On the rampant intellectual dishonesty in this forum [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : On the rampant intellectual dishonesty in this forum


Pages : [1] 2

Geko45
04-21-2012, 23:37
I'd like to take a moment to address an issue that seems to involve nearly every thread here to one degree or another and that issue would be the rampant and pervasive presence of intellectual dishonesty in this forum.

I don't intend to name any names in either praise or criticism. There are certain believers here that I have actually been quite impressed by (I believe you know who you are). Believers that debate fairly and honestly, make the best arguments they can in favor of their position and concede points when it is clear that the counter-point has been established. If you are one of these individuals, I commend you. You do your faith a great service by being a good example of it. Which in my mind is much more important than the validity of any particular argument.

However, there are certain others (you know who you are as well) that have descended into what can only be described as a free-for-all of intellectual dishonesty. No distortion seems to great for these individuals. At no time will they concede that an argument has even been presented, let alone admit that one is valid. They use tactics such as denying that a point has been addressed even when there are multiple pages already presented on the topic. Or changing their argument on the fly when new information is presented without ever admitting that their position has changed. Or the continual demand for "proof" when they themselves offer none and refuse to accept responsibility for even backing their own assertions.

My (rhetorical) question(s) to these individuals is this; What do you think you are accomplishing with these tactics? Do you believe some undecided third party is going to come across your parade of fallacies and not see them for exactly what they are? Are you not the least bit concerned of driving these people away from your faith by putting yourself forward as a negative example? Do you feel no social responsibility in this regard at all? Is it really all just about "winning"?

Now, I have certainly handed out my share of sarcasm and even the occasional ad hominem, but only after I make my case first based on reason and evidence and only as a response to either intellectual dishonesty or similar ad hominems, but I am here for a purpose. Whether you agree with me or not, I am here because I believe that I have learned something that can help others and I want to try to pass on that knowledge to them. I want to help people that are currently stuck where I was stuck several years ago as I know the difficulties it entails.

For those of us entrenched in our positions, we all (on both sides) know that it is unlikely that we will meaningfully sway the other. Most threads here will be fought to a stalemate and it will be up to the reader to make their own judgment on who they agree with, but some threads clearly are not stalemates. Some are entirely within the realm of provable, and yet these threads seem to be the ones that become the most divisive.

I suppose that is just human nature. Nobody likes to be wrong. I have been wrong (only once that I know of ;-), but I do my best to recognize it and admit it publicly when it occurs. In actuality, these are the instances where I typically learn something new. Which is its own reward in my opinion. Can we not all strive for this goal? I'm not talking about any lofty and unattainable ideal, but just the simple first step of recognizing what the other has actually said and addressing it on its own merits as opposed to the verbal game of dodge ball that this forum has become?

Is that to much to ask?

Well, something to cogitate on at any rate, goodnight gentlemen...

English
04-22-2012, 05:59
Well said.

English

Geko45
04-22-2012, 10:02
Well said.

Thank you. Although it seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

rgregoryb
04-22-2012, 13:15
Thank you. Although it seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

.............did you say something? :supergrin:

fgutie35
04-22-2012, 13:37
Thank you. Although it seems to have fallen on deaf ears.
Not quite. You do have a point, but you cannot possibly hold everybody to the same standard of intelligence.
You have to realize that most of poeple's knowledge ( including yours), come from things that we read somewhere from other people's knowledge or conclusions. Base on that, poeple take ownership of that data, and make their own conclusions, which then they classify as true knowledge. It happens in all spectrums of intellectuality. Not only that, but you also have to include those who are lazy and just parrot what other people or authors say about X subject, in the effort to look smart to others. There is also those who innocently expose what they believe without full knowledge of the facts. Then there are the ones you mentioned who take ecxerpts of articles or books, take them out of context, and shape them to aid their case fully aware of the consecuences and of what they are doing. For the atheists, I do not know if there will be a consecuence. For the believers, well I feel very sorry for them because they know better what awaits them. Sorry for the typos, typing on the ipad!

Japle
04-22-2012, 14:53
They say that half the population has below average intelligence. I’ve never thought intelligence was the issue here, although the posters the OP refers to seem to believe they can treat anyone who doesn’t agree with them as members of the “below average” group.

There are too many arguments and statements that are obviously absurd (even to low intelligence) to count. I’ve noticed too that logical, well reasoned arguments are often ignored or there’s a transparent attempt to misunderstand the argument or to try to deflect attention by asking an unrelated question. These attempts are frequently indicated by poor grammar and misspellings, as if the poster is desperate to refute his opponent and types out the first thing that pops into his head without thinking it through or running it through a spell/grammar check.

I seriously doubt any of that will change. Ever.

steveksux
04-22-2012, 15:26
Some people create intellectually dishonest arguments to use, others pass them along fully aware, and some are merely blinded by their belief and simply don't stop to think too hard about an argument when it agrees with their viewpoint.

Birthers come to mind. Lots of other conspiracy theorists as well.

http://tribalinsight.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/i-want-to-believe.jpg

Randy

series1811
04-22-2012, 15:34
So the atheists here are trying to change minds and not liking how it is going? Why is that so important to you guys?

And, the getting pissed about it, too.

So, what is that all about?

Japle
04-22-2012, 17:00
Posted by series1811:
So the atheists here are trying to change minds and not liking how it is going? Why is that so important to you guys?
We see this a lot. It’s been explained a lot.

And, the getting pissed about it, too.
Again, a deliberate misstatement of the facts, apparently intended to divert attention from the OP’s subject.

So, what is that all about?
Assuming facts not in evidence. Atheists aren’t angry. Sometimes we’re amused, sometimes we’re baffled by what we read. Theists are usually the ones who are angry and defensive.

Why are they defensive? Because they’ve got nuthin’.

packsaddle
04-22-2012, 20:01
Why are they defensive? Because they’ve got nuthin’.

an excellent example of intellectual dishonesty.

thanks for sharing!

muscogee
04-22-2012, 20:05
So the atheists here are trying to change minds and not liking how it is going? Why is that so important to you guys?

And, the getting pissed about it, too.

So, what is that all about?

See the OP.

WS6
04-23-2012, 11:02
[ ... ] These attempts are frequently indicated by poor grammar and misspellings, as if the poster is desperate to refute his opponent and types out the first thing that pops into his head without thinking it through or running it through a spell/grammar check.

I seriously doubt any of that will change. Ever.

I agree. Here's a prime example:

[ … ] I'm threw here, you've been "shown".

Threw?! Yes, you have definitely "shown" me.

Tilley
04-23-2012, 11:07
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

W. Shakespeare, "Hamlet", Act 1 scene 5.

Your entire statement is based on your claim that once you were deceived and believed in God, and now you are so much smarter and know God does not exist, so your mission here is to help us goofs to see things your way. To help us. So our lives will be so much better and clearer. Like yours.

Your philosophy or your "logic" is based on certain rules. You seem to think that the entire universe can and must be compartmentalized on these rules. As if man has reached a point in our development to understand all things.

If that is what you believe, then there can be no further discussion with you. You have a very myopic and can only believe in things within a limited range of thought.

We are not at a point where we can say how the universe was formed, how man came to be, how life came from non-life, or why are we here. To say we know these answers is to only expose our ignorance and flavor it with childish arrogance.

To believe in intelligent design leads one to believe that there is also a designer. We call him God.

I know that it is not within my mental abilities to know what a designer of his capacity knows, thinks, let alone comprehend who he is.

I do believe this designer has reached out to us to tell us about himself. He developed relationships with certain people who wrote about it. These writings compose the Bible.

The designer himself placed himself in human form to be among us and to let us know who he is. To tell us why we are here.

He gave us a mind to think and reason, and emotions to feel. He gave us freedom of choice. When it comes to Him, we can choose to believe or reject him. We can do great things, or debase ourselves and destroy one another.

Why would a designer let us do this to ourselves? :dunno: But without freedom of choice, the can be no free will. Also, asking why falls again into the category trying to understand something far greater than our understanding.

Bottom line in this freedom of choice is we get to keep our choices. Believe or not. Simple.


1 Corinthians 3:18-20


Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise.

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”; and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.”

Tango 1Zero
04-23-2012, 11:12
This has taken a turn.

English
04-23-2012, 11:28
Your entire statement is based on your claim that once you were deceived and believed in God, and now you are so much smarter and know God does not exist, so your mission here is to help us goofs to see things your way. To help us. So our lives will be so much better and clearer. Like yours.
....

It is often difficult to distinguish between intellectual dishonesty and intellectual incapacity. Geko has made it clear that he does not expect any of us to convince people like yourself and is only hoping that people who are already in the process of leaving religion will be helped by reading both sides of the discussions in this religious forum. What you call you "goofs" are no more than a foil to his purpose as he expects people lost between two viewpoints to have their doubts clarified by reading your posts. That is, he expects their doubts about the validity of religion to be strengthened by reading obviously falacious support for it and their emotional disturbance to be allieviated by reading of someone who has come happily out of the other side. This is not a difficult interpretation of what he has said, so why do you misrepresent it?

English

Bren
04-23-2012, 12:09
Heck, you think this forum is bad, go over to the James Randii Education Foundation some time. That place attracts the kind of nuts who really do only live on the internet (on both sides of the debbate - the pseudo-intellectual alleged skeptics are the worst of all). Imagine people who claim to be skeptics - as long as it doesn't involve being skeptical of anything the left wing is required to hold sacred.

It makes me as angry as watching the news on MSNBC, so I rarely go there.

Tilley
04-23-2012, 12:09
This is not a difficult interpretation of what he has said, so why do you misrepresent it?

English

This isn't a philosophical debate, this is real life and death stuff to us.

Look, you've probably heard somewhere in the Bible it says something like hate the sin and not the sinner, and our battle is not with flesh and blood...well, there is a battle here.

Anyone who denounces Jesus as Lord is an antichrist. I really don't think it would be correct to say to an antichrist, "Well...you make a good point, and your views must be considered, and..." Baloney. If you denounce Jesus as Lord, you work for satan, you are deceived.

Does that sound harsh? Heck yeah it does! But you are headed in a bad direction and it does no one any good to let an atheist go on believing things will turn out well for him if he continues.

Intellectual dishonesty...give me break.

Bren
04-23-2012, 12:22
Intellectual dishonesty...give me break.

I guess I'd be wrong to speculate on which of those words is causing you the most trouble.:rofl:

lakepop
04-23-2012, 12:30
Man can not comprehend no beginning or no end.Two dementions the mind does not
understand.

Lone Wolf8634
04-23-2012, 12:39
This isn't a philosophical debate, this is real life and death stuff to us.

Look, you've probably heard somewhere in the Bible it says something like hate the sin and not the sinner, and our battle is not with flesh and blood...well, there is a battle here.

Anyone who denounces Jesus as Lord is an antichrist. I really don't think it would be correct to say to an antichrist, "Well...you make a good point, and your views must be considered, and..." Baloney. If you denounce Jesus as Lord, you work for satan, you are deceived.

Does that sound harsh? Heck yeah it does! But you are headed in a bad direction and it does no one any good to let an atheist go on believing things will turn out well for him if he continues.

Intellectual dishonesty...give me break.

Wow! My MIL just considers me a demon.:wow:

I'll have to let her know I've been promoted.:supergrin:

Gunhaver
04-23-2012, 12:42
This isn't a philosophical debate, this is real life and death stuff to us.

Look, you've probably heard somewhere in the Bible it says something like hate the sin and not the sinner, and our battle is not with flesh and blood...well, there is a battle here.

Anyone who denounces Jesus as Lord is an antichrist. I really don't think it would be correct to say to an antichrist, "Well...you make a good point, and your views must be considered, and..." Baloney. If you denounce Jesus as Lord, you work for satan, you are deceived.

Does that sound harsh? Heck yeah it does! But you are headed in a bad direction and it does no one any good to let an atheist go on believing things will turn out well for him if he continues.

Intellectual dishonesty...give me break.

Really? We can't just not buy into your particular brand of imaginary comfort without serving Satan? There's a whole lot wrong with the "If'n ya ain't with us, then yer agin us!" mentality. Might even be the biggest gripe people have against religion. There are those that serve the imaginary Satan with full intent, they're called Satanists and your efforts may be better directed at them since they at least express an interest in taking the imaginary seriously. Atheists just sit on the sideline and tell you repeatedly that we don't want to play your stupid game.

But here's a tip. If you really want to change the minds of people the way is not with flaccid arguments, ignoring evidence unless you think it agrees with you and constantly twisting someone's point into what you want it to be to make it easier for you to argue with. (And we can start a whole new thread to provide examples if you deny that's what's going on) That makes you look foolish. When I was on the cusp of moving over to atheism from religion I recognized those tactics from a mile away and guess what? You just lost another one.

Geko45
04-23-2012, 13:35
Folks, especially Tilley, there are dozens of threads here to discuss the specifics of any particular argument either for or against the existance of a supreme deity. Please argue those points there.

This thread is about the standards of debate we use here in this forum and the increasing use of dishonest tactics. It's one thing to disagree with what someone has told you here, it's quite another to pretend that they said something entirely different or (even harder to stomach) nothing at all.

Honest debating standards (or the absence of them) are the topic of this thread.

Geko45
04-23-2012, 13:39
I agree. Here's a prime example:

You found a typo in one of my dozens of posts here. That must have been a very proud moment for you. I hope you enjoy it.

Because, clearly, my mispelling of this single word invalidates everything I have written here and conclusively proves that the christian god is real and that the bible is his infallible word. All this, and much more, rest wholly and completely on my incorrect usage of the word "threw".

Sorry fellow atheists, I ruined it for everybody. Pack up the science books, shut down the labs and power off the internet. We are rolling society back to the 1500s. Last one out, please turn off the lights.

Tilley
04-23-2012, 14:12
There are those that serve the imaginary Satan with full intent, they're called Satanists...

People serve satan without full intent. They denounce Jesus.

But here's a tip. If you really want to change the minds of people...You just lost another one.

I can do nothing to save you, that is the work of the Holy Spirit. If souls were lost or saved on account of me, then we are in big trouble.

Again, I claim no religion. Salvation is not found in church. My relationship is with Christ, and salvation is ONLY found in faith in Christ. By believing that God exists, and came to live among us for awhile, and live a perfect life we could never live, and took a punishment we deserved.

If you don't believe, you don't have faith.


But you can find faith today if you ask.

Tilley
04-23-2012, 14:17
Folks, especially Tilley...Honest debating standards (or the absence of them) are the topic of this thread.

And how many threads here have YOU hijacked?:upeyes:



I will respectfully leave your thread at your polite request.

Japle
04-23-2012, 14:27
Posted by Tilly:
Anyone who denounces Jesus as Lord is an antichrist. I really don't think it would be correct to say to an antichrist, "Well...you make a good point, and your views must be considered, and..." Baloney. If you denounce Jesus as Lord, you work for satan, you are deceived.

Does that sound harsh? Heck yeah it does! But you are headed in a bad direction and it does no one any good to let an atheist go on believing things will turn out well for him if he continues.
If you’re actually serious about convincing Atheists of your point of view / beliefs, you’re doing a monumentally poor job of it.

Do you want to succeed? Then you have to come up with just one single piece of genuine, verifiable evidence of your god’s existence. If you’re right and we’re all wrong, that shouldn’t be so hard.

Funny, you’ve created over 2,850 posts without giving us anything more than circular logic, meaningless (to us) scripture, juvenile videos and links to preaching-to-the-choir essays.

Time to get with it.

Tilley
04-23-2012, 14:32
If you’re actually serious about convincing Atheists of your point of view / beliefs, you’re doing a monumentally poor job of it.

Do you want to succeed? Then you have to come up with just one single piece of genuine, verifiable evidence of your god’s existence. If you’re right and we’re all wrong, that shouldn’t be so hard.

Funny, you’ve created over 2,850 posts without giving us anything more than circular logic, meaningless (to us) scripture, juvenile videos and links to preaching-to-the-choir essays.

Time to get with it.

Sorry Japle. I would love to answer you but I was asked to leave...

WS6
04-23-2012, 14:34
You found a typo in one of my dozens of posts here. That must have been a very proud moment for you. I hope you enjoy it.

Because, clearly, my mispelling of this single word invalidates everything I have written here and conclusively proves that the christian god is real and that the bible is his infallible word. All this, and much more, rest wholly and completely on my incorrect usage of the word "threw".

