Just Watched 'Jesus Camp'

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Nebben

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Nebben
I'm sorry, please tell me where in that post I said that? Because I very clearly did not. The 'halfway-there' bit did not refer specifically to creationism. I was contrasting fundies to Christians that don't know anything about their faith and don't change anything in their lives to reflect said faith. Which was my point: I view fundies with higher regard than your average sometimes-churchgoer that doesn't have any idea what his beliefs entail. Somehow, you pulled Catholicism out of that, which really has nothing to do with it.

You also either can't come to terms with, or are simply ignoring, the fact that a large number of atheists define their views exactly as I have in this thread. The root words are really fantastic and interesting, but that doesn't equate to the current working definition of the word as far as atheists regard it. If you'd like to invent a new word for me to use specifically, be my guest.

Don't bother arguing with Vic. In his mind he's always right.

I get that feeling.

Not really, Vic has a good point. Agnostics have the only intellectually honest response to religion. We don't have enough evidence either way on the existence of God. It's the ones who believe there is no god and believe there is a god who are leaping to conclusions based on insufficient evidence.

Vic does have an excellent point. And in his defense, I quite often find Vic's posts to be logical and intelligent.

 

[bamacre]

As I see it, I do not understand how the theory of evolution conflicts with, at least my, religious beliefs. In fact, as I understand evolution, I'm quite sure it does not conflict with my religious beliefs at all.

And this...

Originally posted by: Nebben
Because to me, it seems the difference is that the fanatics/fundies cling to the entirety of the Bible, denying scientific fact and basic logic, while the "real Christians" just deny the really whacked-out stuff.

To be honest, I've always had MORE respect for fundies than the halfway-there Christians who just go to church now and then and don't have a clue about the OT (or much from the NT, for that matter). Why? Because although I think both categories are pretty much whacked, at least the average pentecostal/fundie/other variety of fanatic sticks with their story. They may have an entirely off-base world view, but they actually do all of the things they feel they should do.

... is perhaps the biggest load of hogwash I've seen on P&N. I mean, seriously, wow. :laugh:

 

[Seekermeister]

DealMonkey,

Why bother? You're mind's obviously made up based on your numerous posts on the topic. By the way, were you in Jesus Camp? I think I saw you speaking in tongues and rolling on the floor uncontrollably in one of the shots.

Gigantopithecus,

Your coccyx.

PS: Since Kent Hovind's now in prison, would you like to take up his cause (or bear his cross?) of offering a quarter mill for anyone offering to provide evidence of evolution?

Now, you gentlemen wouldn't want anyone to come to the conclusion that you are unable to make an intelligent response to my challenge would you? These kind of insults generally come from people that have nothing better to say.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Nebben

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Nebben
I'm sorry, please tell me where in that post I said that? Because I very clearly did not. The 'halfway-there' bit did not refer specifically to creationism. I was contrasting fundies to Christians that don't know anything about their faith and don't change anything in their lives to reflect said faith. Which was my point: I view fundies with higher regard than your average sometimes-churchgoer that doesn't have any idea what his beliefs entail. Somehow, you pulled Catholicism out of that, which really has nothing to do with it.

You also either can't come to terms with, or are simply ignoring, the fact that a large number of atheists define their views exactly as I have in this thread. The root words are really fantastic and interesting, but that doesn't equate to the current working definition of the word as far as atheists regard it. If you'd like to invent a new word for me to use specifically, be my guest.

Don't bother arguing with Vic. In his mind he's always right.

I get that feeling.

Not really, Vic has a good point. Agnostics have the only intellectually honest response to religion. We don't have enough evidence either way on the existence of God. It's the ones who believe there is no god and believe there is a god who are leaping to conclusions based on insufficient evidence.

Vic does have an excellent point. And in his defense, I quite often find Vic's posts to be logical and intelligent.

