Poll: How did human life come about?

[So]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: So
Ass far as I can tell, for the last page, this thread has been an argument about whether or not you're having an argument. Wtf?

Apparently, I took the flamebait, hook, line, and sinker. Sorry 'bout that.


edit: And sorry, I work in finance. Even an error of omission can be a crime in my business (i.e. where if I forget to disclose a pertinent fact, even unintentionally), much less a con (generally considered to be a misrepresentation with intent). At least we know where shadow9d9 stands on ethics!

So long as you had fun with it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I immortalized Vic's version of what a con is for all to enjoy!

Yes, except that you've misrepresented your own position in your own sig, which is that the Bible was originally and intentionally written as such. This is almost comical!

 

[Aquaman]

Check out South Park Episode "Go God Go Part II" season 10.

Ms Garrison has a great explanation about the "Theroy of Eovolution"

Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
"In the meantime, authoritarian atheism ala State-is-God communism killed 100 million people last century."

If Vic actually thinks that "communism"-which the Soviet Union wasn't, was "atheist", then he doesn't know much.. but SURE has a lot of opinions!

What the soviet union used was nothing like Karl Marx's communism. It sure as hell wasn't "atheist."

Is the United States "atheist" as well, because it officially doesn't have a state religion? The United States is a christian country, despite its declaration that it has no religion. That should clue you in a bit.

Btw, I am not atheist : ).

I lived in Soviet Russia up until the age of 6. They did discourage religion but they didn't come to your house and kill you if they found out you read the bible. People celebrated Christmas, Quanza, and Chanukah. But my family kept the Jewishness on a down low because of anti-semetism among the people more than the government.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
I lived in Soviet Russia up until the age of 6. They did discourage religion but they didn't come to your house and kill you if they found out you read the bible. People celebrated Christmas, Quanza, and Chanukah. But my family kept the Jewishness on a down low because of anti-semetism among the people more than the government.

How old are you now? I'm reading my gread-grandfather's autobiography and he was jewish and it was interesting how often he had to hide that he was jewish to even get an education. It was illegal for him to be in certain areas that weren't declared jewish areas. But that was during and in the pale of settlement. Just wondering what time frame you lived there so I can get an idea of how quickly things changed.

 

[Seekermeister]

KurskKnyaz,

I curious, what do you know about the ancient origins of the Russian people?

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
KurskKnyaz,

I curious, what do you know about the ancient origins of the Russian people?

A great robot came down from the sky one day, wielding a hammer and a sickle and told the people to go forth and conquer the Siberian wilderness. In order to facilitate this vision, the giant robot gave them the technological tools of vodka and poor quality bread.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
KurskKnyaz,

I curious, what do you know about the ancient origins of the Russian people?

A great robot came down from the sky one day, wielding a hammer and a sickle and told the people to go forth and conquer the Siberian wilderness. In order to facilitate this vision, the giant robot gave them the technological tools of vodka and poor quality bread.

:laugh:

I ignore Seekermeister's posts because they're just ridiculous. What he spouts isn't even good Christian theology (didn't he say that he doesn't even go to a church?). Anyway, I know that no one takes him seriously, so there's no point in arguing them.

OTOH, with Shadow9d9, I know that a lot of people share in his idiocy (excuse me, "opinion") and that arguing against that opinion brings those nutjobs out of the woodwork (as it did in this case). But anyway, I'll remember that religion is the source of all the evil in this world the next I dump off some old clothes at the Salvation Army.

 

[mrgq912]

Tom cruise would be upset you did not mention lord xenu.

I petition you put in option 4.

4) lord xenu created the universe and all the problems within it.

But seriously though, I voted for option 3 even though I do believe in god at some level.

But I am so confused, is my belief in god because of my own life experiences or its because my parents (hindu) have always talked about god ever since i was a child.

Would I still believe in god if my parents never talked about it and I grew up in a society that did not talk about god (for or even against the idea of god). Lets say the topic of god was only introduced when someone is old enough (lets say 18) to intelligently discuss/study the matter, would that said person accept god.

This would be and interesting social experiment.

 

[Seekermeister]

Vic,

I ignore Seekermeister's posts because they're just ridiculous. What he spouts isn't even good Christian theology (didn't he say that he doesn't even go to a church?). Anyway, I know that no one takes him seriously, so there's no point in arguing them.

OTOH, with Shadow9d9, I know that a lot of people share in his idiocy (excuse me, "opinion") and that arguing against that opinion brings those nutjobs out of the woodwork (as it did in this case). But anyway, I'll remember that religion is the source of all the evil in this world the next I dump off some old clothes at the Salvation Army.

Apparently, since you have gotten tired of shadow9d9. you have decided to start another argument with me. But, unlike your previous opponent, I'm better at ignoring you than you are me. However, I can't resist one comment...for a person that claims to tolerate all religions, you are quite "good" at picking on mine. Good is parenthetical, for obvious reasons. You are sort of a jack of all trades, that is a master of none. If I ever need advise on what the Bible says, I won't ask you.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

What I am saying is that regardless of what the underlying cause of the crusades was, people were killed in the name of religion. Masses of people used their religion as an excuse to commit atrocities against anyone solely for subscribing to a different religion.

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

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

The papacy of Pope Gregory VII had struggled with reservations about the doctrinal validity of a holy war and the shedding of blood for the Lord and had, with difficulty, resolved the question in favour of justified violence. More importantly to the Pope, the Christians who made pilgrimages to the Holy Land were being persecuted. Actions against Arians and other heretics offered historical precedents in a society where violence against nonbelievers?and indeed against other Christians?was acceptable and common

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

The crusaders moved north through the Rhine valley into well-known Jewish communities such as Cologne, and then southward. Jewish communities were given the option of converting to Christianity or being slaughtered. Most would not convert and, as news of the mass killings spread, many Jewish communities committed mass suicides in horrific scenes. Thousands of Jews were massacred, despite some attempts by local clergy and secular authorities to shelter them. The massacres were justified by the claim that Urban's speech at Clermont promised reward from God for killing non-Christians of any sort, not just Muslims. Although the papacy abhorred and preached against the purging of Muslim and Jewish inhabitants during this and future crusades, there were numerous attacks on Jews following every crusade movement

My point is simple. People have killed solely in the name of religion, and no just during the Crusades. Communist regimes do not kill solely in the name of atheism. They may discourage religion but Stalin didn't go around looking for people with bibles and then exporting them to Siberia. Communism is an economic system. It has NOTHING to do with atheism and atheism is definitely not an intrinsic part of communism. Communism restricts religion it doesn't kill in the name of atheism or force people to be atheists.

 

[Seekermeister]

mrgq912,

But I am so confused, is my belief in god because of my own life experiences or its because my parents (hindu) have always talked about god ever since i was a child.

Would I still believe in god if my parents never talked about it and I grew up in a society that did not talk about god (for or even against the idea of god). Lets say the topic of god was only introduced when someone is old enough (lets say 18) to intelligently discuss/study the matter, would that said person accept god.

This would be and interesting social experiment.

I believe that the influence and education of parents and society does have a strong bearing on a person's beliefs, be they religious or otherwise. However, there have been many, many conversions of people of all ages, in all environments, except one totally devoid of all thoughts about God, because that has, and never will be possible. Regardless of how an "experiment" might be devised, the "most" that could be accomplished is to creat alot of psychotics, without morals and without direction.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
Vic,

I ignore Seekermeister's posts because they're just ridiculous. What he spouts isn't even good Christian theology (didn't he say that he doesn't even go to a church?). Anyway, I know that no one takes him seriously, so there's no point in arguing them.

OTOH, with Shadow9d9, I know that a lot of people share in his idiocy (excuse me, "opinion") and that arguing against that opinion brings those nutjobs out of the woodwork (as it did in this case). But anyway, I'll remember that religion is the source of all the evil in this world the next I dump off some old clothes at the Salvation Army.

Apparently, since you have gotten tired of shadow9d9. you have decided to start another argument with me. But, unlike your previous opponent, I'm better at ignoring you than you are me. However, I can't resist one comment...for a person that claims to tolerate all religions, you are quite "good" at picking on mine. Good is parenthetical, for obvious reasons. You are sort of a jack of all trades, that is a master of none. If I ever need advise on what the Bible says, I won't ask you.

Those aren't parenthesis.

 

[Seekermeister]

So,

Those aren't parenthesis

A parenthetical remark does not require parenthesis:[/quote]
Main Entry:
pa·ren·the·sis
Pronunciation:
\p?-'ren(t)-th?-s?s\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural -the·ses \-?sez
Etymology:
Late Latin, from Greek, literally, act of inserting, from parentithenai to insert, from para- + en- en- + tithenai to place ? more at do
Date:
circa 1550
1 a: an amplifying or explanatory word, phrase, or sentence inserted in a passage from which it is usually set off by punctuation b: a remark or passage that departs from the theme of a discourse : digression
2: interlude, interval
3: one or both of the curved marks ( ) used in writing and printing to enclose a parenthetical expression or to group a symbolic unit in a logical or mathematical expression

 

[b2386]

It amazes me how you manage to give lengthy, thoughtful answers to so many of the posts on these threads. I am impressed by your dedication to this group. There is one major point in your reply that I'd like to address.

"Most of us, even atheists and agnostics, have these moments when they touch something greater and feel a sense of connection to that something and often to other human beings, too."

I have to say that although this does not offer much proof from a logical or scientific standpoint, it is one of the more convincing arguments I?ve heard. I think that is probably because I can relate intuitively to what you are saying. I?ve had a few similar moments, for example when I took cell biology and discovered the realm of the microscopic and learned about the amazing features shared among organisms from hot springs bacteria to polar bears and sunflowers. Knowledge appeals to me in a very powerful way and reaching a better understanding of even a small fact or theory sometimes makes me feel as if I?d hit upon something much bigger. The point is that I do get these moments of feeling that ?All?s right with the world? as Browning put it and I understand how moving they can be. I also believe they are common throughout humanity, no matter what you believe or why. However, these feelings have not been powerful enough to convince me they stem from that concept which people call ?God.? To me God is a confusing term, used to describe the source of our origins, the source of love, and the source of order. How would we know that this feeling is not simply what happens in our brains when we understand a truth? On a more scientific note, there are a variety of esoteric and general theories that suggest explanations for a feeling of oneness with one?s world. I won?t go into any of these here (it?s been a while since I?ve read about them), but it?s important to understand that there are many explanations for any phenomena and before choosing and clinging to one from the pile, you should at least be aware of the probability that you could be wrong.

I think a large problem in many anti-theistic arguments is that many of us neglect to mention that we do understand that there is something bigger out there. In our haste to knock ungrounded statements off their feet, we often fail to describe our own vision of the universe and the human place within it. Part of that stems from the fact that different people have a variety of reasons for choosing to interpret the universe and existence without including God. Whatever the case, I think we often give the impression that we think humans should be placed on some sort of pedestal because we possess reasoning faculties. In fact, this is quite opposite to current scientific understanding of universe. Anyone who has read even general books on cosmology is struck by the overwhelming size, age, variety, and absurdity of our universe. We exist as tiny entities within a domain that is incredibly larger and more complicated than we could ever have imagined. Science has certainly showed us what religion suggested for years: that we are not as great as our conscious minds have told us. Now that we understand this, maybe it is time to let go of all the myths that come with this knowledge.

I?m a bit rambly tonight, mainly because I don?t have time to go back and organize and expound on my points right now. I do hope you get a bit of an idea about where I?m coming from. Your ideas remind me of the theology I pick up from Madeleine L?Engle?s writings. Are you familiar with any of her work (mostly children?s books and a series of autobiographical books about her life)?


"Now, can I prove any of this? No. I believe it by faith, and I am humbled by the fact that I cannot prove that what I believe is true. I am not proud or arrogant about my faith, and that is why I do not condemn or judge people who hold a different faith in their hearts or who simply believe we're just here and there is no God."



"Still, I realize that facts are just the building blocks of Truth. In the end, what we construct with facts doesn't always hold up. One scientific paradigm is exchanged for another and yet another as we human beings try to fathom the mysteries and magnificence of this universe we live in."



I like to base my assumptions on rational foundations. Perhaps this is a bit unreasonable, given

I think a large problem in atheist thought is that many of us neglect to mention that we do understand that there is something bigger out there.

 

[idiotekniQues]

Originally posted by: SketchMaster
42.

zaphod is god!

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I immortalized Vic's version of what a con is for all to enjoy!

Yes, except that you've misrepresented your own position in your own sig, which is that the Bible was originally and intentionally written as such. This is almost comical!

Actually, the quote was almost perfect... the word man was left out. Guys, if you use the word "con", then Vic thinks you think something should be outlawed! Because con is a synonym for fraud...and when fraud is used as a legal term, it means something illegal.. and when something is illegal, it is outlawed!

 

[Seekermeister]

B2386,

Perhaps it would help you to understand that God is described as the Truth. Even though you may not realize it, when you seek and find some truth in your microscope, it is merely one facet of a myriad belonging to God. No, you can't see God in your microscope, but you can see aspects of His creation, and a creation is a reflection of the Creator.

 

[apex32]

i chose option 3

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
B2386,

Perhaps it would help you to understand that God is described as the Truth. Even though you may not realize it, when you seek and find some truth in your microscope, it is merely one facet of a myriad belonging to God. No, you can't see God in your microscope, but you can see aspects of His creation, and a creation is a reflection of the Creator.

Praise the Lawd!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I immortalized Vic's version of what a con is for all to enjoy!

Yes, except that you've misrepresented your own position in your own sig, which is that the Bible was originally and intentionally written as such. This is almost comical!

Actually, the quote was almost perfect... the word man was left out. Guys, if you use the word "con", then Vic thinks you think something should be outlawed! Because con is a synonym for fraud...and when fraud is used as a legal term, it means something illegal.. and when something is illegal, it is outlawed!

Your trolling is only outmatched by your stupidity.

Are you prepared to justify your precious unassailable opinion with an argument yet? Or are you just going to keep making pointless personal attacks?

I think it's great BTW that your previous personal attack against me is that I somehow claimed to know "The Truth" when I have been arguing against that kind of knowledge (gnosis) this entire thread. You are truly an ass. McOwen and Steeplerot must be proud.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
So,

Those aren't parenthesis

A parenthetical remark does not require parenthesis:

Main Entry:
pa·ren·the·sis
Pronunciation:
\p?-'ren(t)-th?-s?s\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural -the·ses \-?sez
Etymology:
Late Latin, from Greek, literally, act of inserting, from parentithenai to insert, from para- + en- en- + tithenai to place ? more at do
Date:
circa 1550
1 a: an amplifying or explanatory word, phrase, or sentence inserted in a passage from which it is usually set off by punctuation b: a remark or passage that departs from the theme of a discourse : digression
2: interlude, interval
3: one or both of the curved marks ( ) used in writing and printing to enclose a parenthetical expression or to group a symbolic unit in a logical or mathematical expression

[/quote]

Wow, I finally actually learned something from this thread. :beer:

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Seekermeister
So,

Those aren't parenthesis

A parenthetical remark does not require parenthesis:

Main Entry:
pa·ren·the·sis
Pronunciation:
\p?-'ren(t)-th?-s?s\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural -the·ses \-?sez
Etymology:
Late Latin, from Greek, literally, act of inserting, from parentithenai to insert, from para- + en- en- + tithenai to place ? more at do
Date:
circa 1550
1 a: an amplifying or explanatory word, phrase, or sentence inserted in a passage from which it is usually set off by punctuation b: a remark or passage that departs from the theme of a discourse : digression
2: interlude, interval
3: one or both of the curved marks ( ) used in writing and printing to enclose a parenthetical expression or to group a symbolic unit in a logical or mathematical expression

Wow, I finally actually learned something from this thread. :beer:[/quote]




and from Seekermeister at that! Truly a day to be remembered...

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues

Originally posted by: SketchMaster
42.

zaphod is god!

No, Zaphod was president. God disappeared in a puff of logic after miscalculating about the babel fish. The universe was created by the Great Green Arkleseizure.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Garth
But you haven't provided any reason why we should believe that a literary device was used in this instance. You can't. Rather, you need it to because its the only way you can rationalize the obvious contradiction to yourself.

This is confusing coming from you, Garth. Practically the entire Bible, as with most religious texts, is literary devices. That's why it's so ridiculous to insist on a literal interpretation.

To be sure, there are obvious literary devices at work in the Bible. I disagree that they constitute "practically the entire Bible," but I know they exist and are numerous. I do not find any indication that the verses I cited employ any literary device that dissolves the glaring contradiction, however, and neither can anyone else. Instead, they read into the text things that can only be true by first presupposing that the verses shouldn't contradict, thus begging the question.