Wouldn't closing the thread be somewhat tenuously similar to the banning of Holocaust denial in Europe or the banning of discussion of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owning slaves? I know there are other forums to debate this thread topic, but studies do show that people tend to just aggregate around forums that share their own views, such as conservatives joining conservative forums and liberals joining liberal forums and Starcraft fans joining Starcraft forums. For example, would you join a Twilight forum? I would assume no. I'm not sure if EternalWarith would regularly visit secular and science forums, but I tend to never visit religious forums. I might read the religious texts, just as I read JRR Tolkien's stories and Starcraft lore. Here, some of us are secular or religious, but our love of Starcraft brings us together which affords the religious and secular people here one of the few opportunities to engage each other.
I'd like to see your attitude having switched spots with them.
You're saying that you would be vindicated if I came to curse God's name in such a scenario. Does that mean you would reconsider your position if my faith persevered?
I don't know if for some reason you ignored my question earlier in this thread (I often don't respond to incredible stupid post myself *Cough* Taintedwisp *Cough*) or just missed it but why does Jesus talk to God in the bible? God is almighty, implying that he needs to know anything sounds pretty weird to me.
I do apologize. One can get lost in this thread.
You are right, God already knows everything before you ask/tell him.
For the most part, Jesus spoke to God for our own sakes/understanding.
Then Jesus said to Martha, "Remember what I told you? I said that if you believed, then you would see the glory of God." So they moved the stone away from the entrance. Then Jesus looked up and said, "Father, I thank you that you heard me. I know that you always hear me. But I said these things because of the people here around me. I want them to believe that you sent me." After Jesus said this he called in a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out!" The dead man (Lazarus) came out John 11:38-44
On God already knowing everything: And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.Mathew 6:7-8
Again, On Christ speaking aloud so we can understand and emulate his example:
At the crucifixion: Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."
If there`s something specific Im missing out?, let me know.
So, tell me, do you have faith that your god will save you if you jumped off a skyscraper? I like how you keep dodging the question.
First of all, Why would I deliberately want to Jump off a skyscraper?. To test God?. Really?. Do you know the implications of what that means?
Do not test the LORD your God as you did at Massah.Deuteronomy 6:16
What does this mean? Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
Ye shall not tempt the Lord - Ye shall not provoke him by entertaining doubts of his mercy, goodness, providence, and truth.
As ye tempted him in Massah - How did they tempt him in Massah? They said, "Is the Lord among us or not?" Exodus 17:1-7. After such proofs as they had of his presence and his kindness, this was exceedingly provoking. Doubting God's kindness where there are so many evidences of it, is highly insulting to God Almighty.//
And Ive seen enough of his presence, proofs and kindness to go and do something stupid like that.
Sodom and Gomorrah may or may not even exist, but certain religious people want them to exist, so they manipulate archaeology to "prove" they exist.
So I have to try and take human evolution theory at face value, and now for bible evidence we have people manipulating archaeology ten times over. Seems legit.
Just don't read the thread if you don't like it. I for one, enjoy looking into a creationist's mind.
Is it false of me to presume there is not much in an atheist`s mind to look into?. Honestly, I dont see people here even trying to defend or explain their beliefs. Couldn`t care, or simply cant?. How about, you put your money where your mouth is and explain the 15 unexplained evolution contradictories and falsities I mentioned in that other huge post of mine?.
What entertains me most is EW's belief that other religions are nonsense. It entertains me because you see this in every religion.
This is getting boring. Early on I stated there is some truth to every religion. Some arbitrary and not. However, the God in the bible is God. But I guess you`ll never know because you refuse to take me on the small challenge of religious book comparisons on the basis of which would warrant more belief and eventual insight into the truth. We can test history, Prophecy, science, Common origins etc. So you testify against yourself that you dont care about the truth or you think the truth cannot be known
This type of mind can't be reasoned with. "If he doesn't share my opinion, then he must be evil & corrupted by Satan".
Well, I can respect you if you brought something solid to the table. Which you haven`t. I`ll put the same challenge I gave Eiviyn to you, explain the 15 unexplained evolution contradictories and falsities I mentioned in the other post of mine.
So...what's going on? No I don't need you to quiz me on m-theory since:
1) Neither of us are astrophysicists
2) The theory itself is not complete
3) It's not the only multiverse theory
:D
Im getting to your post on M-theory, but Im also going to be asking you questions on it as well. Oh, you modern intellectual, that believes on the basis of facts and testability. You will have no problems explaining it.
I didn't ask if you would jump off a skyscraper. I asked if you had faith that your god would save you if you jumped off a skyscraper. If god can be tempted and insulted, then it's not an omnipotent being. Your god has all the human qualities and flaws just as the gods of the ancient Greeks, Egyptians, etc. According to you, your god answers prayers, so why wouldn't your god expend that miniscule amount of effort to also save you should you pray or not as you're falling? So, answer the question: Do you have faith that your god will save you if you jumped off a skyscraper?
I guess you didn't know that archaeologists have found hundreds, possibly thousands, of destroyed and abandoned human settlements and religious laymen automatically and arbitrarily choose any two of those sites and claim Sodom and Gomorrah! If you're going to claim that Sodom and Gomorrah have been found, you're going to need far better evidence than just the remnants of hundreds of destroyed settlements. Not surprisingly, you don't hold the same consistent skepticism about the usage of dating techniques of these settlements. If you said that it's possible that two of those discovered settlements could be Sodom and Gomorrah or that it's possible that Sodom and Gomorrah were fictional cities inspired by the destruction of real cities, then it would be fine and fair; because you don't actually have any evidence; it would be great for your argument if archaelogists found a town sign with "Sodom" or "Gomorrah" written on it.
