View Full Version : Atheism



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

Stew
12-02-2010, 06:54 AM
Why aren't there any atheists on this thread? I'm not calling them
chicken, I'm just curious? It's not like they're going to be attacked
or put down, well, not by me and a couple of others.

Hey I'm on this thread and I don't believe in any gods.

Joe Daddy
12-02-2010, 06:57 AM
I am not inclined to participate in the kind of discussion you propose. So much for my "fallacious use of Pascal's Wager", whatever the hell that is. I'm not interested in conducting a give-and-take with someone who is set on sounding oh-so-intelligent while I am more inclined to discuss on the level of a conversation. So the concept contained in my statement has a name? Who was Pascal? What was his wager? Did he win or lose? Why and according to whom?



Why aren't there any atheists on this thread? I'm not calling them
chicken, I'm just curious? It's not like they're going to be attacked
or put down, well, not by me and a couple of others.

Actually, Broncho put forth an extremely credible argument with logical points. The opposing theists have replied on a personal level, avoiding the issue.

I'd very much like to see someone put forth a reasonable, factual counter point in support of the theistic position. No one has yet even come close.

PennyQuilts
12-02-2010, 07:11 AM
But how does that equate to survival of the fittest? Wouldn't
morality get in the way?

There are a lot of reasons people behave. You are talking, it sounds like, about intrinsic morality. Psychologically, people tend to go through definite stages of morality to reach that point and some never get there. You know, behave because if we don't we get spanked, or to gain our parents' approval. Or society's approval. Or to avoid hell. It takes awhile for an individual to adopt a code of morality as their own, just because it is the right thing to do.

A lot of moral atheists, agnostics and followers of religions that don't believe in hell or bad ramifications for poor behavior can argue that they have evolved "higher" by virtue of being moral without the threat of hell. Of course, that ignores the question of what constitutes a higher evolution absent an objective criteria for moral behavior. Which may be what you have been arguing. Being "good" to get something (approval, stay out of jail, heaven) lends itself to the notion of social contract and survival of the fittest. But to be good for good's sake doesn't seem to fall into that framework.

I personally think some people are just naturally "good" and it is ingrained in their personality and sense of who they are. Regardless of whether they do things to get something back, externally, they like how it feels to be nice people. And that could be an evolutionary thing, too. If we have physically evolved as a species so that there is some sort of internal, perhaps chemical, reward for good behavior, we are more likely to be orderly and cooperative societies, enhancing survival. So parents who do their job to "raise up a child in the way he should go," set up their child to continue "good" behavior once those good chemicals start flooding them when they behave. Likewise, parents who don't do their jobs create nasty little sociopaths who get their thrills by preying on the rest of society.

Just some thoughts.

Lord Helmet
12-02-2010, 12:06 PM
Why aren't there any atheists on this thread? I'm not calling them
chicken, I'm just curious? It's not like they're going to be attacked
or put down, well, not by me and a couple of others.


I''d consider myself to be agnostic rather than atheist. I certainly don't believe any of the fairy tales that the Bible contains.

Prunepicker
12-02-2010, 12:22 PM
Of course, that ignores the question of what constitutes a higher
evolution absent an objective criteria for moral behavior. Which
may be what you have been arguing. Being "good" to get
something (approval, stay out of jail, heaven) lends itself to the
notion of social contract and survival of the fittest. But to be
good for good's sake doesn't seem to fall into that framework.
Being good for goodness sake (Merry Christmas) without an
intrinsic bearing doesn't provide enough reason for doing so.
If you want something, take it, makes far more sense than
someone trying to say they evolved for no apparent reason
except they know that being moral is good for society.

I'm not so sure that people are born good. I remember the
potty training daze. "Did you poop your britches?" "NO", while
the odoriferous aroma filled the room. Nobody taught the kid
to lie and punishment wasn't going to be meted. The kid just
lied. That's just one case that caused me to wonder how
morality came about.

semisimple
12-02-2010, 03:03 PM
Wow! This thread has shown that atheism doesn't have a chance.

What, specifically, in this thread shows (to you) that "atheism doesn't have a chance?" Justify your statement with quotes from this thread.


Here's a thought. If the survival of the fittest is bonafide, how does an atheist explain morality?

Simply saying "morality" is ambiguous, to say the least. What do you mean by morality? Morality as defined by the Bible? Morality insofar as humans not killing each other without remorse?

If you indeed mean the latter--as you insinuate with your "survival of the fittest reference"--then how do you explain the behavior of many other species of animal (such as primates), who cooperate in groups (for a common good), show complex social behavior, don't cannibalize their offspring, etc.? THese types of "morality" can't be traced to a religious origin.


Being good for goodness sake (Merry Christmas) without an intrinsic bearing doesn't provide enough reason for doing so. If you want something, take it, makes far more sense than someone trying to say they evolved for no apparent reason except they know that being moral is good for society.

