Jump to content

Question For Religious People


Recommended Posts

LOL.... OK you win.I now believe the same way you do. Who could possibly argue with those intelligent words so eloquently spoken amongst the name calling and adjectives that have to bypass the filter.Bravo ! Your debate team must be proud.Baaaaa Baaaaaa

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 224
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

LOL.... OK you win.I now believe the same way you do. Who could possibly argue with those intelligent words so eloquently spoken amongst the name calling and adjectives that have to bypass the filter.Bravo ! Your debate team must be proud.Baaaaa Baaaaaa
Someone else might let you pretend that your stunned inability to make a cogent response stems from my occasional curse word.I on the other hand recognize your complete lack of logical or rhetorical ability, and point out your pathetic red herring for what it is.I could go back and edit out every curse word and ad hominem and you'd still have no valid or valuable reply.I'm starting to feel like Ali standing in the ring pummeling on Gilbert Grape though, so I'll retire from the discussion as well if you want.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone else might let you pretend that your stunned inability to make a cogent response stems from my occasional curse word.I on the other hand recognize your complete lack of logical or rhetorical ability, and point out your pathetic red herring for what it is.I could go back and edit out every curse word and ad hominem and you'd still have no valid or valuable reply.I'm starting to feel like Ali standing in the ring pummeling on Gilbert Grape though, so I'll retire from the discussion as well if you want.
No no... you absolutely win. Congrats on disproving a 2,000 year old religion, or all religions for that matter, with your words.Good job.
Link to post
Share on other sites
No no... you absolutely win. Congrats on disproving a 2,000 year old religion, or all religions for that matter, with your words.Good job.
Adorable.You don't even understand that this wasn't about disproving religion, was simply a matter of showing that none of your tripe is based on evidence, examination, logic or any sort of critical thinking, and should thus be seen for the lazy, culturally adopted babble that it is. So you come back with red herring, non-sequitur sarcasm couched in poorly constructed ramblings.I feel like pinching your cheeks you're so cute.Anyhow, I digress. My favorite Kerouac book is Timequake. Yours?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Adorable.You don't even understand that this wasn't about disproving religion, was simply a matter of showing that none of your tripe is based on evidence, examination, logic or any sort of critical thinking, and should thus be seen for the lazy, culturally adopted babble that it is. So you come back with red herring, non-sequitur sarcasm couched in poorly constructed ramblings.I feel like pinching your cheeks you're so cute.Anyhow, I digress. My favorite Kerouac book is Timequake. Yours?
Wow... I'm pretty sure I already accepted that my beliefs can not be proven nor is it based on any evidence.If I go too fast let me know.Let me go back through all the evidence you have posted to validate your counter claims I made that a higher power is responsible for all that is.....looking....still looking......Hmmm.. can you point me to anything you've offered for the other side other than "Na na na boo boo... you're wrong"Just ONE piece of evidence that could prove which came first...the chicken or the egg.Crow...don't help him either.... let's let him try out his new Google toolbar.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do you keep referring to Kurt Vonnegut Jr. as Jack Kerouac? It's weird.
I was waiting for someone to mention that. People sometimes get mad when it comes to Vonnegut.I also call Will Smith Chris Rock every time. Every single time.One of these days I'm not going to be able to separate the two for real, then I'm in trouble.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow... I'm pretty sure I already accepted that my beliefs can not be proven nor is it based on any evidence.If I go too fast let me know.Let me go back through all the evidence you have posted to validate your counter claims I made that a higher power is responsible for all that is.....looking....still looking......Hmmm.. can you point me to anything you've offered for the other side other than "Na na na boo boo... you're wrong"Just ONE piece of evidence that could prove which came first...the chicken or the egg.Crow...don't help him either.... let's let him try out his new Google toolbar.
You are a raging idiot...Your posts are providing all of the evidence necessary to support the points I have made, which, further supporting one of my claims, you have missed altogether.
Link to post
Share on other sites
But two different words for the same thing? Not without changing the meanings of one or the other beyond recognition.
god: creator of the universe. he createst the fruit of the vine.evolution: creator of the universe. he createst the fruit of the vine.yes, most understand evolution as only a biological process. but wouldn't a being that was only consciousness and not biology understand evolution beyond biology? wouldn't she see star formation, planet formation, etc. as all part of something we call "evolution"? wouldn't the reverse engineering of all that lead back to the big bang?
Yes, so you have changed the meaning of 'evolution' beyond recognition. In crow's words
