IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Organized Religion
defiance
post Feb 2 2004, 06:12 PM
Post #16


mind of a revolutionary
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,951
Joined: 17-November 03
From: Minnesota
Member No.: 1,117



QUOTE
No, Science is not based on dogma like the religious church of the middle ages. Once again, it's based on theories formulated from data. That evolution happens/happened is a FACT, the THEORY of evolution describes how it happened


If I didn't know you better, I'd say you were starting to sound arrogant. But of course we all know that you're never like that. But since you're so determined, would you mind posting some proof that evolution happened? Cause I haven't ever heard anything from scientists that's more convincing than my own developed opinions about where we came from.

QUOTE
1: I never said Science doesn't make mistakes, what I said is that if it does, it's not afraid to change it's assumptions based on the data. Religion wouldn't do it no matter how much evidence wsa provided to the contrary. You are acting like I said science was perfect, which is the beauty of science. It's not perfect, nor has it ever claimed to be. It's about observation of data and making theories based on the data. Religion is the very opposite of this, and is about making theories either based or nonbased on data. It doesn't matter because some Jesus figure says it's so.


Actually there have been many changes and different theories in some religions. As a matter of fact, that's been used many times against religion, because people say it's inconsistent, which is true many times, but not all the time. And don't tell me "well they're still confined to the same religion" cause that's also true with scientists, they are still confined to the general theory of evolution, no matter how many changes they might have made in it.

QUOTE
I was only providing evidence that it is a natural phenomena and doesn't explain any God.


But why does that naturally occur in us? And are people instinctively willing to risk their lives for something that might not even have the slightest bit of success? Why are people so willing to sacrifice themselves? After all, we are all just selfish animals that only care about our own survival, right? Of course, not all evolutionists believe that, so that doesn't cover everything, but it is an interesting question.

QUOTE
Because they all borrow myths from each other. The canaanite form of the flood was written EARLIER than the Old Testament writer (which, I'll say is Moses) and contains many striking similarities. It's safe to say that Moses or that they borrowed from him.


But it's not just confined to that area though, it's all over the world. There were tribes in the Pacific Ocean and eastern Asia that believed in a flood legend. That should have disapeared by the time they had reached those areas and established their cultures and religions.

QUOTE
And what does that have to do with an atheist or God?


I'm comparing the mentality that's used by many people. You yourself called him a "father figure", so parents and children seem like a valid example.

QUOTE
I would if it consists of objection to proletariat freedom and acts of violence against the revolution that has just occured (if we were living in a post revolutionary society anyway).


That's the same excuse that was used by the early Catholic Church, you sound just like them. And what if they were just speaking out against certain things they thought were wrong with your system and wanted you to change it. Cause that was the case with the gulag prisoners, but you didn't seem to grasp that fact.

QUOTE
Genetic Engineering debate? Where was that at? You said complete organizations were against these people, and I wasn't challenging your claim. I just wanted the name of some of these organizations because I haven't heard of them.


No I didn't, go back and read the post. I said there were plenty of PEOPLE who were against genetic engineering, and it doesn't just have to do with religion. But it is true though, there's lot's of nonreligious environmental groups that are totally against genetic engineering, I don't have all of their names though.

QUOTE
Which is why Science is better, again. It's not based on unquestioning faith, it's based on observation of data. If the data doesn't fit the theory, it's dropped. If things are brought out that make the theory obsolete or incorrect a new theory is formulated. Science still relies on objective reasoning, whereas religion would depend on dogma and a submission to its rules no matter WHAT evidence was provided to the contrary. Science is much better than Dogma.

Actually science is pretty dogmatic when it comes to religion. You can present all the evidance in the world and they'll still refuse to believe it.

QUOTE
I never brought up that argument.


I wasn't saying you did. I was pointing out the often rediculous skepticism that some critics have. They come up with every little thing they can, but they just discredit themselves when they do that. These are the people who you consider to be honest and objective.

QUOTE
All I am saying is that it's possible that they still thought it was flat. The Bible didn't reveal any kind of scientific knowledge.


I understand what you're saying, I'm just saying that if you think the bible is scientifically innaccurate, you'd better rethink, cause there's alot of possible scientific truth in the bible and there's no way you will ever be able to discredit them on that subject, so you'd better find another argument for dismissing it.

QUOTE
How does that contradict the need for a father figure? Jesus appealed to this figure telling his followers to follow his commands because they were the exact same as the father figure's.


What exactly is wrong with a father figure, if he makes sense? And you want to talk about controlling peoples actions, what do you think a government, especially a centralized one, is for. We can get into that on the anarchy debate though, so if you want we can discuss it on there. And I think you should note that the early Christian communities were somewhat communistic. One of the main principles of Christianity is that of giving to others, helping those in need, giving food to the poor etc. You should have enourmas respect for true Christianity in that regard Dataika.

QUOTE
I never made this argument, again.


Again, I never said you did, but you acted like it's dumb for people who share religious convictions to actually worship together. I was just pointing out how rediculous that argument is and how obviously nit-picky some religious criticisms are.

QUOTE
Of course it says that, but very few of the followers actually do it. And when they do "question" they still have their belief structure obstructing them from objectively examining the evidence and as such when they find any bit of evidence somewhat "supporting" their religion, they jump, hoot and hollar about it without testing it. That's the main beef I have with religion.


Well that has nothing to do with the actual religion, that's just the people who follow it. And if you want some evidance, check this out...

...Excavations in and around the ancient city of Babylon have revealed the sites of several ziggurats, or pyramidlike, staged temple-towers, including the ruined temple of Etemenanki inside Babylons walls. Records and inscriptions found concerning such temples often contain the words, "Its top shall reach the heavens," and King Nebuchadnezzar is recorded as saying "I raised the summit of the Tower of Stages at Etamenki so that its top rivalled the heavens." One fragment found north of the temple of Marduk in Babylon related the fall of such a ziggurat in these words: "The building of this temple offended the gods. In a night they threw down what had been built. They scattered them abroad, and made strange their speech. The proggress they impeded." The ziggurat located at Uruk was found to be built with clay, bricks and asphalt. (Ge 11:1-9)

Near the Ishtar Gate in Babylon some 300 cuneiform tablets were uncovered relating relating to the period of King Nebuchadnezzar's reign. Among lists of the names of workers and captives then living in Babylon to whom provisions were given appears that of "Yaukin, king of the land of Yahud," that is, "Jehoiachin, the kind of the land of Judah," who was taken to Babylon at the time of Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of Jerusalem in 617 B.C. He was released from the house of detention by Awil-Marduk, Nebuchadnezzar's successor, and was given a daily allowance of food. (2Ki 25:27-30) Five of Jehoiachin's sons are also mentioned on these tablets. (1Ch 3:17, 18)

Abundant evidence has been found of Babylons panteon of gods, including the chief god Marduk, commonly referred to later as Bel, and the god Nebo, both mentioned at Isaiah 46:1, 2. Much of the information on Nebuchadnezzar's own inscriptions deals with his vast building program that made Babylon such a magnifecent city. (Da 4:30) The name of his successor Awil-Marduk (called Evil-Merodach at 2Ki 25:27) appears on a vase discovered at Susa.

