464 replies to this topic

[vbnautilus]

brvheart, on Wednesday, March 30th, 2011, 10:00 PM, said:

Of course he did.

See, we disagree. If I ask Obama: "What would you want to do regarding taxes for the rich if you were a republican?"And he replies "Well, I would want to lower taxes for the rich". Would it be fair to say that Obama proposed lowering taxes on the rich? Because that is exactly what you are doing. Dawkins was describing the position of Intelligent Design, not his own position. So to say he proposed that is just as misleading as saying that Obama proposed lowering taxes in the dialog above. It's effectively a lie.

[SuitedAces21]

this is great stuff.

[BaseJester]

Balloon guy, on Wednesday, March 30th, 2011, 2:24 AM, said:

I'm always fascinated how easily you guys buy this.Peter didn't write Peter...because you guys figured it out... 2,000 years later.....from your in-depth understanding of common literary copyright infringement practices being carried out in a small corner of the Roman empire...

Traditionally the Church considers Moses the author of the Pentateuch and Daniel the (singular) author of Book of Daniel. So I think it's fair to ask, what makes us suspect that Peter wrote 2 Peter?

[Spademan]

brvheart, on Wednesday, March 30th, 2011, 7:04 AM, said:

Ideologues produce ideologues. (in religion and in higher education)I think I disagree with you here. Evidence and discovery are and have always been repressed by the establishment. It's harder now to keep everything under wraps, but anything that gets out is immediately dismissed as crazy and fringe, and then killed by the people in power. <snip>Btw, I'm not specifically trying to make the claim that proof of the Bible's accuracy has been purposely hidden. I'm just taking exception to this point that all scientific discovery is easily and freely available.

Your misunderstanding of how the scientific method works is not surprising, is telling and, when joined with your particular beliefs, accounts for your absurd, 9/11 nutter-like conspiracy nonsense. You should research the scientific process some before making claims about the scientific process.Really.

brvheart, on Wednesday, March 30th, 2011, 7:04 AM, said:

It's just like that in the scientific community. Global warming? yep.

I have no idea what "Global warming? yep" is intended to mean here.

brvheart, on Wednesday, March 30th, 2011, 7:04 AM, said:

Also, I didn't see VB's video. Do you have a list of these books I should read? I'm interested.

Watch the video's, they're well presented and should be of interest to believers and non-believers alike. In regard the bullshit you're going on about concerning Dawkin's "proposing we came from aliens", I really, really hope you're joking. At first it could have just been that you were hoodwinked by the propaganda of the embarrassingly fallacious Expelled!.But your continued defense of yourself on the matter is approaching a disgusting level of intellectual dishonesty.

[Skeleton Jelly]

Spademan, on Tuesday, March 29th, 2011, 11:36 PM, said:

This is why I occasionally, as you may see it, jump on you. You are defending it, even though you present it as a sort of outsider position, an "I'm not taking a position" position, but the result is you defending it nonetheless. The "I don't have a position", when you are defending a position, is actually pretty annoying and comes off as cowardly and hints at intellectually dishonest. It should be clear where one stands on an issue before one engages in discussion on the issue.So when you come in and defend a claim "attacking" the bible or a "believer", even if you make a claim that is only about a particular approach to the "attacking" of the bible or the "believer", it compels me to come in and point out how you're neglecting everything else that's been pointed out. Because you haven't declared anything yourself, it translates simply to a defense of the bible or the believer. Know what I mean? Your posts imply you are at the very least a free-range deist. This implication is derived from the meaning I find in your posts in the religious forum. I've never seen you express your "beliefs" explicitly. You may have and I didn't see the posts. I've never seen it however. I am 99% sure you're at the very least a deist, and as a result your posts come off as a defense of deism. One time out of a hundred I'd be wrong on that.

I looked up "free range deist," but apparently that isn't an established thing. Fortunately I know what "free range" means and I could look up "deist." From wiki:Critical elements of deist thought included:

• Rejection of all religions based on books that claim to contain the revealed word of God.
• Rejection of reports of miracles, prophecies and religious "mysteries".