evolution is strictly a theory of how living organisms speciate. it says nothing at all about the origins of the universe.
If you expand any concept so widely that it includes everything, it will always be identical to every other concept which you have expanded to include everything.
Link to post
Share on other sites
how do you define "god" to yourself?
I guess the God of the Bible.I don't know that I can wirte anything that could explain God to someone that has never had a concept of God. Which is why I think God put His definition in all of us. we all know what we mean when we say God.Unless we are trying to force God into a box so we can show that He's not God that is.But the whole belief in evolution is moot in the sense that a person's salvation is completely seperate from your belief in where the world came from. You are not expected to pass a test on what is or isn't true, only confirm that you've accepted Christ's sacrifice to pay for your sins, in order to gain eternal salvation.There will be plenty of time for argueing the inconsequential things in heaven.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess the God of the Bible.I don't know that I can wirte anything that could explain God to someone that has never had a concept of God. Which is why I think God put His definition in all of us. we all know what we mean when we say God.Unless we are trying to force God into a box so we can show that He's not God that is.But the whole belief in evolution is moot in the sense that a person's salvation is completely seperate from your belief in where the world came from. You are not expected to pass a test on what is or isn't true, only confirm that you've accepted Christ's sacrifice to pay for your sins, in order to gain eternal salvation.There will be plenty of time for argueing the inconsequential things in heaven.
Very well put
Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess the God of the Bible.I don't know that I can wirte anything that could explain God to someone that has never had a concept of God. Which is why I think God put His definition in all of us. we all know what we mean when we say God.Unless we are trying to force God into a box so we can show that He's not God that is.But the whole belief in evolution is moot in the sense that a person's salvation is completely seperate from your belief in where the world came from. You are not expected to pass a test on what is or isn't true, only confirm that you've accepted Christ's sacrifice to pay for your sins, in order to gain eternal salvation.There will be plenty of time for argueing the inconsequential things in heaven.
you are the cult-speak king. impressive stuff.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, so you have changed the meaning of 'evolution' beyond recognition. In crow's wordsIf you expand any concept so widely that it includes everything, it will always be identical to every other concept which you have expanded to include everything.
hmmm. i see your point. i suppose that, like all language and the actual construction of verbal communication, there will never be what i would call a "true" agreement. your understanding of any word will always stray from my understanding of that same word.
evolution is strictly a theory of how living organisms speciate. it says nothing at all about the origins of the universe.
you mean YOUR theory of evolution? Is it possible that someone else could perceive it from a larger scope?
the only "biological purpose" to evolution is adaptation for survival in a particular environment, which is a mechanistic intelligence-free process.in other words not purpose at all in the sense you're apparently searching for.
wouldn't celestial bodies also need to survive? could you consider the asteroid belt as an "extinct planet" or one that was not adapted for survival in his environment?couldn't things like evolution, perception, the arrow of time moving forward, the dimensions, the "strings", etc. be designed intelligently by a force outside the universe that we are not able to perceive? i don't know, but i think that in all likelyhood someone has a sense of humor."the good news is that our lives have purpose; the bad news is that their purpose is to help some remote hacker estimate pi to nine jillion decimal places."-Edward Fredkin
Link to post
Share on other sites
you mean YOUR theory of evolution? Is it possible that someone else could perceive it from a larger scope?
no. a larger scope would be a different theory. you'd have to call it something else and be a lot more specific aboutwhat you're actually postulating.
wouldn't celestial bodies also need to survive?
no
could you consider the asteroid belt as an "extinct planet" or one that was not adapted for survival in his environment?
no and no. and drugs are bad.
couldn't things like evolution, perception, the arrow of time moving forward, the dimensions, the "strings", etc. be designed intelligently by a force outside the universe that we are not able to perceive?
possibly, but the objective evidence we currently have and occam's razor suggest otherwise. in other words there is zero evidence that an intelligent force beyond our perception is necessary for things to be as they are, and invoking one without evidence just adds unnecessary complexity.
Link to post
Share on other sites
no. a larger scope would be a different theory. you'd have to call it something else and be a lot more specific aboutwhat you're actually postulating.
