lol creationists

[clyde]

You can't assign away human acts as being caused by ideology independent of the actors.

OK you got me, the burning of the witches was a weak example since people can re-interpret the holy book and even change it how they like but the other two examples still remain valid.

This is where the hypocrisy comes in though, at one point you're saying that I can't assign away human acts as being caused by ideology independent of the actors, but in the line below you say it is.

Anyway, I'm out for the day.

It probably has something to do with it. Your morals, your belief system are all part of your identity.

 

[guerilla]

This is where the hypocrisy comes in though, at one point you're saying that I can't assign away human acts as being caused by ideology independent of the actors, but in the line below you say it is.

No, that's not what I am saying. I am saying the ideology OF the actor is what influences his capacity to do scientific research.

You're saying ideology exists independent of the actor. I am saying that without an actor, there is no ideology in practice.

It's lonely around here sometimes.

 

[clyde]

No, that's not what I am saying. I am saying the ideology OF the actor is what influences his capacity to do scientific research.

You're saying ideology exists independent of the actor. I am saying that without an actor, there is no ideology in practice.

It's lonely around here sometimes.

Let me get this straight, if an actor works hard and make contribution to science then his ideology helped him with that (although you have no way of proving this), but if the same actor suddenly go out on an adulterer stoning spree, as a direct result of listening to the King, religious leaders, and reading the holy book, then his ideology has nothing to do with it?

Haha this IS a time-sink. I promise I'll be out soon.

 

[Moxie]

Spend time here
stefbot - YouTube

Ok, I spent more time there and noticed this pertinent video. Fast forward to about 42 minutes in :

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1gmsj9fGrg]Freedomain Radio 425 Anger And Evolution - YouTube[/ame]

He's a pompous douchebag

Define pompous.

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

Define pompous.

Hmm...the expression of self-importance?

Guerilla has made it very clear that almost everybody here is not worthy of his time or a detailed response.

Somebody that calls another person hypocritical, an asshole, or full of shit without any explanation why, is pompous.

 

[lukep]

I am probably at the nexus of deism, alien astronaut theory and indifference.

Interesting. So you believe in a fatherly "Q" but not very strongly. Gotcha.

My own personal definition is closest to something most people here call Agnosticism... I'd believe in a god if the hard evidence turned up. So why do I insist I'm an Atheist?

Because even if we had proof that a god existed who created this shitty planet I wouldn't be very happy with his work. :disgust:

In fact I'd beat his ass and tell him to do it right next time!

Why do people bring up Hitler when attempting to validate or strengthen their point or to invalidate others? It's like an overused and over-the-top fallacy gone haywire.

Never heard of Godwin's Law? It never fails.

 

[guerilla]

Let me get this straight, if an actor works hard and make contribution to science then his ideology helped him with that

I'm not sure I would say helped, but it is part of his psyche, yes?

We can't act independent of who we are.

(although you have no way of proving this)

If he has to use his mind, and if his emotions are active, then I think it stands to reason that what he thinks influences what he does.

but if the same actor suddenly go out on an adulterer stoning spree, as a direct result of listening to the King, religious leaders, and reading the holy book, then his ideology has nothing to do with it?

That's not what I or you have said.

You claim it is the ideology which drives people to act in bad ways. I say that people choose to act in bad ways regardless of ideology, and at best, ideology only contributes to it, it doesn't drive it.

You can't have Islam without actors. You can have actors without Islam. Capice?

Let me put this another way.

There are like more than 1 billion muslims in the world. How many have, and will stone another person to death? If Islam drives them, then why aren't they all doing it?

Yeah.

 

[IceToEskimos]

Ok, I spent more time there and noticed this pertinent video. Fast forward to about 42 minutes inFreedomain Radio 425 Anger And Evolution - YouTube

This video is garbage, and I'd like my 4 minutes back.

 

[guerilla]

Hmm...the expression of self-importance?

I have you on ignore but back to back you and Moxie had me interested.

I don't care if you think I am pompous, and you're welcome to call me any names you like. There are plenty of people here who know my character, I am pretty sure it makes you look worse than whatever you're calling me.

Taking the argument personal shows that you probably don't have much of an argument to begin with. If your reasoning is strong, you don't need to attack my character.

Guerilla has made it very clear that almost everybody here is not worthy of his time or a detailed response.

