Religious Debate... Again...

Page 8 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Go down

Re: Religious Debate... Again...

Post by tiny tim on Sat Jun 18, 2011 4:21 pm

I think you're missing my point here. The point I am making is that IF God contacted them, he would have told them something that they and everyone they needed to convert would have believed. Basically I am saying that God may have lied to them in the interest of spreading his religion. I also never said there was only one God. Perhaps there are several Gods competing amongst each other for followers. And was the triple post really necessary?

tiny tim
Crimson Cripple

Male Number of posts : 1762
Registration date : 2009-03-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Religious Debate... Again...

Post by Ringleader on Sat Jun 18, 2011 4:30 pm

Uh, I got that, my response was, if God created man, why not implant the idea of him in every human in the first place? Or why make man so skeptical of miraculous events that fly in the face of basic logic and reason the more man learns about the natural world this god supposedly created?

I mean, you've described why Abrahamic religions are prolific, because they 'explain' the basic questions man asks about the universe and is easy to digest, not why god would have made it easy to digest. If Nordic god worship somehow became the dominant religion in the west, we would be having the same discussion about Thor, yet the circumstances would be entirely different, and we don't have to go that far because the fact that there are more then one modern religion, destroys the argument of divinity (why more then one?) and the loving creator, if he loved us, why create this heaven and hell machine that takes in people through the gauntlet of being born, living, and dieing, and somewhere in the midst of that converting to Christianity based on where they were born, and a whole host of influences completely out of their control. It doesn't make any sense when you think about any of this, I'm sorry to trample on peoples beliefs, but thinking THIS in a world so much more grandiose and beautiful then these goat herders could possibly imagine does mankind a great disservice, and I won't have anything to do with it.

He's (she's?) basically punishing everyone that can be arsed to learn about the world that he/she/it created, that contradicts the accounts in the Bible, does that make sense to you? No? Good.
avatar
Ringleader
Crimson Muse

Male Number of posts : 1993
Age : 26
Registration date : 2009-06-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Religious Debate... Again...

Post by tiny tim on Sat Jun 18, 2011 4:47 pm

Ringleader, you are going through this with a scientific view point, correct? So I have a request of you. Prove that there is no Divine Being in the universe.

tiny tim
Crimson Cripple

Male Number of posts : 1762
Registration date : 2009-03-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Religious Debate... Again...

Post by Ringleader on Sat Jun 18, 2011 4:57 pm

LOL, uh, I can't.

The kicker is that I never said I could, and in fact claimed myself to be agnostic on several occasions as well as saying I couldn't disprove god(s) in this thread already.

You don't have to be a scientist to refute many of the Abrahamic tenets and concepts.
avatar
Ringleader
Crimson Muse

Male Number of posts : 1993
Age : 26
Registration date : 2009-06-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Religious Debate... Again...

Post by Carlos Spicyweiner on Sat Jun 18, 2011 4:58 pm

tiny tim wrote:Ringleader, you are going through this with a scientific view point, correct? So I have a request of you. Prove that there is no Divine Being in the universe.
I'd just like to jut in here for a second. There isn't much proof at all (other than literature, which isn't exactly much proof at all) that there is a Divine Being. However, there is a lot of evidence that the species on Earth have grown and evolved over time.
avatar
Carlos Spicyweiner
Minion

Male Number of posts : 803
Registration date : 2008-07-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Religious Debate... Again...

Post by tiny tim on Sat Jun 18, 2011 5:30 pm

Ringleader wrote:LOL, uh, I can't.

The kicker is that I never said I could, and in fact claimed myself to be agnostic on several occasions as well as saying I couldn't disprove god(s) in this thread already.

You don't have to be a scientist to refute many of the Abrahamic tenets and concepts.

The main point I am trying to make here is not that there is a God, but that there MAY be a God. Which you apparently already agree with.

tiny tim
Crimson Cripple

Male Number of posts : 1762
Registration date : 2009-03-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Religious Debate... Again...

Post by Lord Pheonix on Sat Jun 18, 2011 5:31 pm

You guys talk to me every day, don't see why you all still question it.

_________________

avatar
Lord Pheonix
Lord Of The Flames

Male Number of posts : 7569
Registration date : 2008-03-23

View user profile http://crimsonflame.bigforumpro.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Religious Debate... Again...

Post by tiny tim on Sat Jun 18, 2011 5:39 pm

I don't consider you a God, more of an Ultra-Divine Supreme Overlord.

tiny tim
Crimson Cripple

Male Number of posts : 1762
Registration date : 2009-03-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Religious Debate... Again...

Post by Ringleader on Sat Jun 18, 2011 8:39 pm

Carlos Spicyweiner wrote:
tiny tim wrote:Ringleader, you are going through this with a scientific view point, correct? So I have a request of you. Prove that there is no Divine Being in the universe.
I'd just like to jut in here for a second. There isn't much proof at all (other than literature, which isn't exactly much proof at all) that there is a Divine Being. However, there is a lot of evidence that the species on Earth have grown and evolved over time.
This.
avatar
Ringleader
Crimson Muse

Male Number of posts : 1993
Age : 26
Registration date : 2009-06-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Religious Debate... Again...

Post by Lord Pheonix on Sat Jun 18, 2011 9:12 pm

tiny tim wrote:I don't consider you a God, more of an Ultra-Divine Supreme Overlord.


You are still young my Son. You will come to learn in time.

_________________

avatar
Lord Pheonix
Lord Of The Flames

Male Number of posts : 7569
Registration date : 2008-03-23

View user profile http://crimsonflame.bigforumpro.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Religious Debate... Again...

Post by CivBase on Sat Jun 18, 2011 11:03 pm

Ringleader wrote:
CivBase wrote:
Ringleader wrote:Blowing things out of proportion? Isn't that your area of expertise as someone that simply refuses the scientific evidence that refutes your interpretation of macroevolution being a chance phenomenon and not a selective one?
When have I refused scientific evidence?
Right here:

[big code thing]
I never refused that. I challenged you to do something and you did it.

I would like to note, though, that I read the first few examples from that code blurb and they weren't the "natural" creations of species that I requested. They were either purposeful cross-breading or discoveries that hadn't yet been made. I have better things to do with my life, though, so I didn't read the whole thing and will not make the claim that NONE of them fit what I requested. However, simply copying and pasting a large chunk of information from somewhere else without actually checking to see if it fits the argument hardly counts as evidence for your side. You can't call me out for not wanting to spend hours reading through irrelevant information.

Ringleader wrote:Making wild, arbitrary and unsubstantiated claims can also be interpreted as a willingful refusal of scientific evidence:
"If it wasn't an abnormality, pretty much every plant would have sentient aliens on them and Earth's variety would be substantially greater."
Mixing up abiogenesis with Macroevolution is also a refusal of scientific evidence and understanding.
WTF are you talking about? That's not a refusal of scientific evidence, that was a misunderstanding!

It was not at all "wild", "arbitrary", or "unsubstantiated." It was MISINTERPRETED. If you don't stop railing me on that one statement, I'm going to simply stop replying. It was an accident; get over it.

Ringleader wrote:
And when has it refuted my interpretation? And WTF? Macroevolution would only be possible because of mutations. If that's not chance, I don't know what is.

Well, because Natural Selection isn't a chance phenomenon that's sole function is to amount to sentient organisms at it's terminus like you apparently think it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

Natural Selection, the vehicle of Macroevolution, is the polar polar opposite of blind chance.
I understand what Natural Selection is. Stop spitting out information at me; I passed 6th grade biology with flying colors, thank you very much. My point is that Macroevolution is very much based on chance, which is contrary to what you said. You clearly stated that Macroevolution was not a chance phenomenon.

"Isn't that your area of expertise as someone that simply refuses the scientific evidence that refutes your interpretation of macroevolution being a chance phenomenon and not a selective one?"

Mutation, the engine behind Macroevolution, is a process of creating new traits. Natural Selection is the process of destroying the traits which do not best suit the species.

Ringleader wrote:HmmmmNope, after just having reread all your posts, you did not once make the distinction between macroevolution working out and working out at all the way it did. Only recently in Xfire did you do this.
CivBase wrote:... the probability is not for Macroevolution being the correct theory. It would be irrational to assign a probability to that because there are only two possibilities: correct or incorrect. The astronomical probability is for life on earth to have successfully been created via the ideas of Macroevolution. Any scientist, including those who subscribe to the theory, would agree with that.
I corrected myself right there. That was my second response to you.

Hmmm... Yup. You get mad at me for not reading all of the crap you give me, but apparently you're not much better (especially considering I say WAY less than you do).

_________________
avatar
CivBase
Adbot

Male Number of posts : 7336
Location : Etchisketchistan
Registration date : 2008-04-27

View user profile http://pathwaygames.forumotion.net/

Back to top Go down

Re: Religious Debate... Again...

Post by Ringleader on Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:19 pm

Ringleader wrote:
CivBase wrote:
Ringleader wrote:Blowing things out of proportion? Isn't that your area of expertise as someone that simply refuses the scientific evidence that refutes your interpretation of macroevolution being a chance phenomenon and not a selective one?
When have I refused scientific evidence?
Right here:

[big code thing]
I never refused that. I challenged you to do something and you did it.
Oh, ok.

Usually when something like that happens, it's supposed to mean something in a discussion. I guess the same doesn't hold true here. I guess if I do everything you ask, your initial response is to say nothing about it.

I would like to note, though, that I read the first few examples from that code blurb and they weren't the "natural" creations of species that I requested. They were either purposeful cross-breading or discoveries that hadn't yet been made. I have better things to do with my life, though, so I didn't read the whole thing and will not make the claim that NONE of them fit what I requested. However, simply copying and pasting a large chunk of information from somewhere else without actually checking to see if it fits the argument hardly counts as evidence for your side. You can't call me out for not wanting to spend hours reading through irrelevant information.

Well, you assume it's irrelevant, then claim you shouldn't have to spend hours reading through it based on that initial assumption, and that I shouldn't blame you for it, when I'm actually entirely entitled to it.

This is similar to what you did before, when I gave several links citing evidence for macroevolution, and evolution in general, and everything discussed here, and then you refused to read them on the grounds that you thought it was some cheap tactic because I knew you wouldn't read them.........


.....................circles are the desired shape of any theist's argument, even when it doesn't directly pertain to religion it seems.

Ringleader wrote:Making wild, arbitrary and unsubstantiated claims can also be interpreted as a willingful refusal of scientific evidence:
"If it wasn't an abnormality, pretty much every plant would have sentient aliens on them and Earth's variety would be substantially greater."
Mixing up abiogenesis with Macroevolution is also a refusal of scientific evidence and understanding.
WTF are you talking about? That's not a refusal of scientific evidence, that was a misunderstanding!
Incorrect, the claims you made in support of your initial statement go far beyond a simple misunderstanding, bringing up the abiogenesis of life on other planets as support of macroevolution on earth or on any other planet for that matter.

It was not at all "wild", "arbitrary", or "unsubstantiated." It was MISINTERPRETED. If you don't stop railing me on that one statement, I'm going to simply stop replying. It was an accident; get over it.

Misinterpreted? On my part I assume, well not really because as the aforementioned article read, there's no direct link between abiogenesis and evolution, and even having mistakenly drawn that connection demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of both theories as if you wouldn't naturally make any connection between the two if you knew the basics of them. It was indeed arbitrary, wild, and unsubstantiated.

Also thinking that intelligent organisms represent the terminus of the evolutionary progress further demonstrates a lack of understanding in what the theory actually says. Then again, there's really no evidence I could cite in my support that you wouldn't have retroactively found some reason not to read or accept.

I mean, on the one hand, you say it's misinterpreted by me, on the other, it was an accident? So which was it?

Ringleader wrote:
And when has it refuted my interpretation? And WTF? Macroevolution would only be possible because of mutations. If that's not chance, I don't know what is.

Well, because Natural Selection isn't a chance phenomenon that's sole function is to amount to sentient organisms at it's terminus like you apparently think it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

Natural Selection, the vehicle of Macroevolution, is the polar polar opposite of blind chance.
I understand what Natural Selection is. Stop spitting out information at me; I passed 6th grade biology with flying colors, thank you very much. My point is that Macroevolution is very much based on chance, which is contrary to what you said. You clearly stated that Macroevolution was not a chance phenomenon.

Right, because it's not a chance phenomenon:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)

Ringleader wrote:HmmmmNope, after just having reread all your posts, you did not once make the distinction between macroevolution working out and working out at all the way it did. Only recently in Xfire did you do this.
CivBase wrote:... the probability is not for Macroevolution being the correct theory. It would be irrational to assign a probability to that because there are only two possibilities: correct or incorrect. The astronomical probability is for life on earth to have successfully been created via the ideas of Macroevolution. Any scientist, including those who subscribe to the theory, would agree with that.
I corrected myself right there. That was my second response to you.

Hmmm... Yup. You get mad at me for not reading all of the crap you give me, but apparently you're not much better (especially considering I say WAY less than you do).
Well, no, because as you said here: "The astronomical probability is for life on earth to have successfully been created via the ideas of Macroevolution." Macroevolution or any evolution isn't a reductive or improbability creating process.

You can put a blob of bacteria in a petri dish, and observe how many countless variations arise over time through evolution, selecting one of them and calling it an astronomical improbability to have been successfully created via the ideas of macroevolution (or any evolution, as they are they are scalar differences and are one in the same in principle) really doesn't say anything because it's not a retroactive process. This again demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory, and the bulk of your argument.
avatar
Ringleader
Crimson Muse

Male Number of posts : 1993
Age : 26
Registration date : 2009-06-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Religious Debate... Again...

Post by Gauz on Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:44 pm

Lord Pheonix doesn't exist.
avatar
Gauz
Crimson Medic

Male Number of posts : 7687
Registration date : 2009-02-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Religious Debate... Again...

Post by TNine on Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:56 pm

Reality is abstract.

Oh, wait, wrong thread.
avatar
TNine
Minion

Male Number of posts : 1200
Age : 23
Registration date : 2009-02-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Religious Debate... Again...

Post by Lord Pheonix on Thu Sep 08, 2011 9:03 pm

Gauz wrote:Lord Pheonix doesn't exist.



Well fuck you to then

_________________

avatar
Lord Pheonix
Lord Of The Flames

Male Number of posts : 7569
Registration date : 2008-03-23

View user profile http://crimsonflame.bigforumpro.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Religious Debate... Again...

Post by RX on Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:40 pm

There is a Lord, most of ya'll just worship the wrong one.
avatar
RX
Minion

Male Number of posts : 1957
Age : 24
Location : Ancient Kingdom of Norwegia
Registration date : 2008-12-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Religious Debate... Again...

Post by Lord Pheonix on Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:45 pm

RX wrote:There is a Lord


is it me?

_________________

avatar
Lord Pheonix
Lord Of The Flames

Male Number of posts : 7569
Registration date : 2008-03-23

View user profile http://crimsonflame.bigforumpro.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Religious Debate... Again...

Post by RX on Fri Sep 09, 2011 12:55 am

Lord Pheonix wrote:
RX wrote:There is a Lord


is it me?
Indeed.
avatar
RX
Minion

Male Number of posts : 1957
Age : 24
Location : Ancient Kingdom of Norwegia
Registration date : 2008-12-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Religious Debate... Again...

Post by CivBase on Fri Sep 09, 2011 3:05 pm

Sigh... why wont this thread die? Every time it comes up, I'm challenged to respond to Ring's last post... and I could... but I know I shouldn't. If I do, I'll end up wasting away hours and house... again... arguing with someone who isn't going to give in. It's just not worth the time.

_________________
avatar
CivBase
Adbot

Male Number of posts : 7336
Location : Etchisketchistan
Registration date : 2008-04-27

View user profile http://pathwaygames.forumotion.net/

Back to top Go down

Re: Religious Debate... Again...

Post by Felix on Fri Sep 09, 2011 3:20 pm

CivBase wrote:Sigh... why wont this thread die? Every time it comes up, I'm challenged to respond to Ring's last post... and I could... but I know I shouldn't. If I do, I'll end up wasting away hours and house... again... arguing with someone who isn't going to give in. It's just not worth the time.

No offense, but isn't that what you're supposed to do? Debate and argue until someone gives in?
avatar
Felix
Banana

Male Number of posts : 2081
Age : 25
Location : Unlocking Alchemy
Registration date : 2009-02-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Religious Debate... Again...

Post by Gauz on Fri Sep 09, 2011 7:18 pm

If you don't post in the thread, it'll die quicker. Especially if you don't taunt him into responding :/
avatar
Gauz
Crimson Medic

Male Number of posts : 7687
Registration date : 2009-02-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Religious Debate... Again...

Post by CivBase on Fri Sep 09, 2011 9:03 pm

I haven't been posting but it keeps coming back >.<

_________________
avatar
CivBase
Adbot

Male Number of posts : 7336
Location : Etchisketchistan
Registration date : 2008-04-27

View user profile http://pathwaygames.forumotion.net/

Back to top Go down

Re: Religious Debate... Again...

Post by Gauz on Sat Sep 10, 2011 11:23 am

Yeah, but no one is really arguing.

SO it's like the thread is dead, but ppl still post not srs stuff.
avatar
Gauz
Crimson Medic

Male Number of posts : 7687
Registration date : 2009-02-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Religious Debate... Again...

Post by Lord Pheonix on Sat Sep 10, 2011 2:21 pm

*Lord Pheonix whistles non nonchalantly*

_________________

avatar
Lord Pheonix
Lord Of The Flames

Male Number of posts : 7569
Registration date : 2008-03-23

View user profile http://crimsonflame.bigforumpro.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Religious Debate... Again...

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 8 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Back to top


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