CreationWeb post archive.

[haas mark]

Since Stormy's been banned:

What the hell were you thinking?

Trying to shut down SD.Net is not very wise.

Have you ever heard the phrase;
"People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"

Can someone tell me whats going on in English?

By the way, I can tell the new users from SD.net haven't changed their vbocabulary much.

Mr. Bollinger,

Why would you pursue such an action? Why didn't you contact the owner of the SDnet Mr. Wong directly and voice your concerns? Even if you personally don't like the guy that is no excuse for going behind his back. In the real world, if two people have a problem they first try to reason it out together. Going behind someone's back casts doubts upon your motives and views, especially since you gave the impression that you were in favor of a form of debate. Your actions will only solidify the views of what others think of Christians, that is, close-minded individuals.

XPViking

By the way, I can tell the new users from SD.net haven't changed their vbocabulary much.

I am a new user to CreationWeb and frequent SDnet. Are you making a hasty generalization? Perhaps you can show me where my "vbocaulary" offends you.

XPViking

Excuse me for the generalization. I was refering mainly to Durandal's strange obsession with the F word.

Then refer to the individual and not the group creationistalltheway.

XPViking

Can someone tell me whats going on in English?

By the way, I can tell the new users from SD.net haven't changed their vbocabulary much.

Shut up you walking pile of fundy garabage.


You're precious dictator... I mean Admin Sbollinger has tried to get Stardestroy.net shut down. Too bad it's a dumb idea and it'll never work in million years. No censorship my left foot.

Excuse me for the generalization. I was refering mainly to Durandal's strange obsession with the F word.

That individual is of no further concern to us. His deliberate use of the common vulgarity is not acceptable. I have banned him and deleted the offending posts.

I have no idea what is going on between Sam and SD-net. Frankly, it doesn't concern me. However, there will be absolutely no toleration of gutter language on CreationWeb. Period. Those who do not like that policy are cordially invited to depart.

Shut up you walking pile of fundy garabage.

Glad to see who's side is fighting against bigotry, Archon.

I have no idea what is going on between Sam and SD-net. Frankly, it doesn't concern me. However, there will be absolutely no toleration of gutter language on CreationWeb. Period. Those who do not like that policy are cordially invited to depart.

He's trying to shut up anyone that disagrees with him! That's what. I can hear the jackboots now.

Shut up you walking pile of fundy garabage.

Adios, Archon.

Well, you show you're true colors

Well, you show you're true colors

Glad to shed the light. Next time you jwant to talk to "fundie" garbage, don't hesitate to e-mail me.

hr'd trying to shut up anyone who disagrees with him, thats what!

ok...what are you talking about specificlly?

Okay, this only took me about fifteen minutes more or less to move over, but here it is. They're too stupid to realize that this is what people get banned for on their board, and they insist on asking second-person questions. Dumbasses.

[haas mark]

Also:

You claim not to censor those that you don't like yet you're trying to shut down Stardestroyer.net. How dare you try to pass that pack of lies off as the truth. You little coward. You try to censor other boards that you don't like.

Sbollinger you're a liar and a coward!

Instead of even attempting to debate us you try to shutdown your critics.


http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=5227

shut down critics? Jus critics? You guys are bombarding our board trying to shut us down, and you call yourselves "critics". Ever since you guys came here its been nothing but chaos with your constant bombardment from SD.net

[Andrew J.]

Who's that Archon guy? Is he one of ours?

[haas mark]

Who's that Archon guy? Is he one of ours?

Archon = Stormy.

[Stormbringer]

Who's that Archon guy? Is he one of ours?

That's my alias. Couldn't very well use my name and avatar from here with all the lurking spies.

[Pu-239]

I wondr if anyone could at least question the IP banning...I can't get online as jairyn AT ALL because of the friggin IP ban. (Well, not until daytime, anyways...)

How does the IP banning at Creationweb work? Is it to a specific IP address or does it cover a multitude from the same source.

My IP modulates every 2 hours, fuck too much ST. Only part of it changes though, so I'm wondering would the IP banning there still affect me?

Can't you people use a proxy server like anonymizer.com or something?

[haas mark]

I wondr if anyone could at least question the IP banning...I can't get online as jairyn AT ALL because of the friggin IP ban. (Well, not until daytime, anyways...)

