O/T: split from 'letter' thread

Post Reply New Topic

Hear, hear!! !! Well said old boy. I always play things 100% within the frame of reference set by my "opponents". If they want to be reasonable and open minded, I will be too. If they want to directly attack my belief systems and way of life, I will cut the sucker down with vitriol, and will delight in every second of doing so.

Moderators,
Wouldn't you agree that it is time to lock this thread and maybe delete a few posts that contain nothing but (extremely juvenile) perasonal attacks? It appears that it is no longer possible to have a friendly and civilized debate here.

It is possible to have a friendly and civilized debate herein - just not with individuals who insist on using thoroughly invidious, poisonous and frankly despicable tactics in said debates. As I say, I respond in kind... nothing more.....

By all means lock this thread - I've had my fill of fun with it now, anyway....

If this religious discussion is to continue, it would be nice if further dogma, tantrums and name calling can be avoided. Thank you.

Anyone considered throwing a bucket of water over these 2?

meh. Between 2 NTs that would constitute either flirting or supreme dislike. Between 2 Aspies, I'm not sure what it means....

Duncvis, thank you for finally stepping in.

Que



Nope - supreme dislike pretty much covers it, actually.....

This is just plain hilarious.

Kitsune, are you familiar with "the design argument?"
I think this is what you keep refering to, the idea that complexity implies a creator.
I have encountered this argument many times and have determined the following. It is possibly circular because any "creator" of complexity would need to be more complex, and this just brings us back to the same problem. So you might as well say that there is an infinite chain of creators. Or as I prefer, "Infinity exists, and is incomprehensible."

Furthermore, the design argument is logically flawed due to the fact that the sample size is smaller than that about which the assertion is being made. ie: because x is true within y, x must be true with regards to y.

Personally I believe religion is a process of evolution, only in reverse, or in a circle if you will; moving from complexity back to simplicity and spirit.

What can I say? I am but a humble instrument of the muse.... I merely go wherever she takes me.....

P.S. D'ya know, I even amaze myself sometimes with my brilliance, believe it or believe it not.... No really, I do!

Are you part of what you just wrote, or are you the author? Is the creator part of the creation, or apart from it?

I'm referring to the idea that computer code doesn't generate itself, and it is made out of 1's and 0's and DNA is made out of four parts, amino acids a ton of other parts that I won't list, etc etc. If you read the turd analogy you'll see how ridiculous it is to believe we originated out of inorganic matter (When a big stinky pile of excrement is organic matter, has DNA, and other things) and evolved into the diverse nature we see today. If natural selection IS true then there would be much less variety in a species.

You also didn't read my post about how an 'evolution' that may have been needed and have been worked on at one point wouldn't have been continued after the need for it passed, if it was unfinished.

Then you have to look at the various means of reproduction, for sexual reproduction to have started in any species it would have had to evolved twice at the same time, while there may have been a bacteria capable of sexual reproduction and budding the bacteria would only apply to one chain of species.

I can keep going into it or you can read on the original post then reply with what you find "Hilarious".



The design argument you're talking about is not what is occuring here, or if it is I don't see what you mean by that.

Religion is not a process of evolution, but evolution a retreat from science. Just to show you what a book thousands of years old affirms about scientific discoveries...

Earth is a sphere suspended in space, Isa. 40:22 Job 26:7

The water cycle keeps the land watered Job 36:27-28 Eccles 1:7 and Amos 5:8

The universe is running down Isa 51:6 Ps 102:26

Ocean currents flow through the sea Ps 8:8

Blood sustains life Lev. 17:11

The stars are incredibly distant from the earth and cannot be numbered Job 22:12 Gen 15:5 22:17, Jer. 33:22

The winds form a circulating system Eccles 1:6

Earth rotates on it's axis Job 38:12, 14 Luke 17:31, 34

Man's body is composed of the same materials as earth Gen 2:7, 3:19, Ps 103:14

This taken from A Beka Biology, God's Living Creation.

You say that my religion is simple when you worship humanity. It's actually kind of hypocritical.

Over and over and over and over and over and over again with "we don't know therefore God"....... What exactly are you trying to prove by just constantly retreading this dusty old path, anyway? All your arguments boil down to "I believe in God therefore that explains everything" - that has no scientific or logical or any other kind of basis - your trying to pretend otherwise is becoming (becoming? ) tedious and boring in the extreme...... You cannot use "I believe in God" as the basis for a scientific argument!



