UD Announces General Amnesty

_{Barry Arrington

October 21, 2014

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Today UD editors completely deleted both their “banned” list and their “comment moderation” list. Anyone in the world with access to the internet is currently free to comment on the site.

I (i.e., Barry Arrington) am almost certainly going to regret this decision and sooner rather than later. There were hundreds of trolls trapped in the “banned” and “moderation” queues. Frankly, images of this scene from Ghostbusters went through my mind as a pressed the “release” button.

Let’s hope it does not come to that.

Comments

I’m no longer trapped in the “banned” and/or “moderation” queues? It sounds to me like I need to hurry up and get out of here, before I somehow get trapped again.Gary S. Gaulin_{October 24, 2014
October
10
Oct
24
24
2014
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

actually 39 out of 40 would work out to 2.5 percent which I believe was approximately the percentage of atheists in America back then, As well, this claim of theirs,,, "Knowing that the proportion of believers to agnostics is much different in scientific circles than it is in the general population," ,,,Atheists are infamous for falsely claiming that 95% of scientists are atheists,,, yet that is now known to be a false claim,,, Misconceptions of science and religion found in new study - David Ruth – February 16, 2014 Excerpt: The public’s view that science and religion can’t work in collaboration is a misconception that stunts progress, according to a new survey of more than 10,000 Americans, scientists and evangelical Protestants. The study by Rice University also found that scientists and the general public are surprisingly similar in their religious practices.,, The study also found that 18 percent of scientists attended weekly religious services, compared with 20 percent of the general U.S. population; 15 percent consider themselves very religious (versus 19 percent of the general U.S. population); 13.5 percent read religious texts weekly (compared with 17 percent of the U.S. population); and 19 percent pray several times a day (versus 26 percent of the U.S. population). ,,, ,,,Nearly 36 percent of scientists have no doubt about God’s existence. http://news.rice.edu/2014/02/16/misconceptions-of-science-and-religion-found-in-new-study/ The root of the false myth that 95% of scientists don’t believe in God, was based on a severely biased study, and is exposed here: More Scientists Believe In God Than Atheists Want (You) to Think http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2011/10/more-scientists-beleieve-in-god-than.html Thus, as with practically every other claim from atheists, we find the truth is actually the opposite of what the atheists tell us:bornagain77_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT}

As Barrie Schwortz said to a dogmatic atheist once who said to him, "you will never convince me that it is authentic" to which Barrie replied, "it is not my job to convince you, that is between you and God." (Of note Nickell's refuses to debate Schwortz anymore because he gets waxed on the evidence so badly)bornagain77_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT}

"Oh well so much for unbiased examination!" I believe that was Graham2's conclusion exactly. Thank you for confirming.Acartia_bogart_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT}

Attacking the people because of religious beliefs instead of the evidence? So that means I can discount everything you say because you are a deeply committed atheist that does not believe he has a mind to reason with in the first place? (which is what I do do by the way! :) ) Moreover, Barrie Schwortz, the photographer of STRURP, if you would have watched the video I provided, gives the inside scoop as to how the STURP team came together and shows your claim to be false. Oh well so much for unbiased examination!bornagain77_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

I don't like pasting huge chunks of text but where BA77 is concerned, well ... The STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) group of scientists examined the shroud in 1978. Unfortunately almost all of these scientists were deeply religious, many were not specialised in the field they investigated and they were actively trying to prove its authenticity. In their book 'Debunked!', physicists Georges Charpak and Henri Broch noted that STURP consisted of 40 scientists, made up of 39 devout believers and 1 agnostic. Knowing that the proportion of believers to agnostics is much different in scientific circles than it is in the general population, they calculated that the odds of selecting a group of 40 scientists at random and achieving this high ratio of believers is 7 chances in 1,000,000,000,000,000. In other words the makeup of this group is stacked and very biased towards authenticating the shroud, and therefore you must take their claims with an extremely large grain of salt.Graham2_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

corrected link: Hoax or Proof of Resurrection the Shroud of Turin (feat. Photographer of STURP, Barrie Schwortz) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0N9cMUQrZIbornagain77_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT}