How does the IP banning at Creationweb work? Is it to a specific IP address or does it cover a multitude from the same source.

My IP modulates every 2 hours, fuck too much ST. Only part of it changes though, so I'm wondering would the IP banning there still affect me?

Can't you people use a proxy server like anonymizer.com or something?

How do you do that?

[Pu-239]

go to anonymizer.com then type in the URL

[haas mark]

go to anonymizer.com then type in the URL

Ah. Ok. ty

[XPViking]

Okay, just picking up from what has been left off. So far, I've not been banned.

Originally posted by SBollinger:

Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2002 11:18 am Post subject:

I'd like to know that myself. What are you guys talking about?

===added in edit===

Is this what you guys are talking about? I sent this to your webhost right after your "invasion" started. I own a discussion board at

http://www.creationweb.org.

Recently we've had an infestation of trolls. They have been very abusive and nasty. I run a Christian message board so I accept being a bit of a target. However, these guys have crossed the boundary. The site, which you host, is at: http://www.stardestroyer.net There are 2 threads running on their site, which I have hard copies of, that are relative to my complaint. They are located at:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... ays=0&post order=asc&start=0

and

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=4543

As you will be able to see, they have made plans and carried them out, to invade my board with trollish behavior, create multiple board personalities against the rules and be disruptive as possible, flaming and using abusive language. This behavior violates your (almost everyone's) TOS. I would ask that you take immediate action. Thank you, Samuel Bollinger

And here is the reply I just received from them.

Hello, While this sort of thing is not directly actionable by removal of service, we will have a word with them about this matter. Thanks, Chris Carter pair Networks


Now as for me being a coward. Which is cowardly? Making plans to invade someone's board to create as much chaos as possible, to create multiple board personalities to sow discord, use profane language and generally lie about being here? You know-a big troll. I thought you guys were the anti-troll jihad. Looks like you need to take the "anti" off and just be the troll jihad. Now if all this crap is just to weasel out of the debate-just say so and leave quietly. Typical troll reaction when you can't bend someone to your will. Also, I didn't see Mr. Wong contacting anyone here before trying to destroy someone's board. So knock off the Mr. Innocent Reasonable routine. There's nothing reasonable or innocent about any of sd.net's actions. In fact, they could be termed cowardly relative to their masked intentions of never engaging in serious debate and destroying another board. So who's the coward again? Who's intolerant and bigoted? So, let's recap. sd.net planned an invasion to destroy this board. I asked their webhost to take action. I guess a guilty conscience does make you protest loud and long.


An aside to sd.net folks: I have computer saved and hard copied all the relevant posts on your site to this point. Some of which have since disappeared from your site. Interesting.


===added in edit=== As far as I'm concerned the debate's still on. But if you guys want out...well, you sure know how to go about it.
_________________'olam ha-ze

Originally posted by XPViking

Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2002 1:50 pm Post subject:

Mr Bollinger, Firstly, that does not alter the fact that you should have contacted the owner of the board, namely Mr. Mike Wong, directly and tried to resolve the issue instead of sending off an email to his (Mr. Wong's) webhost. Secondly, are you claiming that SDnet deliberately deleted threads pertaining to this issue? I quote you here:

Quote:
An aside to sd.net folks: I have computer saved and hard copied all the relevant posts on your site to this point. Some of which have since disappeared from your site. Interesting. - SB


That is actually quite a serious charge to levy. Can you please provide proof of that? Good to hear that you still want the debate. Again, why not contact Mr. Wong directly to resolve the issue? I should note here that I'm not acting as any kind of ambassador nor acting as a proxy for any SDnet members. I'm posting only as an interested party who would really like to see a debate occur. XPViking

_________________It’s fun to have fun but you have to know how – The Cat in the Hat by Dr. Seuss

[Darth Wong]

What a weaselly little shit. What's the point of saving those threads, since we say nothing illegal in them? Does he think he can use them for evidence? Evidence for what? To prove that we think he's an asshole and planned to argue vociferously with him? The last time I checked, that ain't illegal, or even in violation of my webhost's terms of service. And based on the feedback he got from my webhost, they know that too. Fucking dumb-ass ...

