Last warning, pall. You're way out of line. If you don't see how, PM me and I'd happily take three hundred posts of discussing it, but cut the crap - you don't need to understand that you're out of line for us to not tolerate your behavior.
Says the guy who bashes religion so he doesnt feel bad about his own sins...
I believe a great man said, he without sin cast thy first stone... Who was that? i dont remember? or yeah.... jesus, but you dont believe in him... sorry...
A quote I think is ironically applicable here is the chorus from a song by 'We Came As Romans';
"I'll cast the first stone
Like I am the last one to blame
Just to shift their condemning eyes away
I'll cast the first stone
Like I am the last one to blame
Just to break their denouncing gaze"
Btw what Christian heritage does America have? As I know native Americans had many religions....
A protestant heritage. When you're talking about modern day Americans, you're not talking about native Americans. Thus when you're talking about modern day American's Christian heritage, you look back at where that has come from.
True. There's a word for this 'phenomenon' in French I think. I forgot what it was, but it describes that situation where someone says something to you, you give a lame response and then figure out an awesome comeback two hours later when you're thinking the situation through. Even if you never really see the results though, getting people to think and even just defend their viewpoints beyond "ur stupid" is a skill by itself.
And this is why I feel it is pointless to argue religion with a religious person.
Doesn't matter if they run out of arguments, they'll just resort to But maybe or It's that way because the bible says so arguments.
That depends. Not everybody can be 'converted', but it speaks to your own skills of logic and reason and general thinking as well. If you're so sure about your position, you should be able to propagate it in such a way that it makes sense, and make at least some sway from religion. Which is kind of what I'm 'attempting' to do with what I said about EW's verificationism earlier - if I can get him to realize and accept thinking errors I think he makes, I can spur him into thinking further about religion and its position in his life. If one would genuinely think that everybody religious is already 'beyond saving' because you think they believe in something impossible, he would not only be as close minded as the religious people he calls out, but he'd also encounter some serious ethical problems in his life.
TheZizz already dealt with that. Its a very herp derp type of question that, I dont know, people expect a ....Wait, just this in, The cake I was planning to bake just baked itself. It created itself!!. Goodluck proving it did not require a cause. Why the cake dun that?, Dunno, How the cake dun that?, Dunno, Why the cake dun that when it did, Dunno, What made the cake dun that?, Dunno. Time to create illogical theories to make the illogical seem plausible. Be right back. Dont believe anything else no matter how obvious it seems, cuz ye never know`.
Yeah, but... this isn't an answer to the question. And, you're missing the point of Eiviyn's argument.
You: God exists.
Someone else: Why?
You: Because there needs to be an unmoved mover, among other reasons.
Someone else: Ok, so what you're saying is basically this:
"We exist > we were created by our planet. Our planet exists > it was created by the universe. The universe exists > it was created by God. God wasn't created by anything, it always existed."
You: Basically, yes.
Someone else: Alright. Then why bring God into it? Why not say the following:
"We exist > we were created by our planet. Our planet exists > it was created by the universe. The universe exists. The Universe wasn't created by anything, it always existed."
You don't need God at all to follow this logic. It just adds an unneeded step of 'was created by' to the ladder.
You: No, God is the unmoved mover. Belief that the universe wasn't created by God is stupid.
Or: you run out of arguments and return to 'because it just is'. The point is that there IS no answer to this argument. What you're doing in your above post is saying stuff like "it's obvious God exists so we have reason to believe in him", but that's an entirely different thing altogether. Eiviyn is asking HOW you know that God is per definition the last step in the 'was created by' ladder. You cannot know this. You can believe so, certainly, but you have no argument to disprove the statement "God himself was created by something". It's not about what is obvious or what is needed, it's about the fact that your argument is "everything needs a creator, so too does the universe; only God doesn't" is countered by the argument "so how do you know that God is an exception to the 'everything needs a creator' rule?".
I think the body is well designed, and we dont give any credit for that. No matter how perfect a design, you`ll always be able to find a flaw.
No, you can't, actually. The very definition of 'perfect' is 'without flaws'. If you find a flaw in a design, you can't dub it perfect. I'm not entirely sure what the point was here, but just wanted to point that out.
Right now I find myself agreeing very much with Eiviyn. The last few pages have had very little to do with actual science and moreso with logical thinking or philosophy. I still haven't seen Eiviyn's "if there has to be an unmoved mover, why does it have to be God instead of the universe itself?" argument countered properly. The statements we're all making here are no longer factual since their truth cannot possibly be known at this time, and when it comes to fictional statements (Witgenstein's we-cannot-know-the-truth-about-this-but-we-can-say-it-out-loud fictional statements, not fictional-as-opposed-to-fact statements), all we have is the logic of our reason to come to conclusions.
