Helping out Debunking Christianity

[jpholding]

I'm just really glad the great JP Holding with his extensive knowlege of the truth is willing to sacrifice his time in the meaningless pursuit of insulting me..

It didn't take long
to peel away his fake skin
and expose the jerk

[MrManNo1]

How can one explain light existing as both particles and waves?

Google: "quantum physics"

It's quite simple, really: light is neither a wave nor a particle, but displays characteristics of both. That doesn't mean it is both, just that, when treated like it wave, it acts as we expect a wave to act. Scientists just usually call into this "duality" when speaking to laymen, because it's really, really difficult to explain.

http://physics.tamuk.edu/~suson/html/4323/intro.html

Gradually it became clear, to a large extent through the reflections of Niels Bohr and especially in his principle of complementarity, that photons and electrons were neither waves nor particles, but something more complex than either.

© source where applicable

www3.science.tamu.edu/CMSE/powerpoint/Light.ppt

Although we still commonly characterize. light as a wave, it is actually neither a. wave nor a particle.

© source where applicable

Interestingly modern physics coincides with the eastern point of view - that some knowledge cannot be conveyed with language, and therefore must be experienced personally. There are a few differences, however it is interesting to note, that Hindu, Buddhist, and Taoist philosophies have been saying this for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

Which "modern physics" is this? You can't simply just claim something like this, and then not substantiate your claim. Are you referring to Quantum Mechanics? The General Theory of Relativity? String Theory? The Multiverse Theory? There's a lot of physics out there, and it's hard to know what, specifically, you are referring to. And, please, for the love of God, do not say you got this information from the anti-scientific propaganda movie called What the Bleep Do We Know? Because it seems like you're talking about that crap.

[jpholding]

And, please, for the love of God, do not say you got this information from the anti-scientific propaganda movie called What the Bleep Do We Know? Because it seems like you're talking about that crap.

Ha! That type of crap
is what he'd find credible
as dumb as he is

[Rayado]

I think JPH should answer everything Doubting John says in this thread with haiku.

[jpholding]

I think JPH should answer everything Doubting John says in this thread with haiku.

Doubting John? He is
as slime beneath my iron boots
Let me at the twit.

[jpholding]

Ever read a passage in the Bible that condemned slavery? Ever read the book Defending Slavery: Pro-slavery Thought in thge Old South? edited by Paul Finkelman?

.

Slavery? You dope.
Try indentured servitude
Do some homework please

[jpholding]

Hear ye, Hear ye. See Holding resort to name calling and red herrings when he cannot answer another man's argument. The challenge was about me having to build or create a universe.

Jackass wants some gills!
Let him design his own world???
Legos confuse him!

[jpholding]

Any hidden sins you want to reveal in the interests of full disclosure?

Who knows about sin?
DJ's a leading expert
He practiced a lot!

[JB]

Response by haiku -
I never thought I'd see the
day. Oh the madness!

[jpholding]

Why was Able a sheepherder? What about Psalms 104, and Job 38:28-29, 40; 41:10,14?

No doubt those poor sheep
Had to buy all their wool coats
From Wal-Mart, maybe?

[Cartilage]

Leviticus 25
" 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Slaves for life - not indentured servants. Do your research.
Exous (it isn't even translated "slave" here - can Christians beat their employees?)
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.


Unfair treatment - life of servitude - slavery in north america - This is in more than one modern translation - which I am sure you will argue is incorrect - but then who are you to say that?

[Cartilage]

I wouldn't mind seeing these references. I've never come across any verses that explicitly condemned poking fun at people's stupidity.

Proverbs 1:22 How long will you simple ones [d] love your simple ways?
How long will mockers delight in mockery
and fools hate knowledge?
Proverbs 21:24
The proud and arrogant man-"Mocker" is his name;
he behaves with overweening pride.
proverbs 19:25
Flog a mocker, and the simple will learn prudence;
rebuke a discerning man, and he will gain knowledge.
proverbs 24:9
The schemes of folly are sin,
and men detest a mocker.
Througout the bible mocking is considered to be unrespectable. Try a concordance on the word mock there are plenty more.

But does their interpretation hold water? That's where my concern is at.

This is my problem as well - who's interpretation should hold water?? And why? At this point the argument boils down to scholars arguing who has better credentials.

Pardon my bluntness, but I don't give a hoot if you can make Scripture say what you want it to. What I care about is whether or not it's well-Grounded. And if you have to do some major butchery to make it say what you want to, then there's a VERY strong chance it's both poorly grounded AND wrong.

This is also my point - I see christians stretching the scripture to say what they want it to all the time.

Oh, and by the by, even the "Modern English Translations" don't condone the 1800's Slavery.

See previous post on slavery.

You're an Apostate, right? Why did you let the alleged 99% of the "Closed-Minded Christians" keep you from the alleged 1% of the "Open-Minded Christians"?

For the above translation reasons, and the fact there are much better and richer sources of peace and spirituality in the world. You might say I'm taking time off to enjoy them.

[Cartilage]

Great showing the bubbling hate that is beneath the surface. Remember, I can read everything that is edited out and it really goes to show... you are just as I described.

laughs - I just wanted to see if I'd get banned.

[Cartilage]

It's quite simple, really: light is neither a wave nor a particle, but displays characteristics of both. That doesn't mean it is both, just that, when treated like it wave, it acts as we expect a wave to act. Scientists just usually call into this "duality" when speaking to laymen, because it's really, really difficult to explain.

Actually its not as simple as you claim. Study the subject matter a bit more. The actual repercussions of this idea is that scientists can no longer explain things like this in normal language.

www3.science.tamu.edu/CMSE/powerpoint/Light.ppt

Although we still commonly characterize. light as a wave, it is actually neither a. wave nor a particle.

© source where applicable

True - light actually will do different things depending on the circumstances - becoming waves for certain things, and particles for others (including changing its function when being observed.)

Which "modern physics" is this? You can't simply just claim something like this, and then not substantiate your claim. Are you referring to Quantum Mechanics? The General Theory of Relativity? String Theory? The Multiverse Theory? There's a lot of physics out there, and it's hard to know what, specifically, you are referring to. And, please, for the love of God, do not say you got this information from the anti-scientific propaganda movie called What the Bleep Do We Know? Because it seems like you're talking about that crap.

An excellent book on this subject is the Tao of physics - It would take more than a forum thread or two to explain it all. Generally speaking, the answer to your question is - all of them. (excepting possibly the multiverse theory). And no, I've never seen that movie, although I am a great fan of science, and would probably dislike it due to its 'anti-scientific' agenda.

[TolkienFan]

Originally posted by Cartilage

Proverbs 1:22How long will you simple ones [d] love your simple ways?
How long will mockers delight in mockery
and fools hate knowledge?

As far as we can tell, well-deserved insults do not fall under the category of mockery. If it did, Solomon would be contradicting himself here and your cite is ultimately worthless. After all, is it not an insult, regardless of if its deserved or not, to call someone a fool? Yet that is what Solomon does here. So far, we can see well-deserved insults are not under the rubric of mockery.

Proverbs 21:24
The proud and arrogant man-"Mocker" is his name;
he behaves with overweening pride.

Once again, Solomon is dishing out a well-deserved insult. He calls a mocker a proud and arrogant man.

proverbs 19:25
Flog a mocker, and the simple will learn prudence;
rebuke a discerning man, and he will gain knowledge.

This, however, is not an outright condemnation of mockery (though it is implicit). It's just stating what should happen when such and such occurs. But as well-deserved insults have not demonstrably fallen under the category of mockery, this cite fails to prove your point as well.

proverbs 24:9
The schemes of folly are sin,
and men detest a mocker.

Solomon is once again making a deserved insult at something by calling it folly. As such, it either does not fall under the rubric of mockery or Solomon is constantly contradicting himself within the same proverb. If it's the former, your cites fail. If it's the latter, your cites are utterly worthless.

Througout the bible mocking is considered to be unrespectable. Try a concordance on the word mock there are plenty more.

That is true, but you have widened the definition of mockery to one not demonstrably in the Bible.

This is my problem as well - who's interpretation should hold water?? And why? At this point the argument boils down to scholars arguing who has better credentials.

Translation: You can get scholars on any side, so let's just throw up our hands in hopelessness and say that I'm right.

It's not really a question of which scholar has better credentials (though sometimes there is a question of whose are more relevant [e.g. if the topic is translation of Koine Greek, do you go with the guy who specializes in ancient history, or the guy who specializes in Koine Greek]). Rather it's a question of which scholarly thesis explains the data better. That's when actual examination and research is required, not simple throwing up of hands.

This is also my point - I see christians stretching the scripture to say what they want it to all the time.

Translation 1: We see Christians getting anything they want out of the Bible, therefore the Bible can't be true.

Translation 2: We can never know what the Bible is saying because people can stretch it to say anything.

This is where a tool known as critical thinking comes into play. If the exegesis requires obvious stretching, it should be discounted. No one here is saying that you can't stretch the Bible to say anything, but that's not what's important. What's important is what the text is actually saying (which can come from a variety of supporting resources).

See previous post on slavery.

So now just because people can stretch the Bible to say anything (which is true of anything ever written), that makes the stretching a legitimate interpretation? If Southern Christians had properly understood the Bible, they would have known it doesn't support things like the American kind of slavery (as the kind in the Biblical days was more along the lines of indentured servitude).

For the above translation reasons, and the fact there are much better and richer sources of peace and spirituality in the world. You might say I'm taking time off to enjoy them.

What better and richer sources of peace and spirituality? What exactly do you mean? Do you not care if your belief system is true, but rather if it makes you feel good? Please explain.