|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
Referring again to your analogy, there is nothing in the room that suggests the presence of God. What I've tried to point out respectfully is that God, as the beginning and ending of all things in the theological universe, must be assumed as already existing to be proven. We can surmise that the gorilla broke the vase, or we can explore other possibilities within the material universe.
I'm comfortable with not knowing all the answers, and I don't think religion adequately describes the world around us. To invoke God as the reason for everything simply isn't adquate in the absence of what I consider to be proof.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
I see your point here, I just don't agree with it. People on either side of any issue will use whatever information is at their disposal to prove what they want to prove--an excellent point that BSAMS made earlier. The refusal you speak of is near universal, and I consider myself diligent (probably not here though) when it comes to accepting theories, scientific or otherwise. So whether scientists are afraid of God or not could easily be reserved, and does nothing to advance the conversation.
What I haven't claimed--and wouldn't claim--is that my position is superior; I'm comfortable with not having all of the answers after having religion attempt to fill the gap of explaining things. I have conceded a number of points, and those concessions have resulted in predictable responses. Your assertion that logic dictates the impossibility of order coming from chaos rings a bit hollow against the backdrop of the myriad of scientific discoveries about the universe that have helped shape the course of mankind over thousands of years. Likewise, the idea (not yours) that we are discovering different facets of God as we make discoveries reads more to me like a copout than a synthesis between religion and science.
So the 800-pound gorilla could be the spectre of science encroaching upon the claims of religion, just a easily as it could be the shadow of God.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
Please leave Llance out of this.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Enough innocent have suffered already. Not sure what that has to do with Llance - I'm just saying.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
thedoctor said:
When was the last time you measured the distance between the Earth and the sun?
When you log on to the Internet, do you do so by prayer?
How about when you drive your car? Do you pray for internal combustion?
Those technological advances were driven by science, not by religion.
Whereas such technology as the reproductive system and the eyeball wich are far more advanced in thier complexity were driven by God not by man.
That's certainly one theory, but one not need an appeal to any God or god in order to work on uncovering the mysteries in those systems.
If you want to say that God put things in place and started all the processes, that's fine. I don't, on face, have a problem with that. However, no theological text is going to work on developing vaccinations or travels into space or reconcile Einsteinian physics with Quantum Mechanics. If we want answers that we can put at least some kind of empirical reliance on, we must do so through the scientific method.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
If you came into a room with a broken vase and a 800 pound gorrilla how scientific would it be to say "How did this vase breke assumeing the gorilla wasn't involved?" The same is to be said for any "scientist" who asks "How does the world work assuming there is no God?"
The problem with this analogy is that we can see, with our own eyes, the gorilla.
We cannot see God. We can see what some presume to be the workings of God, but that's not God himself.
Beliefs in God rest mostly on faith.
Beliefs in science, if you will, rest on our sensory experiences (Empricism).
And frankly, I think most scientists ask "how does the world work" and do so assuming there's no God. Or at least do so without any kind of appeal to a Higher Power.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
If you want to say that God put things in place and started all the processes, that's fine. I don't, on face, have a problem with that. However, no theological text is going to work on developing vaccinations or travels into space or reconcile Einsteinian physics with Quantum Mechanics. If we want answers that we can put at least some kind of empirical reliance on, we must do so through the scientific method.
See, this is where any opposition from my side would be completely imagined. I don't think I've ever said anything contrary to this. I would never suggest that we rely on scripture alone to create vaccinations.
Quote:
And frankly, I think most scientists ask "how does the world work" and do so assuming there's no God. Or at least do so without any kind of appeal to a Higher Power.
ou thinking that doesn't make it true. For one to ASSUME there is no God when the existence of God has never been demonstrated false would be highly un-scientific. As I mentioned before in the hard sciences teh existence of God or his influence isn't a factor. They simply report thier findings. Anytime a scientist bases his/her premise on the non existence of God or claims thier discoveries have ruled him out are quite dubious at best.
Quote:
The problem with this analogy is that we can see, with our own eyes, the gorilla.
We cannot see God. We can see what some presume to be the workings of God, but that's not God himself.
Have you ever seen energy?
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
ou thinking that doesn't make it true. For one to ASSUME there is no God when the existence of God has never been demonstrated false would be highly un-scientific.
It's not unscientific. It's simply irrelevant to science. One need not answer the "problem of God" before tackling any other problem. And one can continue to do perfectly good science and completely discount that there's a God at all. Tons of atheistic scientists out there doing perfectly good work.
Quote:
Have you ever seen energy?