As for this debate, tell him to quit posturing and send one salvo already. Goddamned dumb-ass; tell him to send one message explaining why creation theory should be considered a viable competitor for evolution theory. 2000 words max. We'll post messages and responses on both webhosts. Enough goddamned dicking around. I'll debate the little ass-wipe myself if I have to.

[haas mark]

What a weaselly little shit. What's the point of saving those threads, since we say nothing illegal in them? Does he think he can use them for evidence? Evidence for what? To prove that we think he's an asshole and planned to argue vociferously with him? The last time I checked, that ain't illegal, or even in violation of my webhost's terms of service. And based on the feedback he got from my webhost, they know that too. Fucking dumb-ass ...

As for this debate, tell him to quit posturing and send one salvo already. Goddamned dumb-ass; tell him to send one message explaining why creation theory should be considered a viable competitor for evolution theory. 2000 words max. We'll post messages and responses on both webhosts. Enough goddamned dicking around. I'll debate the little ass-wipe myself if I have to.

I'll be sending him an email promptly. As I need to address my second ban, I will include this.

[Master of Ossus]

Now as for me being a coward. Which is cowardly? Making plans to invade someone's board to create as much chaos as possible, to create multiple board personalities to sow discord, use profane language and generally lie about being here? You know-a big troll. I thought you guys were the anti-troll jihad. Looks like you need to take the "anti" off and just be the troll jihad. Now if all this crap is just to weasel out of the debate-just say so and leave quietly. Typical troll reaction when you can't bend someone to your will. Also, I didn't see Mr. Wong contacting anyone here before trying to destroy someone's board. So knock off the Mr. Innocent Reasonable routine. There's nothing reasonable or innocent about any of sd.net's actions. In fact, they could be termed cowardly relative to their masked intentions of never engaging in serious debate and destroying another board. So who's the coward again? Who's intolerant and bigoted? So, let's recap. sd.net planned an invasion to destroy this board. I asked their webhost to take action. I guess a guilty conscience does make you protest loud and long.


An aside to sd.net folks: I have computer saved and hard copied all the relevant posts on your site to this point. Some of which have since disappeared from your site. Interesting.

Okay. Clearly this SBollinger guy is the coward, here. After all, everyone invaded his site for the expressed purpose of engaging these people in debate. He then skirts the issue, claiming the moral high-ground in an attempt to get Mike in trouble with his web-server?

And, BTW, good. You saved some of the threads. So what? What are you going to do with them? I don't even think we deleted any of these threads.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I used many of these same arguements with my mom.

At least my mom treated me with much more respect as did the local minister, or even my neighbor the Baptist Preacher's Daughter.

[haas mark]

Oh yeah, keep this one up top, too.

Thanks.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

What a weaselly little shit. What's the point of saving those threads, since we say nothing illegal in them? Does he think he can use them for evidence? Evidence for what? To prove that we think he's an asshole and planned to argue vociferously with him? The last time I checked, that ain't illegal, or even in violation of my webhost's terms of service. And based on the feedback he got from my webhost, they know that too. Fucking dumb-ass ...

As for this debate, tell him to quit posturing and send one salvo already. Goddamned dumb-ass; tell him to send one message explaining why creation theory should be considered a viable competitor for evolution theory. 2000 words max. We'll post messages and responses on both webhosts. Enough goddamned dicking around. I'll debate the little ass-wipe myself if I have to.

W000000000t!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111 SHOW HIS ASS WHO'S B0SS MIKE!!!

[XPViking]

Darth Wong,

Actually, by saving these threads it acts as a record in case we need to call him out on something. That's it.

XPViking

[haas mark]

*just bumping*

[Coyote]

SBollinger's crybaby antics have changed the parameters of this confrontation. We can continue with the debate as planned but I think that now Mike Wong has every right to pick up the gauntlet thrown and pimp-slap that arrogant dog as he sees fit. We will continue to have direct support/input by WeeMadAndo and either Yogi or myself can post Durandal's argument for him.

What I find truly telling is that all this time, Bollinger has been whining that "Anyone who disagrees with a Mod's decision or actions should take that up in a private e-mail to the mod in question" Of course he neatly skirts this when he feels like going after Mike Wong! Two-faced and hypocritical little trough-feeder!