Seconded, he's probably one of the few reasons I even read this forum.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Nebben

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Nebben
I'm sorry, please tell me where in that post I said that? Because I very clearly did not. The 'halfway-there' bit did not refer specifically to creationism. I was contrasting fundies to Christians that don't know anything about their faith and don't change anything in their lives to reflect said faith. Which was my point: I view fundies with higher regard than your average sometimes-churchgoer that doesn't have any idea what his beliefs entail. Somehow, you pulled Catholicism out of that, which really has nothing to do with it.

You also either can't come to terms with, or are simply ignoring, the fact that a large number of atheists define their views exactly as I have in this thread. The root words are really fantastic and interesting, but that doesn't equate to the current working definition of the word as far as atheists regard it. If you'd like to invent a new word for me to use specifically, be my guest.

Don't bother arguing with Vic. In his mind he's always right.

I get that feeling.

Not really, Vic has a good point. Agnostics have the only intellectually honest response to religion. We don't have enough evidence either way on the existence of God. It's the ones who believe there is no god and believe there is a god who are leaping to conclusions based on insufficient evidence.

Vic does have an excellent point. And in his defense, I quite often find Vic's posts to be logical and intelligent.

Seconded, he's probably one of the few reasons I even read this forum.

i actually think vic is an arrogant douche who likes thinking he's right on a lot of issues and doesn't offer people much respect.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Nebben

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Nebben
I'm sorry, please tell me where in that post I said that? Because I very clearly did not. The 'halfway-there' bit did not refer specifically to creationism. I was contrasting fundies to Christians that don't know anything about their faith and don't change anything in their lives to reflect said faith. Which was my point: I view fundies with higher regard than your average sometimes-churchgoer that doesn't have any idea what his beliefs entail. Somehow, you pulled Catholicism out of that, which really has nothing to do with it.

You also either can't come to terms with, or are simply ignoring, the fact that a large number of atheists define their views exactly as I have in this thread. The root words are really fantastic and interesting, but that doesn't equate to the current working definition of the word as far as atheists regard it. If you'd like to invent a new word for me to use specifically, be my guest.

Don't bother arguing with Vic. In his mind he's always right.

I get that feeling.

Not really, Vic has a good point. Agnostics have the only intellectually honest response to religion. We don't have enough evidence either way on the existence of God. It's the ones who believe there is no god and believe there is a god who are leaping to conclusions based on insufficient evidence.

Vic does have an excellent point. And in his defense, I quite often find Vic's posts to be logical and intelligent.

Seconded, he's probably one of the few reasons I even read this forum.

i actually think vic is an arrogant douche who likes thinking he's right on a lot of issues and doesn't offer people much respect.

Agreed.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
This seems as good of a place as any, so as one whackjob to another, I will repeat a challenge that I have posted before, and not just on this forum. Since so many of you believe that evolution is fact, and shouldn't be questioned, I'm sure that you have a basis for this belief, other than that you were simply taught so. Since you must thoroughly understand the theory, you must also understand the "evidence" that supports this theory, from all of the related fields. If that is the case, then it should be a simple task for you to outline this evidence in a fashion that even a whacko can understand. No need to explain the theory, that is common knowledge...just the facts that make this more than a scientific dogma.

Here is your opportunity to demonstrate your brillance and enlighten the poor ignorant fundies like me.

You don't believe in evolution? Scary stuff.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
This seems as good of a place as any, so as one whackjob to another, I will repeat a challenge that I have posted before, and not just on this forum. Since so many of you believe that evolution is fact, and shouldn't be questioned, I'm sure that you have a basis for this belief, other than that you were simply taught so. Since you must thoroughly understand the theory, you must also understand the "evidence" that supports this theory, from all of the related fields. If that is the case, then it should be a simple task for you to outline this evidence in a fashion that even a whacko can understand. No need to explain the theory, that is common knowledge...just the facts that make this more than a scientific dogma.

Here is your opportunity to demonstrate your brillance and enlighten the poor ignorant fundies like me.

Well if the fossil record isn't enough for you. How about the evolutionary 'leftovers' that we still possess. Why do we have appendixes or wisdom teeth? These are left over traits that we no longer need to survive but our ancestors with larger jaws did.

