If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Patheos)   Young Earth creationism is too ridiculous for even Pat Robertson   (patheos.com) divider line 193
    More: Amusing, young earth creationism, Pat Robertson, Hemant Mehtas, Hemant Mehta, Ken Ham, creation museum, Christian Broadcasting Network, fundies  
•       •       •

6692 clicks; posted to Geek » on 28 Nov 2012 at 1:31 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



193 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-28 10:46:45 PM

Son of Thunder: (Note also that, in that Myers quote, nowhere did he mention ever actually reading the theology. All he did was spin another layer of rationalizations for not reading what he nevertheless feels himself competent to judge)


I'll note, because of complaints like this, the godless not-a-blogger and fellow biologist Jerry Coyne has been wading through medium heavy duty names, and finding bupkiss.
 
2012-11-28 11:15:43 PM

mjjt: But it doesn't work. Emotions trump rational thinking.


Every time my nose gets rubbed in this, I'm tempted to thank the non-existent gods I'm autistic. My emotions only trump my rational side while intense emotions are happening. As soon as I calm down, I lose all free will in the matter. There are facts and there are opinions. Facts always trump my opinions, but I can't take any credit for it. It's simply the way I'm wired. There's no (little?) emotional attachment to my opinions. It doesn't usually bother me to be proven wrong; it means I learned something. To be honest, most people seem so irrational about that they scare the crap out of me.

The only hard part is deciding what constitutes a fact. Currently, my lowest level of "scientific fact" requires multiple independent published papers in peer-reviewed journals with compatible findings. Below that level, it's at-best an "evidence suggests". For "casual facts", I read the Wikipedia article, check the specific source document that made the claim, then do a couple of Google searches based on keywords in that document to look at a few contradictory claims.

In practically all cases where there's conflict, one side uses evidence and references for their claims, while the other side references itself and special-interest blogs, making its case through "appeal to authority" and other obvious logical fallacies. (A farker once called it "cargo-cult science", a term I adore)

As for the Bible, I was born-again at age 16. A few months later I was an atheist. The main thing that happened is I talked with my pastor and he told me to read the Bible. Lesson: NEVER TELL A KID WITH A NEAR-EIDETIC MEMORY TO READ THE BIBLE. If you want to believe the Bible is the literal word of God, it's probably best to actually read as little as possible. I finished it in 3 days, and ended up with pages and pages of notes on failed prophecies and internal contradictions nobody's ever been able to explain away. Like, 1 Samuel and 1 Kings both describe the same battle, but many details are contradictory. They are simply not both the literal truth my pastor claimed.

Damn, I miss that memory. It's mostly gone now that I'm old and live on prescription drugs. OTOH I essentially memorized that 1980 bestseller, "Body Language", but still couldn't tell if a girl was interested or not. That year, I would have traded every other talent I had for that one. :(
 
2012-11-28 11:21:28 PM

Son of Thunder: (Note also that, in that Myers quote, nowhere did he mention ever actually reading the theology. All he did was spin another layer of rationalizations for not reading what he nevertheless feels himself competent to judge)


Why would you need to read theology if you already are aware that all gods are the creation of human imagination? Your particular god is no more real than Zeus, Ra, Odin, etc. etc. etc.
 
2012-11-28 11:37:00 PM

Arkanaut: In my experience, for every time you double the length of code, the code becomes four times as hard to debug, which I think makes this a geometric relationship.


I've seen one exception: One department at the last place I worked had this silly policy discouraging functions/procedures longer than a single screen. It made their programs larger and a bit slower, but to my surprise, faster to debug. More little functions made the variables easier to keep straight when reading someone else's code.
 
2012-11-28 11:44:16 PM

abb3w: Son of Thunder: (Note also that, in that Myers quote, nowhere did he mention ever actually reading the theology. All he did was spin another layer of rationalizations for not reading what he nevertheless feels himself competent to judge)

I'll note, because of complaints like this, the godless not-a-blogger and fellow biologist Jerry Coyne has been wading through medium heavy duty names, and finding bupkiss.


Molecular biophysicist Alister McGrath did something similar, and ended up converting from atheism to Christianity. And the snarkfest you linked to is hardly a thoughtful engagement or even an honest attempt to understand.

Next up, I will pretend that my PhD in psychology makes me competent to criticize multiverse cosmology. My primary method of analysis will be namecalling.
 
2012-11-28 11:48:41 PM

This About That: Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?


Robertson is using the term to refer to the theological concept of "general revelation." General revelation refers to things that people can discover by exploring God's creation.
 
2012-11-28 11:52:11 PM

Ed Grubermann: Son of Thunder: (Note also that, in that Myers quote, nowhere did he mention ever actually reading the theology. All he did was spin another layer of rationalizations for not reading what he nevertheless feels himself competent to judge)

Why would you need to read theology if you already are aware that all gods are the creation of human imagination? Your particular god is no more real than Zeus, Ra, Odin, etc. etc. etc.


Primarily because the original question was not about trying to prove God's existence. It was about principles of biblical interpretation. But as for why reading real biblical scholarship is necessary, this kind of thing is a typical move among some of the less-than-entirely-intellecually-honest varieties of atheist: Ask a question that requires a complex answer. Dismiss all complex answers as academic obfuscation. With complexity ignored, all possible answers that remain are simplistic. Reject the simplistic answers for being simplistic. Declare victory.
 