Constructive elements of deist thought included:

• God exists, created and governs the universe.
• God gave humans the ability to reason.

That seems pretty close to what I believe I guess, except I don't know why that last bullet point is needed. If God created the universe, why is it necessary to point out God also did something else?Anyway, one of the things I hate (from both sides) is attributing human qualities to "God." I think if there is a God (and it still is "if") it wouldn't be like anything we can imagine. So there's really no point to my belief that a God is possible, but I guess I don't feel as comfortable writing the possiblity off. I suppose even my explicitly stated belief is pretty wishy-washy.But that's why I'm more interested in specific arguments on here rather than the big picture. The big picture isn't interesting to me because I don't believe it actually matters. I do want people to be honest in their arguments. And I don't usually attack BG or brv, although I have before, because generally guys like vb do a much better job than I would anyway.I guess if it annoys people that I'm defending a minor position while not even believing the major postion, I'll stop. I like the debate in here though.

Roll the Bones, on Wednesday, March 30th, 2011, 4:16 PM, said:

Sorry, forgot about this.One of the major stories of the OT was the Exodus, where Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt where they were enslaved for centuries. Problem was, they were never enslaved in Egypt according to archeological records. Of the ones that were there, there is no discrepancy between how they lived and anybody else. There certainly wasn't a mass tribe enslaved there though.

That's interesting, thanks.

vbnautilus, on Wednesday, March 30th, 2011, 8:58 PM, said:

Just remember that in the reality where he believes that, you have an earring.

Nice.

[vbnautilus]

Skeleton Jelly, on Thursday, March 31st, 2011, 8:50 AM, said:

I guess if it annoys people that I'm defending a minor position while not even believing the major postion, I'll stop.

I hope you don't.

[Spademan]

Skeleton Jelly, on Thursday, March 31st, 2011, 8:50 AM, said:

I looked up "free range deist," but apparently that isn't an established thing. Fortunately I know what "free range" means and I could look up "deist." From wiki:Critical elements of deist thought included:

• Rejection of all religions based on books that claim to contain the revealed word of God.
• Rejection of reports of miracles, prophecies and religious "mysteries".

Constructive elements of deist thought included:

• God exists, created and governs the universe.
• God gave humans the ability to reason.

That seems pretty close to what I believe I guess, except I don't know why that last bullet point is needed. If God created the universe, why is it necessary to point out God also did something else?

Fair enough. Thanks for putting it out there. Though deist may not quite fit. Still a little hazy. Heh.And agreed about the last bullet, it's kind of adding frost to snow.

Skeleton Jelly, on Thursday, March 31st, 2011, 8:50 AM, said:

Anyway, one of the things I hate (from both sides) is attributing human qualities to "God." I think if there is a God (and it still is "if") it wouldn't be like anything we can imagine. So there's really no point to my belief that a God is possible, but I guess I don't feel as comfortable writing the possiblity off. I suppose even my explicitly stated belief is pretty wishy-washy.

I hate that too, but only in terms of the person purporting the existence of a humanized god-figure. Though it points to how the god concept develops. "If pigs could make up a god, their god would be a pig" and all that. I take issue with you attributing the personification of god to non-believers, however. It seems a bit odd to lay any portion of that blame on people who don't even believe in a god, and are engaged in discussion with people who are claiming a god with human qualities. It may irk you to have an atheist discuss the overwhelmingly common "jealous" and glory seeking gods, since that doesn't line up with how you conceive of your potential god. But you should take that issue up with the guys propping that kind of god up.On another note, with how soft you are on your actual belief in a possible god, one could make the argument you are "agnostic". Though I'm not a fan of the word, because agnostics are atheist. Believing a nebulous, incomprehensible force "out there somewhere" is possible, is not believing it is so. Why don't you feel comfortable writing the possibility off? Especially given you seem to think even if it did exist it would be irrelevant in terms of it's effect on your life and the operation of the universe? Seems to be a clear case where parsimony would come into effect, as it does everywhere else in an otherwise reasonable persons life.

Skeleton Jelly, on Thursday, March 31st, 2011, 8:50 AM, said:

I guess if it annoys people that I'm defending a minor position while not even believing the major position, I'll stop. I like the debate in here though.

Naw man, that wasn't what I meant.The annoying thing was not claiming any position whatsoever. One should be willing, for the sake of intellectual honesty, to have their position examined an critiqued if they're going to be snipe shooting a discussion, is all.

[Skeleton Jelly]

Spademan, on Thursday, March 31st, 2011, 9:58 AM, said:

I take issue with you attributing the personification of god to non-believers, however. It seems a bit odd to lay any portion of that blame on people who don't even believe in a god, and are engaged in discussion with people who are claiming a god with human qualities. It may irk you to have an atheist discuss the overwhelmingly common "jealous" and glory seeking gods, since that doesn't line up with how you conceive of your potential god. But you should take that issue up with the guys propping that kind of god up.

Yeah, that's probably right. I was thinking along the lines of the "if God exists, he must be evil" argument, but that's really more of a your God must be argument.

Spademan, on Thursday, March 31st, 2011, 9:58 AM, said:

Why don't you feel comfortable writing the possibility off? Especially given you seem to think even if it did exist it would be irrelevant in terms of it's effect on your life and the operation of the universe? Seems to be a clear case where parsimony would come into effect, as it does everywhere else in an otherwise reasonable persons life.

Maybe comfortable isn't the right word exactly. I just mean that I kind of feel like there's something out there bigger than us. Maybe I just want to believe that even while believing that that bigger thing doesn't interfere with our lives.

[vbnautilus]

Skeleton Jelly, on Thursday, March 31st, 2011, 10:13 AM, said:

I just mean that I kind of feel like there's something out there bigger than us.

Does something like "the universe" qualify here? Or something else?

[Skeleton Jelly]

vbnautilus, on Thursday, March 31st, 2011, 10:31 AM, said:

Does something like "the universe" qualify here? Or something else?

I meant else. Like something that encompasses the whole universe.

[Roll the Bones]

Skeleton Jelly, on Thursday, March 31st, 2011, 1:37 PM, said:

I meant else. Like something that encompasses the whole universe.

Given that we evolved with pattern seeking minds that is normal and natural. I don't think anyone would have a problem with someone or anyone believing that something sparked the universe and set all this in motion but does nor has done anything to interfere since. I mean, in that sense it really doesn't matter. The believer or the non-believer alike would still not place magical thinking attributes to things they didn't understand, and would look to science to explain it. The idea of some interfering being picking and choosing a player to pitch a no-hitter while ignoring the starvation of millions of babies is simply idiotic and beyond reason.Religon tends to expand on the concept of magical thinking and put imaginary human-like attributes into unexplained phenonoma and even further into guiding principles over humans in ways to control or promote behavior. All of this is simply made up, without evidence and strictly a belief in belief.I suppose many, hell my wife included, likes to think of a comforting place after death, or a heaven, that her deceased father resides. That is probably about the extent or interest that she has in the whole matter and doesn't want or care to discuss it further. It simply isn't an interest other than that and she uses reason to decide anything important. I have no interest in trying to dispel that belief of hers or of anyone that doesn't weild their faith as a sword against others. The problem that I have is when people use their magical beliefs to try and influence government or laws and impose their illogical thinking on the rest of us. They do this on an almost daily basis and it's especially prevelent in society today with the new wave of Republicans trying to pass laws on everything from abortion to teaching creationism or promoting racism and bigotry laws. The Rock Beyond Belief concert is a perfect example of bigotry against non-believers. The Ft spend tons of money to hire an evangelical outfit to come and try to push their agenda on troops, in the name of moral, and forced people to attend. When the athiests asked for fair and similar treatment, by law, and had every speaker or guest volunteer their time and travel, the commander simply denied them since it wasn't with his religious agenda. These are the type of things that not only have to change, they need to change. With Christians, their last line of defense when everything else is shattered it always, "the bible" as if it is hold some miraculous ideology that is untouchable. Well, when you can dispel the bible the rest of that house of cards falls apart for them.

[vbnautilus]

Skeleton Jelly, on Thursday, March 31st, 2011, 10:37 AM, said:

Like something that encompasses the whole universe.

See, that's what I call "the universe".

[LongLiveYorke]

brvheart, on Wednesday, March 30th, 2011, 11:51 PM, said:

Thanks for the link. Ben Stein sure had him on the run, didn't he?

Just trying to win his money, obv

[brvheart]

I'm not sure why this thread died while I was gone. Oh wait, BG isn't here, and so why would it survive? The conversation was too great to let this die. Let's see if we can get it jump started.

vbnautilus, on Wednesday, March 30th, 2011, 10:46 PM, said:

Are you serious???

vbnautilus, on Wednesday, March 30th, 2011, 11:24 PM, said:

No, I'm putting my foot down: no more pretend-agreeing!

vbnautilus, on Thursday, March 31st, 2011, 12:11 AM, said:

See, we disagree.

Spademan, on Thursday, March 31st, 2011, 9:26 AM, said:

I really, really hope you're joking.

You idiots are ****ing retarded. I would expect this from SuitedAces21 or Mercury, but not from VB and especially not from Spade.How was it not obvious with my short curt sentences that I was intentionally antagonizing VB? I mean, really?Of course I don't believe that Dawkins thinks that aliens planted life. That isn't the point. He proposed that it was possible. If you don't think he did, I could repost the link that you posted already.It's also hilarious that VB buys that bullshit response that Dawkins gave after everyone was pissed about what he said in the movie. I was trying so hard to make a good case for Intelligent Design. Sure you were, idiot.Now that we have a couple pages of Spade posts in our immediate future, maybe we can get back to the good discussion.Spade, please give me some book titles. I don't have the links to any videos, and you certainly know which books I should read. If you tell me the titles, I will read the books. Scouts honor. (limited to 15 books for 2011.)Also, in regards to SJ's deism, I think I probably agree with Spade, in that, if the God of the universe isn't a personal god, then what's the point. It won't make a difference either way.I thought it was funny how you guys were like "witnessing" to SJ to have him not believe in god. That was funny stuff.Last questions for this post: Why do you guys think that people thousands of years ago started attributing anything to a "good god"? What is it about humans that makes them seek a higher power? I mean, life was pretty terrible 2 to 3 thousand years ago. People would live to the ripe old age of 35 if they were lucky, and yet, the were attributing everything to God. If we just evolved from nothing, wouldn't the baseline for belief be nothing? I what point do advanced monkeys start believing that?Also, you have a huge problem with the origin of the universe. Let's talk about that. Second'ofly: Is 4 billion years really long enough for evolution to have occurred from single cell to human?

[SuitedAces21]

i always love it when brvhrt says something ridiculously stupid, and then when pointed to the idiocy of his statement he claims he was joking all along.

[brvheart]

SuitedAces21, on Saturday, April 2nd, 2011, 1:34 AM, said:

i always love it when brvhrt says something ridiculously stupid, and then when pointed to the idiocy of his statement he claims he was joking all along.

I don't ever saying anything ridiculously stupid, because Jesus himself protects me from the harm of intellectual dishonesty. Look it up. PARSIMONY!It's not my fault that you are an idiot and can't figure it out from all the obvious signs. I never once said that he believed that aliens planted life here, so tell me what I'm lying about Suited. Why don't you and I have a debate about this stuff, instead of just letting everyone else talk while you throw your daggers?

[brvheart]

Spademan, on Thursday, March 31st, 2011, 9:26 AM, said:

Your misunderstanding of how the scientific method works is not surprising, is telling and, when joined with your particular beliefs, accounts for your absurd, 9/11 nutter-like conspiracy nonsense. You should research the scientific process some before making claims about the scientific process.

I would disagree with you if: you're implying that all important knowledge is tested and reviewed by the scientific community. Since forever, the establishment has squashed information. Today, you just need to follow the money. I have a hypothetical for you. Let's say that global warming is cyclical and that man has little impact on the long-term climate of earth. Let's say that this information is now known by the "system". How many years, realistically, do you think we would have to wait for this information to come out and be public knowledge?* I think that information is withheld or suppressed by the status quo a lot more often than you're implying. That being said, I do believe that science is changing constantly for a reason. Things are always going to be revised or refined, etc. Things have to change, since that's the whole point of the scientific method. But no matter how many scientific "facts" change, the control of information will always be there. In fact, I believe that in today's culture and with today's technology, we might even be repressing scientific method more any any time since the Catholic church of the middle ages. While information is readily available to anyone will internet access, any dissension could possibly bring immediate scorn which could, and almost certainly is, drastically hampering the process.*note: I have no strong personal opinion on global warming itself, although I lean heavily toward the scientific community basing strong claims on retardedly small sample sizes. One only needs to point to "the coming ice age" in the 70's to see how wildly things can swing in a short amount of time. Note also that "public knowledge" here means "not ridiculed as wacko or 9/11 nut job crazy", by the scientific community.

[vbnautilus]

brvheart, on Friday, April 1st, 2011, 10:59 PM, said:

You idiots are ****ing retarded. I would expect this from SuitedAces21 or Mercury, but not from VB and especially not from Spade.How was it not obvious with my short curt sentences that I was intentionally antagonizing VB? I mean, really?

Please. Not buying this for a second. This is classic brvheart: retreat from defending the more ridiculous statements you've made by pretending you don't support them. It surely won't be long before you say something else which reveals that you do actually believe the--

Quote

Of course I don't believe that Dawkins thinks that aliens planted life. That isn't the point. He proposed that it was possible. If you don't think he did, I could repost the link that you posted already.It's also hilarious that VB buys that bullshit response that Dawkins gave after everyone was pissed about what he said in the movie. I was trying so hard to make a good case for Intelligent Design. Sure you were, idiot.

Well! That didn't take long at all, did it! What you are saying here reveals that you were unable to follow the thread of the conversation between ben stein and richard dawkins. From what you've said here it is clear that you still have no idea what dawkins was saying. What's even worse is that you seem to have no problem at all with ben stein intentionally misrepresenting what someone else said for the purposes of bolstering creationism. Shame on you.

Quote

Spade, please give me some book titles. I don't have the links to any videos, and you certainly know which books I should read. If you tell me the titles, I will read the books. Scouts honor. (limited to 15 books for 2011.)

The videos he was referring to are two threads down in this very forum. http://www.fullconta...howtopic=144770

Quote

Last questions for this post: Why do you guys think that people thousands of years ago started attributing anything to a "good god"? What is it about humans that makes them seek a higher power? I mean, life was pretty terrible 2 to 3 thousand years ago. People would live to the ripe old age of 35 if they were lucky, and yet, the were attributing everything to God. If we just evolved from nothing, wouldn't the baseline for belief be nothing? I what point do advanced monkeys start believing that?

This is so convoluted I don't even see a place to start. But really what's the point? If you're willing to support blatant dishonesty and have no regard for the truth of what is said in these conversations why should we engage you at all?

Quote

Second'ofly: Is 4 billion years really long enough for evolution to have occurred from single cell to human?

evidently.

[vbnautilus]

If you still insist that "Dawkins proposed that aliens seeed life on earth", please respond to this post.

vbnautilus, on Wednesday, March 30th, 2011, 10:11 PM, said:

If I ask Obama: "What would you want to do regarding taxes for the rich if you were a republican?"And he replies "Well, I would want to lower taxes for the rich". Would it be fair to say that Obama proposed lowering taxes on the rich? Because that is exactly what you are doing. Dawkins was describing the position of Intelligent Design, not his own position. So to say he proposed that is just as misleading as saying that Obama proposed lowering taxes in the dialog above. It's effectively a lie.

[Spademan]

brvheart, on Friday, April 1st, 2011, 10:59 PM, said:

How was it not obvious with my short curt sentences that I was intentionally antagonizing VB? I mean, really?

Taken on face value that you were "kidding", look up "Poe's law" in relation to religious believers.

brvheart, on Friday, April 1st, 2011, 10:59 PM, said:

Spade, please give me some book titles. I don't have the links to any videos, and you certainly know which books I should read. If you tell me the titles, I will read the books. Scouts honor. (limited to 15 books for 2011.)

http://www.youtube.c...0C3C1D163BE880A is the first video of the series. If you're willing to put in the time and effort to read up to 15 books, watching an hour or so of a guy who, in a really non-confrontational way describes how he went from ardent believer to non-believer shouldn't be too much to ask. The books he discusses near the end of the series, "A History of God", and the rest, are what I'm talking about. Watch the video's first. They might even strengthen your faith, who knows.

brvheart, on Friday, April 1st, 2011, 10:59 PM, said:

I thought it was funny how you guys were like "witnessing" to SJ to have him not believe in god. That was funny stuff.

Don't be silly.

brvheart, on Friday, April 1st, 2011, 10:59 PM, said:

Last questions for this post: Why do you guys think that people thousands of years ago started attributing anything to a "good god"? What is it about humans that makes them seek a higher power? I mean, life was pretty terrible 2 to 3 thousand years ago. People would live to the ripe old age of 35 if they were lucky, and yet, the were attributing everything to God. If we just evolved from nothing, wouldn't the baseline for belief be nothing? I what point do advanced monkeys start believing that?

I could fill post after post answering this question, but since VB researches much of the material I'd respond with for a living, I'll let him address this particular question.

brvheart, on Friday, April 1st, 2011, 10:59 PM, said:

Also, you have a huge problem with the origin of the universe. Let's talk about that. Second'ofly: Is 4 billion years really long enough for evolution to have occurred from single cell to human?

To answer the first... no, no I don't.The "origin of the universe", whatever you actually mean by that, you'd have to clarify, isn't a "problem" for me. If you mean something like, "what caused the big bang", the answer is, "if anything caused it, I don't know what that cause was, yet." Me adding, "Well, maybe an infinitely big Unicorn that exists outside of space and time shat it out, and the process of this shitting is what caused what we call 'the big bang'" doesn't solve the "problem", you dumbass.

brvheart, on Saturday, April 2nd, 2011, 12:43 AM, said:

I would disagree with you if: you're implying that all important knowledge is tested and reviewed by the scientific community. Since forever, the establishment has squashed information. Today, you just need to follow the money. I have a hypothetical for you. Let's say that global warming is cyclical and that man has little impact on the long-term climate of earth. Let's say that this information is now known by the "system". How many years, realistically, do you think we would have to wait for this information to come out and be public knowledge?* I think that information is withheld or suppressed by the status quo a lot more often than you're implying. That being said, I do believe that science is changing constantly for a reason. Things are always going to be revised or refined, etc. Things have to change, since that's the whole point of the scientific method. But no matter how many scientific "facts" change, the control of information will always be there. In fact, I believe that in today's culture and with today's technology, we might even be repressing scientific method more any any time since the Catholic church of the middle ages. While information is readily available to anyone will internet access, any dissension could possibly bring immediate scorn which could, and almost certainly is, drastically hampering the process.*note: I have no strong personal opinion on global warming itself, although I lean heavily toward the scientific community basing strong claims on retardedly small sample sizes. One only needs to point to "the coming ice age" in the 70's to see how wildly things can swing in a short amount of time. Note also that "public knowledge" here means "not ridiculed as wacko or 9/11 nut job crazy", by the scientific community.

If your point is that Ann Coulter can selectively choose already debunked science and present and spin it to make a point on Fox News, furthering her viewers ignorance of current scientific knowledge, yes. If you mean that a "power that be" can spin and cherry pick results, misunderstand them completely, or outright lie about the results, I agree.That wasn't my point, though. The point is that it is available to check yourself, rather than believing what Ann Coulter says because you agree with Ann Coulter.If, however, you, as I took you to mean before, are saying that the science, the peer-reviewed papers, equations and experiments are somehow "suppressed" by the government. That is to say, you can't find them and review them yourself (or more important, other scientists in the field don't have access to this data) because "the powers that be" hide or destroy them, or strong-arm scientists or something, you're a fucking nutter.