Why do Christians get banned at UD?

It looks like I just got banned at UD, which to me it means I have been noticed by “true Christians”, like Barry Arrington, who has proven, time and time again, that he deserves what he stands for…

I know that Sal got banned there too and he is a Christian..

What should we do? Should  we abandon uncommondescent.com all together?

Many have…  Who is left other then the few and the same style of comments appearing regularly?

 

120 thoughts on “Why do Christians get banned at UD?

  1. dazz:
    Judges 11:30-31

    “30 And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,

    31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.”

    Human sacrifice FTW!

    Yes. But if he Bible is true, we have to deal with it. You can’t reject the God of the Bible because you don’t like the way He does business. If you think it’s factual, well, then you have to figure out what it means.

    If on the other hand, you reject it as factual, then pointing stuff like this will definitely drive some to conclude the Bible is NOT true. But as far as human sacrifice, Jesus was the ultimate human sacrifice.

    The question is whether it was moral for God to allow Jeptha to carry out his vow. But if God is God, he has the right to take the life which He gave. Humans on the other hand aren’t given that right since they don’t give life.

  2. stcordova: Yes. But if he Bible is true, we have to deal with it. You can’t reject the God of the Bible because you don’t like the way He does business.

    Why the hell not? He ordered a man to kill his own son. He ordered the Israelites to commit crimes against humanity. He killed everyone on earth except for a handful because they wouldn’t obey him. Why would anyone worship this cruel, sadistic, spiteful being?

  3. stcordova: Yes. But if he Bible is true, we have to deal with it

    If

    stcordova: You can’t reject the God of the Bible because you don’t like the way He does business

    I don’t. I reject it because it’s absurd and obviously a compilation of ancient myths and superstitions.

    stcordova: If on the other hand, you reject it as factual, then pointing stuff like this will definitely drive some to conclude the Bible is NOT true

    I don’t just assume or reject something and then pretend I conclude that based on facts. That’s not my thing, it’s yours

    stcordova: The question is whether it was moral for God to allow Jeptha to carry out his vow. But if God is God, he has the right to take the life which He gave. Humans on the other hand aren’t given that right since they don’t give life.

    Women give life (and to some extent we do too), god doesn’t.
    What you’re doing is to rationalize stuff to try to preserve your unwarranted assumption (that god is good) by assuming even more unwarranted “principles” like “god gives life therefore he can do whatever he wants with it”

    Your rationalizations force you to surrender moral judgement entirely. Religion makes you worse, just saying.

  4. Acartia:

    Why would anyone worship this cruel, sadistic, spiteful being?

    Sal has told us: he thinks he can personally benefit from sucking up to this monstrous God.

  5. dazz:

    Your rationalizations force you to surrender moral judgement entirely. Religion makes you worse, just saying

    Yeah, it’s true, I’m a bit of a bad boy.

  6. stcordova: keiths: Why would anyone worship this cruel, sadistic, spiteful being?

    Sal: Not exactly, but close enough.

    What not exactly? You either have a free will or you don’t…

    I guess some possess the chameleon free will… as needed…

    ETA: I guess natural selection works in mysterious ways and Keith is just an example of dualistic free will… 😉

  7. dazz: Are you in that pimp outfit again?

    Hey, you remembered what I said about my pimp outfit! Kudos.

    Actually I’m wearing some yard work clothes since I’m clearing the yard of the remnants of last week’s cyclone on the East coast.

    My Pimp outfit is in storage. But I was thinking of upgrading to these threads for next Holloween:

  8. Acartia:

    It’s obvious you don’t want to think about this seriously. I’ll leave you to your thoughts.

  9. PaV:
    Acartia:

    It’s obvious you don’t want to think about this seriously.I’ll leave you to your thoughts.

    Actually, I have thought about this seriously. Sadly, you opt to ignore my responses. Do you have any legitimate responses or are you going to use Barry’s lame tactics?

  10. “What should we do? Should we abandon uncommondescent.com all together?”

    Why not? Even If you are a proponent of ID UD is not an acurate depiction. Its primary purpose is to stroke the ego of Barry Arrington. Seen some of the topics over there recently? when you have so much time on your hands you create all these articles to trumpet your point against some commenter its all about your ego and making sure people see your alleged (but suspect) great skills of logic.

    I say this as someone very sympathetic with ID btw. Why bother with UD? At least go to somewhere that actually tries to stay on scientific topics not this fail – the holocaust is an example of pure evil so evil exists and so does a designer philosophical mumbo jumbo. Thats what you get when its a seemingly retired lawyer running a blog thats supposed to be on science – regardless of your take on ID as science.

  11. DavidMarks,

    Welcome to The Skeptical Zone.

    You are probably about right on what UD has become. I still have it showing up in my RSS reader. But these days, I spend very little time reading actual posts there.

  12. Acartia: UD is primarily a news aggregator appended with snarky comments by O’Leary.

    Yes, that’s about what it has become. And there’s not much worth reading. There are better news aggregators available.

  13. stcordova,

    Hey Sal,

    Here are some interesting things I found while reading your links:
    “Theories of time

    …Craig maintains that the Kalam cosmological argument involves a commitment to the A-theory of time, also known as the “tensed theory of time” or presentism, as opposed to its alternative, the B-theory of time, also known as the “tenseless theory of time” or eternalism. The latter would allow the universe to exist tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block, under which circumstances the universe would not “begin to exist”:
    “From start to finish, the kalam cosmological argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived.”

    And

    ” …The Copenhagen interpretation rejects questions like “where was the particle before I measured its position?” as meaningless…”

    Is time tenseless?

    Is there such a thing as distance, length, time or location at subatomic level? Is QM pointing to eternity?

    “Once you learn quantum mechanics you are really never the same again…”

    Remember? 😉

  14. J-Mac,

    Is there such a thing as distance, length, time or location at subatomic level?

    Yes.

    And

    ” …The Copenhagen interpretation rejects questions like “where was the particle before I measured its position?” as meaningless…”

    Not just the Copenhagen Interpretation, but supported by Bell’s Theorem.

    Is time tenseless?

    Not as far as I know. That is to say, they universe we live in had a beginning.

    Is QM pointing to eternity?

    Good question. I don’t know, but one would presume if there is a God that QM points too, He is eternal. So a qualified “yes”. Tipler says “yes,” that’s one of the points of his book, The Physics of Immortality. So the even if the universe as we know it ends, something continues forever.

  15. stcordova: J-Mac,

    Is there such a thing as distance, length, time or location at subatomic level?

    Yes.

    How would you explain quantum entanglement then?
    Entangled particles “communicate’ instantaneously; faster than speed of light and no matter what the distance. It could be from one extremity of the universe to another…
    And then there is retrocausality…the future affecting the past…

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.