We've already attempted to clarify your miscomprehended view of evolution. You just lack the capacity to understand the process of observation, forming a hypothesis to explain observations, gathering evidence to support/contradict hypothesis, refining hypothesis, iteration (i.e. the scientific method). So, here we go again: when Darwin hypothesized evolution, he didn't have any idea where the new traits came from, so he couldn't explain it. Oddly enough, years earlier, a monk named Gregor Mendel did an experiment using pea plants and discovered some traits didn't mix (i.e. crossing white flowers with violet flowers didn't produce offspring with light purple color). After decades of research on animal/human populations, microbes, genetics we've accumulated much evidence to say that new traits arise from genetic mutations. Genetic mutations can arise from errors during meiosis (and can also be affected by certain chemicals/radiation that affected the parents' sex cells). In any population, individuals compete against other individuals of the same species for opportunity to produce viable offspring. Evolution is the process of individuals passing on their genetics to subsequent descendents and the process of shifting the genetic distribution of their species. Birth defects and birth abnormalities are due to genetic mutations. If the defects and abnormalities helps the individual survive longer, attract more mates, fight off competitors, etc, those individuals have higher probability of passing on their genetics (i.e. producing viable offspring). If individuals are successful in passing on genetics their offspring will share some of their parents' traits; occasionally, an offspring will also develop a relatively significant genetic mutation, thereby compounding on the initial genetic mutations originated in their parents. Over time, random natural events will kill off some individuals and shift the genetic distribution of the species. Over hundreds of thousands of years to millions of years, enough genetic mutations will have occurred such that the a species will have different traits from its progenitor species. Evolution isn't just supported by genetic evidence alone; there's also vestigial organs, embryonic development, population experiments, pestilence resistance, drug resistance, fossil record, etc; but in my opinion, genetics is one of the most compelling evidence supporting evolution.
Citing words of Bronze Age story writers isn't really "bringing something solid to the table". There's always uncertainty about whether people were meticulously recording factual history or embellishing stories with imagination or misunderstanding natural phenomenon for divination, etc. Again we've already discussed this in previous posts (i.e. citing JRR Tolkien as proof for the existence of orcs).
I'm going to step in because I've been actively reading this thread (I'm still a moderator despite the color changes in my name lol) and feel that you guys need a few tips on how NOT to sound like raving idiots. . . because that's precisely what you sound like.
Many of you don't seem to care what's being said and are only here to push your own agenda. An agenda that is horribly distorted to fit your limited understanding of the other side of the argument(s). Most of you (if not all of you) are attempting to put forth your opinions as fact and support these non-facts (because they're just opinions) with sweeping generalizations and ridiculous absolutes. You simply can't do this. I'm Mormon (as stated earlier) and I happen to support both Creationism and Evolution. The closest description of this without a lengthy explanation would be a form of Theistic Evolution where I believe God created [Insert Stuffs Here] and later used Evolution to iterate upon these initial creations. I see merit in both arguments and am not foolish enough to automatically assume that "there can only be one!"
That said, it's also important that you remember that having an opinion is not only a good thing but something you should respect. Many of you are sounding more and more like teenage douchebags. You seem to think that just because your opinion is different (and in your mind correct), the other side must be too stupid to see your side of things. This is a fairly immature way of discussing anything. It is entirely possible for someone to understand your perspective/opinion and still disagree with it. If you can't accept this, leave this thread until you can.
To further build upon this: I maintain a firm belief that excessive vulgarity correlates to laziness and diminished intelligence. I see this kind of language as a crutch people use to compensate for their inability to find other ways of describing a situation. Even though I feel this way, you will never see me attacking people for their decision to use such language. This is me understanding that what I think is an opinion and as such should not be forcibly pushed onto others. I respect the fact that people are allowed to make their own decisions and trust that the appropriate consequences (that they can't choose) will follow.
With these things in mind, there are two examples I'd like to highlight that outline these problems perfectly:
Your dirty atheist Government spends billions on technologies like SETI and trying to help find alien life on other planets(When they cant even find microbes on Mars!), when in fact all that finances can go to better helping the poor. Christians try infinitely harder. . . .
This makes you sound like an idiot. You generalize to the point that the efforts in your previous wall of text are entirely undone. "Your dirty athiest" followed by ANYTHING is childish at best. You're clearly religious and you're here to share your views with those that don't agree with you. You aren't going to convince anyone that "Christians try harder" when you show a marked lack of effort in maintaining objectivity in your posts.
I'm Christian (though some Christian groups disagree) and I find myself disagreeing with many of your points. Using the quoted text as an example: some people are actually poor as a result of their decisions (see alcoholism and drugs). I find it despicable to waste the efforts of others on those who would exploit others to maintain their meager lifestyle. This isn't even my opinion, it is fact. Thus your opinion (because that's what it is) shouldn't be treated as fact because the actual facts disagree. Most of your opinions match this tone in that you treat them as fact when you should instead present them as well support opinions from an objective perspective. You'll sound less like an idiot and we're likely to be more receptive of it.
If it wasn't for the internet I would still be a christian.
Not only should this thread remain open, it is the duty of every rational person to combat religion's bigotry and anti-scientific beliefs which are damaging to humanity's progress. . . .
This makes you sound like an idiot as well. I consider myself a rational and (very) intelligent individual, yet I find what you've said to be irrational and somewhat emotional. You sound embittered by some experience that has motivated you to wage war on anyone that still supports something that you disagree with.
One issue that I encounter over and over again with anyone opposing religion is that you make a crucial mistake in how you approach the topic. Religion is not a person. It cannot claim responsibility for those that attribute their actions to its cause. Because of this, it is incredibly silly to blame religion for the multitude of issues many people attach to it. Those historic events that you and many others rail against are not the result of religion, they are the result of an individual or group of individuals that chose to act that way. I will not deny that many atrocities were committed under the guise of religious principles, but I would argue that such cases were the result of those in power exploiting the relationship many have with their religion.
The swastika, which has forever been tarnished through its use by Nazi Germany, wasn't always a symbol of "pure evil" that so many feel compelled to censor. When a group took it and connected it to their crimes against humanity, it's use was forever changed. Religion is obviously a more complex beast to tackle, but it is silly to blame religion for every bad thing ever connected to it. I believe that you really only find what you look for and when you look for all of the bad things, you miss the many, many good things along the way.
