Science and atheism inconsistent?

[tas8831]

By most people's conception of God, a great many thoughts and behaviors are "inspired by God".

Great - I was referring to your Holy Texts.

I find nothing particularly unusual in that claim. And those who think God wrote the Bible are a very small, naive minority of the world's many, many, theists.

Ever one that I have met has been a creatinist on internet forums like this.

To use their definition of "God" as the one convincing us that God doesn't exist would be quite an exercise in the old 'straw man' debate tactic.

Good thing I didn't do that, just pointing out how even 'believers' can't get their acts together.

 

[ecco]

If that was the only one, then it would indeed be anecdotal. However, I can post a lot more of them.

My comment about Bahai's posting walls of text is a factual statement.

false stereotyping generalization.

I acknowledged that the one post could be considered anecdotal. I also stated that I could post many more. Is that really necessary?

So, it is not false.

No more than others, and not all Baha'is post walls of text.

First of all, we aren't talking about others, we are talking about Bahais. But you are correct, others do it too. In this group of "others", I would include religious fundamentalists extensively quoting biblical verses and scientific falsehoods from Creo websites. Another group would be the woosters.

I did not want to publicly lump Bahais in with these others, but since you brought it up...

 

[shunyadragon]

I acknowledged that the one post could be considered anecdotal. I also stated that I could post many more. Is that really necessary?

So, it is not false.

It is false.

First of all, we aren't talking about others, we are talking about Bahais. But you are correct, others do it too. In this group of "others", I would include religious fundamentalists extensively quoting biblical verses and scientific falsehoods from Creo websites. Another group would be the woosters.

I did not want to publicly lump Baha'is in with these others, but since you brought it up...

You did bring up publically lumping Baha'is.

 

[ecco]

It is false.

Do you really want me to repost 5 walls of text covering the writings of Bahá'u'lláh, The Bab and Shogi Effendi posted by Bahais? Maybe you want ten? How about I just link you to the thread and you count them for yourself.

You did bring up publically lumping Baha'is.

Did I now? Who is the "others" you referred to?

No more than others, and not all Baha'is post walls of text.

When you open a door, you shouldn't feign annoyance when I walk through it.

No more than others, and not all Baha'is post walls of text.

Since I never said "all Baha'is post walls of text" why did you bring it up?

 

[shunyadragon]

Do you really want me to repost 5 walls of text covering the writings of Bahá'u'lláh, The Bab and Shogi Effendi posted by Bahais? Maybe you want ten? How about I just link you to the thread and you count them for yourself.

It is a false generalization.

​

Since I never said "all Baha'is post walls of text" why did you bring it up?

You made no exceptions and just made blanket claims Baha'is post walls of text.

 

[shunyadragon]

Regardless, you did make a comment regarding scripture. I questioned the veracity of that comment given what I understand about Bahai and Messengers. Did you ever respond to those questions (repeated above). Perhaps now would be a good time. To refresh your memory, it concerned Moses' recounting of the creation story.

It was in response to a post and a question.

 

[shunyadragon]

Since I never said "all Baha'is post walls of text" why did you bring it up?

Since . . . big deal you are backpedaling
You specifically said "Baha'is do . . ."

 

[ecco]

It is a false generalization.
You made no exceptions and just made blanket claims Baha'is post walls of text.

• It seems all you can do is repeat the same less-than-truthful remarks.
• I have shown why it was not a generalization. I have shown that it was not false.
• I have shown that I was not referring to all Bahais.

But you go ahead and just continue ranting. I understand why you are frustrated.

 

[ecco]

but 'a woman formed from the rib of a man,' would be in conflict with science and natural methods.

I responded to a question concerning the Bible and what was literal and the Baha'i belief and did not initiate that topic concerning the certainty of belief or God in the Baha'i Faith.

Regardless, you did make a comment regarding scripture. I questioned the veracity of that comment given what I understand about Bahai and Messengers. Did you ever respond to those questions (repeated above). Perhaps now would be a good time. To refresh your memory, it concerned Moses' recounting of the creation story.

It was in response to a post and a question.

It doesn't matter why you responded. What matters is what you said. Let's try to cut to the chase.

You stated 'a woman formed from the rib of a man,' would be in conflict with science. (I agree)
Moses is an official Bahai Messenger.
Moses wrote the part about Adam and the rib.

• Why did Moses write something blatantly untrue?
• If Moses lied, how do you know Bahá'u'lláh did not lie?

 

[ecco]

Since I never said "all Baha'is post walls of text" why did you bring it up?

You specifically said "Baha'is do . . ."

Duck and dodge. Twist and turn.

Here is what I posted...Post #603

'Independent investigation of knowledge and truth'! Wow. That sounds really profound. Yet most of the Bahai's I've encountered haven't shown that they have done any 'Independent investigation of knowledge and truth'.

All I've heard are assertions repeated ad nauseam, or I've been told to look at walls of text written by people within the Bahai organization.

Do you really want to continue misrepresenting what I did or did not say?

 

[Audie]

Duck and dodge. Twist and turn.

Here is what I posted...Post #603


Do you really want to continue misrepresenting what I did or did not say?

Unsolicited comment -wise , we've notice that some
of our friends have not argument without some sort
of distortion, misrepresentation, half truth of plain
ol' falsehood.

This is particularly noticeable among creationists, but
it seems to be the case with all who are arguing in
support of something that is itself false.

 

[shunyadragon]

• It seems all you can do is repeat the same less-than-truthful remarks.
• I have shown why it was not a generalization. I have shown that it was not false.
• I have shown that I was not referring to all Bahais.

But you go ahead and just continue ranting. I understand why you are frustrated.

• It seems all you can do is repeat the same less-than-truthful remarks.
• I have shown that it is a generalization.