"I think you’re delusional if you think that science has demonstrated beyond a reasonable" Name calling? okie dokie, So much for undecided and unbiased! ,,, I know for a fact that it is beyond a 'reasonable' doubt, and I'll gladly join the list of delusional experts who now believe it to be authentic after careful examination. Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence - page 205 Most of the experts who are familiar with the total evidence from all relevant fields, conclude that the Shroud is authentic. http://books.google.com/books?id=mz_OOVknlBAC&pg=PA205&lpg=PA205&dq=STURP+team+believe+its+authentic&source=bl&ots=FyxdOjHgcG&sig=jeYcgh1ncREjzKf9F8fU77KFKTI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DapJVIPqObC1sQTN2IHIDQ&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=STURP%20team%20believe%20its%20authentic&f=false Shroud of Turin: Hoax or Proof of Resurrection? (feat. Photographer of STURP, Barrie Schwortz) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCyK2BzLy3Ybornagain77_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT}

232 Vishnu Better stay away from the religious zealots. They crucified Jesus and now want to prove they did it, maybe because they heard that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected on the third day. The religious zealots are as confused as you are. I don't need that stuff for my faith. His grace is enough. :)Dionisio_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT}

BA77: It simply is one remarkable clothe that refuses to go away.
Yeah, because a lot of religious people hope and wish it is the burial cloth of Jesus because they are desperate for some kind of objective evidence. Fine and dandy. But I think you're delusional if you think that science has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that it is what the religious zealots hope it is.Vishnu_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT}

Vishnu, if you truly are undecided on the Shroud of Turin, if I may, let me suggest some references:
New Evidence Overturns Shroud Of Turin Carbon Dating - Joseph G. Marino and M. Sue Benford - video (with Raymond Rogers, lead chemist from the STURP project) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxDdx6vxthE Turin Shroud 'is not a medieval forgery' - 28 Mar 2013 Excerpt: Experiments conducted by scientists at the University of Padua in northern Italy have dated the shroud to ancient times, a few centuries before and after the life of Christ.,,, The analysis is published in a new book, "Il Mistero della Sindone" or The Mystery of the Shroud, by Giulio Fanti, a professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at Padua University,,, Scientists, including Prof Fanti, used infra-red light and spectroscopy – the measurement of radiation intensity through wavelengths – to analyse fibres from the shroud,,, The tests dated the age of the shroud to between 300 BC and 400AD.,,, Scientists have never been able to explain how the image of a man's body, complete with nail wounds to his wrists and feet, pinpricks from thorns around his forehead and a spear wound to his chest, could have formed on the cloth. Mr Fanti said the imprint was caused by a blast of “exceptional radiation”, although he stopped short of describing it as a miracle. He said his tests backed up earlier results which claimed to have found on the shroud traces of dust and pollen which could only have come from the Holy Land.,,, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9958678/Turin-Shroud-is-not-a-medieval-forgery.html Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words 'The Lamb' - short video https://vimeo.com/97156784 Here is the main website for the Shroud of Turin (est. 1995 by Barrie Schwortz – photographer for the STURP team with links to all the peer reviewed papers on the Shroud and etc.. etc..) http://www.shroud.com/ Scientific Papers and Articles on Shroud http://www.shroud.com/papers.htm Bibliography of Published STURP Papers http://www.shroud.com/78papers.htm List of Evidences of the Turin Shroud - 2010 http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/FantiListWeb.pdf Turin Shroud: a medical forensic study of its blood marks and image - G.Lavoie - May 2010 Abstract - From extensive analytical studies of the Shroud of Turin we know that the image is not man-made, and from medical forensic studies of the blood marks we know that a crucified man was laid out on his back and wrapped in this cloth. But the question still remains as to what caused the shroud image. A forensic evaluation of the blood marks and a study of the effect of gravity on surface anatomy suggest that a natural event is not the most probable cause of shroud image formation. http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/LavoieWeb.pdf Journal of Optics A: Pure and Applied Optics - Fanti, Giulio and Maggiolo, Roberto. “The double superficiality of the frontal image of the Turin Shroud.” (2004: pp 491-503) The face and probably also the hands are visible on the back of the Turin Shroud, but not features related to the dorsal image. http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1464-4258/6/6/001/
It simply is one remarkable clothe that refuses to go away.bornagain77_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