Near modern Baghdad excavations in the latter half of the 19th century produced numerous clay tablets and cylinders, including the now famous Nabonidus Chronicle. All objections to the record at Daniel chapter 5 as to Belshazzar's ruling in Babylon at the time of its fall were dispelled by this documant, which provides that Belshazzar, eldest son of Nabonidus, was coregent with his father and that in the latter part of his reign Nabonidus entrusted the government of Babylon to his son Belshazzar.

At the site of ancient Sippar on the Euphrates about 20 miles from Baghdad, a clay cylinder about King Cyrus the conqueror of Babylon was found. This cylinder tells about the ease with which Cyrus captured the city and also outlines his policy of restoring to their native lands the captive people's residing in Babylon, thus harmonizing with the Biblical acount of Cyrus as the prophesied conqueror of Babylon and of the restoration of the Jews to Palestine during Cyrus' reign. (Isa 44:28; 45:1; 2Ch 36:23)...

What do think about that? What is your take on these discoveries?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sara
post Feb 2 2004, 08:10 PM
Post #17


Sunny Sunflower
****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,265
Joined: 30-November 02
From: Isla del Sol
Member No.: 3



dataika if u cant have a civilised conversation then dont even bother coming here. I didnt say earth is flat, yet u described my post "bull[shit]".

u speak of science being better than religion and having facts, the concept of "fact" itself is open for debate and is a cultural construct, i am not making a philosphical point here but u cant see that coz ur so blinded by ur stubborness.


do i understand ur posts? well they don't make sense coz they're so muddled and highly emotive and all over the place, but i'm trying smile.gif

what i said bout right and wrong wasnt referring to science, it was referring to our interpretaion of science and other concepts in life, how having a differnet view doesnt make one wrong or right.

science is blah blah blah, african americans are the missing link? how so? i have studied anthropology, and what u'r talking bout is called mitochondrial DNA studies, that suggests that all modern humans descended from a common african ancestor, a woman. the missing link im talking bout is the 7 million years common ancestor that we shared with apes.

if u want to believe that evolution is a fact, then great, but what kinda fact is that that keeps changing as we get more and more evidence? it's not facts, it's theory

u'r ok with jews having different truths but ur not ok with us here having different turths? u sound rediculous .


QUOTE
When on earth did I say Science was the "absolute truth" and when did I say that scientific data cannot be falsified? Are you making this crap up as you go along or what?


this is what i said to u
QUOTE
evidence of evolution is all well and great, but there's a missing link between apes and humans that means that the notion of us evolving from a common ancestor with apes still has a long way to go, and at this point it's all speculations than can be falsified.


and this was ur response

QUOTE
What? Are you saying because the theory isn't perfect that it's false? What kind of nonsense? You either lack knowledge of the nature of scientific inquiry or you're being willfully argumentative. In either case, you've shown your lack of scientific knowledge.


u can't tell the difference between "False" and being able to "falsify" something...can u? unsure.gif u missed my point, coz i didnt say science is false, i said it can be falsified, but u didnt get it, so i had to say it again...


evolution is a fact, and what tries to explain it, is the theory? well, we wouldnt know bout evolution if ppl didn't come up with theories to explain it, so the very notion of evolution being a fact is something people constructed to try explain things, so it's a construct, and if it's not absolute then it's not really a fact...i mean 30 yrs from now, someone might have evidence to support that we really didnt share a common ancestor with apes, so it's not a given thing...it's a flow...it changes, so it's not "facts" it's what we perceive as facts.

i'm not sure why u'r fuming...it seems here, that u have a problem with ppl having different views to u...but ok...maybe u'll grow out of it. wavenew.gif

i'm not saying ur views on evolution or religion are wrong, but i'm saying we should always be open minded and accept others' views.


--------------------
Reina, reina de mi vida Llena mi reino de alegria Tiene brillo en su mirada Goza de belleza consagra
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
defiance
post Feb 3 2004, 09:11 PM
Post #18


mind of a revolutionary
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,951
Joined: 17-November 03
From: Minnesota
Member No.: 1,117



Alright Dataika, I'v given you archeological, or empirical, proof of the Bible's historical accuracy, so now I want you to actually post some "proof" that evolution is a "fact". Until you do, I rest my case.

Oh and by the way, you need to majorly calm down.

This post has been edited by defiance: Feb 3 2004, 09:13 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dataika
post Feb 15 2004, 02:59 PM
Post #19


Freedom Advocate
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,064
Joined: 19-January 04
From: San Bernardino/Highland California
Member No.: 1,542



QUOTE (defiance @ Feb 3 2004, 02:12 AM)
If I didn't know you better, I'd say you were starting to sound arrogant. But of course we all know that you're never like that. But since you're so determined, would you mind posting some proof that evolution happened? Cause I haven't ever heard anything from scientists that's more convincing than my own developed opinions about where we came from.

Comrade I've given you a website about 3 times now: EVIDENCE: A WHOLE FREAKIN WEBSITE WITH IT

QUOTE
Actually there have been many changes and different theories in some religions. As a matter of fact, that's been used many times against religion, because people say it's inconsistent, which is true many times, but not all the time. And don't tell me "well they're still confined to the same religion" cause that's also true with scientists, they are still confined to the general theory of evolution, no matter how many changes they might have made in it.


I never said there haven't been different theories of religion what are you talking about? What I said is that it is based in the confines of religion, their thought processes is about WHAT their religion says; not IF it's a valid and real religion.

As for evolution, scientists do that because EVOLUTION is a FACT. Even creationists realise that microevolution has occured/occurs.

QUOTE
But why does that naturally occur in us? And are people instinctively willing to risk their lives for something that might not even have the slightest bit of success? Why are people so willing to sacrifice themselves? After all, we are all just selfish animals that only care about our own survival, right? Of course, not all evolutionists believe that, so that doesn't cover everything, but it is an interesting question.


Of course this isn't my belief since I'm a COMMUNIST. So this "objection" doesn't even apply to me.

QUOTE
But it's not just confined to that area though, it's all over the world. There were tribes in the Pacific Ocean and eastern Asia that believed in a flood legend. That should have disapeared by the time they had reached those areas and established their cultures and religions.


I just provided evidence that the flood variations borrowed from each other. They might have spread, and it actually might have STARTED in Asian countries and the Hebrews just adopted it LATER.

QUOTE
I'm comparing the mentality that's used by many people. You yourself called him a "father figure", so parents and children seem like a valid example.


Oh okay, so children and parents love each other = God exists. Great, I didn't understand at first but now I do... rolleyes.gif

QUOTE
That's the same excuse that was used by the early Catholic Church, you sound just like them. And what if they were just speaking out against certain things they thought were wrong with your system and wanted you to change it. Cause that was the case with the gulag prisoners, but you didn't seem to grasp that fact.


I've already answered your petty little objections with the Gulags too many times, it's not worth my time anymore son, wait till you get a little more educated on the subject.

As for me being like the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church was based on DOGMA and RELIGIOUS FAITH. I'm dealing with FACTS.

QUOTE
But it is true though, there's lot's of nonreligious environmental groups that are totally against genetic engineering, I don't have all of their names though.


SO far you haven't listed ANYONE.

QUOTE
Actually science is pretty dogmatic when it comes to religion. You can present all the evidance in the world and they'll still refuse to believe it.


Science is DOGMATIC?! LMAO! Show me how, you still have yet to do so.

QUOTE
I wasn't saying you did. I was pointing out the often rediculous skepticism that some critics have. They come up with every little thing they can, but they just discredit themselves when they do that. These are the people who you consider to be honest and objective.


What the heck? When did I say they were honest or objective? Who makes this argument and when did I say they were honest or objective? This is not one of the reasons I don't believe the Bible, sorry.

QUOTE
I understand what you're saying, I'm just saying that if you think the bible is scientifically innaccurate, you'd better rethink, cause there's alot of possible scientific truth in the bible and there's no way you will ever be able to discredit them on that subject, so you'd better find another argument for dismissing it.


Sure, like pi is equal to 3.

QUOTE
What exactly is wrong with a father figure, if he makes sense? And you want to talk about controlling peoples actions, what do you think a government, especially a centralized one, is for. We can get into that on the anarchy debate though, so if you want we can discuss it on there. And I think you should note that the early Christian communities were somewhat communistic. One of the main principles of Christianity is that of giving to others, helping those in need, giving food to the poor etc. You should have enourmas respect for true Christianity in that regard Dataika.


I never said I "hated" EVERYTHING about Christianity. Some aspects of EVERY religion are good. Some parts are bad. I think the bad outweigh the good, and getting rid of religion would still leave the morals they taught in place but get rid of the superstitions.

I didn't say I wanted to "control people's actions" Comrade, when did I say that?

A father figure, itself, is not bad. But an invisible father figure that gives "guidelines" that cannot be proven to exist (or even whether the guidlines he gave certain people are true) is NOT beneficial.

QUOTE
Again, I never said you did, but you acted like it's dumb for people who share religious convictions to actually worship together. I was just pointing out how rediculous that argument is and how obviously nit-picky some religious criticisms are.


How did I act like that? Goodness.

QUOTE
Well that has nothing to do with the actual religion, that's just the people who follow it. And if you want some evidance, check this out...


What did you do? Google the pharse "Evidence for Bible"? Goodness.

What archeologists? Who made this article? Where's the source from? Do they have people I can read up on?

Besides, most of these only show that the Bible is "historically accurate" in that some aspects of what they say DID happen in history. It does not mean that what they say HOW it happened is true, nor does it mean that the Bible ITSELF is true.

QUOTE
dataika if u cant have a civilised conversation then dont even bother coming here. I didnt say earth is flat, yet u described my post "bull[shit]".


No, I didn't.

QUOTE
u speak of science being better than religion and having facts, the concept of "fact" itself is open for debate and is a cultural construct, i am not making a philosphical point here but u cant see that coz ur so blinded by ur stubborness.


No a "fact" is something that has been proven to have occured. There is no "cultural constructs" for things that have occured. They either occured or didn't.

Cultural constructs "points" are from philosophical realms of morality and whether or not they are cultural constructs or not. Facts aren't a part of this so STOP referencing them like they are the same thing.

QUOTE
do i understand ur posts? well they don't make sense coz they're so muddled and highly emotive and all over the place, but i'm trying 


I've only RESPONDED to your points, so I'm all over the place because YOU ARE.

QUOTE
what i said bout right and wrong wasnt referring to science, it was referring to our interpretaion of science and other concepts in life, how having a differnet view doesnt make one wrong or right.


If FACTS don't agree with your interpretation of science then you are wrong. If you think that rocks have DNA and it's shown that they do not possess it, then you are WRONG.

QUOTE
science is blah blah blah, african americans are the missing link? how so? i have studied anthropology, and what u'r talking bout is called mitochondrial DNA studies, that suggests that all modern humans descended from a common african ancestor, a woman. the missing link im talking bout is the 7 million years common ancestor that we shared with apes.


I never said African Americans are the missing link, what I said is that PREVIOUS TEXTBOOKS stated rediculous theories like that. Once again, you MISSED the point.

QUOTE
if u want to believe that evolution is a fact, then great, but what kinda fact is that that keeps changing as we get more and more evidence? it's not facts, it's theory


Theories in scientific circles are not the literal meaning. A theory is something that has factual support. The theory itself only explains how something happens, the fact that it does happen is indisputable. AS WITH THE CONCEPT OF GRAVITY. The fact that when you jump up you'll come down or that we don't spin with the Earth HAPPENS and is a FACT. The THEORY of gravity shows HOW it works, not IF it works.

QUOTE
u'r ok with jews having different truths but ur not ok with us here having different turths? u sound rediculous .


I'm okay with them having different truths with regard to their OWN religion, not science. You are sounding rediculous.

QUOTE
u can't tell the difference between "False" and being able to "falsify" something...can u?  u missed my point, coz i didnt say science is false, i said it can be falsified, but u didnt get it, so i had to say it again...


Yes I can TELL the difference between the two, you were trying to say that the theory wasn't based on evidence and is as valid as religion BECAUSE it can be falsified. Maybe I should have made myself more clear, but you should have been able to understand what I was saying.

QUOTE
evolution is a fact, and what tries to explain it, is the theory? well, we wouldnt know bout evolution if ppl didn't come up with theories to explain it, so the very notion of evolution being a fact is something people constructed to try explain things, so it's a construct, and if it's not absolute then it's not really a fact...i mean 30 yrs from now, someone might have evidence to support that we really didnt share a common ancestor with apes, so it's not a given thing...it's a flow...it changes, so it's not "facts" it's what we perceive as facts.


Oh my God, you really don't UNDERSTAND the fundamental concepts of science do you?

The theory is HOW it happens NOT IF it happens. EVOLUTION HAPPENS, IT IS NEARLY GLOBALLY ACCEPTED. You are making it seem as if there is NO PROOF that it happens, and there simply is. Even creationists acknowledge the fact that it happens on a MICRO level. It happens, it's a FACT that it happens. EVIDENCE

Facts are not cultural constructs, either something occurs or it doesn't. How many times do I have to explain this to you?

QUOTE
i'm not sure why u'r fuming...it seems here, that u have a problem with ppl having different views to u...but ok...maybe u'll grow out of it.


I'm not "fuming" just frustrated with your unwillingness to objectively look at what science is. Your basic claims are that facts are cultural constructs, which is both irrational and false.

Maybe you'll grow out of it and actually take some science courses at a reputable university and learn a thing or two about it.

QUOTE
i'm not saying ur views on evolution or religion are wrong, but i'm saying we should always be open minded and accept others' views.


Sorry, I'm not accepting someone else's view if it's wrong and the facts don't agree with them. I'm not into letting people wallow in ignorance.


--------------------
One Love,
Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu - "May All Beings Be Well or Happy"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sara
post Feb 15 2004, 08:36 PM
Post #20


Sunny Sunflower
****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,265
Joined: 30-November 02
From: Isla del Sol
Member No.: 3



^ ur so ethnocentric it's amusing.


anyways, good for u.


--------------------
Reina, reina de mi vida Llena mi reino de alegria Tiene brillo en su mirada Goza de belleza consagra
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Defiant One
post Feb 16 2004, 10:07 PM
Post #21


Not a silent one, but a defiant one...
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 513
Joined: 1-December 02
From: NY
Member No.: 31



man, these have to be the shortest responses i've ever see


--------------------
There ain't an army that could strike back
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
defiance
post Feb 17 2004, 04:45 PM
Post #22


mind of a revolutionary
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,951
Joined: 17-November 03
From: Minnesota
Member No.: 1,117



QUOTE
Comrade I've given you a website about 3 times now: EVIDENCE: A WHOLE FREAKIN WEBSITE WITH IT


I have asked you over and over again if you could just post some information from the websites, but since you refuse to, I've visited the link and looked through it to see if I could find anything interesting and I read the section on the flood. I can pretty easily refute what is said in there, but I don't feel like spending forever doing that right now, so if you have any particular qestions I'll answer them.

QUOTE
I never said there haven't been different theories of religion what are you talking about? What I said is that it is based in the confines of religion, their thought processes is about WHAT their religion says; not IF it's a valid and real religion. As for evolution, scientists do that because EVOLUTION is a FACT. Even creationists realise that microevolution has occured/occurs.


First of all, of course it's going to be restricted to their religion, scientists do the exact same thing with evolution. Second of all, although microevolution is a proven fact, macroevolution is not, and can never be unless we personally witness it, because there are absolutely no written records of it occurring, only fossil records, which are completely unable to prove that it happened because the fossils are not themselves evolving, they are simply records of what once existed on the earth. And do you want to know some other proven facts? It is a proven fact that life can only exist from already existing life. Another words, if it wasn't there to begin with and it didn't come from another living source, it simply can't be alive. That is an indisputable FACT, not just a theory. Here's another fact, according to scientists, the earth is only around five or so billion years old, which mean life on earth did not always exist, which means it had to come from another living source. That is also a FACT, not just a theory. Now evolution has already been proven to occur within species levels, but it has not been proven to be able to change one species to another. In fact, all living things are programmed NOT to change from their original species, which is perfectly compatible with microevolution. However it is not compatible with macroevolution, which teaches that life evolved from one species to another, and so far that has not been proven to be possible, which means that the evolution we are talking about is NOT a fact, but a hypotheses.

QUOTE
Science is DOGMATIC?! LMAO! Show me how, you still have yet to do so.

You are my proof for that one, just look at your arguments. Instead of listening to the facts, you have repeatedly ignored the points behind my arguments and chosen the easy path of stubborn denial and pathetically arrogant refusal to admit to proven facts. If that's what you mean by dogma, you are proof of what I said.

QUOTE
SO far you haven't listed ANYONE.


What about Greenpeace? They're not religious are they? I'm pretty sure they're against genetic engineering.

QUOTE
How did I act like that? Goodness.


Try these quotes from you and Renegades:

QUOTE
Organized religion is just that, dependency. Dependency on a father figure to make your life better


QUOTE
Some will rush to the defense of these religions saying that not everyone who believes in them is as ignorant. This is quite true, but they are *all* dependant in one way or another on that religion, otherwise they would not need to engage in it's organization.


Sounds pretty anti-organization to me, but maybe I just misread those statements.

QUOTE
Besides, most of these only show that the Bible is "historically accurate" in that some aspects of what they say DID happen in history. It does not mean that what they say HOW it happened is true, nor does it mean that the Bible ITSELF is true.


It sure gives it alot of credibility though, and it disproves the accusations that the Bible is historically inaccurate.

QUOTE
No a "fact" is something that has been proven to have occured. There is no "cultural constructs" for things that have occured. They either occured or didn't.


I have to say that I do agree with you on that one, it's a little hard to say that despite you and others seeing something with your own eyes, that it didn't really happen and it's simply your opinion. If it happened it happened, we're simply trying to prove whether or not did happen.

QUOTE
I'm okay with them having different truths with regard to their OWN religion, not science. You are sounding rediculous.


And what if scientists are wrong, then will you still say they need to believe it? That's dogma for you. Any questions?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dataika
post Feb 17 2004, 09:18 PM
Post #23


Freedom Advocate
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,064
Joined: 19-January 04
From: San Bernardino/Highland California
Member No.: 1,542



QUOTE (defiance @ Feb 18 2004, 12:45 AM)
I have asked you over and over again if you could just post some information from the websites, but since you refuse to, I've visited the link and looked through it to see if I could find anything interesting and I read the section on the flood. I can pretty easily refute what is said in there, but I don't feel like spending forever doing that right now, so if you have any particular qestions I'll answer them.

It's just too bad I didn't post that site to refute some flood. I used it to present evidence for Evolution. (if you want a specific link to EVIDENCE of evolution, then here you go evidence

But hey bigshot, since you want to think you can refute it, by all means do it.

QUOTE
First of all, of course it's going to be restricted to their religion, scientists do the exact same thing with evolution


No they do not. Evolution is a category of study, not a prescribed theory that all its adherents must abide by.

QUOTE
Second of all, although microevolution is a proven fact, macroevolution is not, and can never be unless we personally witness it, because there are absolutely no written records of it occurring, only fossil records, which are completely unable to prove that it happened because the fossils are not themselves evolving, they are simply records of what once existed on the earth.


There are so many fossils that are transitionary. I can't believe you even said this.

QUOTE
It is a proven fact that life can only exist from already existing life. Another words, if it wasn't there to begin with and it didn't come from another living source, it simply can't be alive. That is an indisputable FACT, not just a theory.


Uh, okay. That has nothing to do with evolution. Don't confuse evolution with the study of abiogenesis, son.

QUOTE
Here's another fact, according to scientists, the earth is only around five or so billion years old, which mean life on earth did not always exist, which means it had to come from another living source. That is also a FACT, not just a theory.


Again, nothing to do with evolution, son.

But I'll just ask the simple question of If ALL life comes from a LIVING SOURCE, then where did GOD come from? If God could "always exist" then the universe (though not infintely old) always existed. What I mean is, before the Universe there was no time, therefore there was no time before the universe. Therefore the Universe always existed.

QUOTE
Now evolution has already been proven to occur within species levels, but it has not been proven to be able to change one species to another. In fact, all living things are programmed NOT to change from their original species, which is perfectly compatible with microevolution.


What? Where is this coming from? Creationism.com or something?

QUOTE
However it is not compatible with macroevolution, which teaches that life evolved from one species to another, and so far that has not been proven to be possible, which means that the evolution we are talking about is NOT a fact, but a hypotheses.


Macro evolution is proven to have occured if you want to look at the evidence. If you don't then fine.

QUOTE
You are my proof for that one, just look at your arguments. Instead of listening to the facts, you have repeatedly ignored the points behind my arguments and chosen the easy path of stubborn denial and pathetically arrogant refusal to admit to proven facts. If that's what you mean by dogma, you are proof of what I said.


What? I asked you to prove the crap you spewed. So far, you've managed to deny that evolution is a fact (even though you admit that microEVOLUTION is). You've asked me for evidence and I've given it. I've given you a source to it, if you want a list of people who agree with evolution it wouldn't be too hard, I've given you facts. All you've done is make broad generalizations without backing any of them up.

Besides, just beceause I may be "dogmatic" does not mean science is. Science is the opposite of dogma.

QUOTE
What about Greenpeace? They're not religious are they? I'm pretty sure they're against genetic engineering.


Bravo, like I said, I wasn't challenging your claim. I just wanted you to list some.

QUOTE
Sounds pretty anti-organization to me, but maybe I just misread those statements.


It's not anti-organization, it's anti-organized religion. There IS a difference. Likewise followers can be together and have a religion and not be called "organized" religion. Like Pantheism for instance.

QUOTE
It sure gives it alot of credibility though, and it disproves the accusations that the Bible is historically inaccurate


Its historical accuracy might be okay, but it's not the same as saying it's true. It's like me witnessing a football game. I say who won and by what score, but when I say one team won I say they won because angels played with them. Now, I'm accurate in the score, and the situation but not in the how.

QUOTE
And what if scientists are wrong, then will you still say they need to believe it? That's dogma for you. Any questions?


That's the thing... science doesn't claim to be true. If someone was to challenge a scientific claim, it would be with MORE science. Science is simply the study of things around us.

This post has been edited by Dataika: Feb 17 2004, 09:21 PM


--------------------
One Love,
Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu - "May All Beings Be Well or Happy"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
defiance
post Feb 18 2004, 03:46 PM
Post #24


mind of a revolutionary
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,951
Joined: 17-November 03
From: Minnesota
Member No.: 1,117



QUOTE
It's just too bad I didn't post that site to refute some flood. I used it to present evidence for Evolution. (if you want a specific link to EVIDENCE of evolution, then here you go evidence

But hey bigshot, since you want to think you can refute it, by all means do it.

I just said, if you have any objections to my beliefs than say them. I'm not going to paste the entire website and respond to every point in there.

QUOTE
No they do not. Evolution is a category of study, not a prescribed theory that all its adherents must abide by.


Okay well thanks for generalizing religion into one single belief system. Meanwhile the fact is that there are tons of different brands of religion, both within and without any general religious belief. For instance, there is one general religion called Christianity, which is divided into hundreds, if not thousands of smaller religious organizations, man of which have completely different beliefs about the Bible, the main source for their religion. There are also similar differences with other religions, such as Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and others.

QUOTE
There are so many fossils that are transitionary. I can't believe you even said this.


As I just said, just because a certain fossil exists that looks to scientists (who are notorious for failing to see the obvious and coming up with long, detailed theories for basic, short stories) as if it might have been a cross between two other species, doesn't mean it was for fact what they think it is. To put it in short, those fossils prove nothing more than that a creature once lived that looked something like those fossils. They do not prove the "Neanderthal Man" was a distant anscestor to modren humans.

QUOTE
Uh, okay. That has nothing to do with evolution. Don't confuse evolution with the study of abiogenesis, son.


Atheist Macroevolutionism (was that term scientifically accurate enough?), is closely related to Abiogenisism. The imppression I've gotten is that you are an athiest and that you believe life came from nothing. Or let me rephrase, you believe that life came from a chance combination of hot chemicles that somehow caused life to just suddenly appear. These facts have everything to do with this debate, and since you haven't denied that they're true, I assume that you admit that they are true. Start thinking clearer and stop being arrogant.

QUOTE
Again, nothing to do with evolution, son.

But I'll just ask the simple question of If ALL life comes from a LIVING SOURCE, then where did GOD come from? If God could "always exist" then the universe (though not infintely old) always existed. What I mean is, before the Universe there was no time, therefore there was no time before the universe. Therefore the Universe always existed.


Again, it has everything to do with this debate, so stop trying to ignore the facts that you claim to be so devoted to.

I don't know what point you're trying to make, but you've basically just proved me right. The Bible says over and over again that god has existed, and that he was the one who made life appear on earth. So far you have failed to disprove that. The Universe has obviously always existed, cause all that the Universe really is is the infinite expanse of space and time, which means it has no end. Since the Universe has always existed, how is it so unreasonable to assume that God, if there is one, has also always existed.

QUOTE
What? I asked you to prove the crap you spewed. So far, you've managed to deny that evolution is a fact (even though you admit that microEVOLUTION is). You've asked me for evidence and I've given it. I've given you a source to it, if you want a list of people who agree with evolution it wouldn't be too hard, I've given you facts. All you've done is make broad generalizations without backing any of them up.


As I've already said, I don't have time to read everything about evolution that was ever written. I've already spent hours reading you rediculous so-called proof that atheistic macroevolution occurred and I'm not going to waste any more of my time reading it again. If you have a particular question than ask it and stop wasting my time. And I could care less who agrees with evolution, cause I don't and I still haven't seen any proof that it happened. In your own words, PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dataika
post Feb 19 2004, 10:44 AM
Post #25


Freedom Advocate
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,064
Joined: 19-January 04
From: San Bernardino/Highland California
Member No.: 1,542



QUOTE (defiance @ Feb 18 2004, 11:46 PM)
I just said, if you have any objections to my beliefs than say them. I'm not going to paste the entire website and respond to every point in there.

That's the thing, you haven't LISTED any beliefs, which is WHAT most Creationists do. All they do is attack evolution for having no evidence and then when it is presented to them, they turn their heads.

QUOTE
Okay well thanks for generalizing religion into one single belief system.


I didn't generalize it. It's the rules of EACH and EVERY religion. If you choose a religion, you MUST adhere to its principles and should NOT challenge them.

QUOTE
As I just said, just because a certain fossil exists that looks to scientists (who are notorious for failing to see the obvious and coming up with long, detailed theories for basic, short stories) as if it might have been a cross between two other species, doesn't mean it was for fact what they think it is.


They don't just "look" like a cross, there is scientific data supporting that they are two different species. Of course you'll just ignore it, like I said, you can look at the evidence or ignore it.

QUOTE
Atheist Macroevolutionism (was that term scientifically accurate enough?), is closely related to Abiogenisism.


There is no "Atheist Macroevolutionism" there is only evolutionism or creationism.

QUOTE
r let me rephrase, you believe that life came from a chance combination of hot chemicles that somehow caused life to just suddenly appear. These facts have everything to do with this debate, and since you haven't denied that they're true, I assume that you admit that they are true. Start thinking clearer and stop being arrogant.


We never spoke about my atheist beliefs, because I never said believing in a CREATOR is a BAD THING. It's when you ask people to adhere to pricniples that you can't prove even exist that it becomes a problem. As such with ORGANIZED RELIGION.

I say we came together through NATURAL CAUSES not "hot chemicals randomly..." But like I said, these facts have nothing to do with EVOLUTION, only ATHEISM. The two are not the same nor are they equivolent. So if you want to discuss my atheism, then let's discuss it. But don't intertwine the two seperate categories.

QUOTE
Again, it has everything to do with this debate, so stop trying to ignore the facts that you claim to be so devoted to.


No, it doesn't. You never questioned my atheism, you questioned EVOLUTION.

QUOTE
Bible says over and over again that god has existed, and that he was the one who made life appear on earth. So far you have failed to disprove that.


I don't have to disprove it, you have to prove it. Purple elephants fly around your face so fast you can't see them with any instrument known to man. Now, do you have to DISPROVE that? Or do I have to prove that? You showed similar ideology in the "anarchy debate." The one proposing the ideal must prove it.

QUOTE
Since the Universe has always existed, how is it so unreasonable to assume that God, if there is one, has also always existed.


If the Universe has always existed, then why do I NEED to assume that God exists? All I was doing was proving that since there is an exception to your God in your assumption (that all living things come from other living things), then why can't there be one for the universe and all its inhabitants?

QUOTE
As I've already said, I don't have time to read everything about evolution that was ever written. I've already spent hours reading you rediculous so-called proof that atheistic macroevolution occurred and I'm not going to waste any more of my time reading it again.


Why don't you post some of those critiques in a Science journal? Or heck, post them here. You have made no real argument other than "give me proof for evolution" so I gave you the biggest resource on the internet for it. So why would you even ask for it, if you're just going to turn a blind eye to it when it is presented?

QUOTE
If you have a particular question than ask it and stop wasting my time.


You haven't even made an argument other than "there's no proof for evolution." What do you expect?

QUOTE
In your own words, PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!


I think you need to put up an argument. You haven't done so, so far, and have only claimed there is no "proof" that it happened. I've given you a big resource on it. You can go back and try to refute what they say happened (much like I did in the Stalin debate) and provide evidence toward the contrary, or just sit there with your fingers in your ears claiming "there's no evidence, no evidence, no evidence, no evidence..." You asked for evidence and it was provided for you. There's nothing more to say.


--------------------
One Love,
Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu - "May All Beings Be Well or Happy"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Straycat
post Feb 19 2004, 11:28 AM
Post #26


WHO KILLED BAMBI?
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 764
Joined: 6-January 04
From: ROOM 101
Member No.: 1,487



it's kidna scary but i agree (of course if you cut all the stalin stuff out) with dataika.



i'm an agnostic evolutionist and i'd like to join this conversation but your posts are too goddamn long... unsure.gif






(PS-but im glad, dataika that you finally met defiance cause now u know how i feel talkin with u in the stalin thread...)


--------------------
user posted image
I've got a gun you know, and I'd use it,
I wouldn't....I wouldn't I can't get it out you know,
What I mean, if I got a gun, I would use it,
But maybe I would, but maybe I wouldn't...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dataika
post Feb 19 2004, 11:56 AM
Post #27


Freedom Advocate
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,064
Joined: 19-January 04
From: San Bernardino/Highland California
Member No.: 1,542



QUOTE (Straycat @ Feb 19 2004, 07:28 PM)
(PS-but im glad, dataika that you finally met defiance cause now u know how i feel talkin with u in the stalin thread...)

Me and defiance have been butting heads for a while.


--------------------
One Love,
Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu - "May All Beings Be Well or Happy"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
defiance
post Feb 19 2004, 09:05 PM
Post #28


mind of a revolutionary
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,951
Joined: 17-November 03
From: Minnesota
Member No.: 1,117



QUOTE
No, it doesn't. You never questioned my atheism, you questioned EVOLUTION. I don't have to disprove it, you have to prove it. Purple elephants fly around your face so fast you can't see them with any instrument known to man. Now, do you have to DISPROVE that? Or do I have to prove that? You showed similar ideology in the "anarchy debate." The one proposing the ideal must prove it.

But I didn't originally object to your beliefs, you objected to mine and now I am defending them by asking you to either prove evolution or disprove creation. And as I said, if you have a particular argument for or against my or your beliefs, than post it. I guess I'll just respond to this...

QUOTE
They don't just "look" like a cross, there is scientific data supporting that they are two different species. Of course you'll just ignore it, like I said, you can look at the evidence or ignore it.


Please present me with the so-called proof that we are directly descended from any of those creatures. It's like saying, because chimpanzees exist and look similar to humans, we must be descended from them. Here are two facts you should always remember. First, just because something is possible, it doesn't mean that it actually happened. Two, just because something seems possible (or impossible) right now, based on current information, it doesn't mean it is for a fact possible (or impossible), as is shown by the archeological discoveries of the last two centuries or so, that have again and again attested to the Bibles truth. Based on these two facts, particularly the first one, Abiogenises and Macroevolution are not proven facts, because so far there have been no written acounts of any new species (I mean in the larger sense, not like new kinds of dog or horse) having developed from already existing ones. There are no written records from "Neanderthal Man" or "Cro-Magnon Man" that prove that humans evolved from those species, therefore it is still only a hypotheses, not a fact.

QUOTE
We never spoke about my atheist beliefs, because I never said believing in a CREATOR is a BAD THING. It's when you ask people to adhere to pricniples that you can't prove even exist that it becomes a problem. As such with ORGANIZED RELIGION. I say we came together through NATURAL CAUSES not "hot chemicals randomly..." But like I said, these facts have nothing to do with EVOLUTION, only ATHEISM. The two are not the same nor are they equivolent. So if you want to discuss my atheism, then let's discuss it. But don't intertwine the two seperate categories.


Not all religions demand absolute unchanged adherence to their religious beliefs, in fact most people don't believe everything their religion teaches. I know this from personal experience, so don't tell me to prove that it's true. So far your only argument against religion is that religious research is confined to those religions. However there are two things wrong with this argument. First that it is not true, there are tons of religious scholars and scientists whose main job is to find scientific and other evidence from outside of the Bible that vindicate their beliefs. They are not always successful, but niether are scientists, and they still find alot of non-Biblical evidance of the Bibles accurracy. The other problem is that, like I said, evolutionists are also quite often (but not always, as with religion) confined to their beliefs during their research, which is mainly trying to find the most probable explanation for evolution. The fact that evolutionists consider themselves to be totally right and that they are confined to evolutionary theory, is shown by your own statements, like "Macroevolution is a FACT", which is often repeated, or at least implied in the website you linked me to. However Macroevolution is not a fact, but since you think that it is why don't you prove it? Stop saying pointless and repetitive statements like the one I just pointed out, and start showing me the so-called proof. I can't respond to the points in the website you linked because I don't know which ones you want me to respond to. Or if you want to discuss Abiogenesis or Atheism, than that's fine with me to. Or if you just want to stick to the original point of this topic, about whether organized religion is oppressive or if it causes ignorance or submission, that also is fine with me. But do something other than constantly coming up with rediculous assertions and than refusing to back them up. Or are you to scared to defend your so-called proof of Macroevolution?

QUOTE
If the Universe has always existed, then why do I NEED to assume that God exists? All I was doing was proving that since there is an exception to your God in your assumption (that all living things come from other living things), then why can't there be one for the universe and all its inhabitants?


Let me clarify, it's impossible for life to come from nothing unless it was there already. Anyway it doesn't contradict that fact, God is the source of life, he doesn't have to come from something else. And scientists already know that the Earth hasn't always existed, which means life on Earth obviously hasn't always existed either. Like you said, stick to the facts.

QUOTE
it's kidna scary but i agree (of course if you cut all the stalin stuff out) with dataika. i'm an agnostic evolutionist and i'd like to join this conversation but your posts are too goddamn long... (PS-but im glad, dataika that you finally met defiance cause now u know how i feel talkin with u in the stalin thread...


Are you trying to say that I sound just like him? This is rediculous, because you don't agree with my beliefs, you think that means I sound just like Dataika? If you have something to say, I'll be more than happy to respond, I don't care how long or short the post is, I've had enough long posts anyway. But don't try to act like I'm just being arrogant or stuck up, cause I'm not the one who's trying to say that any religious beliefs other than my own are simply unreasonable and should be eliminated. I respect all people's beliefs (even Dataika's), so long as they do not harm anyone else. The only reason I've been showing the evidence for the Bible is because I wanted to make the point clear to Dataika that all religion is not unreasonable, it often involves heavy research into the facts and does not demand blind faith. The reason I've had to show this is because his whole argument is that organized religion is unreasonable and enslaves the mind and should therefore be eliminated. But I'm sorry if I've sounded over argumentive or emotional, but it's the most important part of my life and for someone to tell me that it's unreasonable and needs to be gotten rid of, is no different to me than what they are accusing their enemy of doing, raping the mind. Anyway, I'll be glad to respond to any of your points.

(PS-me and Dataika have been going at it quite a while longer than he and you have. I'm the one that first challenged his Stalinist beliefs, just so you know.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dataika
post Feb 19 2004, 10:44 PM
Post #29


Freedom Advocate
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 1,064
Joined: 19-January 04
From: San Bernardino/Highland California
Member No.: 1,542



QUOTE (defiance @ Feb 20 2004, 05:05 AM)
But I didn't originally object to your beliefs, you objected to mine and now I am defending them by asking you to either prove evolution or disprove creation. And as I said, if you have a particular argument for or against my or your beliefs, than post it. I guess I'll just respond to this...

Evolution doesn't "argue" creationism, rather the opposite. Creationism claims evolution is untrue based on certain assertions. Evolution is a fact; creationism tries to claim it is not. I've given you a WEBPAGE with 29 proofs of Evolution, just disprove one of the proofs I have provided. JUST ONE.

QUOTE
Please present me with the so-called proof that we are directly descended from any of those creatures. It's like saying, because chimpanzees exist and look similar to humans, we must be descended from them.


No it is not, but when chimpanzees and humans look so similar and one tracks the evolutionary progression it is rather obvious that there was a common ancestor. The "missing link."

QUOTE
First, just because something is possible, it doesn't mean that it actually happened.


Goodness gracious, I never said anything REMOTELY similar to this.

QUOTE
Two, just because something seems possible (or impossible) right now, based on current information, it doesn't mean it is for a fact possible (or impossible), as is shown by the archeological discoveries of the last two centuries or so, that have again and again attested to the Bibles truth.


Yet you haven't given any evidence for this. But oh well, that's your style of debating I guess.

QUOTE
Abiogenises and Macroevolution are not proven facts, because so far there have been no written acounts of any new species (I mean in the larger sense, not like new kinds of dog or horse) having developed from already existing ones.


Abiogenesis is of course, not a proven fact because it is an area of study, not an assertion in and of itself.

Evolution is proven if you look at teh evidence. Which you seem to NOT want to do. There have been so many expirments where evolution and adaptation was witnessed first hand, I don't even know what to say this "objection."

Besides, everyone knows it took billions of years for the species to evolve into what they are today, so to ask that it be done in your lifetime is rather silly.

QUOTE
There are no written records from "Neanderthal Man" or "Cro-Magnon Man" that prove that humans evolved from those species, therefore it is still only a hypotheses, not a fact.


If you think there is no proof that neanderthals existed, I'll just provide you with a website. http://www.neanderthal-modern.com/

QUOTE
Not all religions demand absolute unchanged adherence to their religious beliefs, in fact most people don't believe everything their religion teaches.


Which is not what I said. I said you DO have a set of principles based on faith that you MUST adhere to in order to be included in that religion.

QUOTE
First that it is not true, there are tons of religious scholars and scientists whose main job is to find scientific and other evidence from outside of the Bible that vindicate their beliefs.


Which is true, but has nothing to do with the point I was getting to. Once they decide on a religion, they will defend it at any cost. By faith alone and absent of evidence if necessary (which is/was VERY common). They are looking for evidence to BACK UP what they ALREADY BELIEVE.

QUOTE
The other problem is that, like I said, evolutionists are also quite often (but not always, as with religion) confined to their beliefs during their research, which is mainly trying to find the most probable explanation for evolution.


You are misunderstanding science. Science does not look for an explanation and proof of evolution, it looks for how things came to be and REALIZES that evolution is the reason BASED on the EVIDENCE. It is NOT the other way around.

QUOTE
However Macroevolution is not a fact, but since you think that it is why don't you prove it?


I have given you countless sources, I've now challenged you to pick one point and argue against it successfully.

QUOTE
Stop saying pointless and repetitive statements like the one I just pointed out, and start showing me the so-called proof. I can't respond to the points in the website you linked because I don't know which ones you want me to respond to.


Why not start with one assertion? There are 29 proofs for evolution.

QUOTE
But do something other than constantly coming up with rediculous assertions and than refusing to back them up. Or are you to scared to defend your so-called proof of Macroevolution?


Goodness, is all you're going to do is throw around ad hominem? Simply, I have put up a case, you have not. You've made broad generalizations and when a website is shown to you with proofs for evolution you ignore them. You don't even make counter-claims.

QUOTE
Anyway it doesn't contradict that fact, God is the source of life, he doesn't have to come from something else.


Why is that? Why can't the universe be the "source of life"? Your logic is fundamentally flawed, theist.

QUOTE
And scientists already know that the Earth hasn't always existed, which means life on Earth obviously hasn't always existed either. Like you said, stick to the facts.


Which was caused by natural causes in the Universe, which is the source of life because there was no time before it. Therefore there is nothing for it to spring from. I could say it came about the same way that your God did. Again, why do I have to ASSUME that God "did it"? There's no reason to.


--------------------
One Love,
Sabbe Satta Sukhi Hontu - "May All Beings Be Well or Happy"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Straycat
post Feb 20 2004, 10:32 AM
Post #30


WHO KILLED BAMBI?
****

Group: Activist
Posts: 764
Joined: 6-January 04
From: ROOM 101
Member No.: 1,487



QUOTE
Are you trying to say that I sound just like him? This is rediculous, because you don't agree with my beliefs, you think that means I sound just like Dataika? If you have something to say, I'll be more than happy to respond, I don't care how long or short the post is, I've had enough long posts anyway. But don't try to act like I'm just being arrogant or stuck up, cause I'm not the one who's trying to say that any religious beliefs other than my own are simply unreasonable and should be eliminated. I respect all people's beliefs (even Dataika's), so long as they do not harm anyone else. The only reason I've been showing the evidence for the Bible is because I wanted to make the point clear to Dataika that all religion is not unreasonable, it often involves heavy research into the facts and does not demand blind faith. The reason I've had to show this is because his whole argument is that organized religion is unreasonable and enslaves the mind and should therefore be eliminated. But I'm sorry if I've sounded over argumentive or emotional, but it's the most important part of my life and for someone to tell me that it's unreasonable and needs to be gotten rid of, is no different to me than what they are accusing their enemy of doing, raping the mind. Anyway, I'll be glad to respond to any of your points.



i didnt say you were being arrogant or stuck up, my point was that it is quite strange (and somewhat senseless) -at least 4 me- trying to convince somebody to your own beliefs in a conversation where both sides are unlikely to change their points of view (like me and dataika in stalin thread, or you and dataika here).
it's just argument for an argument and you aint goin anywhere.
(my post wasn't in any way personal-i dont like disin people)

i wanted to join this thread, but -english is not my first language and reading your long and complicated posts takes me some time sad.gif and i dont want to repeat your arguments. it would be also senseless cause although im not totally atheistic (i'd would rather call myself agnostic, cause i cant say im sure of things i cant prove), i dont believe in creationism and im not able to accept it. for me the bible (especially the genesis part) is not reliable as a source in learning of the beginning of the human race. i think it only reflects the beliefs of the people who wrote it (which dont have to be correct).


--------------------
user posted image
I've got a gun you know, and I'd use it,
I wouldn't....I wouldn't I can't get it out you know,
What I mean, if I got a gun, I would use it,
But maybe I would, but maybe I wouldn't...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th October 2020 - 07:25 PM