Am I missing something here? I thought the whole basis of religious belief was "I don't need any proof - faith is all I need". That's the answer I always get from Christians who are logically cornered anyway (as they inevitably always become) in any kind of debate: "I don't need to have any answer to the inescapable logical and philosophical bind you have me in - blind faith is all I need, so nerrr!". Then why is it, then, when any tiny scrap of evidence that might be used to speak in defence of the very old and very dull "Book of Interesting Fairy Stories", Christians always pounce on it with such alacrity?

Me: "But you can't prove Jesus even existed"
Christian #1: "We don't need proof - faith is all we need"
Christian #2: "Look - we have the Turin shroud - prof of our Saviour's existence!"
Christian #1: "Ha! See, unbeliever!! !! Look at this divine proof of how right we are!! !! Now argue with us! Ha-ha-ha-ha-haaaa! Proof! Proo-oof!! !! !!"
Me: "But the Turin shroud has been proven to be a medieaval forgery now......"
Christian #2: "Oooooohhhh.... Errrrmmmmm...... Did I mention that blind faith is all we need? ....that we don't..... need any..... Oh, would you look at the time......" *runs away*

Well, which is it Kitsune? Does your belief stand on "blind faith", or does it stand on "objective proof and logical reasoning"? It can't stand on both can it, given their utterly incompatibility? Either you have to stand on "blind faith" alone, in which case quit it with your phoney, generated pseudo-science and biblical "proofs", or else you have to stand on "objective proof and logical reasoning" alone, in which case you can be logically carved up like a roast turkey at Thanksgiving on so many aspects of the wobbly old faith and its scientific and historical ludicrosities by one with the simply enormous faculties of myself that it is simply untrue..... Choose your poison my friend.....

......and latest scientific evidence shows the universe is actually expanding at an ever increasing rate, but needless to say you can claim "blind faith" as the reason why that particular little biblical inaccuracy doesn't actually matter on this particular little occasion, in addition to the countless thousands of other such examples of inaccuracy and base ridiculousness throughout the bible that you rather conveniently neglected to mention in your little soundbyte.....

All your arguements boil down to "I don't believe you! You can't prove it because I'm not going to agree with you even if you have God himself picking my nose!"

Over and over and over and over and over again I receive the same illogical arguements from you and over and over and over again I offer up evidence to prove them wrong. The same evidence is offered because it is the same question. It's like you repeatedly asking "What is 2+2?" and getting angry when I reply "4".



Christians who answer that either don't want to spend their time explaining to you, or haven't researched into it. You obviously haven't researched evolution and I *REALLY* grow tired of you blaming others with blind faith when you're ready and willing to believe anything a TV station or an atheist science book says.

The 'inescapable logical and philosophical bind" you supposedly have me in is pure wishful thinking. It is much easier for any defiant human being to believe that there is no creator that they will have to admit their wrongdoings to after it is all said and done.



Why then, if you are so secure in your faith of the big bang and evolution, do you have to debate such a 'lowly' Christian such as me when I'm pouncing on 'small scraps of evidence'. The bible is VERY old, and if you believe the bible is full of fairy tales, you have not read it as it gives accurate accounts of historical events.



I'd say accurate roman records of day to day occurances repeatedly mentioning Christ are enough to convince me. They mention his miracles and his actions, they mention events recorded in the bible. Of course, because you only selectively read anything you get your hands on it would be way too much work to dig up a translation of the relevant records. Unfortunately, what you just said will look to all people who read it, like the farmer that steps on his rake and ends up with his nose smashed in.



Well, which is it Tafkash, does your belief in the big bang stand on "blind faith" or does it stand on "objective proof and logical reasoning"? It can't stand on both, can it? Given their utter incompatibility.

On the parts of the bible that can be put through logical analysis and backed up with proof, I take them on the second part. On the parts that are blind faith, I take them on blind faith. The medical practices and scientific evidence put up in my last post were taken on blind faith until proven, and they were proven correct.

There is nothing in the bible proven wrong, there are parts not proven right. When you can show me blatant evidence from a scientific research center using the scientific method (No, your mouth nor mind doesn't count as peer reviewed science.) then I will counter it showing it true or unprovable.



Actually, this pseudo-science you speak of happens to lead to many large scientific discoveries. I'm sure you've done calculus? I'd be careful, 'my friend', as that was made by Isaac Newton who just HAPPENED to be a creationist. I'll post a full list if you don't believe me.

