Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Thus, I can't keep having discussions in good faith knowing that I won't change my point of view, as this would be disingenuous at best.
At this school, it's about $1400/credit hour. I never claimed that my classes make me more insightful at discussing religion. I was merely diverted by those who couldn't address my main premises.Originally posted by: Todd33
Way to dodge the debate and topic by boasting your vast intellect. Your lecture huh? Last time I checked you were still a student, are you a TA for physics 101 now? I doubt that is worth $4200. As far as classes, been there done that, it doesn't make anyone more insightful in discussing something as fantasy filled as religion. But don't let that stop you, keep telling us how smart you are while avoiding real debate. I like your post above, you managed to call someone condescending and ignorant in one breath, wow.
Let me stop you right there. The only 'complex language' that I use is factual language necessitated in the discussion of these issues. While it may seem complex to you, that is your shortcoming, not mine. I sincerely doubt you have any concept of logical fallacy based on your complete lack of coherent discussion on this forum.Originally posted by: Tab
Your posts concerning abortion/gay marriage are the exact same arguements of those that fall into the Christian Fundamentalist catagory. They don't have any real reasoning beyond the use of complex language, numerous logical fallacys and their pure emotional feelings.
My reasons for supporting my stances on the issues in question is not based on the Bible. It's based solely on reason. This is exactly what makes me different. You'd be amazed at how many issues I have an opposed view to fundamentalists, but you don't understand that because you'd rather paint me as a religious zealot than read anything I type.You distance yourself from those who are "Christian Fundamentalists" my question is why? What makes you any different from them?
That's simply incorrect usage on your part. Once again, your shortcoming, not mine. Look up what fundamentalism is, then get back to me. You simply can't hold a discussion where you define terms as you see fit, doing so on-the-fly without informing those you're discussing with, yet you seem to do this like it's your job.P.S - When I am talking about "Christian Fundamentalists" I talking those that in general admentally disagree with gay marriage,abortion and womens rights.
You wouldn't pay it because you wouldn't understand a damn thing I said. Same reason I don't waste my time trying to explain it on here. You feign civility, yet your underlying motives are obvious to anyone who has read your first post in this thread. If you had any interest in being educated (or the ability), then I would be more than happy to educate you on the issues that I'm discussing. However, you have neither, so I'm not going to waste my time.Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
cyclo if you want to come in here and debate or speak your point of view, i'd suggest you start backing up the things you are talking about. simply stating that your a genius and everyone else is ignorant is well ignorant. for someone as smart as yourself and who is teaching college courses, surely you'd know better how to communicate with others. this isn't how you talk to your students now is it? i don't think i'd be paying $4200 to sit in front of an arrogant arse like yourself.
We weren't discussing the finer points of people, communications, and their behaviors asshat. We were discussing why I believe what I do about spirituality. Then, I observed your behavior - that of a diverter. You drastically changed the subject with some third-grade science experiment that has absolutely dick to do with anything that we were previously discussing. If you knew your ass from a hole in the ground on the issue that I raised, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Further, your lack of ability to comprehend is not my shortcoming: it's yours. If you weren't so high-and-mighty, touting your own purported knowledge (which, as far as I can tell, does not exist), then I might try to explain it to you. However, I can recognize, based on my infinitesimal understanding of human behavior, that you're more concerned with diverting attention, waxing intellectual (and failing miserably), and touting your own stature to actually address the points I made previously. Instead, you resort to diversion after diversion to the extent that I don't even know what I was discussing anymore. Well played, sir.Originally posted by: Future Shock
Still hung up on my sugar on a string example? You have NO idea how to communicate to a mass audience, besides some students or peers within a very limited subject area. Come by my office, where I'll show you the finer points of people, communications, and their behaviours, which you obviously know nothing about.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
At this school, it's about $1400/credit hour. I never claimed that my classes make me more insightful at discussing religion. I was merely diverted by those who couldn't address my main premises.Originally posted by: Todd33
Way to dodge the debate and topic by boasting your vast intellect. Your lecture huh? Last time I checked you were still a student, are you a TA for physics 101 now? I doubt that is worth $4200. As far as classes, been there done that, it doesn't make anyone more insightful in discussing something as fantasy filled as religion. But don't let that stop you, keep telling us how smart you are while avoiding real debate. I like your post above, you managed to call someone condescending and ignorant in one breath, wow.