Why do a lot of people have lower back problems at some point in their life? Because our skeleton wasn't designed from the beginning for upright walking, our skeleton would still prefer to be walking on all fours. Our spine was not made to support the entire weight of our upper bodies on the base of the spine.

It's also a lot more difficult for human women to give birth than say a chimpanzee because of changes to the skeletal structure that had to be made in order to walk upright, this resulted in a much narrower birth canal and thus a much higher chance of complication vs an ape walking on all fours. Human babies have to perform ballet dances inside the womb so they can come out, our ancestors on all fours have a much easier time of it.

There's a wealth of information on this stuff, National Geographic is a great source.

As others have said it's not a matter of belief, it just is.

 

[SuperFungus]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Nebben

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Nebben
I'm sorry, please tell me where in that post I said that? Because I very clearly did not. The 'halfway-there' bit did not refer specifically to creationism. I was contrasting fundies to Christians that don't know anything about their faith and don't change anything in their lives to reflect said faith. Which was my point: I view fundies with higher regard than your average sometimes-churchgoer that doesn't have any idea what his beliefs entail. Somehow, you pulled Catholicism out of that, which really has nothing to do with it.

You also either can't come to terms with, or are simply ignoring, the fact that a large number of atheists define their views exactly as I have in this thread. The root words are really fantastic and interesting, but that doesn't equate to the current working definition of the word as far as atheists regard it. If you'd like to invent a new word for me to use specifically, be my guest.

Don't bother arguing with Vic. In his mind he's always right.

I get that feeling.

Not really, Vic has a good point. Agnostics have the only intellectually honest response to religion. We don't have enough evidence either way on the existence of God. It's the ones who believe there is no god and believe there is a god who are leaping to conclusions based on insufficient evidence.

I disagree. I see nothing 'intellectually dishonest' about professing to belive or disbelieve something. What you're saying here is that the only logical conclusion one can come to on God is the agnostic resonse of 'no comment' and anyone who comes to a different conclusion is deluding themselves with pro theist/athiest propaganda and ultimately lying to themselves. That is patently false. While i respect that evidence may be insufficient for you to make a decision, that does not mean that evidence is not sufficient for one person to make a decision to be christian/atheist/hindu/etc. Claiming that everyone who isn't agnostic is guilty of 'intellectual dishonesty' is bigoted and offensive imo.

It's kinda late so excuse my poor articulation of this, i hope you understand my point anyways.

 

[SuperFungus]

Originally posted by: Nebben

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Nebben

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Nebben

Originally posted by: Vic
I love it when I step away from a thread for a couple of hours and my point is proven for me. Which, in this case, is that the "whack jobs" are a lot more than just the fundie nuts. But what could I have possibly expected from people who think that science is a belief system? (Hint: it's actually a process).

Oh BTW: atheism is by dictionary definition the active disbelief in God, not merely the lack of belief in God. Get your facts straight before you throw rocks from your glass house.

If a person is born into a culture in which nobody ever speaks of, refers to, knows about, or has ever heard of, the idea of God, and he's walking around not believing in God, what do you call him?

As for dictionary definitions, there is more than one listed in any decent dictionary. And if it's such a big deal, I'll go around explaining to people in multiple sentences that I don't believe in God, but I also don't assert that one absolutely doesn't exist.

Such a culture has never existed in all of recorded history. Even ancient cultures prejudicially labeled in these modern days as "polytheistic" had a belief in a one single almighty God who ruled over all the other gods.

That's generally considered to be agnosticism. The only honest belief IMO.

Agnosticism requires knowledge of the concept of God. That would not be the correct label here.

And atheism and agnosticism do not necessarily go at odds with each other.

I'd consider atheism to be as honest a belief as they come, for me, as I don't follow or believe in any deity. If you can please explain to me how that's a problematic term, please do. And do a little more research on the word 'atheist' than looking it up in your Webster. It is very commonly defined (by atheists) as the 'absence of belief' rather than the 'active disbelief', which are not really that far from one another for most people. 'Active disbelief' conveys to me a sense of urgency to run out on the street and tell everyone there's no God, which is pretty far from the actual behavior of most atheists.