It's like wading through a swamp here at UD.Mung_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

Uh, whatever. Nickell is not the only one with things to say on the subject. That NBC News article references several sources. It's an interesting subject. I am undecided about the Shroud, personally.Vishnu_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

Vishnu, yeah buddy you go with Nickell the 'clown' skeptic http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2012/05/you-state-that-there-is-no-paint-dye-or.htmlbornagain77_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

BA77, Shroud of Turin: Curious, but have you actually read the original published paper by Di Lazzaro and his team? Yes or no? For those interested in rebuttal to Di Lazzaro's findings, you can start with this: http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/22/9636065-was-holy-shroud-created-in-a-flash-italian-researchers-resurrect-claim
I sure wouldn’t stake my soul on such shaky evidence, especially considering your main guy admits that ‘it certainly does not compel such a belief’
I don't stake my soul on any evidence for reincarnation. I don't believe in reincarnation. I do not stake my soul on some critical understanding of a set of facts within this Reality. I stake my soul on the love and mercy of the Creator alone, who loves each of his children, and would never send anyone off to an endless torture. At any rate, the evidence you seem to be "staking your soul" on (cherry picked NDEs) is just as shaky as anything Stevenson has produced. And worse, IMO. I wonder what you would believe if you approached the Bible with the same critical principles as you do other things that don't fit your preconceive pet theologies.Vishnu_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

Actually Vishnu, I'm quite happy with the evidence for the resurrection,,, Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural - December 2011 Excerpt: After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists. However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax. Such technology, say researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea), was far beyond the capability of medieval forgers, whom most experts have credited with making the famous relic. "The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin," they said. And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: "This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-say-turin-shroud-is-supernatural-6279512.html The absorbed energy in the Shroud body image formation appears as contributed by discrete values - Giovanni Fazio, Giuseppe Mandaglio - 2008 Excerpt: This result means that the optical density distribution,, can not be attributed at the absorbed energy described in the framework of the classical physics model. It is, in fact, necessary to hypothesize a absorption by discrete values of the energy where the 'quantum' is equal to the one necessary to yellow one fibril. http://cab.unime.it/journals/index.php/AAPP/article/view/C1A0802004/271 Whereas you have your main guy Stevenson admitting,,, “the evidence (for reincarnation) is not flawless and it certainly does not compel such a belief. Even the best of it is open to alternative interpretations,” Ian Stevenson I sure wouldn't stake my soul on such shaky evidence, especially considering your main guy admits that 'it certainly does not compel such a belief',,, Not a good position for Vishnu empirically speaking. As well, I note that you fight tooth and nail for your belief in 'evolving souls' i.e. reincarnation, yet you also fought against the Parnia study that found NDEs to be real. Why the discrepancy? You seem to be saying you believe in souls on the one hand, then on the other you say you don't. What gives?bornagain77_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

I hate to throw poop, but Dionisio evidently thinks he's some kind of wise teacher of truth, but he doesn't realize he just comes off as a narrow-minded Bible thumping fundamentalist who knows a lot less about Reality than he thinks he does, and who has no deep knowledge of the history of the Bible's origin, and the fact that are significant problems with it in terms of historicity and contradictory elements. But, I used to be a cultist too. So I understand.Vishnu_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

BA77: “the evidence (for reincarnation) is not flawless and it certainly does not compel such a belief. Even the best of it is open to alternative interpretations,”
One could rephrase that: “the evidence the resurrection of Jesus, or the flood of Noah, of the Parting of the Red Sea, or [some other miracle story from the Bible] is not flawless and it certainly does not compel such a belief. Even the best of it is open to alternative interpretations,” One wonders what you would believe if you scrutinized the Bible with the same operating principles that you scrutinize everything that you don't like.Vishnu_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