What's this? A Catholic priest molested a child? All Catholics are pedophiles! A group of Muslims rammed planes into US buildings? All Muslims are terrorists! Can you see how this narrow-minded view is potentially more damaging to humanity's progress than your nonfactual opinion that religion is hindering science? What if I blew up an entire city block in New York city in the name of StarCraft 2. Does that mean StarCraft 2 players are terrorists?
Even at a more basic level we fight to disprove the stereotype that FPS gamers are violent murders, fantasy gamers are pedophiles and female gamers are fat lesbians. Why is this any different?
I fervently avoid Science vs Religion discussions because I am ceaselessly shocked by its propensity to turn everyone involved into raving children unwilling to adequately listen to the other side. I'd love to be proven wrong for once. . .
This makes you sound like an idiot. You generalize to the point that the efforts in your previous wall of text are entirely undone. "Your dirty athiest" followed by ANYTHING is childish at best. You're clearly religious and you're here to share your views with those that don't agree with you. You aren't going to convince anyone that "Christians try harder" when you show a marked lack of effort in maintaining objectivity in your posts.
Yes, Im human and my tone was off there(As I told Mozared). I cant remember what Gradius said, but it ended up a provocation of sorts. My bad, big deal, it happens to all of us and has in this thread. As I told Mozared. I actually happen to respect everyone in this thread and I enjoy debating with Gradius, even FDFederation has given me a different opinion about himself. Yes at times things can get a bit irrational/emotional. But thank you! for correcting me, Mr.ProzaicGreatMuze who never adds anything but insults to others indirectly.
You'll sound less like an idiot and we're likely to be more receptive of it.
I dont care if you are receptive. I dont care if you think a comment or two of mine sounds idiotic. I dont care my dear.
I consider myself a rational and (very) intelligent individual
Oh really, Dont we all hey. You`re also a habitual liar. But this is going off-topic. So lets not go there. Just thought I`d return unto you what you seem to be dishing out to others.
I fervently avoid Science vs Religion discussions
If you have no opinion, nothing "intellectual" to add, I suggest you indeed stay out. At the end of the day, None of us here are going to get our feelings hurt if things get slightly off-course or out of control. I also believe we`re able to realize that on our own and control it.
I dont come here indirectly insinuating people are idiots, and putting it in so many words. Like you just did. Its easy to be an observer with a clear point of view and perspective, and then come attack people here("Makes you sound like an idiot" to you, and you, and you"), When the people in here can easily fall in those pitfalls.
I understand your message, but your tone was off and you come across sitting on a high horse.
As for being a Christian, I dont go around hugging trees and spreading butterflies in hippy-love fashion style. I speak the truth, as overzealous as it can sometimes be, and my *opinion* in some cases are definitely not articulated as well and calmly as it should.
But touche on the Christian point. Having known you for quite some period of time, I will again point out that your lying and complete inconsideration is shocking.
I dont come here indirectly insinuating people are idiots, and putting it in so many words. Like you just did. Its easy to be an observer with a clear point of view and perspective, and then come attack people here("Makes you sound like an idiot" to you, and you, and you"), When the people in here can easily fall in those pitfalls.
I understand your message, but your tone was off and you come across sitting on a high horse. . . . Having known you for quite some period of time, I will again point out that your lying and complete inconsideration is shocking.
There is nothing indirect about what I said. I was very to the point and DID call people idiots. I do that a lot and usually because it's warranted and people tend to cool down after I do it. This thread is getting heated for very specific reasons that I have outlined in my post. Just to be clear, I'll do it again:
Many of you in this thread are idiots. Stop being idiots. Is this clear enough?
Secondly, if anything, I'm knocking you and Gradius off your horses. Each of you have been incredibly patronizing in your posts while using a considerable amount of caustic rhetoric. You ask questions you don't really want to know the answers to, rather you hope to make a jab with the question itself. It's as if you're more interested in catching each other in clever traps than actually learning what the other has to say. I've found many of the comments in each of your posts offensive, but I'm not the kind of person that is going to rush to make a post every time you say something unbecoming of a respectable forum goer.
Lastly, you definitely haven't "known" me so much as you've worked with me. I don't consider you a friend, we've never interacted outside of a working relationship and I have had to call you on your behavior in these forums multiple times. My comments are limited to the behavior found within this thread. Your comments are personal and an attempt to demean my character. They aren't even related to this thread or the actual post I made.
Is this supposed to be an excuse for starving African kids?
Yes.
Wow, just wow.
Quote:
To further build upon this: I maintain a firm belief that excessive vulgarity correlates to laziness and diminished intelligence. I see this kind of language as a crutch people use to compensate for their inability to find other ways of describing a situation. Even though I feel this way, you will never see me attacking people for their decision to use such language. This is me understanding that what I think is an opinion and as such should not be forcibly pushed onto others.
Why are so many people interested in coming in here just to show that they're "above the debate" or that "this thread needs to be closed"? It's getting kind of old already, and nobody is really impressed by this rhetoric or your self-proclaimed maturity level considering that you just marched into the thread and insulted the debaters. Speaking of which, have you ever been in an actual heated debate? (Hint: this isn't remotely close to it, and is still pretty tame. I've seen worse.)
For my part, I simply dish out what I receive and go along with the tone of the thread. Thinking that it's personal is your mistake, not mine. I've told EW before that I thought he was intelligent. Not that there's anything wrong with ridicule as an actual rhetorical tactic. It can be quite effective where logic fails:
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity.
- Thomas Jefferson
Guess Thomas Jefferson was unintelligent and lazy though.
Quote:
This makes you sound like an idiot as well. I consider myself a rational
and (very) intelligent individual, yet I find what you've said to be
irrational and somewhat emotional. You sound embittered by some
experience that has motivated you to wage war on anyone that still
supports something that you disagree with.
