[quote]pushharder wrote:
No! You’re not finding complete skeletons of transitional humanoids in any kind of abundance. That is false. Patently false.[/quote]
Now we’re getting phrases like “in any kind of abundance.” One fossil suggestive of an evolutionary link or an evolutionary detour is enough to put the TOE in an infinitely more prestigious class than your Christian creationism, which remains in the “there is no specific and direct reason to believe that any of this shit happened” class.[/quote]
Name and comment on this “one” (complete) fossil that is proof of an evolutionary link.[/quote]
You are simply inventing illegitimate strictures. Complete? Proof? Go back and refer to my posts about proof.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
You didn’t say “wrong”, you said “SIN”.[/quote]
“Sin” is synonymous with “wrong”.
[/quote]“SIN” is a religious term that means you will burn in hell if you are not forgiven for it. “Wrong” is just on the other end of the spectrum of “right” and is entirely relative to the circumstance.[quote]
I don’t mean to be dismissive, but I haven’t seen any evidence that you’ve actually studied such concepts. The “tabula rasa” has been advanced from very different perspectives: from the mind as pure potential to postmodernist theories attempting to refute racial differences to feminist and gay theories about sexuality and “gender” to ontological premises about essence and existence.
[/quote]Any time you guys don’t feel like arguing my points you get dismissive and tell me I’m not qualified to participate in the discussion. That’s fine, but I know which discussions I’m not qualified to be in and I avoid those. If it’s my “credentials” you’re looking for, I’m an ex felon without a high school diploma. I served four years in prison and worked in the library. In that time, I read many of the great books, the bible, got stabbed five times and observed the human condition in a microcosm. In the last 18 years since I’ve been “free”, I’ve read a metric shit ton of books on a wide variety of subjects that interest me. I’ve had two careers, two kids, two wives and disowned two parents. I also banged a bunch of chicks. I am not formally educated (although I completed a five year apprenticeship and am a master electrician), I am well read and I am far from stupid. To quote Kipling, I’ve can walk with kings and not lose the common touch. Those are my credentials.[quote]
Then you’re a fool. At least in this context. I’m certain you know more than I do about electricity but in terms of human nature you fail big time.
[/quote]Disagree. I’ve experienced just about every aspect of human nature, from extreme kindness to extreme cruelty. But I must admit that I am, by nature, an optimist. It’s the only way I’ve survived my life.[quote]
No it doesn’t. In many cases it comes down to the noblest and most selfless impulses.
[/quote]Sure it does. Those pedophiles were transferred to abuse again with the NOBLEST and most SELFLESS impulses. Those heretics were tortured and burned with the NOBLEST and most SELFLESS impulses. The Crusades (kill muslims and you will automatically go to heaven) were fought for the NOBLEST and most SELFLESS impulses. Give me a fucking break.[quote]
[quote]
Everything else takes a back seat. You’re a student of history, surely this FACT does not escape you…[/quote]
It’s not a “fact”. It’s a simplistic, reductionist attempt to ascribe a single motivation to the vast array of human impulses both good and bad. It’s also in direct contradiction to your assertion that man is not inherently evil.
[/quote]I asserted man was not BORN inherently evil. I believe my whole point is the ORGANIZED RELIGION and the crimes against humanity in the name of god that it has waged for two thousand years IS inherently evil…[quote}
That doesn’t explain all the clergy who took vows of poverty and even died for their faith.
[/quote]The clergy was a good job back then. Especially if you are not very productive, intelligent or strong. All you had to do was parrot the bullshit you were taught and do what you were told and you were taken care of, housed and fed. The bonus was you could then use your power, as a clergy member, to abuse the members of your flock if you were so inclined. Not saying they ALL did it, but IT HAPPENED A LOT.[quote]
Yeah right. Look at all those Democrats taking vows of poverty and dying for what they believe in.
[/quote]If you’re a dem, you may as well take a vow of poverty cuz that’s what the democratic masters will give you! LOL[quote]
Discussing crises of faith is very common. There’s no tradition of “denying food” to people on the grounds that they’re not faithful.[/quote]
If you stood up in the town square shouting that Jesus was just a man, and then walked up to the church with your hand out, I doubt you’d get fed. In fact, you’d probably be invited in, never to return, cuz that’s how fucking evil and crooked those “believers” were. They probably believed they would be doing your soul a favor by torturing you until you repented. THANKS!
[quote] angrychicken wrote:
Any time you guys don’t feel like arguing my points you get dismissive and tell me I’m not qualified to participate in the discussion. That’s fine, but I know which discussions I’m not qualified to be in and I avoid those. If it’s my “credentials” you’re looking for, I’m an ex felon without a high school diploma. I served four years in prison and worked in the library. In that time, I read many of the great books, the bible, got stabbed five times and observed the human condition in a microcosm. In the last 18 years since I’ve been “free”, I’ve read a metric shit ton of books on a wide variety of subjects that interest me. I’ve had two careers, two kids, two wives and disowned two parents. I also banged a bunch of chicks. I am not formally educated (although I completed a five year apprenticeship and am a master electrician), I am well read and I am far from stupid. To quote Kipling, I’ve can walk with kings and not lose the common touch. Those are my credentials.[/quote]
I’m not talking about credentials. I’m largely an autodidact myself. But philosophy is something that requires systematic study. I don’t purport to be a serious philosopher(except political philosophy) as I know enough to know how much I don’t know.
But I can see you’re not prepared to acknowledge the good in religious tradition. You’re intent on a simplistic, reductionist attitude ascribing a single malevolent motivation. If you want acknowledge the obvious - that both the noblest virtues and basest evils are manifest within religion - then any serious discussion is not possible.
Sure it does. Those pedophiles were transferred to abuse again with the NOBLEST and most SELFLESS impulses. Those heretics were tortured and burned with the NOBLEST and most SELFLESS impulses. The Crusades (kill muslims and you will automatically go to heaven) were fought for the NOBLEST and most SELFLESS impulses. Give me a fucking break.[/quote]
The fact that you ascribe this stuff to religion itself betrays a complete incomprehension of the history of man. ALL civilisations massacred each other CONTINUALLY and INCESSANTLY. It has nothing to do with the nature of religion and everything to do with the nature of man. Man is essentially evil. It doesn’t matter if he’s killing in the name of religion or political ideology - that’s just pretence. He kills because he is evil. History is the history of conflict. The brief post-war respite that the Western world has enjoyed under the Pax Americana is an ANOMALY.
Sure it does. Those pedophiles were transferred to abuse again with the NOBLEST and most SELFLESS impulses. Those heretics were tortured and burned with the NOBLEST and most SELFLESS impulses. The Crusades (kill muslims and you will automatically go to heaven) were fought for the NOBLEST and most SELFLESS impulses. Give me a fucking break.[/quote]
The fact that you ascribe this stuff to religion itself betrays a complete incomprehension of the history of man. ALL civilisations massacred each other CONTINUALLY and INCESSANTLY.
[/quote]And organized religion was oftentimes the VEHICLE by which those massacres occurred.[quote]
It has nothing to do with the nature of religion and everything to do with the nature of man.
[/quote]When the RELIGION is used as the EXCUSE to torture and kill, it becomes the problem. Just like communism. We ALL know it says nothing about rounding people up and burning books. It says nothing about creating an oppressive regime, but that’s always what happens. Religion is the same way. It is a vehicle of oppression. [quote]
Man is essentially evil.
[/quote]No, they are neutral and influenced by their environment. Man is capable of BOTH.[quote]
It doesn’t matter if he’s killing in the name of religion or political ideology - that’s just pretence. He kills because he is evil. History is the history of conflict. The brief post-war respite that the Western world has enjoyed under the Pax Americana is an ANOMALY.[/quote]
If “the animal kingdom” had a history, it would be of conflict. We are not unique in that respect. But we don’t call the two bucks fighting over a doe ‘EVIL’, do we? How about two rams colliding? How about elephant seals maiming each other? ALL animals compete for resources… That’s not “evil”. So why is it “evil” when humans do it? Because we “know better”? LMAO That is obviously not the case.
And the Pax American of the last 50 years or so has not been without it’s conflicts… We’ve had plenty of war and even genocides during that time. Just because we haven’t nuked each other YET doesn’t mean it’s an anomaly. Give it time. I’d say it’s almost inevitable within the next 50 years. But again, it’s not “evil” and depending on what side of the fence you are on, it may not even be “wrong”. Those kind of things generally depend on perspective. Morality is not absolute.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
No! You’re not finding complete skeletons of transitional humanoids in any kind of abundance. That is false. Patently false.[/quote]
Now we’re getting phrases like “in any kind of abundance.” One fossil suggestive of an evolutionary link or an evolutionary detour is enough to put the TOE in an infinitely more prestigious class than your Christian creationism, which remains in the “there is no specific and direct reason to believe that any of this shit happened” class.[/quote]
Name and comment on this “one” (complete) fossil that is proof of an evolutionary link.[/quote]
You are simply inventing illegitimate strictures. Complete? Proof? Go back and refer to my posts about proof.[/quote]
I see you too will run and hide from this one. Did you not accuse me of the same thing?
If I were to follow your m.o. I would hereby declare that I have won the debate.
What goes around comes around.[/quote]
Not at all, but look at the standard of evidence demanded in each case. I used words like scrap and shred and “any reason.” You used words like complete and proof. That alone should tell you all you need to know. Create a parallel challenge – I know fairness is a lot to ask of the creationist side of a debate, and never to be expected, but I find that I cannot resist – and I will meet it with literally no effort. So go ahead, challenge me as I challenged you.
You’ve yet to produce for your position what you’ve incessantly demanded from your opponents.
[/quote]
No, you have not. You have demanded proof. If, on the other hand, you will accept, as I requested, evidence persuasive to an unbiased and reasonable mind – simple reason to subscribe – then you will have it tomorrow.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Not at all, but look at the standard of evidence demanded in each case. I used words like scrap and shred and “any reason.” You used words like complete and proof. That alone should tell you all you need to know. Create a parallel challenge – I know fairness is a lot to ask of the creationist side of a debate, and never to be expected, but I find that I cannot resist – and I will meet it with literally no effort. So go ahead, challenge me as I challenged you.[/quote]
Is the fact that the emergence of one “kind”–I don’t want to say “species,” because I believe that bears(e.g. Brown and Polar) that are obviously the same kind/species/whatever have been classified(by humans) as different species–from another has never been observed not “any reason” to doubt the belief that Earth was once inhabited by only single-celled organisms that have, by random chance, evolved to become humans, bears, and elephants? That is the only type of evidence that can be presented in favor of creationism. I have no idea how one would present something that could be classified as material evidence of creation.
Evolutionist=sees variety, claims as evidence of evolution
Creationist=admits variety exists, asks for an example of evolution, learns that proof of God’s existence is needed before an observation of evolution could possibly be needed