Sorry fellow atheists, I ruined it for everybody. Pack up the science books, shut down the labs and power off the internet. We are rolling society back to the 1500s. Last one out, please turn off the lights.

Oh, quit your sniveling.

Geko45
04-23-2012, 14:40
Sorry Japle. I would love to answer you but I was asked to leave...

Technically, you were only asked to stay on topic.

Japle
04-23-2012, 15:16
Originally Posted by Tilley:
Sorry Japle. I would love to answer you but I was asked to leave...
No problem. Just start another thread and post your answer.

Gunhaver
04-23-2012, 16:01
Sorry Japle. I would love to answer you but I was asked to leave...

There's that Christian martyr complex rearing it's ugly head again. Anything to avoid a thought out and logical response.

Paul7
04-23-2012, 17:26
Intellectual dishonesty...give me break.

Exactly. Let me take a wild guess, the 'intellectually dishonest' happen to be theists.

Paul7
04-23-2012, 17:31
If you’re actually serious about convincing Atheists of your point of view / beliefs, you’re doing a monumentally poor job of it.

Do you want to succeed? Then you have to come up with just one single piece of genuine, verifiable evidence of your god’s existence. If you’re right and we’re all wrong, that shouldn’t be so hard.

Funny, you’ve created over 2,850 posts without giving us anything more than circular logic, meaningless (to us) scripture, juvenile videos and links to preaching-to-the-choir essays.

Time to get with it.

Straw man, I don't know of any theists here who claim God can be 'proved'. There are many arguments for His existence, such as the kalam cosmological argument. The testimony of those who witnessed the Gospel events, the evidence of their changed lives, and my own relationship with the person of Jesus Christ are enough for me.

Now maybe you can tell us how the first non-life became life.

Geko45
04-23-2012, 18:04
Straw man, I don't know of any theists here who claim God can be 'proved'.

WS6 presented his "first mover" argument as a "proof". Did you not read that thread? It's been hotly debated here the last few days.

Now maybe you can tell us how the first non-life became life.

Did you not read Gunhaver's thread that presented an alternate chemistry by which initial life could come about with far less complexity than previously thought?

Really, these are threads on the front page of this forum. You spend far to much time here for any of us to believe that you are not aware of them and what has been presented in them.

This is the exact type of intellectual dishonesty I am talking about in my original post. Pretending like evidence hasn't even been presented when you've already been supplied a mountain of it. If you don't believe it then tell us why you think it's wrong, but don't just pretend it never existed.

Japle
04-23-2012, 19:31
Posted by Paul7:
I don't know of any theists here who claim God can be 'proved'. There are many arguments for His existence, such as the kalam cosmological argument. The testimony of those who witnessed the Gospel events, the evidence of their changed lives, and my own relationship with the person of Jesus Christ are enough for me.
Did you read the post you’re responding to?

Tilly posted:
But you are headed in a bad direction and it does no one any good to let an atheist go on believing things will turn out well for him if he continues.
It sounded to me as if he intended to persuade Atheists to accept his religious view rather than allowing us to “go on believing things will turn out well”. How could this be done? By producing evidence. Arguments won’t do it, especially arguments that have been refuted repeatedly.

Tilly continues to beat his dead horse, piling failure upon failure. You’re right in there with him, repeating the same bogus arguments, highly questionable “testimony” and your subjective feelings.

Do either of you want to save us Atheists from eternal damnation? It’s your duty, isn’t it?

So far, you’re doing a monumentally poor job. I don’t understand why, if your religious conviction is so strong and you’re so certain you’re right, you can’t come up with one actual fact that we’ll find persuasive.

ksg0245
04-23-2012, 20:05
Off topic.

kenpoprofessor
04-23-2012, 20:09
If you don't believe, you don't have faith.


But you can find faith today if you ask.

I can find Faith today, I'll just get her on the phone and ask where she is. Faith is my sister :supergrin:

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

muscogee
04-23-2012, 20:30
Straw man, I don't know of any theists here who claim God can be 'proved'.

Then why do you and yours keep telling the rest of us, "You can't prove God does not exist" and then run and hide when someone asks, "So what". Why don't you give an intellectually honest answer to that instead of trying to change the subject and argue about something that wasn't asked?

Tilley
04-23-2012, 21:24
Do either of you want to save us Atheists from eternal damnation? It’s your duty, isn’t it?

You have all the information you need. If you want a relationship with Christ, it is yours to have.

If you want to be separated from God for all of eternity, with all the weeping and gnashing of teeth, that's yours to have as well.

I can't save you. You need to come to Christ.

Japle
04-24-2012, 05:44
Posted by Tilly:
You have all the information you need.
This is so obviously incorrect, it's hard to believe anyone could type it out with a straight face.

What we need – and this has been said too many times to count – is just one single real, actual, verifiable fact that supports your position. The mythological equivalent of “smoke and mirrors” doesn’t pass the sniff test.

I can't save you.
And for a good reason. You seem to have nothing of value to offer.

Gunhaver
04-24-2012, 08:27
This is so obviously incorrect, it's hard to believe anyone could type it out with a straight face.


You call that a straight face???

http://zodiblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/super-retard.jpg

Altaris
04-24-2012, 15:11
You call that a straight face???

http://zodiblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/super-retard.jpg



Clearly created in the image of god. :supergrin:

juggy4711
04-24-2012, 22:38
People serve satan without full intent. They denounce Jesus...

So Jews that denounce Jesus as the son of God are all folks that serve Satan. Wow learn something new everyday. Doh them Jews.

...and my own relationship with the person of Jesus Christ are enough for me.

How is it you have a relationship with a person that has been dead for at least 2K years?

Now maybe you can tell us how the first non-life became life.

Exactly. Let me take a wild guess, the 'intellectually dishonest' happen to be theists.

While I am a believer and I guess a theist sort of, I find religious theists to be near consistent with their intellectual dishonesty as Geko described it. The inability or refusal to be intellectually honest in such regards I find to be quite sad.

Booker
04-25-2012, 16:01
I love the debates here, partly because neither side can "prove" their position.

Biblical Creation is just as absurd as The Big Bang to me. I love the Religious position that the Bible is the true word of God, until it isn't, then they claim that I don't understand the meaning of a simple word that has been in common usage for a thousand years.

It seem that the hardest thing for folks here is to admit, "I just don't know!"

Celtic Pride
04-25-2012, 16:08
I think that it is fairly obvious that this forum will remain consistant in its ways. Athiests which do not believe in God, will continue to demand scientific evidence be provided by the believers. There is nothing wrong with that ... they view knowledge of science as being "educated", and anything else without merit. They have no burden of proof, because they have made no assertions that anything exsists outside of known and explainable science. Thats a very strong position to argue from.

On the other side of the debate are the believers. I am unaware of any believer that has stated that God can be proven scientifically at this time. You will see us refer to faith. Much of our faith is based on eyewitness accounts as written in the Bible (thats another battle in itself). We choose to have faith based on many other personal experiences in our own lives.

To say that science is not credible would be very foolish and what I think we all would consider "intellectually dishonest". The shortcoming of science is that it is not definitive. None of us knows what science might prove tomorrow. God may be proven by science next year, and then again, maybe never. To disagree with that would also be dishonest.

We can not prove God's exsistence with current science. Athiests cannot honestly say that God will never be proven with science. Neither side has proven or disproven anything during these debates. We probably never will.

My concern here is the lack of respect for other opinions. I know that some of the athiests contend that they are just trying to help people who are searching for the truth, and giving an alternate view point. I can appreciate that too, but the reality is both sides of the argument have been played out so many times here, that a person searching for the truth has years of reading material on this forum, and will probably re read the same points 100 times over again.

I know God is real in my heart. The believers will understand what I have written. I respect the other sides right to their opinions too. I am sure that there is some athiest reading this now who cant wait to tell me how foolish, ignorant, or rediculous I am for believing. Thats not a point. Thats a personal attack. It wouldnt be the first time, and if you feel the need to .... go ahead. I dont question my sanity for believing in God ..... I question myself about all the time spent here debating the EXACT same issues over, and over, and over .......

Are there any aithiests here intellectually honest enough to concede that it is possible that God may be proven by science in the future?

Gunhaver
04-25-2012, 17:06
I love the debates here, partly because neither side can "prove" their position.

Biblical Creation is just as absurd as The Big Bang to me. I love the Religious position that the Bible is the true word of God, until it isn't, then they claim that I don't understand the meaning of a simple word that has been in common usage for a thousand years.

It seem that the hardest thing for folks here is to admit, "I just don't know!"

And what's so absurd about the big bang theory? We observe the universe expanding with galaxies moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance, we detect a cosmic microwave background radiation that was predicted before it was detected as leftover heat from the initial explosion and we see an abundance of light elements like hydrogen and helium which also supports the theory. On top of all of that, the reasonably scientifically educated atheists here (which in my opinion seems to be all of them) and certainly all of the real scientists out there will readily admit that big bang isn't the only way it could have happened but simply the most plausible way based on the evidence at hand.

Which part of that is absurd?

I know! The strawman parts that we hear parroted here every day like "nothing happened to nothing and then everything was created". Those parts sound absurd because they come from creationists, not scientists.

WS6
04-25-2012, 17:31
And what's so absurd about the big bang theory? [ ... ]

Which part of that is absurd?

I know! The strawman parts that we hear parroted here every day like "nothing happened to nothing and then everything was created". Those parts sound absurd because they come from creationists, not scientists.

Would it be reasonable to suggest that a scientist could be a creationist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître) in some sense?

Gunhaver
04-25-2012, 17:55
Would it be reasonable to suggest that a scientist could be a creationist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître) in some sense?

I don't see why not. Even an astrophysicist can believe in god since no one can say for certain that the big bang wasn't god's method of creating the universe. He doesn't even have to believe in any bang model but he won't be taken serious by his colleges unless he can provide evidence to support whatever theory he may have.

The same is true of evolution. God's mechanism for creating life? To say you know for sure that it's not is to claim to know the mind of god which shows some supreme arrogance.

Schabesbert
04-25-2012, 18:00
I don't see why not. Even an astrophysicist can believe in god since no one can say for certain that the big bang wasn't god's method of creating the universe. He doesn't even have to believe in any bang model but he won't be taken serious by his colleges unless he can provide evidence to support whatever theory he may have.

The same is true of evolution. God's mechanism for creating life? To say you know for sure that it's not is to claim to know the mind of god which shows some supreme arrogance.
On this, we agree.

In fact, this meshes quite well with the Jewish and Catholic understanding. Not doctrine, and certainly not infallible doctrine, in the Catholic belief system. But the understanding of the preponderance of the great Saints and theologians and clergy, going back at least to St. Augustine. In fact, it was a priest that coined the term "big bang" in this context.
[Edit: Sorry, WS6, I didn't realize that you had linked to this man.]

Gunhaver
04-25-2012, 18:07
Are there any aithiests here intellectually honest enough to concede that it is possible that God may be proven by science in the future?

If you can provide an example of how god can be proven by science then I'm happy to concede that it's possible. I just can't think of a way that it could be done. Can you?

WS6
04-25-2012, 18:11
If you can provide an example of how god can be proven by science then I'm happy to concede that it's possible. I just can't think of a way that it could be done. Can you?

Short of the Second Coming it probably won't happen.

Geko45
04-25-2012, 18:13
Short of the Second Coming it probably won't happen.

Ok, I'm impressed, an actual admission of fact.

WS6 +1

So, Geko45 - eleventy billion and 5; WS6 - 3.5

:supergrin:

Gunhaver
04-25-2012, 18:14
On this, we agree.

In fact, this meshes quite well with the Jewish and Catholic understanding. Not doctrine, and certainly not infallible doctrine, in the Catholic belief system. But the understanding of the preponderance of the great Saints and theologians and clergy, going back at least to St. Augustine. In fact, it was a priest that coined the term "big bang" in this context.
[Edit: Sorry, WS6, I didn't realize that you had linked to this man.]

I only have disrespect for religion when it denies scientific observation that it knows nothing about or presumes to dictate how others that don't believe should behave. If someone feels the presence of a creator or sees it in nature then I have no more business telling them they don't than I do telling someone they aren't really in love or interested in baseball.

rgregoryb
04-25-2012, 19:42
http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/s320x320/553597_287929561283659_212584365484846_645208_2114613912_n.jpg

Syclone538
04-25-2012, 21:31
...

Are there any aithiests here intellectually honest enough to concede that it is possible that God may be proven by science in the future?

If there is a god, and it's God, then that would be up to God. But yeah, sure it's possible.

On the other hand, if there is no god, I'm not sure it will ever be possible to disprove, because as the gaps get smaller, the goalposts just move away.

muscogee
04-25-2012, 21:57
I love the debates here, partly because neither side can "prove" their position.

Biblical Creation is just as absurd as The Big Bang to me. I love the Religious position that the Bible is the true word of God, until it isn't, then they claim that I don't understand the meaning of a simple word that has been in common usage for a thousand years.

It seem that the hardest thing for folks here is to admit, "I just don't know!"

I have said, "I don't know" several times. So have many other non-believers. The people who don't believe don't have to prove they don't believe.

ithaca_deerslayer
04-25-2012, 21:57
I'd like to take a moment to address an issue that seems to involve nearly every thread here to one degree or another and that issue would be the rampant and pervasive presence of intellectual dishonesty in this forum.

I don't intend to name any names in either praise or criticism. There are certain believers here that I have actually been quite impressed by (I believe you know who you are). Believers that debate fairly and honestly, make the best arguments they can in favor of their position and concede points when it is clear that the counter-point has been established. If you are one of these individuals, I commend you. You do your faith a great service by being a good example of it. Which in my mind is much more important than the validity of any particular argument.

However, there are certain others (you know who you are as well) that have descended into what can only be described as a free-for-all of intellectual dishonesty. No distortion seems to great for these individuals. At no time will they concede that an argument has even been presented, let alone admit that one is valid. They use tactics such as denying that a point has been addressed even when there are multiple pages already presented on the topic. Or changing their argument on the fly when new information is presented without ever admitting that their position has changed. Or the continual demand for "proof" when they themselves offer none and refuse to accept responsibility for even backing their own assertions.

My (rhetorical) question(s) to these individuals is this; What do you think you are accomplishing with these tactics? Do you believe some undecided third party is going to come across your parade of fallacies and not see them for exactly what they are? Are you not the least bit concerned of driving these people away from your faith by putting yourself forward as a negative example? Do you feel no social responsibility in this regard at all? Is it really all just about "winning"?

Now, I have certainly handed out my share of sarcasm and even the occasional ad hominem, but only after I make my case first based on reason and evidence and only as a response to either intellectual dishonesty or similar ad hominems, but I am here for a purpose. Whether you agree with me or not, I am here because I believe that I have learned something that can help others and I want to try to pass on that knowledge to them. I want to help people that are currently stuck where I was stuck several years ago as I know the difficulties it entails.

For those of us entrenched in our positions, we all (on both sides) know that it is unlikely that we will meaningfully sway the other. Most threads here will be fought to a stalemate and it will be up to the reader to make their own judgment on who they agree with, but some threads clearly are not stalemates. Some are entirely within the realm of provable, and yet these threads seem to be the ones that become the most divisive.

I suppose that is just human nature. Nobody likes to be wrong. I have been wrong (only once that I know of ;-), but I do my best to recognize it and admit it publicly when it occurs. In actuality, these are the instances where I typically learn something new. Which is its own reward in my opinion. Can we not all strive for this goal? I'm not talking about any lofty and unattainable ideal, but just the simple first step of recognizing what the other has actually said and addressing it on its own merits as opposed to the verbal game of dodge ball that this forum has become?

Is that to much to ask?

Well, something to cogitate on at any rate, goodnight gentlemen...

The interesting thing about reading GT from a mobile is that if you just look for the latest threads, you have no idea what forum they are from.

I'm going to take a wild guess that this lofty post can only be withgard to the 9 versus 45 debate. I haven't read the rest of the thread yet, but I'm pretty sure I've got this topic pegged.

No other issue, accept maybe religion, can be so divisive on a public forum.

:)

ArtificialGrape
04-25-2012, 22:04
Are there any aithiests here intellectually honest enough to concede that it is possible that God may be proven by science in the future?
I'm not sure what that would look like, but I'm not ruling it out. Of course, God could demonstrate that He was real in any number of spectacular fashions.

As I've said a number of times, science will never be able to prove that God does not exist. At most science would prove that God is not necessary.