Yes, what exactly is your problem with combating bigotry and irrationality? Like I said "How are we supposed to raise the next generation of scientists when we can't accept core scientific theories like evolution"? How is that not damaging to humanity's progress? Everybody thinks that religion is the area of personal faith, but it's not, it makes factual statements about reality and it indoctrinates generations of children with these false statements.
If there's anything I should be embittered about it's the TheZizz's callous notion that "the soul is no worse for its tribulations" as an excuse for the pathetic existence that African children have to endure, which can't even rightfully be called a "life". There are millions more people in other countries fighting tooth and nail just to survive. But the first thing you find to bitch about in here is that the debaters "sound like raving idiots"? Get your priorities straight.
Quote:
One issue that I encounter over and over again with anyone opposing religion is that you make a crucial mistake in how you approach the topic. Religion is not a person. It cannot claim responsibility for those that attribute their actions to its cause.
I feel like you didn't read my post at all. Did I blame all of religion? No. I said:
"Religion does some good things, but overall I think people are good & decent enough that they can contribute through secular means and that religion as a whole is unneeded."
Just like the billions of people who silently practice their religion in peace and do their part to help out cannot be stereotyped based on the actions of a few, so too does religion not deserve credit for the actions that these same decent people would have likely done anyway in a secular world. This is evidenced by the existence of plenty of secular charities.
1.Many of you in this thread are idiots. Stop being idiots. Is this clear enough?
2.Secondly, if anything, I'm knocking you and Gradius off your horses. 3.It's as if you're more interested in catching each other in clever traps than actually learning what the other has to say.
4.You're a moderator, start acting like it. . .
1. Right.
2. We are the only ones motivated enough to engage in our beliefs. The only reason I engage with him its because he does come across like an intelligent person, and he makes good points. So it becomes fair game. We`re susceptible to burn-out faster than others, but dont imply that we are idiots.
I used to be a person that thought the earth was 6000 years old(Long ago), Its only through active discussions and doubting does one realize and come to understand the truth. People need not agree, but if the seeds of doubt can take root, it can serve its purpose.
3. Catching each other in traps...Well, why not?. Its one way of raising doubt in someone`s mind if they cant validate what they think they know. Thats the whole point.
4. Im not a moderator in this thread, and I dont exercise that power here. Which is why I dont intimidate anyone, or mind that any of our users here might insult me.
However, Your comments have seriously put me off and have dampened my motivation and spirit. I will break off from this thread. You defend your God on your own now, and be the perceived "idiot" I was from someone sitting on the sidelines. Give answer to him that had atleast one passionate representative in this place.
Not true. This thread went on for 27 pages without anyone calling anyone else an idiot. PM only lasted one post after coming "to knock us off our high horses". =P
Anyways, truth is validated by evidence. Citing biblical fictional stories is extremely tenuous evidence at best because most of the time you can't replicate the phenomenons, so you're expected to just take the word and accept it. As an analogy, why would an investor give you money if you can't show any evidence that your idea/product will create profit? No reasonable investor would give you money on the basis of faith. That's somewhat analogous to giving a drug addict money because you have faith that he/she won't use the money to buy drugs. Religious fanatics are usually always trying to manipulate and misrepresent science to create tenuous connections to support their view; it's akin to saying that the Shrewsbury Abbey, which happens to be red, is proof that Redwall is the truth; or that the Bloop signal is proof of Cthulhu's truth. Science doesn't ask you to have faith in the theories; you first make observations, then you make a speculation about why you observed whatever, then you test to see if your speculation was correct by gathering more evidence, then you scrap/refine your speculation in light of the evidence, and you keep searching for more evidence, and you keep iterating the process over and over until your speculation reaches a "steady state" where further investigations of the evidence continuously validate your speculation and no longer contradict your speculation.
Evolution has a high probability of being the correct explanation for the existence of the diverse species because of this iterative process of evidence gathering and refining the speculation. Some biologists are still researching evolution to refine it even more, but it doesn't get as much hype as CERN; not to mention that funding for scientific research is usually limited and is usually apportioned according to the immediate benefits, such as "militaristic value" or corporate profits, of the results.
Experiments have shown that organic molecules can form through natural processes. Nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon found on asteroids or comets can form into organic molecules when the asteroids or comets impact with enough force with another object. Organic molecules can also form naturally in wet, hot/volcanic environments. Scientists have also been able to produce cell-like vesicles by mimicking natural conditions. We still don't know how those organic molecules coalesced into living cells, but that's why there's ongoing research. We still don't know if non-carbon-based lifeforms exist.
Not true. This thread went on for 27 pages without anyone calling anyone else an idiot. PM only lasted one post after coming "to knock us off our high horses". =P
Yeah 27 pages.... even by my troll standards this is sad... can we get a Thread Close, before someone gets butthurt and gradius gets banned or Eternal ends up loosing mod powers... These post never work well...
Eternal My suggestion to you, next time Make a fake account and post it their, The fact that your a mod on SC2 doesnt make what you say any less true, And Gradius, My advice to you is Even if you dont believe what other believe Dont argue with a forum mod, because remember they are not even in the least bit Professional they are just regular people who have nothing to really loose and dont care in the end if they ban you because you argue against them... I know I never did in the many sites I moderated. its a volunteer job not paid.
So now lets lock this thread and move on while both have their feelings in tact, Because this WONT WORK OUT WELL!! TAKE IT FROM ONE OF THE KINGS OF TROLLIN... this is pointless.
If you think it's pointless, then don't participate; just like people who think voting is pointless don't vote, people who think playing games is pointless don't play games, people who think science is pointless don't excel in science, people who think religion is pointless are agnostic, etc. My suggestion to you is tell political candidates what you said here and let's see how they respond to your suggestion, interesting experiment. There is one thing you got right: you are indeed fugly enough to be one of the kings of "trollin", but don't get butthurt over it because it really is kind of pointless to troll people anonymously over the internet.
If there's anything I should be embittered about it's the TheZizz's
callous notion that "the soul is no worse for its tribulations" as an
excuse for the pathetic existence that African children have to endure,
which can't even rightfully be called a "life".