There have always been multiple definitions of words like this, and I'm pretty sure you're aware of that, since you profess to have an understanding of the idea. Please don't pretend you're winning an argument with me with something as petty as semantics.

This is ridiculously inaccurate. That is obvious when you look at the roots of the respective words. Agnosticism comes from a gnosticism, or to be in opposition to gnosticism. Gnosticism is the belief in the supernatural. Atheism is a theism, or to be in opposition to theism, where theism is the belief in God. So obviously this hypothetical culture with no knowledge whatsoever of God would be agnostic, whereas atheism requires that the knowledge of the concept of God exist in the first place in order for one to be in opposition of such knowledge.

I don't care about your petty apologist BS. This has nothing to do with "winning" any argument or your precious ego. If you post information that is factually inaccurate, I will call you out on it. Our discussion began you said that any Christian who wasn't a fundamentalist or who didn't believe in creationism was a "half-way there Christian" who "didn't know the OT." When I pointed out that that was factually wrong and cited the 1 billion plus member Catholic church as an example, you fell back on the anecdote of your personal opinions about your brother's faith, I wish I could not care less about. Once that became painfully obvious, you began moving from tangent to tangent in order to protect your precious ego, the last of which is the little semantic trip.
I tell this to everyone here who pulls this same crap. This is not a verbal discussion. You cannot pretend that certain things you posted never occurred. Or would you like me to repost your every word from this thread?

Okay, here's the section from my first post you refer to:

To be honest, I've always had MORE respect for fundies than the halfway-there Christians who just go to church now and then and don't have a clue about the OT (or much from the NT, for that matter). Why? Because although I think both categories are pretty much whacked, at least the average pentecostal/fundie/other variety of fanatic sticks with their story. They may have an entirely off-base world view, but they actually do all of the things they feel they should do.

This is what you just said:

Our discussion began you said that any Christian who wasn't a fundamentalist or who didn't believe in creationism was a "half-way there Christian" who "didn't know the OT."

I'm sorry, please tell me where in that post I said that? Because I very clearly did not. The 'halfway-there' bit did not refer specifically to creationism. I was contrasting fundies to Christians that don't know anything about their faith and don't change anything in their lives to reflect said faith. Which was my point: I view fundies with higher regard than your average sometimes-churchgoer that doesn't have any idea what his beliefs entail. Somehow, you pulled Catholicism out of that, which really has nothing to do with it.

You also either can't come to terms with, or are simply ignoring, the fact that a large number of atheists define their views exactly as I have in this thread. The root words are really fantastic and interesting, but that doesn't equate to the current working definition of the word as far as atheists regard it. If you'd like to invent a new word for me to use specifically, be my guest.

Then a large number of atheists are ridiculously uniformed about what 'atheism' means. Vic is right 100%. Buy a fsking dictionary. Or, if you're too busy (yea, right) go to wikipedia.

Atheism:
"It is commonly defined as the denial of theism, amounting to the positive assertion that deities do not exist, or as the deliberate rejection of theism."

The article does say that some atheists classify 'absence of belief' as atheism but that absence of belief better fits the definition of nontheism (like your hypothetical island person)

Look, I can understand people being uniformed; but when you try and pass yourself off as being informed, get caught, and yet persist in your inaccuracies well then you?re officially a pretentious, all knowing ass. In fact you clearly insist that whatever the definition is you know that a ?large number of atheists? will back you up so now you?re more correct than the dictionary. Sorry to disappoint you but no, the definition of atheism is NOT subjective nor debatable. First off I don?t know where you get off claiming that you get to define the ?current working definition? of atheism. Second, who the hell gave you permission to speak for all atheists about how they define their beliefs? What you need to ?come to terms with? is that you are WRONG. Like 2 + 2 = 5 wrong. Or like your mother?s decision to have children wrong.

Sorry, this kind of thing (ie. belligerent, unapologetic, idiocy) really steams me.

