NationStates Jolt Archive

So, what's the stupidest point you've ever seen seriously used in an argument?

"The moon landing couldn't have happened because they didn't have Windows in 1969."

Yes, Microsoft Windows, the Operating System. Pure stupidity at it's best (or worst).

"The Bible says god exists. Therefore god exists."

:rolleyes:

Fass, I think you just summed everything up on the above issues.

Okay, the 'No Windows, no Moon Landing' guy just posted anti-conspiracy links to try to prove that there was a conspiracy. He just trumped himself.

And Fass, I asked that we try to keep that kind of stuff out of this thread, so we don't have a flame war.

Well, since we can't do EvC, I've got nothing.

And Fass, I asked that we try to keep that kind of stuff out of this thread, so we don't have a flame war.

"ABortion, Gay Rights, and the like," is religious?

"The bible says homosexuality is a sin, therefore it is wrong" :rolleyes:

I've heard that one one too many times.

"The Bible says god exists. Therefore god exists."

:rolleyes:

I'll have you know that the Bible speaks nothing but the truth. ;)

I'll have you know that the Bible speaks nothing but the truth. ;)

Far from it. :rolleyes:

"Homosexuality is a choice, even though heterosexuality isn't."

Far from it. :rolleyes:
Did you not catch the wink? I don't want this thread to go batshit insane. We have enough of those already.

"US forign aid isn't almost exclusively selfserving"

"The bible says homosexuality is a sin, therefore it is wrong" :rolleyes:

I've heard that one one too many times.

I love that one. I usually follow that one up with, "Wait, were you just making a pass at me?"

Puts 'em on the defensive.

I love that one. I usually follow that one up with, "Wait, were you just making a pass at me?"

Puts 'em on the defensive.

Yeah, I think I'll employ that method more often...

Yeah, I think I'll employ that method more often...
Better approaches:

1: They use violence. We can too

2: Puke on the sod. When asked, say "I thought you made a pass on me" ;)

"I am right, I am the ONLY one who's right, and you are stupid for disagreeing with me. Here are all the websites on the web which agree with me."

OR

"I am right. You are a complete idiot. Don't insult me, it's mean!"

So, what's the stupidest point you've ever seen seriously used in an argument? Please stay away from ABortion, Gay Rights, and the like, I don't want this to be a flame war.

"The moon landing couldn't have happened because they didn't have Windows in 1969."

Yes, Microsoft Windows, the Operating System. Pure stupidity at it's best (or worst).

(I shan't name any names, nor the forums)

1. Anarchy is flawed because it will devolve into feudalism, just look at the dark ages. (NB: Even after it was pointed out several times he was used incorrect definitions and history he kept it)

2. The Da Vinci Code is 100% fact all the way through, after all there is a big FACT page at the beginning and Dan Brown couldn't be wrong.

3. All Christians are scared of the Da Vinci Code because a few Church leaders spoke out against it

4. The only people who disliked the Da Vinci Code are Christians because it upset their world view

(Sorry to bang on about the Da Vinci Code, but the fans just say so many stupid things)

5. (I shit you not on this one) Something proved by science doesn't count because science can prove anything.

6. [After making a claim that a famous person said such and such a thing] "The onus of proof is most certainly not on me."

5. (I shit you not on this one) Something proved by science doesn't count because science can prove anything.
On a similar note, I have seen somebody in an interesting argument where their dislike of the idea that homosexuality could possibly be innate led them to a blanket rejection of science. They claimed that it showed how science fundamentally doesn't work.

I got a laugh off that one.

Um, the Da Vinci Code has some worthy facts in them, but by no means would I call it 100% factual. It is an interesting book... but of course it isn't close to being totally factual.

"I am right, I am the ONLY one who's right, and you are stupid for disagreeing with me. Here are all the websites on the web which agree with me."


And who employed these exactly?

Okay, just do Evo/Gay Rights/Abortion/etc. And I finally agreed with the 'No Moon Landing' guy. We agreed babies make a great alternative fuel source!

Well I'm not going to let this devolve into a debate thread. That's called thread hijacking, and I apologize for doing it.

Okay, just do Evo/Gay Rights/Abortion/etc. And I finally agreed with the 'No Moon Landing' guy. We agreed babies make a great alternative fuel source!

LOL.

Those no moon landing conspiracy theorists crack me up..

On a different note as far as conspiracies and other internet rumors check out this site:

http://www.snopes.com

And who employed these exactly?
I'm a good little girl... I won't mention any specific names... ;)

I read a piece in the Guardian a while back that says you are wrong, and I like to quote it every now and again to make myself look brooding and intellectual. Ergo you are wrong.

Ooh, another good one was a claim that integration of blacks and whites is a sick sociology experiment and should not be allowed.

The funny thing was, the person who was arguing it didn't seem to notice that segregation ended quite a while ago Their argument centered on saying "White and black culture have never before been integrated!"

Kids don't learn anything if they're not afraid of the teacher.

Hilarious! Just proves that I was, unknown to me at the time or now, petrified of all the teachers I liked and respected most as they are the ones I learned most from. Respected, yes; feared, no.

"My mom/dad/uncle/grandparent told me so."

"Teachers arn't teachers if they don't teach."
Wait a minute...I said that to MY "teacher" in school....

"The bible says homosexuality is a sin, therefore it is wrong" :rolleyes:

I've heard that one one too many times.


jesus never said that, he never said it was bad, im christian, i think wat u do is ure business, i think gay couples should be able to get married, not all christians are nazi's , anyway, christians that say that annoy me, even if it was a sin, surely the christians say it have commited bigger sons themselves??? eg adultery or stealing, but thats me and my church.

Forgot, erm, whislt speaking to parents: "my friends parents let him do it, why cant i?!?!"

jesus never said that, he never said it was bad, im christian, i think wat u do is ure business, i think gay couples should be able to get married, not all christians are nazi's , anyway, christians that say that annoy me, even if it was a sin, surely the christians say it have commited bigger sons themselves??? eg adultery or stealing, but thats me and my church.

Is that an example of a bad arguement you've heard used, or are you actually trying to use it yourself? For the record, Jesus never directly comdemned homosexuality, but other parts of the Bible did (i Corinthians 6:9). Also, Jesus did condemn lust (Matthew 5:28), and that pretty much covers all sexual sins.

Is that an example of a bad arguement you've heard used, or are you actually trying to use it yourself? For the record, Jesus never directly comdemned homosexuality, but other parts of the Bible did (i Corinthians 6:9). Also, Jesus did condemn lust (Matthew 5:28), and that pretty much covers all sexual sins.

Who cares about religion... well at least I don't. I won't let the bible ruin my life.

Who cares about religion... well at least I don't. I won't let the bible ruin my life.

Sorry. I didn't mean to get preachy.

Here's one of my favourite bad arguement points:

When Jean Chretien, former Prime Minister of Canada, was asked what proof would be necessary to convince him that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he responded: "I don't know, a proof is a proof. What kind of a proof is a proof? A proof is a proof and when you have a good proof it's because it's proven."

"I don't know, a proof is a proof. What kind of a proof is a proof? A proof is a proof and when you have a good proof it's because it's proven."

Sounds more like a good point that's poorly said.

To me it sounded like the usual attempt the Liberal Party of Canada makes to sound like it's saying something meaningful, while actually saying nothing at all and remaining completely non-committal.

1. Science doesn't say that X exists, therefore, it is impossible for X to exist.

2. For the atheists, if there is no god, what harm comes from believing in one anyway? If there is one, you better hope that it isn't angry at you.

Is the #2 good or bad?

