Atheism-o-phobia Part 2

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
I cant remember one post of yours that hasnt had some kind of derogatory notions…
[/quote]

It’s because you refuse to debate in good faith.

And I think many of the posters here will agree with me, including the atheist posters.[/quote]

I concurrrrrrrrr. He would rather tell me about his degree in science or address my off remark about me looking at books then to actually refute or agree with my claims.[/quote]

WHAT! - you said “i read about science and i know what im talking about” what kind of bullshit arbitrary comment is that…you said it as if i should just believe everything you say - I LOVE BRICK WALLS!!!

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

The crazy thing I am stating is that God is knowable through a personal relationship with him(not feelings and emotionalism that are usually regarded as knowing him but an actual relationship.)
[/quote]

AKA an imaginary friend.

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
God has this promise that he reveals himself to those who seek him with all their heart.[/quote]

All very convenient though don’t you think?

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
I cant remember one post of yours that hasnt had some kind of derogatory notions…
[/quote]

It’s because you refuse to debate in good faith.

And I think many of the posters here will agree with me, including the atheist posters.[/quote]

I concurrrrrrrrr. He would rather tell me about his degree in science or address my off remark about me looking at books then to actually refute or agree with my claims.[/quote]

WHAT! - you said “i read about science and i know what im talking about” what kind of bullshit arbitrary comment is that…you said it as if i should just believe everything you say - I LOVE BRICK WALLS!!!

[/quote]

Why would I argue about something I don’t have the first clue about? Second, why not address the argument instead of something abritrary if I study science or not. Obviously if I am making an argument, I have studied enough to copy and paste, haven’t I?

By bringing up my education, which you do not know, is a form of fallacious argument. My education has no factor on the validity of my argument, only my argument and it’s truthfulness has any factor into its validity. You’re grasping at straws, my friend.

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

The crazy thing I am stating is that God is knowable through a personal relationship with him(not feelings and emotionalism that are usually regarded as knowing him but an actual relationship.)
[/quote]

AKA an imaginary friend. Fallacious…

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
God has this promise that he reveals himself to those who seek him with all their heart.[/quote]

All very convenient though don’t you think? Red herring…[/quote]

Let’s try it again. I know we’re evil Christians and all, but maybe you should actually address our arguments. We’re like the weird guy with the strangely shaped head in your office, might wanna bring us some candy every once and awhile, in case we snap and shoot everyone in the office with our AK-47s and Uzis. Or, you know decide to open a soup kitchen and bread line.

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
I know you are but what am I?
[/quote]

Okay. Gotcha.

Good discussion!

Go PWI! YEEEEAAAAAHHHHH! On to other important philosophical debate. Which came first… the chicken or the egg… Hmmm…? Did god make the chicken first? Did the eggs evolve from a proto-egg? Does the existence of a God negate the need for a proto-egg… or was it a proto-chicken…? Are God-full chicken eggs healthier than God-less chicken eggs? Which eggs led to chickens that caused more fights…? Questions that sages and philosophers alike have debated for ages.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
I cant remember one post of yours that hasnt had some kind of derogatory notions…
[/quote]

It’s because you refuse to debate in good faith.

And I think many of the posters here will agree with me, including the atheist posters.[/quote]

I concurrrrrrrrr. He would rather tell me about his degree in science or address my off remark about me looking at books then to actually refute or agree with my claims.[/quote]

WHAT! - you said “i read about science and i know what im talking about” what kind of bullshit arbitrary comment is that…you said it as if i should just believe everything you say - I LOVE BRICK WALLS!!!

[/quote]

Why would I argue about something I don’t have the first clue about? Second, why not address the argument instead of something abritrary if I study science or not. Obviously if I am making an argument, I have studied enough to copy and paste, haven’t I?

By bringing up my education, which you do not know, is a form of fallacious argument. My education has no factor on the validity of my argument, only my argument and it’s truthfulness has any factor into its validity. You’re grasping at straws, my friend.[/quote]

WHAT THE F****************** - you brought up how much you knew about science and that you knew your stuff, not me buddy…And if you reflect with any notion of accuracy you will see I said DONT BRING UP YOUR EDUCATION… IDIOT.

Can you see what im dealing with - you dont even know what youve been saying so how could I possible write a reply you will comprehend…

You and cortes should think before you write…

WHY DONT WE START AGAIN WITH A NEW TOPIC, CLEAN THE SLATE…

A new topic sounds good. I’d add one, but honestly I can’t think of one at the moment.

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Go PWI! YEEEEAAAAAHHHHH! On to other important philosophical debate. Which came first… the chicken or the egg… Hmmm…? Did god make the chicken first? Did the eggs evolve from a proto-egg? Does the existence of a God negate the need for a proto-egg… or was it a proto-chicken…? Are God-full chicken eggs healthier than God-less chicken eggs? Which eggs led to chickens that caused more fights…? Questions that sages and philosophers alike have debated for ages. [/quote]

I would put forward chickens evolved from another, “simpler” species…

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Go PWI! YEEEEAAAAAHHHHH! On to other important philosophical debate. Which came first… the chicken or the egg… Hmmm…? Did god make the chicken first? Did the eggs evolve from a proto-egg? Does the existence of a God negate the need for a proto-egg… or was it a proto-chicken…? Are God-full chicken eggs healthier than God-less chicken eggs? Which eggs led to chickens that caused more fights…? Questions that sages and philosophers alike have debated for ages. [/quote]

I would put forward chickens evolved from another, “simpler” species…[/quote]
According to my textbook the birds are reptiles and came from crocodiles =O.“Biological Science” by Scott Freeman 3rd edition 2008

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
I cant remember one post of yours that hasnt had some kind of derogatory notions…
[/quote]

It’s because you refuse to debate in good faith.

And I think many of the posters here will agree with me, including the atheist posters.[/quote]

I concurrrrrrrrr. He would rather tell me about his degree in science or address my off remark about me looking at books then to actually refute or agree with my claims.[/quote]

WHAT! - you said “i read about science and i know what im talking about” what kind of bullshit arbitrary comment is that…you said it as if i should just believe everything you say - I LOVE BRICK WALLS!!!

[/quote]

Why would I argue about something I don’t have the first clue about? Second, why not address the argument instead of something abritrary if I study science or not. Obviously if I am making an argument, I have studied enough to copy and paste, haven’t I?

By bringing up my education, which you do not know, is a form of fallacious argument. My education has no factor on the validity of my argument, only my argument and it’s truthfulness has any factor into its validity. You’re grasping at straws, my friend.[/quote]

WHAT THE F****************** - you brought up how much you knew about science and that you knew your stuff, not me buddy…And if you reflect with any notion of accuracy you will see I said DONT BRING UP YOUR EDUCATION… IDIOT.

Can you see what im dealing with - you dont even know what youve been saying so how could I possible write a reply you will comprehend…

You and cortes should think before you write…

WHY DONT WE START AGAIN WITH A NEW TOPIC, CLEAN THE SLATE…
[/quote]

Because you hinted at my lack of knowledge, so I said I have looked at the science. You’re the one having an aneurysm when I asked you to address my argument, which you have yet to do. And, now you want a new topic. See what I am dealing with, you address every single thing except what I pointed out.

You have yet to even refute that the Church is not reconciled with science, except to mention that science and religion should not go together. That particular statement does not make any sense, I’m not J.F.K., I did not promise to make my religion solely a private one. I do have First Amendment rights just like everyone in this country. I am a proud Catholic and I’m not going to put my religion into my pocket just because I decided to walk out of my house. This is my Lord’s creation, and science studies it.

Maybe you should be more open minded, and be tolerant of others beliefs. I am to yours, but you have yet to be towards mine and many on this board.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
I cant remember one post of yours that hasnt had some kind of derogatory notions…
[/quote]

It’s because you refuse to debate in good faith.

And I think many of the posters here will agree with me, including the atheist posters.[/quote]

I concurrrrrrrrr. He would rather tell me about his degree in science or address my off remark about me looking at books then to actually refute or agree with my claims.[/quote]

WHAT! - you said “i read about science and i know what im talking about” what kind of bullshit arbitrary comment is that…you said it as if i should just believe everything you say - I LOVE BRICK WALLS!!!

[/quote]

Why would I argue about something I don’t have the first clue about? Second, why not address the argument instead of something abritrary if I study science or not. Obviously if I am making an argument, I have studied enough to copy and paste, haven’t I?

By bringing up my education, which you do not know, is a form of fallacious argument. My education has no factor on the validity of my argument, only my argument and it’s truthfulness has any factor into its validity. You’re grasping at straws, my friend.[/quote]

WHAT THE F****************** - you brought up how much you knew about science and that you knew your stuff, not me buddy…And if you reflect with any notion of accuracy you will see I said DONT BRING UP YOUR EDUCATION… IDIOT.

Can you see what im dealing with - you dont even know what youve been saying so how could I possible write a reply you will comprehend…

You and cortes should think before you write…

WHY DONT WE START AGAIN WITH A NEW TOPIC, CLEAN THE SLATE…
[/quote]

Because you hinted at my lack of knowledge, so I said I have looked at the science. You’re the one having an aneurysm when I asked you to address my argument, which you have yet to do. And, now you want a new topic. See what I am dealing with, you address every single thing except what I pointed out.

You have yet to even refute that the Church is not reconciled with science, except to mention that science and religion should not go together. That particular statement does not make any sense, I’m not J.F.K., I did not promise to make my religion solely a private one. I do have First Amendment rights just like everyone in this country. I am a proud Catholic and I’m not going to put my religion into my pocket just because I decided to walk out of my house. This is my Lord’s creation, and science studies it.

Maybe you should be more open minded, and be tolerant of others beliefs. I am to yours, but you have yet to be towards mine and many on this board.[/quote]

OK I take you point, and I hope you took mine - but lets move on now- Also im not american fyi.

@joab
Reptiles ay?- actually I think I remember reading that too, i might dig up some info from my old textbooks too - does yours have any other info?

http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/tutorials/origin_and_early_evolution_birds

quick google search…obviously not super reliable but interesting none the less

Says the first use for feathers weren’t even for flying…interesting.

Im really looking forward to seeing this new series.

David Attenborough investigates the evidence from the earliest fossils, which suggest that complex animals first appeared in the oceans around 500 million years ago, an event known as the Cambrian Explosion.

I Loved life, Planet earth and blue planet, hoping this is going to be as good!

First of all, I apologize. For some reason I thought I was still waiting on you to reply, while in actuality I was furiously busy getting sucked into the Vortex of Dumb.

Now, if you still feel like continuing, back to business:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…reliable in what way? You could say that if i do something i find moral and subsequently notice how someone else is negatively affected by it, i’d make sure not to act like that towards that person…

…but that’s rare. I mean, it’s not so rare that someone finds me offensive for instance, or crass, but i have little regard for social norms. So yeah, i still don’t get what you mean by reliable?

…sleep well!
[/quote]

Alright I lied. Really last post tonight:

How do you know you can trust them?

To use your example, you felt that you acted against your principles when denying the two Turkish gentlemen entrance to the bar you were working at. How do you know that your boss was wrong and you are right?
[/quote]

…the boss had his reasons for asking that of me; reasons i understood. But that can’t be the yardstick i live my life by. How i feel about things, the effects i’ve experienced certain behaviour can have on people, what effect certain behaviour has on me [stress, guilt, sorrow], all contribute to my sense of wrong and right…

…i prefer to be relaxed, to be friendly and kind because of how that makes me feel. Being stressed, surly, mean and vindictive is not how i want to live the one life i have. That’s how…
[/quote]

That sounds like a pretty laid back attitude, and yet, from what I can tell, you felt very strongly about discriminating against those two Turkish gents.

So, does it go both ways? Can you think of a situation in which discriminating against another group would be “right?” I’m not talking about protecting oneself, because I am pretty sure that is not what the nightclub owner had in mind. What I mean is, since it’s all relative, is it possible there is place or a time or a state that would allow for blatant discrimination against another group? Another race?

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…perhaps i’m simply a better person than you?

I kid, but is it really necessary to trot out Nazis again and again?

Repeat a lie over and over again and people will start to believe it’s true.

The dehumanisation of Jews began long before the Endlosung. IOW, they prepped the germans to think of Jews as subhuman. I kill mosquitos without a shred of guilt. I can’t imagine thinking the same about another human being, but many a nazi did.

The most important aspect of my way of living is honesty. Clear, unrelenting and bold honesty. Without that, you’re right; it would just be a go-with-the-flow kind of thing. Wishywashy.

You’ve made me change how i format my posts. Don’t know how, but i’ll keep it this way.[/quote]

In Sloth’s defense, eph, using Nazis as examples in a moral relativity argument is extremely relevant, as they are a perfect study: A society only a few years removed from us, that virtually everyone, in every society in the whole world, can agree was fucking evil. Argue this or argue that, but it’s pretty hard for anyone to say that they actually feel, deep down, that the Nazis were just going with their own feelings, doing what was right for their particular situation and society at the time.

I just got done watching the Russian film “Come and See,” and had my eyes opened to a heretofore unknown aspect of the pure, absolute evil that the Nazis embodied. Ever seen it? There’s a long scene where they load an entire Belorussian village, basically peasants, men, women, little boys and girls, babies, all, into a wooden church house. They tell the adults that they can leave through the side windows, but they will have to leave their children inside. After shooting round after round into the farmhouse, laughing maniacally, they set the entire thing on fire, burning up every last person remaining inside. One woman is “allowed” to escape. She brings her toddler, but they throw the child back into the window, drag her away by her hair and rape her repeatedly. At the end of the movie, we learn that this happened some 628 times.

Now, again, can any one of you tell me that it just happens to be because of the particular environment that you were raised in that you happen to find this morally repugnant? Can you think of any excuse for this?

No, using Nazis in internet debates may be cliched, but when the example calls for some pure, unadulterated, absolutely Satanic evil, the Nazis are your go-to guys every time.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
because if he created humans, we wouldn’t have needed to evolve…[/quote]

Unless humans were meant to be physical beings, in a physical world, subject to physical laws.[/quote]

what does that even mean…?[/quote]

It means that evolution doesn’t disprove God’s creation of the universe and/or it’s laws, therefore the creation of evolution. And issuing from evolution, the human being.[/quote]

Evolution also doesn’t disprove that the skygod Xenu created us, or that captain picard went back in time and planted the seed which led to evolution taking place throughout history.

Evolution also doesn’t disprove the allah created create us, or that the thirteen headed dog of the lower heavens created us …

What I mean to say is, evolution doesn’t prove that your god created us. It just gives us an explanation (far better suited to the evidence) of how we’ve developed. Nothing more, nothing less.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…perhaps i’m simply a better person than you?

I kid, but is it really necessary to trot out Nazis again and again?

Repeat a lie over and over again and people will start to believe it’s true.

The dehumanisation of Jews began long before the Endlosung. IOW, they prepped the germans to think of Jews as subhuman. I kill mosquitos without a shred of guilt. I can’t imagine thinking the same about another human being, but many a nazi did.

The most important aspect of my way of living is honesty. Clear, unrelenting and bold honesty. Without that, you’re right; it would just be a go-with-the-flow kind of thing. Wishywashy.

You’ve made me change how i format my posts. Don’t know how, but i’ll keep it this way.[/quote]

In Sloth’s defense, eph, using Nazis as examples in a moral relativity argument is extremely relevant, as they are a perfect study: A society only a few years removed from us, that virtually everyone, in every society in the whole world, can agree was fucking evil. Argue this or argue that, but it’s pretty hard for anyone to say that they actually feel, deep down, that the Nazis were just going with their own feelings, doing what was right for their particular situation and society at the time.

I just got done watching the Russian film “Come and See,” and had my eyes opened to a heretofore unknown aspect of the pure, absolute evil that the Nazis embodied. Ever seen it? There’s a long scene where they load an entire Belorussian village, basically peasants, men, women, little boys and girls, babies, all, into a wooden church house. They tell the adults that they can leave through the side windows, but they will have to leave their children inside. After shooting round after round into the farmhouse, laughing maniacally, they set the entire thing on fire, burning up every last person remaining inside. One woman is “allowed” to escape. She brings her toddler, but they throw the child back into the window, drag her away by her hair and rape her repeatedly. At the end of the movie, we learn that this happened some 628 times.

Now, again, can any one of you tell me that it just happens to be because of the particular environment that you were raised in that you happen to find this morally repugnant? Can you think of any excuse for this?

No, using Nazis in internet debates may be cliched, but when the example calls for some pure, unadulterated, absolutely Satanic evil, the Nazis are your go-to guys every time. [/quote]

Chiming in just to say that, yes, using the Nazis as a case study can be fruitful, and sometimes extremely relevant. What you described above is harrowing.

In my mind, the Asch conformity experiments only go so far to explain the sort of situation you’ve described. Not quite made up my mind how/why this happens.

As for moral compasses, and where people get theirs from. I can’t accept that it all flows from judeo-christian tenents. Yes, a lot of it does, but at the end of the day, we guarantee our own moral compass. We declare some of the teachings as immoral or irrelevant.

For me, the clincher is in the fact that I don’t believe that such commandments are god given. It means that we’re building civilisations on moral guidelines given to us by men of old. I’m ok with that, just as long as we remember that these commandments are man made.