Ironically the apparent reason seems obvious and makes perfect sense--i.e., "survival of the fittest" and the idea that such survival could be ensured by cooperation. Recognition of the need for cooperation through a moral code in more primitive species suggests that such behavior indeed arises naturally and perhaps through evolution.

Prunepicker
12-02-2010, 03:13 PM
What, specifically, in this thread shows (to you) that "atheism
doesn't have a chance?" Justify your statement with quotes
from this thread.
The lack of participation.



If you indeed mean the latter--as you insinuate with your
"survival of the fittest reference"--then how do you explain the
behavior of many other species of animal (such as primates),
who cooperate in groups (for a common good), show complex
social behavior, don't cannibalize their offspring, etc.? THese
types of "morality" can't be traced to a religious origin.
Since when is cooperating the same as being moral? Al
Capone had people cooperating with him.

semisimple
12-02-2010, 03:25 PM
The lack of participation.

...and that means atheism (the "belief," or lack thereof) thus has no chance? Explain to me how the lack of participation, as you say, somehow disqualifies the lack of a belief in a god.


Since when is cooperating the same as being moral? Al
Capone had people cooperating with him.

That's precisely why I say the word "ambiguous."

Since you're not qualifying what you deem as moral, your argument has no foundation.

I defined moral, within the context of "survival of the fittest," as being that animals/humans act according to certain social customs, generally for the greater good. Based on this definition, morality could arise from evolution.

There are far worse examples out there but Al Capone, in many ways, acted within the confines of social customs. In any case, cooperation for the sake of benefit of a group, perhaps at the expense of many others, is entirely compatible with the general definition of morality.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/morality

Prunepicker
12-02-2010, 03:54 PM
That's precisely why I say the word "ambiguous."
Since you're not qualifying what you deem as moral, your
argument has no foundation.

I defined moral, within the context of "survival of the fittest,"
as being that animals/humans act according to certain social
customs, generally for the greater good. Based on this
definition, morality could arise from evolution.

Can you not use a dictionary? You don't get to make your
own definition nor does anyone else. I understand that you
need to change the definition to fit your need, i.e. a weak
argument, but it doesn't work that way.

jmarkross
12-02-2010, 03:56 PM
Testiosity runs amok...^^^

semisimple
12-02-2010, 04:20 PM
Can you not use a dictionary? You don't get to make your
own definition nor does anyone else. I understand that you
need to change the definition to fit your need, i.e. a weak
argument, but it doesn't work that way.

I'm not making up a definition, but simply interpreting one. Perhaps you do not realize the difference.

The way you used the word "morality" earlier, as I pointed out, is meaningless. Evidently, you are not interested in clarifying what you meant before with your statement. Thus I am interpreting what you meant.

Instead of throwing a temper tantrum, why not explain what you find "weak" about my argument. So far you've done a great job of letting us know your opinions on the matter but you've done a poor job of justifying those opinions.

okcpulse
12-02-2010, 09:17 PM
I believe that the 6 days of earth being created represents 6 geological periods that occurred before humans began populating the Earth. Yes, I believe God was behind it every step of the way, but I also believe there is more to the beginning of time and God's role in the beginning of the universe. If you pay close attention, Genesis describes the state of the earth as dark and completely covered with water. Then, God created land and divided the land and the waters (plate techtonics). Genesis also emphasizes that the oceans were teaming with life before creatures began inhabiting the land.

Think about it. Six geological periods. Even atheists can agree, although they would see it as self driven. But where I cannot agree is the logic. My logic tells me that in order for something to exist, a creator must be there to create it. Perhaps not out of thin air... there IS a process to manufacturing a basketball, or writing a computer program, or assembling a vehicle. The elements were the building blocks of life on Earth, and God had the right ingredients and the right procedure to create a planet that would sustain life that would have to capability to self-perpetuate.

Prunepicker
12-02-2010, 09:30 PM
Instead of throwing a temper tantrum, why not explain what you
find "weak" about my argument. So far you've done a great job
of letting us know your opinions on the matter but you've done
a poor job of justifying those opinions.
Your argument is weak because you have to change the definition
to fit you need. It's that simple. You can call it quoting an
opinion, but if the opinion you're quoting has to change the
definition then it's just as invalid.

Broncho
12-02-2010, 10:25 PM
For someone who says they're too busy with school to debate
you've certainly given a lot of time to not debating.


That I happen to be heavily involved with schoolwork does not suggest that I cannot participate at all. My presence in this dialogue has been relatively limited. When I am finished with the semester, I will become more actively involved with the discussion.




If you don't want to join in, just say so.


I explicitly disclosed my willingness to debate, on the grounds that my opponent demonstrates good faith in maintaining honest discourse. There is no need to question my intent.