is it possible that in the future we will have a much better understanding of what we currently call evolution? that as we define it and narrow it down it necessitates that we get a larger scope of it? haven't scientists always had their theories reshaped? darwin's understanding of evolution may have been less than 10% of what my understanding of evolution is. couldn't kids in 80 years will have 100x the understanding of it that i do?do you think it makes sense to call evolution "increasing levels of order and complexity"? where does evolution (only as biology) begin? does it start w/ protiens, replicating DNA, bacteria, or something else? who should decide where evolution begins?
and drugs are bad.
i don't feel that i'm postulating these concepts and models all from my head.i've been reading books that have opened my thinking to other perceptions. i'm currently trying to find out how you guys answer these questions. saying that i'm on drugs seems to me a juvenile way to debate a linguistics game.
possibly, but the objective evidence we currently have and occam's razor suggest otherwise. in other words there is zero evidence that an intelligent force beyond our perception is necessary for things to be as they are, and invoking one without evidence just adds unnecessary complexity.
if one person says "the reason i am here is evolution" and another person says "the reason i am here is god" don't they both have the same search? though they may approach it differently it seems like they are both trying to figure out their history and their universe.do you feel it limits ones pursuit of the universe if they are in any way affected by the dogma of religion? why do you have a bad taste in your mouth from the "god" word? please explain.
Link to post
Share on other sites
i believe in god but i am in no way a spiritual person
Too late. Heh.The problem is in defining this "god"When you define this free range god of yours, it will either be a giant, limited alien from outer space that may be possible in theory, that you have no evidence for and just like to think is out there for whatever reason - or a more garden variety being of logical impossibilities that couldn't exist even if the absurd stories behind its myth resembled anything plausible. How do you define your particular man in the sky?
Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you define your particular man in the sky?
i don't think there's any man in the sky. if anything it's a woman. but anyway, a bird doesn't know what a bird is doing. it's just being a bird. if Bird A is being a "good" bird he is doing whatever is best for the species as best he knows how (competition for food or for sex or whatver). Bird A's ancestors increased the chances that Bird A would get to live by being "good" birds. maybe god is what being a good bird is. the force that drives what many of us call evolution, or (as only can i see it) the force that makes me want to be a "good" man.
Link to post
Share on other sites
But the whole belief in evolution is moot in the sense that a person's salvation is completely seperate from your belief in where the world came from. You are not expected to pass a test on what is or isn't true, only confirm that you've accepted Christ's sacrifice to pay for your sins, in order to gain eternal salvation.
Xtian-1.jpg
Link to post
Share on other sites
is it possible that "evolution" and "god" are just two different names for the same thing?please show work.
Yes. I postulated that long ago and was berated mercilessly by the powers that be in this forum as it were, my theory as it were that God could be nothing more than just energy, life force if you will, that thing that goes away when the line goes straight and the sound goes beeeeeeeep, and no one seems to know how to replace once it vanishes for good. Now, having said that, I feel kind of silly saying "nothing more than" being that it's the most powerful force like,ever, and while destructible completely unduplicitable(I don't think that's a word but **** it) except by the creation of another host.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Threatened. Heh. That's cute.I deal with religious freaks far more "threatening" than you for a living. Literally. So please.If you want to carry on an adult conversation, then learn the rules of logic, like an educated adult should.If you make unsupported, logically inconsistent claims like a child, then you will be spoken to like a child.Why in the world would someone put in the effort (eyes crow) necessary to speak to you in a rational way when you have cloistered yourself in this veil of ignorance? The main brunt of your argument, the main pillar of your position is admittedly that ignorance is ok with you. "I don't know and can never know, therefore I believe in [arbitrary belief system]." By virtue of this "faith" reasonable discourse has precisely zero effect on you. If whatever belief system you've latched yourself on to said the sky was green, I could literally take you outside and show you the fucking sky and your response would be, "Well, it's probably an illusion, because The Honorable Right Glorious Lord Allah Jehovah Thor clearly states the sky is green. I don't know why it appears to be blue when I fucking look at it with my eyeballs, it's a god-damned mystery." So, let's clear this up, my response isn't for you directly, I don't have time to clear away your delusions and undo years of your self-stupidity here on the board. My responses to you are so that people on the fence can clearly see how pathetic your arguments and beliefs are, and people who are already clear on that fact can get a chuckle while they nod their head.
Refreshing in it's unabashed assholery. How you been big fella?
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...