• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Damn westerners and their creationism.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Kadarin said:
You honestly believe that morals, values, and discipline can only come from religion and belief in God?
Click to expand...

No, definitely not but when this country was created the first colonists the Puritans based the laws and standards of living on Christian views.

sandorski said:
You are completely Wrong on this. Quit digging the hole you're in. God Commanded the people of Israel to commit Genocide against the people living in the Promised Land. Part way through doing it, the Israelis stopped, then God sent a Prophet to condemn then for stopping. It doesn't get more blatant than that.
Click to expand...

That is a fair question so I will answer it.

In the old testament there were instances when God commanded his people to destroy the wicked and the unjust. The penalty for sin in the old testament was death. In that time it was not considered murder but the price of sin.

We can debate the word murder but the online definition is the following, "unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being." Death was within the law of that time and was deserved.

In the new testament, Jesus died as a one time blood sacrifice for all sin. Thus, paid the ultimate price. Jesus preached peace not war. He preached, "blessed are the peacemakers", "the meek will inherit the earth" and "turn the other cheek".

Add random insult here. 😉
 
NinjaTech said:
That is a fair question so I will answer it.

In the old testament there were instances when God commanded his people to destroy the wicked and the unjust. The penalty for sin in the old testament was death. In that time it was not considered murder but the price of sin.

We can debate the word murder but the online definition is the following, "unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being." Death was within the law of that time and was deserved.
Click to expand...
It was not considered murder - by the people, or by God? Was God careful to only command killing when it was ok with the laws of people? How often does God change his mind about this kind of thing?


In the new testament, Jesus died as a one time blood sacrifice for all sin. Thus, paid the ultimate price. Jesus preached peace not war. He preached, "blessed are the peacemakers", "the meek will inherit the earth" and "turn the other cheek".

Add random insult here. 😉
Click to expand...
So why exactly is blood sacrifice even necessary? Why'd God set that as the price for the cleansing of sin? And besides that, what the hell is it with religions and sacrificing people and animals? (Or ritual cannibalism, which Christianity also partakes of.)
 
Jeff7 said:
It was not considered murder - by the people, or by God? Was God careful to only command killing when it was ok with the laws of people? How often does God change his mind about this kind of thing?

So why exactly is blood sacrifice even necessary? Why'd God set that as the price for the cleansing of sin? And besides that, what the hell is it with religions and sacrificing people and animals? (Or ritual cannibalism, which Christianity also partakes of.)
Click to expand...

Nice bait. I like the part about ritual cannibalism. A little bit over the top but bravo. 🙂
 
NinjaTech said:
No, definitely not but when this country was created the first colonists the Puritans based the laws and standards of living on Christian views.



That is a fair question so I will answer it.

In the old testament there were instances when God commanded his people to destroy the wicked and the unjust. The penalty for sin in the old testament was death. In that time it was not considered murder but the price of sin.

We can debate the word murder but the online definition is the following, "unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being." Death was within the law of that time and was deserved.

In the new testament, Jesus died as a one time blood sacrifice for all sin. Thus, paid the ultimate price. Jesus preached peace not war. He preached, "blessed are the peacemakers", "the meek will inherit the earth" and "turn the other cheek".

Add random insult here. 😉
Click to expand...

They were not wicked or unjust. They were merely in the wrong place. It was Genocide, plain and simple.
 
sandorski said:
You are completely Wrong on this. Quit digging the hole you're in. God Commanded the people of Israel to commit Genocide against the people living in the Promised Land. Part way through doing it, the Israelis stopped, then God sent a Prophet to condemn then for stopping. It doesn't get more blatant than that.
Click to expand...

Bunch of pussies. Mo don't play that. No wonder they don't want Christians and stuff in Saudi, bunch of wimps.
 
Last edited:
. . . of representative samples of 1,002 Americans, 1,009 Canadians and 2,011 Britons
Click to expand...

So the sampling size of each population is out of whack as a proportion of the respective population size, e.g. Canada and US sampling size was the same even though the US population is 10x bigger and the UK had twice the sampling size for a fifth of the population. Inconsistent proportions likely yields craptastic survey.