Unfortunately the only person with their 'logic' being carved up would be you. You haven't been presenting anything but and with what you say. You also seem to be unsure in your own intelligence and the you're so sure you possess.



The LATEST scientific evidence shows the universe is actually expanding AND contracting in a way that cannot be measured. I would also like to point out that this is the definition of infinity-an always growing/shrinking number, of course, as you are not into high mathmatics you would not understand that.

This is the *LAST* time I will ask you to post up as you seem to know that they are there but don't know where they are. I'm growing rather tired of your baseless accusations.

Faith does not need to be blind. There was a time when the men of the Bible had nothing but blind faith and nothing to lose from it in times of war, famine, and persecution. Now, we have the examples of these men that God was faithful to in their blind faith. Such as Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Solemon, Elijah, Daniel, and and Mary. God's provision for these people is the objective proof to back our faith, whitch no longer needs to be blind thanks to those who believed before us.





Both are true. The modern concept of the Big Bang and Thermodynamics Does not conflict with sctipture. The universe is expanding, and dissipating energy. When the size of the universe was smaller, energy had little place to go. As time/space expands, there is more and more room for spent energy to blast off into space. The early stars made heavy atoms and blasted them off into space in a supernova. Some of the matter from the supernova becomes a black hole sometimes, some of it forms other stars and solar systems, and some of that matter just blasts off into space as indivivual atoms. The same is true of the particles being emmitted by the stars; just blasted off into space never to be used again. As the stars and galaxies eventually burn out, there will be lots of space from the continued expansion of the universe for the leftover particles to pread out in, never to be used again.

This debate has become pointless long ago. Any civil post I write will only be retured with insults instead of documented refrences anyway. There is even a scripture pertaining to people like this in Luke 16:19-31 where basically, Jesus explains how if someone won't believe Moses or the Prophets, no messenger from Heaven or Hell, (or even an act of God for that matter), will convice them to believe.

Kitsune, I decided to stop contributing to this topic once you started desperately making up facts about Iraq. However, I think another response is justified since you have no conception of evolution, natural selection or spontaneous generation of life, and your pathetic attempts to attack proven science is insulting.

1. Evolution does not state that an ant will evolve into a blue whale, and anyone that knows anything about evolution will laugh in your face when you say that. I'd suggest, before blindly discrediting it any further, you take a look at what scientists have figured out about evolution and natural selection whether you believe in it or not.

2. Life comes from poop... hmm... well... I'm still trying to figure out where you were going with that. I'll get back to you once I find my magical insanity-decoding helmet.

3. The 1953 Miller-Urey experiment proved that life can easily be generated spontaneously without requiring existing life to synthesize it, using only the simple components of Earth's early conditions. It has since been proven over and over again in a variety of conditions.

Go ahead and listen to the voices in your head all you want, but you should be intelligent enough to realize that when they tell you to threaten rational people with your superstitious madness, you can't expect a smile and a pat on the back.

I don't recall ever saying that.


This is also quite hilarious.

Please do not think that I have any need or desire to argue with you.
I just enjoy sharing the observations I have made regarding science and religion. I believe they are ultimately identical. Both arose from a desire to understand and control the environment. Both involve transcendence of the individual.
As it exists today, science is far too concerned with the physical world to be of any spiritual value.
Unfortunately many religious proponents are far too concerned with defending antiquated mythologies to open their minds to the true signifigance of their traditions.

People once believed all sorts of things about the way the body functioned, and what caused illnesses, these have now been understood better and we are better able to heal the body.
In the same way I think people today still hold many eroneous beliefs regarding the heart and spirit. Hopefully in time we will have a better understanding of the principles at work and therefore be better able to heal these parts of ourselves.

I find that taking one position or another and then defending it at all costs can only serve to constrain the mind. It is much more liberating to allow it to roam the whole terrain and pick and choose those things that have real value.

Awwww... No fair... that was what I was going to say..... (rather more confrontationally and amusingly though of course )

Fear not Kitsune, my delicate, fragile little flower - I will be around to give you your now daily ass-whupping later, my friend. Ghotistix and others might (completely understandably) grow weary of your utterly tiresome tactics and non-arguments and decide to waste no more of their time by trying to have reasonable discourse with you..... I however cannot in all conscience, however inured to you I am, stand by and allow the contents of this thread to go unchallenged. Poison, no matter how laughably, amateurishly and shambolically mixed, prepared and presented, can still do harm to the unwary and the innocent if left lying around, so I still feel I still have work to do here..... See you later, chum