Religious debate (split from main board)

#976
#976
CSpindizzy said:
It's not obvious to everyone. I ask this of those claiming to believe in "evolution" all the time. I get far ranging answers. Even among professors in college I got varying answers. I was asking a question to see from those who believe in "evolution" to see what the definition was. And I still cannot get a straight answer on the starting point of biological evolution. When? What does it include - all matter, carbon based lifeforms, etc.
Click to expand...

From my understanding, there are different applications. But, biological evolution is only with living organisms. Molecular/chemical evolution may have had a role before that, but not biological.
 
#977
#977
CSpindizzy said:
It's not obvious to everyone. I ask this of those claiming to believe in "evolution" all the time. I get far ranging answers. Even among professors in college I got varying answers. I was asking a question to see from those who believe in "evolution" to see what the definition was. And I still cannot get a straight answer on the starting point of biological evolution. When? What does it include - all matter, carbon based lifeforms, etc.
Click to expand...

Were you one of those guys that raised his hand in the middle of a lecture and asked a trap question, and then didn't actually listen to the response? I see that all the time in classes that deal with biology or geology.
 
#978
#978
IPorange said:
Were you one of those guys that raised his hand in the middle of a lecture and asked a trap question, and then didn't actually listen to the response? I see that all the time in classes that deal with biology or geology.
Click to expand...

what is a trap question?
 
#979
#979
BigPapaVol said:
what is a trap question?
Click to expand...

Where they have a canned "aha!" gotcha response in hand. It rarely holds any water or makes any sense, but they weren't really asking a question to get something clarified or better understand something, but rather just to be given a platform to make some sort of statement or push some viewpoint other than what belongs in a science class.
 
#980
#980
turambar85 said:
It is a psychologically binding (to a large degree) life changing belief structure that is given to you as a birth right. You're practically compelled to believe something so monumental without any choice.
Click to expand...

So I am an exception to your rule?

:question:
 
#981
#981
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Just too much inconsistency in your statements. You could learn from turambar... we may disagree but he at least displays reason with his comments... whereas your responses are mostly antagonistic.




Please refrain from telling me what I "don't understand". For example, I understand that "interpret" means "to explain"... but you apparently don't know this since you chose to correct me above by replacing one word with the other. And as far as big bang being the only model, it appears other scientists would disagree... although perhaps they came to their conclusions by only interpreting the facts rather than explaining them.

Physicist Robert Gentry published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model. Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coining the term.
Click to expand...

Where are the inconsistencies? Agnosticism refers to a lack of knowledge and Atheism refers to a lack of belief. Therefore, it follows that an infant is both an agnostic and an atheist.

And a handful of dissenters proves nothing. If you knew anything about why they opposed the Big Bang, you wouldn't bring them up though. Fred Hoyle, for example, thinks Creationism is more absurd than the Big Bang. He's in favor of the Steady State model, which was the model favored by scientists until Hubble discovered that the Universe was expanding.
 
#982
#982
IPorange said:
Were you one of those guys that raised his hand in the middle of a lecture and asked a trap question, and then didn't actually listen to the response? I see that all the time in classes that deal with biology or geology.
Click to expand...

I love those guys. They have their own definition of lots of scientific terms and they construct them to sound absurd. It's like they read a textbook on logical fallacies and they never got that these are arguments they weren't supposed to use.
 
#983
#983
OrangeEmpire said:
+1

Seems silly to grandstand being an atheist when you are born.

:question:
Click to expand...

I'm not saying you pop out of momma ready to burn down churches or anything, I'm just saying that since you don't have a belief in god (because you don't understand god as an infant), you are by definition an atheist. A-theism means "without theism". That is, without belief.
 
#984
#984
OrangeEmpire said:
So I am an exception to your rule?

:question:
Click to expand...

Well, to be honest, no. It doesn't matter what your life history is, you aren't a counterexample. One personal cannot be an exception (in the sense you were gunning for) to a psychological claim like that. Recall my wording (which you copied). I said that it is binding (to a large degree) and is practically compelling. This means I am alluding to a statistical rule, nothing more.

What I was saying is that, in their most malleable years, children are force-fed religious dogma, often in the form of fire and brimstone. This predisposes them to belief before they can rationally reflect on it. There was never a time when I could form the concept god and didn't believe in a god (until my adult life). Hell...it wasn't even that I believed in god...it was the kind of absolute, no questions asked certainty that only springs from brainwashing.
 
#985
#985
Snakes on a Wii said:
I'm not saying you pop out of momma ready to burn down churches or anything, I'm just saying that since you don't have a belief in god (because you don't understand god as an infant), you are by definition an atheist. A-theism means "without theism". That is, without belief.
Click to expand...

Right, you don't understand any thing.

:crazy:
 
#986
#986
turambar85 said:
Well, to be honest, no. It doesn't matter what your life history is, you aren't a counterexample. One personal cannot be an exception (in the sense you were gunning for) to a psychological claim like that. Recall my wording (which you copied). I said that it is binding (to a large degree) and is practically compelling. This means I am alluding to a statistical rule, nothing more.

What I was saying is that, in their most malleable years, children are force-fed religious dogma, often in the form of fire and brimstone. This predisposes them to belief before they can rationally reflect on it. There was never a time when I could form the concept god and didn't believe in a god (until my adult life). Hell...it wasn't even that I believed in god...it was the kind of absolute, no questions asked certainty that only springs from brainwashing.
Click to expand...


What churches are you talking about?

Without all the marginalizations.......

:banghead2:
 
#987
#987
OrangeEmpire said:
What churches are you talking about?

Without all the marginalizations.......

:banghead2:
Click to expand...

Force-fed religious dogma is universal to christian parents, and churches. The fire and brimstone is a particular case, referencing my experience and from talking to others. Rarely do I meet someone who wasn't told that "not believing in god would send you to hell".
 
#988
#988
turambar85 said:
Force-fed religious dogma is universal to christian parents, and churches. The fire and brimstone is a particular case, referencing my experience and from talking to others. Rarely do I meet someone who wasn't told that "not believing in god would send you to hell".
Click to expand...

Gotcha........... you are nuts.... but I see your train of thought.

:hi:
 
#989
#989
OrangeEmpire said:
Gotcha........... you are nuts.... but I see your train of thought.

:hi:
Click to expand...

You're rather out of touch with the fundamentalist Christian base if you don't think this view is widely held. I grew up in a community where I was told I was going to hell for being an Episcopalian on almost a daily basis.
 
#992
#992
You and snake make me laugh........... you want christians to be a certain way and then claim it as fact.

You want christians to be fire and brimstone when that is not the primary focus of the message of christ.

We aren't the evil bigots you want us to be but is sure is fun reading your guys' mess.

Good times at Volnation! :)
 
#993
#993
OrangeEmpire said:
You and snake make me laugh........... you want christians to be a certain way and then claim it as fact.

You want christians to be fire and brimstone when that is not the primary focus of the message of christ.

We aren't the evil bigots you want us to be but is sure is fun reading your guys' mess.

Good times at Volnation! :)
Click to expand...

I didn't say that this was all that christians are - I didn't even say that it was all of their message. However, I did say that an important psychological aspect of christian dogma is the notion of salvation by faith (and, reciprocally, hell by lack of faith).

When talking about the effects of teaching religion to kids, it wouldn't matter if 99% of the message was loving, cuddly, and morally upright. The 1% that matters, though, is the part that says "if you don't believe this, you will go to hell". Well, you can phrase is more neutrally and say "if you believe this, you will go to heaven." The kid can make the deduction on her own.

So, I know enough about christianity to speak of it - and nothing I have said is inaccurate. It would be nice if you spend the time reading my posts, and considering their intent, to see what it was I was actually saying before you do one of your traditional joking response. What is your ratio of emoticons to text, btw? 1-1?
 
Last edited:
#994
#994
fishing.jpg
 
#996
#996
turambar85 said:
I didn't say that this was all that christians are - I didn't even say that it was all of their message. However, I did say that an important psychological aspect of christian dogma is the notion of salvation by faith (and, reciprocally, hell by lack of faith).

When talking about the effects of teaching religion to kids, it wouldn't matter if 99% of the message was loving, cuddly, and morally upright. The 1% that matters, though, is the part that says "if you don't believe this, you will go to hell". Well, you can phrase is more neutrally and say "if you believe this, you will go to heaven." The kid can make the deduction on her own.

So, I know enough about christianity to speak of it - and nothing I have said is inaccurate. It would be nice if you spend the time reading my posts, and considering their intent, to see what it was I was actually saying before you do one of your traditional joking response. What is your ratio of emoticons to text, btw? 1-1?
Click to expand...


Awwww...... poor fella.......... I'm sorry, I'm not smart enough to talk with you.

:mf_surrender:

Man, that emoticon jab was viscious! I would hate to be around you when you are mad.

:air_kiss:
 
#999
#999
OrangeEmpire said:
Awwww...... poor fella.......... I'm sorry, I'm not smart enough to talk with you.

:mf_surrender:

Man, that emoticon jab was viscious! I would hate to be around you when you are mad.

:air_kiss:
Click to expand...

It isn't a jab, its an observation. Either you don't take the discussion seriously, at which point I question the reasoning behind sitting around for hours making flippant responses, or your hiding your insecurities regarding the legitimacy of what you have to say behind emoticons. I'm not trying to be aggressive, but making an observation. I would rather you spend less time thinking of clever witty replies, and more time seeing if what you are saying it relevant.
 
#1,000
#1,000
turambar85 said:
Force-fed religious dogma is universal to christian parents, and churches. The fire and brimstone is a particular case, referencing my experience and from talking to others. Rarely do I meet someone who wasn't told that "not believing in god would send you to hell".
Click to expand...

I can't figure out your "force-fed" dogma line. Are you ill about parents, that take their kids to church? Not sure about others, but my 5 year old learns a lot about how to treat people, and not lie, or steal, and so on and so forth in her Sunday school class. Is that bad? She does not sit in on church services, so she does not hear the fire, and brimstone you speak of. When she becomes of age, she will have to decide what she wants to believe, no different than you have. Your "brainwashing/dogma/forced-fed" bit, does not encompass all.

Is the part about, "if you don't believe in God, you will go to hell" bother you? If you don't believe in God (which you have claimed you don't), it shouldn't bother you.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top