Let me stop you right there. The only 'complex language' that I use is factual language necessitated in the discussion of these issues. While it may seem complex to you, that is your shortcoming, not mine. I sincerely doubt you have any concept of logical fallacy based on your complete lack of coherent discussion on this forum.Originally posted by: Tab
Your posts concerning abortion/gay marriage are the exact same arguements of those that fall into the Christian Fundamentalist catagory. They don't have any real reasoning beyond the use of complex language, numerous logical fallacys and their pure emotional feelings.
My reasons for supporting my stances on the issues in question is not based on the Bible. It's based solely on reason. This is exactly what makes me different. You'd be amazed at how many issues I have an opposed view to fundamentalists, but you don't understand that because you'd rather paint me as a religious zealot than read anything I type.You distance yourself from those who are "Christian Fundamentalists" my question is why? What makes you any different from them?
That's simply incorrect usage on your part. Once again, your shortcoming, not mine. Look up what fundamentalism is, then get back to me. You simply can't hold a discussion where you define terms as you see fit, doing so on-the-fly without informing those you're discussing with, yet you seem to do this like it's your job.P.S - When I am talking about "Christian Fundamentalists" I talking those that in general admentally disagree with gay marriage,abortion and womens rights.
You wouldn't pay it because you wouldn't understand a damn thing I said. Same reason I don't waste my time trying to explain it on here. You feign civility, yet your underlying motives are obvious to anyone who has read your first post in this thread. If you had any interest in being educated (or the ability), then I would be more than happy to educate you on the issues that I'm discussing. However, you have neither, so I'm not going to waste my time.Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
cyclo if you want to come in here and debate or speak your point of view, i'd suggest you start backing up the things you are talking about. simply stating that your a genius and everyone else is ignorant is well ignorant. for someone as smart as yourself and who is teaching college courses, surely you'd know better how to communicate with others. this isn't how you talk to your students now is it? i don't think i'd be paying $4200 to sit in front of an arrogant arse like yourself.
We weren't discussing the finer points of people, communications, and their behaviors asshat. We were discussing why I believe what I do about spirituality. Then, I observed your behavior - that of a diverter. You drastically changed the subject with some third-grade science experiment that has absolutely dick to do with anything that we were previously discussing. If you knew your ass from a hole in the ground on the issue that I raised, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Further, your lack of ability to comprehend is not my shortcoming: it's yours. If you weren't so high-and-mighty, touting your own purported knowledge (which, as far as I can tell, does not exist), then I might try to explain it to you. However, I can recognize, based on my infinitesimal understanding of human behavior, that you're more concerned with diverting attention, waxing intellectual (and failing miserably), and touting your own stature to actually address the points I made previously. Instead, you resort to diversion after diversion to the extent that I don't even know what I was discussing anymore. Well played, sir.Originally posted by: Future Shock
Still hung up on my sugar on a string example? You have NO idea how to communicate to a mass audience, besides some students or peers within a very limited subject area. Come by my office, where I'll show you the finer points of people, communications, and their behaviours, which you obviously know nothing about.
Now, if any of you would care to actually discuss the topic at hand, I'll be more than happy to do so. If you want to simply offer diversion after diversion, piss off.
Now, if any of you would care to actually discuss the topic at hand, I'll be more than happy to do so. If you want to simply offer diversion after diversion, piss off.Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
once again, this is the internet. nobdoy can see you or verify any of the things you say. therefore most intelligent people who understand this provide links, facts, and data to back up their claims. you have done absolutely none of that thus far, and have been acting like an arrogant elitist to boot. for someone who claims to be a scientist, you should be quite familiar with all of this.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Now, if any of you would care to actually discuss the topic at hand, I'll be more than happy to do so. If you want to simply offer diversion after diversion, piss off.Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
once again, this is the internet. nobdoy can see you or verify any of the things you say. therefore most intelligent people who understand this provide links, facts, and data to back up their claims. you have done absolutely none of that thus far, and have been acting like an arrogant elitist to boot. for someone who claims to be a scientist, you should be quite familiar with all of this.