On another note, something I'm noticing you do quite a lot EW, is a witch hunt for verification. Have you heard of Karl Popper? It is said that the inspiration for his works (and ideas of falsification) were the theories of both Karl Marx and Freud, who had a habit of being right CONSTANTLY because they were constantly looking for proof of their theories - which is what caused them to see it everywhere. While Popper's theories have their problems, his main point remains true: this kind of verificational-thinking is a logical error because it renders your theory meaningless. It's the same premise that old joke is based on;
"Pete is whistling during class. 'Stop that!', the teacher says. 'I can't, sir', Pete replies. 'Why?', asks the teacher. 'The whistling keeps the tigers away, sir'. 'But there aren't any tigers here!'. 'Exactly, which means it's working!'
I'm seeing you do something very similar when it comes to bible quotes Eiviyn provides. Whatever the bible says, you simply reply "oh but this doesn't actually MEAN you should rape people, you should read it in the light of X!". While some or maybe even a lot of that can very much be true, it only takes you so far.
Essentially I guess I'm saying the same as some of Eiviyn's earlier posts here: you cannot possibly KNOW that your theory is correct, so how are you any different from your local Imam preaching his islamic gospels?
Hmm... Ive been pondering this for awhile now and realized that Its commonly thought some people use less % of their total brain capacity than others. That is why you probably cannot understand, and your own intelligence betrays you. Honestly speaking, not trying to be insulting, but I cant fathom how what Im trying to explain to you , you cant seem to grasp.
There`s enough papers and scientific evidence why its wrong and broken.
Link us some? I google scholar'd "evolution disproved", "evolution disproven" and "arguments against evolution" and I've only found two relevant articles (this being the most interesting one at first glance).
Makes sense... it's the primary reason why for example Thucydides is treated as a vague/corrupt/possibly-non-existent source. Don't we have more than one mention of Jesus, though? I recall some of my professors casually mentioning that we know he probably did exist from smaller/lesser known sources who just talked about 'a religious guy calling himself a prophet by the name of Jesus' from that time. Could be wrong, though.
Tbf, I don't think you need more than a simple google for that. The list of Roman works we have is small (just a couple of bookcases), let alone the list of Roman historians. If Eiviyn'd claim he has read all of them I'd probably believe him.
On another note, Eiviyn isn't saying he didn't exist - read back page 42 and 41.
There's plenty of evidence that Caesar and Abraham Lincoln existed. I don't think you thought that through.
Secondly, I'm not denying that Jesus existed. He probably did. However, there's no evidence for it.
What's your definition of 'evidence' here? 99% of our historical anything is eyewitness accounts. I think these exist for Jesus just as they do for Caesar. I don't think we have any 'physical', touchable evidence that Caesar existed (i.e. a piece of his body or such). I find myself agreeing with 95% of the things you've been saying the last 2-3 pages (except some historical details, but that's mostly semantics), but I am a bit puzzled by these statements.
MODERATOR MODE: Another reminder to keep it nice, people. Specifically talking to FDFederation right now (the post above this one is just downright demeaning, serves no function and is uncalled for), but I've seen some more of that these last few pages.
You should go watch the 'It's all about the Mormons' South Park episode (free to watch on the South Park site), then find the creators' commentary to that on Youtube.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ever been forum banned?
Last warning, pall. You're way out of line. If you don't see how, PM me and I'd happily take three hundred posts of discussing it, but cut the crap - you don't need to understand that you're out of line for us to not tolerate your behavior.
A quote I think is ironically applicable here is the chorus from a song by 'We Came As Romans';
"I'll cast the first stone
Like I am the last one to blame
Just to shift their condemning eyes away
I'll cast the first stone
Like I am the last one to blame
Just to break their denouncing gaze"
A protestant heritage. When you're talking about modern day Americans, you're not talking about native Americans. Thus when you're talking about modern day American's Christian heritage, you look back at where that has come from.
@Gradius12: Go
True. There's a word for this 'phenomenon' in French I think. I forgot what it was, but it describes that situation where someone says something to you, you give a lame response and then figure out an awesome comeback two hours later when you're thinking the situation through. Even if you never really see the results though, getting people to think and even just defend their viewpoints beyond "ur stupid" is a skill by itself.
That depends. Not everybody can be 'converted', but it speaks to your own skills of logic and reason and general thinking as well. If you're so sure about your position, you should be able to propagate it in such a way that it makes sense, and make at least some sway from religion. Which is kind of what I'm 'attempting' to do with what I said about EW's verificationism earlier - if I can get him to realize and accept thinking errors I think he makes, I can spur him into thinking further about religion and its position in his life. If one would genuinely think that everybody religious is already 'beyond saving' because you think they believe in something impossible, he would not only be as close minded as the religious people he calls out, but he'd also encounter some serious ethical problems in his life.
Yeah, but... this isn't an answer to the question. And, you're missing the point of Eiviyn's argument.
You: God exists.
Someone else: Why?
You: Because there needs to be an unmoved mover, among other reasons.
Someone else: Ok, so what you're saying is basically this:
"We exist > we were created by our planet. Our planet exists > it was created by the universe. The universe exists > it was created by God. God wasn't created by anything, it always existed."
