EPTLet's not derail in that direction :D
Creationists - Page 3
| Blogs > Igakusei |
|
Igakusei
United States610 Posts
Let's not derail in that direction :D | ||
|
Valikyr
Sweden2653 Posts
On January 20 2011 04:26 419 wrote: Believe me, I'm grinning quite widely as I read this. Darmousseh, you are a prophet. (unless the latter post was written with some sense of irony, but I doubt it) It's quite sad that you do not understand this but I've wasted enough time on people like you. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On January 20 2011 04:46 McDonalds wrote: I didn't really say anything about the truth of the beliefs. My original comment contrasted opera and crunkcore but I changed it because I thought people would react with bias about one being more worthwhile than the other without thinking about the reasons why that might be the case. your analogy of comparing fiction books to factual manuals really did though, unless the analogy was using some other angle I missed | ||
|
kerpal
United Kingdom2695 Posts
| ||
|
McDonalds
Liechtenstein2244 Posts
Oh god, I always hated it when I would go somewhere and the format of the calendar was different. I would never look at the top to double check. | ||
|
Igakusei
United States610 Posts
On January 20 2011 04:51 Valikyr wrote: It's quite sad that you do not understand this but I've wasted enough time on people like you. Hey, let's keep this civil! Can we go at least four pages before this gets closed? | ||
|
kerpal
United Kingdom2695 Posts
On January 20 2011 04:50 buhhy wrote: LOL, I remember RebelHeart and his blogs... Man that discussion really gets my blood boiling... Btw, to Christians, why can't Zeus be the god, or Odin, or Xenu, or spaghetti monster? because he just CANT! OK! no seriously, there are reasons why it can't be xenu, odin, zeus or richard dawkin's magical unicorn, but this isn't that debate... yet as always, pm me if you'd like to know. EDIT: On January 20 2011 04:52 Igakusei wrote: Hey, let's keep this civil! Can we go at least four pages before this gets closed? he sounds like he's leaving... we can hope, ignore the people who are just here to rage. | ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
On January 20 2011 04:32 McDonalds wrote: Haha, I dunno man. Sounds kind of like you're saying that 90% of computer manuals are just as retarded as 90% of R. L. Stein books. You speak the truth. Computer manuals are very retarded. I would know as a computer scientist. In general, people have a defense mechanism to defend their belief system (atheists are human too) without considering the rationality of their arguments. Being objective is not a natural thing for human beings. | ||
|
niteReloaded
Croatia5282 Posts
If you dig deep, you can still find it in religion, but it's hard because even religious people nowadays don't understand what their religion was originally about. | ||
|
Igakusei
United States610 Posts
On January 20 2011 04:54 kerpal wrote: because he just CANT! OK! no seriously, there are reasons why it can't be xenu, odin, zeus or richard dawkin's magical unicorn, but this isn't that debate... yet as always, pm me if you'd like to know. Discovering the field of ancient-Hebrew linguistics and what historians/linguists/archaeologists/etc have learned about Jewish history, the history of the Bible, and our evolving conception of God was actually the final nail in the coffin for me. I still go to church with my wife, but everything just seems so hollow now. People say things with such passion and fervor and all I'm thinking is "seriously? did (s)he really just say that?" | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
they consider it, then refute it based on its argument/claims(of which, when investigated are weak) | ||
|
McDonalds
Liechtenstein2244 Posts
On January 20 2011 04:52 GGTeMpLaR wrote: your analogy of comparing fiction books to factual manuals really did though, unless the analogy was using some other angle I missed Well I've helped to write computer manuals. A lot of them are incorrect in places. (But at the end of the day you can examine what they're about and with some dedication determine where they are wrong and what needs to be changed.) My comment was supposed to be more like "what kind of retarded are we talking about" because it seemed like we were either comparing two not so similar kinds of inaccuracies or deeming the average intelligence of both groups to be equal without regard for who was really being discussed. But anyway I don't want to write a dissertation on it. | ||
|
Tony Campolo
New Zealand364 Posts
On January 20 2011 04:21 darmousseh wrote: You do realize that like 90% of atheists are just as retarded as 90% of young earth creationists right? I'm sorry but you lost me there. No I did not realise this. As far as I'm aware anyone who is an atheist is already far more intelligent than someone who believes in an arbitrary, intangible being. Disclosure: I spent seven years of my life between the ages of 16 and 24 as a fundamentalist/Pentecostal Christian who read books by authors such as Lee Strobel and Charles Colson prolifically so am well aware of the Creationist perspective. I am now a 26 year old atheist. | ||
|
McDonalds
Liechtenstein2244 Posts
On January 20 2011 04:57 darmousseh wrote: You speak the truth. Computer manuals are very retarded. I would know as a computer scientist. In general, people have a defense mechanism to defend their belief system (atheists are human too) without considering the rationality of their arguments. Being objective is not a natural thing for human beings. Well I'm glad you got the point of what I was trying to say with that. It's just that the problems have very different origins and implications. | ||
|
Tony Campolo
New Zealand364 Posts
On January 20 2011 04:54 kerpal wrote: LOL, I remember RebelHeart and his blogs... Man that discussion really gets my blood boiling... Believe it or not that was my old account here on TL... Embarrassingly. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On January 20 2011 04:54 kerpal wrote: because he just CANT! OK! no seriously, there are reasons why it can't be xenu, odin, zeus or richard dawkin's magical unicorn, but this isn't that debate... yet as always, pm me if you'd like to know. Lies. Zeus is clearly the king of the gods. | ||
|
kerpal
United Kingdom2695 Posts
On January 20 2011 05:07 Tony Campolo wrote: Believe it or not that was my old account here on TL... Embarrassingly. haha, you quoted me, but that wasn't my post! | ||
|
McDonalds
Liechtenstein2244 Posts
On January 20 2011 05:06 Tony Campolo wrote: I'm sorry but you lost me there. No I did not realise this. As far as I'm aware anyone who is an atheist is already far more intelligent than someone who believes in an arbitrary, intangible being. Disclosure: I spent seven years of my life between the ages of 16 and 24 as a fundamentalist/Pentecostal Christian who read books by authors such as Lee Strobel and Charles Colson prolifically so am well aware of the Creationist perspective. I am now a 26 year old atheist. I'm inclined to agree with you on the concrete intelligence bit for a number of reasons. But at the same time it is possible for intelligent people to say things without properly thinking them through and I would wager that the vast majority of people do that on a regular basis. We're talking about Youtube, after all. Ok my mind is entering nap mode at warp 9 so I will bow out around now. | ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
On January 20 2011 04:59 niteReloaded wrote: The sad thing is that the majority of intelligent people completely miss out on spirituality which once was what religion was all about. If you dig deep, you can still find it in religion, but it's hard because even religious people nowadays don't understand what their religion was originally about. Very well put. And I can respect anyone practicing a religion for this reason, (unless they also feel the need to force their beliefs on others) | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
In general, people have a defense mechanism to defend their belief system (atheists are human too) without considering the rationality of their arguments. Being objective is not a natural thing for human beings. Is it okay for me to think it's ironic when someone trying to paint themselves as insightful starts using Freudian psychology? Even getting beyond this 'defence mechanism' silliness, even just using the word 'natural' like that is offensive. What do you know about what's 'natural' for human beings? Perhaps, maybe, some people just don't want to believe random crap they're told over the internet, regardless of how much proof either side claims to have (but of course can't call upon due to the limitations of online debate). There are some topics which can be argued legitimately over the internet. There are many which cannot. When you take a really broad, general topic like 'SCIENCE' or 'RELIGION' you invite yourself to an argument which cannot end. I mean, think about if you wrote an essay on 'SCIENCE' or 'RELIGION.' It'd be about 50 million pages long. That's why you're supposed to narrow down your thesis to something that is specific enough for you to do it justice within the constraints of your medium. | ||
| ||