Not almost everybody, and I did give you long responses on many occasions. But you argue like an autistic, and I can't write thousand word posts to you, and am definitely not incentivized to do so by the fact you seem to have made ZERO intellectual progress since I started.

Are you really trying to argue that I OWE you detailed responses?

I don't. People participate in these convos voluntarily, and when it doesn't suit them for WHATEVER REASON, they withdraw.

If you made good posts, were succinct, argued something smart, I would be more inclined to engage you. But I have already spent hours of my life posting to you, for what? You're in the same state of thinking you were when I began.

Somebody that calls another person hypocritical, an asshole, or full of shit without any explanation why, is pompous.

I have explained it. You choose not to accept my opinion. Your opinion is thus, I am pompous. Good. We're on the same page. I think you're not very smart and you think I am arrogant.

Now what?

PS, back on ignore, the last question was rhetorical. You're still not "getting it".

 

[JakeStratham]

I'd believe in a god if the hard evidence turned up. So why do I insist I'm an Atheist?

Luke, could you ever be compelled to believe a thing in the absence of "hard evidence?" More to the point, is it possible to know a thing without having evidence of it? Further, can you think of examples in which "hard evidence" has led us to know things that we now understand to be untrue?

 

[productionhead]

God is dead. - Nietzsche


Nietzsche is dead. - God

Case closed

 

[mattseh]

Luke, could you ever be compelled to believe a thing in the absence of "hard evidence?"

It seems belief doesn't need evidence according to number 2 But it does seem irrational to decide something to be worth believing without proof. I'm sure everyone, including me is guilty of it though, nobody is perfect.

Further, can you think of examples in which "hard evidence" has led us to know things that we now understand to be untrue?

An example I can think of is Newton's law of gravity. Evidence was all around, but when instruments improved, Einstein's work was able to be proven and so superseded it.

 

[Russ86]

Interesting. So you believe in a fatherly "Q" but not very strongly. Gotcha.

My own personal definition is closest to something most people here call Agnosticism... I'd believe in a god if the hard evidence turned up. So why do I insist I'm an Atheist?

Because even if we had proof that a god existed who created this shitty planet I wouldn't be very happy with his work. :disgust:

In fact I'd beat his ass and tell him to do it right next time!



Never heard of Godwin's Law? It never fails.

Luke, I think you fit the definition of an atheistic agnostic.

Agnostic atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

I have you on ignore but back to back you and Moxie had me interested.

At least we have the similarity that we're not completely honest when we say "I'm done" with something.

I don't care if you think I am pompous, and you're welcome to call me any names you like. There are plenty of people here who know my character, I am pretty sure it makes you look worse than whatever you're calling me.

As you've already very clearly stated in this thread, "looks" are of no importance to me on the forum of Wickedfire. I only injected ad hominem after you used it one too many times for my liking.

Taking the argument personal shows that you probably don't have much of an argument to begin with. If your reasoning is strong, you don't need to attack my character.

I can only hope you see the hypocrisy in that statement.

Not almost everybody, and I did give you long responses on many occasions.

To be honest the only detailed explanation you gave me in this forum was in the long post earlier in this thread. In which I responded to, hoping for a genuine rebuttal that challenged my current intellect. Apparently that is lazy.

Are you really trying to argue that I OWE you detailed responses?

If your purpose on this (or any) forum is to serve yourself, of course you don't owe me anything. You seem to neglect the fact that my intellect is young and flexible, and that I'm willing to change my beliefs based on a convincing argument against them. I understand this all has absolutely no meaning to you, but it does to me. I don't counter your arguments because I'll always counter them, I counter them because I don't understand them.

I'd just hope that you'd attempt to have the same understanding against mine, but from your replies I don't get that vibe.

I have explained it. You choose not to accept my opinion. Your opinion is thus, I am pompous. Good. We're on the same page. I think you're not very smart and you think I am arrogant.

Now what?

My opinion that you're pompous stems from the evidence in this thread.

You have attempted to explain yourself, and I provided a rebuttal towards your explanation. You didn't reply because either you're wrong, or it's just not worth your time (pomposity).

PS, back on ignore, the last question was rhetorical. You're still not "getting it".

As you once told me, fuck off. You'll read this whether you reply to it or not.

 

[clyde]

I'm not sure I would say helped, but it is part of his psyche, yes?

We can't act independent of who we are.

You have to, when it comes to science.

You claim it is the ideology which drives people to act in bad ways. I say that people choose to act in bad ways regardless of ideology, and at best, ideology only contributes to it, it doesn't drive it.

You can't have Islam without actors. You can have actors without Islam. Capice?

Let me put this another way.

There are like more than 1 billion muslims in the world. How many have, and will stone another person to death? If Islam drives them, then why aren't they all doing it?

Yeah.

That's the nail in the coffin. Everywhere Islam is practised, Muslims DO stone people to death. Nazism is another ideology that actually drives people to do bad things (not just a factor). Ahinsa of Hinduism drives Indians to become vegetarians.

I will quote Steven Weinberg to conclude, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.".

 

[guerilla]

You have to, when it comes to science.

Can you explain this please?

That's the nail in the coffin. Everywhere Islam is practised, Muslims DO stone people to death.

Islam is practiced in Canada, and no one is getting stoned to death.

Same thing with the UK and many countries in western Europe.

I will quote Steven Weinberg to conclude, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.".

I don't know who you're quoting, but that's just rhetoric. It doesn't mean or prove anything.

 

[productionhead]

clyde, I don't think you know what you are talking about. Please don't speak in absolute terms, such as saying "Everywhere Islam is practiced..."

First of all, stoning is legal in "seven countries including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan, Iran, Yemen, the United Arab Emirates, and some states in Nigeria."

There are many more countries where Islam is practiced where it is not legal, these other countries populations outnumbering the ones listed.

Obviously you have never been in a country which is predominantly Muslim, and your whole view of them is shaped by what bits and pieces get funneled to you through your media channels.

 

[IceToEskimos]

I grew up in Yonkers, New York, and when I was a little boy, I used to ride the bus with my grandfather into the Bronx to see the Yankees play all the time. While we were waiting for the bus, my grandfather would tell me stories about how he used to ride the same bus with my father when he was a boy to go see Joe DiMaggio and Mickey Mantle when they were playing for the Yankees. Once we got on the bus, my grandfather would tell me about how his father took him to go see Babe Ruth and Lou Gherig play when he was a little boy, and I would be amazed.

To be a part of some kind of lineage and tradition like that was something wonderful to me, and I was indoctrinated fully. I came to believe at an early age that the New York Yankees were the greatest baseball team ever despite the fact that all of this happened in the 80's and I don't think the Yankees ever won a game I was at.

My faith in the Yankees is very similar to religious faith in that it is not based on fact, and persists in spite of overwhelming evidence against it.

New Atheists approach the issue of religious preference with the same dreamy misinformation that a Red Sox fan has in hand when he tries to convince me that Ted Williams was a better hitter than Mickey Mantle. He thinks that the fact that Ted hit .400 matters and is capable of reaching me, when nothing could be farther from the truth. I am aware of the statistics but they do not change my opinion, and they never will.

I pity anyone who spends their life fighting an unwinnable war against an enemy that does not care about the battle.

Go Yankees.

 

[Moxie]

Hmm...the expression of self-importance?

Guerilla has made it very clear that almost everybody here is not worthy of his time or a detailed response.

Somebody that calls another person hypocritical, an asshole, or full of shit without any explanation why, is pompous.

Well I was pretending to act like Guerilla, not really asking for a definition. I would say that in the past he has spent a lot of time replying to people, but he clearly has a preference for conversations patterned after classrooms from the 1950s, with him assuming the role of the teacher.

Most people realize that if you act "controversial", or come across as a "know-it-all", or whatever else, that this will prompt replies from others where they at least attempt to act the same way. If you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen and all that, but apparently the only reply Guerilla deems appropriate is "Yes master Guerilla, you are 100% correct. Can I join your cult?"

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

Well I was pretending to act like Guerilla, not really asking for a definition. I would say that in the past he has spent a lot of time replying to people, but he clearly has a preference for conversations patterned after classrooms from the 1950s, with him assuming the role of the teacher.

Most people realize that if you act "controversial", or come across as a "know-it-all", or whatever else, that this will prompt replies from others where they at least attempt to act the same way. If you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen and all that, but apparently the only reply Guerilla deems appropriate is "Yes master Guerilla, you are 100% correct. Can I join your cult?"

How foolish of me.