| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Holophonist
United States297 Posts
On February 23 2012 14:08 Focuspants wrote: The Creation Story of Christianity from the Bible is mythology. Period. This is a topic that's been debated by the smartest people in history for thousands of years. I'm glad Focuspants figured it out for us all. Seriously, gtfo with that crap. You're not helping. | ||
|
Sogo Otika
60 Posts
On February 23 2012 14:08 Focuspants wrote: The Creation Story of Christianity from the Bible is mythology. Period. Please prove this. You cannot say something is false if you don't have evidence that it is false. The Bible is an accurate record of history written by the Spirit of God. Were you there? No you were not, so you cannot prove that it is a myth. I would also like for you to visit this website before you continue making such arrogant claims: www.creationismandthebible.com I'm sick of everyone hopping on to the anti-religion bandwagon. It's like Christians aren't even allowed to express opinions anymore because of the liberal secular media and relativist thinking (which is crap given that morals are absolute. If you have no absolute morals, then I could go murder a baby and say that it was relatively OK based on my own perception of what is right and wrong). | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44723 Posts
On February 23 2012 14:25 Holophonist wrote: This is a topic that's been debated by the smartest people in history for thousands of years. I'm glad Focuspants figured it out for us all. Seriously, gtfo with that crap. You're not helping. Oh my god. Should be spotlighted. Yeah, Focuspants figured it out. He was totally the first one. Seriously?  Woooooo...EDIT: Bottom of page 475 I posted plenty of proof for the Creationism = ID = Religion = Non-science argument. I'm done with the religious debating. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On February 23 2012 14:25 Holophonist wrote: This is a topic that's been debated by the smartest people in history for thousands of years. I'm glad Focuspants figured it out for us all. Seriously, gtfo with that crap. You're not helping. Uh........... nowadays the overwhelming amount of the smartest people alive agree with Focuspants, 80% of the elite acedemia on the planet do not believe in a god, let alone the creation store of the bible. In fact, we have literal proof that the creation story of the bible CANNOT be true. We know, for a fact, that the universe was not created in 7 days. We know, for a fact, that the Eden story with Adam and Eve is not true. There are mountains of evidence on this matter. Ever hear of the big bang? Yeah, that's a theory in the same way gravity is. Regardless, Santorum is a nutcase, which is basically what started this whole discussion. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
tso
United States132 Posts
"i'm going to make a claim and not require myself to provide evidence for it" damn how many pages of this is there.. i leave for an hour.. who "won" the debate? missed the second half | ||
|
forgottendreams
United States1771 Posts
On February 23 2012 14:24 Holophonist wrote: If you're talking about humans creating something, that's intelligent design. Like I said, it's not specific to religion, and certainly not any 1 specific religion. ID has roots in saying a "God" is the explanation for it. So if we are capable of designing our own organs and even a human one day, are we then God? Who is the real god? What is the point of teaching ID then if the argument then wraps into itself when evolution and science can already develop "intelligent design"? | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On February 23 2012 14:28 tso wrote: lol "i'm going to make a claim and not require myself to provide evidence for it" damn how many pages of this is there.. i leave for an hour.. who "won" the debate? missed the second half Pretty much Romney and Gingrich. Santorum got walked all over during the first half of it and Paul got booed constantly on foreign policy for making too much sense. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
Edit: I also want to add that Paul would have the best chance vs Obama, considering he can take votes from Obama + independent and republicans. The other candidates have no chance vs Obama at all imo | ||
|
Mobius_1
United Kingdom2763 Posts
And his opponents will do more or less the same. Which is kind of a snapshot of the current American election process. But hey, at least Michelle Bachmann is no longer in the running. Although these guys are just as demonstrably crazy if the news reports on the debates are anything to go by. On February 23 2012 14:28 tso wrote: lol "i'm going to make a claim and not require myself to provide evidence for it" damn how many pages of this is there.. i leave for an hour.. who "won" the debate? missed the second half Are you referring to the Republican debate or the Evolution debate? But I think the result is pretty clear in both cases, between crazy (well, 1 quietly unelectable) nominees and fervent internet defense of a religious idea that nobody in the rest of the world teaches, America lost. | ||
|
Holophonist
United States297 Posts
On February 23 2012 14:28 Whitewing wrote: Uh........... nowadays the overwhelming amount of the smartest people alive agree with Focuspants, 80% of the elite acedemia on the planet do not believe in a god, let alone the creation store of the bible. In fact, we have literal proof that the creation story of the bible CANNOT be true. We know, for a fact, that the universe was not created in 7 days. We know, for a fact, that the Eden story with Adam and Eve is not true. There are mountains of evidence on this matter. Ever hear of the big bang? Yeah, that's a theory in the same way gravity is. Regardless, Santorum is a nutcase, which is basically what started this whole discussion. I don't believe the elite academia are the smartest people on the planet. Also, to believe in God, or even the creation account doesn't have to literally mean 7 days as in a 24 hour time period. | ||
|
forgottendreams
United States1771 Posts
On February 23 2012 14:35 Mobius_1 wrote: This conversation is really pointless, because Holophonist is set in his ways and as he takes more and more fundamentalist and far-fetched positions, he will be less open to persuasion until he ends up typing some angry rant in all caps. + Show Spoiler + And his opponents will do more or less the same. Which is kind of a snapshot of the current American election process. But hey, at least Michelle Bachmann is no longer in the running. Although these guys are just as demonstrably crazy if the news reports on the debates are anything to go b It's not pointless at all, I'm genuinely curious as to the motivations and beliefs of believers because I come from a family of atheists. You can either live in ignorance of each other or ask to see why and how they believe in some things. Thanks for the preachy and bland post though. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On February 23 2012 14:01 Probulous wrote: Well that premise as a scientific theory has been debunked. For something to considered a theory it has to have internal logic and have some evidence to prove that it exists. In fact in scientific circles for something to go from a hypothesis to a theory requires a very large amount of evidence. That is why evolution is still called a theory. It does not produce the same result every time and is not 100% predictable and so cannot be called a law. So if you are trying to compare the theory of evolution to ID, ID must have a decent level of evidence. It does not. As Eris said, there is a plausible theory for people being abducted by aliens that has more evidence ("eye-witness acounts") than ID. Should that be in a science class? Sorry, just wanted to jump in with some clarification. And luckily it has nothing to do with this religious stuff. Theories don't become Laws or anything. Theories are incredibly complex and explain things. Laws don't explain anything. They just simply state how things are. For instance the Law of Conservation of Energy. It doesn't say why we can't create energy. We have no idea. We just can't. A Theory on the other hand, explains something. Atomic Theory explains why elements act the way they do, and has a great deal of complexity and interest in it. Theories have a lot more to it than Laws. We know that Evolution is true, but it will never be a Law. That's not the way it works | ||
|
Mobius_1
United Kingdom2763 Posts
On February 23 2012 14:38 forgottendreams wrote: It's not pointless at all, I'm genuinely curious as to the motivations and beliefs of believers because I come from a family of atheists. You can either live in ignorance of each other or ask to see why and how they believe in some things. Thanks for the preachy and bland post though. I apologise if that sounded preachy and bland. I mostly just wanted to draw the comparison between this debate and the Republican Debate. However I stand by my assertion of this debate's futility. I am also curious why religion can induce such fervour in its defenders but I have yet to see any discussion on this, it's all been pro-Evo making an argument, Holo attempting to pick it apart (using freedom/constitution/scientific method arguments) and then pro-Evo picking apart that response. Unfortunately I haven't yet been able to gleam Holo's motivations from any of that. My personal perception is that it is due to upbringing by firmly religious parents and educators who ingrain the idea of Creation in youth that it becomes difficult/impossible to accept another hypothesis. + Show Spoiler + That said maybe it's best to save that for another debate in another thread in another forum. | ||
|
Holophonist
United States297 Posts