I will point out that I didn't not use the phrase secular morality.
The term used is morality.

I will point out that the introduction of the phrase "secular morality" is justified, provided you concede the points I made in post #45 or defend from the criticisms contained therein.

My conditions for debate are not without reason. I require that my opposition account for his or her failed stance on issues of focus before the discussion can move forward. While I am hoping to exchange ideas with you, I refuse to apply effort in articulating a case when you seem unwilling to recognize the points I have made thus far.

I have been formally and informally debating theism for nearly seven years; these types of discussions are lengthy and I will not exhaust myself trying to convince an apathetic spectator.




Let's try it again.
If the survival of the fittest is bonafide, how does an atheist
explain morality?


Anybody? Do you care to discuss this?

I will explain morality when you demonstrate a willingness to engage in an honest discussion. Concede that your responses were not "reasonable arguments" or defend them from censure.

PennyQuilts
12-03-2010, 07:38 AM
Broncho, your tone is a bit offputting (and I expect some pot and kettle comments!). It is finals season. Finish those us and come back and join us when you have some down time.

Joe Daddy
12-03-2010, 08:05 AM
Broncho, your tone is a bit offputting (and I expect some pot and kettle comments!). It is finals season. Finish those us and come back and join us when you have some down time.
Why is Broncho's "tone" off putting? I'm listening to both sides, Theist and Atheist, and as of right now, the Atheist position is far more compelling. It would be really nice if everyone would stick to the actual issue and stop going after posters on a personal level.

Stew
12-03-2010, 08:15 AM
Think about it. Six geological periods. Even atheists can agree, although they would see it as self driven. But where I cannot agree is the logic. My logic tells me that in order for something to exist, a creator must be there to create it. Perhaps not out of thin air... there IS a process to manufacturing a basketball, or writing a computer program, or assembling a vehicle. The elements were the building blocks of life on Earth, and God had the right ingredients and the right procedure to create a planet that would sustain life that would have to capability to self-perpetuate.

If it's true that in order for something to exist there must be a creator then who created the creator? And then who created the creator's creator? And so on.. Or does the creator not exist?

PennyQuilts
12-03-2010, 08:24 AM
Why is Broncho's "tone" off putting? I'm listening to both sides, Theist and Atheist, and as of right now, the Atheist position is far more compelling. It would be really nice if everyone would stick to the actual issue and stop going after posters on a personal level.

He comes across as snooty and like this is a college faculty discussion instead of a message board. It's just tone. It doesn't bother me and I agree it is far better than the personal attacks. But it was clearly bugging some people and if you don't get that, fine. I've had similar complaints about me (entirely from the left, as far as I know) and for some, that is all they see and refuse to consider the substance of what I'm writing. I've found it is far more difficult to try to have an actual discussion on this board than it is to just complain. Most of the people who come here aren't really looking to discuss the substance of things, frankly. My point to Broncho wasn't to criticize. It was to tell him to not worry about it while he is studying. If you'll notice, I urged him to come back when that's done.

Bunty
12-03-2010, 12:06 PM
If it's true that in order for something to exist there must be a creator then who created the creator? And then who created the creator's creator? And so on.. Or does the creator not exist?

The God who the creator worships is who created the creator. Who else?

kevinpate
12-04-2010, 12:14 AM
With thanks to a friend up the Turner for the link, it seems the songless plight of Atheists has a new champion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADNesm6F27U&feature=youtube_gdata_player

PennyQuilts
12-04-2010, 06:56 AM
Bravo!! Excellent, Kevin.

Easy180
12-04-2010, 08:52 AM
If it's true that in order for something to exist there must be a creator then who created the creator? And then who created the creator's creator? And so on.. Or does the creator not exist?

Good point

jmarkross
12-04-2010, 01:08 PM
Good point

Country folks would say..."Which came first--the hen or the egg"...

Midtowner
12-06-2010, 02:44 PM
The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
Therefore, God does not exist.

RealJimbo
12-07-2010, 07:44 PM
Actually, Broncho put forth an extremely credible argument with logical points. The opposing theists have replied on a personal level, avoiding the issue.

I'd very much like to see someone put forth a reasonable, factual counter point in support of the theistic position. No one has yet even come close.

Glad I took a break from this thread. By the way, this IS a thread on OKCTALK.COM, a talk community. Placing the discussion on the high shelf that contains such terms as "Pascal's Wager" puts it out of reach of small minds such as mine. What is wrong with a discussion on the order of a conversation among friends? Using academic jargon and quoting academic sources, in my opinion, takes away the enjoyment of a good discussion. I think I'll just go back to my Sudoku puzzle.

bandnerd
12-08-2010, 02:52 PM
Some people just talk like that, though. Who's at fault? The person who is too lazy to want to dumb down their speech, or the person who is too lazy to look up things beyond their normal conversation level?

PennyQuilts
12-08-2010, 05:43 PM
Some people just talk like that, though. Who's at fault? The person who is too lazy to want to dumb down their speech, or the person who is too lazy to look up things beyond their normal conversation level?

From a practical point of view, being more conversational is likely to get more of a conversation going on a public message board. Maybe. I am not sure this is a fault thing.

Stew
12-08-2010, 05:49 PM
Most think if Jesus was on a football team he'd be the quarterback. They're wrong though. He'd be a dback.

Joe Daddy
12-08-2010, 06:16 PM
Glad I took a break from this thread. By the way, this IS a thread on OKCTALK.COM, a talk community. Placing the discussion on the high shelf that contains such terms as "Pascal's Wager" puts it out of reach of small minds such as mine. What is wrong with a discussion on the order of a conversation among friends? Using academic jargon and quoting academic sources, in my opinion, takes away the enjoyment of a good discussion. I think I'll just go back to my Sudoku puzzle.

Personally attacking another poster as opposed to addressing the subject is not a "discussion on the order of conversation". It seems to me the theists tend to want to get personal rather than discuss the actual issue. One can have that elusive "discussion on the order of conversation" without getting personal. It never hurts to look up those terms such as "Pascals Wager" and educate onself further rather than criticizing the edcated. Everyone should strive to learn something new each day.

PennyQuilts
12-08-2010, 07:14 PM
Personally attacking another poster as opposed to addressing the subject is not a "discussion on the order of conversation". It seems to me the theists tend to want to get personal rather than discuss the actual issue. One can have that elusive "discussion on the order of conversation" without getting personal. It never hurts to look up those terms such as "Pascals Wager" and educate onself further rather than criticizing the edcated. Everyone should strive to learn something new each day.

Agreed.

Caboose
12-08-2010, 07:52 PM
To you it's a magic fairy tale but 3 or 4 billion people on this planet believe. Who are you to say your opinion is correct?

It isn't a matter of opinion.

bandnerd
12-08-2010, 08:08 PM
From a practical point of view, being more conversational is likely to get more of a conversation going on a public message board. Maybe. I am not sure this is a fault thing.

Perhaps, but it is possible that this is "conversational" for that particular person. There are other posters on this site that tend to talk over the heads of others. Sometimes one is simply more articulate about certain subjects. I try and throw in a $25 word here and there when working with my students, to educate them and get them used to hearing those terms. I see no difference here. We're all trying to share opinions and educate one another in some form or fashion.

PennyQuilts
12-08-2010, 08:16 PM
Perhaps, but it is possible that this is "conversational" for that particular person. There are other posters on this site that tend to talk over the heads of others. Sometimes one is simply more articulate about certain subjects. I try and throw in a $25 word here and there when working with my students, to educate them and get them used to hearing those terms. I see no difference here. We're all trying to share opinions and educate one another in some form or fashion.

That makes sense.

Edmond_Outsider
12-09-2010, 06:00 AM
Glad I took a break from this thread. By the way, this IS a thread on OKCTALK.COM, a talk community. Placing the discussion on the high shelf that contains such terms as "Pascal's Wager" puts it out of reach of small minds such as mine. What is wrong with a discussion on the order of a conversation among friends? Using academic jargon and quoting academic sources, in my opinion, takes away the enjoyment of a good discussion. I think I'll just go back to my Sudoku puzzle.

Since when is intellectual laziness considered a virtue? Broncho doesn't write like your average redneck speaks but he's hardly using wildly obscure references or "jargon" of any kind. If you lack the education to not understand Pascal's Wager or any other reference by sight, what prevents you from using wikipedia or google like most folks?

This is a big discussion and it requires a person who wants to do more than proclaim "my God is an awesome god and you are wrong" to put forth more effort than Jimbo demonstrates.

If you want simple, go talk football or Sarah Palin's worldview or the philosophy of Larry the Cable Guy.

If you want to demonstrate the limits of your intellect, demand others dumb down thier writing.

Or, you could dismiss all arguments you don't understand at first glance without bothering to learn any new concepts or words or any of that fancy book learnin'.

Or, allow me to dumb this down: if you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.

If you can't Git'er done, stay in your pickup.

semisimple
12-09-2010, 09:50 AM
Your argument is weak because you have to change the definition
to fit yo.u need. It's that simple. You can call it quoting an
opinion, but if the opinion you're quoting has to change the
definition then it's just as invalid.

For your sake, the word "interpret" would have perhaps been better than "defined" in my earlier post, but regardless it's clear that you don't understand--at all--what's being said.

This is a supposed to be a debate about atheism, not semantics. Your (intentionally?) vague statements may pass for logical or profound in PP world, but they're meaningless here. Since you were unable to produce a tight argument, there was room for interpretation in your "thought," and I thus interpreted your "thought" in a rational way--and dismantled it.

WHy don't you, instead, re-state your argument on how the existence of morality, evidently, contradicts atheism? Can you elaborate on this "thought" of yours?

If there's any substance to what you're saying, then this should be no problem for you.

I suspect, however, that you will retreat to the usual PP fare--name-calling, defensive temper tantrums, thoughtless contrary statements, or simply avoiding the argument altogether.

Come on, PP. Show us you can do this.

Roadhawg
12-09-2010, 10:04 AM
Since when is intellectual laziness considered a virtue? Broncho doesn't write like your average redneck speaks but he's hardly using wildly obscure references or "jargon" of any kind. If you lack the education to not understand Pascal's Wager or any other reference by sight, what prevents you from using wikipedia or google like most folks?

This is a big discussion and it requires a person who wants to do more than proclaim "my God is an awesome god and you are wrong" to put forth more effort than Jimbo demonstrates.

If you want simple, go talk football or Sarah Palin's worldview or the philosophy of Larry the Cable Guy.

If you want to demonstrate the limits of your intellect, demand others dumb down thier writing.

Or, you could dismiss all arguments you don't understand at first glance without bothering to learn any new concepts or words or any of that fancy book learnin'.

Or, allow me to dumb this down: if you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.

If you can't Git'er done, stay in your pickup.


Good post.... and for the record I didn't know what Pascal's Wager was so I looked it up and learned something new.

Prunepicker
12-09-2010, 11:08 AM
I suspect, however, that you will retreat to the usual PP fare--
name-calling, defensive temper tantrums, thoughtless contrary
statements, or simply avoiding the argument altogether.
First of all, none of this is true, and you know it. Please site.
I don't call people on OKC Talk names, except once in 7,000+
posts and then I immediately apologized. You're wishful thinking
that I have defensive temper tantrums is laughable. Show us
where this has ever happened. When have I ever avoided an
argument? You're really stretching on this, semi.

Secondly, this isn't about semantics, it's about using the
definition of words and not making up your own. I've
asked a serious question and haven't taken a position. If
you want to try and debate without making personal
attacks, then do so. If not maybe you should do something
else.

Broncho
12-09-2010, 07:44 PM
When have I ever avoided an argument?

You have failed to acknowledge the points I made in post #45 of this very thread, despite repeated requests made in post #48 and #74.

To everyone involved in discourse: I thank you for your insight and contributions to discussion; I am particularly appreciative of those whom have come to my defense while I have been absent. I still have another week of school, but I am looking forward to becoming more active on OKCTalk as soon as the semester ends. Oklahoma City is undergoing dramatic transformation and many of you have become my source of information for what is expected to take place in the future. Thank you all!

Bunty
12-09-2010, 08:50 PM
Putting people on ignore as PP likes to do is a good way to avoid argument.

Prunepicker
12-09-2010, 09:23 PM
That I happen to be heavily...

I will point out that the introduction of the phrase "secular
morality" is justified, provided you concede the points I made in
post #45 or defend from the criticisms contained therein.

My conditions for debate are not without reason. I require that
my *opposition account for his or her failed stance on issues of
focus before the discussion can move forward. While I am hoping
to exchange ideas with you, I refuse to apply effort in articulating
a case when you seem unwilling to recognize the points I have
made thus far.

I have been formally and informally debating theism for nearly
seven years; these types of discussions are lengthy and I will
not exhaust myself trying to convince an apathetic spectator.

I will explain morality when you demonstrate a willingness to
engage in an honest discussion. Concede that your responses
were not "reasonable arguments" or defend them from censure.
I asked a very serious question that you've failed to answer.
Hooray that you've been debating theism for 7 years. What does
that have to do with the question I asked? You jumped to a
conclusion?

I require that my opposition realize whether or not I've taken
a stance. That's another conclusion you've seemed to have
made. I haven't taken a stance because I don't see the need
to do so.

Hopefully you'll be better after school lets out. My students
will be finished next Wednesday. They're all fairly useless right
now, mentally and physically because of final exams, theses,
juries, etc...


*opposition in the assumption that a stance had been
taken while all along one hasn't.

Broncho
12-09-2010, 11:03 PM
I require that my opposition realize whether or not I've taken a stance. That's another conclusion you've seemed to have made. I haven't taken a stance because I don't see the need to do so.

(...)

*opposition in the assumption that a stance had been
taken while all along one hasn't.

Whether or not you had advanced a "reasonable argument" was our first point of contention. With the dilemma at hand, you asserted that you had earlier "provided a reasonable argument for honest discourse." Without question, you adopted a stance on the matter and have since failed to uphold it.

If you dispute the nature of our disagreement, I invite you to evaluate our correspondence in this thread. Until you either concede the points I made in post #45 or defend your stance on the issue, I refuse to articulate a case for morality as it pertains to a secular worldview.

Why should I elaborate any further when you seem unwilling to acknowledge the arguments I have made thus far?

semisimple
12-09-2010, 11:09 PM
Secondly, this isn't about semantics, it's about using the
definition of words and not making up your own. I've
asked a serious question and haven't taken a position.

Nowhere am I "making up" definitions or anything else. The fact that you continue to think so suggests you are either completely delusional or intentionally trying to steer this discussion off-topic.

That (seemingly rhetorical) question all but explicitly asserts your position--of course, your other posts (not just here, but in other threads) make it crystal clear what your feelings on the matter are. Don't pretend like you've been neutral in this "debate" so far...


I require that my opposition realize whether or not I've taken
a stance. That's another conclusion you've seemed to have
made. I haven't taken a stance because I don't see the need
to do so.

...and yet, there you go--now you're just being ridiculous.

I see the PP "debate" strategy is indeed to divert as much attention as possible away from the very subject at hand. When you realize you've been backed into a corner or things otherwise aren't going well, you pretend like you weren't debating at all. Gotcha.

Of course these tactics are hardly surprising, given how little thought seemingly went into your earlier posts and your rebuttals to my comments--perhaps an actual debate is not in your best interest.

PP, you've dodged my requests to restate your argument/question enough now; I'll take that as admission that you have no good rebuttal to my earlier comments and you'd like to move on.

semisimple
12-09-2010, 11:12 PM
In an attempt to re-start this thread on the topic, I ask the Christians a question: to reconcile statements in the Bible that directly conflict with certain scientific observations (e.g., age of the earth, resurrecting the dead, etc.), CHristians sometimes say (see okcpulse's post, for instance) that such statements or events are "metaphorical." According to whom, I ask? Does the Bible explicitly make the distinction? If not, it suggests literalism can be abandoned seemingly at the Christians' convenience. In that case how can any of the Bible be accepted as historical truth, then, aside from anything consistent with some sort of independent historical record?

Prunepicker
12-09-2010, 11:41 PM
Why should I elaborate any further when you seem unwilling to
acknowledge the arguments I have made thus far?
Why in the world don't you acknowledge the argument I've
made thus far? You've avoided it. Yes, you've spent a lot of
energy trying to make excuses as to why, but the fact is that
you've avoided the reasonably asked question.

You can try all you want to make it look like I'm at fault but
you're the one trying to move the point into your court. It
won't work with me. I will not, under any circumstances,
let an extremely young newcomer try to run the show. Either
participate in the conversation or go somewhere else.

Prunepicker
12-10-2010, 12:02 AM
Nowhere am I "making up" definitions or anything else. The fact
that you continue to think so suggests you are either

Poo poo on that crap. You tried to make morality and cooperate
mean the same thing. It doesn't. It never has. And to top it
off, it never will.

The rest of your post was egomaniacal silliness. Put some thought
into what you're saying and get over it.

Good grief.

semisimple
12-10-2010, 12:14 AM
Poo poo on that crap. You tried to make morality and cooperate
mean the same thing. It doesn't. It never has. And to top it
off, it never will.

The rest of your post was egomaniacal silliness. Put some thought
into what you're saying and get over it.

Good grief.


I suspect, however, that you will retreat to the usual PP fare--name-calling, defensive temper tantrums, thoughtless contrary statements, or simply avoiding the argument

And just like that, as if on cue...

Perhaps I should add infantile speak to that list. I'm surprised you didn't sneak a "BO stinks!" in there somewhere. Also, thanks for proving that you have no intention or ability to carry on a rational discussion. We can go along without you and your nonsense now.

I realize this all must be difficult for you to comprehend. Let me dumb it down to your level.

You DUM DUM, go AWAY!!!! NANNY NANNY BOO BOOO!!!!!!1

Broncho
12-10-2010, 01:15 AM
Why in the world don't you acknowledge the argument I've made thus far?

Although you will not admit such, you have just unwittingly surrendered your previous objection. Only moments ago, you asserted that you have not adopted a stance on the issue of focus.


I haven't taken a stance because I don't see the need to do so.

For the sake of this rebuttal, whatever the issue of focus happens to be is irrelevant. What is significant is that you have followed this claim of neutrality by suggesting that you have made an argument! Within a span of two hours, you managed to forfeit your own position!

Even so, a simple analysis of our exchange will dismiss your rebuttal altogether. You and I began our dispute by opposing a particular theme. Initially, you and I argued the nature of your responses and whether or not they were "reasonable arguments". You have yet to bolster your stance on the issue, so I have abstained from discussing extraneous issues, per my conditions for debate.


You've avoided it. Yes, you've spent a lot of energy trying to make excuses as to why, but the fact is that you've avoided the reasonably asked question.

Yet again, you have dismantled your own position! In the sentence that prefaces the very statement I am imputing here, you suggested that you have made an argument. You then followed this inadequacy by referencing a "reasonably asked question", as if an inquiry could somehow be confused with an argument. That you have failed to demonstrate the reasonableness of your query is irrelevant; a question is not an argument!

Regardless of how you approach the matter, your responses have been contradictory. On one hand, you claim to hold a position of neutrality; on the other hand, you maintain that you have advanced a "reasonable argument". Provided the latter is observed, you suggest that the argument of scope is a "reasonably asked question". As presented, a question is not an argument. Moreover, while you have contended that your arguments were reasonable, you have yet to establish that you have even offered an argument in the first place!


You can try all you want to make it look like I'm at fault but you're the one trying to move the point into your court.

By all means, demonstrate this claim.


I will not, under any circumstances, let an extremely young newcomer try to run the show. Either participate in the conversation or go somewhere else.

My age and status on this board are irrelevant; my arguments will stand on their own merits. If you reject any aspect of what I have written, I invite you to advance a valid rebuttal. Moreover, I am not attempting to "run the show"; I have sought to engage in honest discussion. The sooner you demonstrate the capacity for rational dialogue, the sooner you and I can forge ahead into new territory of debate.

bombermwc
12-10-2010, 06:48 AM
Well of course this a huge debate......i'm a moderate in most things....i'm also very tolerant of other religous views.

Here's my take on the thing and hopefully it will show that not everyone has their head in the sand for both sides....

1 - I am a Christian, grew up Methodist, happen to attend a Disciple of Christ church now. I feel like whenever I need to, I can sit down and have a conversation with God. If you want to call that mental work or not, for me it works.
2 - I believe in evolution...who big surprise...a person of faith believing in evolution, the world is going to collapse. I believe we did evolve and it is increasingly more difficult to say we didn't, but what I think is....what happened before....and before that....what caused the big bang, why then. What was before the big bang....everything didn't just come out of nothing.....the universe is a mysterious place.
3 - I don't take the bible word for word. Why? because people of a certain thought printed it, and decided what to include and what not to include. The sexism and ideals of the time helped shape what they printed. I feel that it serves as a guide, not a literal word for word book. Symbolism is key in the bible and a lot of it absolutely should not be taken literally. But that's a whole discussion that is centuries into debate already.
4 - Just because I have that opinion on the Bible, doesn't mean that I don't feel a connection to God and feel that He guides me.
5 - To those that say he's just a fairy and it's an "idealogical state apparatus" or whatever, ok that's your opinion. I happen to feel something myself and if you don't, ok that's fine too.
6 - There are people of faith and aetheists that both give each idea a bad name. You can be hit over the head by an aetheist as much as you can a Bible thumper and never get anywhere with either one. But who says you have to convince anyone. We can actually have different religous views and still be friends. That's why I have jewish, buddist, and hindu, and islamic friends. I don't pretend to know everything about their faith, but we all get along and don't bash each other upside the head with our views either. When you get down to it, a lot of the world's religions are based on the same God anyway...it's just how man has decided to interpret it. That's how even Christianity eneded up with Catholicism vs. Protestant.

So i'm not intending to flare anyone up...more to say, chill out. Calm down, look at some soft blue colors....the sky works nicely. Whether you're a person of faith or not, that doesn't mean you have to be angry about it. "can't we all just....get along".

onthestrip
12-10-2010, 09:34 AM
In an attempt to re-start this thread on the topic, I ask the Christians a question: to reconcile statements in the Bible that directly conflict with certain scientific observations (e.g., age of the earth, resurrecting the dead, etc.)...


This is what baffles me. Throwing out reason in the name of faith. How can anyone really think that earth has only been around for less than 10,000 years? Or worse, people that deny the existence of dinosaurs, or that they walked with man. Just nonsense. Here in Oklahoma recently, they discovered a fossil of a shrimp like creature. Thats right, in Oklahoma. That alone should tell people that A) if OK was once covered in water, this planet has been around a long time and B) evolution is in full effect. Or how do they explain themselves when another neanderthal type creature is found? One look at a neanderthal skeleton is all it should take. Or do they really think god created this other homo erectus species only to let them die out in favor of homo sapiens?

Prunepicker
12-10-2010, 10:26 AM
Let's try it again.
If the survival of the fittest is bonafide, how does an atheist
explain morality?

Stew
12-10-2010, 10:33 AM
Let's try it again.
If the survival of the fittest is bonafide, how does an atheist
explain morality?

Explain what you mean by morality? Is owning slaves moral? Stoning non-believers? Killing a woman for being raped? Killing gays?

semisimple
12-10-2010, 10:45 AM
Let's try it again.
If the survival of the fittest is bonafide, how does an atheist
explain morality?

Your question is meaningless. You have nothing to contribute to this debate. Give up.

Prunepicker
12-10-2010, 10:54 AM
Or how do they explain themselves when another neanderthal
type creature is found? One look at a neanderthal skeleton is all
it should take. Or do they really think god created this other homo
erectus species only to let them die out in favor of homo sapiens?
The thing that bugs me is that there isn't a link between one
species to the next. We have species A,B and C but nothing
bridging them to each other. There should be something
showing the connecting process instead we have complete
stand alone species. This doesn't apply to certain species, it
applies to every species.

Prunepicker
12-10-2010, 11:01 AM
Your question is meaningless. You have nothing to contribute
to this debate. Give up.
semi, you've shown us that you can't debate this topic. It's
okay. You have, however, exhibited fine examples of how to
make baseless personal attacks that contribute nothing toward
civil discourse. We're sure there's a purpose for them, we simply
don't know what it is.

semisimple
12-10-2010, 11:18 AM
semi, you've shown us that you can't debate this topic.

To the contrary, you've made it clear to everyone that can't debate--not only because you intentionally drive the discussion on wild tangents, but because you lack the ability to participate in a rational discussion.

Simple concepts elude you. Your comprehension of others' writing is alarmingly poor. You can't formulate an argument or pose a legitimate question.

All of this is particularly amusing, I might add, since you claim to be a teacher.


You have, however, exhibited fine examples of how to
make baseless personal attacks that contribute nothing toward
civil discourse.

Which, oddly enough, are all you seem to want to respond to. When prompted to return to topic on numerous occasions, you ignore those requests and instead continue to divert course.

Of course this is hardly surprising given that you have all but admitted that you have no intention of contributing in an intelligent way to this debate.


We're sure there's a purpose for them, we simply
don't know what it is.

Just as I'm sure there's a purpose for your nonsensical questions, idiotic rebuttals, and otherwise posts totally void of thought...

Prunepicker
12-10-2010, 12:07 PM
Explain what you mean by morality? Is owning slaves moral?
Stoning non-believers? Killing a woman for being raped? Killing
gays?
This is a definition of morality from Dictionary.com.

mo·ral·i·ty
[muh-ral-i-tee, maw-] –noun, plural -ties for 4–6.

1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or
virtuous conduct.

2. moral quality or character.

3. virtue in sexual matters; chastity.

4. a doctrine or system of morals.

5. moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept,
discourse, or utterance.

6.morality play.

onthestrip
12-10-2010, 12:29 PM
The thing that bugs me is that there isn't a link between one
species to the next. We have species A,B and C but nothing
bridging them to each other. There should be something
showing the connecting process instead we have complete
stand alone species. This doesn't apply to certain species, it
applies to every species.

Thats what the neanderthal is, the link between homo erectus and homo sapiens(us). How is that not a link? Do you not see a skull that looks like a mash up of a chimpanzee and a human?

What about the shrimp like creature they found in Oklahoma recently? Oklahoma, way more than 10,000 years ago, was partially covered with water and just a couple months ago a shrimp like fossil was found. It wasnt exactly a shrimp, but very similar. That is another link.

PennyQuilts
12-10-2010, 12:47 PM
Thats what the neanderthal is, the link between homo erectus and homo sapiens(us). How is that not a link? Do you not see a skull that looks like a mash up of a chimpanzee and a human?

What about the shrimp like creature they found in Oklahoma recently? Oklahoma, way more than 10,000 years ago, was partially covered with water and just a couple months ago a shrimp like fossil was found. It wasnt exactly a shrimp, but very similar. That is another link.

I didn't think neanderthals were in the chain - I thought they were a separate branch with a common ancestor. Am I misremembering my science? Same with chimps. I thought they are theorized to have evolved from a common ancestor with man.

Prunepicker
12-10-2010, 01:38 PM
That's what the neanderthal is, the link between homo erectus
and homo sapiens(us). How is that not a link? Do you not see a
skull that looks like a mash up of a chimpanzee and a human?
Appearance and similarities don't equate to a link. Neanderthal
is a complete species of it's own, i.e. nothing showing movement
toward the species. Where are the micro-evolution evidences?
There aren't any. Neanderthal just showed up. What scientists
have had to do is extrapolate what they believe to have
happened. Unfortunately, they have to do this with every single
species.

Prunepicker
12-10-2010, 01:44 PM
I didn't think neanderthals were in the chain - I thought they were
a separate branch with a common ancestor. Am I misremembering
my science? Same with chimps. I thought they are theorized to
have evolved from a common ancestor with man.
It's in the same branch, homo, but not the same species.
Neanderthal was a species all it's own, like every other species.