Posted by MutantMandias There ya go! Now you're using good logic and real intelligent thinking stuff.

There ya go! Another smart aleck response designed to belittle your opponent by putting yourself on a pedestal in your own mind.

Now let’s take into consideration Adam lived 930yr (didn’t say they’d only live till 300, did I). And, didn’t I mention something about the atmospheric conditions being different. Nope, just attack one detail out of context at a time.

U guys are just here to hog the thread and intimidate those that are curious and attack those that are sincere, I understand that. Oh well, the US is a federal republic which created a Bill of Rights that grants your right to be rude.

Posted by NotLost There ya go! Another smart aleck response designed to belittle your opponent by putting yourself on a pedestal in your own mind. Now let’s take into consideration Adam lived 930yr (didn’t say they’d only live till 300, did I). And, didn’t I mention something about the atmospheric conditions being different. Nope, just attack one detail out of context at a time. U guys are just here to hog the thread and intimidate those that are curious and attack those that are sincere, I understand that. Oh well, the US is a federal republic which created a Bill of Rights that grants your right to be rude.

Let me warn you in advance: don't let the flaming you're going to get here discourage you from UER. We're actually all pretty nice.

In one of your statements above, you say exactly what Tek and I tend to latch onto: "Adam lived 930 years." Not true. The Bible says he lived 930 years. That doesn't mean he did. Claiming something is true without any evidence (or with very slim evidence) takes you down a road you really don't want to go down.

Most religious traditions have apocalyptic myths. So far, none of them has come to pass, despite hundreds of predictions of our imminent demise. There is nothing at all wrong with discussing these various myths, but if you say, for example, that the world will end in Dec. 2012 because the Mayans say so, you will get justly taken to task. Provide evidence, and you will be taken seriously.

Tekriter will rip you a new one if you make assertions without evidence. He can be vicious, but his knowledge of the Bible is unparalleled here.

Ofcourse knowing the Bible and understanding it are 2 totally different things.

Posted by NotLost If I could be serious, only concern intended, why do you hate the idea of god so much? (it kinda shows in your personal text and signature.)

Nothing gets past you, my good man. I'm not sure it's possible to hate something that there is not a shred of evidence to support it's existence.

I am strongly opposed to unreason where ever it is found. Christianity, Islam, the way the US tried to sell the invasion of Iraq to the rest of the world. I have also seen the human cost of religious beliefs in a number of places around the world, and I am a student of history.

It seems to me you need both an encyclopedic ignorance of history and head full of wishful thinking to not be offended by the concept of god(s).

Alas, there is so much to reply to, but my eloquence escapes me. Here is some funny stuff to think about:


And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence - Bertrand Russel

George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd. Unknown

You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe. - Carl Sagan

I would defend the liberty of consenting adult creationists to practice whatever intellectual perversions they like in the privacy of their own homes; but it is also necessary to protect the young and innocent. Arthur C. Clarke

Posted by NotLost U guys are just here to hog the thread and intimidate those that are curious and attack those that are sincere, I understand that. Oh well, the US is a federal republic which created a Bill of Rights that grants your right to be rude.

I'm sorry, but for someone that posits that there actually was a man that lived to be over 900 years old, and accepts anything the bible says as fact, to call yourself "curious" is the height of absurdity.

This is a Canadian website, but hey, the global village rocks.

Are you aware that the freedom of religion you are so fond of includes the freedom from religion, and the right of all people to question the publicly stated beliefs of others?

Further are you aware that the Republic was created by a group of enlightenment thinkers who were, by and large, deists, atheists and agnostics, freethinkers, and some christians, specifically in response to religious state abuse?

I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. - Thomas Jefferson

The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. - Thomas Jefferson

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason - Ben Franklin

The Government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion. - John Adams


My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them. - Abraham Lincoln



Of course if by "curious" you meant that you were looking for an unchallenging forum of people who agree with your every unreasonable and unfounded belief, and do nothing but affirm those beliefs - then, my bad. Good luck with your quest.

Posted by jeepdave Ofcourse knowing the Bible and understanding it are 2 totally different things.

Let me guess, you need to believe to understand?

Do the inconsistencies or outright errors of the bible not disturb you? Does the idea that this god dude had to have a moron take dictation (and couldn't just write his word) seem odd to you?

Since jesus supposedly stalked the desert 2000 years ago, people have been killing each other in his name. The one's who don't seem to think another god wrote thier book and THAT one is true.