 

[Arcex]

Not to interrupt, but Immaculate Conception, parting the Red Sea, Moses and the Ten Commandments, these are leaps of faith.


Evolution? That is a proven fact. Lets try to keep some perspective please.



PS. Not that I believe in the Immaculate Conception (Mary got knocked up and didn't want to admit it), the parting of the Red Sea (dry spell), or how Moses got the Ten Commandments (a hammer, a chisel, and 10 good ideas for social control), but there's a difference between belief and willful denial of factual evidence.


**EDIT**
Geographical error

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Arcex
Not to interrupt, but Immaculate Conception, parting the Dead Sea, Moses and the Ten Commandments, these are leaps of faith.


Evolution? That is a proven fact. Lets try to keep some perspective please.



PS. Not that I believe in the Immaculate Conception (Mary got knocked up and didn't want to admit it), the parting of the Dead Sea (dry spell), or how Moses got the Ten Commandments (a hammer, a chisel, and 10 good ideas for social control), but there's a difference between belief and willful denial of factual evidence.

FYI

It was the Red Sea, not the Dead Sea.

They were escaping Egypt.

:light:

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Arcex
Not to interrupt, but Immaculate Conception, parting the Dead Sea, Moses and the Ten Commandments, these are leaps of faith.


Evolution? That is a proven fact. Lets try to keep some perspective please.



PS. Not that I believe in the Immaculate Conception (Mary got knocked up and didn't want to admit it), the parting of the Dead Sea (dry spell), or how Moses got the Ten Commandments (a hammer, a chisel, and 10 good ideas for social control), but there's a difference between belief and willful denial of factual evidence.

FYI

It was the Red Sea, not the Dead Sea.

They were escaping Egypt.

:light:

I saw a program on the History Channel or maybe Discovery that used a computer model to explain that the Red Sea could have been parted in such a way by an earthquake due to the unique geologic features of the area where Moses was thought to have crossed.

 

[Arcex]

Oops, thanks for the heads up, fixed it.


That's what I get for spending all morning reading about the Dead Sea scrolls.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Now, you gentlemen wouldn't want anyone to come to the conclusion that you are unable to make an intelligent response to my challenge would you? These kind of insults generally come from people that have nothing better to say.

Given your history here, I believe my response was highly intelligent: WHY BOTHER? It's a waste of everyone's time talking to you about evolution. 'Nuff said.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: SuperFungus
I disagree. I see nothing 'intellectually dishonest' about professing to belive or disbelieve something. What you're saying here is that the only logical conclusion one can come to on God is the agnostic resonse of 'no comment' and anyone who comes to a different conclusion is deluding themselves with pro theist/athiest propaganda and ultimately lying to themselves. That is patently false. While i respect that evidence may be insufficient for you to make a decision, that does not mean that evidence is not sufficient for one person to make a decision to be christian/atheist/hindu/etc. Claiming that everyone who isn't agnostic is guilty of 'intellectual dishonesty' is bigoted and offensive imo.

It's kinda late so excuse my poor articulation of this, i hope you understand my point anyways.

1.) That's precisely what I'm saying and 2.) You're actually claiming the evidence is subjective? Wow, that's a news flash to me. I thought evidence was evidence and either you have it or you don't.

 

[spittledip]

Seems to me that all types of fundamentalists of one kind or the other are posting in this thread...

 

[Seekermeister]

Arcex,

Evolution? That is a proven fact. Lets try to keep some perspective please.

Apparently, you felt compelled to add yourself to the list of those who are only able to reiterate their beliefs, without supporting them with any substance. While some of the events in the Bible do require a degree of faith, there is some data to support them. With evolution there is not. I have not even heard a scientist claim that evolution is fact, though some of them would certainly like to think so.

If science is to be given any credibility, then it must be kept in mind what a theory is. If evolution were fact, it would not be termed a theory...except by those that cling to it devoutly. For if evolution is false, the only alternative answer is that God exists, and those of you with neither understanding or faith couldn't stomach that idea. So, rather than simply echo the same tired mantra, be brave and defend your religion. In this case, it doesn't require a weapon, other than your "tongue", but it must be guided by your mind, rather than simply running loose.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Arcex,

Evolution? That is a proven fact. Lets try to keep some perspective please.

Apparently, you felt compelled to add yourself to the list of those who are only able to reiterate their beliefs, without supporting them with any substance. While some of the events in the Bible do require a degree of faith, there is some data to support them. With evolution there is not. I have not even heard a scientist claim that evolution is fact, though some of them would certainly like to think so.

If science is to be given any credibility, then it must be kept in mind what a theory is. If evolution were fact, it would not be termed a theory...except by those that cling to it devoutly. For if evolution is false, the only alternative answer is that God exists, and those of you with neither understanding or faith couldn't stomach that idea. So, rather than simply echo the same tired mantra, be brave and defend your religion. In this case, it doesn't require a weapon, other than your "tongue", but it must be guided by your mind, rather than simply running loose.

You either don't read enough or are in complete denial.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Arcex,

Evolution? That is a proven fact. Lets try to keep some perspective please.

Apparently, you felt compelled to add yourself to the list of those who are only able to reiterate your beliefs, without supporting them with any substance. While some of the events in the Bible do require a degree of faith, there is some data to support them. With evolution there is not. I have not even heard a scientist claim that evolution is fact, though some of them would certainly like to think so.

If science is to be given any credibility, then it must be kept in mind what a theory is. If evolution were fact, it would not be termed a theory...except by those that cling to it devoutly. For if evolution is false, the only alternative answer is that God exists, and those of you with neither understanding or faith couldn't stomach that idea. So, rather than simply echo the same tired mantra, be brave and defend your religion. In this case, it doesn't require a weapon, other than your "tongue", but it must be guided by your mind, rather than simply running loose.

The reason no one can explain evolution to you is that your mind has been so damaged by religion that you refuse to accept even the most basic tenets of science. Thus, it hardly matters whether the discussion is evolution, age of the earth, consciousness etc.

Should I dig up that thread where you didn't want to accept the age of the earth?

 

[Seekermeister]

Martin,

The reason no one can explain evolution to you is that your mind has been so damaged by religion that you refuse to accept even the most basic tenets of science. Thus, it hardly matters whether the discussion is evolution, age of the earth, consciousness etc.

Should I dig up that thread where you didn't want to accept the age of the earth?

I do not recall reading or speaking about the "most basic tenets of science", but if evolution is that fundamental to, and indicative of science as a whole, then it is a house of cards. Actually, I do give certain parts of science credit, but then I'm able to discern which parts those should be.

As I said previously, you never understood what I said in that other thread about the age of the Earth, so what would be the point to rehash it now? However, while you are digging, perhaps I should also locate your statements about the potential of science to know all things, and have unlimited knowledge, like a true god.

I'm not interested in a war of religions, I'm only looking for rational minds to commune with.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Nebben

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Nebben
I'm sorry, please tell me where in that post I said that? Because I very clearly did not. The 'halfway-there' bit did not refer specifically to creationism. I was contrasting fundies to Christians that don't know anything about their faith and don't change anything in their lives to reflect said faith. Which was my point: I view fundies with higher regard than your average sometimes-churchgoer that doesn't have any idea what his beliefs entail. Somehow, you pulled Catholicism out of that, which really has nothing to do with it.

You also either can't come to terms with, or are simply ignoring, the fact that a large number of atheists define their views exactly as I have in this thread. The root words are really fantastic and interesting, but that doesn't equate to the current working definition of the word as far as atheists regard it. If you'd like to invent a new word for me to use specifically, be my guest.

Don't bother arguing with Vic. In his mind he's always right.

I get that feeling.

Not really, Vic has a good point. Agnostics have the only intellectually honest response to religion. We don't have enough evidence either way on the existence of God. It's the ones who believe there is no god and believe there is a god who are leaping to conclusions based on insufficient evidence.