-ArtificialGrape

Booker
04-26-2012, 11:37
And what's so absurd about the big bang theory? We observe the universe expanding with galaxies moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance, we detect a cosmic microwave background radiation that was predicted before it was detected as leftover heat from the initial explosion and we see an abundance of light elements like hydrogen and helium which also supports the theory. On top of all of that, the reasonably scientifically educated atheists here (which in my opinion seems to be all of them) and certainly all of the real scientists out there will readily admit that big bang isn't the only way it could have happened but simply the most plausible way based on the evidence at hand.

Which part of that is absurd?

I know! The strawman parts that we hear parroted here every day like "nothing happened to nothing and then everything was created". Those parts sound absurd because they come from creationists, not scientists.

What do I find absurd about the Big Bang Theory?

The concept that all the Matter was compressed into a sigle mass, then something happened to cause it to explode. All the Matter went whizzing out into the Universe and 15 Billion years later and after untold trillion coincidental events, here I am typing at my keyboard!

Science can not tell us what cause the Bang! Science can not tell us why all Matter was compressed into a single mass. Science can't tell us what was happening 1 day or 1 hour or even 1 second before the Bang.

Some tell us that due to the forces of Gravity, the expansion is slowing down, others tell us that due to light studied from Super Novas that the expansion is speeding up.

I'm told that this occured at the center of the Universe, then I'm told that the Universe is infinite. How can there be a center then at the same time wouldn't every point be the center?

We measure the speed of objects moving away from us and draw conclusions based on those measurements. But we don't have the facts of the event. What if the Mass that exploded blew like a shape charge? Or What if the explosion happened nearer an edge than the center? Would this account for different objects traveling at different velocities?
Science still requires a large dose of Faith.

What is the current scientific Theory De Jour?

I, suspect, like most things in life the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes! I could be wrong!

Tango 1Zero
04-26-2012, 11:40
http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/s320x320/553597_287929561283659_212584365484846_645208_2114613912_n.jpg



Awesome! :supergrin:

Booker
04-26-2012, 11:43
I have said, "I don't know" several times. So have many other non-believers. The people who don't believe don't have to prove they don't believe.

Some will state that they don't know. Those are Intellectually honest people. Others are so firmly entrenched, on both sides of the issues, in their dogmas, that No amount of evidence will even cause them to reconsider their position!

Those are the debates I enjoy reading most because the more they stick to their guns the more absurd their arguements become!

void *
04-26-2012, 12:05
What do I find absurd about the Big Bang Theory?

The concept that all the Matter was compressed into a sigle mass, then something happened to cause it to explode. All the Matter went whizzing out into the Universe and 15 Billion years later and after untold trillion coincidental events, here I am typing at my keyboard!

Well, for one, that's not a correct statement of the Big Bang theory.

The Big Bang theory does *not* say "all the matter was compressed into a single mass, then something happened to cause it to explode"

What it says is that the entire universe was a single quantum, containing all the energy. Then what was a single quantum started becoming more quanta, and started expanding.

The Big Bang theory does not say "All the Matter went whizzing out into the Universe".

What it says is that that very small universe containing all the matter and energy started getting bigger.

One of the things that I continually see here in the forum is people not understanding what the Big Bang theory actually states. Some of those people represent the Big Bang theory incorrectly even after being given the information they need to verify for themselves that what I've stated is correct.

Celtic Pride
04-26-2012, 12:06
If you can provide an example of how god can be proven by science then I'm happy to concede that it's possible. I just can't think of a way that it could be done. Can you?

I can not provide any answer for how God can be proven scientifically, but as I have stated before "we dont know what we dont know". I can provide the following example which may help you to understand my reasoning.

In the year 1500, an atom could be split, but it was not possible for man to split an atom. Man did not have the scientific knowledge at the time, but that did not make the claim false. If you could travel back to the year 1500 and attempt to explain the scientific process for which an atom could be split, you would likely have been labeled a lunatic and locked away even though you were 100% correct in your assertion.

You can replace the year or the atom (topic) with many other examples of time any scientific knowledge of the time, and the point would still be valid.

This is why I can not offer scientific proof of God today, but I do not rule it out tomorrow.

WS6
04-26-2012, 12:16
What do I find absurd about the Big Bang Theory?

The concept that all the Matter was compressed into a sigle mass, then something happened to cause it to explode. All the Matter went whizzing out into the Universe and 15 Billion years later and after untold trillion coincidental events, here I am typing at my keyboard!

Why is it absurd that you exist?

Science can not tell us what cause the Bang! Science can not tell us why all Matter was compressed into a single mass. Science can't tell us what was happening 1 day or 1 hour or even 1 second before the Bang.

So what? How is Big Bang negated by your consideration?

Celtic Pride
04-26-2012, 12:17
I'm not sure what that would look like, but I'm not ruling it out.
-ArtificialGrape

Thank you. That is all I asked of the athiests to concede. That is intellectual honesty. A wise man would never say that science has learned all that it can learn. None of us know what knowledge tomorrow brings.

Unfortunately, the physical laws of the world we live in do not allow the dead to return and tell tales of Heaven, hell, or nothingness.

muscogee
04-26-2012, 12:33
Thank you. That is all I asked of the athiests to concede. That is intellectual honesty. A wise man would never say that science has learned all that it can learn. None of us know what knowledge tomorrow brings.

Unfortunately, the physical laws of the world we live in do not allow the dead to return and tell tales of Heaven, hell, or nothingness.

As I have written before, there may be a God I don't know anything about. I wouldn't require much proof, but it would have to be something other than someone's imagination.

Gunhaver
04-26-2012, 13:23
Since Void* set you straight on your misconception of the big bang theory (thankfully better than I could since I'm more about biology than physics) I'm going to focus on this comment,



What is the current scientific Theory De Jour?



That seems to suggest that you're one that considers it a flaw that science changes it's view based on new observations and that the fact that scientists don't often get it right the first time indicates that they have no idea what they're doing. Is that correct?

Celtic Pride
04-26-2012, 16:59
As I have written before, there may be a God I don't know anything about. I wouldn't require much proof, but it would have to be something other than someone's imagination.

That is a fair position. I wish I could offer the proof that you require, but I can not. For now, all I have is simple faith. But I was not always a believer, so I understand where you are coming from. I appreciate your honest opinion that God is not outside of the realm of possibility. I pray that one day you will receive the proof that you require. Thank you for a respectful answer.

Geko45
04-26-2012, 17:24
The only view of god that is somewhat plausible to me is the pantheistic view. Such a god would not be omniscient nor omnipotent, neither would it be the creator as it would be comprised of the universe itself, but the idea that universe is one living conscious being is at least a plausible one.

It's important to note that such a being would have a perception of time so far removed from our own as to make it permanently unvavailable for any sort of personal relationship with a homosapien. It would be like you listening to the thoughts and prayers of one of your own cells.

juggy4711
04-26-2012, 18:23
The only view of god that is somewhat plausible to me is the pantheistic view. Such a god would not be omniscient nor omnipotent, neither would it be the creator as it would be comprised of the universe itself, but the idea that universe is one living conscious being is at least a plausible one.

It's important to note that such a being would have a perception of time so far removed from our own as to make it permanently unvavailable for any sort of personal relationship with a homosapien. It would be like you listening to the thoughts and prayers of one of your own cells.

In relation to the other thread in which we engaging this subject, that is a much better description of my concept of God and said better than I think I would. Cheers.

Geko45
04-26-2012, 18:43
In relation to the other thread in which we engaging this subject, that is a much better description of my concept of God and said better than I think I would. Cheers.

And that was with four empty beer bottles in front of me.

:cool:

juggy4711
04-26-2012, 20:34
And that was with four empty beer bottles in front of me.

:cool:

Working on my sixth, great minds drink a like. :whistling:

Animal Mother
04-27-2012, 00:21
Science can't tell us what was happening 1 day or 1 hour or even 1 second before the Bang.
That's because there isn't a "before the Bang."

fgutie35
04-27-2012, 07:18
That's because there isn't a "before the Bang."
How can you be so sure?
What makes you think this is the only universe?
Now you are thinking like those you critize. (Does "Earth is the only populated planet" ring a bell?).
You claim to base yourself in science observations. As you might know, there is an inmense number of galaxies that we did not know about before hubble scope. There is also the dicovery of many solar systems in our own galaxy. We didn't even know there was a black hole at the center of the milky way. So with these recent surprises, what makes you think our universe is not only one speckle on the millions and millions of universes?

Geko45
04-27-2012, 07:28
Working on my sixth, great minds drink a like. :whistling:

I'd rather have four bottles in front of me than their full frontal lobotomy.

:whistling:

English
04-27-2012, 07:47
How can you be so sure?
What makes you think this is the only universe?
Now you are thinking like those you critize. (Does "Earth is the only populated planet" ring a bell?).
You claim to base yourself in science observations. As you might know, there is an inmense number of galaxies that we did not know about before hubble scope. There is also the dicovery of many solar systems in our own galaxy. We didn't even know there was a black hole at the center of the milky way. So with these recent surprises, what makes you think our universe is not only one speckle on the millions and millions of universes?

Let me try to give a partial answer.

There is a substantial theory that says there are countless universes and that they spring from what might be called imperfections or bubbles on a multidimensional generating surface. For once this is only a theory as it is hardly possibly, I believe, to test it.

On the question of before the big bang, if we ignore the theory refered to above, we cannot say that there was a before because it seems that both time and space were created in that initial instant. At a simpler level, for matter to have been contained in such a small volume, whatever that was, it had to be separated into its fundamental particles and so all information about any "before" was necessarily destroyed. We might choose to say, There was no before!", and it might well be correct, but we can say with certainty that we are unable to wind the clock back, as we can to get to the big bang itself, to a time before the big bang.

This is all very interesting in its own right, but it says little or nothing about the existence of a god or gods except that if they exist or existed they were created as part of the big bang process.

English

Booker
04-27-2012, 16:03
Since Void* set you straight on your misconception of the big bang theory (thankfully better than I could since I'm more about biology than physics) I'm going to focus on this comment,



That seems to suggest that you're one that considers it a flaw that science changes it's view based on new observations and that the fact that scientists don't often get it right the first time indicates that they have no idea what they're doing. Is that correct?

I don't consider scientific changes to change based on observation to be a flaw! I would call that Good, Rational thought.

But if we look at the current state of affairs, The scientific community is similiar to the various religious groups. They each profess to be the true path. There are so many different theories current on the table that one just can't make sense of them.

Geko45
04-27-2012, 16:56
There are so many different theories currently on the table that one just can't make sense of them.

But that is just a red herring. Yes, there are many "theories" on the table, but that doesn't mean that they are all equally valid. Some are strongly supported by the evidence and are entirely plausible. Others are poorly supported (or not supported at all) and strain credulity.

The word "prove" gets thrown around here a lot and it is often noted that neither god's existence nor his nonexistence can be definitely proven. Well, that's true, but the flip side is that if you stop to think about it, almost nothing that we think we "know" can be proven beyond all doubt.

Inductive logic is how we survive in this world. We evaluate information based on the supporting evidence and its likelihood to be true. We do this all the time without ever knowing enough to be certain we've made the right choice. The human mind is a differential engine, nothing more.

Even things that we believe we know deductively, we really don't once you stop to consider it. The example "2+2=4" seems certian, right? But you are making an assumption that your mind is sane and that you can do arithmetic properly.

You can't prove that you are solving the problem correctly, you can't even compare it to other results as you will be assuming your assessment of their solution will be correct (which it won't be if you are insane).

The point being 99.9% of everything we "know" has been arrived at by selecting what is most probable and possible and then testing it for verification. If the test fails then we re-evaluate. If it does not, we proceed with that "truth" until something disproves it.

So, all of these "theories" are not equal in this regard. Some are highly probable and consistent with observed results. Others are fanciful and have almost no empirical support whatsoever. Which should we proceed with?

Geko45
04-27-2012, 17:16
Science can not tell us what cause the Bang!

The initial balance of matter was 50.1% normal matter and 49.9% antimatter. Quantum fluctuations caused a particle to collide with its anti-particle. The resulting matter / antimatter anihilation pushed other particles into other anti-particles and much like springing a trap the entire mass detonated. The slight imbalance between matter and antimatter meant that there was some matter left over and that is what makes up the entire visible universe.

Science can not tell us why all Matter was compressed into a single mass.

Gravity, the first of the forces to arise in the first few planck times of the universe.

Science can't tell us what was happening 1 day or 1 hour or even 1 second before the Bang.

This can only be theorized as time as we know it did not exist before the Big Bang, but one theory puts forth that two extra-dimensional objects called "branes" collided and put into motion the Big Bang. The collision released a massive amount of energy which converted to matter and antimatter (according to e=mc^2) as previously described.

Some tell us that due to the forces of Gravity, the expansion is slowing down, others tell us that due to light studied from Super Novas that the expansion is speeding up.

The expansion has been definitely proven to be speeding up. No Big Crunch. We are a one time universe.

I'm told that this occured at the center of the Universe, then I'm told that the Universe is infinite. How can there be a center then at the same time wouldn't every point be the center?

At one point, everything was the center because it was all so dense. One thing to remember is that spacetime is expanding too.

We measure the speed of objects moving away from us and draw conclusions based on those measurements. But we don't have the facts of the event. What if the Mass that exploded blew like a shape charge? Or What if the explosion happened nearer an edge than the center? Would this account for different objects traveling at different velocities?

But they didn't just measure the red shift of one object. They measured the red shift of a lot of objects. Small variations like you are describing were of no statistical relevance in the overall result.

Science still requires a large dose of Faith.

No it doesn't, because if new evidence contradicts something presented here then we just adjust our theories to incorporate the new knowledge and keep going.

I, suspect, like most things in life the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes! I could be wrong!

You are (wrong). There is no happy middle ground here. You are either a rational mind on a quest for knowledge or you are a superstitous mind that rejects new knowledge because you already "know" everything.

Which do you want to be?

Gunhaver
04-27-2012, 17:41
OK, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the concept of space being created with the big bang. Space being emptiness, wouldn't you just expect it to be everywhere, all the time? In other words, what existed 93BLY away from the point of the big bang a few seconds after the big bang? You either have a void or something filling that void, right?

WS6
04-27-2012, 17:56
OK, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the concept of space being created with the big bang. Space being emptiness, wouldn't you just expect it to be everywhere, all the time?

Peer over the end of the current universe, and what do you see?

In other words, what existed 93BLY away from the point of the big bang a few seconds after the big bang? You either have a void or something filling that void, right?

Isn't that similar to asking what occurred 1 second before Big Bang?

Geko45
04-27-2012, 18:09
OK, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the concept of space being created with the big bang. Space being emptiness, wouldn't you just expect it to be everywhere, all the time? In other words, what existed 93BLY away from the point of the big bang a few seconds after the big bang? You either have a void or something filling that void, right?

As difficult as it is for us to grasp, all evidence indicates this is how it works. As Einstein said, "Once you can accept the universe as being something expanding into an infinite nothing which is something, wearing stripes with plaid is easy."

:supergrin:

Wiki has a good primer article on it: Metric expansion of space (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space)

juggy4711
04-27-2012, 18:23
OK, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the concept of space being created with the big bang. Space being emptiness, wouldn't you just expect it to be everywhere, all the time? In other words, what existed 93BLY away from the point of the big bang a few seconds after the big bang? You either have a void or something filling that void, right?

It's a pointless question with no comprehensible answer.

Peer over the end of the current universe, and what do you see?

Isn't that similar to asking what occurred 1 second before Big Bang?

Just as similar as asking who or what you were 1 second before you were conceived. You weren't, there wasn't.

Geko45
04-27-2012, 18:32
It's a pointless question with no comprehensible answer.

I would disagree. It is not an intuitive idea to grasp, but the wiki link I cited offers several models (or interpretations) to help us visualize what the math predicts in regards to the expansion of spacetime.

RC-RAMIE
04-27-2012, 18:32
It's a pointless question with no comprehensible answer.



Just as similar as asking who or what you were 1 second before you were conceived. You weren't, there wasn't.

I thought this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space gave a pretty good shoot at yet

Disclaimer my post might be based on my opinion and perception of your post, if you don't agree with my opinion I don't care.

Geko45
04-27-2012, 18:35
Disclaimer my post might be based on my opinion and perception of your post, if you don't agree with my opinion I don't care.

Juggy is a reasonable fellow. I'm sure he gets it. He was just addressing the foreign nature of the idea as compared with our perceived reality.