Truth is, his complaints are petty. We have done nothing outside the bounds of free speech and opinion. He is irritating authorities with complaints the level of "he touched me! Make him stop! I'll tell mom!" What an amazing display of maturity..!

As a child, SBollinger's parents probably used him as a battering ram.

[Coyote]

My latest at CreationWeb:

Ze'ev-Eretz
Member


Joined: 27 Oct 2002
Posts: 29
Location: Fort Metz'ada
Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2002 6:34 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To the people at CreationWeb, Greetings.

A few things should be clarified regarding actions and emotions. Alyrium, the fellow who was initially banned and who's post was deleted, felt that he was banned for admitting his sexual oriantation. This caused him no amount of frustration, as I am sure anyone can understand (regardless of whether they agree with his views or not).

In return, an "invasion" was asked for but at SDnet we have different standards. We were recently invaded by a group of trolls (real trolls) from a group called "Elite Fitness" that came to our board en masse and posted little more than "Star Warz Sux" or "You are all homos". We were offended by this, since these people had nothing worthwhile to say.

So when we came to this board as an 'invasion' we came with the intent to challenge in rational debate. Yes, we were going to ask pointed question; yes, we intended to disagree with you and your views. That is the nature of free speech and public discourse/debate in society. What if one of us had simply stumbled across your board by chance and come to debate? Would you still feel the same way? As it is, we felt that CreationWeb took the first shot by banning one of our people and showing him disrespect. A real troll invasion would have been spamming the board with endless repitiions of "Kristianitee Sux" and nothing else.

While I admit that we may be more open with our speech (using words you may find offensive) we come from different backgrounds. You have a right to consider us crude, if you wish, even uncultured, but to ban people without warning is a display of childishness, in our opinion. (The Arizona guy was, indeed, and offensive troll with no realistic discourse to add).

But-- I, personally, was banned temporarily and my SIG, a Hebrew prayer, was vandalized to make a libelous claim against me as an 'intolerant, bigoted troll' when I had not once, to my knowledge, ever attacked anyone on this board. How is this mature and rational? I'll have you know that I was quite unhappy at this, for as a believer in God myself, from the Jewish point of view, I had been sympathetic to theological feelings expressed by CW's members.

Mr. Bollinger, you stance from day one has been "contact a Mod in private e-mail if you question a policy or action". Yet this was not stipulated in the board rules, and you did not follow this rule yourself when attacking Mr. Wong's board. Could you have not simply gone to him and said, "Hey, could you talk to these guys?" You did not even try.

I feel that we gave realistic debate and displayed a willingness to address topics. We can temper our language but that will not change the fact that we have disagreeing points of view. Can you understand the confusion here? Displaying what appears to be 'religious intolerance' gives any believer a black eye.

Please consider these thoughts, as I try to understand your own feelings. Thank you for your time.

--Coyote, a stardestroyer.net believer in God.


_________________
"Sh'ma Yisrael, Adonai elohainu, Adonai ahad"

[Coyote]

Some more, from Yogi's thread...

Ze'ev-Eretz
Member

Joined: 27 Oct 2002
Posts: 31
Location: Fort Metz'ada
Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2002 11:01 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MrMatt280 wrote:

I do not believe in Christianity(and I know many others are the same)out of blind faith. It is not just a deeply prsonal experience, it is something that I have been convinced of through evidences and logical reasons and the like.

Such as what?

And through that and other things(such as people and the Word of God revealed through sermons and such)God has supernaturally changed my heart. But it's not blind at all.

Your personal experiences are certainly valid for your own point of view. But you have not provided logical, outside evidence to support your view-- something that another person could corroborate. Do you undertsand what is meant by "faith" and what is meant by "logic"?

And when you come from the Christian perspective, with that comes the perspective that God is good and perfect and provides the only source of any true standards, and thus He does not have to give reasons as to why things are wrong, but he does anyways.

But again-- your own personal feelings on the matter are one thing, but being able to convince someone else is another. The only 'evidence' is the Bible, which of course is going to back up itself. You see, there is no problem or shame in admitting that you take the word fo God on faith, that's what I do, and that no further proof is required. In fact, demanding proof of faith kind of displays a lack of faith, it could be said.

