Tolerance versus Bigotry? Easy!!!

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-08-27 09:38pm

Graeme Dice wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Because those books are no longer considered science literature. They are now considered historical literature, and you will not see them being used as reference texts in any legitimate science faculty in the world. The Bible, on the other hand, is still employed as a source of ethics despite its horrendous pre-medieval values. That would be akin to retaining Aristotle's teachings about innate deceleration in a modern science textbook (for any purpose other than pointing out how wrong they are).
Such pointing out can easily be done without removing whole passages, and leaving them in can make it far easier to do so as all the information is contained in one place. I would support a heavily annotated version, similar to high-school Shakespeare texts long before I would remove whole sections.

Even when those sections glorify genocide or encourage people to kill others for not living as they do?

If Christians are tired of hearing people like me excoriate the Bible for being a worthless pile of evil intolerant rants left over from the detritus of primitive savage tribal societies, then they should take action. Otherwise, accept the criticism because it ain't going to stop.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-08-27 09:41pm

Graeme Dice wrote:I was asking USAF Ace to prove his assertion that the Bible stated that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the Earth.

In Joshua, the Sun and Moon stop their movement in the sky for a whole day at God's command. If we take the Bible literally, this means that they move and the Earth doesn't (either that, or the Earth stopped its rotation with no ill effects, which is just as bad from a scientific standpoint).

In the New Testament, Satan takes Jesus up to the highest mountain, from where he can see all the kingdoms of the Earth. Again, if you take it literally, this obviously means that the world is flat.

The Bible, when taken literally, does say that the Earth is flat, has four corners (as mentioned elsewhere), and is immobile (supported on "pillars", no less), with the Sun and Moon moving above. If you don't take it literally that's fine, but understand that a lot of people do take it literally, hence the importance of showing them how utterly stupid that approach is.

Bryan · Post by **Bryan** » 2002-08-27 10:08pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Bryan wrote: How is it "intolerant" to identify gaping logical holes in creationism or serious ethical problems with the Bible? We aren't making blanket generalizations; we are making specific criticisms, which we can back up with logic and facts.
I concede some are not making blanket generalizations but others are. USAF for example called me a fundamentalist, which I have said I am not.

It seems if you defend something about religion you get labeled a fundamentalist.

No, we ridicule them because they are intrinsically ridiculous, and we can provide detailed explanations of what is logically, ethically, or factually wrong with them. It is Christian fundamentalists who ridicule anything they don't happen to agree with.
I studied evolution for quite a while last year, granted its not as in depth as many others, but we'll be studying it a lot more this coming school year. I've done numerous projects on it, and I even did a presentations on how humans evolved and why they evolved.

I know what I am talking about when it comes to evolution.

Of course not, because you'll get your ass handed to you by any competent debater.
How so? Becuase I find atheism to be wrong? What if the greatest debater in the world was a fundamentalist Christian and handed atheists their ass?

That's because your opinion is all you have. We have more, and you're just jealous.
Well, no, that's not accurate. I'm intelligent, and as I said I am quite familiar with evolution. I probably have a greater understanding of it then many of the atheists or pro-evolution supporters here.

No one's insulting all Christians as a group. However, we do insult people who come here and make ignorant, bigoted, or just plain stupid statements.

And that is by no means limited to Christians.

THis board is populated mainly by atheists or agnostics is it not? So whenever I hop into a debate here it'll probably be alone. It's always easy to say you've "won" a debate when its 10/20/30/etc against 1 or 2.

What I find that I can't accept with evolution is that we evolved from single celled organisms and before that from proteins and complex molecules IIRC. It just strikes me as completley unlikely that an organism as sophisticated as a human or even a fish! could evolve over a few billion years. It may sound like a lot, but it really isn't.

I accept human evolution based on adapatation such as from Millenium Man to modern Homo Sapiens, as that has the greatest amount of support.

