Everything's coming up Treehouse


You are not connected. Please login or register

Religion Thread

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 7 of 7]

151 Re: Religion Thread on Thu Sep 12, 2013 3:56 pm

If you are going to drag up issues and posts from another part of the forum into the thread I would remind you this isn't about debating another person's behavior on the forum this is suppose to be a discussion about religion. The karma is a system for up voting or down voting posts based on content. I don't see why dragging up the fact I expressed my dislike for jokes of very poor taste into the discussion of this topic is even necessary. I find that to be in very poor way to make a point Sash. I guess you are right, this isn't a discussion I should take part in, I am not going to be here if you are going to just drag up stuff I say or do on other threads.

View user profile

152 Re: Religion Thread on Thu Sep 12, 2013 4:00 pm

SQUIGGLES

avatar
The 7th Wonder of the World
Samiam wrote:If you are going to drag up issues and posts from another part of the forum into the thread I would remind you this isn't about debating another person's behavior on the forum this is suppose to be a discussion about religion.
This isn't a discussion about religion at all. It's about behaviour.

Samiam wrote:I don't see why dragging up the fact I expressed my dislike for jokes of very poor taste into the discussion of this topic is even necessary.
It's necessary to make my point.

Samiam wrote:I find that to be in very poor way to make a point Sash.
Proof is the foundation of argumentation, I would think someone who values discussion as highly as you would understand that.

My point was that "if you're allowed to make 9/11 a sacred cow on the Silly Board and ask that everyone is respectful about it, then I think I'm allowed to make religion a sacred cow, in the Religion Thread on the Serious Board" and I think it is entirely related to the discussion.

View user profile

153 Re: Religion Thread on Thu Sep 12, 2013 4:10 pm

Hollyღ

avatar
Dove in the Moonlight
I'm locking this thread until I can make my post.

View user profile

154 Re: Religion Thread on Thu Sep 12, 2013 5:14 pm

Hollyღ

avatar
Dove in the Moonlight
Sam post your reply

View user profile

155 Re: Religion Thread on Thu Sep 12, 2013 5:16 pm

I never made 9/11 a sacred cow, I would have had the same response if the jokes were in poor taste over rape, murder, child molestation or prejudice. I expressed my dissatisfaction for the jokes with the tools available to me on the forum. I did not "tell off" people I let them know the reasons for doing what I did.

I do take the George Carlin approach of "there are no sacred cow" but I will draw the line somewhere. People are free to express themselves but must remain mindful of how they act or what they say will affect their peers.

I have full expectation of being down voted whenever I make comments I feel may be offensive to others, if I do I see why and I learn from it. This thread is no exception and I had full expectation of it happening to me in the other thread.


Proof is the foundation of argumentation, I would think someone who values discussion as highly as you would understand that.

My point was that "if you're allowed to make 9/11 a sacred cow on the Silly Board and ask that everyone is respectful about it, then I think I'm allowed to make religion a sacred cow, in the Religion Thread on the Serious Board" and I think it is entirely related to the discussion.


I would appreciate it if you kept the sarcastic remarks about me to a minimum.

If proof is the foundation then prove to me religion is true, or how your religion is more true then mythology of the vikings or mormans or any other. If you make the discussion of even having religious views off limits then there is no discussion. Making a view such as religion immune to criticism devalues it to the point of worthlessness.

View user profile

156 Re: Religion Thread on Thu Sep 12, 2013 5:18 pm

Hollyღ

avatar
Dove in the Moonlight
I'd like both parties to just relax for a moment, please.

Sam you need to take some breaths and calm down - this is not a personal attack on you and neither was Sasha's original post. He was saying it's beneficial to pick your words wisely as not to sound dogmatic. He was giving constructive critisism on how to word our posts to avoid conflict and it was aimed towards everyone.

>Sam The reasons are I feel like I been made an example of so soon after joining the conversation I was apart of for breaking rules that were did not yet exist for the thread until after I posted

You were not personally targeted or made an example of in malicious ways - this problem was stirred up before and was brought as a concern in which someone had to deal with it and the problem was brought up before you made your post. Your post made for the perfect opportunity to talk about these issues - It was because he admitted he has trouble describing something without pretext and offered polite constructive criticism on how to post and share beliefs here. He explained in his original post how he wasn't using you to showcase how youre wrong or make you a target or victim.

