Ye Religion Thread

[quadz]

after Noah and the great flood, since there was only one male and one female for each "kind" of animal... exactly what processes must have have taken place for so much diversity to exist in the animal kingdom today?

Indeed, there are about 350,000 different species of beetle. ^[1]

So even if we ignore the Noah/flood story entirely, one fact remains abundantly clear: God must realllllllly love beetles.

[DaHanG]

God reallly loves all life. He made so many speecies and sub species because he's just that powrful and creative. His wise mind actively creates each specie. How else can an eye or a wing just happen mabey by accident? I don't have enough faith to take such a position, and it's pretty clear creationalism is the more accurate theory. We don't understand why he runes the lives of so many species with naturel disasters, but that's why he's God. He is out of the realm of our
udnerstanding. Most likely, 99.9% of
 all life is exstinct because he wanted them to have a better afterlife, as long as they accepted Jesus as their lord and savior. Unfortunately, those who embraceded Satin won't be so fortunate.

[metaL]

lmao. i was patiently waiting a mockery of the grammatical catastrophe i've been witnessing here the past few days

[quadz]

God reallly loves all life. He made so many speecies and sub species because he's just that powrful and creative. His wise mind actively creates each specie. How else can an eye or a wing just happen mabey by accident? I don't have enough faith to take such a position, and it's pretty clear creationalism is the more accurate theory. We don't understand why he runes the lives of so many species with naturel disasters, but that's why he's God. He is out of the realm of our
udnerstanding. Most likely, 99.9% of
 all life is exstinct because he wanted them to have a better afterlife, as long as they accepted Jesus as their lord and savior. Unfortunately, those who embraceded Satin won't be so fortunate.

Good point.  We know there is strong evidence for this theory because it is believed by maybe a billion people!  So how can it not receive equal time in science class, alongside other "THEORIES" like evolution.

Teach the controversy!

[Whirlingdervish]

at one point almost all humans on earth were convinced that the world was flat and had edges.
likewise we all thought the earth was the center of the universe for a long time, and that everything orbitted us.

if we're going to teach "creationism" in science classes it should be taught just like the flat earth theory or the theory that the earth is the center of the universe:

as an example of how theories change and how many are discarded as people discover more about how the universe works and realize the answers they thought they have don't fit the circumstances they are seeing.

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

lmao. i was patiently waiting a mockery of the grammatical catastrophe i've been witnessing here the past few days

As was I. 

[deft]

Praise him.   








,

deft

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

Concerning the debate, i really enjoyed it alot. I have my own opinions of how it went for both side and my own opinion on who did better in certain parts of it. And just for the record, my opinion was absolutly not one sided (unlike everyone else's here). IMO, I posted the link to that debate just out of curiosity to see just how predictable and one sided the replies from ya'll would actually be.
Hehe, it's funny really, how predictable, biased, and one sided most that post here can be despite any and everything. Ya'll most certainly did not disapoint me. I guess you could say it was a "theory" really (haha), and through scientific "study and observation" my "theory" (we'll call it DS's Theory of "Biased Sarcasm") was provin to be 100% completely accurate and true. Thus becoming Law And so now we have DS's Law of "Biased Sarcasm".

Now for those who dought this Law or who think there is no proof of said Law, I present the following.

Al Sharpton looked dumb the whole time :<

You know when I see replies like the one above it really makes me sit back and smile.

What an outstading observation !!!!! 
Although I have to wounder what program you used to clean up that youtube video in order to make such a superiour observation as that was. Because frainkly my video was of such poor quality that I could barely even make out who they were, let alone see any facial expressions. I mean really, i'm curious, did you see his head bobbling alot or something ???

And even though the replies listed below doesn't have anything to do with the debate, it still helps prove DS's Law of "Biased Sarcasm". So I say cheers to all who have so graciously helped me in my research.

God reallly loves all life. He made so many speecies and sub species because he's just that powrful and creative. His wise mind actively creates each specie. How else can an eye or a wing just happen mabey by accident? I don't have enough faith to take such a position, and it's pretty clear creationalism is the more accurate theory. We don't understand why he runes the lives of so many species with naturel disasters, but that's why he's God. He is out of the realm of our
udnerstanding. Most likely, 99.9% of
 all life is exstinct because he wanted them to have a better afterlife, as long as they accepted Jesus as their lord and savior. Unfortunately, those who embraceded Satin won't be so fortunate.

God reallly loves all life. He made so many speecies and sub species because he's just that powrful and creative. His wise mind actively creates each specie. How else can an eye or a wing just happen mabey by accident? I don't have enough faith to take such a position, and it's pretty clear creationalism is the more accurate theory. We don't understand why he runes the lives of so many species with naturel disasters, but that's why he's God. He is out of the realm of our
udnerstanding. Most likely, 99.9% of
 all life is exstinct because he wanted them to have a better afterlife, as long as they accepted Jesus as their lord and savior. Unfortunately, those who embraceded Satin won't be so fortunate.