That's why I feel a supernatural being, God if you will, created the Earth and then set Earth on a track.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-08-27 10:23pm

Bryan wrote:
What I find that I can't accept with evolution is that we evolved from single celled organisms and before that from proteins and complex molecules IIRC. It just strikes me as completley unlikely that an organism as sophisticated as a human or even a fish! could evolve over a few billion years. It may sound like a lot, but it really isn't.

I accept human evolution based on adapatation such as from Millenium Man to modern Homo Sapiens, as that has the greatest amount of support.

That's why I feel a supernatural being, God if you will, created the Earth and then set Earth on a track.

daaa

A prime case of missing the whole Evolution point. I wish they stopped giving courses with the breakfast cereals.

A BILLION YEARS IS A LOT. Repeat that several times. Better than that, start counting now and only end when reaching that number.

WE DO NOT NEED FOSSILS TO SUPPORT EVOLUTION
All the evidence is in the DNA. We share the genes of fishes and rats, wether you like it or not.

EVEN IF WE DON'T NEED THEM, WE HAVE THEM
consult any scientific literature about the subject

The organism of Man is not complicated. It has specialized according to that survival of the fittest thing you might have HEARD.

BUT CLEARLY NOT UNDERSTOOD

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-08-27 11:01pm

I concede some are not making blanket generalizations but others are. USAF for example called me a fundamentalist, which I have said I am not.

BLANKET GENERISLATIONS! ##$%#%

Please explain to me Bryan how you can generlise when refering to just you, JUST You, Are their clones of you running around we don't know about? To call YOU a Fundmentlist is not a Blanket Generlisation

Here is whata Blanket Generlization looks like as it seems YOU don't know

All Fundmentlists are Morons-That is a Blanket Generlization
However
Bryan is a Moron-IS NOT a generlization, its call you a moron, JUST you

I studied evolution for quite a while last year, granted its not as in depth as many others, but we'll be studying it a lot more this coming school year. I've done numerous projects on it, and I even did a presentations on how humans evolved and why they evolved.

I know what I am talking about when it comes to evolution.

And yet here

What I find that I can't accept with evolution is that we evolved from single celled organisms and before that from proteins and complex molecules IIRC

You seem to say otherwise, If you DID understand Evolution you would not make staments such as I can't accept, Its not a religious belief Captian Brillant, Its a Scientific Theory that has a hell of alot of evidance to back it up

And to get back to the first part

I know what I am talking about when it comes to evolution.

Realy? Can you name the probabilty numbers of ammo-acids forming in the early soup? The make-up of and amount of said soup? How fish moved onto land, What was the first living thing on land? How Bio-eletical systems can come into being? Shall I go on or prehaps do you want to talk with the other 90% of the Board, that already went through School, and beyond mear high school teaching and had to write collage papers on the subject and presued it outside normal means? Prehaps you should talk with those who where part of Debate teams during Collage and this is one of the subjects that came up? Prehaps(So far this has all been general, heres somthing spefic) you should ask somone who had said topic come up, Had three months to prepare and WON both a good mark and the Debate itself in favor of Evolution where the teacher even allowed the use of the Bible as quoutable proof(Not like they do in RL)

How so? Becuase I find atheism to be wrong? What if the greatest debater in the world was a fundamentalist Christian and handed atheists their ass?

What if down was up, Up was down and Money grew on Trees and there where Candy-Cane Foresets and gingerbread houses
Tis so pathetic its not even funny, one could call it the greatest appela to authority, Or the ultimate, well you just wait till my big bro is here cause he will kick your ass

Well guess what he's not coming.

Well, no, that's not accurate. I'm intelligent, and as I said I am quite familiar with evolution. I probably have a greater understanding of it then many of the atheists or pro-evolution supporters here.