But you go ahead and just continue ranting. I understand why you are frustrated.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

His only purpose here is to represent his cult, by rote parroting cultist soundbites, and to proselytize his cultist fundamentalism. If you are expecting him to ever admit guilt to even things that are blatantly wrong, you are just wasting your time. His rhetoric is dishonestly designed for only one purpose, to just go the distance until you simply give up. And then claim victory, and how well respected he is. Once he has no rational responses left, he will either keep denying what is clearly true, or just keep repeating more cultists soundbites, or the exact words of the poster over and over. There is no free exchange of ideas, there is only the protecting of ones belief at all costs. Rational ideas are usually self-evident, and do not need to be justified. Yet they always seem to be the only topic that is being questioned.

It would be more productive to argue with a phone recording of the time.

 

[shunyadragon]

His only purpose here is to represent his cult, by rote parroting cultist soundbites, and to proselytize his cultist fundamentalism. If you are expecting him to ever admit guilt to even things that are blatantly wrong, you are just wasting your time. His rhetoric is dishonestly designed for only one purpose, to just go the distance until you simply give up. And then claim victory, and how well respected he is. Once he has no rational responses left, he will either keep denying what is clearly true, or just keep repeating more cultists soundbites, or the exact words of the poster over and over. There is no free exchange of ideas, there is only the protecting of ones belief at all costs. Rational ideas are usually self-evident, and do not need to be justified. Yet they always seem to be the only topic that is being questioned.

It would be more productive to argue with a phone recording of the time.

You and @ecco's only purpose here is to represent your cult, by rote parroting cultist soundbites, and to proselytize you and @ecco cultist fundamentalism. If you and @ecco are not going to ever admit guilt to even things that are blatantly wrong, I am just wasting my time. Your and @ecco's rhetoric is dishonestly designed for only one purpose, to just go the distance until I simply give up. And then claim victory, and how not respected you and @ecco are. Once you and @ecco have no rational responses left, you and @ecco will either keep denying what is clearly true, or just keep repeating more cultists soundbites, or the exact words of you and @ecco over and over. There is no free exchange of ideas, there is only the protecting of ones belief at all costs. Rational ideas are usually self-evident, and do not need to be justified. Yet they always seem to be the only topic that is being questioned.

 

[Audie]

His only purpose here is to represent his cult, by rote parroting cultist soundbites, and to proselytize his cultist fundamentalism. If you are expecting him to ever admit guilt to even things that are blatantly wrong, you are just wasting your time. His rhetoric is dishonestly designed for only one purpose, to just go the distance until you simply give up. And then claim victory, and how well respected he is. Once he has no rational responses left, he will either keep denying what is clearly true, or just keep repeating more cultists soundbites, or the exact words of the poster over and over. There is no free exchange of ideas, there is only the protecting of ones belief at all costs. Rational ideas are usually self-evident, and do not need to be justified. Yet they always seem to be the only topic that is being questioned.

It would be more productive to argue with a phone recording of the time.

I took it off ig just long enough to check which phone
recording you guys are attempting to communicate
with.

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑

• It seems all you can do is repeat the same less-than-truthful remarks.
• I have shown why it was not a generalization. I have shown that it was not false.
• I have shown that I was not referring to all Bahais.

But you go ahead and just continue ranting. I understand why you are frustrated.

• It seems all you can do is repeat the same less-than-truthful remarks.
• I have shown that it is a generalization.

But you go ahead and just continue ranting. I understand why you are frustrated.

I see, in your brilliant copy and paste, that you omitted my: I have shown that I was not referring to all Bahais.

Is that because you finally can bring yourself to admit that I did not say "All Bahais" when referring to posting walls of text?

 

[ecco]

His only purpose here is to represent his cult, by rote parroting cultist soundbites, and to proselytize his cultist fundamentalism. If you are expecting him to ever admit guilt to even things that are blatantly wrong, you are just wasting your time. His rhetoric is dishonestly designed for only one purpose, to just go the distance until you simply give up. And then claim victory, and how well respected he is. Once he has no rational responses left, he will either keep denying what is clearly true, or just keep repeating more cultists soundbites, or the exact words of the poster over and over. There is no free exchange of ideas, there is only the protecting of ones belief at all costs. Rational ideas are usually self-evident, and do not need to be justified. Yet they always seem to be the only topic that is being questioned.

I am aware. At least the Bahais I encountered in other threads, shifted their arguments around. Not so much here where repetition seems to be the governing factor.

Oops. Was that another unwarranted generalization?

 

[ecco]

You and @ecco's only purpose here is to represent your cult, by rote parroting cultist soundbites, and to proselytize you and @ecco cultist fundamentalism. If you and @ecco are not going to ever admit guilt to even things that are blatantly wrong, I am just wasting my time. Your and @ecco's rhetoric is dishonestly designed for only one purpose, to just go the distance until I simply give up. And then claim victory, and how not respected you and @ecco are. Once you and @ecco have no rational responses left, you and @ecco will either keep denying what is clearly true, or just keep repeating more cultists soundbites, or the exact words of you and @ecco over and over. There is no free exchange of ideas, there is only the protecting of ones belief at all costs. Rational ideas are usually self-evident, and do not need to be justified. Yet they always seem to be the only topic that is being questioned.

Duh.

 

[Audie]

I am aware. At least the Bahais I encountered in other threads, shifted their arguments around. Not so much here where repetition seems to be the governing factor.

Oops. Was that another unwarranted generalization?

Generalization as members of just another wacky
cult seems warranted to me.

 

[shunyadragon]

Generalization as members of just another wacky
cult seems warranted to me.

Another unfortunate egocentric generalization from the perspective of your own religious agenda. Not much room for constructive dialogue from this shoutdown,