Light a match and stick your finger in it and tell me you don't have an empirical sense of energy.
Last edited by Jim Jackson; 2005-08-28 8:15 PM.
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
Quote:
britneyspearsatemyshorts said:
Please leave Llance out of this.
But he's so cuddly and cute! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
ou thinking that doesn't make it true. For one to ASSUME there is no God when the existence of God has never been demonstrated false would be highly un-scientific.
The burden of proof rests with you--if you believe God exists, then it is up to you (and others) to prove it.
...you tell stories, we tell lies.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
It's not unscientific. It's simply irrelevant to science. One need not answer the "problem of God" before tackling any other problem. And one can continue to do perfectly good science and completely discount that there's a God at all. Tons of atheistic scientists out there doing perfectly good work.
You've completely changed subjects. You went from saying that most scietists assumed there was no God in coming to scietific conclusions, now you've back pedddled to scientists don't have to believe in God to do good science, which, by the way, I agree with.
Quote:
Have you ever seen energy?
Light a match and stick your finger in it and tell me you don't have an empirical sense of energy.
In other words you can feel the effects of energy? While you can't see it you know it's there because the effects are evident. Man, you've lost this one and you don't even realise it.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
theory9 said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
ou thinking that doesn't make it true. For one to ASSUME there is no God when the existence of God has never been demonstrated false would be highly un-scientific.
The burden of proof rests with you--if you believe God exists, then it is up to you (and others) to prove it.
The burdon of proof depends on the thesis. If I said "A" is true because God exists then the burdon would be mine, but if someone says "A" is true because there is no God then the burdon of proof lies with proving he doesn't exist. Understand?
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
Quote:
theory9 said:
Quote:
thedoctor said:
faith - Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Let me ask you a question that I believe gets to the heart of BSAMS's argument.
When was the last time you measured the distance between the Earth and the sun?
Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
I've never personally measured the distance between the earth and the sun. Now that I've answered your question, what are you trying to prove?
That you've put faith into an assertion by someone else. Someone told you how far it was to the sun or you read it in a book and you believe it without questioning it and finding out for yourself.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
thedoctor said:
When was the last time you measured the distance between the Earth and the sun?
When you log on to the Internet, do you do so by prayer?
How about when you drive your car? Do you pray for internal combustion?
Those technological advances were driven by science, not by religion.
But not devoid of people with religious beliefs working on them. And yet, still, you cannot prove my original point of that question. Can you really tell me based upon your own research that doesn't rely on what others told you how those things work?
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
These little marvels we sit in front of and type are wonders of science. The science of physics as well as mathematics get a lot of the credit. Quote me a page of religious text that describes the binomial theorem or explains the properties of energy. Just a couple of things you need to understand before you start building a computer. I used to dream that I was inside an endless matrix of 1s and Os, optic green and floating in blackness....
Nor does the Bible tell us how to make a wheel, start a fire, or build a house; yet all those things existed in ancient times. The Bible and most religions are not here to tell us how to build a better car or computer. Religion is there to tell us how to build a better person and community. Apples and oranges.
I think the concept of this debate is really of center. I find it funny that the only people who are implying that you can't beleive in science and religion are those trying to bash religion. That's no where near the point. I think a lot of personal agression against religion is influencing a few posters' opinions and detracting from the fact that this topic isn't about one particular religion. This isn't a God vs. Darwin fight.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet." Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
It's not unscientific. It's simply irrelevant to science. One need not answer the "problem of God" before tackling any other problem. And one can continue to do perfectly good science and completely discount that there's a God at all. Tons of atheistic scientists out there doing perfectly good work.
You've completely changed subjects. You went from saying that most scietists assumed there was no God in coming to scietific conclusions, now you've back pedddled to scientists don't have to believe in God to do good science, which, by the way, I agree with.
Quote:
Have you ever seen energy?
Light a match and stick your finger in it and tell me you don't have an empirical sense of energy.
In other words you can feel the effects of energy? While you can't see it you know it's there because the effects are evident. Man, you've lost this one and you don't even realise it.
but that's like saying i have an imaginary friend who is with me all the time, and i know he's real because i believe he's real.
however, energy can be proven under laboratory circumstances. i'll go with you to any lab where you can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that god exists.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
|
|
betrayal and collapse 5000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,203 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
The burdon of proof depends on the thesis. If I said "A" is true because God exists then the burdon would be mine, but if someone says "A" is true because there is no God then the burdon of proof lies with proving he doesn't exist. Understand?
The burden of proof will always lie with the believer.