In Romans 1 Paul states how homosexuality is unnatural, and not the way God intended things to be; he goes on to say how it spawned because of sin, since sin brings about unnatural and wicked feelings that are abomidable to Christ.

But animals engage in homosexual acts, and that is a part of nature. The best way to disagree with homosexuality is to simply not practice it, and you can decline to practice it for many reasons: you aren't interested, God said not to, you want children, etc.

Don't think that we do not believe in logic and reasoning, for that works alongside what we believe.

Now, I'm not attacking you, I'm just saying here that you are not applying 'logic', you are simply saying that you agree with the Bible's statement about homosexuality. It is a 'just because' sort of answer. Your argument boils down to, "I decline to practice homosexual acts because I chose not to and God, in the Bible, says not to, and so we are in agreement, an this satisfies me because I have faith that God makes the right decisions". There is nothing wrong with this! It is not logic, but it does not have to be to suit your personal feelings.


_________________
"Sh'ma Yisrael, Adonai elohainu, Adonai ahad"

[Coyote]

In this selection, I respond to Bob Moore, a moderator at CWeb.org that has been more reasonable than Mr. Bollinger, in my opinion. The topic is obvious.

Ze'ev-Eretz
Member

Joined: 27 Oct 2002
Posts: 31
Location: Fort Metz'ada
Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2002 11:13 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Moore, Christianity has a "Witness" imperative to go forth and spread the word of God (as interpreted from the New Testament) to the nations. Now, I remember once when I briefly dated a girl who was a Mormon, and once she gave me a Book of Mormon as a gift. A couple days later I expressed to my friend Erin that I felt it was inappropriate.

Erin reminded me that from my date's perspective, she had something in her life that made her feel good and gave her a sense of happiness: her Mormon faith. From her perspective, she was trying to share with me something she thought was good-- it was not an attack.

Well, Christianity, Islam, and other religions have a mission to go forth and spread the word of God. If any of these religions, not just Christianity, got ahold of the temporal power of the government (taxpayer) funded national education system, they would be required to fulfill their holy duty and Witness to the children in school: a captive audience.

Now, like my Mormon girl, this is an attempt to share something that you (generalized 'you', not Bob Moore specifically) find wonderful and enlightening. It is not an attack, it is a favor.

But unfortunately, others do not see it this way. They do see it as an attack, and resist. They do not want this "favor" and find Church insistence on it to be an invasion of their living space. The unfair and unasked-for imposition of social norms and mores that they find contrary to their personal views upsets them and makes them very defensive. Not everyone who feels this way wants ot be allowed to live a life of disgusting debauchery, some simply want to face Mecca, or Jerusalem, or contemplate Nirvana, without bothering others. And some simply are happy believing that they will leave behind other legacies: children, works, intellectual concepts... and then they will fade from this earth.

If a person wants a religious epiphany, he will seek it out; he will question, visit churches, mosques, synagogues, or find those who are sated with political activism, scientific endeavor, or other works. But it must come from them, within...

Thank you for your time.

________________
"Sh'ma Yisrael, Adonai elohainu, Adonai ahad"

[weemadando]

weemadando
Member
Joined: 28 Oct 2002
Posts: 48
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2002 12:16 am Post subject: [Not Flaming/Bigotry/Spam] Is the bible legitimate?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We all know that for nearly 1600 years the bible has been the centre of Christian beliefs, but I wish to bring up the point: how do we determine if it is a legitimate text?

Against it we have the problem that there is no corroborating evidence.
-The Romans who were notoriously anal about such things have no record of an insurgency by a man named Jesus, or even of executing him. Only in about 150ce do they start complaining about a new cult emerging and threatening the establishment.
-Many of the events mentioned in both the new and the old testaments lack corroborating evidence of their occurance. The flood, the presence of the jews in Egypt and their subsequent move to the middle east...

Yes you may argue that the bible is all the evidence you need, but can a court convict based on a single testimony from a witness that noone can identify or prove exists? Can a thesis be accepted if it only quotes from one source and doesn't attempt to back up its arguements.

How do we know that the bible is even the same bible that was (allegedly) written by the disciples/apostles. Even if it was, it would have been translated and transcribed so many times that it would likely have had some meaning lost or changed. Or does the hand of god aid the hand of the scribes?