Good point.  We know there is strong evidence for this theory because it is believed by maybe a billion people!  So how can it not receive equal time in science class, alongside other "THEORIES" like evolution.

Teach the controversy!

Praise him.








,

deft

PS. This is exactly why i've pretty much quit posting in this thread and why I would never attempt at a debate concerning gay marriage.
1. The Biased Sarcasm.
2.  Not everyone here but most (and I have to agree with jagermonsta to a small degree on this) seem to want to jump on the Quadz and Dahang's bandwaggon (even if they don't agree with or believe what they say) just to try to be cool or something and gang up on who soever opposses Quadz position on any givin matter.
3. Number 2 is also the reason alot of religious supporters aren't very likely to post here, they don't want to be the one on the bottom of the Dog Pile as they've seen happen to others at various times.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bitter. Just close observation over a slight period of time.
GG and have fun.

[quadz]

Concerning the debate, i really enjoyed it alot. I have my own opinions of how it went for both side and my own opinion on who did better in certain parts of it. And just for the record, my opinion was absolutly not one sided (unlike everyone else's here). IMO, I posted the link to that debate just out of curiosity to see just how predictable and one sided the replies from ya'll would actually be.

Um.  I've been having fun as well. 

Indeed, I've been looking forward to putting together a post citing evidence of a possible neurological basis for morality.  (V.S. Ramachandran and Sam Harris)

But I'm perplexed by the following claim: "my opinion was absolutly not one sided (unlike everyone else's here)."

I'm not sure what your exact point was here?  Personally I both enjoy having my ideas challenged, and also enjoy attempting to defend my position with logic and rational argument based on evidence.

I happen to agree with Edward Damer's 12 principles of rational debate:
http://www.limbicnutrition.com/blog/resources/a-code-of-conduct-for-effective-rational-discussion/

But notice the condemnation being "one-sided" does not appear in these principles.

I'd be interested to understand more about what you mean by your praise of "absolutely not one sided" opinion.  For example: If I said, "I recognize the evidence for evolution by natural selection, but I ALSO believe Zeus and Poseidon helped guide evolution regardless of any supporting evidence" -- do I then get credit for being "absolutely not one sided" ?

Just wondering what you mean...


Regards,

quadz

[quadz]

PS. This is exactly why i've pretty much quit posting in this thread and why I would never attempt at a debate concerning gay marriage.
1. The Biased Sarcasm.
2.  Not everyone here but most (and I have to agree with jagermonsta to a small degree on this) seem to want to jump on the Quadz and Dahang's bandwaggon (even if they don't agree with or believe what they say) just to try to be cool or something and gang up on who soever opposses Quadz position on any givin matter.

I had replied to your post before the P.S. was added...

What I'm wondering is, does it necessarily matter if anyone "jumps on the bandwagon" ?  Myself, I don't feel it's too hard (usually) to separate the core ideas being put forth by the opposition, from the rest of the noise.  My ideal is to meet signal with signal, and noise with indifference.  A few pages ago, for example, I was trolled by ni-ux.  At first, I thought we might be about to engage in a real discussion of differing ideas, and so I tried to generate a lot of signal in my responses.  When I realized he was trolling, I obviously ceased to put effort into further responses.

But my point is, just because I got trolled by one person, doesn't mean I stop searching for people who actually have ideas to debate.

So, I guess my question is, why should you give credence to any posts you consider to be just noise?  Why not move on, and just lock on to the signal?


Regards,

quadz

[deft]

This forum isn't really much of a debate, there are two types of people who post here: The informed and the misinformed - "DeathStalker" being the latter.

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

Concerning the debate, i really enjoyed it alot. I have my own opinions of how it went for both side and my own opinion on who did better in certain parts of it. And just for the record, my opinion was absolutly not one sided (unlike everyone else's here). IMO, I posted the link to that debate just out of curiosity to see just how predictable and one sided the replies from ya'll would actually be.

Um. I've been having fun as well.

Ahh my apologies Quadz, I was refering to the Sharpton/Hitchens debate not ours.

But I'm perplexed by the following claim: "my opinion was absolutly not one sided (unlike everyone else's here)."

I'm not sure what your exact point was here? Personally I both enjoy having my ideas challenged, and also enjoy attempting to defend my position with logic and rational argument based on evidence.

I happen to agree with Edward Damer's 12 principles of rational debate:
http://www.limbicnutrition.com/blog/resources/a-code-of-conduct-for-effective-rational-discussion/

But notice the condemnation being "one-sided" does not appear in these principles.