It's just a hypothetical to illustrate that God's non-existence isn't as "blatantly obvious" as you suppose, one where in exchange for a human lifetime of torturous agony you get a humbled soul fit for the kingdom of heaven, forever.
"So the last will be first, and the first will be last." - Matthew 20:16
It's just a hypothetical to illustrate that God's non-existence isn't as "blatantly obvious" as you suppose, one where in exchange for a human lifetime of torturous agony you get a humbled soul fit for the kingdom of heaven, forever.
You're backpedaling, I directly asked you if this was meant to be an excuse and you said yes. Also, read what I wrote. The only thing I said which was "blatantly obvious" was that God does not care about the suffering of humans in the slightest, even if we're to believe he exists. There are many theistic excuses given for this. The answer to your previous reply is no, even if you accepted God while in that state it doesn't prove anything, because that's one of the benefits of religion, providing comfort during trying circumstances.
@Nebuli2: Go
Wouldn't closing the thread be somewhat tenuously similar to the banning of Holocaust denial in Europe or the banning of discussion of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owning slaves? I know there are other forums to debate this thread topic, but studies do show that people tend to just aggregate around forums that share their own views, such as conservatives joining conservative forums and liberals joining liberal forums and Starcraft fans joining Starcraft forums. For example, would you join a Twilight forum? I would assume no. I'm not sure if EternalWarith would regularly visit secular and science forums, but I tend to never visit religious forums. I might read the religious texts, just as I read JRR Tolkien's stories and Starcraft lore. Here, some of us are secular or religious, but our love of Starcraft brings us together which affords the religious and secular people here one of the few opportunities to engage each other.
Just don't read the thread if you don't like it. I for one, enjoy looking into a creationist's mind.
What entertains me most is EW's belief that other religions are nonsense. It entertains me because you see this in every religion.
Yes.
You're saying that you would be vindicated if I came to curse God's name in such a scenario. Does that mean you would reconsider your position if my faith persevered?
I do apologize. One can get lost in this thread.
You are right, God already knows everything before you ask/tell him.
For the most part, Jesus spoke to God for our own sakes/understanding.
Then Jesus said to Martha, "Remember what I told you? I said that if you believed, then you would see the glory of God." So they moved the stone away from the entrance. Then Jesus looked up and said, "Father, I thank you that you heard me. I know that you always hear me. But I said these things because of the people here around me. I want them to believe that you sent me." After Jesus said this he called in a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out!" The dead man (Lazarus) came out John 11:38-44
On God already knowing everything:
And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. Mathew 6:7-8
Again, On Christ speaking aloud so we can understand and emulate his example:
At the crucifixion:
Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."
If there`s something specific Im missing out?, let me know.
So, tell me, do you have faith that your god will save you if you jumped off a skyscraper? I like how you keep dodging the question.
First of all, Why would I deliberately want to Jump off a skyscraper?. To test God?. Really?. Do you know the implications of what that means?
Do not test the LORD your God as you did at Massah. Deuteronomy 6:16
What does this mean?
Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
Ye shall not tempt the Lord - Ye shall not provoke him by entertaining doubts of his mercy, goodness, providence, and truth.
As ye tempted him in Massah - How did they tempt him in Massah? They said, "Is the Lord among us or not?" Exodus 17:1-7. After such proofs as they had of his presence and his kindness, this was exceedingly provoking. Doubting God's kindness where there are so many evidences of it, is highly insulting to God Almighty.//
And Ive seen enough of his presence, proofs and kindness to go and do something stupid like that.
Sodom and Gomorrah may or may not even exist, but certain religious people want them to exist, so they manipulate archaeology to "prove" they exist.
So I have to try and take human evolution theory at face value, and now for bible evidence we have people manipulating archaeology ten times over. Seems legit.
Just don't read the thread if you don't like it. I for one, enjoy looking into a creationist's mind.
Is it false of me to presume there is not much in an atheist`s mind to look into?. Honestly, I dont see people here even trying to defend or explain their beliefs. Couldn`t care, or simply cant?. How about, you put your money where your mouth is and explain the 15 unexplained evolution contradictories and falsities I mentioned in that other huge post of mine?.
What entertains me most is EW's belief that other religions are nonsense. It entertains me because you see this in every religion.
This is getting boring. Early on I stated there is some truth to every religion. Some arbitrary and not. However, the God in the bible is God. But I guess you`ll never know because you refuse to take me on the small challenge of religious book comparisons on the basis of which would warrant more belief and eventual insight into the truth. We can test history, Prophecy, science, Common origins etc. So you testify against yourself that you dont care about the truth or you think the truth cannot be known
This type of mind can't be reasoned with. "If he doesn't share my opinion, then he must be evil & corrupted by Satan".
Well, I can respect you if you brought something solid to the table. Which you haven`t. I`ll put the same challenge I gave Eiviyn to you, explain the 15 unexplained evolution contradictories and falsities I mentioned in the other post of mine.
So...what's going on? No I don't need you to quiz me on m-theory since:
1) Neither of us are astrophysicists
2) The theory itself is not complete
3) It's not the only multiverse theory
:D
Im getting to your post on M-theory, but Im also going to be asking you questions on it as well. Oh, you modern intellectual, that believes on the basis of facts and testability. You will have no problems explaining it.
@EternalWraith: Go
You must be a victim of sarcastaball...
I didn't ask if you would jump off a skyscraper. I asked if you had faith that your god would save you if you jumped off a skyscraper. If god can be tempted and insulted, then it's not an omnipotent being. Your god has all the human qualities and flaws just as the gods of the ancient Greeks, Egyptians, etc. According to you, your god answers prayers, so why wouldn't your god expend that miniscule amount of effort to also save you should you pray or not as you're falling? So, answer the question: Do you have faith that your god will save you if you jumped off a skyscraper?