Vic does have an excellent point. And in his defense, I quite often find Vic's posts to be logical and intelligent.

Seconded, he's probably one of the few reasons I even read this forum.

i actually think vic is an arrogant douche who likes thinking he's right on a lot of issues and doesn't offer people much respect.

Agreed.

Meh. I just enjoy heated debate and I expect people to defend their views with logical arguments that demonstrate personal intelligence, and not just circle-jerking group ideology. I'm a staunch individualist, so if you tend to align yourself and your worldview strictly with some group, and your arguments tend to revolve around mass generalizations/stereotypes (for example, all Christians are fundies, or everyone should think the way I think, etc.), or if you tend to think inside the box all the time, well... then we won't get along. I also don't like nihilism or other such pessimistic views about the nature of humanity (i.e., all people are inherently evil, etc.).
Otherwise, if you don't mind expanding your worldview, and if you don't mind healthy debate, then we'll get along just fine. Hell, the person here who has my upmost respect, Moonbeam, is also the person whose views are probably the most opposite of mine (he's a staunch collectivist while I'm a staunch individualist).

edit: and on that note, I typically leave religion threads when Seekermeister enters. I defend freedom of belief, but he's a zealot who is absolutely pointless to argue with. I don't bang my head against a wall.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: Termagant
Many on the secular left have no idea about anything concerning modern sects of Christianity and the variations in religious fervor and belief. You see that ignorance incessantly demonstrated on this very forum.

I almost got laughed off this board when I mentioned the Christian Left. Trust me there is a very large number of leftist Christians. To me Christianity always seemed more at home with poor people and those who actually wallowed in the mud to help them, instead of bothering to ignore the problem and let tithing take care of it.

They're called Lutherans. Just ask any Minnesotan. It's about as Christian Left as one can get.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Arcex,

Evolution? That is a proven fact. Lets try to keep some perspective please.

Apparently, you felt compelled to add yourself to the list of those who are only able to reiterate their beliefs, without supporting them with any substance. While some of the events in the Bible do require a degree of faith, there is some data to support them. With evolution there is not. I have not even heard a scientist claim that evolution is fact, though some of them would certainly like to think so.

If science is to be given any credibility, then it must be kept in mind what a theory is. If evolution were fact, it would not be termed a theory...except by those that cling to it devoutly. For if evolution is false, the only alternative answer is that God exists, and those of you with neither understanding or faith couldn't stomach that idea. So, rather than simply echo the same tired mantra, be brave and defend your religion. In this case, it doesn't require a weapon, other than your "tongue", but it must be guided by your mind, rather than simply running loose.

Good grief, of course evolution is a fact. How do you think we have new breeds of dogs that didn't exist a couple thousand years ago? That's just selective breeding on a short time scale, imagine what would take place over millions of years.

Now if you want to argue more about the origin of species, that's less set in stone. (fossils? ha, I kill me) But evolutionary process is undeniable.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Martin,

The reason no one can explain evolution to you is that your mind has been so damaged by religion that you refuse to accept even the most basic tenets of science. Thus, it hardly matters whether the discussion is evolution, age of the earth, consciousness etc.

Should I dig up that thread where you didn't want to accept the age of the earth?

I do not recall reading or speaking about the "most basic tenets of science", but if evolution is that fundamental to, and indicative of science as a whole, then it is a house of cards. Actually, I do give certain parts of science credit, but then I'm able to discern which parts those should be.

As I said previously, you never understood what I said in that other thread about the age of the Earth, so what would be the point to rehash it now? However, while you are digging, perhaps I should also locate your statements about the potential of science to know all things, and have unlimited knowledge, like a true god.

I'm not interested in a war of religions, I'm only looking for rational minds to commune with.

Actually yes, evolution is pretty solid and very well accepted science, no different in essence from geology or astronomy. The only reason why the fanatical hordes (60% of Americans) object to it is because it belittles their idea of God.

This is purely for my own amusement, but would you mind sharing with me which other areas of science, besides geology and evolution, you don't believe in?