I'd be interested to understand more about what you mean by your praise of "absolutely not one sided" opinion. For example: If I said, "I recognize the evidence for evolution by natural selection, but I ALSO believe Zeus and Poseidon helped guide evolution regardless of any supporting evidence" -- do I then get credit for being "absolutely not one sided" ?

Just wondering what you mean...


Regards,

quadz

No, that would be a direct lie. You don't believe and probably and hopefully you never would believe that Zeus and Poseidon helped guide evolution. But we'll save that debate for another time LOL.

But FYI, one example of the one-sidedness I was refering to was this.

It's a full hour and a half long so get ready for the long haul, but i can certainly say it is well worth the time spent to watch it.

I went ahead and watched it again just now. 

Unfortunately, I don't think Sharpton was very much a part of the debate.

He kept claiming that he didn't want to defend religion or scripture in any way, instead insisting that he was only there to argue against the title of Hitchens' book, "God Is Not Great".

He even went as far as to try to take Hitchens to task for writing a book entitled God Is Not Great, wherein the contents of the book were primarily focused on religious notions of god.  Sharpton hammered this point over and over, to the extent that one began to wonder if he were genuinely confused, or engaging in pure sophistry. 

Sharpton's hang-ups about the title of Hitchens' book were inane for several reasons.  First of all, the title "God Is Not Great", it should have been obvious, does indeed direct part of its meaning at a religious concept of god.  After all, the title is a play on Allāhu Akbar ("God is great").  Second, Sharpton conveniently ignores the subtitle of the book, the full title being: God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.  So it was fairly inane for Sharpton to repeatedly blather on about how Hitchens' book was misnamed because it talks about a religious concept of god.

So I wish Sharpton would have just engaged in the debate a bit more.

But it was indeed interesting the way Sharpton refused to defend scripture.

Sharpton's main ideas seemed to boil down to:

  - I have had personal experiences that have convinced me of the existence of God
  - My personal experiences supercede scripture, which are simply some other person's attempt to interpret their own experiences
  - I believe God created the universe and invested it with divine order
  - Without divine supervision, morality would be an arbitrary concept; "everything" would become moral

In his own words:

Sharpton: Many people, in our own lives, have had experiences
that make me believe that there is a God, and make me believe
that by seeking God, and seeking the guidance of a supreme
being--is real to me.  I'm not going by Moses, I'm not going
by Peter, I'm not going by the man that you said was allegedly
Jesus of Nazareth.  I'm talking about in people's personal
experiences, with their interaction, through their own faith
in God, can say that.  That you, or no one else can tell me,
that did not exist.  If I was only sitting up here arguing
with you over scriptures, then you would have points that I would
consider valid to this discussion.  But I'm not here to defend
scriptures.  I didn't write those scriptures.  I lived *my* life.
And in my life, the existence of God has been confirmed to *me*,
in my own personal dealings.  And my own faith being vindicated
and validated, that had absolutely nothing to do with scriptures,
whether they were right or wrong.
 
And again, I pose the question: When you raise the issue of
_morality_, if there is no supervisory being, then what do we
base morality on?  Is it based on who has the might at any given
time?  Who's in power?  What is morality based on?  If there _is_
no order to the universe (and therefore some being--some force
that ordered it) then who determines what is right and wrong?
What is moral and immoral?  You use very religious terms
interchangeably while you attack the idea of a god.  There is
nothing immoral, if there's nothing 'in charge'.  Because,
everything becomes moral, if in fact these species as we are
is all there is.

Sharpton's argument completely collapses on itself in the above, and I wish Hitchens had called him more directly on it.

I was going to elaborate, but I see numerous bloggers made the same observation, so I'll just quote:

http://nogodzone.blogspot.com/2007/05/doing-sharpton-shuffle.html

The issue for Rev. Al is then where does this morality get revealed to man. If there is no right or wrong without a god how do we know what this deity says is right and wrong? Outside of religious scriptures what other source do we have?

Sharpton might argue that it is the heart of each man where right and wrong is revealed. But isn’t that just another version of the scriptural problem of each man “doing what was right in his own heart”? Thus we still have no definable right or wrong merely the opinions of billions of people. If god is the only source of morality then he must reveal that morality somehow.

If Sharpton dismisses scripture for the evil deeds then how can he appeal to it for the “good” morality? And if we don’t use a scripture then what is the source for this revelation?

Any other source doesn’t prove a deity. In the hearts of men for morality is precisely what we would expect in a natural world without a deity. If the source is found in nature the answer is still what you would expect in a godless world. What source exists which is inherently divine and not natural?