I guess you didn't know that archaeologists have found hundreds, possibly thousands, of destroyed and abandoned human settlements and religious laymen automatically and arbitrarily choose any two of those sites and claim Sodom and Gomorrah! If you're going to claim that Sodom and Gomorrah have been found, you're going to need far better evidence than just the remnants of hundreds of destroyed settlements. Not surprisingly, you don't hold the same consistent skepticism about the usage of dating techniques of these settlements. If you said that it's possible that two of those discovered settlements could be Sodom and Gomorrah or that it's possible that Sodom and Gomorrah were fictional cities inspired by the destruction of real cities, then it would be fine and fair; because you don't actually have any evidence; it would be great for your argument if archaelogists found a town sign with "Sodom" or "Gomorrah" written on it.
We've already attempted to clarify your miscomprehended view of evolution. You just lack the capacity to understand the process of observation, forming a hypothesis to explain observations, gathering evidence to support/contradict hypothesis, refining hypothesis, iteration (i.e. the scientific method). So, here we go again: when Darwin hypothesized evolution, he didn't have any idea where the new traits came from, so he couldn't explain it. Oddly enough, years earlier, a monk named Gregor Mendel did an experiment using pea plants and discovered some traits didn't mix (i.e. crossing white flowers with violet flowers didn't produce offspring with light purple color). After decades of research on animal/human populations, microbes, genetics we've accumulated much evidence to say that new traits arise from genetic mutations. Genetic mutations can arise from errors during meiosis (and can also be affected by certain chemicals/radiation that affected the parents' sex cells). In any population, individuals compete against other individuals of the same species for opportunity to produce viable offspring. Evolution is the process of individuals passing on their genetics to subsequent descendents and the process of shifting the genetic distribution of their species. Birth defects and birth abnormalities are due to genetic mutations. If the defects and abnormalities helps the individual survive longer, attract more mates, fight off competitors, etc, those individuals have higher probability of passing on their genetics (i.e. producing viable offspring). If individuals are successful in passing on genetics their offspring will share some of their parents' traits; occasionally, an offspring will also develop a relatively significant genetic mutation, thereby compounding on the initial genetic mutations originated in their parents. Over time, random natural events will kill off some individuals and shift the genetic distribution of the species. Over hundreds of thousands of years to millions of years, enough genetic mutations will have occurred such that the a species will have different traits from its progenitor species. Evolution isn't just supported by genetic evidence alone; there's also vestigial organs, embryonic development, population experiments, pestilence resistance, drug resistance, fossil record, etc; but in my opinion, genetics is one of the most compelling evidence supporting evolution.
Citing words of Bronze Age story writers isn't really "bringing something solid to the table". There's always uncertainty about whether people were meticulously recording factual history or embellishing stories with imagination or misunderstanding natural phenomenon for divination, etc. Again we've already discussed this in previous posts (i.e. citing JRR Tolkien as proof for the existence of orcs).
I'm going to step in because I've been actively reading this thread (I'm still a moderator despite the color changes in my name lol) and feel that you guys need a few tips on how NOT to sound like raving idiots. . . because that's precisely what you sound like.
Many of you don't seem to care what's being said and are only here to push your own agenda. An agenda that is horribly distorted to fit your limited understanding of the other side of the argument(s). Most of you (if not all of you) are attempting to put forth your opinions as fact and support these non-facts (because they're just opinions) with sweeping generalizations and ridiculous absolutes. You simply can't do this. I'm Mormon (as stated earlier) and I happen to support both Creationism and Evolution. The closest description of this without a lengthy explanation would be a form of Theistic Evolution where I believe God created [Insert Stuffs Here] and later used Evolution to iterate upon these initial creations. I see merit in both arguments and am not foolish enough to automatically assume that "there can only be one!"
That said, it's also important that you remember that having an opinion is not only a good thing but something you should respect. Many of you are sounding more and more like teenage douchebags. You seem to think that just because your opinion is different (and in your mind correct), the other side must be too stupid to see your side of things. This is a fairly immature way of discussing anything. It is entirely possible for someone to understand your perspective/opinion and still disagree with it. If you can't accept this, leave this thread until you can.
To further build upon this: I maintain a firm belief that excessive vulgarity correlates to laziness and diminished intelligence. I see this kind of language as a crutch people use to compensate for their inability to find other ways of describing a situation. Even though I feel this way, you will never see me attacking people for their decision to use such language. This is me understanding that what I think is an opinion and as such should not be forcibly pushed onto others. I respect the fact that people are allowed to make their own decisions and trust that the appropriate consequences (that they can't choose) will follow.
With these things in mind, there are two examples I'd like to highlight that outline these problems perfectly:
This makes you sound like an idiot. You generalize to the point that the efforts in your previous wall of text are entirely undone. "Your dirty athiest" followed by ANYTHING is childish at best. You're clearly religious and you're here to share your views with those that don't agree with you. You aren't going to convince anyone that "Christians try harder" when you show a marked lack of effort in maintaining objectivity in your posts.
I'm Christian (though some Christian groups disagree) and I find myself disagreeing with many of your points. Using the quoted text as an example: some people are actually poor as a result of their decisions (see alcoholism and drugs). I find it despicable to waste the efforts of others on those who would exploit others to maintain their meager lifestyle. This isn't even my opinion, it is fact. Thus your opinion (because that's what it is) shouldn't be treated as fact because the actual facts disagree. Most of your opinions match this tone in that you treat them as fact when you should instead present them as well support opinions from an objective perspective. You'll sound less like an idiot and we're likely to be more receptive of it.
This makes you sound like an idiot as well. I consider myself a rational and (very) intelligent individual, yet I find what you've said to be irrational and somewhat emotional. You sound embittered by some experience that has motivated you to wage war on anyone that still supports something that you disagree with.
One issue that I encounter over and over again with anyone opposing religion is that you make a crucial mistake in how you approach the topic. Religion is not a person. It cannot claim responsibility for those that attribute their actions to its cause. Because of this, it is incredibly silly to blame religion for the multitude of issues many people attach to it. Those historic events that you and many others rail against are not the result of religion, they are the result of an individual or group of individuals that chose to act that way. I will not deny that many atrocities were committed under the guise of religious principles, but I would argue that such cases were the result of those in power exploiting the relationship many have with their religion.