BA77, As for Betty Eadie's "deception" you are basing your judgement that her experience is a deception from your preconceived theology. How do you know your preconceived theology isn't the deception?Vishnu_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

BA77: Vishnu. perhaps you were not paying attention when Box and I box went over the Ian Stevenson cite? “His dualism became stronger after he experimented with mescaline and LSD.” http://www.skepdic.com/stevenson.html
Aren't you a dualist? Don't you believe that matter and spirit are in different domains? If so, what's the problem with Stevenson having perceived that dualism via brain state changes induced by LDS? It's not like he was on LDS all the time when he was doing science years later on reincarnation. At any rate, he experimented briefly in his younger days with drugs. So what. Stevenson was a scientist and handled his evidence on reincarnation in a scientific manner. Your attempt to throw poop at him with irrelevancies doesn't change that fact.
not exactly the sort of researcher I would stake my eternal soul on!
Yet you want to stake your eternal soul on a bunch of subjective and non-scientific NDEs (but only the ones that fit your preconceived theology.) Okie dokie.Vishnu_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

Phinehas #218 By "fully informed" I meant complete crystal clear knowledge of all possible factors and implications - not a religious intuition. By "horible plan" I meant foremost two aspects: * why a decision during our earthly life when things are muddled compared to the afterlife - with respect to informed decision making? * why the hurry? Why is it necessary for an eternal God to have our decision after just one life?
Phinehas #219: Or maybe raise someone from the dead? Or God-breathe truth to us in written form? As Abraham said to the rich man in Jesus’ insightful tale, “They have Moses and the prophets. If they do not believe them, they would not believe even though someone were to rise from the dead.”
Do you hold that it is beyond God's power to convince anyone of His existence? Really? An excellent book and raising someone from the dead may be more creative than star-juggling or a skywide presentation of God on the creation of the universe, however if one wasn't there when it all happened one has to rely on secondary witnesses, which reduces the persuasiveness of the event by a multitude.Box_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

@Box:
If God (for whatever reason) wants us to make a fully informed decision...
A much better way is for God to make everyone a prophet.JWTruthInLove_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

Box:
If God (for whatever reason) wants us to make a fully informed decision – now expressly during this lifetime -, why doesn’t God show us a video presentation of His creation of the universe and the life in it? Or maybe create a few new species while we watch? Or juggle with some stars? Who amongst the audience will adhere to Atheism/Darwinism/Materialism after that? Would such an event not raise awareness amongst the spectators? Would such an event not raise the possibility of making a more informed decision about things?
Or maybe raise someone from the dead? Or God-breathe truth to us in written form? As Abraham said to the rich man in Jesus' insightful tale, "They have Moses and the prophets. If they do not believe them, they would not believe even though someone were to rise from the dead."Phinehas_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

Box:
Do you hold that we are able to make (any) fully informed choice.
Let me start by acknowledging that I am a fallible person. To the extent that any of these thoughts are purely my own, they are suspect. Having said that, here's my own approach to epistemology. When I start with my own fallibility, I can't ever seem to get over the epistemological hump to "fully" informed. However, when I start with an all-knowing and all-powerful God, the situation doesn't have to be quite so bleak. With a big enough concept of God, I find myself becoming open to the possibility that He is knowledgeable and capable enough to communicate real truth to me in a way that overwhelms my fallibility. I call this kind of communication Revelation. This is what I take away from the passage where Paul talks about Scripture being God-breathed. For me, idolatry is worshiping or believing something other than what has been Revealed. This is the case whether what I am worshiping has been formed by my own hands or crafted by my own mind. But where God breaths truth through His Spirit administering His Word to my heart, I am able to make a fully informed choice, and am held responsible for the choice I make.
Why? Who came up with this horrible plan?
Actually, the plan seems rather ingenious to me, as I understand it. The problem of evil expresses a desire that good be completely separated and removed from any evil whatsoever. The problem with the problem of evil is that it doesn't take free will into account. Without free will, can we really experience love? And without love, can we really experience good to the fullest? But with free will, can we truly be free from evil? So, it makes sense to me that we would be given free will for a time so that we might fully experience love and goodness. But it also makes sense to me that that free will would be temporary so that we can eventually experience good apart from any evil. I think of heaven as the place of good without evil and hell as the place with evil apart from any good. I suppose the amount of time the temporary free will lasts can be variable. For me to set some time limit as a required minimum would seem arbitrary. I trust that a loving God will grant "enough" time as He sees fit. But it seems to me that He has "appointed to every man once to die, and then the judgement." (cf. Revelation)Phinehas_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT}

