quote:

Originally posted by Orbax shut up bitch, when did you enter this conversation? Oh right, just now. Fuck off, k thanks. Haha, you dumb bastard, I rag on you once, and you get all "sided" dont think I dont know how your little brain works.

Orbax, you may want to look up "ad hominem" before making yourself sound even more stupid. I hope he was kidding about you wanting to be a lawyer, because this post is just ridiculous. No offense.

P.S. I fully expect some sort of ridiculous, poorly constructed, and woefully written flame in response. Don't disappoint...

quote:

Originally posted by speedracer_mec we are all here not through adaptation or evolution but by determinism We were detailed out..as part of a big scheme..and someone is looking down on us all...

And that right there is everything ELSE I hate about religion (other than hypocrisy and hierarchy). The unsubstantiated platitudes (mec, have you just ignored the first hundred posts in this thread?), and the anthropomorphism (if you are to believe there is a God, what is this "scheme", what is this "looking down on us"... if you don't know what God is, how can you possibly make these claims?)

Yecch... preaching.

quote:

Also non-god believers...wut do u think about life? after we die..we decompose and rot and insects eat our corpse up? arent yall scared that life is just a bag of feelings and memories gather togethered to later be dumped into a heap of soil for eternity. All feelings and memories to be destroyed? human beings and life scare the shit outta me...i cant understand it

And there you have it. Religion is born out of fear. Not necessarily in every case, but to answer my previous philosophical question (why are people so attached to their religious beliefs as opposed to other beliefs), it is fear. In particular, fear of the unknown. That's what gets so many people to swallow the religious pill, and what constipates them later on when it's time to drop it off at the proverbial pool.

Who's to say what happens after I die... reincarnation in a spiritual sense (not in the Kabbalah or second-coming sense) might be believable. Heaven and hell? Meh... some religions don't even believe in a hell. And in the grand scheme of the universe, even this Earth, one person's lifetime is just a speck - what kind of sick-minded God, if we are to believe that He exists in some anthropomorphic sense, would damn someone to eternal suffering for that tiny speck?

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

Last edited by DigiNut on Oct-13-2003 at 19:03

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX And Trust me. Atheists will always find a loophole..

It's interesting you say this, because religious groups expend so much effort finding "loopholes" (I think you just mean holes) in scientific theories like evolution, and under most circumstances those holes turn out not to be holes at all (the probability studies does not take into account natural selection and has been debunked hundreds of times).

And yet, nothing I've ever read plugs the holes I see in most religion. How ironic.

quote:

There's an afterlife

Opinion.

quote:

I believe in God, and Im sure that if you follow the commandments and do as God has layed out for us to on how to live right.. then you shouldn fear..

Acceptable, but why should we fear otherwise?

quote:

I dont suggest you sticking here though for thoughs.. varies too much, and like I said, you'll get more confused.

Guess that depends on whose posts you read...

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

quote:

Originally posted by Flyboy217 Orbax, you may want to look up "ad hominem" before making yourself sound even more stupid. I hope he was kidding about you wanting to be a lawyer, because this post is just ridiculous. No offense. P.S. I fully expect some sort of ridiculous, poorly constructed, and woefully written flame in response. Don't disappoint...

Well, since you asked for it...

See, heres basically where I am coming from. I was drunk, and taking the piss, and you get all cry baby. Speaking of Ad Hominem, you're a dumbshit too. Let's see what pearls of wisdom you've dropped on us thus far:

quote:

I haven't been following this thread in its entirety

indeed, there are 6 pages of shit before your first post. You jump in, and try make judgments on the postings when you haven't even read them. Thats what cute little bears do.

quote:

If you had instead been born into a family which followed a different religion, would you have followed that religion as devoutly? If you answered "no" to this question, then most likely you're either lying to yourself or you aren't reasoning well

im glad you stressed LIKELY in this because that makes it a statistical fact.

quote:

. An objective truth holds for everyone,

objective:Having actual existence or reality.

truth: Reality; actuality.

"A wise man speaks when he has something to say, a fool speaks when he has to say something" next time try to be as intelligent as you are, not as intelligent as you would like to be. You end sounding like a complete dumbshit.

quote:

It isn't wrong in itself to adhere to principles which one knows not to be objective. But while it undoubtedly helps people in their personal lives, it cannot be a fulfilling solution for intelligent men and women who care to actually understand the world around them.

heh...ok, if you say so.

quote:

I didn't mean for this to be a treatise on religions

trea·tise ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trts)
n.
A systematic, usually extensive written discourse on a subject.

no fear of you falling under that definition

quote:

I'm curious as to what this "Science versus Religion" thing is all about.

your last post, yet you had been jumping all over the topic before. You're either lying, or a dumbshit, and either way why are you debating the philosophy of morality and religion? We have very obviosuly been using science to support AND disprove religion, so there are very obviously multiple angles at this thing. Also, if you arent familiar with the evolution vs creationism debate which could very succintly be put into a science V religion debate, you REALLY shouldnt be here.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut And there you have it. Religion is born out of fear. Not necessarily in every case, but to answer my previous philosophical question (why are people so attached to their religious beliefs as opposed to other beliefs), it is fear. In particular, fear of the unknown.