The swastika, which has forever been tarnished through its use by Nazi Germany, wasn't always a symbol of "pure evil" that so many feel compelled to censor. When a group took it and connected it to their crimes against humanity, it's use was forever changed. Religion is obviously a more complex beast to tackle, but it is silly to blame religion for every bad thing ever connected to it. I believe that you really only find what you look for and when you look for all of the bad things, you miss the many, many good things along the way.
What's this? A Catholic priest molested a child? All Catholics are pedophiles! A group of Muslims rammed planes into US buildings? All Muslims are terrorists! Can you see how this narrow-minded view is potentially more damaging to humanity's progress than your nonfactual opinion that religion is hindering science? What if I blew up an entire city block in New York city in the name of StarCraft 2. Does that mean StarCraft 2 players are terrorists?
Even at a more basic level we fight to disprove the stereotype that FPS gamers are violent murders, fantasy gamers are pedophiles and female gamers are fat lesbians. Why is this any different?
I fervently avoid Science vs Religion discussions because I am ceaselessly shocked by its propensity to turn everyone involved into raving children unwilling to adequately listen to the other side. I'd love to be proven wrong for once. . .
@ProzaicMuze: Go
This makes you sound like an idiot. You generalize to the point that the efforts in your previous wall of text are entirely undone. "Your dirty athiest" followed by ANYTHING is childish at best. You're clearly religious and you're here to share your views with those that don't agree with you. You aren't going to convince anyone that "Christians try harder" when you show a marked lack of effort in maintaining objectivity in your posts.
Yes, Im human and my tone was off there(As I told Mozared). I cant remember what Gradius said, but it ended up a provocation of sorts. My bad, big deal, it happens to all of us and has in this thread. As I told Mozared. I actually happen to respect everyone in this thread and I enjoy debating with Gradius, even FDFederation has given me a different opinion about himself. Yes at times things can get a bit irrational/emotional. But thank you! for correcting me, Mr.ProzaicGreatMuze who never adds anything but insults to others indirectly.
You'll sound less like an idiot and we're likely to be more receptive of it.
I dont care if you are receptive. I dont care if you think a comment or two of mine sounds idiotic. I dont care my dear.
I consider myself a rational and (very) intelligent individual
Oh really, Dont we all hey. You`re also a habitual liar. But this is going off-topic. So lets not go there. Just thought I`d return unto you what you seem to be dishing out to others.
I fervently avoid Science vs Religion discussions
If you have no opinion, nothing "intellectual" to add, I suggest you indeed stay out. At the end of the day, None of us here are going to get our feelings hurt if things get slightly off-course or out of control. I also believe we`re able to realize that on our own and control it.
You're Christian? Could've fooled me. . .
I dont come here indirectly insinuating people are idiots, and putting it in so many words. Like you just did. Its easy to be an observer with a clear point of view and perspective, and then come attack people here("Makes you sound like an idiot" to you, and you, and you"), When the people in here can easily fall in those pitfalls.
I understand your message, but your tone was off and you come across sitting on a high horse.
As for being a Christian, I dont go around hugging trees and spreading butterflies in hippy-love fashion style. I speak the truth, as overzealous as it can sometimes be, and my *opinion* in some cases are definitely not articulated as well and calmly as it should.
But touche on the Christian point. Having known you for quite some period of time, I will again point out that your lying and complete inconsideration is shocking.
There is nothing indirect about what I said. I was very to the point and DID call people idiots. I do that a lot and usually because it's warranted and people tend to cool down after I do it. This thread is getting heated for very specific reasons that I have outlined in my post. Just to be clear, I'll do it again:
Many of you in this thread are idiots. Stop being idiots. Is this clear enough?
Secondly, if anything, I'm knocking you and Gradius off your horses. Each of you have been incredibly patronizing in your posts while using a considerable amount of caustic rhetoric. You ask questions you don't really want to know the answers to, rather you hope to make a jab with the question itself. It's as if you're more interested in catching each other in clever traps than actually learning what the other has to say. I've found many of the comments in each of your posts offensive, but I'm not the kind of person that is going to rush to make a post every time you say something unbecoming of a respectable forum goer.
Lastly, you definitely haven't "known" me so much as you've worked with me. I don't consider you a friend, we've never interacted outside of a working relationship and I have had to call you on your behavior in these forums multiple times. My comments are limited to the behavior found within this thread. Your comments are personal and an attempt to demean my character. They aren't even related to this thread or the actual post I made.
You're a moderator, start acting like it. . .
Wow, just wow.
Why are so many people interested in coming in here just to show that they're "above the debate" or that "this thread needs to be closed"? It's getting kind of old already, and nobody is really impressed by this rhetoric or your self-proclaimed maturity level considering that you just marched into the thread and insulted the debaters. Speaking of which, have you ever been in an actual heated debate? (Hint: this isn't remotely close to it, and is still pretty tame. I've seen worse.)
For my part, I simply dish out what I receive and go along with the tone of the thread. Thinking that it's personal is your mistake, not mine. I've told EW before that I thought he was intelligent. Not that there's anything wrong with ridicule as an actual rhetorical tactic. It can be quite effective where logic fails:
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity.
- Thomas Jefferson
Guess Thomas Jefferson was unintelligent and lazy though.
Yes, what exactly is your problem with combating bigotry and irrationality? Like I said "How are we supposed to raise the next generation of scientists when we can't accept core scientific theories like evolution"? How is that not damaging to humanity's progress? Everybody thinks that religion is the area of personal faith, but it's not, it makes factual statements about reality and it indoctrinates generations of children with these false statements.
If there's anything I should be embittered about it's the TheZizz's callous notion that "the soul is no worse for its tribulations" as an excuse for the pathetic existence that African children have to endure, which can't even rightfully be called a "life". There are millions more people in other countries fighting tooth and nail just to survive. But the first thing you find to bitch about in here is that the debaters "sound like raving idiots"? Get your priorities straight.