Phinehas,
Phinehas #213: I believe that God actively Reveals Himself to humans. He Reveals Himself in a general way through nature, and more specifically through His Son, Jesus. Through this gracious Revelation we are made, perhaps not fully, but at the least sufficiently aware, such that His judgement at the end of our life reflects fully His righteous and just nature.
I agree with you that God reveals Himself to us. However, without a doubt, things could have been made much more clearer. If God (for whatever reason) wants us to make a fully informed decision - now expressly during this lifetime -, why doesn't God show us a video presentation of His creation of the universe and the life in it? Or maybe create a few new species while we watch? Or juggle with some stars? Who amongst the audience will adhere to Atheism/Darwinism/Materialism after that? Would such an event not raise awareness amongst the spectators? Would such an event not raise the possibility of making a more informed decision about things?Box_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

WJM #214, Your subtle mention of "a pretty diverse system of learning/experience" tells me that our positions are more kindred than I could have hoped for. Very good to hear! Thank you for responding to my inquisitive question.Box_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

Phinehas: In this age of grace, God graciously gives everyone the free will to either connect with Him or isolate from Him. This is not an insignificant choice. Rather, this choice is the ultimate purpose of our lives.
Do you hold that we are able to make (any) fully informed choice - see also post #198?
Phinehas: At the end of our lives we are judged such that our temporary choice about God and our relationship to Him is made permanent.
Why? Who came up with this horrible plan? What's the hurry? And why this irrational emphasis on what a person decides and does during this earthly life - see also post #139?Box_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

Box asks:
Just out of curiosity William, what is your position on reincarnation?
I think there's a lot of very good evidence for reincarnation. IMO reincarnation is probably a pretty diverse system of learning/experience that isn't very well understood by the kind of conceptualizations we most often organize it around.William J Murray_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

Box:
I’m strongly objecting to the forever aspect of the seperation of God. We all know that a person can make huge mistakes. But a person can change his/her mind. A person can come to his/her senses.
If you think of God as not only good, but the source of all that is good or gracious, including the source of the grace we call free will, then you see that a person coming to his/her senses is dependent upon the active and gracious presence and work of God. The person that is isolated or removed from God's gracious and active presence is removed from all that is good. This is the destiny of all who are born of Adam. But in His grace and goodness, God holds off that kind of final isolation while He sustains a person's life. All those who accept His salvation, are graciously moved from isolation to eternal intimacy. All those who reject God's salvation remain isolated from Him. Further, "It is appointed unto man once to die, and then the judgement." At death, the choice to isolate is finalized when God removes His presence, and with it His sustaining grace -- including the very grace that gives us free will.
God will take this in account and He knows that the value of an act is only absolute if done fully aware of all implications. The criterium is awareness. A choice is only free if made fully aware. Obviously, humans are incapable of making choices on this level.
I believe that God actively Reveals Himself to humans. He Reveals Himself in a general way through nature, and more specifically through His Son, Jesus. Through this gracious Revelation we are made, perhaps not fully, but at the least sufficiently aware, such that His judgement at the end of our life reflects fully His righteous and just nature.Phinehas_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

Box, You may want to pay more attention to what you read and write. Don't rush your comments. Take time to think through everything you discuss. No one can put time pressure on you to respond right away. If someone demands that you answer faster, simply ignore them. This is a friendly advice. It seems like you're hastening to post your comments.Dionisio_{October 23, 2014
October
10
Oct
23
23
2014
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply