Originally posted by inconspicuous
Someone needs to brush up on his intrawebs.
also:
That's so awesome I just pooped my pants.
And JP if you are reading this, I loved every minute of it.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by ORBAX the ignorant arseclown raistlin, despite enjoying a good series of books, is a bitter jackass. hes impossible to talk to and isnt looking for a "oh I could see how you could think that" kind of approach hes looking for a "HAHHAHAHA STUPID RELIGIOUS PERSON LOLOLOL" approach. "I READ DAWKINS AND I SMELT HIS DICK dont believein G$D. yeah G$D cuz its about money and corporations and ... money...ING RELIGIOUS PEople ahhahaha look how stupid they are about how they FEEL and how they have DESIRES rofl"
*pkcRaistlin goes back to shoving dick in lubriderm coated sock wad inbetween mattresses*
whats this then ?
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
and i thank you for your very interesting response!
i'd always viewed evolution as largely complementary to religion (who is to say how god's plan was meant to play out) but the other day it occured to me that if man did indeed come from monkey, i found it problematic to explain how we "evolved" a soul. i really like your take on the situation. mostly because it makes sense! a theist that's consistent and makes sense. you're a very special creature! jokes! :p
if i believed in god, i would think your explanation(s) are pretty good :)
the difference is most theist's defence of their belief system is littered with stupidity, which is why they get those kind of responses. get a clue.
quote:
Originally posted by inconspicuous
you're a pretty good example of it. I wouldn't expect you to agree.
that's not what i was referring to. it really is difficult trying to debate things with some of you people. sheesh. he didnt have a point. denying evolution in the face of overwhelming evidence is just one facet of religious thought that is pathetically stupid.
quote:
Originally posted by inconspicuous
after the hundreds of posts of his that I've read
most of those in the COR deserve little else mate.
quote:
Originally posted by caddyshack
your assuming we have a soul, on what grounds can you make this assumption?
This is the core problem with religion, everything is assumed to be true. Call it faith but it still doesn't make it valid.
look mate, you obviously don't understand what im saying. it really is difficult sometimes :rolleyes:
inconspicuous
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
that's not what i was referring to. it really is difficult trying to debate things with some of you people. sheesh. he didnt have a point. denying evolution in the face of overwhelming evidence is just one facet of religious thought that is pathetically stupid.
most of those in the COR deserve little else mate.
and that's not what I was referring to. This 2nd comment of yours is. Disregarding the example he used, the fact is that you still get on your high horse of assumed superiority the moment anyone disagrees with you, and refuse to acknowledge that any other viewpoint could possibly be the creation of any being from the same species as you.
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
whats this then ?
that's the one and ONLY post I've ever seen you make regarding religion that didn't belittle or just blatantly insult the other person's opinion. Feel free to continue along those lines, though, by all means. You might find that people actually want to discuss such things with you, and that the people responding will begin to include people besides the usual collection of those who claim religious faith, but are obnoxious & uninformed & insulting. That's the only attention your usual posts attract, because reasonable people can see that you won't listen to any other viewpoint, and they don't want to bother with a back-and-forth to see who can come up with the better insults.
aNYthing
To answer your question, I'm going to use Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrells as a basis for my answer.
The analogy here would be Rory Breaker as G-d, and Nick "the Greek" as you - e.g. common pleb, human being, etc.
I'm going to replace the "I'll kill ya" with "you're going to hell".
quote:
If you hold back anything, you're going to hell. If you bend the truth or I think your bending the truth, you're going to hell. If you forget anything you're going to hell. In fact, you're gonna have to work very hard to stay out of hell, Nick. Now do you understand everything I've said? Because if you don't, you're going to hell
that just about sums up christian dogma. if you don't get it... you're going to hell!
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by inconspicuous
and that's not what I was referring to. This 2nd comment of yours is. Disregarding the example he used, the fact is that you still get on your high horse of assumed superiority the moment anyone disagrees with you, and refuse to acknowledge that any other viewpoint could possibly be the creation of any being from the same species as you.
because theists that deliberately misunderstand things like evolution are painfully annoying to deal with. if they came to the table with a more honest/researched opinion (ala moral hazard) then things would be fine. the fact is they dont, ergo i will view them as intellectually inferior, NOT because they disagree, but because of their "selectful" view of particular pieces of evidence.
quote:
Originally posted by inconspicuous
that's the one and ONLY post I've ever seen you make regarding religion that didn't belittle or just blatantly insult the other person's opinion.
most (but not all) religious opinion i find as offensive as, say, nazism. that's where the hostility comes from. what can i say, im intolerant. can't help having faults. im not god ;)
Clovis
quote:
Originally posted by inconspicuous
Quite simply, yes they are. Their stated purpose is perfectly admirable, but their actions serve an alternate purpose.