The second thesis doesn't mention God--it attempts to discover whether "A" is true or not independenet of the assertion of the existence of God (or else it becomes the first thesis).
If "A" is any scientific theory, (whether God exists or not is moot at this point) that means that someone trying to assert His existence would do so to prove God (your first assertion), not "A", which then becomes a separate argument. All of your assertions regarding God ultimately fall under your first thesis. Understand?
...you tell stories, we tell lies.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
theory9 said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
The burdon of proof depends on the thesis. If I said "A" is true because God exists then the burdon would be mine, but if someone says "A" is true because there is no God then the burdon of proof lies with proving he doesn't exist. Understand?
The burden of proof will always lie with the believer.
The second thesis doesn't mention God--it attempts to discover whether "A" is true or not independenet of the assertion of the existence of God (or else it becomes the first thesis).
If "A" is any scientific theory, (whether God exists or not is moot at this point) that means that someone trying to assert His existence would do so to prove God (your first assertion), not "A", which then becomes a separate argument. All of your assertions regarding God ultimately fall under your first thesis. Understand?
That's only if you assume I misspoke in the second thesis and there are no "scientists" saying that. There are so you can't just re-word my thesis because you don't think anyone's saying it.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 85 |
Getting back to the question of religion and society, here's something else to think about: the caste system in India. For those who may be unaware, India's population has a caste system which divides people into social classes. The foundations of the caste system lies within the Hindu faith, and if you're born into a certain caste, it's because of the merits or misdeeds of your former life. People born into a certain class must remain in that class all their life, and can't even marry out of it. The lowest in the caste system are the Dalits (Untouchables). I've personally been to Dalit villages, and their level of poverty will most likely make any slum and ghetto look like Beverly Hills by comparison. Dalits have no rights, and are forced to do the worst, dirtiest, and lowest-paying jobs in India. Is it right that the Dalits have to live the way they do just because of religious mandate? Does this qualify as an instance of religion not being good for society? More on the Indian caste system here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_caste_system
"Just because I don't like to fight doesn't mean that I can't."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 7,030 |
Quote:
Methos said:
Is it right that the Dalits have to live the way they do just because of religious mandate? Does this qualify as an instance of religion not being good for society?
Sadly, as with many class systems, those at the top probably think it works just fine...
We all wear a green carnation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Some religions are better for society than others.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Some religions are better for society than others.
well, the jews don't seem to be causing too many bombings.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Some religions are better for society than others.
well, the jews don't seem to be causing too many bombings.
My point exactly.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Some religions are better for society than others.
well, the jews don't seem to be causing too many bombings.
My point exactly.
so, we're agreed that those other big two do harm to society?
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Some religions are better for society than others.
well, the jews don't seem to be causing too many bombings.
My point exactly.
so, we're agreed that those other big two do harm to society?
nope. We just agree that some religions are better for society that others. For the record, The Christians don't seem to be causeing many bombings either.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
So the actions of a tiny percentage of the claimed adherents of a belief system are adequate to determine the 'good' that belief system does for society?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Infact here's an interesting quote from Eric Rudolph the notorious Abortion clinic bomber
Quote:
In one of the over 200 undated letters provided to USA Today by Rudolph's mother, Rudolph states that, "I really prefer Nietzsche to the Bible."
So maybe from now on I should compare terrorists to those Athiests who bomb abortion clinics.
Last edited by wannabuyamonkey; 2005-08-30 2:42 PM.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Some religions are better for society than others.
well, the jews don't seem to be causing too many bombings.
My point exactly.
so, we're agreed that those other big two do harm to society?
nope. We just agree that some religions are better for society that others. For the record, The Christians don't seem to be causeing many bombings either.
The USA majority population self identifies Christian. The Fundamentalist Christian leaders often claim that the USA is a Christian nation.
The USA bombs Iraq. The USA 60 years ago bombed Japan with nuclear bombs. In the interim the USA has bombed several other countries including Panama, Serbia Vietnam and Kampuchia. All Presidents in those times professed Christianity as their religion.
Therefore, Christians do bomb people. Indeed, they have produced more casualties per bomb than the adherents of any other faith.
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Some religions are better for society than others.
well, the jews don't seem to be causing too many bombings.
My point exactly.
so, we're agreed that those other big two do harm to society?
nope. We just agree that some religions are better for society that others. For the record, The Christians don't seem to be causeing many bombings either.
The USA majority population self identifies Christian. The Fundamentalist Christian leaders often claim that the USA is a Christian nation.
The USA bombs Iraq. The USA 60 years ago bombed Japan with nuclear bombs. In the interim the USA has bombed several other countries including Panama, Serbia Vietnam and Kampuchia. All Presidents in those times professed Christianity as their religion.
Therefore, Christians do bomb people. Indeed, they have produced more casualties per bomb than the adherents of any other faith.
You're so predictable. No bombs have been dropped in teh name of Jesus Christ in any of the instances you sited.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
wWBM you have my apologies, every since i snapped him he has been incoherant.....moreso than usual....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
britneyspearsatemyshorts said:
wWBM you have my apologies, every since i snapped him he has been incoherant.....moreso than usual....
Yea, I just saw the thread. Quite a masterpiece of mental breakdown you created here.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
i played dirty, i used logic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Some religions are better for society than others.
well, the jews don't seem to be causing too many bombings.
My point exactly.
so, we're agreed that those other big two do harm to society?
nope. We just agree that some religions are better for society that others. For the record, The Christians don't seem to be causeing many bombings either.
The USA majority population self identifies Christian. The Fundamentalist Christian leaders often claim that the USA is a Christian nation.
The USA bombs Iraq. The USA 60 years ago bombed Japan with nuclear bombs. In the interim the USA has bombed several other countries including Panama, Serbia Vietnam and Kampuchia. All Presidents in those times professed Christianity as their religion.
Therefore, Christians do bomb people. Indeed, they have produced more casualties per bomb than the adherents of any other faith.
You're so predictable. No bombs have been dropped in teh name of Jesus Christ in any of the instances you sited.
I never said bombs were dropped in the name of Jesus. I said Christians have dropped many bombs. Kind of easy to disprove a statement I never made, eh?
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Whereas adherents of certain other aforementioned religions have set off plenty of explosives explicity in the name of their religion(s). Again, not enough representation to be a valid indictment against the religion itself, but the flaw in your logic is visible here as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Kind of easy to disprove a statement I never made, eh?
which ironically is exactly what you were doing in the first place.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Whereas adherents of certain other aforementioned religions have set off plenty of explosives explicity in the name of their religion(s). Again, not enough representation to be a valid indictment against the religion itself, but the flaw in your logic is visible here as well.
That is a rather long winded way of saying I'm wrong. My logic is flawed but you never say what that flaw is.
To reduce my statement:
A. Citizens of the USA are primarily Christian.
B. All presidents since 1941 have professed Christianity.
C. These same men have authorized the detonation of many bombs.
Therefore, Christians do explode bombs.
So tell me great and wise Poobah Sammitch, where is the flaw in my logic? What piece of evidence is incorrect?
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Whereas adherents of certain other aforementioned religions have set off plenty of explosives explicity in the name of their religion(s). Again, not enough representation to be a valid indictment against the religion itself, but the flaw in your logic is visible here as well.
That is a rather long winded way of saying I'm wrong. My logic is flawed but you never say what that flaw is.
To reduce my statement:
A. Citizens of the USA are primarily Christian.
B. All presidents since 1941 have professed Christianity.
C. These same men have authorized the detonation of many bombs.
Therefore, Christians do explode bombs.
So tell me great and wise Poobah Sammitch, where is the flaw in my logic? What piece of evidence is incorrect?
The flaw is that it's useless. You string together arguments that the best you can say is that they are gramatically correct. You aren't acctually proving anything save you passed english. You want to argue semantics go to the writers block section and spin a yarn.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 |
everyone has got this guy scrambling today, i dont feel so special anymore 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Whereas adherents of certain other aforementioned religions have set off plenty of explosives explicity in the name of their religion(s). Again, not enough representation to be a valid indictment against the religion itself, but the flaw in your logic is visible here as well.
That is a rather long winded way of saying I'm wrong. My logic is flawed but you never say what that flaw is.
To reduce my statement:
A. Citizens of the USA are primarily Christian.
B. All presidents since 1941 have professed Christianity.
C. These same men have authorized the detonation of many bombs.
Therefore, Christians do explode bombs.
So tell me great and wise Poobah Sammitch, where is the flaw in my logic? What piece of evidence is incorrect?
Thanks for the assist, WBAM, but after basams' thorough trouncing of the man, apparently anyone can get magicjoke worked up. Allow me.
Flaw in your logic? The flaw is that you possess just enuogh enough logical ability to pinch off these little nuggets of lucidity every time you feel so inclined. Your motive is so painfully obvious behind each and every one of these posts that nobody bothers to listen to what you have to say. Is it because we are opposed to hearing out dissenting opinions? No. It's because you're an asshole. And not even an entertaining asshole.
You take it upon yourself, as though it were your mission, to personally highlight every possible hypocrisy, atrocity, minor misgiving, major blunder, and typographical error ever perpetrated by what you see as the vast conspiracy of the religious right, conservatives, evangelicals, Republicans, and pretty much anyone else with a remotely Judeo-Christian bent who disagrees with your extremely well-formed and comprehensive arguments on whichever political issue you deign to address. Because after all, how could anyone possibly disagree with the great Magicjay without being a bigoted reactionary who swears by Falwell and is incapable of any form of critical thinking?
To clear the air:
- I'm registered as an independent voter.
- I am related to just about every 'race' you can think up and am equally fond of all of them.
- If you were to pull your head out of your ass long enough to examine my stances on all the issues, you'd discover that I am, in fact, a moderate.
- I stand by my position that Jerry Falwell (along with Pat Robertson) is a radical fundamentalist who is more concerned with political agendas than Biblical Christianity and has no business representing Christians of any denomination.
- I have repeatedly demonstrated my ability to see all sides of an issue and objectively weigh the pros and cons of varying positions on said issue, delivering a sound argument and refusing to ignore dissenting opinions (except when they coincide with aforementioned assholery).
Why am I mentioning these things to you? Because believe it or not, I'm pretty typical of the average poster on these boards, if not in this forum. Yeah, I've made mistakes in things I've said before. I've changed my mind on things. But it doesn't matter to me. Why? Because I don't make it my mission to seek and destroy whenever I'm confronted with anything that smacks of an opposing ideology. I don't feel it's my life's calling to point out every little wrongdoing and inconsistency that can be found among others' political affiliations or belief systems.
I also mentioned those things because you never take them into account when you're stringing together these witty repartèes of yours. You're fueled by ego and powered by bitterness, and you'll be damned if you let anyone argue with you when you're busy destroying The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy™ and The Religious Right™ (even though I'm not a member of either of those, or at least not last I checked).
I hate to say this... heh, no I don't. I can hear your arguments in this (and many other) threads whenever I want just by popping in a Bad Religion CD. So why don't I? Because as plenty of listeners can attest, after a while it just starts to get old.
Maybe that's why you're having trouble scrounging together people who will continue to listen to what you have to say.
And for the record, the flaw in your 'Christians drop bombs' argument was that you equated correlation with causation, as per usual.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Whereas adherents of certain other aforementioned religions have set off plenty of explosives explicity in the name of their religion(s). Again, not enough representation to be a valid indictment against the religion itself, but the flaw in your logic is visible here as well.
That is a rather long winded way of saying I'm wrong. My logic is flawed but you never say what that flaw is.
To reduce my statement:
A. Citizens of the USA are primarily Christian.
B. All presidents since 1941 have professed Christianity.
C. These same men have authorized the detonation of many bombs.
Therefore, Christians do explode bombs.
So tell me great and wise Poobah Sammitch, where is the flaw in my logic? What piece of evidence is incorrect?
And for the record, the flaw in your 'Christians drop bombs' argument was that you equated correlation with causation, as per usual.
Well, I'm glad you got that off your chest, Sammitch. The great poobah stuff was a joke. Sorry you took offense. You know, I'm beginning to think you don't like me
But onward!! I never said that Christianity was the cause of bomb dropping. I said Christians drop bombs and presented evidence that indeed, those who professed Christianity exploded bombs with great gusto! So you've proven me wrong about something I never said. What an accomplishment. Maybe you could address what I did say with the same enthusiasm?
What's this crap about BSAMS besting me? I don't recall it happening. That moron and his half wit mother are only good for one thing and it ain't debate!
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mill
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. Oscar Wilde
He who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
magicgay39 said:
Yeah stop distracting by name calling Captain! I am above that. (Note:please ignore any of my name calling posts about G-man,bsams,PJP, or yourself.)
Wow! You're ahead of me on this one IAMMT. I hadn't resorted to stalking behavior yet.
That pictures old. Here's one that I like much better!
Notice the pink lipstick?
If you're cumming to San Francisco and want to have a good time, I'm not free but I am reasonable. And I LOVE to suck cock! Except for IAMMT's. Because afterall, he's an asshole, and a girl does have her standards!
If you want to see if you meet my criteria you can check out my ads on ALT.COM or www.Adultfriendfinder.com . There's more pics, too! No dick shots though. Like GW 1 said (or maybe it was Dana Carvey) 'wouldn't be prudent' 
Last edited by magicjay38; 2005-08-31 2:47 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
You're Dave Berry?
|
|
|
|
|