I think there is that motivation deep down in a lot of people. It can turn into drugs, alcohol (man alcohol isnt a drug!), promsicuity, anything basically. Religion too. This is me being random but maybe religion can be seen to be just as much an addiction as drugs when its used for escapism.

But, there are also moderate drinkers, pot smokers, and solid monogamous sexual practices (sometimes referred to as serial monogamy with people who cant keep relationships up hehe).

I guess my point is, is that while some people will use just about anything as an escape, there are just as many people who have gotten there through other channels. I went through about a year period recently where I totally thought I had found a contradiction in the Bible that was so severe, I couldnt morally accept Christianity. Later on my brother basically gave me the answer to my problems with it.

I have gone through period of disbelief, angst, and outright dislike of my religion and other religions.

So all in all i guess im sayin, dont judge everyone by the insecure zealots hehe.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax Well, since you asked for it... See, heres basically where I am coming from. I was drunk, and taking the piss, and you get all cry baby. Speaking of Ad Hominem, you're a dumbshit too. Let's see what pearls of wisdom you've dropped on us thus far:

Haha yep, pointed criticisms are surely the sign of a cry baby.

quote:

indeed, there are 6 pages of shit before your first post. You jump in, and try make judgments on the postings when you haven't even read them. Thats what cute little bears do.

Awwwww. You called me a cute little bear. I'm flattered! Good thing I wasn't "making judgements" on the postings, since otherwise your statement would have some merit.

quote:

im glad you stressed LIKELY in this because that makes it a statistical fact.

Funny, I never meant it to be a statistical fact. But I'm glad you took it as such.

quote:

objective:Having actual existence or reality. truth: Reality; actuality.

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_truth
"An objective truth is a statement of inherent reality. It is something that is true independently of the question of its truth, or the opinions or observations of thinking beings."

I apologize if my compound words are too complex for you. "Objective truth" is a commonly-debated topic in comparative religion. Perhaps next time you'll want to do some research before responding.

quote:

"A wise man speaks when he has something to say, a fool speaks when he has to say something" next time try to be as intelligent as you are, not as intelligent as you would like to be. You end sounding like a complete dumbshit.

Try to be as intelligent as I am? Funny... I thought I was as intelligent as I am. How could one be otherwise? And I think we all agree, I am the one who sounds like a dumbshit.

quote:

heh...ok, if you say so.

Indeed I do!

quote:

trea·tise ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trts) n. A systematic, usually extensive written discourse on a subject. no fear of you falling under that definition

Again, right-o! I myself do not fall under the category of "a systematic discourse on a subject." I bet that would feel weird! But who needs to use good english anyway? Let's leave that to the educated. Either way, good attack.

But I think I liked your drunk attack better. At least that one had fun words like "bitch," "fuck," and "bastard." Thanks for the good reply though! You certainly didn't disappoint

Last edited by Flyboy217 on Oct-13-2003 at 19:27

quote:

Originally posted by Flyboy217

aww you called me a highschooler. Unfortunately that was the cleverest part of your reply. Try harder next time, and keep tryin on the originality!

Wow ... this thread got really entertaining over the weekend . Anyway, I'm going to stay away from the main battle royale but I'd like to address a few points:

quote:

Originally posted by Dmatrox Yeah dolphins are smart. What i was trying to say is that, there isnt another really smart organism that is smart enough to cause interspecific competition. Anyways, i believe evolution to a certain extent, certainly more than stories that men make up and call it god's werd.

There were other organisms that were smart enough to cause interspecies (was that the word you meant?) competition. Neanderthals were a distinctly different species from cro-magnum modern humans and were either killed off by humans or were absorbed through interbreeding (yet their interbreeding had no impact on the overall gene pool of the human race):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/694467.stm

But even so, it should not be much of a surprise that other competing species became extinct over time, because we ourselves almost became extinct as a species over 70,000 years ago.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2975862.stm

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Wow ... this thread got really entertaining over the weekend . Anyway, I'm going to stay away from the main battle royale but I'd like to address a few points: There were other organisms that were smart enough to cause interspecies (was that the word you meant?) competition. Neanderthals were a distinctly different species from cro-magnum modern humans and were either killed off by humans or were absorbed through interbreeding (yet their interbreeding had no impact on the overall gene pool of the human race): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/694467.stm But even so, it should not be much of a surprise that other competing species became extinct over time, because we ourselves almost became extinct as a species over 70,000 years ago. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2975862.stm

Good call, most people arent aware of the fact that all human-like creatures arent exactly the same species hehe.

PS it got entertaining because it got boring hehe

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Neanderthals were a distinctly different species from cro-magnum modern humans and were either killed off by humans or were absorbed through interbreeding (yet their interbreeding had no impact on the overall gene pool of the human race)

I disagree its obvious that Neanderthal interbreeding has had a serious negative impact on select few in the human race. Haven't you read any of Orbax's post? His slow witted Neanderthal logic (or lack there of) is a clear indicator that he's a direct decenent of Neanderthal interbreeding.