As I said, THAT I several dought

THis board is populated mainly by atheists or agnostics is it not? So whenever I hop into a debate here it'll probably be alone. It's always easy to say you've "won" a debate when its 10/20/30/etc against 1 or 2

Fact of Life Kid Learn it, Some of us Deal with it all the time, I used to do computer work for a Local Church Despite being Atheist and the Preachers contuied attemtps to convert me(He normaly brought back-up) and I did not say anything untill the last week of when I was working for him and he brought the whole choir(lititerly) to talk to me about God, Well suffice it to say it was not a pretty picture as he had mostly repeated himself I was easily able to prepare a counter-strike of my own and ripped apart his aurgments one by one in front of his Choir leaving him sputtering and repeating himself, when I busted out my old books and pointed out the logic flaws he had commited he was left speechless(To be fair I HAD prepare for this and he was not epecting it as I had been extremly repectful up to this point) Two weeks later I found out two memebers of the Choir had left the Church one of which had go so far as to activlty declare himself agnotisic

None of the above is true but its a nice story don't you think(Well except for the work and the picking apart of the preachers aurgments however no Choir was present sad to say)

But its severs my points well

But back to the subject most of us learn to deal with it when outnumbered, Sometimes you ask for help(But not go screaming to another board as some have done) or you ask somone else to review your aurgments or back you up a bit,

You deal with it, you move on and thats it

That's why I feel a supernatural being, God if you will, created the Earth and then set Earth on a track.

So he's an Intellgent Desgin Beliver

To the rest of you, try not to be to hard on the kid, his arrogent but his not stupid he might learn somthing

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-08-28 12:05am

Bryan wrote:I concede some are not making blanket generalizations but others are. USAF for example called me a fundamentalist, which I have said I am not.

If you think creationism makes sense, you might as well be a fundamentalist.

It seems if you defend something about religion you get labeled a fundamentalist.

Strawman.

I studied evolution for quite a while last year, granted its not as in depth as many others, but we'll be studying it a lot more this coming school year. I've done numerous projects on it, and I even did a presentations on how humans evolved and why they evolved.

I know what I am talking about when it comes to evolution.

Effort does not necessarily equal success. I know they give marks for effort when you're a high school kid, but you've got to trust me when I tell you that this practice stops once you get into the real world.

Nobody cares if you did a little kiddie school project on evolution. The fact is that you have not demonstrated any knowledge of it, so your claims of study are worthless.

Darth Wong wrote:Of course not, because you'll get your ass handed to you by any competent debater.
How so? Becuase I find atheism to be wrong? What if the greatest debater in the world was a fundamentalist Christian and handed atheists their ass?

Not going to happen, because fundamentalist Christianity is rationally inconsistent (and this is ridiculously easy to demonstrate, given the pathetic level of consistency in the Bible). Therefore, it is impossible for someone to promote it and win a debate against a competent foe to the satisfaction of an intelligent audience.

Darth Wong wrote:That's because your opinion is all you have. We have more, and you're just jealous.
Well, no, that's not accurate. I'm intelligent, and as I said I am quite familiar with evolution. I probably have a greater understanding of it then many of the atheists or pro-evolution supporters here.

It's always a bad sign when someone tries to compliment himself as a way of building credibility.

THis board is populated mainly by atheists or agnostics is it not? So whenever I hop into a debate here it'll probably be alone. It's always easy to say you've "won" a debate when its 10/20/30/etc against 1 or 2.

Strange how no one recognized that over at your SB.com stomping grounds when ranting incessantly about how I had to participate in their discussion board or I must be a "coward", eh? OK, if you want to make that complaint, then fine. Put your money where your mouth is. I challenge you to one-on-one debate via E-mail.

What I find that I can't accept with evolution is that we evolved from single celled organisms and before that from proteins and complex molecules IIRC. It just strikes me as completley unlikely that an organism as sophisticated as a human or even a fish! could evolve over a few billion years. It may sound like a lot, but it really isn't.

If you're ever in Toronto, drop by sometime. I'll lend you five bucks so you can go downtown and beg a fucking clue off someone. The fact that you personally "can't accept" something or that it "strikes" you as wrong does not constitute a legitimate criticism. You are attempting to disprove scientific fact and theory with vague subjective gut feelings.

I accept human evolution based on adapatation such as from Millenium Man to modern Homo Sapiens, as that has the greatest amount of support.

So you accept that evolution occurs, but you don't accept that it works beyond certain limits? How profoundly illogical of you. And what makes you think there is more evidence for that particular stage of human evolution than there is for evolution elsewhere in the animal kingdom?

That's why I feel a supernatural being, God if you will, created the Earth and then set Earth on a track.

Leap in logic.

Much to learn, you still have.

Bryan · Post by **Bryan** » 2002-08-28 11:19am

Darth Wong wrote:
Bryan wrote:I If you think creationism makes sense, you might as well be a fundamentalist.
Why? And what of all the intelligent fundamentalists? I know you'll get upset when I mention this but what about someone like Pat Robertson? He's a very intelligent man, though I don't agree with him a great deal on how he runs the CC.

I don't agree with fundamentalism, I'm not a fundamentalist. I don't know how many times I can say it. I'm pretty sure I know what I am when it comes to religion.

Strawman.
It's true though.

Nobody cares if you did a little kiddie school project on evolution. The fact is that you have not demonstrated any knowledge of it, so your claims of study are worthless.
You want me to write a 100 page essay on it or something?

Not going to happen, because fundamentalist Christianity is rationally inconsistent (and this is ridiculously easy to demonstrate, given the pathetic level of consistency in the Bible). Therefore, it is impossible for someone to promote it and win a debate against a competent foe to the satisfaction of an intelligent audience.
As I said I dislike fumandamentalist Christianity and the evangelism that goes along with it. I'm not a supporter of it but I will jump into a debate when people start insulting all Christians, just not fundamentalists.

It's always a bad sign when someone tries to compliment himself as a way of building credibility.
Well everyone has already made up their own mind becuase I support Christianity...

Strange how no one recognized that over at your SB.com stomping grounds when ranting incessantly about how I had to participate in their discussion board or I must be a "coward", eh? OK, if you want to make that complaint, then fine. Put your money where your mouth is. I challenge you to one-on-one debate via E-mail.
Well I dont recall calling you a coward...

For an email debate, I have exactley 6 days before school starts and I haven't finished all of my summer assignments. That's the primary reason I will decline. The second reason is I just don't want to debate you via email.

If you're ever in Toronto, drop by sometime. I'll lend you five bucks so you can go downtown and beg a fucking clue off someone. The fact that you personally "can't accept" something or that it "strikes" you as wrong does not constitute a legitimate criticism. You are attempting to disprove scientific fact and theory with vague subjective gut feelings.
This I admit that I am using a "gut feeling" to not accept something.

So you accept that evolution occurs, but you don't accept that it works beyond certain limits? How profoundly illogical of you. And what makes you think there is more evidence for that particular stage of human evolution than there is for evolution elsewhere in the animal kingdom?
I can see human and animal evolution occuring and the reasons for its occurance. We adapt, which leads to evolution. I'm fully aware of the theories of how cells became eukaryotic, mitochindria, etc.

As for a certain limit unless there is an enviornmental change I don't see us evolving any more unless we start augmenting ourselves with technology. Some sort of 'evolution' into a cyborg or something along those lines.

Your second question, can you elaborate? You're refering to the evolution from MM to Homo sapiens?

Leap in logic.
It was a statement of what I believe in....

Much to learn, you still have.

We all have much to learn. If you want me to listen, which I can, please don't insult me or ridicule me. I'm much more open to talk to someone who is semi-friendly then someone who is downright rude.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2002-08-28 12:11pm

Bryan wrote: Why? And what of all the intelligent fundamentalists?

contradiction. Choose between intelligent and fundamentalist.

I don't agree with fundamentalism, I'm not a fundamentalist. I don't know how many times I can say it. I'm pretty sure I know what I am when it comes to religion.

I believe you, but you do give them far greater credit they deserve

You want me to write a 100 page essay on it or something?

Nay. Read a good book. The selfish gene, by Richard Dawkins.

As I said I dislike fumandamentalist Christianity and the evangelism that goes along with it. I'm not a supporter of it but I will jump into a debate when people start insulting all Christians, just not fundamentalists.

Careful. Moderate Christians do not feel insultated by Evolution. They understand it. And they NEVER take the Bible literally. Felling insulted says a lot of what you really are.

Well everyone has already made up their own mind becuase I support Christianity...

Not true. Most people realised you do not begin to grasp Evolution. And that's no reason to begin with how clever you are.

This I admit that I am using a "gut feeling" to not accept something.

You value more you gut than hard evidence? Tell that to your teacher and maybe you'll start getting only A's

As for a certain limit unless there is an enviornmental change I don't see us evolving any more unless we start augmenting ourselves with technology. Some sort of 'evolution' into a cyborg or something along those lines.

Right.. Take it calmy..EVOLUTION ONLY HAPPENS IN RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF EVOLUTION.
If the species is living confortably then the evolutionary pressure will be to maintain it's characteristics, as deviations from the norm are equal ore less likely to reproduce. But if something changes which make that deviation important to survival then they will reproduce MORE.

We all have much to learn

True, but some more than others. And in this particular subject you're seriously lacking.

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2002-08-28 12:20pm

Bryan, kid, listen here, straight up.

Clue: Wong's a lot older and smarter than you are. That's not a dig, that's fact. The man's *well educated*. To call him out on any subject means not that you're automatically gonna be wrong, but that you had better damn well come with more than faith, feelings, or pleas to ignorance. Your best intentions to support your faith or give your opinion of the statements of others here will get nuked in even the least aggressive debate if you have nothing rational to back them up with.

Honestly, the closest analogy I can give you is that saying you support any of the tenets of creationism here is like wandering into a sharpshooter's club and announcing that bullets are no match for your sword in a duel, then picking one of them to challenge. Not only do you look ignorant, but you're going to get shot.

When you in your reply asked if it was expected of you to come with an essay supporting your case, yeah, that is what is expected. Ground-breaking evidence that Christianity is right, that evolution is wrong, whatever. Bring that if you ever find it. Come swinging. Learn when to duck. When you don't *find* evidence, you'll probably realize why everyone here seems hostile to you. From my perspective (and I'll assume most people here), having a belief based on nothing and claiming it is superior to a fact based on evidence is *dumb*.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2002-08-28 01:49pm

I want to say something to Bryan,

I can understand why you are feeling unjustly attacked by the people you are debating. The truth is that they are NOT attacking you personally really, just your statements and your apparent beliefs.

The people here tend to get a little direct and call a spade a spade because they have been around the block with this. It's pretty hard to constantly face the same repetitive arguments without getting tired of it, especially when they aren't even logical or replete with evidential components.

The biggest difference you have to understand here, is that you do not seem to be grasping that anything to do with Science can be VERIFIED, and is reproducible for anyone. Therefore if there is a scientific basis, or theory that has been demonstrated to be true, then it has become FACT.

The very essence of Religions are based on the OPPOSITE of fact. Faith. Faith cannot be verified, because the whole point is believing in something you cannot prove.

Now people are not saying that others should be vilified for having faith, because they will all freely admit that we certainly don't know everything, and that the possibility of God existing is NOT ruled out, it is simply not verifiable at this time by our scientific level of understanding.

HOWEVER, the problem is that people who are choosing faith over the things that we DO know for sure are facts, are being illogical and irresponsible. They are ignoring truth in favour of doctrine that they do not wish to admit is either fallible, or metaphoric.

THAT is what gets people's ire up on here, because it really is stupid. There would be no point to have a mind if you arent going to accept that what you see and evaluate as real, is actually that. REAL.

I see too much nitpicking here of what the guys on the board are saying to you. It's like you are trying to find ways to make them look like A) Assholes, or B) mistaken by misconstruing something they said.

This is not meeting them head on in the arguments, it is simply dancing around what they are saying, and what they are saying is unquestionably RIGHT. It's fact they are using as weapons, not faith, or gut feelings.

I myself am NOT an atheist, and I'm not even an agnostic. My personal views would be highly complicated to explain, but most importantly I do not allow my beliefs to be considered sacrosanct. If the world around me contradicts them, then there is a problem with my beliefs. PERIOD. That is the only sensible attitude people should have towards the entire subject of religion.