I feel like you didn't read my post at all. Did I blame all of religion? No. I said:
"Religion does some good things, but overall I think people are good & decent enough that they can contribute through secular means and that religion as a whole is unneeded."
Just like the billions of people who silently practice their religion in peace and do their part to help out cannot be stereotyped based on the actions of a few, so too does religion not deserve credit for the actions that these same decent people would have likely done anyway in a secular world. This is evidenced by the existence of plenty of secular charities.
1. Right.
2. We are the only ones motivated enough to engage in our beliefs. The only reason I engage with him its because he does come across like an intelligent person, and he makes good points. So it becomes fair game. We`re susceptible to burn-out faster than others, but dont imply that we are idiots.
I used to be a person that thought the earth was 6000 years old(Long ago), Its only through active discussions and doubting does one realize and come to understand the truth. People need not agree, but if the seeds of doubt can take root, it can serve its purpose.
3. Catching each other in traps...Well, why not?. Its one way of raising doubt in someone`s mind if they cant validate what they think they know. Thats the whole point.
4. Im not a moderator in this thread, and I dont exercise that power here. Which is why I dont intimidate anyone, or mind that any of our users here might insult me.
However, Your comments have seriously put me off and have dampened my motivation and spirit. I will break off from this thread. You defend your God on your own now, and be the perceived "idiot" I was from someone sitting on the sidelines. Give answer to him that had atleast one passionate representative in this place.
Not true. This thread went on for 27 pages without anyone calling anyone else an idiot. PM only lasted one post after coming "to knock us off our high horses". =P
The enemy of my enemy is my friend?
Anyways, truth is validated by evidence. Citing biblical fictional stories is extremely tenuous evidence at best because most of the time you can't replicate the phenomenons, so you're expected to just take the word and accept it. As an analogy, why would an investor give you money if you can't show any evidence that your idea/product will create profit? No reasonable investor would give you money on the basis of faith. That's somewhat analogous to giving a drug addict money because you have faith that he/she won't use the money to buy drugs. Religious fanatics are usually always trying to manipulate and misrepresent science to create tenuous connections to support their view; it's akin to saying that the Shrewsbury Abbey, which happens to be red, is proof that Redwall is the truth; or that the Bloop signal is proof of Cthulhu's truth. Science doesn't ask you to have faith in the theories; you first make observations, then you make a speculation about why you observed whatever, then you test to see if your speculation was correct by gathering more evidence, then you scrap/refine your speculation in light of the evidence, and you keep searching for more evidence, and you keep iterating the process over and over until your speculation reaches a "steady state" where further investigations of the evidence continuously validate your speculation and no longer contradict your speculation.
Evolution has a high probability of being the correct explanation for the existence of the diverse species because of this iterative process of evidence gathering and refining the speculation. Some biologists are still researching evolution to refine it even more, but it doesn't get as much hype as CERN; not to mention that funding for scientific research is usually limited and is usually apportioned according to the immediate benefits, such as "militaristic value" or corporate profits, of the results.
Experiments have shown that organic molecules can form through natural processes. Nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon found on asteroids or comets can form into organic molecules when the asteroids or comets impact with enough force with another object. Organic molecules can also form naturally in wet, hot/volcanic environments. Scientists have also been able to produce cell-like vesicles by mimicking natural conditions. We still don't know how those organic molecules coalesced into living cells, but that's why there's ongoing research. We still don't know if non-carbon-based lifeforms exist.
Yeah 27 pages.... even by my troll standards this is sad... can we get a Thread Close, before someone gets butthurt and gradius gets banned or Eternal ends up loosing mod powers... These post never work well...
Eternal My suggestion to you, next time Make a fake account and post it their, The fact that your a mod on SC2 doesnt make what you say any less true, And Gradius, My advice to you is Even if you dont believe what other believe Dont argue with a forum mod, because remember they are not even in the least bit Professional they are just regular people who have nothing to really loose and dont care in the end if they ban you because you argue against them... I know I never did in the many sites I moderated. its a volunteer job not paid.
So now lets lock this thread and move on while both have their feelings in tact, Because this WONT WORK OUT WELL!! TAKE IT FROM ONE OF THE KINGS OF TROLLIN... this is pointless.
If you don't like the thread, then don't read it. That was difficult.
@Taintedwisp: Go
If you think it's pointless, then don't participate; just like people who think voting is pointless don't vote, people who think playing games is pointless don't play games, people who think science is pointless don't excel in science, people who think religion is pointless are agnostic, etc. My suggestion to you is tell political candidates what you said here and let's see how they respond to your suggestion, interesting experiment. There is one thing you got right: you are indeed fugly enough to be one of the kings of "trollin", but don't get butthurt over it because it really is kind of pointless to troll people anonymously over the internet.
It's just a hypothetical to illustrate that God's non-existence isn't as "blatantly obvious" as you suppose, one where in exchange for a human lifetime of torturous agony you get a humbled soul fit for the kingdom of heaven, forever.
"So the last will be first, and the first will be last." - Matthew 20:16
@TheZizz: Go
There's no evidence supporting the existence of souls or afterlife, so souls and afterlife probably don't even exist.
Any point on a circle or sphere is the first and the last. I keep hearing the circle of life song from the "Lion King". :/
Funny thermodynamics humor: http://www.pinetree.net/humor/thermodynamics.html http://www.cs.hmc.edu/~mike/misc/hell.html
Refutation of intelligent design:
You're backpedaling, I directly asked you if this was meant to be an excuse and you said yes. Also, read what I wrote. The only thing I said which was "blatantly obvious" was that God does not care about the suffering of humans in the slightest, even if we're to believe he exists. There are many theistic excuses given for this. The answer to your previous reply is no, even if you accepted God while in that state it doesn't prove anything, because that's one of the benefits of religion, providing comfort during trying circumstances.