RC-RAMIE
04-27-2012, 18:37
Juggy is a reasonable fellow. I'm sure he gets it. He was just addressing the foreign nature of the idea as compared with our perceived reality.

No that was a sig for somebody else I thought I turned it off but Ohub is glitchy on iPad for me.

Geko45
04-27-2012, 18:42
No that was a sig for somebody else I thought I turned it off but Ohub is glitchy on iPad for me.

Ah, gotcha!

:thumbsup:

juggy4711
04-27-2012, 18:45
Juggy is a reasonable fellow. I'm sure he gets it. He was just addressing the foreign nature of the idea as compared with our perceived reality.

"That's a bingo". Got a day off tomorrow and I'm ahead on the bottle count. My response was not as eloquent as the question deserved. :supergrin:

Geko45
04-27-2012, 18:46
"That's a bingo". Got a day off tomorrow and I'm ahead on the bottle count. My response was not as eloquent as the question deserved. :supergrin:

I'm at three.

:cheers:

juggy4711
04-27-2012, 18:50
I would disagree. It is not an intuitive idea to grasp, but the wiki link I cited offers several models (or interpretations) to help us visualize what the math predicts in regards to the expansion of spacetime.

In reference to models, that is basically how I ultimately view the descriptions of QM, M-theory and the like. They are models. Doesn't matter how accurate the linguistic description of the model is, as long they allows us to make observable, verifiable and measurably correct predictions of future events.

Arc Angel
04-27-2012, 19:08
I'd like to take a moment to address an issue that seems to involve nearly every thread here to one degree or another and that issue would be the rampant and pervasive presence of intellectual dishonesty in this forum. .......

....... I suppose that is just human nature. Nobody likes to be wrong. I have been wrong (only once that I know of), but I do my best to recognize it and admit it publicly when it occurs. In actuality, these are the instances where I typically learn something new. Which is its own reward in my opinion. Can we not all strive for this goal? I'm not talking about any lofty and unattainable ideal, but just the simple first step of recognizing what the other has actually said and addressing it on its own merits as opposed to the verbal game of dodge ball that this forum has become?

Is that to much to ask?

Well, something to cogitate on at any rate, goodnight gentlemen...

:eyelashes: You're right, of course. I would, only, point out that mental prejudice, and emotional rancor (intellectual dishonesty) are inherent characteristics to ALL human nature. So, 'Why' shouldn't such negative personal reactions, also, show up here. In fact, I don't think there's a single forum on this board that doesn't exhibit one form of reprehensible behavior, or another.

Men, simply, don't know how to get along with each other. Until the Second Coming I expect things to remain this way, too. (I think we may agree on that - Right!) ;) Intellectual dishonesty, emotional prejudice, and self-service are part and parcel of being human. In one degree or another, everybody suffers from: selfishness, pride, and self-serving chicanery - including you and me. The question is only one of individual extent. All self-service lends itself to being deceitful, manipulative, and duplicitous. It's just, 'the nature of the beast'.

If you want my honest considered opinion, I think you'd have more luck trying to spit, successfully, into the wind while trying to keep yourself clean than you do of motivating others to a higher standard of ethical behavior. When I was a young man I insisted upon trying to convince myself that other people were inherently good. As an old man I, presently, know better; and, on occasion, curse the ingenuousness of my youth.

You've heard the expression, 'Nice guys finish last.' I'm going to change it, a little, for ya: 'Nice guys don't stand a chance.' I've had to learn, sometimes the hard way, that anybody a psychologist might identify as being, 'well-adjusted' is going to be eaten alive by the world outside that doctor's office. It isn't the moral or well-adjusted people who run this world. Such benign personalities - the ones who tend to be honest and fair-minded - are always going to be victimized by those who are not.

Personally, I wouldn't think of asking the other guy to put his guard down and, 'be honest'. My advice to everyone is to heed The Master's warning, 'Be ye, therefore, cautious as serpents; yet innocent as doves.' Forget about being fair, open, and honest. That's no way to survive after you suddenly wake up one morning and find yourself to be, 'up to your buttocks in a pit full of alligators'.

Right now, and into the foreseeable future, Planet Earth isn't going to be a very nice place to live. Cyberspace, too, is full of intellectual shenanigans and easily duplicitous chicanery. Anyone who spends a lot of time on the Internet needs to get used to word games and trickery. That's just the way things are.

Gunhaver
04-27-2012, 19:17
As difficult as it is for us to grasp, all evidence indicates this is how it works. As Einstein said, "Once you can accept the universe as being something expanding into an infinite nothing which is something, wearing stripes with plaid is easy."

:supergrin:

Wiki has a good primer article on it: Metric expansion of space (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space)

Gaa! Severe math retardation may be the reason I'm more attracted to geo, zoo, paleo, anthrop, and bio ologies than this physics stuff. Anything more complex than what's needed to operate a rifle scope or milling machine escapes me, especially when letters stand in for numbers, but I'll try to get through that article anyway.

Geko45
04-27-2012, 19:23
You've heard the expression, 'Nice guys finish last.' I'm going to change it, a little, for ya: 'Nice guys don't stand a chance.' I've had to learn, sometimes the hard way, that anybody a psychologist might identify as being, 'well-adjusted' is going to be eaten alive by the world outside that doctor's office. It isn't the moral or well-adjusted people who run this world. Such benign personalities - the ones who tend to be honest and fair-minded - are always going to be victimized by those who are not.

This is insightful and undeniably true. I would add that, somewhat ironically, my conversion to athiesm was accompanied by this realization. See, I truly believed in my faith and adhered to its core tenents (e.g. "turn the other cheek") and the world was eating my alive because of it.

It is only after my conversion to athiesm that I saw the world as it really is and learned that I am, in fact, in a competition for resources with those around me. Since that revelation (pun intended), my success in life has increased tremendously and I have accomplished this without even compromising any of my core ethics.

So, why do I come here and plea the case for intellectual honesty? Because it is in my best interests as an atheist and as someone in the top 2% of the population in standardized tests to do so. In an intellectually honest world, I will be more free, more successful and overall happier than I would be otherwise. So yes, there is a self serving aspect, but I believe it to be a high tide that will raise all boats.

juggy4711
04-27-2012, 19:56
...So, why do I come here and plea the case for intellectual honesty? Because it is in my best interests as an atheist and as someone in the top 2% of the population in standardized tests to do so. In an intellectually honest world, I will be more free, more successful and overall happier than I would be otherwise. So yes, there is a self serving aspect, but I believe it to be a high tide that will raise all boats.

There is a simple concept in there that many of the religious can't grasp/refuse to except. That morality doesn't have to have a higher authority. We can be moral out of selfishness. The more moral I am/we are, the more beneficial society/life will be to me/us.

Arc Angel
04-27-2012, 20:12
This is insightful and undeniably true. I would add that, somewhat ironically, my conversion to athiesm was accompanied by this realization. See, I truly believed in my faith and adhered to its core tenents (e.g. "turn the other cheek") and the world was eating my alive because of it.

It is only after my conversion to athiesm that I saw the world as it really is and learned that I am, in fact, in a competition for resources with those around me. Since that revelation (pun intended), my success in life has increased tremendously and I have accomplished this without even compromising any of my core ethics.

So, why do I come here and plea the case for intellectual honesty? Because it is in my best interests as an atheist and as someone in the top 2% of the population in standardized tests to do so. In an intellectually honest world, I will be more free, more successful and overall happier than I would be otherwise. So yes, there is a self serving aspect, but I believe it to be a high tide that will raise all boats.

:headscratch: That's funny! I thought I read where you said something about, 'your conversion to, 'the faith of atheism'. First, that's an oxymoron. Second, if this is, somehow, your faith then you should, at least, learn how to spell the word correctly. Third, if I'm reading you correctly, then, in your quest for fortune and fame you've managed to convert yourself into the very image of what you claim to despise.

I think you, and I have had a similar conversation before - Yes? I once, a long time ago, faced a similar decision in my own life. Upon reflection, I finally decided that I would remain unwilling to trade off, 'eternity' for less than 100 years of material comfort or carnal pleasure. Now, that I'm looking death squarely in the eye I, truly, do not regret this decision. I only hope that I made it early enough in life to work to my advantage!

Atheism entails a lack of personal scruples and benign intellectual standards; strictly speaking, atheism reflects a lack of personal faith rather than an affirmation of it. The commandment all men are SUPPOSED to live by is, 'Do unto others as you WOULD HAVE THEM do unto you.' Not, 'Take care of yourself, first, before all others.' Sometimes this means that you've got to also give, even, evil men, 'a break'. Why? Because The Lord hasn't asked for, He has demanded personal vengeance as His own exclusive right!

I've got 70 years of life-experience, around here, that teach the impossibility of attempting to live successfully without acquiring, in significant measure, that morality Which is closer to God, rather than to one's own self. I wish I could prove this to you; but, it seems that everyman must prove this for himself: When physical death finally arrives it is often unexpected, as well as largely unprepared for. During those first few moments when, 'the soul steps outside the body' you are going to wish with all your heart that you'd lived a better life - One far closer to God than anything the deceitful and self-serving conscious mind is, ever, able to fully appreciate.

How do I know? My friend, I've already been there. It's just that, in my case, I was allowed to return for awhile in order to address some, 'unfinished business'. ;)

ArtificialGrape
04-27-2012, 20:44
Atheism entails a lack of personal scruples and benign intellectual standards; strictly speaking, atheism reflects a lack of personal faith rather than an affirmation of it. The commandment all men are SUPPOSED to live by is, 'Do unto others as you WOULD HAVE THEM do unto you.' Not, 'Take care of yourself, first, before all others.'
Do you believe that atheism in, and of, itself is immoral?

Reciprocal morality precedes Jesus, and versions can be found in many cultures -- Jesus' "do unto others" just seems to be the most well known version.

Outside of worshipping God, I doubt my morality differs significantly from yours -- I'm honest, don't steal/rape/cheat, I seek no carnal pleasures, and I've been faithful to my high school sweetheart bride for 22 years even though I fear no Cosmic Justice and seek no Cosmic reward.

-ArtificialGrape

Geko45
04-27-2012, 21:03
:headscratch: That's funny! I thought I read where you said something about, 'your conversion to, 'the faith of atheism'. First, that's an oxymoron. Second, if this is, somehow, your faith then you should, at least, learn how to spell the word correctly. Third, if I'm reading you correctly, then, in your quest for fortune and fame you've managed to convert yourself into the very image of what you claim to despise.

You know, I was almost prepared to take you seriously.

:sigh:

Where did I say "the faith of atheism"? Nowhere. I was a christian for the first 36 years of my life and I abandoned that faith after attending a christian university where I finally sat down and studied the bible and realized it had no answers. I let go of that obsolete faith in favor of an atheistic worldview. However, I've never referred to atheism as my "faith".

As for becoming what I claim to despise, this is just the typical believer red herring that an atheist can not be a moral or ethical person.

As for my spelling error, congratulations. I do have a propensity to swap my "i"s and "e"s. Typically, I go back in after I make a post and proof read, but I've had a few beers this evening and I neglected to do that. I guess if god scores on spelling then I'm doubly screwed. I would venture though that I have spelled it correctly more often here than I have not.

During those first few moments when, 'the soul steps outside the body' you are going to wish with all your heart that you'd lived a better life

Seriously, what makes you think you know anything about what kind of life I have lived? I'm a bad person because I'm not superstitious? Ok, I get it, you are close to the end and trying to get into heaven. I hope that when I get close to the end that I won't cave on my intellectual integrity and I'll meet death with the same ideals I met life.

juggy4711
04-27-2012, 21:42
...Seriously, what makes you think you know anything about what kind of life I have lived? I'm a bad person because I'm not superstitious? Ok, I get it, you are close to the end and trying to get into heaven. I hope that when I get close to the end that I won't cave on my intellectual integrity and I'll meet death with the same ideals I met life.

Amen? :whistling: :tongueout:

Geko45
04-27-2012, 21:48
Amen? :whistling: :tongueout:

So say we all...

:supergrin:

Arc Angel
04-27-2012, 21:50
Do you believe that atheism in, and of, itself is immoral?

Reciprocal morality precedes Jesus, and versions can be found in many cultures -- Jesus' "do unto others" just seems to be the most well known version.

Outside of worshipping God, I doubt my morality differs significantly from yours -- I'm honest, don't steal/rape/cheat, i seek no carnal pleasures, and I've been faithful to my high school sweetheart bride for 22 years even though I fear no Cosmic Justice and seek no Cosmic reward.

-ArtificialGrape

Yes, I do. Anything - ANYTHING - that takes precedence over, 'The God Who has revealed Himself to mankind in Sacred Scripture' is immoral. What am I talking about? Try this: Pilate asked The Christ, 'What is truth?' Christ never told him. 'Why?' I think because Christ was being polite. He knew that Pilate would not understand; and He had no wish to insult him. 'Truth', in a scriptural sense, is a clear comprehension of The Will Of God.

I'm sure that Pilate possessed some sort of personal scruples. (After all, he attempted to let an innocent man go - Right!) However, Pilate was not close to, 'The Will Of God'; consequently, he, not only, failed to grasp the true essence of what real, 'truth' is, he was also intellectually unable to grasp the essential answer to his own question.

'Reciprocal morality' That’s a cool expression! It’s as catchy as it is sterile and completely vacuous. Reciprocal morality does NOT precede (the teachings of) Jesus. Torah precedes the teachings of Jesus; and it is Torah that is Judaism’s great gift to the entire world of struggling mankind. Without Torah and, subsequently, without The Christ someone like me would have very little - if any - personal comprehension of both God, or salvation from the dire tribulations of all material being.

Your last paragraph closely mimics the parable of the rich young Jew who approached Jesus in an attempt to live a pure life and follow Him. Let’s consider it for a moment:

‘And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And He said unto him, Why callest thou Me good? There is none good but One, that is, God; but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.’

‘He saith unto Him, Which (commandments)? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder; Thou shalt not commit adultery; Thou shalt not steal; Neither shalt thou bear false witness. Honor thy father and thy mother; and, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.’

‘The young man saith unto Him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: What lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow Me; but, when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions.’ - (Matthew 19:16-22)

You say that you, ‘fear no cosmic justice, and seek no cosmic reward’. Are you able to appreciate just how subjective, how introverted, that statement and the attitude it reflects are? Like it or not you, and I are NOT, ‘masters of our own souls’. We, only, delude ourselves into believing such nonsense. The Prophet Jeremiah stated,

‘O Lord, well do I know that it is not even to the man that is walking to direct his own steps. The way of a man is not of his own choosing. O Lord, correct me, therefore; but with judgment, and not in Thine anger, lest Thou reduce me to nothing.’ - (Jeremiah 10:23-24)

I've done my best to answer your question. Thank you for pulling me away from jumping in on anymore of the day's, 'damned gun questions'. (They are no better than frivolous amusements; and, after awhile, they do get tiring - Perhaps, even, a little bit annoying too.) ;)

Geko45
04-27-2012, 21:59
Yes, I do. Anything - ANYTHING - that takes precedence over, 'The God Who has revealed Himself to mankind in Sacred Scripture' is immoral.

And herein lies the real danger of religion. For every person that believes this way, that is one more removed from the set of people that can constructively add to society. Why? Because they stop looking for real answers because they believe their book and god already have it covered.

Arc Angel
04-27-2012, 22:01
You know, I was almost prepared to take you seriously. Where did I say "the faith of atheism"? Nowhere. I was a christian for the first 36 years of my life and I abandoned that faith after attending a christian university where I finally sat down and studied the bible and realized it had no answers. I let go of that obsolete faith in favor of an atheistic worldview. However, I've never referred to atheism as my "faith".

As for becoming what I claim to despise, this is just the typical believer red herring that an atheist can not be a moral or ethical person.

As for my spelling error, congratulations. I do have a propensity to swap my "i"s and "e"s. Typically, I go back in after I make a post and proof read, but I've had a few beers this evening and I neglected to do that. I guess if god scores on spelling then I'm doubly screwed. I would venture though that I have spelled it correctly more often here than I have not.

Seriously, what makes you think you know anything about what kind of life I have lived? I'm a bad person because I'm not superstitious? Ok, I get it, you are close to the end and trying to get into heaven. I hope that when I get close to the end that I won't cave on my intellectual integrity and I'll meet death with the same ideals I met life.

:supergrin: Ahh, there's the Geko I remember! Everyman lives by faith. It's just that some men realize it; and others do not. In your case, your atheism is your faith. That's quite a little tiff you threw there. What did I do? Hit a nerve! Don't be so intellectually dishonest. It's incorrect for you to attempt to ascribe your own personal comprehension or standards to me. You, and I are VERY different people.

