[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Funny how those who supposedly value rational debate and intellectual honesty and tolerance for different groups always fall back to mockery of Christian faith in the end - but they CHOSE to do so because they have FAITH that it somehow makes them appear more intellectual - little realizing that all they manage to do is paint themselves with bigotry and hatred for people who hold different beliefs than they do.[/quote]
The problem is that you see your beliefs as being rational and intellectual when they are nothing of the sort. How much respect and seriousness do you grant to someone who claims the Earth is flat? If you went to a doctor and he talked to you about the miasma theory of disease, would you engage him in honest debate? You cannot have a rational discussion with loons who have fixed their minds forever on a set on beliefs they were indoctrinated in at an early age.
The fact that their beliefs might not be true is not even a remote possibility, so where’s the honesty?
That’s a giant pile of steaming bullshit. It’s also what pisses me off most about Christian: Their blind hypocrisy. Every day, in the news, you can find another account of Christians trying to get their failth taught in schools; they want their “commandments” displayed; prayers to open various public forums, etc. They vote and try to get like-minded simpletons in positions where they can affect the schools curriculum, etc.
All that crap has a direct impact on the lives of everyone else, whether or not they share the failth.
I’ve never been in a debate thread with Buddhists, because I’ve never in my life heard about a group of Buddhists who were trying to force their beliefs on society. You want to live in a fantasy La-La land in your home and tell your children that snakes can talk and that the Invisible Sky Fairy made them from dirt? No problem. I’m sad for the kids who’ll have to try to reconcile that crap with reality later on, but you do what you want in your house.
If you try to get that same shit in schools, or in any other public forums where I’m exposed to it, I’ll resist it, and call the ridiculous crap for what it is: Ridiculous.
Ha! Good one. Guess all those missionaries in Africa are just misguided; as are those loons preaching on street corners, or those fucking annoying idiots Mormon ringing my doorbell twice a month.
Yup, your bunch sure is big on letting people to their own beliefs.
We don’t have to misrepresent anything. The Bible is so full of ungodly crap, we just have to point it out. Of course, you have reams of spin to explain away anything, but when a few lines required a 10 pages dissertation to make sense, I think most people can tell who trying to misrepresent the facts.
Yeah, kinda hard to attack reality, ain’t it?
My bullshit detector is in peak condition. Yours seems to have been replaced with a bullshit collector and redistributor. You might want to get that checked out.
But there is no honest discussion to be had. Your conclusion is already accepted for life and set in stone. You’ll deny reality if required, just so your failth remains true. Anything that contradicts your beliefs, no matter how rock-solidly backed with evidence (ie, Evolution) will be dismissed as wrong from the get go.
Worse, you won’t even take time to learn the actual theory, you’ll go with the false and made-up one that gets disseminated by various religious groups and pretend that it’s the actual one we’re talking about. I agree that YOUR theory of Evolution is ridiculous and would only be acceptable to someone of failth; that’s why I accept the real scientific one instead. It makes sense and is back by solid evidence. But hey, you can’t have too many straw men lying around, can you?
You missed the point as usual. I was ridiculing the fact that the failthful will conflate all the meanings of the word and point out examples of “faith” (as in trust, not belief) in their opponents as proof that they also have failth (the dumb kind).
If you don’t find such a pathetic ploy amusing… well, what can I say.
[quote]Funny how you immediately:
- characterized all religious faith as being based on what someone else said (another ridiculous misrepresentation) - when I have used reason and rational thought to explain how I came to my world-view starting from science.[/quote]
What was that you were saying about rudimentary understanding before? Your “science” understanding is so dismal as to be a joke. You have the science background of a 4 year old. That’s why your beliefs can stand on it. If you actually were interested in real science, and got it from scientific books, instead of theologians and apologetics, you might be able to make a convincing argument.
Of course, you’d get to a point where you’d have to amend many of your beliefs, so we both know that’s never going to happen. “Fuck you reality - I deny you in the name of Jesus!”
You’re not the only credophile commenting on this thread.
Existence of the universe is proof of the existence of the universe. It does not imply anything else. That science has no definitive answer as to how the universe came to be does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that your made-up fantasy explanation is correct. It’s not a binary proposition, and you don’t get to be right by default. In that case, admitting that we don’t know is both correct and more honest than believing in an invented answer.
Whether you like it or not, and even if you refuse to admit it, your beliefs come from a long generational tradition of hearsay. There is no concrete proof of any kind, not a single shred of evidence, zero supported testimony of anything supernatural having ever occurred. There are a lot of self-deluded people going around claiming personal experiences, but that cannot be shared and is worthless as proof of anything.
Why do you think everything’s about you? I wasn’t replying to you; I didn’t mention you by name. There a bunch of you on this thread and you can find multiple examples of everything I said - and more - on any random page you click.
See what I mean about your deficient science? Science has no definitive answers about the origin of the universe. It also has no definitive answers about abiogenesis (life from non-life, although interesting developments have occurred this year). Evolution is about changes in life once life is present. Evolution is not about cosmology, nor abiogenesis. Credophiles always conflate all three because their beloved Genesis fable does the same.
And that 2nd Law of Thermodynamic you just demonstrated having no understanding of? It applies to closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system, the Sun (a big ball of energy in the sky - maybe you’ve heard of it) bombards the Earth with about 4x10^21 BTUs per year. So you can have increasing complexity without violating any laws; since the added complexity has produced more entropy than the newly arranged information produced order.
But hey, don’t let that stop you from repeating the same wrong stuff next week, next month and for the rest of your life. No sir, no logical fallacies for you. No misunderstanding or misrepresentation of science. MIT should give you an honorary degree or something.
You’re just angry that I’m trying to take a tool from your toolbox of dishonesty away. If my suggestion takes and that everyone distinguishes faith (trust, testable and verifiable) from failth (blind belief in hearsay), then you’ll have to stop claiming that everyone has failth when in reality, everyone has faith in the “trust” sense.
Vocabulary is a bit like science for you guys, ain’t it? Another thing to be conveniently twisted to suit whatever purpose you need it to? Here’s an example of the type of argument a credophile might make if he was arguing for the other side: “Hey man, ever noticed that there’s a big “LIE” in the middle of “beLIEve”, gnuck-gnuck?” (Drooling omitted).