To no surprise, the claim of an evangelical christian with an agenda has proven to be a lie. The alleged "ark" in Turkey has been proven to be as much a sham as Oded Golan's "ossuary of cheezus chrispy".
I deliberately chose the WingNutDaily site as a link. If a cheerleading site for religion like WingNutDaily is willing to call this a fraud, then it certainly is. WingNutDaily was one of the biggest sellers of this fraud when it was first claimed.
This is why archeology should be performed by professionals without bias, not the religious and gullible (but I repeat myself) who are desperately trying to prove something to fit their predisposed opinions and agendas. There is as much evidence for an "ark" as there is for jews having been in Egypt (i.e. none at all).
If people want to believe in religion, they're perfectly free to do so and no one is stopping them nor trying to. But making claims that are easily debunked won't lend their positions any credibility.
Yours is a false premise and false argument. Why doesn't it surprise to see someone bearing false witness in violation of his own religion?
Atheists and agnostics do not try to "disprove gawd".
The burden of proof in any argument lies with those who make the claim. Just as a prosecutor in a court must prove guilt of a defendant, the religious like yourself must prove that a "god" exists.
Pretending the discussion is otherwise is to again bear false witness. And again, why does that not surprise?
First off, what "god"? Nobody has ever shown me one despite how much they talk about it.
Second, those who claim "you need god to be good" say it not because they think it's true. They say it because they want to label non-believers as unethical and, if they can get away with it, label them as criminals. It's a fiction told to justify discrimination and violence against non-believers.
Religion has nothing to do with morality. At best it's a coincidence, and more often than not, a contradiction.
The only thing the US does is work in "American interests". "US interests" rarely - if ever - coincide with the interests of other nations, and more often than not, they conflict.
Maybe I'm just jaded, but I've lived overseas for nearly nine years and have reached the conclusion that there's nothing special about living in another country.
There might be unique differences in language, differences in culturual rules, and differences in everyday living (prices, food, activities, etc.), but in reality, everything is pretty much the same. People are people - if you couldn't find happiness living in your home country, you won't find it somewhere else.
The only thing that makes living in another country special is the environment - the land, the weather, the animals. I've been in Taiwan for the past five winters and I'm actually starting to miss snow. The only time I have felt cold here is standing by the walk-in freezer at costco.
That said, I have no desire to return to winters of -40°C.
Obviously you didn't read and don't know the definition.
Those who come up with unconventional ideas are always ridiculed. The difference is, real scientists test and retest, searching for irrefutable evidence. A crank "thinks" he already has the evidence and he's being ignored or repressed, his "genius" not recognized. The only person I have heard of or could name that meets both definitions is Isaac Newton.
Real scientists always have doubts about their work. Cranks never have doubts about it.
Anyone who talks of himself in the third person can't be taken seriously.
Not one single site that talks about him qualifies as a reputable scientific agency. Every single site that does talk about him is a pseudo-science crackpot site - "free energy", "bigfoot", and a whole host of other crap.
A person who goes around promoting his stuff publicly to get voices on his side should not be trusted; numbers don't make an argument right, facts do. If his writing had any merit, he would submit it to peer-reviewed journals. That he doesn't and won't tells you all you need to know. This is no different than Raelian "human cloning" or Pons and Fleischman's "cold fusion", it's junk "science".
What Rodin is doing is no different than what the clowns running the "Institute for Creation Research" do. Their only "sources" and "review" come from each other, not from independent and unbiased sources, and the same is true of Rodin.
What is going on in the US is comparable to England during Thatcher's tenure as PM.
The opposition to Bush in his eight years was akin to Labour's opposition to Thatcher. The opposition of the extreme right in the US to Obama, however, is akin to the IRA's response toward Thatcher.
The only thing stopping the extremists in the US from more violence is the rule of law, that it is easier to catch them because now of technology and monitoring. These are the same people who 40 years ago felt neither compunction nor hesitation about using violence in the South (bombing churches, segregation, cross burning, lynching, etc.). And this isn't about "race", because these people would gladly do the same thing to gay people, Latino immigrants (there have been murders by these rightwing clowns) or muslims. They are people who will resist change at all costs - with violence, if necessary; if you think it's bad now, wait until white people are in the minority in the US.
The only thing stopping many of them from being more violent is the fact that they would have to face consequences for their actions: Scott Roeder, Timothy McVeigh, the Ruby Ridge gunnuts, and now the Hutaree group. They're all the same: domestic terrorists, just as the IRA and UDA are/were, and trying to hide behind anonymity and "the right to bear arms and defend the constititon". They're so inured to reality that they don't know that they are the danger to the US's consitution.
People of his ilk got their way unchecked for eight years, and now they're whining because they're impotent. If he doesn't like the situation, he should have voted for McCain.
Funny thing: Most of the whiners are against the census, but by not taking part, they'll cost their counties and states money that they would have normally been given by the US federal government. Not to mention, by resisting government-run health care, the rightwing rabble in the US are going have worse health and shorter lifespans because they won't have care or coverage. They'll end up reducing their own numbers in the long run and having less money for those who are still alive.
Only the most on-the-fringes rightwingers from Alberta (not referring to you) would vote to eliminate medicare in Canada, and even that's debatable. Nearly everyone in Canada understands the value of affordable care.
The PRC government sees their citizens as meat for the elite to profit from, not human beings with rights. Of course, these murders of political prisoners in China are driven by the organ theft market. If there were no demand, the number of murders would go down; instead, wealthy westerners are increasing the demand with their unhealthy lifestyles.
Why be surprised, though? Look up how the PRC treats farmers, beating them up or murdering them to steal land for city expansions like those around Shanghai.
Asking people not to be hostile is "hostile"? Call the Waaaaaahmbulance. You sound like one of those types who claim not being able to oppress equates to being oppressed.
Being hostile would be attacking religion. I was criticizing hypocrisy - to pretend otherwise is hypocrisy.
Being hostile could also include linking to a picture or pictures that christians would find offensive and tried to goad or trick them into viewing them. Care to see some?
What I said is not "hostile", nor is the other poster's pointing out the actual origins of Oestre, how the rituals and beliefs were borrowed/stolen/rewritten by christianity.
You're trying to claim is there what doesn't exist. Or does the "no bearing false witness" only apply to christians talking to christians, not other people?
Out of necessity so that the religious don't burn in the hell they believe exists, I write this pre-emptive post:
Without fail, every year some puerile individual "thinks" he/she is being clever and is the first to discover a long debunked lie. It is a myth about a court case where a judge allegedly calls April 1st the "atheist holiday".
First, lying is bearing false witness. It's called the "ninth commandment", and the "old testament god" says you will go to hell for doing it.
Second, calling people a "fool" will also book your express train ticket to hell. That's what "jeezus" says in the "sermon on the mount", the thing which "jeezus" is third most famous for (the second most well known being what allegedly happened on April 4th).
Matthew 5:22: "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
If christians want to claim the buybull is a source of morality and the right way to live, they ought to lead by example and obey their own rules, both "old testament" and "new testament".
And, as mentioned at the top, this applies to those christians who plan to be obnoxious, but also to those who quietly smirk in silent agreement with the lie, rather than criticize those who perpetuate it. Silent assent is as juvenile as saying it.
Those people want guns for the same reason they want SUVs: they want bigger weaponry, not more civility. They believe in the idiocy of "peace through superior firepower".
Newsflash for them: the US had superior firepower before 9/11.
The idiots who have the tightest grip on their guns are also those who have the least grip on reality.
If ever there were a reason for confiscating guns, that's it. Those who are most rabid about guns, spewing lies about "The gubmint iz cummin' tuh taik my gunz!" are the ones most likely to use them for domestic terrorism, not self defense.
"Professional wrestling" is to little boys what soap operas are to women: mindless entertainment to fill the time instead of doing something meaningful.
And when I say little boys, I'm talking emotional age, not physical.
Are you kidding? The man was as guilty of verbal diarrhœa as Stephen R. Donaldson (the Thomas Covenant crap) and H. P. Lovecraft. I doubt Herbert could spell words like succinct and concise, let alone define them.
To say that shows that the name Eric Blair is unfamiliar to you.
Ah, there's no dishonesty like the dishonesty of religious people.
Roy Moore-on was removed because he broke the law. The judge who ruled that Moore-on be removed, U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson, is himself a fundamentalist christian, and not an atheist as Moore-on claimed.
And by the by, Moore-on is an idolater, a worshipper of stones and graven images. If his beliefs were at all convincing, he wouldn't need them carved into stone.
K_rational Forum Posts (257)
Turkeys believe "noah's ark" was found
To no surprise, the claim of an evangelical christian with an agenda has proven to be a lie. The alleged "ark" in Turkey has been proven to be as much a sham as Oded Golan's "ossuary of cheezus chrispy".I deliberately chose the WingNutDaily site as a link. If a cheerleading site for religion like WingNutDaily is willing to call this a fraud, then it certainly is. WingNutDaily was one of the biggest sellers of this fraud when it was first claimed.
This is why archeology should be performed by professionals without bias, not the religious and gullible (but I repeat myself) who are desperately trying to prove something to fit their predisposed opinions and agendas. There is as much evidence for an "ark" as there is for jews having been in Egypt (i.e. none at all).
If people want to believe in religion, they're perfectly free to do so and no one is stopping them nor trying to. But making claims that are easily debunked won't lend their positions any credibility.