Regards,

You went to great lengths to pick out and critize everything you could find that Sharpton did wrong and how he handled the debate and all things you disagree with in what he said. But what about his positives? I see no attempt to mention any positives in areas of the debate or the way he handled certain questions or aspects of the debate. And then there's Hitchens, I couldn't help but notice that their wasn't any critisism from your part on the way he handled the debate or in anything he said. But believe me, both had their moments when they was either being owned by the other or just completely dropping the ball entirally.

[deft]

Like agreeing with the opposite side on some points makes anything said on your side valid.  I didn't find anything Al Sharpton said in defense of religion worthwhile, please quote something and change my mind.  Reminds me of those people who go "I used to be an atheist, but now I'm a Christian" like it validates it.

[quadz]

Um. I've been having fun as well.

Ahh my opalogies Quadz, I was refering to the Sharpton/Hitchens debate noit ours.

Oh.  (I had wondered if that's what you meant, at one point, but I couldn't seem to make it fit. Sorry...)

I'd be interested to understand more about what you mean by your praise of "absolutely not one sided" opinion. For example: If I said, "I recognize the evidence for evolution by natural selection, but I ALSO believe Zeus and Poseidon helped guide evolution regardless of any supporting evidence" -- do I then get credit for being "absolutely not one sided" ?

No, that would be a direct lie. You don't believe and probably and hopefully you never would believe that Zeus and Poseidon helped guide evolution. But we'll save that debate for another time LOL.

I didn't mean to imply I was making that claim disingenuously.  Sam Harris used to use Poseidon in similar examples, and found himself the recipient of multiple emails from people who--in this day--still believe in Poseidon.

So, I didn't mean to hypothesize myself lying about it.  But rather, I meant: What if I were a person who really believed in Poseidon, today, as some claim to?  Am I suddenly less one-sided?

But FYI, one example of the one-sidedness I was refering to was this.

[...]

You went to great lengths to pick out and critize everything you could find that Sharpton did wrong and how he handled the debate and all things you disagree with in what he said. But what about his positives? I see no attempt to mention any positives in areas of the debate or the way he handled certain questions or aspects of the debate.

I thought I went out of my way to be kind, and factual-to-a-fault about Sharpton's performance.  I didn't just make claims, I explained my reasoning in detail, and summaraized, and backed that up with Sharpton's own words.

And then there's Hitchens, I couldn't help but notice that their wasn't any critisism from your part on the way he handled the debate or in anything he said.

I did object to Hitchens' performance.  I said that I wished Hitchens had more directly called Sharpton on the flaws in Sharpton's argument.

Anyway: I attempted make a case for my disagreement with Sharpton on specific ideas.  If you yourself disagreed with Hitchens on specific ideas, I'm interested to know those details.


Regards,

quadz

[[BTF]DeathStalker]

PS. This is exactly why i've pretty much quit posting in this thread and why I would never attempt at a debate concerning gay marriage.
1. The Biased Sarcasm.
2.  Not everyone here but most (and I have to agree with jagermonsta to a small degree on this) seem to want to jump on the Quadz and Dahang's bandwaggon (even if they don't agree with or believe what they say) just to try to be cool or something and gang up on who soever opposses Quadz position on any givin matter.

I had replied to your post before the P.S. was added...

What I'm wondering is, does it necessarily matter if anyone "jumps on the bandwagon" ? Myself, I don't feel it's too hard (usually) to separate the core ideas being put forth by the opposition, from the rest of the noise. My ideal is to meet signal with signal, and noise with indifference. A few pages ago, for example, I was trolled by ni-ux. At first, I thought we might be about to engage in a real discussion of differing ideas, and so I tried to generate a lot of signal in my responses. When I realized he was trolling, I obviously ceased to put effort into further responses.

But my point is, just because I got trolled by one person, doesn't mean I stop searching for people who actually have ideas to debate.

So, I guess my question is, why should you give credence to any posts you consider to be just noise? Why not move on, and just lock on to the signal?


Regards,

quadz

Agreed, It shouldn't matter to me if anyone jumps on the bandwagon, and your right, I should just simply ignore the static and just tune into the signal better, but, notice two of the quotes in my Biased Sarcasm post was from you and Dahang your selves.

As far as the other noise though, I couldn't help but notice that just as I was reading and thinking of a reply to this, guess who pops in with Static ? That funny looking dude with no shirt that wears a gay looking yellow crown that randomly copies and pastes quotes from someone somewhere without any form of credit of the author of said copied matterial or any other additional text letting the reading know it was just a simple copy paste, leading the reading to believe that it was his own belief, only to actually type something for himself later that is completely the opposite of what the reader was originally lead to believe in the first place. Thus completely confusing the reader entirally. LOL, I guess it really is true, speek of an idiot, I - I - I mean the devil and he really does appears.