I'm not a big follower of all the cases they're involved in, but I havn't seen them pushing that agenda anywhere. Can you point me to cases where they have? All I can think of are the Pledge of Allegiance, and the headstone in Louisiana (I think?) and a few other small ones. If you subscribe to the theory that any action to remove God from public places is inherently atheist then I can see how you'd think that, but imo really it's about maintaining equality between all religions which people are allowed to practice. Why should I have to affirm belief in God everytime I go to a public school?
quote:
No, it really hasn't.
You might not like this, but most of what they say is pretty true :p
quote:
Most atheists are liberals. That doesn't mean that most liberals are atheists. It's like the square/rectangle thing. The reason they put more Christian wackos on tv is that there are more of them (there are far more Christians, so, logically, that follows) and because it is seen as being related to a political position they disagree with (hate would be more accurate). It's not because they're atheists.
So they put more Christians on the air to make them look bad? Thats absurd. Fox and Co put more Christians on the air because they know that most of the people watching are God believing middle americans. The more inflammatory the speaker the easier they can swing public opinion in favor of the religious right. Same with asserting that the ACLU is trying to eliminate God from the United States.
quote:
Yes, it far outweighs it, but I'm simply speaking to proportions. Obviously, there are far fewer atheists of any sort (reasonable, insane, respectful, prejudiced, etc.) than there are of any such sort of Christians. The point I was making was in reference to how atheists express their views (intent), not necessarily to the effect it had.
Ok.
inconspicuous
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
because theists that deliberately misunderstand things like evolution are painfully annoying to deal with. if they came to the table with a more honest/researched opinion (ala moral hazard) then things would be fine. the fact is they dont, ergo i will view them as intellectually inferior, NOT because they disagree, but because of their "selectful" view of particular pieces of evidence.
see the additional edit in my previous post.
aNYthing
quote:
Originally posted by inconspicuous
Someone needs to brush up on his intrawebs.
also:
where's ma bukkit? aaa, there it is!
inconspicuous
quote:
Originally posted by Clovis
I'm not a big follower of all the cases they're involved in, but I havn't seen them pushing that agenda anywhere. Can you point me to cases where they have? All I can think of are the Pledge of Allegiance, and the headstone in Louisiana (I think?) and a few other small ones. If you subscribe to the theory that any action to remove God from public places is inherently atheist then I can see how you'd think that, but imo really it's about maintaining equality between all religions which people are allowed to practice. Why should I have to affirm belief in God everytime I go to a public school?
Government & public are not one in the same, and that's where they get off track with regards to religion. I'll go through & find some representative examples when I'm really bored some time.
quote:
Originally posted by Clovis
You might not like this, but most of what they say is pretty true :p
It's Chomsky. I'm not even going to waste the 5 minutes.
quote:
Originally posted by Clovis
So they put more Christians on the air to make them look bad? Thats absurd. Fox and Co put more Christians on the air because they know that most of the people watching are God believing middle americans. The more inflammatory the speaker the easier they can swing public opinion in favor of the religious right. Same with asserting that the ACLU is trying to eliminate God from the United States.
They put more obviously insane Christians on the air. Both sides do the inflammatory thing when it comes to speakers, but those are people who are intelligent & well-spoken enough to sound reasonable, regardless of what they're saying. I'm referring to their coverage of more 'regular' (well, in one sense) people. Rallies, protests, etc.
Omega_M
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i'd always viewed evolution as largely complementary to religion (who is to say how god's plan was meant to play out) but the other day it occured to me that if man did indeed come from monkey, i found it problematic to explain how we "evolved" a soul. i really like your take on the situation. mostly because it makes sense! a theist that's consistent and makes sense.
Why do you think that only humans possess a soul ? Every living being possesses a soul because of the fact that it is "living" and not inert. There is no need for the soul to "evolve". It is the fundamental component of every organism. I don't see how it doesn't fit into the theory of evolution. If one were to rely on wiki for definitions,
quote:
The soul, according to many religious and philosophical traditions, is the self-aware essence unique to a particular living being.
AndreaCKY772
what an interesting topic! i didn't read everything but thee seems to be a good discussion going on...
occrider
quote:
Originally posted by Omega_M
Why do you think that only humans possess a soul ? Every living being possesses a soul because of the fact that it is "living" and not inert. There is no need for the soul to "evolve". It is the fundamental component of every organism. I don't see how it doesn't fit into the theory of evolution. If one were to rely on wiki for definitions,
Exactly. There is no such thing as a "soul" by its very lack of a concrete, a priori definition. The concept can be broadened to include microbial life or narrowed to exclude everything but an as of yet undiscovered alien species that possesses a fundamental unique trait that we lack. And this subjectiviy can perpetuate ad infinitum depending upon relativity.