Apparently, you've had more than a few beers this evening. If you stop to think about it, I've treated you a whole lot more civilly than you've treated me. And you're the guy who claims to want civility and intellectual honesty - What a frigg 'in joke!

:rollingeyes:

juggy4711
04-27-2012, 22:09
Yes, I do. Anything - ANYTHING - that takes precedence over, 'The God Who has revealed Himself to mankind in Sacred Scripture' is immoral. What am I talking about? Try this: Pilate asked The Christ, 'What is truth?' Christ never told him. 'Why?' I think because Christ was being polite. He knew that Pilate would not understand; and He had no wish to insult him. 'Truth', in a scriptural sense, is a clear comprehension of The Will Of God.

I'm sure that Pilate possessed some sort of personal scruples. (After all, he attempted to let an innocent man go - Right!) However, Pilate was not close to, 'The Will Of God'; consequently, he, not only, failed to grasp the true essence of what real, 'truth' is, he was also intellectually unable to grasp the essential answer to his own question.

'Reciprocal morality' That’s a cool expression! It’s as catchy as it is sterile and completely vacuous. Reciprocal morality does NOT precede (the teachings of) Jesus. Torah precedes the teachings of Jesus; and it is Torah that is Judaism’s great gift to the entire world of struggling mankind. Without Torah and, subsequently, without The Christ someone like me would have very little - if any - personal comprehension of both God, or salvation from the dire tribulations of all material being.

Your last paragraph closely mimics the parable of the rich young Jew who approached Jesus in an attempt to live a pure life and follow Him. Let’s consider it for a moment:

‘And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And He said unto him, Why callest thou Me good? There is none good but One, that is, God; but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.’

‘He saith unto Him, Which (commandments)? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder; Thou shalt not commit adultery; Thou shalt not steal; Neither shalt thou bear false witness. Honor thy father and thy mother; and, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.’

‘The young man saith unto Him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: What lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow Me; but, when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions.’ - (Matthew 19:16-22)

You say that you, ‘fear no cosmic justice, and seek no cosmic reward’. Are you able to appreciate just how subjective, how introverted, that statement and the attitude it reflects are? Like it or not you, and I are NOT, ‘masters of our own souls’. We, only, delude ourselves into believing such nonsense. The Prophet Jeremiah stated,

‘O Lord, well do I know that it is not even to the man that is walking to direct his own steps. The way of a man is not of his own choosing. O Lord, correct me, therefore; but with judgment, and not in Thine anger, lest Thou reduce me to nothing.’ - (Jeremiah 10:23-24)

I've done my best to answer your question. Thank you for pulling me away from jumping in on anymore of the day's, 'damned gun questions'. (They are no better than frivolous amusements; and, after awhile, they do get tiring - Perhaps, even, a little bit annoying too.) ;)

The hoops you have to jump through yet you would judge me because I do not believe Christ was an analog to Perseus.

Geko45
04-27-2012, 22:11
Don't be so intellectually dishonest.

It's not intellectually dishonest for me to be genuinely offended. It's intellectually dishonest for you to intentionally try to hit a nerve instead of staying on point. I responded to your post politely. You did not respond to mine in the same manner.

It's incorrect for you to attempt to ascribe your own personal comprehension or standards to me. You, and I are VERY different people.

Says the person that is ascribing "faith" to me when I do not and is operating under the assumption that atheists are amoral by nature. Heed your own advice. This form of intellectual dishonesty is called hypocrisy.

And you're the guy who claims to want civility and intellectual honesty - What a frigg 'in joke!

Oh, I get it. On some previous occasion I pissed in your Post Toasties and you've been holding a grudge. Got it, thanks...

Blast
04-27-2012, 22:26
:supergrin: Ahh, there's the Geko I remember! Everyman lives by faith. It's just that some men realize it; and others do not. In your case, your atheism is your faith. That's quite a little tiff you threw there. What did I do? Hit a nerve! Don't be so intellectually dishonest. It's incorrect for you to attempt to ascribe your own personal comprehension or standards to me. You, and I are VERY different people.

Apparently, you've had more than a few beers this evening. If you stop to think about it, I've treated you a whole lot more civilly than you've treated me. And you're the guy who claims to want civility and intellectual honesty - What a frigg 'in joke!

:rollingeyes:
Nailed it.
But I don't think it's so much a few beers than it is obsession.
A lot of the atheists here have serious psychological issues.
And to assume that all theists are scientifically ignorant is intellectual dishonesty.
They apparently think they can stop religion. That's funny right there. They can foam at the mouth and crap and piss themselves all they want, but they will not change anything.
There's not a damn thing they can do to stop Christians and Jews from believing in their faiths. So they rant and rave and make fools of themselves on an internet forum. A lot of bravado.:yawn:

juggy4711
04-27-2012, 22:27
So say we all...

:supergrin:

Loved me some BSG!

ArtificialGrape
04-27-2012, 22:37
Yes, I do. Anything - ANYTHING - that takes precedence over, 'The God Who has revealed Himself to mankind in Sacred Scripture' is immoral. What am I talking about? Try this: Pilate asked The Christ, 'What is truth?' Christ never told him. 'Why?' I think because Christ was being polite. He knew that Pilate would not understand; and He had no wish to insult him. 'Truth', in a scriptural sense, is a clear comprehension of The Will Of God.

Well, at least I'll be in the immoral company of Jains, Hindus, Buddhists and Jews since they don't worship Jesus either.

'Reciprocal morality' That’s a cool expression! It’s as catchy as it is sterile and completely vacuous. Reciprocal morality does NOT precede (the teachings of) Jesus. Torah precedes the teachings of Jesus; and it is Torah that is Judaism’s great gift to the entire world of struggling mankind. Without Torah and, subsequently, without The Christ someone like me would have very little - if any - personal comprehension of both God, or salvation from the dire tribulations of all material being.
Versions of reciprocal morality were found in ancient Babylon, Greece, Egypt, China as well as in most world religions, with many of those preceding the teachings of Jesus and the Torah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule


Your last paragraph closely mimics the parable of the rich young Jew who approached Jesus in an attempt to live a pure life and follow Him. Let’s consider it for a moment:
I don't particularly surround myself with possessions though I do enjoy my iPhone and a handful of pistols :cool:
You say that you, ‘fear no cosmic justice, and seek no cosmic reward’. Are you able to appreciate just how subjective, how introverted, that statement and the attitude it reflects are? Like it or not you, and I are NOT, ‘masters of our own souls’. We, only, delude ourselves into believing such nonsense.
To believe otherwise, I would first need to see evidence that souls exist.

I've done my best to answer your question. Thank you for pulling me away from jumping in on anymore of the day's, 'damned gun questions'. (They are no better than frivolous amusements; and, after awhile, they do get tiring - Perhaps, even, a little bit annoying too.) ;)
Cheers,
-ArtificialGrape

ArtificialGrape
04-27-2012, 22:44
There's not a damn thing they can do to stop Christians and Jews from believing in their faiths.
Why do you include Jews, don't you believe that they're misguided and destined for hell just like Hindus, Muslims and atheists?

-ArtificialGrape

Syclone538
04-27-2012, 23:01
...
Everyman lives by faith.
...
Don't be so intellectually dishonest.
...

:rofl:

muscogee
04-28-2012, 03:34
How do I know? My friend, I've already been there. It's just that, in my case, I was allowed to return for awhile in order to address some, 'unfinished business'. ;)

Paul had a couple of near death experiences and interpreted them the same way you do. What you can't know is whether these experiences were real or hallucinations. Hallucinations frequently seem real. I had an otherwise rational uncle who saw apparitions towards the end of his life. He told me that he knew they couldn't be real but they appeared as real to him as I did. If you get a chance, watch A Beautiful Mind (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0268978/). It is a true story.

muscogee
04-28-2012, 03:53
Nailed it.
Wrong
But I don't think
Right

A lot of the atheists here have serious psychological issues.

By all means Sigmund, please list and define these serious psychological issues. Please include your credentials.

And to assume that all theists are scientifically ignorant is intellectual dishonesty.
Who said all? That's intellectually dishonest.

They apparently think they can stop religion. According to whom? More intellectual dishonesty.


They can foam at the mouth and crap and piss themselves all they want, but they will not change anything.
There's not a damn thing they can do to stop Christians and Jews from believing in their faiths. So they rant and rave and make fools of themselves on an internet forum. A lot of bravado.:yawn:

Now that's an intellectual treatise.

Animal Mother
04-28-2012, 05:07
How can you be so sure? Researching the matter.
What makes you think this is the only universe? I didn't say that it was. However, if there are different universes, they would also have different space-times. My position would still be true for our universe.
Now you are thinking like those you critize. (Does "Earth is the only populated planet" ring a bell?). No, I'm really not. I'm sharing what I know based on the available information, I'm open to being shown to be incorrect.
You claim to base yourself in science observations. Only because I do.
As you might know, there is an inmense number of galaxies that we did not know about before hubble scope. There is also the dicovery of many solar systems in our own galaxy. We didn't even know there was a black hole at the center of the milky way. So with these recent surprises, what makes you think our universe is not only one speckle on the millions and millions of universes? Again, I don't think that. I'm very aware of the many worlds interpretation, but that doesn't imply that anything (including time) existed in this universe before the initial event.

Gunhaver
04-28-2012, 05:09
Oh look, Blast is back and bored :yawn: as usual.

Nailed it.
But I don't think it's so much a few beers than it is obsession.
Obsession? Meh, it's a game he excels at. No surprise he likes to play. You on the other hand rather suck at it which explains why you don't show up here often.
A lot of the atheists here have serious psychological issues.
None of us are keen on talking to imaginary friends in the sky. That seems something like a psychological issue.
And to assume that all theists are scientifically ignorant is intellectual dishonesty.
I haven't seen any atheists claim such. The theists that have to constantly misrepresent scientific theories in order to argue them are either stubbornly scientifically illiterate or intellectually dishonest. Can you think of a third option? If the theories are so absurd then argue the actual theories, don't twist them into some retarded version that only shows how much you don't get it.
They apparently think they can stop religion. That's funny right there. They can foam at the mouth and crap and piss themselves all they want, but they will not change anything.
There's not a damn thing they can do to stop Christians and Jews from believing in their faiths. So they rant and rave and make fools of themselves on an internet forum. A lot of bravado.:yawn:

We don't have any desire to stop anyone from believing. Choose your words better and show less ignorance (or don't and be a perfect example of theist weak mindedness, either way you serve our purpose). It's been stated here countless times by everyone that considers themselves an atheist that they're only concerned with the negative impact of religion on society. Someday you may come to understand that only sound, logical arguments matter in these debates when undecided, inteligent people come to view them. You have your good word to spread, I have mine. The only difference is that we each go after very different audiences.

Arc Angel
04-28-2012, 06:47
The hoops you have to jump through yet you would judge me because I do not believe Christ was an analog to Perseus.

That's strange? I don't even remember you being in this thread; nor did I mention you by name. How, then, have I judged you?

Perhaps, without consciously realizing it, you have judged yourself. My suggestion would be for you to, 'watch your mouth', though. Christ warned us that every man is going to be required to stand and answer for his every single: thought, word, and deed - Everything from the greatest to the very least of his sins.

From where I'm standing, you're, 'walking straight into judgment' with a God Whom you have openly despised. By any standard, your very public incredulity (Which amounts to blasphemy.) ain't smart! ;)

Arc Angel
04-28-2012, 08:00
Paul had a couple of near death experiences and interpreted them the same way you do. What you can't know is whether these experiences were real or hallucinations. Hallucinations frequently seem real. I had an otherwise rational uncle who saw apparitions towards the end of his life. He told me that he knew they couldn't be real but they appeared as real to him as I did. If you get a chance, watch http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0268978/. It is a true story.

I respect what you're saying. Nevertheless, I am the one who was there, not you, not anybody else. Christ told the disbelieving Pharisees who continued, over and over again, to ask Him for, ‘a sign’ that even if a brother were to return from the dead, still, his own disbelieving siblings would not accept the astonishing witness of their own dead brother. Such is the true nature of, ‘men of little faith’. (Luke 16:19-31)

In any objective analysis of your uncle’s state-of-mind the fact that GOD IS THE CREATOR has to be taken into careful consideration. It is entirely within the corrupt nature of the conscious mind to disbelieve - to genuinely fail to comprehend - either the exact nature or precise reality of, ‘The Character Of God’. Your uncle apparently didn’t understand what was happening to him; you don’t understand it, either; and it’s not entirely fair to approach me for an explanation. Real or otherwise, what your uncle experienced was a consequence of his own karma, and needs to be translated from inside the particular story and intimate details of his own life.

Wiser, more adept, men than either you, or I - and wiser than any of these preposterous self-assuming clowns who lurk around this forum waiting to devour badly confused souls - have described all physical existence as an, ‘illusion’; and life, itself, as a highly deceptive materialistic, 'dream'. I don’t know exactly what your uncle saw, or why. Like you, I may only suspect; and this brings into question each of our own respective abilities to distinguish between fact, and fiction - ALL of the varied influences in the world around us.

Internet religious forum, 'crap-mouthing' aside, I wonder? Would you be willing to stand, like me, and attempt to, ‘walk through the darkness’? I didn’t find the experience of my own intruding death to be a particularly frightening experience; but, neither did I find it to be a particularly pleasant one, either. Judgment is harsh! ‘Coming back’ was, I assure you, not an easy thing to do.

Thank you! I’ve already seen, ‘A Beautiful Mind’. To be entirely candid, it’s not my kind of movie.

Geko45
04-28-2012, 08:26
Wiser, more adept, men than either you, or I - and wiser than any of these preposterous self-assuming clowns who lurk around this forum waiting to devour badly confused souls - have described all physical existence as an, ‘illusion’; and life, itself, as a highly deceptive materialistic, 'dream'.

Perhaps, without consciously realizing it, you have judged yourself. My suggestion would be for you to, 'watch your mouth', though. Christ warned us that every man is going to be required to stand and answer for his every single: thought, word, and deed - Everything from the greatest to the very least of his sins.

While people like Tilley and Blast are annoying to no end as they shout insults in support of a supposedly just and loving god, people like Arc Angel are truly dangerous. These are the folks that would blindly and enthusiastically lead humanity into another Dark Age.

Animal Mother
04-28-2012, 08:53
In any objective analysis of your uncle’s state-of-mind the fact that GOD IS THE CREATOR has to be taken into careful consideration. Did I miss the part in among all the condemnations and nonsensical pronouncements where you proved this particular fact?

Tilley
04-28-2012, 09:48
While people like Tilley and Blast are annoying to no end as they shout insults in support of a supposedly just and loving god, people like Arc Angel are truly dangerous. These are the folks that would blindly and enthusiastically lead humanity into another Dark Age.

The difference between Arc Angel and myself is he cares enough to try to make you understand how deceived you zombies are. I have given up and am perfectly okay with the fact that a lot of people are doomed to spend eternity in hell.

I fight the fights I can win. While I agree 100% and applaude Arc, I also see that he wasted at least an hour of his life that he will never get back on the deaf ears of the walking-dead. I have tried to do what he has done, and in the end, it reached no one. I expended hours of my life trying to reach others, such as yourself, who are deceived and headed for destruction, and all I got for my efforts was wasted time and insults.

If you want to drink poison, then do it...I don't care. I will save my efforts for those who want an alternative to destruction.

Tilley
04-28-2012, 09:54
While people like Tilley and Blast are annoying to no end as they shout insults in support of a supposedly just and loving god, people like Arc Angel are truly dangerous. These are the folks that would blindly and enthusiastically lead humanity into another Dark Age.

Oh, and one last thing about your comment: Thank you for this compliment. Another man in another time was characterized this same way. He was a voice crying in the wind. No man ever born of a woman was greater than he, yet he is the least in Heaven.

Thanks Again.

Tilley
04-28-2012, 09:57
Nailed it.
But I don't think it's so much a few beers than it is obsession.
A lot of the atheists here have serious psychological issues.
And to assume that all theists are scientifically ignorant is intellectual dishonesty.
They apparently think they can stop religion. That's funny right there. They can foam at the mouth and crap and piss themselves all they want, but they will not change anything.
There's not a damn thing they can do to stop Christians and Jews from believing in their faiths. So they rant and rave and make fools of themselves on an internet forum. A lot of bravado.:yawn:

Nice...