Yes, this means you.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
We were discussing why I believe what I do about spirituality. Then, I observed your behavior - that of a diverter. You drastically changed the subject with some third-grade science experiment that has absolutely dick to do with anything that we were previously discussing. If you knew your ass from a hole in the ground on the issue that I raised, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Further, your lack of ability to comprehend is not my shortcoming: it's yours. If you weren't so high-and-mighty, touting your own purported knowledge (which, as far as I can tell, does not exist), then I might try to explain it to you. However, I can recognize, based on my infinitesimal understanding of human behavior, that you're more concerned with diverting attention, waxing intellectual (and failing miserably), and touting your own stature to actually address the points I made previously. Instead, you resort to diversion after diversion to the extent that I don't even know what I was discussing anymore. Well played, sir.
Now, if any of you would care to actually discuss the topic at hand, I'll be more than happy to do so. If you want to simply offer diversion after diversion, piss off.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
For me, I see nature as the scientific data in favor of a deity. The innate complexity and order of nature becomes more and more apparent the more and more I study it. I see these things and speculate that the probability of it all happening simply by chance is infinitesimal at best, less than zero at worst. The miracles that I have seen, heard of, read about, and felt are perhaps more important data in this search.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Left unto themselves, things tend towards disorder. This is the second law of thermodynamics - that entropy always increases. Thus, no, complexity does not typically arise of its own accord. However, that's not all that I said. I said the mixture of complexity and order that we observe in nature is a compelling argument.
Originally posted by: Future Shock
This shens is possibly the worst arguement for the non-evoloution crowd. Tell ya what Cyclo - take a warm mug of hot water, dissolve some sugar into it...and place a string handing down into the center of it. WOW! Orderly, symmetrical CRYSTALS will start growing onto the string!!! Perfectly formed, for a solid previously in random, Brownian motion in the water. ORDER - from disorder. And no intervention from you, or god, or anything else...(in fact, forming a supersaturated solution, in which crystals do not form, is actually much harder...)
There are a host of other examples. You can form perfect amino acids just by placing the requisite chemicals together under the right conditions - no enzymes needed (usually you will need heat, as it is an endothermic reaction). THEY JUST FORM SPONTANEOUSLY...and this is replicable in any chem lab, no miracle required.
We have found large amounts of amino acids embedded WITHIN meteroites that have plunged to earth - not contamination, but inside the darned things. The building blocks of life - from space! Do you think that god placed amino acids in random asteroids?
The weird thing about complex biochemistry is that it DOES have a tendancy to self-organize.
Originally posted by: Future Shock
To quote Bill Bryson from his "A Short History of Nearly Everything":
Chemical reactions of the sort associated with life are actually something of a commonplace. It may be beyond us to cook them up in a lab, a la Stanley Miller and Harold Urey, but the universe does so readily enough. Lots of molecules in nature get together to form long chains called polymers. Sugars constantly assemble to form starches. Crystals can do a number of lifelike things - replicate, respond to environmental stimuli, take on a patterned complexity. They've never achieved life itself, of course, but they demonstrate repeatedly that complexity is a natural, spontaneous, entirely reliable event. There may or may not be a great deal of life in the universe at large, but there is no shortage of ordered self-assembly, in everything from the trasnfixing symmetry of snowflakes to the comely rings of Saturn.
So powerful in this natural impulse to assemble that many scientists now belive that life may be more inevitable than we think - that is, in the words of the Belgian biochemist and Nobel laureate Christian de Duve, 'an obiligatory manifestation of matter, bound to arise whenever conditions are appropriate.' De Duve thought is likely that such conditions would be encountered perhaps a million times in every galaxy.
Certainly there is nothing terribly exotic in the chemicals that animate us. If you wished to create another living object, whether a goldfish or a head of lettuce or a human being, you would need really only four priciple elements, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, plus small amounts of a few others, principally sulphur, phosphorus, calcium and iron. Put these together in three dozen or so combinations to form some sugars, acids adn other basic compounds, and you can build anything that lives. As Dawkins notes: " There is nothing special about the substances from which living things are made. Living things are collections of molecules, like everything else."
Yeah, I've been really DIVERTING...lol.
So Cyclo, which of my points do you wish to disagree with?
- 1) That sugar crystals that form from a suspended solution are NOT an increasing of order in that system? That crystals don't replicate?
- 2) That forming a supersaturated solution does NOT require careful preparation and precise cooling? (not an important point, but for completeness)
- 3) That in 1953 at the University of Chicago Stanley Miller and Harold Urey did NOT form amino acids in two linked test tubes with water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide gases and a spark?
- 4) That in 1969 the Murchison meteroid that came down in Australia did NOT contain amino acids? Or the Tagish Lake meteor in Canada a few years later?
- 5) Or do you wish to dispute that these amino acids are not organized chemical compounds that represent a gain in organzation from their base chemicals? Or that amino acids are building blocks of life?
- 6) Do you wish to propose an alternative theory as to the development of amino acids in meteroids that does not involve self-generation of these compounds from their base chemicals? Please state such theory, and any supporting evidence...
- 7) Does ANY OF THIS DATA back up your claim that "Left unto themselves, things tend towards disorder." or "Thus, no, complexity does not typically arise of its own accord."??
Please, you are the claimed scientist - I'm just a supercomputer and database guy, who's feeble skills in logic were only good enough to be a top 10 player in high school chess in New York State. Please show me how you can take observations of nature such as these and put them in alignment with your theory (which of course, is reversed - your theory should follow observations)...I'll try very hard to follow any logical chain you lay out, using whatever remains of my intellectual prowess from those long-ago days.
Don't duck, answer.
Future Shock
Originally posted by: shira
Those who see "divine order" in the natural world don't realize how arrogant that position is. Think about it:
We KNOW beyond doubt that our scientific knowledge is extremely limited. Just the trajectory of the increase in knowledge over the past 100 years should be proof to anyone that we have an immensely long way to go.
Yet the ID crowd says, "Because we do not RIGHT NOW fully understand a particular phenomenon, it must be the case that there will NEVER be a natural explanation. Therefore, GOD must be the explanation."
Do you see the arrogance of that position? From within this immense, murky hole in which mankind resides - with abundant evidence that our knowledge is increasing exponentially - the God-fearing among us assert that we will never be able to explain through natural phenomena that which we cannot explain today.
By the way, I'm becoming more and more convinced that CycloWizard, despite his claims, is not actually a scientist. No person versed in mathematics would EVER use such an inane phrase as ". . . the probability of it all happening simply by chance is . . . less than zero at worst."
A probablility of "less than zero?" That's akin to "giving 110%." My own degrees are in physics and engineering, and I don't know ANYONE in those fields who could stoop to using such imprecise jargon. That's the language of the unwashed non-scientists.
OK, if you want one free lesson in reading comprehension and thermodynamics wrapped into one, here it is. All of this from the posts I made previously that you quoted in your previous post.Originally posted by: Future Shock
Please, you are the claimed scientist - I'm just a supercomputer and database guy, who's feeble skills in logic were only good enough to be a top 10 player in high school chess in New York State. Please show me how you can take observations of nature such as these and put them in alignment with your theory (which of course, is reversed - your theory should follow observations)...I'll try very hard to follow any logical chain you lay out, using whatever remains of my intellectual prowess from those long-ago days.
And this holds true in every one of your science experiment examples. In every case you mentioned, you have specifically created a set of conditions under which order might be increased by inputing energy, either through work or heat. Thus, things are no longer left to themselves in the systems you described. However, even though you have input work and/or heat to the system, the overall entropy of the universe has still increased, despite your small, localized increase in order. This is the second law of thermodynamics. Are you going to dispute it still, or will you acknowledge that you don't understand it/just didn't know it?Left unto themselves, things tend towards disorder. This is the second law of thermodynamics - that entropy always increases. Thus, no, complexity does not typically arise of its own accord.
This is true to an extent, though not as you stated it. Most reaction networks in a biochemistry setting start with a given set of reactants and proceed through a complex mechanism, only to arrive at a single (or a handful) of product species, despite the possibility of forming literally thousands of intermediate species along the way. Why does this happen? Because the conditions in which the reactions occur force the reaction to that end by manipulating thermodynamic properties (i.e. equilibrium constants) and rate constants by controlling temperature, osmolarity, enzyme concentrations, and so on (I highly recommend a literature search on Prof. Linda Broadbelt from Northwestern Univ., as she has done a lot of work in this area). Then, one might ask, how does the body know that these specific conditions need to exist for the synthesis of all the required amino acids, proteins, and what-have-you? How can the body possibly control its temperature in a pointwise sense closer than any man-made process control scheme could hope to? Life exists because of this control scheme - it could not exist without it, yet the control scheme must have evolved as the first step of life. Else, there would be no second step on the evolutionary ladder. From an engineering perspective, this is a miracle. The petroleum industry spends hundreds of billions of dollars every year to attempt to achieve anything remotely resembling this type of control, yet they can't achieve it. While you can argue that this is coincidence, that evolution forced things to be this way, I say it is still a miracle. And yes, I do believe in evolution.The weird thing about complex biochemistry is that it DOES have a tendancy to self-organize.
Duve's statement is based on faith. Such an occurrence has never been witnessed - there is no data to support it any more than there is the Christian story of creationism. This comes back to another infamous debate that I won't get into.So powerful in this natural impulse to assemble that many scientists now belive that life may be more inevitable than we think - that is, in the words of the Belgian biochemist and Nobel laureate Christian de Duve, 'an obiligatory manifestation of matter, bound to arise whenever conditions are appropriate.' De Duve thought is likely that such conditions would be encountered perhaps a million times in every galaxy.
Originally posted by: shira
Those who see "divine order" in the natural world don't realize how arrogant that position is. Think about it:
We KNOW beyond doubt that our scientific knowledge is extremely limited. Just the trajectory of the increase in knowledge over the past 100 years should be proof to anyone that we have an immensely long way to go.
Yet the ID crowd says, "Because we do not RIGHT NOW fully understand a particular phenomenon, it must be the case that there will NEVER be a natural explanation. Therefore, GOD must be the explanation."
Do you see the arrogance of that position? From within this immense, murky hole in which mankind resides - with abundant evidence that our knowledge is increasing exponentially - the God-fearing among us assert that we will never be able to explain through natural phenomena that which we cannot explain today.
By the way, I'm becoming more and more convinced that CycloWizard, despite his claims, is not actually a scientist. No person versed in mathematics would EVER use such an inane phrase as ". . . the probability of it all happening simply by chance is . . . less than zero at worst."
A probablility of "less than zero?" That's akin to "giving 110%." My own degrees are in physics and engineering, and I don't know ANYONE in those fields who could stoop to using such imprecise jargon. That's the language of the unwashed non-scientists.
And if God is natural? (as, of course, He must be, if He exists).Originally posted by: shira
Those who see "divine order" in the natural world don't realize how arrogant that position is. Think about it:
We KNOW beyond doubt that our scientific knowledge is extremely limited. Just the trajectory of the increase in knowledge over the past 100 years should be proof to anyone that we have an immensely long way to go.
Yet the ID crowd says, "Because we do not RIGHT NOW fully understand a particular phenomenon, it must be the case that there will NEVER be a natural explanation. Therefore, GOD must be the explanation."
Do you see the arrogance of that position? From within this immense, murky hole in which mankind resides - with abundant evidence that our knowledge is increasing exponentially - the God-fearing among us assert that we will never be able to explain through natural phenomena that which we cannot explain today.
By the way, I'm becoming more and more convinced that CycloWizard, despite his claims, is not actually a scientist. No person versed in mathematics would EVER use such an inane phrase as ". . . the probability of it all happening simply by chance is . . . less than zero at worst."
A probablility of "less than zero?" That's akin to "giving 110%." My own degrees are in physics and engineering, and I don't know ANYONE in those fields who could stoop to using such imprecise jargon. That's the language of the unwashed non-scientists.
Sorry for trying to cater to the lowest common denominator. I'm pretty sure my credentials are well recognized in the Highly Technical forum if you'd like to check there. Ass.Originally posted by: shira
By the way, I'm becoming more and more convinced that CycloWizard, despite his claims, is not actually a scientist. No person versed in mathematics would EVER use such an inane phrase as ". . . the probability of it all happening simply by chance is . . . less than zero at worst."
A probablility of "less than zero?" That's akin to "giving 110%." My own degrees are in physics and engineering, and I don't know ANYONE in those fields who could stoop to using such imprecise jargon. That's the language of the unwashed non-scientists.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
And this holds true in every one of your science experiment examples. In every case you mentioned, you have specifically created a set of conditions under which order might be increased by inputing energy, either through work or heat. Thus, things are no longer left to themselves in the systems you described. However, even though you have input work and/or heat to the system, the overall entropy of the universe has still increased, despite your small, localized increase in order. This is the second law of thermodynamics. Are you going to dispute it still, or will you acknowledge that you don't understand it/just didn't know it?Left unto themselves, things tend towards disorder. This is the second law of thermodynamics - that entropy always increases. Thus, no, complexity does not typically arise of its own accord.
Actually, I misspoke in the post you quoted (my brain is slower than my hands tonight, unfortunately ). Heat does not decrease entropy - it increases it. Thus, since the sun does not do work on the earth, the earth is essentially bound to decrease in order until some mechanism converts the sun's input energy into some form of work.Originally posted by: hscorpio
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
And this holds true in every one of your science experiment examples. In every case you mentioned, you have specifically created a set of conditions under which order might be increased by inputing energy, either through work or heat. Thus, things are no longer left to themselves in the systems you described. However, even though you have input work and/or heat to the system, the overall entropy of the universe has still increased, despite your small, localized increase in order. This is the second law of thermodynamics. Are you going to dispute it still, or will you acknowledge that you don't understand it/just didn't know it?Left unto themselves, things tend towards disorder. This is the second law of thermodynamics - that entropy always increases. Thus, no, complexity does not typically arise of its own accord.
Would it be correct to say that the earth is not a system left to itself since the sun is constantly delivering energy to it?
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Actually, I misspoke in the post you quoted (my brain is slower than my hands tonight, unfortunately ). Heat does not decrease entropy - it increases it. Thus, since the sun does not do work on the earth, the earth is essentially bound to decrease in order until some mechanism converts the sun's input energy into some form of work.Originally posted by: hscorpio
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
And this holds true in every one of your science experiment examples. In every case you mentioned, you have specifically created a set of conditions under which order might be increased by inputing energy, either through work or heat. Thus, things are no longer left to themselves in the systems you described. However, even though you have input work and/or heat to the system, the overall entropy of the universe has still increased, despite your small, localized increase in order. This is the second law of thermodynamics. Are you going to dispute it still, or will you acknowledge that you don't understand it/just didn't know it?Left unto themselves, things tend towards disorder. This is the second law of thermodynamics - that entropy always increases. Thus, no, complexity does not typically arise of its own accord.
Would it be correct to say that the earth is not a system left to itself since the sun is constantly delivering energy to it?
Heat and work are two mechanisms for the transfer of energy. Energy transfer by heat occurs when a temperature gradient exists such that energy flows between two bodies. Work is achieved by physically doing something mechanical to the system to increase its internal energy (e.g. pumping air into a ball, stirring a bowl). It's not so simple to explain the thermodynamics behind the crystallization problem in these terms and I don't really feel like going through it tonight, as I've been grading thermo papers all night already. :x Suffice it to say that the second law of thermo is one of the gold standards of science. If an experiment contradicts it, the results of the experiment are almost always thrown out immediately rather than the law itself being questioned (though there was one paper published in the last year or two claiming to have temporarily decreased entropy in the universe for very short time scales).Originally posted by: hscorpio
I'm having trouble understanding this, I'll admit it. So when we heat up the cup of water we are doing work not just heating it up? But the sun is not also doing any work on the earth? Meh, I should have paid better attention in physics class.
Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
I feel incredibly sorry for the tens of millions of people who are hoodwinked and indoctrinated into these religions which are based upon thousand year old texts who accuracy can never be determined.
Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Clearly they were written by man, and not by God.
Originally posted by: sandorski
You say that many of these antiquated stories do not stand the test of reason...but if you look past these stories, fables and myths and look at the underlying message, some of them are suitable guides for living a good life...those who take these stories literally instead of figuratively have lost the meaning of spirituality.
Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
I'd like to promote a civilized and intellectual debate about religion here, that hopefully won't turn into the typical P&N flamewar. I'm really interested to know what drives people to believe whatever is they do believe.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Let me stop you right there. The only 'complex language' that I use is factual language necessitated in the discussion of these issues. While it may seem complex to you, that is your shortcoming, not mine. I sincerely doubt you have any concept of logical fallacy based on your complete lack of coherent discussion on this forum.Originally posted by: Tab
Your posts concerning abortion/gay marriage are the exact same arguements of those that fall into the Christian Fundamentalist catagory. They don't have any real reasoning beyond the use of complex language, numerous logical fallacys and their pure emotional feelings.
My reasons for supporting my stances on the issues in question is not based on the Bible. It's based solely on reason. This is exactly what makes me different. You'd be amazed at how many issues I have an opposed view to fundamentalists, but you don't understand that because you'd rather paint me as a religious zealot than read anything I type.You distance yourself from those who are "Christian Fundamentalists" my question is why? What makes you any different from them?
That's simply incorrect usage on your part. Once again, your shortcoming, not mine. Look up what fundamentalism is, then get back to me. You simply can't hold a discussion where you define terms as you see fit, doing so on-the-fly without informing those you're discussing with, yet you seem to do this like it's your job.P.S - When I am talking about "Christian Fundamentalists" I talking those that in general admentally disagree with gay marriage,abortion and womens rights.
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Religion does and can serve a constructive and productive role in society...more often then not, when religion transcends the spiritual realm to influence politics, that is where the conflict resides.
There is a place for spirituality, even in an enlightened, modernized and educated society...the very nature of a free society should enable citizens to worship how they choose, even if their choice is to not believe in the spiritual at all...the problem exists when those of one faith attempt to impose their flavor of God on everyone else...America is not the only country where this dynamic exists, and wars have been fought the world over because of it.
Organized religion is a human construct, and is therefore vulnerable to the inherent flaws of being human.
You say that many of these antiquated stories do not stand the test of reason...but if you look past these stories, fables and myths and look at the underlying message, some of them are suitable guides for living a good life...those who take these stories literally instead of figuratively have lost the meaning of spirituality.
The language I introduce is that required to discuss such things, nothing more, nothing less. Christian fundamentalists have no need for such language as I have introduced, as they rely simply on the Bible, which certainly does not mention such language. Of course, you would know this if you had ever actually discussed these issues with a fundamentalist as I have. You would also recognize the language I use as that of the legal system pertaining to these issues if you ever picked up a book on the subject. Instead though, you'll try to paint me as a fundamentalist, even though it's clear to anyone with an ounce of critical thinking skills that I'm not. Simply put, as I could have predicted as soon as you joined in this thread, you're not here for any rational discussion. You're only here to attack certain members of the discussion whom you disagree with. Why you disagree with them you don't even know, as you have never taken the time to form your own opinion on these things. Instead, you simply vacuum up the ideas of those whose political ideology is liberal, because you think that makes you open-minded. Just a little word of advice: if you're too open-minded, everything will fall right back out. Form your own opinions based on reason rather than talking points. Then, you will be able to defend them and hold a real discussion.Originally posted by: Tab
Yes, there are many uncommon terms associated with the subjects that are discussed on this board however the language is you use is the exact same that is used by "Christian Fundamentalists". The "complex language" used by those assoicated with that group isn't meant to extend the debate, but confuse and manipulate. "Christian Fundamentalists" are a very specific demographic group that you very easily fall into.
So, what issuses do you disagree with "Christian Fundamentalists"?