___________________
GIGANTIC CUNT

People should really be taught about logical fallacies in school. It occurred to me reading this thread that a lot of people haven't been educated on the topic (not knowing the meaning of straw man, ad hominem, etc.) It's interesting to note the extreme number of fallacies present in creationism and other religious dogma (Warning, long post!):

Appeal to Tradition ("X" must be true because it's been around for a long time) - Christianity/Catholicism/Judaism has been around for thousands of years and survived, so its beliefs must be true.

Appeal to Belief ("X" must be true because most people believe it) - Most people believe God exists, so God must exist.

Appeal to Consequences of a Belief (If good/bad things come as a consequence to "X", then it must be true/false) - My religion has helped [me/all believers] to lead a better life, so its beliefs must be true.

Generalization (If a small sample has a certain characteristic, then the entire thing must have it) - all the atheists I've met are immoral people, so all atheists must be immoral and need religion to teach them how to be righteous.

Relativist (Truth "X" is not objective because it's not true for me) - maybe YOU think the story of Noah's Ark is impossible, but you just have to believe.

False Dilemma (A and B can't both be true [the fallacy is that they can both be true], and A is/isn't true, therefore B isn't/is true) - either God created the universe or life evolved on Earth, and life didn't evolve on Earth. So God must have created the universe.

Straw Man (presenting a distorted version of someone's argument and knocking that version down) - Evolution is impossible. It's theorized to happen very slowly and gradually, but we can't find any transient species, so the theory must be wrong. (This would still be fallacious even IF there were no transient fossils).

Ad Hominem - (using irrelevant information about the person presenting an argument to try and prove the falseness of his/her argument - does not have to be abusive but often is). How many times have we seen that in this thread alone?

Appeal to [insufficient] Authority ("X" must be true because person "Y" says it, even though "Y" isn't an expert on the subject "X" pertains to) - Mr. X, [my priest/an evangelist/a Christian scientist], says that the big bang couldn't have happened, and he's an expert on religion, so he must be right.

Circular reasoning (use of precept "X" to prove precept "Y" which is in turn used to prove precept "X") - God must exist, because the Bible says he exists, and we must believe the Bible because it was handed down from God. (This is the big one, and is used practically as a definition of cirular reasoning!)

Composition (assuming that what is true for parts of something must be true for the entire thing) - organic life is structured, therefore the entire universe is structured (which is then used to start the "Creation implies Creator" argument).

Speaking of the above: Inductive Fallacy ("X" has characteristic "Y", and "Z" is related to "X", so "Z" must have characteristic "Y") - Most complex things [i.e. a watch] do not occur naturally, and Life on Earth is complex, therefore someone must have created it.

Post Hoc (assuming that "X" happening before "Y" implies that "X" is actually the cause of "Y") - My life was in shambles, then I turned to God and the Bible and prayed, and now I've turned my life around. God must surely have helped me.

Deductive Fallacy (If "X" is true, then "Y" is true. "Y" is true, so "X" must be true) - The Bible says that God created man in his own image, intelligent and free-willed. People are intelligent and free-willed. Therefore, God created them.

Oh, almost forgot the classic Burden of Proof fallacy - God exists because you can't prove he doesn't.

Wowie, for all the intelligent people out there, doesn't this get frustrating to deal with on an almost daily basis? I can't remember the last time I met a "believer" who didn't try to use at least one of these!

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

Last edited by DigiNut on Oct-14-2003 at 00:27

quote:

Originally posted by Flyboy217 I'm curious as to what this "Science versus Religion" thing is all about. All "science" is is a set of methods by which we deduce things by observation. It's not some hairy monster looking to prove or debunk anything. It has no personality, and yet people constantly try to anthropomorphize it. Science isn't fighting with anything, but when people try to suppress our powers of reasoning in favor of spoonfed precepts... well, what's an intelligent man to say? At what point does it become advisable to give up one's ability to reason?

I've always supported scientific inquiry over blind faith. And I'm definitely not a creationist. But these days arguing about various things with Postmodernist philosophy students has certainly stopped me from saying things like "science is objective" or unbiased or "science has no personality"... However I still maintain (much to their annoyance) that science is relatively objective.

___________________
"my son will be a gienues(sp?)" - Originally posted by Googooly
"many species of bear give blowjobs." - Originally posted by Sunsnail.. NOW CONFIRMED BY PHOTO EVIDENCE!
"astroboy is brave and gentle and wise." - Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
"ew! i wouldn't go anywhere near a homeless dudes butthole... not even if i was sodomizing him with a poison ivy cactus dildo" - Originally posted by lücid
"also can someone post the link to my mom's forum, thank you!" - Originally posted by miamitrance04
"dude man its not me its what the world does to me. Trust me I'm a normal person people just constantly fuck with me." Originally posted by ********
"I can see Lira getting a hard-on already. And believe me, Brazilian ass rape is the worst." - Originally posted by Meat187