WS6
04-28-2012, 11:31
.....

void *
04-28-2012, 11:32
In other words, what existed 93BLY away from the point of the big bang a few seconds after the big bang?

There was no 93 billion light years away from the point of the big bang because there weren't enough quanta of space for there to be a 93 billion light years away. It is not meaningful to talk about space or distance (or time) until that quantum with all the energy in it started expanding and there were more quanta.

muscogee
04-28-2012, 11:52
In any objective analysis of your uncle’s state-of-mind the fact that GOD IS THE CREATOR has to be taken into careful consideration. It is entirely within the corrupt nature of the conscious mind to disbelieve - to genuinely fail to comprehend - either the exact nature or precise reality of, ‘The Character Of God’. Your uncle apparently didn’t understand what was happening to him; you don’t understand it, either; and it’s not entirely fair to approach me for an explanation. Real or otherwise, what your uncle experienced was a consequence of his own karma, and needs to be translated from inside the particular story and intimate details of his own life.

Actually he understood quite well. He had severe Parkinson's. If he took enough medication to control the Parkinson's he hallucinated. If he didn't take enough medications his Parkinson's got so bad he couldn't walk or feed himself.

He never could quite describe what he saw, but they were some type of disembodied malformed entities. He knew they weren't real because they couldn't be real.

Internet religious forum, 'crap-mouthing' aside, I wonder? Would you be willing to stand, like me, and attempt to, ‘walk through the darkness’? I didn’t find the experience of my own intruding death to be a particularly frightening experience; but, neither did I find it to be a particularly pleasant one, either. Judgment is harsh! ‘Coming back’ was, I assure you, not an easy thing to do.

I've been in the hospital 6 times in the past few years for heart problems. No problem. My atheist uncle faced death with more dignity than any of my Christian relatives. He laughed and joked about his deteriorating condition. Like you, my Christian relatives were terrified. They, and numerous other people begged and pleaded for God to fix them. Of course, that made no difference.

muscogee
04-28-2012, 12:01
However, I'm sure you have a solution (http://renovomedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/arbeit_macht_frei.jpg) for non-contributors, right?

OK, one more time. http://ahquotes.tripod.com/

Thanks for making Geko45's point.

Geko45
04-28-2012, 13:20
However, I'm sure you have a solution for non-contributors, right?

LOL! Actually, I do. This is it. I call it "education", but nice try at a smear campaign.

:thumbsup:

Next

WS6
04-28-2012, 14:06
.....

Snapper2
04-28-2012, 14:32
Quick question on the definition of intellectual dishonesty. If a patient was dying of a deadly disease that kills a high percentage of its victims,would it be a case of intellectual dishonesty of the doctor to(not tell) his patient there is no hope for him?It seems like the patient might want to quit fighting if told the truth.:dunno:

Gunhaver
04-28-2012, 16:53
Quick question on the definition of intellectual dishonesty. If a patient was dying of a deadly disease that kills a high percentage of its victims,would it be a case of intellectual dishonesty of the doctor to(not tell) his patient there is no hope for him?It seems like the patient might want to quit fighting if told the truth.:dunno:

That would be lie by omission. People should always have all the facts so they can make the most informed choices. Anything else is just trying to influence someone's decision for whatever reason.

Gunhaver
04-28-2012, 17:16
And herein lies the real danger of religion. For every person that believes this way, that is one more removed from the set of people that can constructively add to society. Why? Because they stop looking for real answers because they believe their book and god already have it covered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vfOpZD4Sm8&feature=related#

Geko45
04-28-2012, 18:01
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vfOpZD4Sm8&feature=related#

:thumbsup:

Geko45
04-28-2012, 18:06
Of course it is "education". Some governments have done very well in this regard to insure that their citizens are lock step (http://drscoundrels.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/north_korean_army.jpg) in contributing to society.

Try as you might with your smear campaign, but I have taken an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, with my life if necessary.

Have you?

FYI: I am a Catholic before I am a citizen of the U.S.

See, I am a citizen first, last and always. No split allegiances here.

WS6
04-28-2012, 18:12
.....

Animal Mother
04-28-2012, 18:30
Twice in 1971, and once in each of the years of 1974, 1980, 1985, 1988, and 1989. When you took that oath, were you lying? What would you do if the US and the Catholic Church came into conflict given your statement above?

WS6
04-28-2012, 18:34
When you took that oath, were you lying?

Nope.

What would you do if the US and the Catholic Church came into conflict given your statement above?

I was not a Catholic during the periods of military service covered by those oaths.

Geko45
04-28-2012, 18:50
Twice in 1971, and once in each of the years of 1974, 1980, 1985, 1988, and 1989.

Alright then, so there is common ground afterall. Maybe we should start there and try to build an understanding of each others position?

There's the olive branch, will you take it?

(although I have to ask, why so much oath taking? I only took it once for an eight year stint)

WS6
04-28-2012, 19:04
Alright then, so there is common ground afterall. Maybe we should start there and try to build an understanding of each others position?

There's the olive branch, will you take it?

Rabbit food?! Geez, I'd rather have a beer.

WS6 - 8; Geko45 - 0

(although I have to ask, why so much oath taking? I only took it once for an eight year stint)

Edited:

Various assignments required additional service time, so a new oath was administered to cover the new period. Also, enlistment periods were limited to a maximum of six years.

Geko45
04-28-2012, 21:00
Rabbit food?! Geez, I'd rather have a beer.

:beer: > :bunny:

Now that is two things we agree on.

WS6 - 3.5; Geko45 - eleventy billion and six

And now three!

:tongueout:

Tilley
04-28-2012, 23:05
Geez you guys...get a room! :upeyes:

Japle
04-29-2012, 05:19
Posted by WS6:
I was not a Catholic during the periods of military service covered by those oaths.
When you left the service, no one told you that you were released from those oaths. I took the oath five times myself over 27 years and when I got out I was told to forget a bunch of classified stuff, but no one mentioned my oath to the Constition. As far as I'm concerned, my oath is still in effect. Why wouldn't it be?

The question still stands:

What would you do if the US and the Catholic Church came into conflict?

inthefrey
04-29-2012, 06:41
What would you do if the US and the Catholic Church came into conflict?

Become a Lutheran..:supergrin::wavey:
http://cyberbrethren.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Luther-posting-95-theses-560x366.jpg

Japle
04-29-2012, 09:58
Man, if he doesn't watch what he's doing, he's gonna whack his thumb with that hammer!!

WS6
04-29-2012, 10:42
When you left the service, no one told you that you were released from those oaths.

That's odd. I don't remember seeing you there. However, I do distinctly remember no one telling me they were binding. Peruse the pertinent retirement regulations for your particular service, and see what you find.

I took the oath five times myself over 27 years and when I got out I was told to forget a bunch of classified stuff, but no one mentioned my oath to the Constition.

I presume you refer to the Constitution of the United States. Anyway, a person has to ask oneself: if an Oath of Enlistment is binding until one dies, why on earth am I repeating myself on each and every term of reenlistment?

As far as I'm concerned, my oath is still in effect.

Fine. Knock yourself out.

Why wouldn't it be?

It was not articulated as such, that's why.

The question still stands:

What would you do if the US and the Catholic Church came into conflict?

What part of …

I am a Catholic before I am a citizen of the U.S.

… don't you understand?

Japle
04-29-2012, 14:13
The oath to protect and defend the Constitution will expire only if you consider it a mere “oath of enlistment” formality. If you see it as a sincere, personal oath, that’s a different oath altogether.

When a naturalized citizen takes his Oath of Allegiance, it goes like this:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

Should they feel different about their obligations to the Constitution from someone born here?

Certainly, a lot of people born here feel they can sit back and let others “support and defend” the Constitution. It’s strange to find someone who’s served in the Armed Forces who takes that attitude.

WS6
04-29-2012, 15:57
The oath to protect and defend the Constitution will expire only if you consider it a mere “oath of enlistment” formality. If you see it as a sincere, personal oath, that’s a different oath altogether.

Mere formality? Says who?

When a naturalized citizen takes his Oath of Allegiance, it goes like this:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

Should they feel different about their obligations to the Constitution from someone born here?

Been there and done that with two immediate members of my family. Preach to someone else on this point.

Certainly, a lot of people born here feel they can sit back and let others “support and defend” the Constitution. It’s strange to find someone who’s served in the Armed Forces who takes that attitude.

I find it strange that someone, who claims 27 years of service and harps on the defense of the U.S. Constitution, questions my right to exercise a key element of the First Amendment, namely:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; [ … ]

Traitor is an apropos label for you.

Japle
04-29-2012, 17:50
Most of WS6’s comments don’t merit an answer.

The funny comment,
I find it strange that someone who claims 27 years of service, and who harps on defense of the U.S. Constitution, questions my right to exercise a key element of the First Amendment, namely:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …
Is just so far out in left field that I can’t figure out where it came from, unless WS6 is referring to my questions about his statement:
I am a Catholic before I am a citizen of the U.S.
...that his Catholic faith comes before his country.
Personally, nothing could make me choose to turn traitor against my country, but WS6 is obviously ready and willing to do exactly that.

Gunhaver
04-29-2012, 18:06
Most of WS6’s comments don’t merit an answer.


Apparently he feels like some of his comments don't even merit staying up to be responded to. How many have been edited down to nothing but "...." now?

WS6
04-29-2012, 18:15
Most of WS6’s comments don’t merit an answer.

The funny comment,

Is just so far out in left field that I can’t figure out where it came from, unless WS6 is referring to my questions about his statement:

...that his Catholic faith comes before his country.
Personally, nothing could make me choose to turn traitor against my country, but WS6 is obviously ready and willing to do exactly that.

If folks like you manage to break the U.S. Constitution by suppressing my free exercise of religion, I guess I'll be an outlaw.

WS6
04-29-2012, 18:19
Apparently he feels like some of his comments don't even merit staying up to be responded to. How many have been edited down to nothing but "...." now?

As Geko45 wanted a truce with me, I deleted several posts to that end.

Gunhaver
04-29-2012, 18:38
If folks like you manage to break the U.S. Constitution by suppressing my free exercise of religion, I guess I'll be an outlaw.

How has your free exercise of religion ever been suppressed in this country? We state time after time that it's only your religion's intrusion into other's lives that we want to suppress. When we start bulldozing the churches and burning the bibles you can complain. Til then you're just another conspiracy theorist.

Gunhaver
04-29-2012, 18:40
As Geko45 wanted a truce with me, I deleted several posts to that end.

Fair enough, but better to think about what you say before you hit "submit" so you can own what you say don't you think?

WS6
04-29-2012, 18:48
How has your free exercise of religion ever been suppressed in this country?

It has not.

We state time after time that it's only your religion's intrusion into other's lives that we want to suppress.

How has my free exercise of my religion intruded into your life?

When we start bulldozing the churches and burning the bibles you can complain.

Don't be a nitwit. I haven't lodged a complaint regarding the free exercise of my religion.

Til then you're just another conspiracy theorist.

And you have the attention span of a gnat.

WS6
04-29-2012, 18:50
Fair enough, but better to think about what you say before you hit "submit" so you can own what you say don't you think?

I have a swell idea. You manage your posts and I'll manage mine, okay?

Mister_Beefy
04-29-2012, 19:14
How has your free exercise of religion ever been suppressed in this country? We state time after time that it's only your religion's intrusion into other's lives that we want to suppress. When we start bulldozing the churches and burning the bibles you can complain. Til then you're just another conspiracy theorist.


:rofl::rofl:

You need to read up on the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

The definition of religion:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.


Atheism is just another sect.

and just like any other sect, some of it's adherents are humble and polite while others are pompous and loud.


there just ain't no proving it, folks.

so follow your heart and/or your head, and allow others to do the same.

if you really believe in Jesus, and when you die you'll be judged by him, do you think he'd really want you to spend your time arguing with atheists?

and if you really don't believe in Jesus, and when you die it's simply an end to your existence, then why would you want to waste your time arguing with some Christian?

We have more in common than most realize.

Gunhaver
04-29-2012, 19:24
It has not.

Then why even bring it up? Which brought me to the conspiracy theorist comment.

How has my free exercise of my religion intruded into your life?

Ever voted against abortion rights? Gay rights? Stem cell research? Voted for ID in public schools? Voted for any politician that holds those views? And that's just what you're free to do. Vote. No telling how many ways you're willing to cross that line in the name of god.

Don't be a nitwit. I haven't lodged a complaint regarding the free exercise of my religion.


You went there with one of your comments. Don't feel compelled to .... it out. Leave it for prosperity.

And you have the attention span of a gnat.
Sorry what? I wasn't listening.

Gunhaver
04-29-2012, 19:58
:rofl::rofl:

You need to read up on the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

The definition of religion:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.


Atheism is just another sect.
By insisting that atheism is a religion are you bringing yourself down to our level or us up to yours? If it's the former then why bother and if it's the latter then no thanks.
and just like any other sect, some of it's adherents are humble and polite while others are pompous and loud.

I guess that's true of almost any group. Hardly a defining characteristic of a religion. Ever been to a ball game?
there just ain't no proving it, folks.
Sure there is, to varying degrees that people will or will not accept depending on how intellectually honest one feels like being. The difference is atheists never accept your type of proof in any aspect of life but you accept our type of proof, even demand it, in most aspects of life except for that one aspect that you put above the requirement for that type of proof. Funny enough you have no problem trotting out that type of proof when you think it supports your claims. We are not on equal footing in the evidence department no matter what you want to claim. And that just gave me the answer to my first question.
so follow your heart and/or your head, and allow others to do the same. Same to you pal.

if you really believe in Jesus, and when you die you'll be judged by him, do you think he'd really want you to spend your time arguing with atheists?

and if you really don't believe in Jesus, and when you die it's simply an end to your existence, then why would you want to waste your time arguing with some Christian?

The negative effects of religion are well documented throughout history. The negative effects of atheism are as imaginary as the god myths themselves. Again, we are not on equal footing here. These are not 2 diametrically opposed concepts. This is a belief in a concept vs. a disbelief in a concept. For example, this isn't Colts vs. Giants, this is Colts vs. "I don't give a crap about football and could you please clean all the garbage from your drunken Super Bowl party out of my yard?"

We have more in common than most realize.
We're both carbon based. :dunno:

Geko45
04-29-2012, 20:21
The definition of religion:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
So what constitutes the set of "beliefs" for the "sect" of Atheism?

inthefrey
04-29-2012, 21:34
We're both carbon based. :dunno:

:ufo:

http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/images/6/67/Ilia_probe.jpg

Geko45
04-29-2012, 21:40
As Geko45 wanted a truce with me, I deleted several posts to that end.

To clarify, I fully expect us to argue our respective cases with everything we have at our disposal. I just hope that we can do so with a measure of respect for each other and with at least some effort at understanding where the other is coming from.

Animal Mother
04-30-2012, 00:24
If folks like you manage to break the U.S. Constitution by suppressing my free exercise of religion, I guess I'll be an outlaw.No one is advocating suppressing the free exercise of religion, but if you side with the Catholic Church over the United States, if the two were to come into conflict, Article III Section 3 would be the relevant portion of the Constitution to consider.

WS6
04-30-2012, 03:56
No one is advocating suppressing the free exercise of religion, but if you side with the Catholic Church over the United States, if the two were to come into conflict, Article III Section 3 would be the relevant portion of the Constitution to consider.

Perhaps you envision me joining the Swiss Guard with pike in hand to engage the 82nd Airborne Division in pitched battle. Sorry, but that's not how it works. It will be a matter of going to jail or prison for noncompliance with a law on some issue that violates a religious principle of mine. Again, I am a Catholic before I am a citizen of the U.S.

Animal Mother
04-30-2012, 04:51
Perhaps you envision me joining the Swiss Guard with pike in hand to engage the 82nd Airborne Division in pitched battle. Sorry, but that's not how it works. It will be a matter of going to jail or prison for noncompliance with a law on some issue that violates a religious principle of mine. Again, I am a Catholic before I am a citizen of the U.S.I'm not envisioning anything, I'm just pointing out the implications of claiming allegiance to another group or nation. If the Pope did command you, or Catholics in general, into conflict with the USA, how would you respond?

Lowjiber
04-30-2012, 05:38
Today, I made my first, and last, venture into this forum. Admittedly, I've been curious as to why there was a religious forum on a firearm site. I still don't get the point.

WS6
04-30-2012, 08:53
I'm not envisioning anything, I'm just pointing out the implications of claiming allegiance to another group or nation. If the Pope did command you, or Catholics in general, into conflict with the USA, how would you respond?

Again, that's not how it works. It will be a matter of going to jail or prison for noncompliance with a law on some issue that violates a religious principle of mine.

Japle
04-30-2012, 09:13
Posted by WS6:
It will be a matter of going to jail or prison for noncompliance with a law on some issue that violates a religious principle of mine.
Give us an example.

WS6
04-30-2012, 09:31
Give us an example.

I would be noncompliant with laws which restricted assemblage for the Catholic Mass.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Japle
04-30-2012, 11:16
Posted by WS6:
I would be noncompliant with laws which restricted assemblage for the Catholic Mass.
That has to be the silliest comment I’ve seen on this forum all month.

There's no reason to think there's any remote chance of that happening. This goes ‘way past the “tinfoil hat” stage.

IndianaMatt
04-30-2012, 11:20
How can you speak to intellectual dishonesty, on a forum on RELIGION!?

WS6
04-30-2012, 11:21
That has to be the silliest comment I’ve seen on this forum all month.

There's no reason to think there's any remote chance of that happening.

Show where I stated that this had any remote chance of happening.

This goes ‘way past the “tinfoil hat” stage.

It is really your choice. You can always remove your hat and quit being silly.

Mister_Beefy
04-30-2012, 11:31
You need to read up on the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

funny how you ignored this part.

Japle
04-30-2012, 15:31
Originally Posted by Japle:
That has to be the silliest comment I’ve seen on this forum all month.

There's no reason to think there's any remote chance of that happening.
Response from WS6:
Show where I stated that this had any remote chance of happening.
Are you serious?
You said:
It will be a matter of going to jail or prison for noncompliance with a law on some issue that violates a religious principle of mine.
I asked you for an example. Your example was:
I would be noncompliant with laws which restricted assemblage for the Catholic Mass.
If you’re sure there’s not even a remote chance of that happening, why did you provide it as an example?

Apparently, you thinks it’s an unrealistic example. Do you have one that is realistic?
Try to come up with one you're willing to stand behind this time.

WS6
04-30-2012, 15:36
How has my free exercise of my religion intruded into your life?

Ever voted against abortion rights? Gay rights? Stem cell research? Voted for ID in public schools? Voted for any politician that holds those views? And that's just what you're free to do. Vote. No telling how many ways you're willing to cross that line in the name of god.

I get to vote on the basis of being a citizen of this country, not on the basis on my religion. Hey, it appears that my voting tendencies run counter to your desire to murder unborn children and bugger your buddy. Too bad.

Schabesbert
04-30-2012, 16:22
That has to be the silliest comment I’ve seen on this forum all month.

There's no reason to think there's any remote chance of that happening. This goes ‘way past the “tinfoil hat” stage.

Sure, it's not likely to happen in the US. It's not impossible, however. It happened in many countries. It happened in Mexico.

Yeah, I know: "It's different there."

Gunhaver
04-30-2012, 16:58
I get to vote on the basis of being a citizen of this country, not on the basis on my religion. Hey, it appears that my voting tendencies run counter to your desire to murder unborn children and bugger your buddy. Too bad.

And your religious views tell you that an unborn fetus has a soul and that buggering my buddy is bad even though neither of those practices have any impact on your life aside from the fact that you can't get over them. So I work to expose the ignorance of those views to influence the votes of others. Seems to be a working strategy given that neither of those things is illegal despite your voting. Too bad.

WS6
04-30-2012, 17:34
.....

Animal Mother
04-30-2012, 17:36
Again, that's not how it works. It isn't how it works today you mean, who's to say that won't change? The Pope has preached crusade in the past, is it impossible that it will happen again in the future?
It will be a matter of going to jail or prison for noncompliance with a law on some issue that violates a religious principle of mine.Yes, I understand that aspect, I'm asking you about a different one though.

Schabesbert
04-30-2012, 17:47
I will say this with regard to your point regarding an unborn fetus having no impact on my life. Just several months after Roe v. Wade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade), my wife was within an hour of a scheduled abortion, when we decided against it. Today that unborn fetus is a board certified pediatrician via a stint in the Peace Corps and Harvard premed. I am certainly thankful for that bit of providential ignorance.
Whoa! Thank God for your son, and for the Holy Spirit acting in your hearts, WS6!!

WS6
04-30-2012, 17:57
It isn't how it works today you mean,

Yes, and I live today under quite different circumstances than 800 years ago.

who's to say that won't change?

It may.

The Pope has preached crusade in the past,

Okay.

is it impossible that it will happen again in the future?

Perhaps not.

Yes, I understand that aspect, I'm asking you about a different one though.

That you are.

WS6
04-30-2012, 18:06
.....

Schabesbert
04-30-2012, 18:40
Yes indeed! (Our daughter, though.) :embarassed:
My apologies. I have to check my assumptions, I guess. :embarassed:

muscogee
04-30-2012, 19:46
Sure, it's not likely to happen in the US. It's not impossible, however. It happened in many countries. It happened in Mexico.

Yeah, I know: "It's different there."

Where and when?

Paul7
04-30-2012, 20:09
It isn't how it works today you mean, who's to say that won't change? The Pope has preached crusade in the past, is it impossible that it will happen again in the future?


Shouldn't you be much more concerned with the Muslims preaching and doing a crusade against we infidels?

Paul7
04-30-2012, 20:12
No one is advocating suppressing the free exercise of religion, but if you side with the Catholic Church over the United States, if the two were to come into conflict, Article III Section 3 would be the relevant portion of the Constitution to consider.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Is the Catholic Church planning war against the US? I do see the secular left allied with our radical Muslim enemies.

Gunhaver
04-30-2012, 20:44
I will say this with regard to your point regarding an unborn fetus having no impact on my life. Just several months after Roe v. Wade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade), my wife was within an hour of a scheduled abortion, when we decided against it. Today that unborn fetus is a board certified pediatrician via a stint in the Peace Corps and Harvard premed. I am certainly thankful for that bit of providential ignorance.

Glad that worked out for you. There's no end the stories of almost aborted people that went on to make something of themselves. Nobody is as quick to point out what a degenerate drain on society their almost aborted kid turned out to be.

The story doesn't make the point that you have the right to make the choice for someone else. You can't force someone to be an incubator against their will. You wouldn't even be voting on that and many other issues if politicians weren't using those issues to distract from what's really going on. The matter was settled with Roe vs Wade.

Gunhaver
04-30-2012, 20:50
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Is the Catholic Church planning war against the US? I do see the secular left allied with our radical Muslim enemies.

Really? You see them allied with the radicals meaning the ones who want to kill non-Muslims? Your perception must really be skewed.

Because all I see is them reminding those that think all Muslims are the enemy that that is not the case. I guess that's enough for the "If you're not with us then you're against us!" crowd.

WS6
05-01-2012, 03:42
Glad that worked out for you. There's no end the stories of almost aborted people that went on to make something of themselves. Nobody is as quick to point out what a degenerate drain on society their almost aborted kid turned out to be.

Degenerate drain?! What kind of person are you to speak of another human being in such terms?

The story doesn't make the point that you have the right to make the choice for someone else.

I am obligated to do what I can to stop murder.

You can't force someone to be an incubator against their will.

It is hard to fight your compassionate use of terms like incubator

You wouldn't even be voting on that and many other issues if politicians weren't using those issues to distract from what's really going on.

You certainly have issues with my ability to vote my conscience.

The matter was settled with Roe vs Wade.

Yes, 40 million or so murders were settled by Roe v. Wade.

Gunhaver
05-01-2012, 04:38
Degenerate drain?! What kind of person are you to speak of another human being in such terms?

Yes, there exist people that fall under that label. Ever visited a prison? Not being a Christian I have the luxury of judging anybody I like.

I am obligated to do what I can to stop murder.

It's only murder because you label it as such. Plenty of others, including the courts disagree with you.

It is hard to fight your compassionate use of terms like incubator

I calls em like I sees em. That's what's going on when someone presumes to step in and force a woman to carry a fetus to term. You can claim she should have just kept her legs closed all you like but that's none of your business either.

You certainly have issues with my ability to vote my conscience.

Only because I think that both your conscience and the political atmosphere that allows you to have a say in such matters is screwed up. I imagine if politicians saw benefit in allowing me to vote on whether you should be allowed to attend church you would feel the same about my conscience. It's all about minding your own business.


Yes, 40 million or so murders were settled by Roe v. Wade.

Call them murders all you like. I'll call them elective medical procedures and then you can apply your feelings on Obamacare and the government getting involved in personal medical decisions.

inthefrey
05-01-2012, 06:50
Call them murders all you like. I'll call them elective medical procedures and then you can apply your feelings on Obamacare and the government getting involved in personal medical decisions.

I find it very interesting that when "scientists" find a few objects on Mars that look like "cells", they call it life. Yet, we can legally kill an unborn human child and call it a bunch of cells.

Paul7
05-01-2012, 07:44
Really? You see them allied with the radicals meaning the ones who want to kill non-Muslims? Your perception must really be skewed.

You need to educate yourself.

Amazon.com: Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam And The American Left (9780895260765): David Horowitz: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51WGRMWB35L.@@AMEPARAM@@51WGRMWB35L

Because all I see is them reminding those that think all Muslims are the enemy

Cite?

I guess that's enough for the "If you're not with us then you're against us!" crowd.

When it comes to terror, do you disagree with that statement?

Paul7
05-01-2012, 07:48
Call them murders all you like. I'll call them elective medical procedures

No doubt that's what Hitler said about the death camp activities.

Pregnancy isn't a disease. All human life is sacred, even fetus Gunhaver.

muscogee
05-01-2012, 07:54
You need to educate yourself.

Amazon.com: Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam And The American Left (9780895260765): David Horowitz: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Alliance-Radical-Islam-American/dp/089526076X)


When it comes to terror, do you disagree with that statement?

When it comes to terrorists, no. When it comes to jingoistic hysteria and bigotry, yes. Do you believe David Horowitz to be an unbiased author?

Animal Mother
05-01-2012, 07:55
That you are.Apparently a question you're not willing to answer.

Animal Mother
05-01-2012, 08:01
Shouldn't you be much more concerned with the Muslims preaching and doing a crusade against we infidels? I am concerned with terrorism, but unlike some I'm also able to discuss a variety of things.

Do you also consider yourself a Christian above being an American?

Animal Mother
05-01-2012, 08:04
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Is the Catholic Church planning war against the US? Not to my knowledge, but that doesn't mean it's not possible. Does it?

Animal Mother
05-01-2012, 08:08
You need to educate yourself.
If only you were willing to do the same.

Paul7
05-01-2012, 10:14
If only you were willing to do the same.

That's pretty second grade......

Paul7
05-01-2012, 10:14
Not to my knowledge, but that doesn't mean it's not possible. Does it?

It's possible for you to do so, should we fear you?

Paul7
05-01-2012, 10:15
I am concerned with terrorism, but unlike some I'm also able to discuss a variety of things.

Do you also consider yourself a Christian above being an American?

Yes I do, but such people don't tend to have Sudden Jihad Syndrome.

Paul7
05-01-2012, 10:17
When it comes to terrorists, no. When it comes to jingoistic hysteria and bigotry, yes. Do you believe David Horowitz to be an unbiased author?

More so than you. Rather than an ad hominem, why don't you point out where Mr. Horowitz is wrong?

Mayhem like Me
05-01-2012, 10:24
it's called faith for a reason .

you either have faith that it exists or you do not .

you cannot argue for the existence of faith using scientific facts .
the terms do not go together .

for those with faith you will never prove it to those that do not have it .

and for those that do not have faith you will never change the mind of those that do .

this is the true intellectual honesty of what happens here .
there is a majority in the middle somewhere and they are searching both sides of the coin .

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Gunhaver
05-01-2012, 11:53
I find it very interesting that when "scientists" find a few objects on Mars that look like "cells", they call it life. Yet, we can legally kill an unborn human child and call it a bunch of cells.

I find it interesting that you draw the connection between two unrelated things to try to make your point. Unwanted cells growing in a human's body are subject to the discretion of said human to have them removed. You can call it anything you want, the next Einstein if you like and are prone to extreme analogies to prove a weak point, but all that matters is the legality of the matter. There are nuts out there that call birth control murder on a planet of 7 billion people. They have an agenda that extends far beyond concern for the rights of a clump of cells.

Gunhaver
05-01-2012, 11:55
You need to educate yourself.

Amazon.com: Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam And The American Left (9780895260765): David Horowitz: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Alliance-Radical-Islam-American/dp/089526076X)



Cite?



When it comes to terror, do you disagree with that statement?

Who exactly is supporting the terrorist's right to blow up people that they disagree with? This is a pretty stupid case you're trying to make.

Gunhaver
05-01-2012, 11:57
No doubt that's what Hitler said about the death camp activities.

Pregnancy isn't a disease. All human life is sacred, even fetus Gunhaver.

Godwin's law. You lose.

void *
05-01-2012, 12:29
Godwin's law. You lose.

Terrible argument, shouldn't be used. Godwin's law doesn't say anything about the relevance or applicability of such references, just the that probability of their appearance tends towards 1 as a function of the length of the discussion.

Now, noting that Paul7 is attributing a statement to Hitler with zero evidence that such a statement was ever made, effectively turning his response into an attempted ad-hom fallacy - that would seem a better response to me.

Paul7
05-01-2012, 12:32
Terrible argument, shouldn't be used. Godwin's law doesn't say anything about the relevance or applicability of such references, just the that probability of their appearance tends towards 1 as a function of the length of the discussion.

Now, noting that Paul7 is attributing a statement to Hitler with zero evidence that such a statement was ever made, effectively turning his response into an attempted ad-hom fallacy - that would seem a better response to me.

The statement was speculated on by me, their actions certainly backed such speculation up.

void *
05-01-2012, 13:00
The statement was speculated on by me, their actions certainly backed such speculation up.

That changes the fact that you are making this speculation as a means of throwing dirt on someone else how, precisely?

I mean, you're basically combining something akin to "guilt by association" with just making something up.

Paul7
05-01-2012, 13:56
That changes the fact that you are making this speculation as a means of throwing dirt on someone else how, precisely?

I mean, you're basically combining something akin to "guilt by association" with just making something up.

Nonsense, the actions I was referring too weren't made up.

user
05-01-2012, 14:17
Back to the intellectual dishonesty issue: it's them humans. If we could just get rid of the humans, there wouldn't be no intellectual dishonesty problem. All seriousness aside, what you have here is, failyuh t'c'mmunicate - with one's self! To use my wife's phrase, a mixed metaphor of sorts, people are "drinking their own bathwater" (sort of an amalgam of "drinking one's own kool-aid" and "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".) People who are accustomed to lying don't realize they're doing it, and they believe their own lies, and have no idea how obvious it is to others that they're doing so. And, in my opinion, that's most everyone except me and you, and sometimes I'm not so sure about you.

void *
05-01-2012, 14:17
Nonsense, the actions I was referring too weren't made up.

Then please cite your primary source for Hitler ever using the words "elective medical procedures" in reference to activities at any death camp.

I mean, you can prove you didn't make this up, right?

No doubt that's what Hitler said about the death camp activities.

Geko45
05-01-2012, 14:22
Back to the intellectual dishonesty issue: it's them humans. If we could just get rid of the humans, there wouldn't be no intellectual dishonesty problem. All seriousness aside, what you have here is, failyuh t'c'mmunicate - with one's self! To use my wife's phrase, a mixed metaphor of sorts, people are "drinking their own bathwater" (sort of an amalgam of "drinking one's own kool-aid" and "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".) People who are accustomed to lying don't realize they're doing it, and they believe their own lies, and have no idea how obvious it is to others that they're doing so. And, in my opinion, that's most everyone except me and you, and sometimes I'm not so sure about you.

I think this is one of the best replies so far.

Paul7
05-01-2012, 15:55
Back to the intellectual dishonesty issue: it's them humans. If we could just get rid of the humans, there wouldn't be no intellectual dishonesty problem. All seriousness aside, what you have here is, failyuh t'c'mmunicate - with one's self! To use my wife's phrase, a mixed metaphor of sorts, people are "drinking their own bathwater" (sort of an amalgam of "drinking one's own kool-aid" and "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".) People who are accustomed to lying don't realize they're doing it, and they believe their own lies, and have no idea how obvious it is to others that they're doing so. And, in my opinion, that's most everyone except me and you, and sometimes I'm not so sure about you.