On February 23 2012 14:35 Mobius_1 wrote: This conversation is really pointless, because Holophonist is set in his ways and as he takes more and more fundamentalist and far-fetched positions, he will be less open to persuasion until he ends up typing some angry rant in all caps. And his opponents will do more or less the same. Which is kind of a snapshot of the current American election process. But hey, at least Michelle Bachmann is no longer in the running. Although these guys are just as demonstrably crazy if the news reports on the debates are anything to go by. Are you referring to the Republican debate or the Evolution debate? But I think the result is pretty clear in both cases, between crazy (well, 1 quietly unelectable) nominees and fervent internet defense of a religious idea that nobody in the rest of the world teaches, America lost. How has my position changed at all? | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On February 23 2012 14:27 Sogo Otika wrote: I'm sick of everyone hopping on to the anti-religion bandwagon. It's like Christians aren't even allowed to express opinions anymore because of the liberal secular media and relativist thinking (which is crap given that morals are absolute. If you have no absolute morals, then I could go murder a baby and say that it was relatively OK based on my own perception of what is right and wrong). Given what the Bible says about the infants of the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites, Amalekites and Babylonians... what an ironic example. | ||
|
Holophonist
United States297 Posts
On February 23 2012 14:50 Mobius_1 wrote: I apologise if that sounded preachy and bland. I mostly just wanted to draw the comparison between this debate and the Republican Debate. However I stand by my assertion of this debate's futility. I am also curious why religion can induce such fervour in its defenders but I have yet to see any discussion on this, it's all been pro-Evo making an argument, Holo attempting to pick it apart (using freedom/constitution/scientific method arguments) and then pro-Evo picking apart that response. Unfortunately I haven't yet been able to gleam Holo's motivations from any of that. My personal perception is that it is due to upbringing by firmly religious parents and educators who ingrain the idea of Creation in youth that it becomes difficult/impossible to accept another hypothesis. + Show Spoiler + That said maybe it's best to save that for another debate in another thread in another forum. I don't get it... do you not understand that I'm pro-Evo? The only frustration I feel is when people don't understand what I say and try to hop into the middle to throw their misguided 2 cents in. I really don't feel any frustration for the people I've been going back and forth with. | ||
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On February 23 2012 14:27 Sogo Otika wrote: If you have no absolute morals, then I could go murder a baby and say that it was relatively OK based on my own perception of what is right and wrong). And there are people that do that. Society also feels free to lock them up, or execute them whichever is socially appropriate for them, since that is relatively ok based on their perception of right and wrong. I think you confuse not believing in moral absolutism with not having morals. A relative moral system based on things like social norms(which change over time), and biological tendencies probably brought about by evolutionary pressures such as inclusive fitness work just as well. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
 *runs off to greener pastures* | ||
|
Holophonist
United States297 Posts
On February 23 2012 14:38 forgottendreams wrote: It's not pointless at all, I'm genuinely curious as to the motivations and beliefs of believers because I come from a family of atheists. You can either live in ignorance of each other or ask to see why and how they believe in some things. Thanks for the preachy and bland post though. I'm not sure if that was an open invitation to anybody or not but real quick: The idea that allows me to believe in God is that humans are relatively moronic (and arrogant) in what we think we know. We really don't necessarily know anything about the creation of the universe and whatever the "answer" ends up being, it's going to be something we thought impossible at one point or another. I think it's ridiculous that the people who belittle me for believing in God are a lot of the same people who are becoming more and more open to some off the wall (though probably true!) theories about the univers, including ones involved alternate dimensions/realities. So we can believe in another plane of existence, as long as we don't call it heaven or hell? | ||
| ||
|
|
CranKy Ducklings
Maestros of the Game
Serral vs herO
Clem vs Reynor
[BSL 2025] Weekly
[BSL 2025] Weekly
Replay Cast
BSL Team Wars
Wardi Open
Sparkling Tuna Cup
LiuLi Cup
The PondCast
|
|
|
EPT