If I had doubts or based the existence of god on a personal belief then I would be agnostic. I cannot change my statement to make it more palatable.  This is actually a problem faced by atheists, and yes you are right people do not like being told they are wrong yet that is the de facto position I am in when I explain I am an atheist and simply do not have belief in a supernatural position. By expressing a difference in opinion I am (by default) telling you that you are wrong.

He's not saying to express doubt in your posts. He's expressing how to express your words in tactful ways. The point of this thread is not to educate others in what is right or wrong, and whether you belief in religon or not is your personal belief and theory, it's not fact and shouldn't be posted as such. Admittedly this should have been highlighted before the thread got this far, which is why we are going over it now. If you feel "opressed" than by all means you do not need to post here, but these issues are being discussed now to prevent further arguements.

That is not my intention to offend you but if getting told you are wrong is something to get you offended then quite frankly coming into a discussion about religion is not a conversation you are prepared to be a part of. I do not get apprehensive to being told I am wrong and if I am told so about a point or statement I made then I would ask you to explain why I am.

And this thread is not to tell others they are wrong, or to word our beliefs as if they are the only truth, it is to share different views and Sasha's post was on how to avoid being misunderstood or misinterpreted. If anyone is acting offended over "being told they are wrong" it's currently you, who is overreacting to someone making simple suggestions as to avoid conflict.

I was in my post attempting to open lines of dialog about my views on religion as well as try to answer questions asked of me but If you are going to place personal belief into a "no touching" zone to be held as some sacred cow of no hurting feelings then sadly I have nothing to discuss with you Sash and take my leave of this topic.

You are not being placed on trial for your thoughts on religion. You weren't even told you had done anything wrong - If any thread should be treated with care it should be the religion thread, in the serious board, where very delicate topics are handled. It's not hard to phantom why people would want some special precautions regarding the topics discussed here. If you do not agree with these precautions fine, but do not make it out as a personal attack on yourself, and especially do not call Sasha out on targeting you and being unfair.

You are taking personal offense to something which was meant to be innocent suggestions and are dragging in unneeded and unnecessary dramatics.




I never made 9/11 a sacred cow, I would have had the same response if the jokes were in poor taste over rape, murder, child molestation or prejudice. I expressed my dissatisfaction for the jokes with the tools available to me on the forum. I did not "tell off" people I let them know the reasons for doing what I did.


Sasha's point was that you expressed dislike for something (whatever the matter isn't the point) and people listened and learned from, and if you can express dislike and anxiety for something on another thread, he can share his own anxiety about something equally serious here without the threat of backlash.

Giving out negative votes even if its "the tools available on the forum" is very effective at telling people off after saying they had freedom of expression.

I do take the George Carlin approach of "there are no sacred cow" but I will draw the line somewhere. People are free to express themselves but must remain mindful of how they act or what they say will affect their peers.

Which is EXACTLY the point Sasha was making in his original post, which leads me to think you misunderstood the majority of what he was saying. He wasn't saying "we shouldn't say this because it might hurt peoples feelings." He was saying "We should word these carefully so as be careful how it affects others".

I have full expectation of being down voted whenever I make comments I feel may be offensive to others, if I do I see why and I learn from it. This thread is no exception and I had full expectation of it in the other thread.

That doesn't give the right to state your opinions in such a way that might purposely upset others if it can be avoided, especially since this is such a simple matter that you are blowing up to be overly complicated.

If proof is the foundation then prove to me religion is true, or how your religion is more true then mythology of the vikings or mormans or any other. If you make the discussion of even having religious views off limits then there is no discussion. Making a view such as religion immune to criticism devalues it to the point of worthlessness.

He was offering proof as to your behavior, not religion. Please do not twist peoples words. Also you are missing the point, again, of his original post, which was not to make religious views off limits. It was to bring awareness of how people word their views he was emphasizing.