2. For the atheists, if there is no god, what harm comes from believing in one anyway? If there is one, you better hope that it isn't angry at you.

Is the #2 good or bad?
It's Pascal's Wager, and it's horribly flawed. There are over 10,000 gods. How do you know which is the right one?

Better approaches:

1: They use violence. We can too

2: Puke on the sod. When asked, say "I thought you made a pass on me" ;)



Sheesh, as if the world wasn't already violent enough, you militant homosexuals have to enter the fray :rolleyes:

Sheesh, as if the world wasn't already violent enough, you militant homosexuals have to enter the fray :rolleyes:

You are the militant one. You scare me. Your views.. so extremely militant.

Who cares about religion... well at least I don't. I won't let the bible ruin my life.



Yes, you have a wonderful penchant for ignoring facts when they disagree with you :rolleyes:

Sheesh, as if the world wasn't already violent enough, you militant homosexuals have to enter the fray :rolleyes:
Always a pleasure NR ;)

Now please understand it was meant as a joke. I must admit though, I've heard a lot about these militant homo's. Only I've never heard of anyone being harmed by them, nor have I actually seen one. Ever. So.. Are they real?

Incidentially, what's wrong with fighting back? Wouldn't you fight back if someone beat the living shit out of you every time you tried to enter a church?

Yes, you have a wonderful penchant for ignoring facts when they disagree with you :rolleyes:
Man it's hard not to turn this into flamebait, but...

Are you suggesting your (or anyone's) religion is based on facts?

You are the militant one. You scare me. Your views.. so extremely militant.


I'm not the one quoted as saying "I would throw a party if terrorists blew up a church" (The Similized World....and don't you think I've forgotten that). You seem very emotional, and we all know that unrestrained emotion leads to violence. Try taking a deep breath and counting to three the next time you see someone dare to disagree with you.

Man it's hard not to turn this into flamebait, but...

Are you suggesting your (or anyone's) religion is based on facts?



Would I be a Christian if it wasn't?

I'm not the one quoted as saying "I would throw a party if terrorists blew up a church" (The Similized World....and don't you think I've forgotten that). You seem very emotional, and we all know that unrestrained emotion leads to violence. Try taking a deep breath and counting to three the next time you see someone dare to disagree with you.

You are the one who is very emotional and very religious (which gets in the way of logic). That's your own problem. You are very militant and very violent. you should take a breath.

Always a pleasure NR ;)

Now please understand it was meant as a joke. I must admit though, I've heard a lot about these militant homo's. Only I've never heard of anyone being harmed by them, nor have I actually seen one. Ever. So.. Are they real?

Incidentially, what's wrong with fighting back? Wouldn't you fight back if someone beat the living shit out of you every time you tried to enter a church?



It's hard to tell when you're joking after the last homosexual thread about a month ago...

Would I be a Christian if it wasn't?

Here we go...does this have to start in yet ANOTHER thread?

You are the one who is very emotional and very religious (which gets in the way of logic). That's your own problem. You are very militant and very violent. you should take a breath.



Nope, I'm cool, calm, and collected, and I don't advocate violence against anyone. :)

Here we go...does this have to start in yet ANOTHER thread?



It wouldn't if people would just learn to restrain those stupid urges to bash Christianity.

It's Pascal's Wager, and it's horribly flawed. There are over 10,000 gods. How do you know which is the right one?
You pick one and hope you're right. At least you'd be a bit safer if you picked one that sends nonbelievers to hell, like the one for Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. They basicly worship the same one. You'd be among a few billion believers(both Christianity and Islam have over 1 billion each). Better safe than sorry.

Here are some bad points:
1. If something exists, Science already says so.
That one's bad because new discoveries are made all the time.
2. If a religion has a few bad apples, all of its followers are bad.
3. If a (insert race, gender, etc.) person is bad, all (use same adjective) people are bad.

Don't worry! We're not all as crazy as Neo!

I'm not the one quoted as saying "I would throw a party if terrorists blew up a church" (The Similized World....and don't you think I've forgotten that). You seem very emotional, and we all know that unrestrained emotion leads to violence. Try taking a deep breath and counting to three the next time you see someone dare to disagree with you.
NR, either quote me correctly or don't do it at all.

I have never in my life suggested churches should be blown up. What I did say was that YOU would make me respond like that. And of course I'd be outraged if some random religious institution was terror-bombed. I have a feeling, however, that you can't truthfully say the same.

And no, I'd rather you live and learn than be blown to shit. I can't honestly say I'd miss you though. I'm sure it's mutual.

Don't worry! We're not all as crazy as Neo!



I dunno, people posting inflammatory comments and expecting me to not respond seems rather insane to me.

I dunno, people posting inflammatory comments and expecting me to not respond seems rather insane to me.

I'm not the one saying, "I'm right because I am, and your wrong because you don't agree. All those facts you're giving are just made up."

Don't worry! We're not all as crazy as Neo!
Sorry mate, we know. Please forgive me/us if we fly into angry rants. They really aren't aimed at you :(

I'm not the one saying, "I'm right because I am, and your wrong because you don't agree. All those facts you're giving are just made up."



Neither am I. No facts have been presented by either side as of yet. I think you're confusing me with Mesa.

Nope, I'm cool, calm, and collected, and I don't advocate violence against anyone. :)

Yes you do, against homosexuals too.

Neither am I. No facts have been presented by either side as of yet. I think you're confusing me with Mesa.
I'm sorry, but didn't you just say your religion is factual?

Also, I'd love to hear about those militant homo's (of which I'm aparently one).

And I'd like to hear your thoughts on self defense and defense of your personal liberties as well. Is meeting force with force never an option or what?

Yes you do, against homosexuals too.



Ok then, show me where I said that. My memory is a bit fuzzy ;)

Neither am I. No facts have been presented by either side as of yet. I think you're confusing me with Mesa.

:headbang: Not just in this thread, in others. I basically think that if the Bible you read was mistranslated to say 2+2=5, you would argue that it did.

Ok then, show me where I said that. My memory is a bit fuzzy ;)

you told me that gay people are going to hell in some sugar coated words. Your christianity does not amuse me.

I'm sorry, but didn't you just say your religion is factual?

Also, I'd love to hear about those militant homo's (of which I'm aparently one).

And I'd like to hear your thoughts on self defense and defense of your personal liberties as well. Is meeting force with force never an option or what?


Yes, but I never presented the facts in it :p


Also, I think people who would advocate throwing Christians to the lions (there were a lot of them in the A/A forums at about.com) would qualify as militant :mad:

you told me that gay people are going to hell in some sugar coated words. Your christianity does not amuse me.



Ok...that does not nearly equate with your accusation that I participate in violence against homosexuals. I'm still waiting for your evidence.

Ok...that does not nearly equate with your accusation that I participate in violence against homosexuals. I'm still waiting for your evidence.

Advocate does not equal participate in.

Ok...that does not nearly equate with your accusation that I participate in violence against homosexuals. I'm still waiting for your evidence.

You do advocate it... and that's a fact.

:headbang: Not just in this thread, in others. I basically think that if the Bible you read was mistranslated to say 2+2=5, you would argue that it did.



Umm, no. Some people claimed the homosexuality issue was a mistranslation, so I provided the strong evidence that it wasn't. Apparently, what people want the Bible to say is factual, while what it actually does say isn't :rolleyes:

Ok...that does not nearly equate with your accusation that I participate in violence against homosexuals. I'm still waiting for your evidence.

You apparently said that your god sends homosexuals to hell. Which is pretty violent. Now either you advocate what you god is doing, or you don't, and you disagree with your own god. Which one is it?