Well? Topic is open for debate.


_________________
Self proclaimed leader of the Anti-Troll Jihad



The Apologist
Member
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 43
Location: Sacramento, California
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2002 3:54 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I accept your challenge, and request to be your only partner in debate, if I may. I would like this to be chiefly one-on-one.

I respond initially by pursuing why you question the Bible in the first place.

Tell me - do you believe that Julius Ceasar was the emperor of Rome? Do you believe that the Gallic wars occurred?


_________________
"Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'"

-John 14:6

weemadando
Member
Joined: 28 Oct 2002
Posts: 48
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2002 7:05 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah-hah!

We have a taker.

Yes I believe that Julius Caesar was emperor of Rome. We have coins minted by his order with his visage. We have statues and busts of him. We have inscriptions dedicated to him. We have records of his correspondance with people. We have many independant sources that can verify his existance. There is ample literary and non-literary evidence of the existance of Julius Caesar. And not just in one book.


_________________
Self proclaimed leader of the Anti-Troll Jihad



weemadando
Member
Joined: 28 Oct 2002
Posts: 48
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2002 7:17 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for why I question the bible...

For nearly two milennia Christianity has followed the teachings of Jesus as outlined in the bible. Or at least the New Testament. Yet there is no corroborating evidence for the existance of Jesus or of the events of the New Testament.

Same goes for the Old Testament. Its the foundation of several religions yet there is no corroborating evidence.

That is why I question it.


_________________
Self proclaimed leader of the Anti-Troll Jihad


GoatFeathers
Member
Joined: 29 Oct 2002
Posts: 14

Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2002 3:34 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Apologist, I have an answer that I would like to give, however I will respect your request and hold off until you tell me otherwise. If you wish, send me a private message and I will tell you what it is, and you can pass it along if you feel that it would help.

-----
GoatFeathers


The Apologist
Member
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 43
Location: Sacramento, California
Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2002 4:30 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Yes I believe that Julius Caesar was emperor of Rome. We have coins minted by his order with his visage. We have statues and busts of him. We have inscriptions dedicated to him. We have records of his correspondance with people. We have many independant sources that can verify his existance. There is ample literary and non-literary evidence of the existance of Julius Caesar. And not just in one book.


Call me nit-picky, but I did not ask whether you believe that Julius Caesar existed; I asked whether you believe that he was the emperor of Rome (and whether you believe the Gallic wars occurred, but we can ignore this as rhetorical under the circumstances).

I will assume that it is your belief that Caesar was the emperor - and so apparently, you consider the evidence you mentioned to be "proof" (you did, after all, say in another discussion that you only believe in things which can be proven to you). Am I correct so far? Are the attestations you named proof that Caesar was the emperor of Rome?

By the way, I think this discussion will be more efficient and helpful if it takes more of a dialogue format than a formal debate format, so this is why I am keeping my responses terse, and I would hope you do the same.


_________________
"Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'"

-John 14:6


weemadando
Member
Joined: 28 Oct 2002
Posts: 48
Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2002 10:49 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Apologist wrote:

Call me nit-picky, but I did not ask whether you believe that Julius Caesar existed; I asked whether you believe that he was the emperor of Rome (and whether you believe the Gallic wars occurred, but we can ignore this as rhetorical under the circumstances).


To be nit-picky. . .

Quote:
Tell me - do you believe that Julius Ceasar was the emperor of Rome?


Its there on the page clear as day. An I believe that all of my aforementioned evidence relates directly to his role as Emperor. Coins aren't minted in the image in or on the order of a pauper on the streets.

To be truly nit-picky Julius Caesar wasn't the Emperor, but Dictator... Thats a minor piece of historical trivia though.

Quote:
I will assume that it is your belief that Caesar was the emperor - and so apparently, you consider the evidence you mentioned to be "proof" (you did, after all, say in another discussion that you only believe in things which can be proven to you). Am I correct so far? Are the attestations you named proof that Caesar was the emperor of Rome?


We have statues of Julius with inscriptions denoting him as "emperor".
We have correspondance to and from an emperor from the same period who just happens to be called Julius Caesar...
We have coins featuring the visage of Julius Caesar, denoting him as "emperor".
We have numerous literary sources that relate to him as the "emperor".
We have his adopted "son" Octavious deifying him and creating the first of the "God-Emperors".

I could continue listing examples, but I feel I have listed enough evidence that Julius Caesar a) existed and b) was "Emperor" of Rome

Quote:
By the way, I think this discussion will be more efficient and helpful if it takes more of a dialogue format than a formal debate format, so this is why I am keeping my responses terse, and I would hope you do the same.


I try to keep them as short as possible. I'm used to fairly evidence intensive debates however, coming from an academic background.


_________________
Self proclaimed leader of the Anti-Troll Jihad


MrMatt280
Member
Joined: 09 Sep 2002
Posts: 37
Location: CA
Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2002 5:26 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why is it that you say there is no collaborative evidence for the New Testament and Jesus? What proof do you have of that??


Gricksigger
Member
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 89
Location: California
Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2002 6:56 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No collaborative evidence?


_________________
Christian, Protestant, conservative, and Calvinist
If curious, ask about my picture.
THIS SPACE FOR SALE: GET FIVE MONTHS FREE!!! (Certain restrictions apply. Subject to credit approval. Terms and conditions subject to change without notice.)


MrMatt280
Member
Joined: 09 Sep 2002
Posts: 37
Location: CA
Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2002 10:39 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whoops, I meant corroborating evidence.



Back to top


Gricksigger
Member


Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 89
Location: California
Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2002 10:46 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That comment was directed towards Wee, actually.


_________________
Christian, Protestant, conservative, and Calvinist
If curious, ask about my picture.
THIS SPACE FOR SALE: GET FIVE MONTHS FREE!!! (Certain restrictions apply. Subject to credit approval. Terms and conditions subject to change without notice.)


The Apologist
Member
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 43
Location: Sacramento, California
Posted: Sun Nov 03, 2002 6:07 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Was weemadando banned?


_________________
"Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'"

-John 14:6


SBollinger
Site Administrator
Joined: 26 Sep 2002
Posts: 99
Location: Fort Worth, TX.
Posted: Sun Nov 03, 2002 10:13 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Apologist wrote:
Was weemadando banned?


Nope. Just de-activated for a bit. However, if he follows through on any of the threats he made at sd.net, he soon will be.
He's activated again.


_________________
'olam ha-ze


The Apologist
Member
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 43
Location: Sacramento, California
Posted: Sun Nov 03, 2002 11:10 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
We have statues of Julius with inscriptions denoting him as "emperor".
We have correspondance to and from an emperor from the same period who just happens to be called Julius Caesar...
We have coins featuring the visage of Julius Caesar, denoting him as "emperor".
We have numerous literary sources that relate to him as the "emperor".
We have his adopted "son" Octavious deifying him and creating the first of the "God-Emperors".

I could continue listing examples, but I feel I have listed enough evidence that Julius Caesar a) existed and b) was "Emperor" of Rome


Yes, but I asked if you consider such material "proof." Does this evidence "prove" that Caesar was emperor (yes, it is "emperor")? To you? To everyone?

More importantly, do you agree that only true (and not false) things can be proven, and that true things can only be proven (and not disproven)?

Or do you consider "proof" more a relative measure of whatever compels one to believe?


_________________
"Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'"

-John 14:6


weemadando
Member
Joined: 28 Oct 2002
Posts: 48
Posted: Sun Nov 03, 2002 11:11 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

post deleted.
Way ot.
SB


_________________
Self proclaimed leader of the Anti-Troll Jihad


weemadando
Member
Joined: 28 Oct 2002
Posts: 48
Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2002 12:18 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Apologist wrote:
Yes, but I asked if you consider such material "proof." Does this evidence "prove" that Caesar was emperor (yes, it is "emperor")? To you? To everyone?

More importantly, do you agree that only true (and not false) things can be proven, and that true things can only be proven (and not disproven)?

Or do you consider "proof" more a relative measure of whatever compels one to believe?


I do consider such material proof. If I had a single document, that stated that a previously unheard of figure was the Emperor of Rome, and there was no corroborating contermporary evidence of this claim then I would be dubious of it. Hence my questioning of the bible.