It seems there is more to understand than just what the poorly mistranslated and heavily redacted scriptures are trying to say. It seem we need to come to a common understanding of how believing any or all of this book affects all of us on this planet.

Funny how there is some shred of pseudo-science to the argument that dinosaurs were really just 300 year old reptiles. I've read am anti-dinosaur pamphlet or two in my day, and, among other things, Christians have claimed that dinosaurs lived until the 3rd century when Saint George slew the last Stegosaurus. How'd he get on the arc anyway?

Posted by splumer … don't let the flaming you're going to get here discourage you from UER…

I’m here for the UE – just allowed myself to get sidetracked in the private boards.
(BTW – we have a plant in Chillicothe, if I’m ever there over the weekend, maybe we can hit something together? )

Posted by splumer … The Bible says he lived 930 years. That doesn't mean he did…

No it doesn’t, but evolutionists also use presuppositions to support other points. Both sides make assertions that don’t have conclusive evidence.

Posted by splumer …religious traditions have apocalyptic myths. So far, none of them has come to pass…

I could argue that several OT prophecies (apocalyptic & non) have, but then you could argue the prophecy came after the event, considering the source I guess.
I do see the potential for two coming true in the very near future – you gotta admit, they’re pushing hard for a one world government. And I can easily imagine that soon we’ll be required to have some kind of sub-dermal ID.

Posted by tekriter …not sure it's possible to hate something that (doesn’t) existence.

If you’re going to spew vitriol slander my direction, at least read what I wrote (I’ll make enough mistakes on my own elsewhere). I asked why you hate the idea of a god. Did something happen in your youth that you blame him for (that’s what I did), or was it just Marxist brain washing in college?

Posted by tekriter You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe. - Carl Sagan

Interesting quote… it could be pointed in both directions.
For Carl’s sake, I hope we just become worm food.

Posted by earthworm …How'd he get on the arc anyway?

Do we think all or any of the animals were full grown (excluding man)?

Anyway, does anyone at least think the video was pretty cool?

I know it’s not Hollywood quality, but I’m a poor boy with cheap toys. It was for fun, and a spur of the moment project.

Good grief! Throw me a bone after the beating!

Posted by NotLost Anyway, does anyone at least think the video was pretty cool? I know it’s not Hollywood quality, but I’m a poor boy with cheap toys. It was for fun, and a spur of the moment project. Good grief! Throw me a bone after the beating!

To be honest, zombies haven't been funny... ever. None of the scenarios were even slightly possible, even the nuclear apocalypse. It could have used a Ragnarök section, or the world ending by turning into ice cream.

Posted by NotLost There ya go! Another smart aleck response designed to belittle your opponent by putting yourself on a pedestal in your own mind. Now let’s take into consideration Adam lived 930yr (didn’t say they’d only live till 300, did I). And, didn’t I mention something about the atmospheric conditions being different. Nope, just attack one detail out of context at a time. U guys are just here to hog the thread and intimidate those that are curious and attack those that are sincere, I understand that. Oh well, the US is a federal republic which created a Bill of Rights that grants your right to be rude.

No, I have no need to put myself on a pedestal. You are quite capable of digging your own ditch.

It's delightful how you are using science and logic to sustain your undeniably retarded and deranged beliefs. There is absolutely no controversy in that statement. You have a weak and sad mind. I wish you well being and happiness, but I pity you for your simple mindedness. Non of this is hateful or vengeful. There is no animosity. You are just one of the failures of humanity.

Posted by MutantMandias No, I have no need to put myself on a pedestal. You are quite capable of digging your own ditch. It's delightful how you are using science and logic to sustain your undeniably retarded and deranged beliefs. There is absolutely no controversy in that statement. You have a weak and sad mind. I wish you well being and happiness, but I pity you for your simple mindedness. Non of this is hateful or vengeful. There is no animosity. You are just one of the failures of humanity.

I'll translate this for you Notlost,

" Hi, I'm an elitist prick and cannot fathom how you still believe in the big guy in the sky. As science, which can never and has never been wrong, has told us, you are of inferior mind. My lack of belief makes me better than you and less dangerous as a human being since it means I have rational thought. Please understand, that I do not mean to offend you, I simply believe you, and others like you should be systematically removed from the human race."

Best regards,

MutantMandias.

Posted by MutantMandias ...You are just one of the failures of humanity...

And if the vile, perverse, and simply, disturbing content in your avatar, personal message and signature represents evolutionary progress, then I take delight in being a failure of humanity, thank you sir.

Excuse me while I read some exploration threads.

Remember: Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Or whatever random collection of nonsense you take to be today's unchanging message of God.

Posted by NotLost If you’re going to spew vitriol slander my direction, at least read what I wrote (I’ll make enough mistakes on my own elsewhere). I asked why you hate the idea of a god. Did something happen in your youth that you blame him for (that’s what I did), or was it just Marxist brain washing in college?

How can you misquote me on an automatic reply with quote? I said:

I'm not sure it's possible to hate something that there is not a shred of evidence to support it's existence.

I do not blame god nor do I hate him. I simply doubt that he exists and defy you to come up with some evidence of his agency in anything that could attract blame. In accurate terms I am an agnostic: I doubt the existence of god. I am open to believing anything that is consisitent with the world as I know it, is supported by evidence. Unfalsifiable claims about the nature of the universe need not apply.

It seems to me that people who are skeptical are much less susceptible to brainwashing, but it is ironic that you phrase it that way in this context. Pass the kool-aid. (BTW, never went to college, barely graduated high school and hate commies - they exist)

Posted by NotLost Interesting quote… it could be pointed in both directions. For Carl’s sake, I hope we just become worm food.

Yeah, um no it can't be pointed in both directions. I'll parse it for you: by convince he means to win over by logical argument, by believer, he means one who believes unfalsifiable and unreasonable things based on faith alone. A deep seated need to believe is fear and wishful thinking without limit.

I am open to new evidence since I am a free thinker. I can be convinced by sound logical arguments and will concede to ideas I don't like if there is justification. Therefore "can't convince" cannot be pointed in this direction.

Further, since I have taken a contrary position - I don't believe there is a god or gods (note I did not say there is for sure no god, just that there is no good reason to believe there is one) - therefore the term believer does not apply in this direction.

While I have been guilty of fear and wishful thinking, I have placed limits on my credulity and have a higher evidentiary standard for fantastical claims. Therefore I have no "deep seated need to believe" one thing or another. I am a skeptic and have a deep seated need for proof and reason. This you can't point that thing at me.

Carl is worm food and believed it was likely that he would cease to exist when electro-chemical activity ceased in his brain. He found no evidence to support the religious idea of surviving your own death to be reunited with dead relatives - but I digress.

I would like to point out that everyone in this thread thinks that religion is bunk.

The only disagreement is that some of us think that n-1 religions are bullshit and lies, while the rest of recognize that all of them are.

Posted by MutantMandias Remember: Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Love ‘ya man, your avatar just creeps me out – nightmares!

Posted by tekriter …misquote me on an automatic reply….

“(doesn’t)” is a paraphrase I put it (is there an accepted symbol for paraphrase?? – should be if not). I’m not sure it’s not accurate though based on:

Posted by tekriter …the world as I know it…

Granted its presumption based on the condescension in your posts, but I doubt tangible evidence of god or even creation would satisfy because it wouldn’t fit the above requirement.

Posted by tekriter … no it can't be pointed in both directions … …by convince he means to win over by logical argument, by believer, he means one who believes unfalsifiable and unreasonable things based on faith alone …

---Contraire, I’ve heard several ridiculous arguments from naturalists (granted, not you – you’ve only jumped on my head so far)
---I believe the big bang, billions of years, punctuated equilibrium, etc. are unreasonable, and they are based on faith alone – there’s not even consensus in their own community.
---Anyone who believes it is a “believer” in those communities’ beliefs.

Posted by tekriter … have a higher evidentiary standard for fantastical claims…

Again, presumption, but I think you use that as an opportunity to off handedly toss claims that don’t fit your presupposition – apologies if I’m wrong.

Posted by MutantMandias … some of us think that n-1 religions are…

n-1? …gives me an idea for another thread. (Do I really want to do that to myself.)

Posted by NotLost Granted its presumption based on the condescension in your posts, but I doubt tangible evidence of god or even creation would satisfy because it wouldn’t fit the above requirement.

Let me be clear: I mean that I will believe something that is consistent with my world view (this includes evidence that meets the requirements of scientific validity). For example, when the mews tells me that a man is murdered in Toronto with a gun, I will evaluate that claim based on what I know about how the world works: Guns can kill people, people are often killed in Toronto, the new anchor has little motivation to lie to me about this and has been a credible source in the past. Therefore with no direct knowledge of the murder, I will nevertheless "believe" it occurred.

On the other hand, if you were to tell me that some dude died 2,000 years ago and came back to life three days later and then flew up in the sky, I will evaluate that claim based on what I know about how the world works: people that are dead for three days stay dead in all known cases. It is a fact that people cannot fly without modern mechanical aids. The claimant could have no direct knowledge of the eventm, you are know to believe other unreasonable things about the nature of the universe and your motivations to make the claim would be based on well documented and understood religious wishful thinking. Therefore I will not believe your claim without extraordinary evidence to support your extraordinary claim.

Posted by NotLost I believe the big bang, billions of years, punctuated equilibrium, etc. are unreasonable, and they are based on faith alone

See above. Belief and faith are different. Faith is the excuse that religious people use at some point of inquiry to stop asking "why?" and not applicable to the sceintific method.

Posted by NotLost there’s not even consensus in their own community. ---Anyone who believes it is a “believer” in those communities’ beliefs. Again, presumption, but I think you use that as an opportunity to off handedly toss claims that don’t fit your presupposition – apologies if I’m wrong.

You misunderstand the concept of scientific theory.

1.The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:

-Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
-Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
-Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
-Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
-Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.

2.The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).

3.Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.

4.If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.

5.Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless.



Apology accepted.

I'm just gonna butt in here. Everyone here already knows my stance on things, so I won't bother. My only question here is to you Tekriter. Why in Gods green earth are you so adamant about prooving and trying to convince people that it isn't God's green earth? You go through all this effort to discredit something you have never known personally to lift up a theory that I KNOW you know isn't full proof and without fault. Why?

IT'S A TRAP!










...but a very obvious one.

Posted by Mr_Fiend You go through all this effort to discredit something you have never known personally to lift up a theory that I KNOW you know isn't full proof and without fault. Why?

WTF?

Discredit something I have never known? What something is that? The celestial teapot? dog's love? If that is so, then is the opposite true that you have never known the beauty and elegance of Darwins's dangerous idea? You have never basked in the glow of a coherent logical argument based on sound premise? Are you trying to lower down something you do not "know"?

How can I "lift up" a theory? Do you mean evolution? In that case you"KNOW" nothing, but it seems you may believe some unreasonable things about me.

Simply because we don't "know" everything, or can't explain everything does not invalidate or falsify anything, nor does it mean that those things cannot be known. And it for sure is not a good enough reason to make up magical explanations.

By "full proof" are you using a liquor metaphor? It's not distilled enough for you to get it? Work with me here. Have you been into the jimmy jones kool-aid?

(if we are talking about evolution) the "why" is simple. The wedge idealogues that are trying to dumb down our children with text book stickers and suggest that the ridiculous creation myth is in any way a valid scientific alternative diminishes us all.

The effort spent countering this moronic argument is clearly not the best use of thousands of years of collected wisdom and discovery. We have better things to do, like begin to respect reason fully and learn to shed the foolish notions and religious tribalisms that are so divisive and murderous.

I have been to the end of the earth and seen first hand the consequences of unreasonable religious ideas. I have smelled the excrement and blood blasted from children's colon's by tnt wrapped in broken glass and scrap metal in the middle of what boiled down to an argument over who's imaginary friend said what to who. I have seen vast pits dug by bulldozers and filled with the dead, killed by people who believed they were doing the right thing because they had FAITH that what they were told was true and failed to ask for any more fucking evidence. I have watched people burning books because knowledge threatened their unreasonable ideas about the nature of the universe.


Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions - Blaise Pascal


Further to that, as a child I was led by the hand into church and told by the people I trusted that there was without a doubt a god, and only the god of abraham was the true god, along with a litany of other absurdities that they had no good way of knowing, but rather wanted to believe and wanted me too as well. This was a betrayal of my trust and took for granted that I wanted to cede the use of my intellect to the church in return for false promises. No mention was made of the millions of dead bodies the church was built on, and they conveniently left out that the doctrine had been carefully ammended through the years as science eroded it's foolish foundations.


All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.- Edmund Burke


So, if I am a good man, and I suspect that I am based on what I have done for my fellow humans with my life (what have you done?), then I refuse to do nothing and at least call bullshit whenever I am presented with unreason, then I may help prevent the triumph of some evil shit.

That's why.