+1. The heart of man is desperately wicked, according to the Bible.

Paul7
05-01-2012, 15:58
Then please cite your primary source for Hitler ever using the words "elective medical procedures" in reference to activities at any death camp.

I mean, you can prove you didn't make this up, right?

Did you miss the part where I said that was my speculation? Certainly the Nazis, like today's pro-abortionists, believed they could do away with inconvenient people.

void *
05-01-2012, 16:03
Did you miss the part where I said that was my speculation? Certainly the Nazis, like today's pro-abortionists, believed they could do away with inconvenient people.


I'm not claiming the Nazis didn't believe they could do away with inconvenient people.

I'm claiming that your statement "No doubt that's what Hitler said about the death camp activities.", which you admit is your speculation (in other words, you made it up), is really nothing more than an ad-hom. In other words, rather than making a valid, rational argument, you're just trying to associate someone with Hitler, because everyone knows Hitler did a ton of bad stuff, and you're doing it by "speculating" about a statement you well know you have absolutely no evidence for.

Kind of an interesting play for you to make in an intellectual honesty thread, eh?

Animal Mother
05-01-2012, 16:57
That's pretty second grade......I know you are, but what am I?

Animal Mother
05-01-2012, 16:58
It's possible for you to do so, should we fear you?If I had a billion followers willing to abandon their nations in obedience to my commands and had shown a willingness to invoke that authority, you probably should.

Animal Mother
05-01-2012, 16:59
Yes I do, but such people don't tend to have Sudden Jihad Syndrome. Neither do Muslims tend to be terrorists, but that doesn't stop you from bringing it up in every single discussion, does it?

Gunhaver
05-01-2012, 17:39
Terrible argument, shouldn't be used. Godwin's law doesn't say anything about the relevance or applicability of such references, just the that probability of their appearance tends towards 1 as a function of the length of the discussion.

Now, noting that Paul7 is attributing a statement to Hitler with zero evidence that such a statement was ever made, effectively turning his response into an attempted ad-hom fallacy - that would seem a better response to me.

True but this is Paul we're talking about. Not like he can discern a good argument from a bad one.

But given that this is the intellectual dishonesty thread, let me try this angle,

Hey Paul, are you going to tell me that a woman choosing to end a 'life' that really hasn't gotten started yet and is completely dependent on her body to survive with the potential to be detrimental to her health (something we call parasitic when we can bring ourselves to step away from the emotional argument) is the same thing as rounding up people that have families and friends that care for them and goals in life and herding them into the gas chambers on the premise that you are a superior race? Those two things are equally appalling to you?

Really?

Paul7
05-01-2012, 18:13
Neither do Muslims tend to be terrorists, but that doesn't stop you from bringing it up in every single discussion, does it?

As a wise Muslim once said, not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslims.

Paul7
05-01-2012, 18:14
I'm not claiming the Nazis didn't believe they could do away with inconvenient people.

I'm claiming that your statement "No doubt that's what Hitler said about the death camp activities.", which you admit is your speculation (in other words, you made it up), is really nothing more than an ad-hom. In other words, rather than making a valid, rational argument, you're just trying to associate someone with Hitler, because everyone knows Hitler did a ton of bad stuff, and you're doing it by "speculating" about a statement you well know you have absolutely no evidence for.

Kind of an interesting play for you to make in an intellectual honesty thread, eh?

Nice dodge to my point on the Nazis and inconvenient people. Do you not know what 'speculate' means?

Paul7
05-01-2012, 18:17
True but this is Paul we're talking about. Not like he can discern a good argument from a bad one.

But given that this is the intellectual dishonesty thread, let me try this angle,

Hey Paul, are you going to tell me that a woman choosing to end a 'life' that really hasn't gotten started yet

It there has been no conception than how does it involve abortion?

and is completely dependent on her body to survive with the potential to be detrimental to her health (something we call parasitic when we can bring ourselves to step away from the emotional argument)

What a skewed view of pregnancy. What is it the left has against birth?

is the same thing as rounding up people that have families and friends that care for them and goals in life and herding them into the gas chambers on the premise that you are a superior race? Those two things are equally appalling to you?

Really?

Pretty much, although we have killed far more than Hitler ever did.

Animal Mother
05-01-2012, 18:22
As a wise Muslim once said, not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslims. You really do repeat the same 6 or 7 lines, don't you? No matter how much counter-evidence there is.

void *
05-01-2012, 18:26
Do you not know what 'speculate' means?

Yes, I do. Do you understand that it basically means you just thought about it?

In other words, that you in fact do not have any evidence for it?

Do you understand that it's meaning in no way contradicts my statement that you're basically attempting a "that guy was bad, you must be too" ad-hom by making something up (i.e. "just thinking about it")?

inthefrey
05-01-2012, 19:44
I find it interesting that you draw the connection between two unrelated things to try to make your point. Unwanted cells growing in a human's body are subject to the discretion of said human to have them removed. You can call it anything you want, the next Einstein if you like and are prone to extreme analogies to prove a weak point, but all that matters is the legality of the matter. There are nuts out there that call birth control murder on a planet of 7 billion people. They have an agenda that extends far beyond concern for the rights of a clump of cells.

I also find it interesting that you fail to observe the complete irony in your sad, misguided ranting - take care.:wavey:

Edit: Oh and, BTW, "Birth Control" is the prevention of conception.

Gunhaver
05-01-2012, 20:06
I also find it interesting that you fail to observe the complete irony in your sad, misguided ranting - take care.:wavey:

Edit: Oh and, BTW, "Birth Control" is the prevention of conception.

I think I just fail to perceive the irony that you do.
That's what I was referring to when I said birth control. There are nuts out there that consider preventing conception to be murder. Any excuse to push their beliefs without having to be honest and just say that they don't like people having sex for fun.

juggy4711
05-01-2012, 21:02
Yes indeed! (Our daughter, though.) The contraceptive lifestyle in which we selfishly indulged shorted us of at least two more children. It's all crap.

Sorry can't help myself and how no one else picked up this....:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBjsFAyiwA

Back to the intellectual dishonesty issue: it's them humans. If we could just get rid of the humans, there wouldn't be no intellectual dishonesty problem. All seriousness aside, what you have here is, failyuh t'c'mmunicate - with one's self! To use my wife's phrase, a mixed metaphor of sorts, people are "drinking their own bathwater" (sort of an amalgam of "drinking one's own kool-aid" and "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".) People who are accustomed to lying don't realize they're doing it, and they believe their own lies, and have no idea how obvious it is to others that they're doing so. And, in my opinion, that's most everyone except me and you, and sometimes I'm not so sure about you.

I think this is one of the best replies so far.

+1

As a wise Muslim once said, not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslims.

You really do repeat the same 6 or 7 lines, don't you? No matter how much counter-evidence there is.

I am no hater of Islam but in recent history you would be hard pressed to provide counter evidence for this AFAIK. If you can I'm all up for some delicious crow. Seriously school me and I will admit believing incorrectly.

rgregoryb
05-01-2012, 21:36
and as a side line
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s320x320/523035_327596983977903_204152432989026_834863_349621600_n.jpg

void *
05-01-2012, 22:47
rgregory, I disagree, and I note that, contrary to the wording of the statement on your image, this is *not* an example showing that a man can focus on two things at once, but an example of two closely proximate physical objects that embody the *one* thing that men think about all the time. :supergrin:

Geko45
05-01-2012, 22:53
rgregory, I disagree, and I note that, contrary to the wording of the statement on your image, this is *not* an example showing that a man can focus on two things at once, but an example of two closely proximate physical objects that embody the *one* thing that men think about all the time. :supergrin:

I believe your hypothesis to be flawed. We must collect empiricial data to test it.

juggy4711
05-01-2012, 23:04
I believe your hypothesis to be flawed. We must collect empirical data to test it.

Yeah me too. Who is going to offer up the first evidence? :whistling:

Syclone538
05-01-2012, 23:04
Once you've seen one pair, you want to see the rest.

rgregoryb
05-02-2012, 06:43
I agree, further investigation is warranted....................

Paul7
05-02-2012, 08:13
You really do repeat the same 6 or 7 lines, don't you? No matter how much counter-evidence there is.

Unfortunately, the same nonsense is repeated here constantly by your side, so I answer it.

Do you want to give me your counter-evidence for the point that most terrorists are Muslims?

:popcorn:

Animal Mother
05-02-2012, 16:01
Unfortunately, the same nonsense is repeated here constantly by your side, so I answer it. If only that were true. You don't answer it, you simply repeat the same things, over and over, with little or no regard to whether or not they're relevant to the discussion in progress.
Do you want to give me your counter-evidence for the point that most terrorists are Muslims?I appreciate you demonstrating my point for me and saving me the time.

void *
05-02-2012, 16:15
I believe your hypothesis to be flawed. We must collect empiricial data to test it.

Agreed!

Ramjet38
05-02-2012, 18:16
Yeah me too. Who is going to offer up the first evidence? :whistling:

By evidence of your username I think you are the likely candidate for examination.

:rofl:

Geko45
05-02-2012, 18:18
By evidence of your username I think you are the likely candidate for examination.

:rofl:

On the contrary, I think it means that he is a leading researcher.

:cool:

Geko45
05-02-2012, 18:21
I just want to point out that a group of grown men discussing some of the most important topics of our generation with passion and fervor were succesfully distracted from that important discourse by the mere mention of female mammary glands.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

:whistling:

ithaca_deerslayer
05-02-2012, 18:37
I just want to point out that a group of grown men discussing some of the most important topics of our generation with passion and fervor were succesfully distracted from that important discourse by the mere mention of female mammary glands.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

:whistling:

To me, that is the most compelling argument for intelligent design.

The whole Adam and Eve thing. Man and woman. However it came about, the essense of life. If just some accidental or natural course of atoms and molecules getting together, it'd probably be some boring asexual thing. But the whole male/female twist on life, that's some interesting stuff right there.

Geko45
05-02-2012, 18:50
The whole Adam and Eve thing. Man and woman. However it came about, the essense of life. If just some accidental or natural course of atoms and molecules getting together, it'd probably be some boring asexual thing. But the whole male/female twist on life, that's sone interesting stuff right there.

I will certainly agree on that last point (interesting stuff), but I would point out that if it were some sort of boring asexual thing then we wouldn't be compelled to do it and the species would have died out long ago. We evolved to have a sex drive such that we would be compelled to continue life into the next generation. Sexual desire is a naturally occuring phenomenon of natural selection.

ithaca_deerslayer
05-02-2012, 19:11
I will certainly agree on that last point (interesting stuff), but I would point out that if it were some sort of boring asexual thing then we wouldn't be compelled to do it and the species would have died out long ago. We evolved to have a sex drive such that we would be compelled to continue life into the next generation. Sexual desire is a naturally occuring phenomenon of natural selection.

That fact that molecules get together at all, and then develop a mechanism for staying together as a species through reproduction, that is amazing. I used to wonder as a kid, why should atoms and molecules 'want' to get together and live in the first place. I've never been able to answer that. We just take it for granted and then describe the evolutionary changes that take place. I get macro evolution. But why it happens is a much tougher question.

Geko45
05-02-2012, 19:17
That fact that molecules get together at all, and then develop a mechanism for staying together as a species through reproduction, that is amazing. I used to wonder as a kid, why should atoms and molecules 'want' to get together and live in the first place. I've never been able to answer that. We just take it for granted and then describe the evolutionary changes that take place. I get macro evolution. But why it happens is a much tougher question.

Well, the process by which molecules come together is entirely explainable as well, but a little off topic for this thread on intellectual honesty. Mammaries on the otherhand require stringent intellectual examination.

Gunhaver
05-02-2012, 19:20
I will certainly agree on that last point (interesting stuff), but I would point out that if it were some sort of boring asexual thing then we wouldn't be compelled to do it and the species would have died out long ago. We evolved to have a sex drive such that we would be compelled to continue life into the next generation. Sexual desire is a naturally occuring phenomenon of natural selection.

And the combining of two types of DNA creates another environmental stress, competition for mates, which is the driving force behind evolution. It also gives more beneficial mutations to be naturally selected than just relying on beneficial mutations of one type which would explain why it arose to be the preferred means of reproduction in multicellular life. Not to mention that it's just way more fun than waking up to find a tiny you growing on your back. Like most 'great arguments for ID' it's actually a great argument for evolution when you really understand it.

ithaca_deerslayer
05-02-2012, 19:41
Well, the process by which molecules come together is entirely explainable as well, but a little off topic for this thread on intellectual honesty. Mammaries on the otherhand require stringent intellectual examination.

Science only explains how things work, it doesn't explain "why?"

I'm not convinced that we know any more about the world now than we did 2,000 years ago.

ArtificialGrape
05-02-2012, 20:29
Science only explains how things work, it doesn't explain "why?"
Agreed. "Why" presupposes intent, and is better left to philosophers. "How" is a matter of mechanics.
I'm not convinced that we know any more about the world now than we did 2,000 years ago.
Seriously... powerful microscopes and telescopes (to pick 2 obvious examples) have not revealed anything in the past 2000 years?

-ArtificialGrape

juggy4711
05-02-2012, 20:57
By evidence of your username I think you are the likely candidate for examination.

:rofl:

On the contrary, I think it means that he is a leading researcher.

I just spewed my beverage all over my keyboard. If I laugh really hard I snort so some of it came out my nose. Damn you both :rofl:. The juggy part of my screen name is actually in reference to Juggy Gales of music production "fame" and known to me by a Jerky Boys prank call.

Well, the process by which molecules come together is entirely explainable as well, but a little off topic for this thread on intellectual honesty. Mammaries on the otherhand require stringent intellectual examination.

I just want to point out that a group of grown men discussing some of the most important topics of our generation with passion and fervor were succesfully distracted from that important discourse by the mere mention of female mammary glands.

Not that there is anything wrong with that...

:rofl: This thread may be one of the most unintentionally hilarious threads I have ever read on GT. And I might not be an expert but I did stay at a Holiday Inn express, oh wait that involved boobs also...:supergrin:

And the combining of two types of DNA creates another environmental stress, competition for mates...

Science only explains how things work, it doesn't explain "why?"

I'm not convinced that we know any more about the world now than we did 2,000 years ago.

Agreed. "Why" presupposes intent, and is better left to philosophers. "How" is a matter of mechanics...-ArtificialGrape

Way to derail the fun Buzzkill brigade. :tongueout:

ithaca_deerslayer
05-02-2012, 21:13
Agreed. "Why" presupposes intent, and is better left to philosophers. "How" is a matter of mechanics.

Seriously... powerful microscopes and telescopes (to pick 2 obvious examples) have not revealed anything in the past 2000 years?

-ArtificialGrape

Finer details about the how, but still nothing about the why :)

And as we get multiple billions of people on the planet, it isn't clear that we are doing a great job. Most Americans have it pretty good. But around the world starvation, poverty, and slavery seem to still be going strong. Overall, humanity doesn't seem a whole lot smarter than it has been in the past.

Just enough better to almost free me. And yet what do I do with my health, wealth, and knowledge? Watch "American Idol" on tv or post on GT :)

Seems a case of knowing not really meaning knowing.

But that's the pessimistic view. Maybe we just need to turn the whole world into America, fight crime harder, and then we can all be middle class, big houses, big lawns, big cars, big screen tv's, and small families. Good jobs, buy whatever we want, time to read, science making us disease free with technology.

No more wars. Humanity climbing to the top of the evolutionary tree trouble free :)

rgregoryb
05-02-2012, 21:21
and for some more humor in the fray

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s320x320/531230_346745365390071_100001638322126_966499_881869255_n.jpg

ithaca_deerslayer
05-02-2012, 21:27
and for some more humor in the fray

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s320x320/531230_346745365390071_100001638322126_966499_881869255_n.jpg

That is too funny. I've got to drift over to some threads about group size now. I just stopped by because the thread title was so darn enticing :)

ArtificialGrape
05-02-2012, 21:33
Finer details about the how, but still nothing about the why
So the scientists are pulling their weight, but it's the philosophers that are slacking off :)

Jesus to God the Father during the Passion from Jesus Christ Superstar, "You're far too keen on where and how and not so keen on why."

-ArtificialGrape

inthefrey
05-02-2012, 21:36
Science only explains how things work, it doesn't explain "why?"

I'm not convinced that we know any more about the world now than we did 2,000 years ago.

This an extreme view. However, considering the scope, a very good point...:wavey: