Balloon guy 158 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 ah, again with the mischaracterizations as a last resort. this forum isn't church, and this particular thread was not started for the purpose of christians being able to talk amongst themselves. it was started BY a troll who's only intent is to convert non-believers by posting false information, which i don't want to happen (and he inexplicably keeps bumping it even though it's having the reverse effect of what he intends). he's fair game, and i'm only re-involved in it right now is because brvheart misrepresented atheist positions. you apparently haven't noticed that on the rare occasion when believers do something like start a thread debating the specifics of christian theology or whatever i don't typically get in the way. i woudln't call you a troll, and i'm not one either.I didn't call you a troll, I said you were trolling.you can pretend you are just an innocent bystander who gets drawn into these debates, but it is your decision to scan the religion section to find things to 'correct'.You feel comfortable saying that the OP is using false information, but you are wrong, the information is correct. Just because don't agree, doesn't mean it's false. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 I am, evolution is the collection of activities ranging from; random mutation of the DNA code, survival of the fittest, natural selection and adaptation to a changing environment. These combined or seperate are not compatible with morality evolving since most of them are contrary to morals, with the posible exception maybe of adaption to a changing environment, but since this is a very small motivator in the scheme of things, I don't see how it could overcome the other forces at work in evolutionary actions on living organisms.But morals are adaptive. Why do you think they are not? You've already said yourself that a society without morals crumbles and dies. Thats the very essence of natural selection. Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 I didn't call you a troll, I said you were trolling.you can pretend you are just an innocent bystander who gets drawn into these debates, but it is your decision to scan the religion section to find things to 'correct'.You feel comfortable saying that the OP is using false information, but you are wrong, the information is correct. Just because don't agree, doesn't mean it's false.sad that you have to keep resorting to attempting to shift the focus on me personally to change the subject Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 But morals are adaptive. Why do you think they are not? You've already said yourself that a society without morals crumbles and dies. Thats the very essence of natural selection.Existing morals may adapt, but the question isn't what would morals do, but where did they come from.I hold that in a world without morals, morals wouldn't evolve.I think we need to define evolution to decide if what I am saying has validity Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Existing morals may adapt, but the question isn't what would morals do, but where did they come from.I hold that in a world without morals, morals wouldn't evolve.I think we need to define evolution to decide if what I am saying has validityyou need to define what you mean by morals. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 sad that you have to keep resorting to attempting to shift the focus on me personally to change the subject And also sad that you are misdirecting and playing the injured party."Oh I was in a religion section of a forum telling some guy why Christianity was false and the message of salvation was wrong and they attacked me."If you can't stand the heat... Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 you need to define what you mean by morals.oh Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 And also sad that you are misdirecting and playing the injured party."Oh I was in a religion section of a forum telling some guy why Christianity was false and the message of salvation was wrong and they attacked me."If you can't stand the heat...lol you are the spin king. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 lol you are the spin king.They didn't call me Mr. Maytag for nothing in school Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Existing morals may adapt, but the question isn't what would morals do, but where did they come from.I hold that in a world without morals, morals wouldn't evolve.I think we need to define evolution to decide if what I am saying has validityMisunderstanding I think... "Adaptive" is evolutionary jargon for "gives a reproductive advantage". I didn't mean to say that morals adapt (although I probably think that too). I meant to say that morals aid in the success of a group of animals. That makes it something nature would select for. For you to argue that morals are counter-evolutionary, you would have to show that they are a disadvantage to their hosts. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Misunderstanding I think... "Adaptive" is evolutionary jargon for "gives a reproductive advantage". I didn't mean to say that morals adapt (although I probably think that too). I meant to say that morals aid in the success of a group of animals. That makes it something nature would select for. For you to argue that morals are counter-evolutionary, you would have to show that they are a disadvantage to their hosts.Like providing for a weak or sick member of the group?Or protecting the sanctity of a person's belongings because they are theirs?I'm sure you would agree that survival of the fittest alone is counter to morality evolution, not that I am saying that that is entirely evolution. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Like providing for a weak or sick member of the group?Or protecting the sanctity of a person's belongings because they are theirs?I'm sure you would agree that survival of the fittest alone is counter to morality evolution, not that I am saying that that is entirely evolution.No, I don't agree at all. Providing for the weak and sick members of a group are clearly advantageous for the group (and for the genes that they are likely to share). Evolution predicts this kind of care -- it is part of "fitness". Rules protecting property are also beneficial for social animals. Those groups without such rules will deteriorate, while those with rules like this will proliferate -- natural selection. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 No, I don't agree at all. Providing for the weak and sick members of a group are clearly advantageous for the group (and for the genes that they are likely to share). Evolution predicts this kind of care -- it is part of "fitness". Rules protecting property are also beneficial for social animals. Those groups without such rules will deteriorate, while those with rules like this will proliferate -- natural selection.Then I'm sure you will agree that you are wrong. Link to post Share on other sites
xfrodobagginsx 0 Posted August 2, 2009 Author Share Posted August 2, 2009 Please take the time to read this first post and pray that prayer to God at the bottom of it if you haven't yet. Link to post Share on other sites
Spademan 94 Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 Please take the time to read this first post and pray that prayer to God at the bottom of it if you haven't yet.Fuck you, you ignorant ass douche bag. Fuck you and the invisible horse you rode in on. Link to post Share on other sites
xfrodobagginsx 0 Posted October 3, 2009 Author Share Posted October 3, 2009 THIS VIDEO WILL EXPLAIN HOW THE NEW TESTIMENT OF THE BIBLE WAS CANONIZED (CAME TO BE):WHOLE VIDEO:http://www.tangle.com/view_video?vie...fda7c348271151 Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 THIS VIDEO WILL EXPLAIN HOW THE NEW TESTIMENT OF THE BIBLE WAS CANONIZED (CAME TO BE):WHOLE VIDEO:http://www.tangle.com/view_video?vie...fda7c348271151 Can't watch the video because the hotel we are at has a slowish interweb connection. So what if it's free and I can access it from my balcony looking over the ocen in Maui with a Padron 7000 fired up and a full belly from an all-you-can-eat fish and chips dinner at Moose McGuillycuddys in Lahaina tonight. So I will watch this after I return home in 8 days.Many interested because I jus finished readin a book about how the English translation came into being and the men who gave their lives to allow the 'peasant and the plowman' to have access to God's Word. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 I can't watch it either because it comes up as "Invalid Video". I guess it evaluated itself for me. Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Can't watch the video because the hotel we are at has a slowish interweb connection. So what if it's free and I can access it from my balcony looking over the ocen in Maui with a Padron 7000 fired up and a full belly from an all-you-can-eat fish and chips dinner at Moose McGuillycuddys in Lahaina tonight.Dude, come on...no more posting while you're in Hawaii. YOU'RE WASTING PRECIOUS MINUTES OF VACATION TIME. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted October 3, 2009 Share Posted October 3, 2009 Dude, come on...no more posting while you're in Hawaii. YOU'RE WASTING PRECIOUS MINUTES OF VACATION TIME.Good point. Link to post Share on other sites
xfrodobagginsx 0 Posted October 29, 2009 Author Share Posted October 29, 2009 Link to post Share on other sites
xfrodobagginsx 0 Posted December 3, 2009 Author Share Posted December 3, 2009 God loves you. Link to post Share on other sites
LadyGrey 6 Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 Hi Frodo Baggins, I have a relgious dilemma I hoped you could answer me.I am a lesbean. I know the bible says some things against being gay, but as a lesbean can I still get to heaven? If so, how and what must I do?Thank you for your timely respond,Wilhelmina Link to post Share on other sites
Sal Paradise 57 Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 Hi Frodo Baggins, I have a relgious dilemma I hoped you could answer me.I am a lesbean. I know the bible says some things against being gay, but as a lesbean can I still get to heaven? If so, how and what must I do?Thank you for your timely respond,WilhelminaWilhelmina, I'm sure our fair frodo would love to help you in your quest, but I fear that he may be too busy throughout the rest of the internet to come back here and help you with your dilemma. however, I feel that if he were here, his advice would be to please take the time to read this first post and pray that prayer to God at the bottom of it if you haven't yet. I'd imagine that would be a start. Link to post Share on other sites
Mercury69 3 Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 Hi Frodo Baggins, I have a relgious dilemma I hoped you could answer me.I am a lesbean. I know the bible says some things against being gay, but as a lesbean can I still get to heaven? If so, how and what must I do?Thank you for your timely respond,WilhelminaRugmunchers should know how to spell their own deviant lifestyle, LESBIAN!;-) Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now