Then to top it off:
The online survey . . .
Click to expand...

Sounds legit.

With that being said I would imagine the essence of the poll is likely correct, i.e. Americans do tend to have a greater proportion of Bible-thumping creationists. However the data is likely not representative nor accurate of actual beliefs. When the data has little integrity any results inferred from that data is relatively meaningless.

Just a few thoughts.
 
zinfamous said:
Congratulations! You have just passed the introductory course: Fallacy 101--how to properly use an illogical and meaningless argument on the internet and display oneself as a fool while doing so.
Kindly proceed to the next course: Fallacy 127--Slippery Slopes and You!
Click to expand...

What is illogical about it I cannot prove there is and you cannot prove that there isn't.

OK then. Prove that there isn't. I'm open.
 
GodlessAstronomer said:
It's logically impossible to prove a negative, dummy. Learn2Logic plz.
Click to expand...

This is quite incorrect, dummy.
Learn2Common sense.

I'll resort to the cheese.

I say there is cheese in the fridge.
You say there isn't cheese in the fridge.

I cannot open the fridge to prove that it is there, and freely admit this.
You claim to know for a fact that there is no cheese.

I stated that if you know there is no cheese then you should prove it.

If you can open the door and there was no cheese in the fridge then you just proved the nonexistance of cheese in the fridge.

Now how is this not possible?

Now back to what I stated originally.
I cannot prove there is and you cannot prove that there isn't. So we are even.
Opinions are meaningless ( both mine and yours ).

There is no proof either way. If I am wrong show me the proof.
 
pcgeek11 said:
This is quite incorrect, dummy.
Learn2Common sense.

I'll resort to the cheese.

I say there is cheese in the fridge.
You say there isn't cheese in the fridge.

I cannot open the fridge to prove that it is there, and freely admit this.
You claim to know for a fact that there is no cheese.

I stated that if you know there is no cheese then you should prove it.

If you can open the door and there was no cheese in the fridge then you just proved the nonexistance of cheese in the fridge.

Now how is this not possible?

Now back to what I stated originally.
I cannot prove there is and you cannot prove that there isn't. So we are even.
Opinions are meaningless ( both mine and yours ).

There is no proof either way. If I am wrong show me the proof.
Click to expand...
No, your claim is that there is invisible cheese that talks to you but doesn't otherwise interact with the real world. My lack of ability to see the cheese when I open the door is due to my lack of belief in said cheese. This is an unfalsifiable belief. You can believe what you like but if you want to invoke the laws of logic you better understand that you don't have a leg to stand on.
 
GodlessAstronomer said:
No, your claim is that there is invisible cheese that talks to you but doesn't otherwise interact with the real world. My lack of ability to see the cheese when I open the door is due to my lack of belief in said cheese. This is an unfalsifiable belief. You can believe what you like but if you want to invoke the laws of logic you better understand that you don't have a leg to stand on.
Click to expand...

Another douche idiot rears her ugly head....

You can`t refute what he is saying so you use meaningless assinine words to try to disprove him.

His basic premise is right on! Your just to stoopid to understand.
You have no proof that there is no supreme being who does not interact with the real world...other than your unbelief.

unfaslsifiable means not capable of being proved false!!


Thus you are still ata cross road -- You cannot disprove and niether can he prove....
Your Laws of Logic are pure BS!!! Based on whose logic?? The logic of an unbeliever or the logic of a believer......

There are many ways to look at this and there NOT one correct right way....
 
JEDIYoda said:
unfaslsifiable means not capable of being proved false!!
Click to expand...
lolcano.gif

JEDIYoda said:
Your Laws of Logic are pure BS!!! Based on whose logic?? The logic of an unbeliever or the logic of a believer......
Click to expand...
lollercoaster.gif
 
JEDIYoda said:
Your Laws of Logic are pure BS!!! Based on whose logic?? The logic of an unbeliever or the logic of a believer......
Click to expand...

This sentence almost made my vomit in my mouth. Dammit I'm glad my country isn't ruled by stupid religious zealots. Seriously though, don't leave school kids.
 
pcgeek11 said:
What is illogical about it I cannot prove there is and you cannot prove that there isn't.

OK then. Prove that there isn't. I'm open.
Click to expand...

Prove that flying pigs don't exist outside the Kuiper belt. Can you? If not, I am perfectly justified in believing they exist.

See how this works buddy? If your standard is to accept propositions as true until they are proven false, you are going to let a whole lot of bullshit into your brain. The default position for any rational person must be to LACK belief in the flying pigs until you are presented with valid evidence that they exist. The same goes for any other magical entity.

Not accepting the claim that flying space pigs exist = a-piggest
Not accepting the claim that an invisible/magical universe creating being exists = a-theist
 
Last edited:
sandorski said:
They were not wicked or unjust. They were merely in the wrong place. It was Genocide, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Have you ever read the bible or do you just randomly make references to things you are clueless about?

The people of that land were called Canaanites.The Canaanites were so evil that they sacrificed children to a pagan god named Gezer. Two of the most well known places of that land were called Sodom and Gomorrah. So many horrible things were happening in Sodom and Gomorrah that the angel of the Lord said, “the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin is so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me.” Genesis 18:20-21

Hmmm ...I have to think up a good insult for you. Does your head rattle when you walk? If someone listened in your ear would they hear the ocean? 🙂
 
NinjaTech said:
Have you ever read the bible or do you just randomly make references to things you are clueless about?

The people of that land were called Canaanites.The Canaanites were so evil that they sacrificed children to a pagan god named Gezer. Two of the most well known places of that land were called Sodom and Gomorrah. So many horrible things were happening in Sodom and Gomorrah that the angel of the Lord said, “the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin is so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me.” Genesis 18:20-21

Hmmm ...I have to think up a good insult for you. Does your head rattle when you walk? If someone listened in your ear would they hear the ocean? 🙂
Click to expand...
Sodom and Gomorrah were in Canaan? The geography is problematic.
 
Theories are abstractions of the relationships between concepts that are only indirectly-measurable, while hypothesis are the more concrete understanding of the world derived from empirical evidence and link that which is measurable to that which is not. Without some level of indirect-measurement required there is no need for a theory, we would simply have fact.

This means that theory is not something verifiable through observation, but a systematic method of understanding complex reality in a way that is parsimoniously comprehensible. If competing theories have also yet to be disproved then there is no 'right' theory, only a trade off between utility and falsifiability -> the more general the theory, the less well it is defined concretely through variables and hypothesis -> the better it is at abstracting reality and the worse it is at being falsifiable.

It is a multidimensional abstraction of reality that, while useful for explanation and at some point empirically disprovable, must reside at some level of abstraction and thus make trade offs between its usefulness and dis-provability.

The point being that a "theory" is neither a super-hypothesis nor is it a half-witted conjecture. Both God and macro evolution are theories on this spectrum and only contradict when someone wants them to.
 
NinjaTech said:
Have you ever read the bible or do you just randomly make references to things you are clueless about?

The people of that land were called Canaanites.The Canaanites were so evil that they sacrificed children to a pagan god named Gezer. Two of the most well known places of that land were called Sodom and Gomorrah. So many horrible things were happening in Sodom and Gomorrah that the angel of the Lord said, “the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin is so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me.” Genesis 18:20-21

Hmmm ...I have to think up a good insult for you. Does your head rattle when you walk? If someone listened in your ear would they hear the ocean? 🙂
Click to expand...

If you know as much about religion, or history, as you claim or knew about relative ethics and morality and ideas of what is "right", I don't you think you would even be trying to have this discussion.
If you had an ounce of common sense, you couldn't really believe in the Bible, or try and support it in the way you are.
 
RSaylors said:
Both God and macro evolution are theories on this spectrum and only contradict when someone wants them to.
Click to expand...

For a theory of god in the generic sense, this is true. However for a specific god with a well constrained, assigned history, contradictions with evolutionary theory come fast and hard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top