Umm, no. Some people claimed the homosexuality issue was a mistranslation, so I provided the strong evidence that it wasn't. Apparently, what people want the Bible to say is factual, while what it actually does say isn't :rolleyes:

Oh it is a mistranslation... and I provided a website that showed it to be...

You do advocate it... and that's a fact.



So, if God says homosexuality is a sin and condemnable, I somehow automatically because a frothing, rabid gay-assaulter? You can't get from point A to point C without....wait, this is more like getting from point A to point G without crossing through the prior letters! Ok, have a taste of your own medicine: I hereby accuse you of beating Christians to death because you disagree with their stance on homosexuality. Not so fun being strawmanned, is it?

Umm, no. Some people claimed the homosexuality issue was a mistranslation, so I provided the strong evidence that it wasn't. Apparently, what people want the Bible to say is factual, while what it actually does say isn't :rolleyes:

Are you wearing mixed fabrics, or have you ever? If yes, Sinner! You're going to Hell! Same book of the Bible....

So, if God says homosexuality is a sin and condemnable, I somehow automatically because a frothing, rabid gay-assaulter? You can't get from point A to point C without....wait, this is more like getting from point A to point G without crossing through the prior letters! Ok, have a taste of your own medicine: I hereby accuse you of beating Christians to death because you disagree with their stance on homosexuality. Not so fun being strawmanned, is it?

Again wrong. Your mistranslated bible says homosexuality is wrong. YOu can't prove god, therefore you cannot say god proves it is wrong and condemnable. You in essence help people support their violence against homosexuals.

Yes, but I never presented the facts in it :p


Also, I think people who would advocate throwing Christians to the lions (there were a lot of them in the A/A forums at about.com) would qualify as militant :mad:
Please present your factual evidence now. As far as I know, your religion demands you do this. Because trust me. If there were factual evidence, I'd take up religion on the spot.

Even wishing people extreme harm or death is in no way the same thing as being militant - not unless you consider yourself one.

But I suppose that in the very broardest sense, we're both militant. I wouldn't consider any of us to be militant however, at least not about this issue. Where I come from, people aren't considered militant unless they at the very least engage in civil disobedience.

Are you wearing mixed fabrics, or have you ever? If yes, Sinner! You're going to Hell! Same book of the Bible....



....Oh....my....goodness.....I thought we had gotten past that lie of yours by now? Ok, I'll play your little game: Wearing mixed fabrics is not condemned in the New Testament while homosexuality is. Find me the verse where Christ or the apostles said "Verily, I say unto thee: Blessed are they who abstain from polyester?"

All right, back on topic... Elsewhere, a guy actually used his self-proclaimed ignorance of a topic to defend his views on that topic. Basically he was accusing me of having an unfair advantage because I knew the history of the topic involved and he didn't, and therefore I shouldn't be able to use my superior knowlege to argue against him. My suggestions that he actually learn something about the topic before he argue about it were ignored.

Please present your factual evidence now. As far as I know, your religion demands you do this. Because trust me. If there were factual evidence, I'd take up religion on the spot.

Even wishing people extreme harm or death is in no way the same thing as being militant - not unless you consider yourself one.

But I suppose that in the very broardest sense, we're both militant. I wouldn't consider any of us to be militant however, at least not about this issue. Where I come from, people aren't considered militant unless they at the very least engage in civil disobedience.



Lol, I don't wish people harm or death! I wish they would see the errors of their ways and repent. I'm not like Jonah, who hoped the Assyrians in Nineveh would reject God so they would be destroyed. On the contrary, I couldn't be more happy if you all would just submit to Christ!

All right, back on topic... Elsewhere, a guy actually used his self-proclaimed ignorance of a topic to defend his views on that topic. Basically he was accusing me of having an unfair advantage because I knew the history of the topic involved and he didn't, and therefore I shouldn't be able to use my superior knowlege to argue against him. My suggestions that he actually learn something about the topic before he argue about it were ignored.



I can see why he did that, I personally refuse to debate law with The Cat-Tribe. I refuse to be fish in a barrel :D

Again wrong. Your mistranslated bible says homosexuality is wrong. YOu can't prove god, therefore you cannot say god proves it is wrong and condemnable. You in essence help people support their violence against homosexuals.


You, my friend, have just committed sooooo many logical fallacies...

Lol, I don't wish people harm or death! I wish they would see the errors of their ways and repent. I'm not like Jonah, who hoped the Assyrians in Nineveh would reject God so they would be destroyed. On the contrary, I couldn't be more happy if you all would just submit to Christ!

Prove your religion then I would change my views. But you cannot. And in fact your religion is exactly that, unproveable. And in fact there is no god. No christ. Nothing.

Prove your religion then I would change my views. But you cannot. And in fact your religion is exactly that, unproveable. And in fact there is no god. No christ. Nothing.



You're so incorrigible, why do I even bother :rolleyes:

You're so incorrigible, why do I even bother :rolleyes:

you got issues. You try to explain your religion as fact when it is clearly not. You try to say that god would condemn homosexuality... some imaginary figure. You shouldn't be one to judge other people.

You're so incorrigible, why do I even bother :rolleyes:

This is you bothering? No wonder your proselytising is so ineffectual. :rolleyes:

....Oh....my....goodness.....I thought we had gotten past that lie of yours by now? Ok, I'll play your little game: Wearing mixed fabrics is not condemned in the New Testament while homosexuality is. Find me the verse where Christ or the apostles said "Verily, I say unto thee: Blessed are they who abstain from polyester?"

Oh, you're using the Romans argument, right? I thought you were going to go with the Leviticus one. If I remember correctly, wasn't the argument about wether it was about homosexuality or dominating others by using your power? Besides, this is why I didn't want it to go into religion and stuff like that. I didn't want a flame war.

Lol, I don't wish people harm or death! I wish they would see the errors of their ways and repent. I'm not like Jonah, who hoped the Assyrians in Nineveh would reject God so they would be destroyed. On the contrary, I couldn't be more happy if you all would just submit to Christ!
You continously and cheerfully imply or outright say homo's & bi's will suffer the fires of hell for all eternity. Hiding your smug well-wishes for the lot of us. by saying your damn book says the same thing is pathetic.
Further more, since you cling to the leveticus gay hating, you are encouraging violence. The guy plainly stated gays should be killed.

Anyway... Any of that factual evidence on the horizon?
What about the self defense question I asked?

Neo, go ahead, convert me, and everyone here. I'll check up tomorrow. If you really don't advocate violence and wish us all to "submit to christ" help us! If you can state the facts that your religion is based in, and they're actual facts, I will convert to whatever religion you prove. Hurry up now, don't you want to save our souls?

All right, back on topic... Elsewhere, a guy actually used his self-proclaimed ignorance of a topic to defend his views on that topic. Basically he was accusing me of having an unfair advantage because I knew the history of the topic involved and he didn't, and therefore I shouldn't be able to use my superior knowlege to argue against him. My suggestions that he actually learn something about the topic before he argue about it were ignored.
I've had someone dismiss an argument because it was too complex for him to understand (it was an article from the economist, by the way).

You continously and cheerfully imply or outright say homo's & bi's will suffer the fires of hell for all eternity. Hiding your smug well-wishes for the lot of us. by saying your damn book says the same thing is pathetic.
Further more, since you cling to the leveticus gay hating, you are encouraging violence. The guy plainly stated gays should be killed.

Anyway... Any of that factual evidence on the horizon?
What about the self defense question I asked?



And that is a lie, I never was cheerful about people's dreadful eventuation. Really, I take offense to you saying I want people to go to Hell and I demand an apologyy.

Can we please stop this? This is like arguing to an answering machine. You'll get the same answer every time. Now let's get back on topic.

Can we please stop this? This is like arguing to an answering machine. You'll get the same answer every time.

Agreed.

Now let's get back on topic.

Agreed.

Oh, you're using the Romans argument, right? I thought you were going to go with the Leviticus one. If I remember correctly, wasn't the argument about wether it was about homosexuality or dominating others by using your power? Besides, this is why I didn't want it to go into religion and stuff like that. I didn't want a flame war.



Let's take it to the PM's then?

Let's take it to the PM's then?

No. I have a life. I don't spend my entire day arguing with people on the internet. Now can we please get back on topic?

Neo, go ahead, convert me, and everyone here. I'll check up tomorrow. If you really don't advocate violence and wish us all to "submit to christ" help us! If you can state the facts that your religion is based in, and they're actual facts, I will convert to whatever religion you prove. Hurry up now, don't you want to save our souls?


Ok, I can tell you're being sarcastic but I'll compile a list of books that do a better job than I at providing the facts.

I've had someone dismiss an argument because it was too complex for him to understand (it was an article from the economist, by the way).
I have actually done that. I bet most people have in one way or another.

I can't argue why communism cannot work as intended. I know deep down that it can't, but I'm either too dumb or too ignorant to argue it. Thus I stay out of such arguments. I love to follow them, but I can't participate on any resonable level.

No. I have a life. I don't spend my entire day arguing with people on the internet. Now can we please get back on topic?



Wilfull ignorance?

Ok, I can tell you're being sarcastic but I'll compile a list of books that do a better job than I at providing the facts.

There are no facts with regard to religion. Religion are pretty factless views.

Ok, I can tell you're being sarcastic but I'll compile a list of books that do a better job than I at providing the facts.
Make a topic and explain the facts of your books. Meet your potential converts on their terms. Don't expect anyone to go out and spend their hard earned cash on something they don't think matter.

Wilfull ignorance?

No. Like I said, I have more to do with my life than argue with people who never change their opinions. I can yell at an answering machine all I want, but that won't change what it says next time I call. And please can we get back on topic?

NR you'll not get an apology. It's my honest impression and I know I'm not the only one you've given that impression.
If it's a problem then I suggest you either word your posts more carefully or take it up with a mod.

You continously and cheerfully imply or outright say homo's & bi's will suffer the fires of hell for all eternity. Hiding your smug well-wishes for the lot of us. by saying your damn book says the same thing is pathetic.
Further more, since you cling to the leveticus gay hating, you are encouraging violence. The guy plainly stated gays should be killed.

Anyway... Any of that factual evidence on the horizon?
What about the self defense question I asked?

I don't think I recall Neo ever condemning anyone to hell. Or that she hates gay people.

I hate it when people assume things.

There are no facts with regard to religion. Religion are pretty factless views.

I beg to differ. (http://answersingenesis.org/)

I beg to differ. (http://answersingenesis.org/)

That site is bogus.

Try this one: www.talkorigins.org

I beg to differ. (http://answersingenesis.org/)
At least you contributed to the original topic.

That site is bogus.

Try this one: www.talkorigins.org

Yes, since it uses actual scientific data. :rolleyes:

Yes, I've been to Talk Origins. Very informative, but I wasn't too impressed.

Yes, since it uses actual scientific data. :rolleyes:

Yes, I've been to Talk Origins. Very informative, but I wasn't too impressed.

talk origins is very factual and evolution is the reality. Intelligent Design and Creationism is false and has no basis. Fact is the earth is much older then you creationists want to believe.

Thanks for being non-scientific with your false sites.

Yes, since it uses actual scientific data. :rolleyes:

Read AiG's statement of faith? Paraphrased, it says that if evidence conflicts with creationism, the evidence is wrong. That ain't science. That's worthless bullshit.

talk origins is very factual, at least I hope, and evolution is the reality, despite the evidence contradicting it. Intelligent Design and Creationism are false, because they oppose my viewpoints. Fact is the earth is much older then you creationists want to believe, in my opinion.

Thanks for being non-scientific with your sites that disagree with me.



Corrections in bold.

Corrections in bold.

Um, that's against the rules. You cannot put words in my mouth and restate what I say.

You should never do that again. Also evolution is factual. Creationism is not.

In fact there is no evidence that contradicts evolution.. evolution is a changing theory and changes with scientific advancement. Creationism is stuck in the past and is not supported by evidence.

Corrections in bold.
So now, after the thrashing Dem, myself, and several others dealt to you in the last EvC thread, must resort to breaking the rules? How juvenile.

talk origins is very factual and evolution is the reality. Intelligent Design and Creationism is false and has no basis. Fact is the earth is much older then you creationists want to believe.

Thanks for being non-scientific with your false sites.

I have no idea how old the earth is, nor do I even begin to know those answers. Evolution has not been proven, as there are several giant holes in it. That's why it's called the theory of evolution.

Search around in AiG for a while, you might find something worth reading.

Um, that's against the rules. You cannot put words in my mouth and restate what I say.

You should never do that again. Also evolution is factual. Creationism is not.

In fact there is no evidence that contradicts evolution.. evolution is a changing theory and changes with scientific advancement. Creationism is stuck in the past and is not supported by evidence.

She was playing around with your comment in a sarcastic and legal fashion.

Currently, both evolution and creation are strictly considered to be theories. I still incline to believe creation because there are too many flaws in evolution.

I have no idea how old the earth is, nor do I even begin to know those answers. Evolution has not been proven, as there are several giant holes in it. That's why it's called the theory of evolution.

Search around in AiG for a while, you might find something worth reading.

This is false. It is easily established how old the earth is (4-5 billion years old). Furthermore, there are no giant holes in evolution. Remember this isn't the same theory that Darwin proposed, it has changed with further discovery. Additionally, AiG is false and is bullshit, as noted with their mission statement. They aren't scientific.

She was playing around with your comment in a sarcastic and legal fashion.

Listen up: It is against the rules to change what someone said like that. That is a rule.

Get with the program.


Currently, both evolution and creation are strictly considered to be theories. I still incline to believe creation because there are too many flaws in evolution.

Evolution is a scientifically backed theory. Creation isn't even a theory. IT is simply a belief. There aren't many flaws in evolution. Creationism is bullshit.

I have no idea how old the earth is, nor do I even begin to know those answers. Evolution has not been proven, as there are several giant holes in it. That's why it's called the theory of evolution.

NEVER say that pure, unadulterated bullshit ever again. You have no understanding of science if you spout those lies about what a scientific theory is. Yes, lies. I, as well as several other posters, have pointed this out to you on multiple occasions.

Listen up: It is against the rules to change what someone said like that. That is a rule

Get with the program.

Therefore she put it up in bold. So it's a joke. Maybe she should have added a :rolleyes: emoticon, but that's not the real issue. Get over it. It's like Wikipedia. What you type is subject to a lot of changes and teasing and poking, all falling short of flaming.


Evolution is a scientifically backed theory. Creation isn't even a theory. IT is simply a belief. There aren't many flaws in evolution. Creationism is bullshit.

Only a few flaws are enough to determine that evolution isn't a 'fact'.

Only a few flaws are enough to determine that evolution isn't a 'fact'.
Name the flaws. You made the assertion, you back it up.

Therefore she put it up in bold. So it's a joke. Maybe she should have added a :rolleyes: emoticon, but that's not the real issue. Get over it. It's like Wikipedia. What you type is subject to a lot of changes and teasing and poking, all falling short of flaming.

It isn't a joke. It is against the rules. You cannot quote someone and change what they say. That's final. That's a rule here and I follow it too myself. I do not do that to other people. And get with the facts.



Only a few flaws are enough to determine that evolution isn't a 'fact'.

There are very few flaws with evolution.. evolution is a factual theory. Creationism is just unsubstantiated BS!

It isn't a joke. It is against the rules. You cannot quote someone and change what they say. That's final. That's a rule here and I follow it too myself. I do not do that to other people. And get with the facts.
To determine a crime someone must also have a motive to harm somebody in an objective manner. It was a joke, not an insult. But I'm willing to let this pass, because it's not central. Take it up with Neo yourself.



There are very few flaws with evolution.. evolution is a factual theory. Creationism is just unsubstantiated BS!

Facts don't have flaws. They just don't, or else they wouldn't be called a fact.

In fact there is no evidence that contradicts evolution


There are very few flaws with evolution


So which is it?

To determine a crime someone must also have a motive to harm somebody in an objective manner. It was a joke, not an insult. But I'm willing to let this pass, because it's not central. Take it up with Neo yourself.

Wrong. It was against the rules. I'm not willing to let it pass. It is against the freaking rules, and you will respect the rules.

Facts don't have flaws. They just don't, or else they wouldn't be called a fact.

Evolution is supported by a huge, overwhelming amount of facts. Evolution may have a few flaws, but these are mostly for areas, scientists are looking at. Creationism is bullshit. You have yet to post anything to support it.

I knew it was a bad idea to allow anything to do with religion in this thread! Why did I change my mind?!? :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

So which is it?

You don't know what you're talking about. Creationists are so ignorant.. I mean come on.. look at the evidence. There is no evidence for creationism.

Facts don't have flaws. They just don't, or else they wouldn't be called a fact.
Again, what are the flaws? Back up your assertion or retract it.

Wrong. It was against the rules. I'm not willing to let it pass. It is against the freaking rules, and you will respect the rules.



Evolution is supported by a huge, overwhelming amount of facts. Evolution may have a few flaws, but these are mostly for areas, scientists are looking at. Creationism is bullshit. You have yet to post anything to support it.



Evolution =/= the origin of matter. Science has never solved that, nor will it ever do so. The answer itself would be very unscientific. Get your head out of the sand and realize that your false Lord and Saviour, Science, has its limits.

Wrong. It was against the rules. I'm not willing to let it pass. It is against the freaking rules, and you will respect the rules.
Okay.



Evolution is supported by a huge, overwhelming amount of facts. Evolution may have a few flaws, but these are mostly for areas, scientists are looking at. Creationism is bullshit. You have yet to post anything to support it.

Like what? A faulty carbon dating system?

This isn't the thread for it, so I'm not going to post anything to support it. If you start one I may look into it, because it's the 313981754th time I've debated this on General and every time the participants end up with the conclusion: believe what you believe. :p

You don't know what you're talking about. Creationists are so ignorant.. I mean come on.. look at the evidence. There is no evidence for creationism.



Quit dodging the question and answer: Does evolution have flaws or not?

Again, what are the flaws? Back up your assertion or retract it.

Not the right thread.

This is false. It is easily established how old the earth is (4-5 billion years old). Furthermore, there are no giant holes in evolution. Remember this isn't the same theory that Darwin proposed, it has changed with further discovery. Additionally, AiG is false and is bullshit, as noted with their mission statement. They aren't scientific.

The giant holes (at least the ones I see):

1: Intermediate forms: How can something evolve into something else with wings, when natural selection would've prevented such a thing? Until wings were sufficient enough for birds to use for flying, they would've been doing birds no good, so how could such genes have been passed on?

2: Addition of DNA: The fact is that new genetic information cannot simply be added randomly to an organism, as it would be according to natural selection, caused by organisms being forced to adapt. Genetic information can be duplicated, but it is not entirely new information.

3: Mutations: Apparently evolution of a species is due to the build up of mutations over generations...but aren't mutations harmful? According to natural selection, those with mutations would die out, and their genes will not be passed on.

I've heavily summarized those points.

Oh, it's not so easily established. I have no idea what I believe about the age of earth...I'm playing devil's advocate. ;)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

Evolution =/= the origin of matter. Science has never solved that, nor will it ever do so. The answer itself would be very unscientific. Get your head out of the sand and realize that your false Lord and Saviour, Science, has its limits.

holy crap.. Evolution is not meant to explain the origin of matter. That is explaned by the big bang. My false lord? I don't believe in any god or higher power. You need to get your damn head out of the sand.

Dragons Liar:

Like what? A faulty carbon dating system?

This isn't the thread for it, so I'm not going to post anything to support it. If you start one I may look into it, because it's the 313981754th time I've debated this on General and every time the participants end up with the conclusion: believe what you believe.

Carbon dating isn't faulty. It is pretty accurate and is well substantiated. A very solid system. There are dozens of other ways to do dating.

I knew it was a bad idea to allow anything to do with religion in this thread! Why did I change my mind?!? :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

I know. I'm sorry. But I can't keep quiet. :p

The giant holes (at least the ones I see):

1: Intermediate forms: How can something evolve into something else with wings, when natural selection would've prevented such a thing? Until wings were sufficient enough for birds to use for flying, they would've been doing birds no good, so how could such genes have been passed on?

2: Addition of DNA: The fact is that new genetic information cannot simply be added randomly to an organism, as it would be according to natural selection, caused by organisms being forced to adapt. Genetic information can be duplicated, but it is not entirely new information.

3: Mutations: Apparently evolution of a species is due to the build up of mutations over generations...but aren't mutations harmful? According to natural selection, those with mutations would die out, and their genes will not be passed on.


This isn't backed up.. real facts:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

"Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).

Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.

This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated. "

Dragons Liar:

Carbon dating isn't faulty. It is pretty accurate and is well substantiated. A very solid system. There are dozens of other ways to do dating.

So is making an insulting name against the rules which you so sanctify?

"pretty accurate" =/= factual = faulty.

So is making an insulting name against the rules which you so sanctify?

"pretty accurate" =/= factual = faulty.

No it isn't because I didn't take what you say.

Evolution isn't pretty accurate.. it is solidly accurate. You need to get over creationism and accept the facts.

1: Intermediate forms: How can something evolve into something else with wings, when natural selection would've prevented such a thing? Until wings were sufficient enough for birds to use for flying, they would've been doing birds no good, so how could such genes have been passed on?

2: Addition of DNA: The fact is that new genetic information cannot simply be added randomly to an organism, as it would be according to natural selection, caused by organisms being forced to adapt. Genetic information can be duplicated, but it is not entirely new information.

3: Mutations: Apparently evolution of a species is due to the build up of mutations over generations...but aren't mutations harmful? According to natural selection, those with mutations would die out, and their genes will not be passed on.

1. Oh. My. Fucking. God. Google Caudipteryx.
2. Yes it can. Mutations.
3. They aren't all harmful. Very few are harmful. Most are neutral.

Of course, since I'vepointed this out to you in numerous threads and you post the same bullshit over again. I wonder why I even try anymore.

holy crap.. Evolution is not meant to explain the origin of matter. That is explaned by the big bang. My false lord? I don't believe in any god or higher power. You need to get your damn head out of the sand.

Dragons Liar:



Carbon dating isn't faulty. It is pretty accurate and is well substantiated. A very solid system. There are dozens of other ways to do dating.


The Big Bang required matter and energy to occur. Neither can exist without a cause. We theists have the advantage in that we can argue that God is eternal, whereas science has disproven the notion that the universe itself is eternal.

Not the right thread.
Shift happens.

The Big Bang required matter and energy to occur. Neither can exist without a cause. We theists have the advantage in that we can argue that God is eternal, whereas science has disproven the notion that the universe itself is eternal.

Then what created god? There is no such thing as eternal... that's not factual. You don't have any advantages. YOU FLUNK!

Evolution =/= the origin of matter. Science has never solved that, nor will it ever do so. The answer itself would be very unscientific. Get your head out of the sand and realize that your false Lord and Saviour, Science, has its limits.
Hopefully noone thinks science is religion or the answer to everything. Still, noone can at present say for sure whether science will ever explain the origin of matter. And regardless of whether it ever does, religion won't be any more or less credible.

Why should the supernatural exist just because we can't understand something? It's like me claiming that because there's no reasonable explanation for homophobia, tinsoldiers must be the cause. It's just silly.

The Big Bang required matter and energy to occur.
Cut the crap. Both you and I know that isn't the case. As has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, it did not. Singularities do not obey the laws of casuality.

No it isn't because I didn't take what you say.
whatever.

Evolution isn't pretty accurate.. it is solidly accurate. You need to get over creationism and accept the facts.
"pretty accurate" was a quote from you. Make up your mind. Is evolution "pretty accurate" or "solidly accurate" or "plain factual"? Or is it "solidly accurate" with "pretty accurate" methods of measuring and still is "factual"?

Then what created god? There is no such thing as eternal... that's not factual. You don't have any advantages. YOU FLUNK!



Physical = temporal

Metaphysical = not subject to the laws of time



It's not that hard of a concept to grasp, you know.

"pretty accurate" was a quote from you. Make up your mind. Is evolution "pretty accurate" or "solidly accurate" or "plain factual"? Or is it "solidly accurate" with "pretty accurate" methods of measuring and still is "factual"?

I'm saying it is solidly accurate and plain factual. Get with the fucking program. And stop trying to nit pick my argument. Try to make your own with creationism. Do some things:

Prove god. Prove creationism. Disprove the big bang and cingularities.

You can't.

Physical = temporal

Metaphysical = not subject to the laws of time



It's not that hard of a concept to grasp, you know.

You know that's garbage. There is no such thing as god. Disprove me.

I'm saying it is solidly accurate and plain factual. Get with the fucking program. And stop trying to nit pick my argument. Try to make your own with creationism. Do some things:

Prove god. Prove creationism. Disprove the big bang and cingularities.

You can't.

Disprove God.

You can't either.

You know that's garbage. There is no such thing as god. Disprove me.
Hahaha, the title is so appropriate it's scary.

Mesa god exists. Disprove me.

I'm saying it is solidly accurate and plain factual. Get with the fucking program. And stop trying to nit pick my argument. Try to make your own with creationism. Do some things:

Prove god. Prove creationism. Disprove the big bang and cingularities.

You can't.


Singularities are actually a bane in the side of atheists. When everything eventually reduces to a singularity, eternity cannot be true. That which is not eternal must have a cause. Ergo, a dimension outside of this one is necessary, and, assuming you grant that, a god or immaterial essence becomes necessary.

Disprove God.

You can't either.

No because the burden of proof is on you. I never made the statement that god exists. I don't have to disprove a negative.

singularities are actually a bane in the side of atheists. When everything eventually reduces to a singularity, eternity cannot be true. That which is not eternal must have a cause. Ergo, a dimension outside of this one is necessary, and, assuming you grant that, a god or immaterial essence becomes necessary.

Well this shows what lack of knowledge in science does to you. You fucking prove god, or get out of this thread. There is no evidence for it, and no reason for god. Especially not here.

Singularities are actually a bane in the side of atheists. When everything eventually reduces to a singularity, eternity cannot be true. That which is not eternal must have a cause. Ergo, a dimension outside of this one is necessary, and, assuming you grant that, a god or immaterial essence becomes necessary.
False assumption. You lose.

As I noted, SINGULARITIES DO NOT OBEY THE DAMNED LAWS OF CASUALITY! Sorry about that, you just kept ignoring me.

Well this shows what lack of knowledge in science does to you. You fucking prove god, or get out of this thread. There is no evidence for it, and no reason for god. Especially not here.

Heh. Then what is our reason?

Can you answer that?

No.

Can you physically prove God?

No.

Can you physically disprove God?

Nope.

Singularities are actually a bane in the side of atheists. When everything eventually reduces to a singularity, eternity cannot be true. That which is not eternal must have a cause. Ergo, a dimension outside of this one is necessary, and, assuming you grant that, a god or immaterial essence becomes necessary.

That's that tinsoldier-causes-homophobia thing again. Whether there are 11 dimensions or just 4 says exactly nothing about god.

No because the burden of proof is on you. I never made the statement that god exists. I don't have to disprove a negative.

If you can't disprove God then God must exist, no?

I've felt God in my life. I've identified God's works and actions.

Of course you'll batter me down because "Oh, that isn't scientific proof."

You're right. It isn't. Because God is superior to science, if He is a god. But the fact that you didn't feel Him doesn't mean that He doesn't exist. It means that you're too short-sighted as yet.

If you can't disprove God then God must exist, no?

I've felt God in my life. I've identified God's works and actions.

If I can't disprove god then god must exist? That's the most idiotic statement I have ever heard on here. No it isn't. I don't have to disprove a negative. You need to show it exists.

Maybe that is your conscience speaking?


You're right. It isn't. Because God is superior to science, if He is a god. But the fact that you didn't feel Him doesn't mean that He doesn't exist. It means that you're too short-sighted as yet.

There is no god. this god you speak of doesn't exist. It means you are talking to yourself in your head.

If you can't disprove God then God must exist, no?

I've felt God in my life. I've identified God's works and actions.

Of course you'll batter me down because "Oh, that isn't scientific proof."

You're right. It isn't. Because God is superior to science, if He is a god. But the fact that you didn't feel Him doesn't mean that He doesn't exist. It means that you're too short-sighted as yet.

Too true. I've felt God, I've felt his presence in my life as well as others. While he cannot be proven physically, He is beyond proof spiritually.

I think Whispering legs has it(this may or may not be true)- that God will tap you on yor shoulder when he wants you to believe. And he's tapped me.

Edit: Random qoute from Texpundistan:

The problem with a lot of atheists is that they look at science as their god. To them, it is the end all, be all and faith is nothing. If you can't explain it with science, it doesn't exist.

To me, it makes perfect sense that God, in His infinite wisdom and purpose, created all this. He created science, too. But, the atheists give in to the temptation of thinking science explains everything, even when it obviously does not. They take the anomalies -- the supernatural and miracles -- and discard them because they do not follow the laws of science. They discard the very things that point to the existence of God.

Well this shows what lack of knowledge in science does to you. You fucking prove god, or get out of this thread. There is no evidence for it, and no reason for god. Especially not here.



Umm, how about addressing my post instead of calling me stupid? I offer philosophical proof for the necessity of an extradimensional Being and you disregard it.

Too true. I've felt God, I've felt his presence in my life as well as others. While he cannot be proven physically, He is beyond proof spiritually.

I think Whispering legs has it(this may or may not be true)- that God will tap you on yor shoulder when he wants you to believe. And he's tapped me.

This is what religion does to you.. your mind gets drained of logical thoughts... very sad indeed.

Umm, how about addressing my post instead of calling me stupid? I offer philosophical proof for the necessity of an extradimensional Being and you disregard it.

i did address your post. It isn't factual nor does it support the notion of god.

There is no god. this god you speak of doesn't exist. It means you are talking to yourself in your head.

Read this (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/answer.asp), plzkthxbaii.

Read this (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/answer.asp), plzkthxbaii.

That site just doesn't cut it. I'm sorry.

ATTENTION PEOPLE USING THE 'PROVE GOD!' and 'DISPROVE GOD!' ARGUMENTS:

God and proof as concepts are not compatible; not for either side. Belief in God is an article of Faith, which apparently supercedes logic and science. Neither of the above arguments are valid in the context of proper debate; to be honest I probably couldn't begin to tell you which one is actually worse. Very technically, the onus of truth falls on the believers, but this law is evaded by the Faith clause, which states more or less that people can believe in whatever they want to believe in.

At its most basic level, the existence of a greater diety is not really worth debating in any context favorable to the retention of one's neurons. Either you believe or you don't; it's not really anyone else's business.

But yeah, I'm going to have to nominate the two of those for 'Dumbest Argument Ever,' which is saying a lot. Still, I think my favorite was when someone used this crushing argument in a thread and an onlooker felt compelled to post his/her decidedly misguided encouragement.

There is a giant ball of omnipotent pudding floating in space. I have felt it's presence in my life. It is above the laws of science. When you die, it does the mexican hat dance for you.

There. The above has about the same amount of credability that christianity or any religion has, based on what proof you have all been able to provide. If you cannot disprove the giant ball of pudding, it must exist, no? And I'm still waiting to be converted Neo...

If it hasn't been mentioned already:
There was a rather infamous poster who was claiming that US pharmacutical companies were evil because one company intentionally set up a test to cause one of the test subjects to commit suicide. At least that's how I remember it. It's been over a year and the thread was purged.

Anyhow, said poster stated that he knew for a fact that US compamies behaved illegally and unethically because his father told him that real life was just like the Sopranos TV series.
:headbang:

That site just doesn't cut it. I'm sorry.

You won't read it because you don't like the site??

Aww. Too much for being open-minded :rolleyes:

Read it. It is factual. It is nothing but factual.

False assumption. You lose.

As I noted, SINGULARITIES DO NOT OBEY THE DAMNED LAWS OF CASUALITY! Sorry about that, you just kept ignoring me.


Your assumption is false. Singularities are subject to the laws of causality, as they are the be-all/end-all of reductions. What follows the singularity? Are we to believe that it manifests out of nowhere, without cause? They may be the origin of the equation, but even the origin needs an origin (pun intended). The infinitude spreads in all directions but converges at one point, where it is no longer susceptible to reductions. If you're referring to the curvature at the point origin, remember that equation relies upon imaginary numbers as real ones would not work :p Even quantum mechanics can't explain the origin :D

You won't read it because you don't like the site??

Aww. Too much for being open-minded :rolleyes:

Read it. It is factual. It is nothing but factual.

It isn't fucking factual. It says anything that contradicts it is false, and that's bogus.

You need to open your religious mind, and ditch your views.

If it hasn't been mentioned already:
There was a rather infamous poster who was claiming that US pharmacutical companies were evil because one company intentionally set up a test to cause one of the test subjects to commit suicide. At least that's how I remember it. It's been over a year and the thread was purged.

Anyhow, said poster stated that he knew for a fact that US compamies behaved illegally and unethically because his father told him that real life was just like the Sopranos TV series.
:headbang:



Does that make me the Don? :D

There is a giant ball of omnipotent pudding floating in space. I have felt it's presence in my life. It is above the laws of science. When you die, it does the mexican hat dance for you.

There. The above has about the same amount of credability that christianity or any religion has, based on what proof you have all been able to provide. If you cannot disprove the giant ball of pudding, it must exist, no? And I'm still waiting to be converted Neo...



Speaking of pure speculation, nobody has told me of the true universal origins yet ;)

It isn't fucking factual. It says anything that contradicts it is false, and that's bogus.

You need to open your religious mind, and ditch your views.

No, it doesn't. Read the article. The article uses "facts" of science, as well as common sense.

My mind is very, very open. Believe me. I've been where you are. I've believed in evolution. I've spoken out against the apparent "evils" of Christianity. Cursed and swore at anyone who didn't believe the same as me. Been there, done that. I've grown up.

I'm not trying to convert anyone, I'm simply defending my faith. If you won't re-call, it's the atheists that attacked Christians first.

No , my views (at least on God) remain the same. Thank you for the offer, though.

No, it doesn't. Read the article. The article uses "facts" of science, as well as common sense.

No it doesn't, as the article rejects facts and common sense... religion doesn't use science, it rejects and screws with it.

My mind is very, very open. Believe me. I've been where you are. I've believed in evolution. I've spoken out against the apparent "evils" of Christianity. Cursed and swore at anyone who didn't believe the same as me. Been there, done that. I've grown up.

No you should grow up for real. Becoming christian is not growing up. It is getting more immature and screaming at reality and science. I'm a pro-science orientated person, and I strongly believe in the facts. I'm atheist, I'm gay and there is nothing you can do about it.

Anyhow, said poster stated that he knew for a fact that US compamies behaved illegally and unethically because his father told him that real life was just like the Sopranos TV series.
:headbang:

Ah, good old TRA... I actually thought he had an ounce of nous until I engaged in that thread.

No it doesn't, as the article rejects facts and common sense... religion doesn't use science, it rejects and screws with it.



No you should grow up for real. Becoming christian is not growing up. It is getting more immature and screaming at reality and science. I'm a pro-science orientated person, and I strongly believe in the facts. I'm atheist, I'm gay and there is nothing you can do about it.



You know, why not just admit you don't want to see our evidence because it would threaten your lifestyle? It would make this much easier on all of us.

If I can't disprove god then god must exist? That's the most idiotic statement I have ever heard on here. No it isn't. I don't have to disprove a negative. You need to show it exists.
All he need to do is claim that god exists, but is incompatible with science. As soon as he does that, the discussion is over.

Religious people doesn't need to prove god exist, they just need to suggest god is supernatural - which they do. At that point proof isn't relevant anymore.

Still, I can easily proclaim that invisible, magical, flying pigs exists. Noone will ever be able to deny it, but it's hardly reasonable to assume the claim is right.

You know, why not just admit you don't want to see our evidence because it would threaten your lifestyle? It would make this much easier on all of us.

What evidence? You don't have any. Religion is based on faith, not evidence. Faith is worthless. And what makes your religion better then any other one out there?

No it doesn't, as the article rejects facts and common sense... religion doesn't use science, it rejects and screws with it.



No you should grow up for real. Becoming christian is not growing up. It is getting more immature and screaming at reality and science. I'm a pro-science orientated person, and I strongly believe in the facts. I'm atheist, I'm gay and there is nothing you can do about it.

I'm fine with that. I don't have a problem with what you believe in. The beauty of America. I don't have a problem with you being Gay, either. I don't know you personally, so I can't judge you.

Insult me all you want, though. It's quite entertaining.

Speaking of pure speculation, nobody has told me of the true universal origins yet ;)

I just did. Since the laws of everything don't seem to apply to god, it's just as likely he's made of pudding then anything else. The giant ball of pudding made the universe.

I'm fine with that. I don't have a problem with what you believe in. The beauty of America. I don't have a problem with you being Gay, either. I don't know you personally, so I can't judge you.

Insult me all you want, though. It's quite entertaining.

Fine. Then I have nothing else to say to you.

At least you are more respectful then neo, and I extend my apologies for my language.

I just did. Since the laws of everything don't seem to apply to god, it's just as likely he's made of pudding then anything else. The giant ball of pudding made the universe.



I still want an answer that maintains the atheist philosophy :(

"What, Me Worry?" (Napoleon Bonaparte', just before "Waterloo")

"Indians? What Indians?" (General Custer)

"Are you kidding? You think our government had anything to do with the sinking of 'Greenpeace?' Never!" (Jaques Chirac, leader of France)

"Yes mother, I have clean underwear in the glove-compartment just in case I should have an accident" (me) :eek:

"Test? What test? Everything's fine" (Senior Nuclear Engineer/Advisor @ Chernobyl just prior to accident, 1986)

"So, I'll just launch a coupla cruise missles into Iraq and that'll be the end of that" (President William Clinton, 1996)

I still want an answer that maintains the atheist philosophy :(

what the heck are you talking about? Atheists don't believe in god. That simple.

Fine. Then I have nothing else to say to you.

At least you are more respectful then neo, and I extend my apologies for my language.

I don't think she's ever said "I hate you cause you're gay", but I'm not too sure.

what the heck are you talking about? Atheists don't believe in god. That simple.



Thank you Captain Obvious, now reread what I said. I was asking for an atheist explanation for the origin of matter, space, time, and energy.

You know, why not just admit you don't want to see our evidence because it would threaten your lifestyle?

Would you show me this evidence?

I'm paraphrasing here, but "liberals are bad because they all believed Bush's bullshit about WMDs (not true), and didn't want to invade Iraq to get rid of the fictional WMDs, and therefore didn't do anything to protect the world from the fictional WMDs, therefore are neglecting their responsibility to protect us. At least Bush protects us from fictional threats."

Thank you Captain Obvious, now reread what I said. I was asking for an atheist explanation for the origin of matter, space, time, and energy.

Atheists explain origins of matter,space, time and energy by science, whereas you do not. We use facts, whereas you do not.

I'm paraphrasing here, but "liberals are bad because they all believed Bush's bullshit about WMDs (not true), and didn't want to invade Iraq to get rid of the fictional WMDs, and therefore didn't do anything to protect the world from the fictional WMDs, therefore are neglecting their responsibility to protect us. At least Bush protects us from fictional threats."


Iraq was a threat, if allowed to acquire nuclear weaponry, they would have a leg up on all negotiations. It's not nice to be bullied around, you know.

Atheists explain origins of matter,space, time and energy by science, whereas you do not. We use facts, whereas you do not.



Yet you won't show me these facts? :confused:

Back. On. Topic! We have threads for this already! Take your religous/evo/gay rights/whatever discussions to the threads about them! The one thing I hate more than stupid arguments is thread hijacks that start flame wars! OUT! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Yet you won't show me these facts? :confused:

I already have. Look at national geographic too. And the talksorigins site I brought up.

I skimmed that article and the crux of the argument is surprisingly weak. If a watch implies a watchmaker, the author reasons, the presence of a universe implies a universe-maker. But this logic just keeps repeating itself; it won't get anywhere if consistently applied. A universe maker, by this logic, requires a universe maker maker, and a maker maker maker, and so on ad infinitum. It's not a particularly compelling argument.

EDIT: In fact, I think it might be fitting for the context of this thread. The more I think about it, the more ridiculous it sounds.

I already have. Look at national geographic too. And the talksorigins site I brought up.


I never said evolution, I want cosmological evidence for universal origins, if you will.

Iraq was a threat, if allowed to acquire nuclear weaponry, they would have a leg up on all negotiations. It's not nice to be bullied around, you know.

They weren't bullying us around, and they weren't going to get WMDs. THat was a lie started by Sadam so he could stay in power. If the citizens knew he was pretty much defensless, they would have revolted. Unfortunatly for him, the international communities believed him, and BAM! Saddams out of power. Oooooopppppsssss.

I skimmed that article and the crux of the argument is surprisingly weak. If a watch implies a watchmaker, the author reasons, the presence of a universe implies a universe-maker. But this logic just keeps repeating itself; it won't get anywhere if consistently applied. A universe maker, by this logic, requires a universe maker maker, and a maker maker maker, and so on ad infinitum. It's not a particularly compelling argument.



Ja, a metaphysical entity not subject to the laws of cause/effect is necessary to end the cycle. Which is what theism provides.

Iraq was a threat, if allowed to acquire nuclear weaponry, they would have a leg up on all negotiations. It's not nice to be bullied around, you know.

Yeah, it would be a dreadful thing to bully another nation by invading and occupying it on the basis of spurious reports concerning nuclear weaponry.

Yeah, it would be a dreadful thing to bully another nation by invading and occupying it on the basis of spurious reports concerning nuclear weaponry.

And it wouldn't be nice for any nation to have a leg up on anyone on the basis of having the largest nuclear arsenal in the world or being the world's last remaining superpower.

They weren't bullying us around, and they weren't going to get WMDs. THat was a lie started by Sadam so he could stay in power. If the citizens knew he was pretty much defensless, they would have revolted. Unfortunatly for him, the international communities believed him, and BAM! Saddams out of power. Oooooopppppsssss.



Hindsight is always 20/20 :D

Mods, requesting a lock and restart. I want to restart this w/o religion getting involved.

OR the Iraq War.....

Would you show me this evidence?



In point of fact, the Bible has shown itself to be centuries ahead of mankind in numerous scientific observations. It is only in retrospect that man has "discovered" various scientific facts which Scripture plainly referred to centuries before. Such internal evidence of Biblical inspiration bolsters not only our own faith, but is also useful in bringing faith to the unbeliever.

Consider the following examples cited by Robert Price ["Biblical Truths and Modern Science," Lubbock, TX, n.d.]

The Bible declares that the earth is round and hangs in space (Prov. 8:27; Isa. 40:22; Job 26:7). Man did not discover this fact until 1475. It was discovered by Copernicus.

The Bible declares that air has weight (Job. 28:25). Galileo discovered it in 1630.

The Bible declares that the earth revolves around the sun (Job 38: 13-14). This was not discovered by man until 1500. Again, Copernicus made this wonderful discovery.

The Bible declares that the winds have regular circuits and that the rain clouds are only evaporated water (Ecc. 1:6-7). Man did not discover this until 1630.

The Bible declares that there is great empty space in the north without stars (Job 26:7). Not until Lord Rosse invented his treat telescope did man discover this remarkable scientific fact.

The Bible declares that messages can be sent forth by "lightnings" or electricity (Job 38:35). Lightning is the only word the Hebrews had for electricity. Modern radio proves the Biblical scientific fact.

The Bible declares that God has measured and weighed the ingredients of every substance He has created (Isa. 40:12). Only recently chemists have discovered that all substances to combine chemically must be weighed or measured exactly as they will only combine in exact proportions.

The Bible declares that the stars innumerable (Gen. 15:5; Jer. 33: 22). Hipparchus said there were only 1,022 stars. Ptolemy said there were 1,026. Galileo was the first to teach they could not be numbered.

The Bible declares that the life of the flesh is in the blood (Lev. 14:12). William Harvey did not discover this truth until 1615.





Just a few.

OR the Iraq War.....

Sorry... :(

Ja, a metaphysical entity not subject to the laws of cause/effect is necessary to end the cycle. Which is what theism provides.
Well I'm not really addressing the philosophy of theism here, since both of us probably know we're not going to change each other's minds if we tried. Rather, I was offering my analysis of the argument itself.

Gravity might be a solid law of physics, but "stuff falls down" isn't an airtight defense for it.

In point of fact, the Bible has shown itself to be centuries ahead of mankind in numerous scientific observations. It is only in retrospect that man has "discovered" various scientific facts which Scripture plainly referred to centuries before. Such internal evidence of Biblical inspiration bolsters not only our own faith, but is also useful in bringing faith to the unbeliever.

Thanks for that uncited crap. There is no internal evidence in the bible, and you cannot push your beliefs on me or anyone else who doesn't believe your religion.

I'll refute your bible.

The contradictions in the bible:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

http://dim.com/~randl/tcont.htm