You: Basically, yes.
Someone else: Alright. Then why bring God into it? Why not say the following:
"We exist > we were created by our planet. Our planet exists > it was created by the universe. The universe exists. The Universe wasn't created by anything, it always existed."
You don't need God at all to follow this logic. It just adds an unneeded step of 'was created by' to the ladder.
You: No, God is the unmoved mover. Belief that the universe wasn't created by God is stupid.
Or: you run out of arguments and return to 'because it just is'. The point is that there IS no answer to this argument. What you're doing in your above post is saying stuff like "it's obvious God exists so we have reason to believe in him", but that's an entirely different thing altogether. Eiviyn is asking HOW you know that God is per definition the last step in the 'was created by' ladder. You cannot know this. You can believe so, certainly, but you have no argument to disprove the statement "God himself was created by something". It's not about what is obvious or what is needed, it's about the fact that your argument is "everything needs a creator, so too does the universe; only God doesn't" is countered by the argument "so how do you know that God is an exception to the 'everything needs a creator' rule?".
@Bounty_98: Go
No, you can't, actually. The very definition of 'perfect' is 'without flaws'. If you find a flaw in a design, you can't dub it perfect. I'm not entirely sure what the point was here, but just wanted to point that out.
Right now I find myself agreeing very much with Eiviyn. The last few pages have had very little to do with actual science and moreso with logical thinking or philosophy. I still haven't seen Eiviyn's "if there has to be an unmoved mover, why does it have to be God instead of the universe itself?" argument countered properly. The statements we're all making here are no longer factual since their truth cannot possibly be known at this time, and when it comes to fictional statements (Witgenstein's we-cannot-know-the-truth-about-this-but-we-can-say-it-out-loud fictional statements, not fictional-as-opposed-to-fact statements), all we have is the logic of our reason to come to conclusions.
On another note, something I'm noticing you do quite a lot EW, is a witch hunt for verification. Have you heard of Karl Popper? It is said that the inspiration for his works (and ideas of falsification) were the theories of both Karl Marx and Freud, who had a habit of being right CONSTANTLY because they were constantly looking for proof of their theories - which is what caused them to see it everywhere. While Popper's theories have their problems, his main point remains true: this kind of verificational-thinking is a logical error because it renders your theory meaningless. It's the same premise that old joke is based on;
"Pete is whistling during class. 'Stop that!', the teacher says. 'I can't, sir', Pete replies. 'Why?', asks the teacher. 'The whistling keeps the tigers away, sir'. 'But there aren't any tigers here!'. 'Exactly, which means it's working!'
I'm seeing you do something very similar when it comes to bible quotes Eiviyn provides. Whatever the bible says, you simply reply "oh but this doesn't actually MEAN you should rape people, you should read it in the light of X!". While some or maybe even a lot of that can very much be true, it only takes you so far.
Essentially I guess I'm saying the same as some of Eiviyn's earlier posts here: you cannot possibly KNOW that your theory is correct, so how are you any different from your local Imam preaching his islamic gospels?
I think we've finally reached some kind of breakthrough. Cookie to Eiviyn and Gradius, a silent-but-smelly fart to EW and TheZizz.
Round two, commence!
This is fucking brilliant. I'm gonna say this when people ask about my hobbies from now on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_brain_myth
Just saying.
Link us some? I google scholar'd "evolution disproved", "evolution disproven" and "arguments against evolution" and I've only found two relevant articles (this being the most interesting one at first glance).
@Eiviyn: Go
Makes sense... it's the primary reason why for example Thucydides is treated as a vague/corrupt/possibly-non-existent source. Don't we have more than one mention of Jesus, though? I recall some of my professors casually mentioning that we know he probably did exist from smaller/lesser known sources who just talked about 'a religious guy calling himself a prophet by the name of Jesus' from that time. Could be wrong, though.
@Charysmatic: Go
Tbf, I don't think you need more than a simple google for that. The list of Roman works we have is small (just a couple of bookcases), let alone the list of Roman historians. If Eiviyn'd claim he has read all of them I'd probably believe him.
On another note, Eiviyn isn't saying he didn't exist - read back page 42 and 41.
What's your definition of 'evidence' here? 99% of our historical anything is eyewitness accounts. I think these exist for Jesus just as they do for Caesar. I don't think we have any 'physical', touchable evidence that Caesar existed (i.e. a piece of his body or such). I find myself agreeing with 95% of the things you've been saying the last 2-3 pages (except some historical details, but that's mostly semantics), but I am a bit puzzled by these statements.
MODERATOR MODE: Another reminder to keep it nice, people. Specifically talking to FDFederation right now (the post above this one is just downright demeaning, serves no function and is uncalled for), but I've seen some more of that these last few pages.
@ProzaicMuze: Go
You should go watch the 'It's all about the Mormons' South Park episode (free to watch on the South Park site), then find the creators' commentary to that on Youtube.