---X-

For future reference, Sasha even though your post was thoughtful and affable I'm going to request all further examples in the religious thread be free from including anyone specific unless they agree its ok ahead of time

I will also request that if something like this happens again, instead of attempting rebuttals bring it up on our mod board please so we can all work on it

Sasha I will also allow you to respond to his post if you wish. After this point I would request that this issue be brought to me in the privacy of PM - if anyone has any comments or suggestions regarding this topic please PM me. I will discuss this matter with the other mods on our own board as well. Any continuation of this issue will result in warnings.

You are both my friends so I hope we can really work this out.

View user profile

157 Re: Religion Thread on Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:04 pm

Hollyღ

avatar
Dove in the Moonlight
I am going to continue the thread now if the issue is done with

>Ziggles I have a serious question for those who don't identify as Christian/believe in a Christian god: do you feel guilty attending church services? I feel bad going these days, because in moments of prayer I feel like I haven't got anything to say for myself. It's like a hollow impression of what I used to do when I worshiped, and in the presence of so many devout people, I feel like it's crass to be there.

That might be more to do with my estrangement from the community than with my faith, but my congregation is typically very pleasant and accepting of all comers, so it's not that big a factor. Do you guys ever experience such a thing? Or do you simply not attend?


I've always felt the same honestly, when I believed in following my own spiritual path suddenly being in my parents church offered little comfort and gave me the impression that I was an imposer - considering the attitudes of the congregation I might as well have been. I never felt myself to be hollow or false however, simply an inconvenience. I did eventually leave, but only because my church had moved and I wasn't dedicated enough to follow them.  

The church community around my area aren't as pleasant and accepting as yours, but occasionally I find myself meeting really nice and open-minded people and I don't let the issue of different beliefs keep me from having good memories with them.

Do you still consider yourself Christian Ziggy? Sorry if its made clear in your post, I miss things sometimes.

>Jonny I think this is an interesting perspective, but I wouldn't worry about feeling guilty. When I was at university, I attended a meeting of the Christian Fellowship and one of the things they stressed was that you didn't need to be a Christian, or even religious, to attend: there was an emphasis on getting together and having a good time with a veneer of Christianity overlaying it. In the same sense, I imagine many members of a Christian congregation would be happy to have non-believers attend and welcome them as part of a community rather than it being an outpouring of and declaration of religious faith.

I like that, it sounds so happy and snuggly. I think that's what most religions really should be, happy and open arms and just sharing stories and views and such.


>Stef Anyway, Charles is already aware of my belief but we didn't know how it was called or if there was a name. Well I found it: Possibilianism

Like Sasha I've never heard of this being a thing until now, but I think I can really dig it. You said Einstein mentioned it? Do you have the quote?

On that note if anyone has any other obscure or lesser talked about religions or 'life-styles' I'd really like to hear about them.

View user profile

158 Re: Religion Thread on Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:21 am

Enstein never talked about it but peoples thinked he was a possibilian.

But for more info look at the site.

http://www.possibilian.com/

View user profile

159 Re: Religion Thread on Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:52 am

I like the idea of Possibilianism. I think that if I wasn't a Christian, I'd be one of those guys.

Of course, I'm still very much open to new ideas, and science isn't an exception here. I'm pretty sick and tired of the myth that, just because someone believes in a deity, they immediately reject all forms of science. I'm also sick and tired of it being "science vs religion", like if they were two highschool football teams we had to pick and cheer just that one. Why can't we cheer on both? And heck, why even fight at all? The two should be working together at trying to understand everything better, not against each other.

Stephen Hawking, a man that I admire for his dedication and intelligence, once himself said that "science does not disprove religion". Just because the universe is vast and seems empty doesn't mean some greater force that us mortals could never comprehend isn't behind it all.

And as a religious man, I want to sincerely apologize for the stupidity and ignorance of some who share my faith. No, I don't think that anyone of any other belief but mine is an idiot who needs to see the light, nor do I believe that my God would throw people to damnation simply because they don't believe in him. I believe I have the right faith, and everyone else believes they have the right belief as well, and no one likes to be told otherwise.

I actually, sincerely believe that if both religious and scientific communities put aside the little differences and stop being arrogant a little, they would do more good than harm.

Or maybe I'm a big dummy I dunno

View user profile

160 Re: Religion Thread on Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:12 am

Here's a little quote from Kevin Kelly:

Agnostics end with the lack of an answer.
Possibilians begin with the lack of an answer.

Agnostics say, we can't decide between this and that.
Possibilians say, there are other choices than this or that.

Agnostics say, I Don't Know, it's impossible to answer that question.
Possibilians say, I Don't Know, there must be better questions.


View user profile

161 Re: Religion Thread on Fri Sep 13, 2013 10:38 am

Hollyღ

avatar
Dove in the Moonlight
>Charles I like the idea of Possibilianism. I think that if I wasn't a Christian, I'd be one of those guys.

Of course, I'm still very much open to new ideas, and science isn't an exception here. I'm pretty sick and tired of the myth that, just because someone believes in a deity, they immediately reject all forms of science. I'm also sick and tired of it being "science vs religion", like if they were two highschool football teams we had to pick and cheer just that one. Why can't we cheer on both? And heck, why even fight at all? The two should be working together at trying to understand everything better, not against each other.

Stephen Hawking, a man that I admire for his dedication and intelligence, once himself said that "science does not disprove religion". Just because the universe is vast and seems empty doesn't mean some greater force that us mortals could never comprehend isn't behind it all.

And as a religious man, I want to sincerely apologize for the stupidity and ignorance of some who share my faith. No, I don't think that anyone of any other belief but mine is an idiot who needs to see the light, nor do I believe that my God would throw people to damnation simply because they don't believe in him. I believe I have the right faith, and everyone else believes they have the right belief as well, and no one likes to be told otherwise.

I actually, sincerely believe that if both religious and scientific communities put aside the little differences and stop being arrogant a little, they would do more good than harm.

Or maybe I'm a big dummy I dunno



I think the main reason the two factions clash so often is because science covers the extent of what is observable and tangent, while a lot of religion is faith based, in which the proof comes from the persons fealty to their beliefs. I believe that the religions that have no need or basis for certainty for example wouldn't find benefits in science which would only set out to disprove all that religion stands for, and that only increases the tension between the two.

Medicine is one of the most important thing the two should coexist for, I don't think people realize just serious the issue of modern medicine and health systems regarding religion is.

>Stef Enstein never talked about it but peoples thinked he was a possibilian. But for more info look at the site. http://www.possibilian.com/

Thanks for the link. That mode of thinking is really safe and flexible, I'm still surprised I've never heard it mentioned before, especially considering it's at least a five years old philosophy.

Possibilianism Introduction Article:
"Our ignorance of the cosmos is too vast to commit to atheism, and yet we know too much to commit to a particular religion. A third position, agnosticism, is often an uninteresting stance in which a person simply questions whether his traditional religious story (say, a man with a beard on a cloud) is true or not true. But with Possibilianism I'm hoping to define a new position -- one that emphasizes the exploration of new, unconsidered possibilities. Possibilianism is comfortable holding multiple ideas in mind; it is not interested in committing to any particular story."

Something interesting to think about.

View user profile

162 Re: Religion Thread on Sat Sep 14, 2013 5:02 am

Well the name is five years old the way of thinking is way older

View user profile

163 Re: Religion Thread on Sat Sep 14, 2013 10:39 am

Hollyღ wrote:Do you still consider yourself Christian Ziggy? Sorry if its made clear in your post, I miss things sometimes.
Naw, it's cool, I talked about it a long time ago. I don't consider myself a Christian any more because of my lack of faith in an omnipotent/-present/-benevolent higher power. The life and death of Jesus is still moving to me and I think there is a lot to learn from his teachings as written in the Bible, but Christian is no longer what I am.
It still kind of works for what I do, though. The Golden Rule is an ideal method of behavior IMO.

I believe I am legally part of the United Methodist Church, paperwork and ceremony-official.

Hollyღ wrote:
I like that, it sounds so happy and snuggly. I think that's what most religions really should be, happy and open arms and just sharing stories and views and such.
I agree! Religion should be a positive aspect of culture, not a negative one. More people should recognize that even those you disagree with are people too, and worthy of respect and consideration.

@Possiblianism: I like that! Open-mindedness as a lifestyle. I can get behind that.

View user profile

164 Re: Religion Thread on Sat Sep 21, 2013 2:54 pm

Ok, here you go, moved from Sam's blog.
Spoiler:
Anybody who decides to minus this, feel free to say why. It helps to get some negative feed back, and I promise to not take it personally. I will quite willingly defend myself. And if you don't want everyone knowing that you did it but still want to say something, feel free to PM me and, unless you request otherwise, I will post your reply WITHOUT SAYING WHO PRESENTED IT and give my defense. Seriously, it would make my day if someone who misused me told me why, it would mean someone is actually reading this.

Alright, something to consider here. You can not group gravity into the same category of fact as evolution. They are not comparable in measures of certainty, for they do not have the same amount of measurably in the first place. Putting them into the same category of fact creates bias towards the idea all that is said about evolution is backed up by concrete evidence.
Now, for this argument, I will use quotation marks to show what aggressive atheists use to argue against the idea that evolution, or any commonly accepted theory for that matter, could be wrong. I'm not using it to offend any of you. DISCLAIMER: Do not read if you won't accept that. I will refer back to that statement if you claim I think atheists are stupid. Any and all things said about this nameless character that is supposed to represent aggressive atheists does not reflect my opinion of atheists in general, just the people who are jerks about it. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
ALSO DISCLAIMER: If you claim I'm trying to convert you, you didn't read the last bit very well. Look at it again. I'm not going to say it now thrice on the same dang thread.
Gravity is a force. There are thousands of ways of measuring it, thousands of ways to test it, and many trails on last a few seconds and it can be observed right before our very eyes. We have an equation to measure the gravitational pull of any substance, mixture, or any matter at all by it's mass. Gravity is a finite LAW and can not be refuted in any way.
The measure of the effects of evolution, however, is not as easy to calculate. There is positively no way to prove it by math, no truly accurate way to measure any supposed change over time, and even how old any of the fossils are.
"But what about radiocarbon dating? You can't disprove how actuate that is!"
Alright, first things first. Radiocarbon dating is supposed to be only accurate to 60,000 years. Big whoop, Age of Mammals. And even with that, IT IS NOT ACCURATE BECAUSE OF HOW IT WORKS.
Most isotopes of carbon are radioactive. The carbon they use for radiocarbon dating is carbon-14, the most stable of the radioactive carbon forms. In radiocarbon dating, they find how much carbon-14 is in the sample in comparison to how much nitrogen-14, which is what it decays into, is also in it. By this standard, it would be fairly accurate. Would be being the key phrase. However, there just isn't enough carbon-14 in the world to support this.
Carbon-12, the smallest stable isotope of carbon makes up 99% of the world's carbon, while carbon-14 makes up less than 1% that carbon we've found so far.
"Yeah, but, 60,000 years ago, there would had been a lot more carbon-14, because it wouldn't had decayed yet, so, HAHA! Can't counter that, can you?"
Ok then, how about we look at carbon-14 found verses nitrogen-14 and where we find either of them, shall we? Ok, so nitrogen-14 is the most common form of nitrogen. Ok, yeah, that supports part of your theory. The problem is, if most of nitrogen-14 came from carbon-14, then what about the second most common isotope for nitrogen? Nitrogen-15, the ONLY other stable form of nitrogen, only makes less than ONE PERCENT of the nitrogen observed IN THE ENTIRE KNOWN UNIVERSE. Now, let's consider carbon-14. For radiocarbon dating to be accurate, then the majority of life from at least the point of it becoming 1% would have to use carbon-14 in the majority of their proteins, sugars, nucleic acids and the rest of the large assortment of carbon-based molecules. Thus, there must had been a vast amount of nitrogen-14 that didn't quite exist yet, and we have nitrogen-14 to primarily rely on. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. DNA, one of the largest commonly found multi-molecular compounds find in nature, requires an obscene amount of nitrogen for only a few hundred base pairs. These still don't measure to be very long, because it's so compactly stored, and it is also on a molecular scale. Cellular DNA puts everything we've tried to make compact to absolute shame. In each human cell, there is more than 1 meter of DNA packed into there. For all of you still using imperial, that's about 3 ft. Most organisms have more than a trillion cells. You do the math. 60,000 years ago, do you REALLY think that if the requirements for radiocarbon dating would be able to support that much?
"Ok, so radiocarbon dating is not accurate. Big deal. That's only 60,000 years. We still have our fossil records!"
Yeah, yeah, that thing. More radiometric dating nonsense. I avoid this thing like the plague. Absolutely none of it makes any sense to me. I would had brought up why this can't be viable the last bit and saved myself quite a bit of trouble scuttling about to try and find some exact numbers for the last couple of paragraphs. My question to you is this:
How do you know the half life of something that supposedly has a half-life longer than we even knew what radiation was?
"Well, that's simply. We observe how quickly an isotope decays and calculate approximately how long the half-life will be."
Uh-huh. How do we know that there isn't a variance in the decay of said isotopes over time?
"Um, excuse me?"
How do you know that nothing will change in it's rate of decay over all of those years?
"Uh... why is that even a question?"
So you see it as a given that it will not change, huh?
"Yeah it is!"
Prove it.
"..."
How do we know that it's a set rate? All of those stay beta, alpha, and gamma particles have to go somewhere. Are you familiar with the term nuclear reaction?
"Yeah, it's when two element is transmuted by the collision of them, resulting in the breaking of the other."
How do atomic bombs work?
"If a nuclear reaction occurs, there's a chance that one of the split pieces of the atom will hit another and split it. If you have a lot of the radioactive substance, it has a high chance of hitting another atom. When an atom breaks, it creates a lot of energy. You usually just send a proton into another nucleus and that'll tear said nucleus apart. Then said nucleus will break more, and it will chain to break even more and create a lot of energy, thus resulting in an explosion. If enough atoms fissure, that explosion will be massive."
So, what about the small amounts of radioactive substances you find in those very old rocks? Millions of years is a lot of time for things to happen, even unlikely things. Those small amounts wouldn't cause too much damage, would it?
"I guess not. What does this have to do with variance of decay?"
You're measurements would be fairly off if some of the radioactive matter you're measuring underwent some nuclear reactions over those billions of years, huh? And you wouldn't be able to tell if that happened, it wouldn't make enough of an explosion to make an imprint in the rock if only a few go at a time, would it?
"Um..."
For you're sake, I'll stop asking you about that and just get to the point. Since we don't know exactly how much radioactive substance was actually there, how can radiometric dating, the closest thing we have to an accurate way to date rocks, which fossils are, how can you definitely say how old a rock is?
"... Whatever. So we don't have that going for ourselves. How can you prove that evolution isn't true?"
I'm not going for that.
"What?"
Give me a moment, I'm soaking in that look on your face. You're just as narrow minded as many atheists claim Christians are. Most of you assume that just because we have religion, we denounce science. Not all of us are extremists. I'm just as much a man of science as you, perhaps even more so because I challenge any scientific theory I find. Why do you think I've been arguing against your evidence with? I'm not going to argue against science with religion, that gets us nowhere and you still think I'm a stupid Christian denying evolution because I blindly follow God. In all honesty, you're doing the same thing because you blindly follow what you're told to be true. Sure, you may try and discover new things and prove each other wrong, but everyone who will openly attack religion has one thing is common: you refuse to think that you might be wrong about the idea of there not being an all-powerful being that had his hand in forming the universe. You have very little proof against it, just as we have little proof that you are willing to accept that says otherwise. My purpose in studying the sciences is not just to prove there has to be a God, I don't really care what you believe on this matter, I study science so I can LEARN. I'm not going to refute all of science just because some of what is believed to be true by atheists. Science is a wonderful, grand thing, and my faith pushes me more towards it, because I want to know every little bit of this wonderful world God made.
Back on subject. I think that evolution itself is 100% true. Survival of the fittest, gene pools changing over time, you'd have to be extremely stubborn or not understand it to see that. What I don't agree with is the scale it's been blown up to. I don't think that we're all descended from amoebas, and I definitely don't think that the world is billions of years old. I believe man was made on the 6th day, and if the world is really billions of years old, we wouldn't still even have room on Earth for all of these people, assuming that we haven't already perfected space travel.
"Uh... I'm not sure how to respond to this.... Oh yeah! YOU'RE WRONG! STUPID CHRISTIAN!"
And now he's run away. Whatever. I hope you're view on these subjects expands your view on the issue a little and understand my standing on this subject.
I will work on this blog a little more later, I did this to help me get my mind going for an essay. I went a little far for that purpose, but I couldn't keep myself from finishing this after I started.

This was last edited at 4:40, to fix a minor definition error.

Now, for a little addendum. Apparently, I didn't make this thing's purpose clear enough. My primary concern was that he was actually attacking religion in there, so I clarified something about evolution. You can't put evolution under the same category as gravity regarding absolute fact. Gravity can be actively observed. Evolution and the history of the universe can not. He didn't even use evolution in the correct way. Evolution is NOT we evolved from amoebas. That branched off of evolutionary theory. That is a completely different theory. Evolution is simply the theory (a conclusion reached by various observations, contrast law, which is a statement you can either put as an equation that will always match the results of any experimentation with it or a consistently true statement that has been proven physically various times) that life will change over time according to environmental conditions through a process of elimination. THAT is obvious and a given. It has been proven through actual current studies and just simply makes sense. But as evolution is used commonly, it involves the conclusion drawn from that later on that all living things have a common ancestry, and that humans and the human brain are just the products of random events. It's erroneous common use puts every single conclusion drawn from the actual theory.

Now that I've more properly explained my stand, I will now clarify something for now the fifth time.
THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK ON ATHEISM. THIS IS AN ATTACK ON AN ATTACK AGAINST RELIGION. I'm going to say this absolutely directly why I'm talking about this. WHAT FREAKING RELIGIOUS BELIEF IN [U]ANY[U] RELIGION IS AGAINST GRAVITY OR ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCES. That was entirely irrelevant and it's use exaggerates the difference of view in a very condescending way. Incase he changes it, to correct it or to try making my argument irrelevant, I don't care really, here is a screenshot of that.
Spoiler:
And then Gorgro told me not to make it an religion v atheism thread, but the original content was very aggressive to religion and I was simply saying that he was absolutely wrong in doing that in an indirect way that wouldn't offend and would actually say this in a logic-based argument.
And, honestly, I don't think that Gorgro is the best mediator for religious discussion. Part of the reason I never post in this thread is because of him, I only had to look through it once and know that any calm, logical argument is going to be dissolved into a freaking catfight. Gorgro has said some very rude things on here and is very condescending to religion. Is it so hard to just discuss something? My thing was not aggressive to atheism at all, just some of the jerks in it who will insult Christians and not even have any form of scientific discussion with any of them because they fundamentally don't agree. Their angle is always to attack my beliefs, but I NEVER EVER ATTACK ATHEISM, I simply go at a scientific angle. I don't care if you don't believe in God, my big thing is that they need to learn not to just argue anything with pathos or insults, there is a much better way to do it. Not that the type of people that I focus this kind of argument on really cares.
So, everyone please do me a favor AND DO NOT TURN THIS INTO A FIGHT. I spent my good time trying to clarify something and put things on more even ground, I don't want this to just become a reason to fight.

View user profile

165 Re: Religion Thread on Sat Sep 21, 2013 3:52 pm

Gosh I really need to make that debate rules sticky ASAP. If that was live right now, it would say: no ad hominem/personal attacks on anybody, so saying mean things about Dennis based on actions he's apologized for is completely uncool.

Also, Katls, I fear you might be using a Strawman in order to make your argument. In the future, it would be better if you'd only reply to an argument someone is actually making instead of one that you commonly hear or dislike. If you're going to bring up a topic that no one is actually discussing, you'd better preface it with "some people" or somethin' so people know how much of your position is disagreeing with your position.

@The topic at hand: I think one thing I can agree on with Katie is that the concept of evolution is not one giant set of conclusions that one agrees or disagrees with. I feel that religion is very much the same way, and that many aspects of it can be agreed or disagreed with, without discounting the whole thing as a whole.

View user profile

166 Re: Religion Thread on Sat Sep 21, 2013 4:18 pm

Ziggles wrote:so saying mean things about Dennis based on actions he's apologized for is completely uncool.
I'm sorry, I hadn't seen that yet. My reaction was overly aggressive. I'm trying to work on it, it's been a very shaky few months and I'm turning into more of a jerk each day. I'm not even sure why.
I apologize Gorgro.

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 7 of 7]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum