successful there.
we are unsuccessful there.

These cannot be proven nor disproven. They are opinion.

You CANNOT say
my opinion is that bush never went to Iraq.

Get it? It is a very very simple concept.

You can say the Bible was a con or that it is the absolute truth. Both are opinion of a stated view based on the same evidence, neither could be proven nor disproven. You cannot say there is no such thing as the bible.

Yep. Shadow9d9's "opinions" are not to be questioned but he may question the opinions of anyone who dares disagree with him.

:roll:

The Bible is neither a con nor the absolute truth. Saying that it has to be one or the other isn't an "opinion," it's a logical fallacy (false dilemma to be precise). OTOH, I suppose if you base all "opinions" off the logical fallacy of false dilemma, I can easily see how everything would appear to be very very simple concepts. Good, bad, black, white, etc. Your way or the highway! I'm sure it all makes sense to you. It's so easy!

Sorry, the writing of the Bible is very likely a con. Bunch of humans writing a book claiming to be the word of god... yeah, doesn't sound like a con!

My opinions could be questioned. Never said that. You claim they are outright wrong, which you just did again. That is not questioning.

But it's my OPINION that you are wrong. How can you possibly have an issue with that?

You are still trying to defend the use of false dilemma BTW. There is always a 3rd option. The world is not your little black and white pretty picture. Why isn't it a possible answer for you that humans, lacking all knowledge of the sciences, passed down the histories of their people and believed them to be true? And wow! it isn't a con any more. And holy sh!t that explains all those other cultures (every single one earth in fact) that did the exact same fsckin' thing! That is simply amazing!...

Having the opinion I am wrong is perfectly fine.

Saying my opinion is not an opinion because you disagree with it is just silly nonsense..

"The Bible is neither a con nor the absolute truth. Saying that it has to be one or the other isn't an "opinion,""

Actually it is. Trying in more roundabout ways to say someone's opinion is not valid I see. You really are intolerant of other views.

Sad, but not all that surprising.

Keep trying to make my opinion seem less valid because you are intolerant.. it is accomplishing a ton!

Crack is bad... mmm'kay?

And for the last time, I don't care about your views or opinions. It's not that I am intolerant of them, it's that you don't defend them, nor do you address mine. You just whine and create fantastical straw men arguments about my character instead.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Satchel

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Satchel

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Course it could be wrong. That is part of what makes an opinion an opinion. I never made a claim of absolute proof. That is what I am trying to get you fools to understand.

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
NO OPINION CAN BE DISCREDITED.

Do you not know what the word "could" mean?

It could be wrong, but you can't prove it wrong, hence discredit it. It remains someone's opinion. Feel free to disagree, but you can't disprove that the credit is a con any more than I can prove it. Therefore it must remain an opinion.

Seriously, have you not encountered opinions in your existence?

Sleep now, I mean it.

Seriously, how many words are you going to argue the definition of? Now you're arguing the semantics of the word "could." Maybe you should just put your pride aside and admit that you "could" be wrong.

I already said I could. An opinion is not a fact.

They aren't semantics. You don't seem to know what an opinion is. ELementary school should have explained it to you.

We can try it again...

Bush went to war with Iraq. With the same set of information you could have an opinion that:
he went with good intentions
he went with bad intentions
we are successful there.
we are unsuccessful there.

These cannot be proven nor disproven. They are opinion.

You CANNOT say
my opinion is that bush never went to Iraq.

Get it? It is a very very simple concept.

You can say the Bible was a con or that it is the absolute truth. Both are opinion of a stated view based on the same evidence, neither could be proven nor disproven. You cannot say there is no such thing as the bible.

Yep. Shadow9d9's "opinions" are not to be questioned but he may question the opinions of anyone who dares disagree with him.

:roll:

The Bible is neither a con nor the absolute truth. Saying that it has to be one or the other isn't an "opinion," it's a logical fallacy (false dilemma to be precise). OTOH, I suppose if you base all "opinions" off the logical fallacy of false dilemma, I can easily see how everything would appear to be very very simple concepts. Good, bad, black, white, etc. Your way or the highway! I'm sure it all makes sense to you. It's so easy!

Sorry, the writing of the Bible is very likely a con. Bunch of humans writing a book claiming to be the word of god... yeah, doesn't sound like a con!

My opinions could be questioned. Never said that. You claim they are outright wrong, which you just did again. That is not questioning.

But it's my OPINION that you are wrong. How can you possibly have an issue with that?

You are still trying to defend the use of false dilemma BTW. There is always a 3rd option. The world is not your little black and white pretty picture. Why isn't it a possible answer for you that humans, lacking all knowledge of the sciences, passed down the histories of their people and believed them to be true? And wow! it isn't a con any more. And holy sh!t that explains all those other cultures (every single one earth in fact) that did the exact same fsckin' thing! That is simply amazing!...

Having the opinion I am wrong is perfectly fine.

Saying my opinion is not an opinion because you disagree with it is just silly nonsense..

"The Bible is neither a con nor the absolute truth. Saying that it has to be one or the other isn't an "opinion,""

Actually it is. Trying in more roundabout ways to say someone's opinion is not valid I see. You really are intolerant of other views.

Sad, but not all that surprising.

Keep trying to make my opinion seem less valid because you are intolerant.. it is accomplishing a ton!

Crack is bad... mmm'kay?

And for the last time, I don't care about your views or opinions. It's not that I am intolerant of them, it's that you don't defend them, nor do you address mine. You just whine and create fantastical straw men arguments about my character instead.

You don't care? Yeah, that's why you started cursing/going on rants/trying to discredit my opinion for about 10 pages now.

"it's that you don't defend them, nor do you address mine. "

I would have been glad to explain further if you had asked within the first 10 responses.. but all you did there was attack me, try to discredit my opinion, curse, name call, make assumptions... that showed me your intent, which was not understanding.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Czar
Guess Anandtech truly is smarter than the average american, and aparently it doesnt take much

No, just more teenage angst.

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

this from the wiki:

Jewish relevance of the word YHWH to the (I Am) in the New Testament
The New Testament does not use the Tetragrammaton. The two Greek words that are consistently used to speak in reference to God are ?????? (?lord,? ?master?) and ?e?? (?God?). However, in the past, some some scholars endeavored to make a connection between Jesus? use of the first person singular personal pronoun e?? in conjunction with the first person singular form of e?µ? (?to be?) as an allusion to the tetragrammaton. Today, few scholars would say that there is a connection between the ?I am? and the divine name. Edwin Freed explains, ?the meaning of the sentence in the mind of the writer was: 'Before Abraham was, I, the Christ, the Son of God, existed.? [10] William Loader notes that the ?text need mean no more than I am and was in existence before Abraham, still a majestic unique claim but not an allusion to the divine name.? [11] The Simple English Bible translates it as, ?I am the Messiah.? K.L. McKay notes, ?The emphatic words used by Jesus in the passages referred to above [including John 8:58] are perfectly natural in their contexts, and they do not echo the words of Exodus 3:14 in the normally quoted Greek version.? [12] John 9:9 is but one example that Margaret Davies uses to show that it ?allow the speaker to identify himself ... thus the man born blind identifies himself as the man born blind.? [13]

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
You don't care? Yeah, that's why you started cursing/going on rants/trying to discredit my opinion for about 10 pages now.

"it's that you don't defend them, nor do you address mine. "

I would have been glad to explain further if you had asked within the first 10 responses.. but all you did there was attack me, try to discredit my opinion, curse, name call, make assumptions... that showed me your intent, which was not understanding.

Really? Where did I go cursing/ranting? Or did this simple retort hurt your little feelings?

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
The bible is the biggest con in the history of man. If the writers only knew just how far their means to have power would control the world and the ignorant human race, they would be laughing their asses off.

I'm curious, do you think the ancient writers of the Vedas are laughing their asses off (if they could)?
What about the writer(s) of the Quran?
The writers of the Greek mythologies?
What about the Norse?
Or Shintoism?
Does Buddha sneer at us?
Or Conficious or the developers of the Tao?




No, I imagine you'd say "probably not" even though that doesn't make much sense beyond simple prejudice, now does it? So kindly STFU, eh? All religions began much as science begins, by people trying to understand the human condition. Religions differ in that, at one point or another, they stopped trying to understand because they thought they did understand. There was never really a malicious intent, just an overbearing belief that one is right that becomes so all-encompassing that it can no longer accept the possibility of being wrong. That's really the only thing that separates religion from science, and why I get so ticked off when internet morons try to claim that science knows it all. It doesn't and it never will, and that's the best part about science, get it?

Why would you imagine my answer? They are all cons, however, christianity is the biggest con in my book because it has done more harm than any of the others imo. Why would you "imagine" that I'd say "probably not"?

Btw, have of your comparisons are not religion...

Good lot of assumptions from you... one of the reasons that I stated that I can't stand your arrogant postings in another thread. You think WAY too highly of yourself and your opinions.

Hmm... can't find it.

What's to explain? I've read and studied far more about religious history than you could imagine. Your "opinion" is factually wrong.
And you've been going on page after page ignoring that, and just trolling and attacking my character.
Look if it makes you feel better to think that the source of cultural traditions are malicious con men, that's fine, but IMO that level of conspiracy theorists rates right down there with the way religionists blame the devil for everything.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
this from the wiki:

Jewish relevance of the word YHWH to the (I Am) in the New Testament
The New Testament does not use the Tetragrammaton. The two Greek words that are consistently used to speak in reference to God are ?????? (?lord,? ?master?) and ?e?? (?God?). However, in the past, some some scholars endeavored to make a connection between Jesus? use of the first person singular personal pronoun e?? in conjunction with the first person singular form of e?µ? (?to be?) as an allusion to the tetragrammaton. Today, few scholars would say that there is a connection between the ?I am? and the divine name. Edwin Freed explains, ?the meaning of the sentence in the mind of the writer was: 'Before Abraham was, I, the Christ, the Son of God, existed.? [10] William Loader notes that the ?text need mean no more than I am and was in existence before Abraham, still a majestic unique claim but not an allusion to the divine name.? [11] The Simple English Bible translates it as, ?I am the Messiah.? K.L. McKay notes, ?The emphatic words used by Jesus in the passages referred to above [including John 8:58] are perfectly natural in their contexts, and they do not echo the words of Exodus 3:14 in the normally quoted Greek version.? [12] John 9:9 is but one example that Margaret Davies uses to show that it ?allow the speaker to identify himself ... thus the man born blind identifies himself as the man born blind.? [13]

If you could go back 2000 years, find this Jesus of Nazareth, and you asked him if he is the Son of God, he might say "Yes, aren't you too?"
It should be understood that Jesus was not even formally deified by the Catholic church until 325 AD.

BTW, this -- ?????? (?lord,? ?master?) -- translates from Greek into Hebrew as Adonai, which is the spoken form of the YHWH (which was never to be spoken aloud).
This -- ?e?? (?God?) -- is Zeus (or Deus). And yes, it means God.

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
this from the wiki:

Jewish relevance of the word YHWH to the (I Am) in the New Testament
The New Testament does not use the Tetragrammaton. The two Greek words that are consistently used to speak in reference to God are ?????? (?lord,? ?master?) and ?e?? (?God?). However, in the past, some some scholars endeavored to make a connection between Jesus? use of the first person singular personal pronoun e?? in conjunction with the first person singular form of e?µ? (?to be?) as an allusion to the tetragrammaton. Today, few scholars would say that there is a connection between the ?I am? and the divine name. Edwin Freed explains, ?the meaning of the sentence in the mind of the writer was: 'Before Abraham was, I, the Christ, the Son of God, existed.? [10] William Loader notes that the ?text need mean no more than I am and was in existence before Abraham, still a majestic unique claim but not an allusion to the divine name.? [11] The Simple English Bible translates it as, ?I am the Messiah.? K.L. McKay notes, ?The emphatic words used by Jesus in the passages referred to above [including John 8:58] are perfectly natural in their contexts, and they do not echo the words of Exodus 3:14 in the normally quoted Greek version.? [12] John 9:9 is but one example that Margaret Davies uses to show that it ?allow the speaker to identify himself ... thus the man born blind identifies himself as the man born blind.? [13]

If you could go back 2000 years, find this Jesus of Nazareth, and you asked him if he is the Son of God, he might say "Yes, aren't you too?"
It should be understood that Jesus was not even formally deified by the Catholic church until 325 AD.

BTW, this -- ?????? (?lord,? ?master?) -- translates from Greek into Hebrew as Adonai, which is the spoken form of the YHWH (which was never to be spoken aloud).
This -- ?e?? (?God?) -- is Zeus (or Deus). And yes, it means God.

who gives a schniz what the catholics think? they molest boys and count beads. when the hell was jesus ever a bead counting petteras?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
this from the wiki:

Jewish relevance of the word YHWH to the (I Am) in the New Testament
The New Testament does not use the Tetragrammaton. The two Greek words that are consistently used to speak in reference to God are ?????? (?lord,? ?master?) and ?e?? (?God?). However, in the past, some some scholars endeavored to make a connection between Jesus? use of the first person singular personal pronoun e?? in conjunction with the first person singular form of e?µ? (?to be?) as an allusion to the tetragrammaton. Today, few scholars would say that there is a connection between the ?I am? and the divine name. Edwin Freed explains, ?the meaning of the sentence in the mind of the writer was: 'Before Abraham was, I, the Christ, the Son of God, existed.? [10] William Loader notes that the ?text need mean no more than I am and was in existence before Abraham, still a majestic unique claim but not an allusion to the divine name.? [11] The Simple English Bible translates it as, ?I am the Messiah.? K.L. McKay notes, ?The emphatic words used by Jesus in the passages referred to above [including John 8:58] are perfectly natural in their contexts, and they do not echo the words of Exodus 3:14 in the normally quoted Greek version.? [12] John 9:9 is but one example that Margaret Davies uses to show that it ?allow the speaker to identify himself ... thus the man born blind identifies himself as the man born blind.? [13]

If you could go back 2000 years, find this Jesus of Nazareth, and you asked him if he is the Son of God, he might say "Yes, aren't you too?"
It should be understood that Jesus was not even formally deified by the Catholic church until 325 AD.

BTW, this -- ?????? (?lord,? ?master?) -- translates from Greek into Hebrew as Adonai, which is the spoken form of the YHWH (which was never to be spoken aloud).
This -- ?e?? (?God?) -- is Zeus (or Deus). And yes, it means God.

who gives a schniz what the catholics think? they molest boys and count beads. when the hell was jesus ever a bead counting petteras?

You think maybe you should have actually read (or tried to understand) my post before this little rant? I seriously doubt that engineereeyore will think that I was coming to his rescue in your little argument with him (because I wasn't), so what's your problem?

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Martin

How did human life come about?

I'm not sure how all human life came about, but I do know that your life came about when I met your mother at a dockside bar.

Johnny, do you like baseball?

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
this from the wiki:

Jewish relevance of the word YHWH to the (I Am) in the New Testament
The New Testament does not use the Tetragrammaton. The two Greek words that are consistently used to speak in reference to God are ?????? (?lord,? ?master?) and ?e?? (?God?). However, in the past, some some scholars endeavored to make a connection between Jesus? use of the first person singular personal pronoun e?? in conjunction with the first person singular form of e?µ? (?to be?) as an allusion to the tetragrammaton. Today, few scholars would say that there is a connection between the ?I am? and the divine name. Edwin Freed explains, ?the meaning of the sentence in the mind of the writer was: 'Before Abraham was, I, the Christ, the Son of God, existed.? [10] William Loader notes that the ?text need mean no more than I am and was in existence before Abraham, still a majestic unique claim but not an allusion to the divine name.? [11] The Simple English Bible translates it as, ?I am the Messiah.? K.L. McKay notes, ?The emphatic words used by Jesus in the passages referred to above [including John 8:58] are perfectly natural in their contexts, and they do not echo the words of Exodus 3:14 in the normally quoted Greek version.? [12] John 9:9 is but one example that Margaret Davies uses to show that it ?allow the speaker to identify himself ... thus the man born blind identifies himself as the man born blind.? [13]

If you could go back 2000 years, find this Jesus of Nazareth, and you asked him if he is the Son of God, he might say "Yes, aren't you too?"
It should be understood that Jesus was not even formally deified by the Catholic church until 325 AD.

BTW, this -- ?????? (?lord,? ?master?) -- translates from Greek into Hebrew as Adonai, which is the spoken form of the YHWH (which was never to be spoken aloud).
This -- ?e?? (?God?) -- is Zeus (or Deus). And yes, it means God.

who gives a schniz what the catholics think? they molest boys and count beads. when the hell was jesus ever a bead counting petteras?

You think maybe you should have actually read (or tried to understand) my post before this little rant? I seriously doubt that engineereeyore will think that I was coming to his rescue in your little argument with him (because I wasn't), so what's your problem?

didn't think i had one.... i was just expressing my thoughts on the catholic religion and when they decided what.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
here's something that discusses the nature of that translation. Text

It does discuss it, but seems to do a very bad job. What it doesn't even consider is the fact that in almost all of those verses, and many others not accounted for, yahweh is called 'Savior', 'Redeemer', 'I am', and a few others titles. All of these are titles taken by Christ, even in the New Worlds Translation. (I'm under the impression you are a Jehovah's Witness, just from the context of the page, though correct me if I'm wrong)

Regardless of how you turn it, translate it, whatever, these verses are referring to Christ, not God.

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
here's something that discusses the nature of that translation. Text

It does discuss it, but seems to do a very bad job. What it doesn't even consider is the fact that in almost all of those verses, and many others not accounted for, yahweh is called 'Savior', 'Redeemer', 'I am', and a few others titles. All of these are titles taken by Christ, even in the New Worlds Translation. (I'm under the impression you are a Jehovah's Witness, just from the context of the page, though correct me if I'm wrong)

Regardless of how you turn it, translate it, whatever, these verses are referring to Christ, not God.

i thought maybe you missed my "unbiased" wiki post, too, so...

Today, few scholars would say that there is a connection between the ?I am? and the divine name. Edwin Freed explains, ?the meaning of the sentence in the mind of the writer was: 'Before Abraham was, I, the Christ, the Son of God, existed.? [10] William Loader notes that the ?text need mean no more than I am and was in existence before Abraham, still a majestic unique claim but not an allusion to the divine name.?

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Vic
You think maybe you should have actually read (or tried to understand) my post before this little rant? I seriously doubt that engineereeyore will think that I was coming to his rescue in your little argument with him (because I wasn't), so what's your problem?

WHAT?? You weren't???