_________________
Self proclaimed leader of the Anti-Troll Jihad


The Apologist
Member
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 43
Location: Sacramento, California
Posted: Tue Nov 05, 2002 12:27 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, one question answered...

Continue...


_________________
"Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'"

-John 14:6


weemadando
Member
Joined: 28 Oct 2002
Posts: 48

Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2002 2:25 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
More importantly, do you agree that only true (and not false) things can be proven, and that true things can only be proven (and not disproven)?


False things can be proven false. However some things lack the evidence to prove them true or false. Many fundamentalists argue that there is literary evidence outside the bible that proves that Jesus was crucified on the order or Pontius Pilate. This is false. We merely have knowledge of the existance of someone called Pontius Pilate thanks to an inscription.

St. George and the Dragon, is this tale true? Can it proved as true? Doubtful. But can it be irreconcilably be proved false? Probably not. The fact remains that the burden of proof and common sense would lead you to believe that it is impossible that a knight in the middle ages would have hunted and killed a dragon. Similar to how I have the right to reasonable doubt that Jesus a) existed (I don't really doubt this, I believe that someone called Jesus of Nazareth did probably exist) or b) doubt his actions and the record of them that we have (this is the case with me).

Quote:
Or do you consider "proof" more a relative measure of whatever compels one to believe?


I believe in science because I can do an experiment and see its results. I can look at a theory and its supporting evidence and say: "Yes, that makes sense." I have a background in geology and paleontology, so I find YEC ridiculous. Being a historian I also find that proof is the most important thing in debating history. Without it you can make all the points that you want. Problem is, you can't support them.

I reiterate that for me at least "proof"/logic/common sense are the defining factors of my belief.


_________________
Self proclaimed leader of the Anti-Troll Jihad

[XPViking]

Originally posted by weemadando:

Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2002 9:00 am Post subject:

weemadando wrote:

Quote:
Any reason why you think he might have added a "wink" to the end of it? Get a sense of humour. And get a massage. You seem tense.

SB: The wink was because he's been banned twice. You know-one of those rules you guys didn't break. Sock puppets. Follow your own advice.

Thankyou for editing my post... And for proving my point that a debate cannot take place here in such a repressive environment.

_________________Self proclaimed leader of the Anti-Troll Jihad


Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2002 9:04 am Post subject:

weemadando wrote:

Quote:
Any reason why you think he might have added a "wink" to the end of it? Get a sense of humour. And get a massage. You seem tense.

SB: The wink was because he's been banned twice. You know-one of those rules you guys didn't break. Sock puppets. Follow your own advice.

Just one more thing. For the most part on SD.net when someone with the authority edits a post it is to a) delete offensive content, and as such it is said that the content has been deleted, or b) comments added in square brackets.
_________________Self proclaimed leader of the Anti-Troll Jihad


Originally posted by XPViking

Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2002 10:04 am Post subject:

Quote:
Sort of a courtesy thing? To someone who sanctioned the things I listed? Hmmm. In that light, I should have been emailed instead of invaded, eh? - SBollinger

Okay. You are saying Darth Wong sanctioned "invasion"? Please provide proof. As well, like it or not, in the real world if people have disagreements they try to settle it first privately. Your a site admin. So is he. What's wrong with you emailing him to try and resolve the issue? XPViking

_________________It’s fun to have fun but you have to know how – The Cat in the Hat by Dr. Seuss


Originally posted by SBollinger

Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2002 1:39 pm Post subject:

OK, everybody's had their little say. Thread closed.

_________________'olam ha-ze

[Coyote]

Here is how "The Apologist" is sizing things up:

The Apologist

Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 43
Location: Sacramento, California
Posted: Wed Nov 06, 2002 12:54 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Are there any young-earthers at all, here? Surely, there still must be some kicking around. Anyway, if you can't find a young-earther, and you'd like to debate something else, just suggest the subject.

Well, I noticed that "logic" is a topic of one your forums, and I do enjoy discussing logic. Also, philosophy, epistemology, theology, biblical issues, theodicy, and the like. My partner will have many options from which to choose, but this does not include intrinsic scientific discussions (such as evolutionism-creationism) but does include extrinsic scientific discussions (such as the evaluation of methodologies and presuppositions).

By the way, do we know who my opponent is, yet?


_________________
"Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'"

-John 14:6