2012-11-29 12:11:19 AM

Beowoolfie: Lesson: NEVER TELL A KID WITH A NEAR-EIDETIC MEMORY TO READ THE BIBLE. If you want to believe the Bible is the literal word of God, it's probably best to actually read as little as possible. I finished it in 3 days, and ended up with pages and pages of notes on failed prophecies and internal contradictions nobody's ever been able to explain away.


The Bible was never intended to be read by the lay folk. It is a collection of stories cobbled together from older cultures and competing groups within the early Jewish faiths and then the early Christian faiths and meant to be read to the masses via the filter of the priests. The contradictions in the Old Testament were never corrected (any further) due to the text becoming set before the groups homogenized into a single group. The same is true of the New Testament and the early Christians. The Gospels, for example, do not agree with each-other because the early Gospels were written to be read to a Jewish audience and the later Gospels were written to be read to gentiles.

Remember that Johan Gutenberg incurred the wrath of the Catholic Church for having the audacity to print Bibles for the consumption of the masses.
 
2012-11-29 12:18:12 AM

Beowoolfie: mjjt: But it doesn't work. Emotions trump rational thinking.


As for the Bible, I was born-again at age 16. A few months later I was an atheist. The main thing that happened is I talked with my pastor and he told me to read the Bible. Lesson: NEVER TELL A KID WITH A NEAR-EIDETIC MEMORY TO READ THE BIBLE. If you want to believe the Bible is the literal word of God, it's probably best to actually read as little as possible. I finished it in 3 days, and ended up with pages and pages of notes on failed prophecies and internal contradictions nobody's ever been able to explain away. Like, 1 Samuel and 1 Ki ...


I, like most atheists, also focus on the contradictions as a proof of What-Supreme-Being-Wrote-This-Crap?, but l read an interesting apologia recently - filed Link (article 19)
 
2012-11-29 12:19:13 AM

Son of Thunder: Ed Grubermann: Son of Thunder: (Note also that, in that Myers quote, nowhere did he mention ever actually reading the theology. All he did was spin another layer of rationalizations for not reading what he nevertheless feels himself competent to judge)

Why would you need to read theology if you already are aware that all gods are the creation of human imagination? Your particular god is no more real than Zeus, Ra, Odin, etc. etc. etc.

Primarily because the original question was not about trying to prove God's existence. It was about principles of biblical interpretation. But as for why reading real biblical scholarship is necessary, this kind of thing is a typical move among some of the less-than-entirely-intellecually-honest varieties of atheist: Ask a question that requires a complex answer. Dismiss all complex answers as academic obfuscation. With complexity ignored, all possible answers that remain are simplistic. Reject the simplistic answers for being simplistic. Declare victory.


If there is no God then the interpretation is simple: some of the Bible is historical, albeit embellished, mus-remembered, and altered to validate the Hebrew claims to land and excuse the wholesale slaughter of others, mixed in with old legends and a dash of how to best beat your slaves and sell your daughters. It is only with the starting premise that God is real and is as the Bible describes Him that it becomes complicated.

Accepting it for what it is, a book of fables written by human beings it is easy to deal with the complexities as the inevitable result of a book written and rewritten by many hands over many years. Only by trying to impose a divine author does it become difficult. The veracity of the god claim is paramount to understanding the Bible. Theology is not needed.
 
2012-11-29 12:31:35 AM

xynix: abb3w: This About That: Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?

Well, it may be he's trying to indicate that there are still answers out there that science hasn't come up with or hasn't yet validated. But it is a very interesting word choice, given how "revealed knowledge" from God is usually religiously considered privileged from further question.

Quite simply put: Revelation of knowledge is only derived from those given from God to humans.

In Christianity this might be called "revealed theology" and in science it would be considered "revealed science."

In this case Pat is indicating that God has revealed to us that the world is much older than 6000 years old and we need to pay attention to that. Not paying attention to things that God reveals to us goes directly against what we're supposed to be doing, which is following the will of God. In this case it shows that the Bible is a living manual of life with God and not a static doctrine which should be universally followed.

Modern Christians do not follow anything in the Old Testament. Mentioning stuff like Leviticus is cute for Atheists to do but it means nothing to a modern Christian. God revealed Christ to us and that is now our doctrine and it's a mistake to lean back on the Old Testament - leave that to the Muslims and the Jews.


I believe that Jesus said not one jot or tittle of the Old Testament laws were overturned by him
 
2012-11-29 01:04:59 AM
Wow, that's weird, I always figured Marion "Non Specific Drip" Robertson would be all over Ussher.

/these threads are much more enjoyable since SteveyB got raptured.
 
2012-11-29 01:12:22 AM

mjjt: I, like most atheists, also focus on the contradictions as a proof of What-Supreme-Being-Wrote-This-Crap?, but l read an interesting apologia recently - filed Link (article 19)


Taking a look now. Thanks!
 
2012-11-29 02:27:23 AM

DubyaHater: The secretary at my office tells her daughter that dinosaur bones were placed in the ground by the devil to fool non-believers. So, there's that.


For next Secretary's Day you should give her the backside of your hand upside her head.
 
2012-11-29 06:42:59 AM

abb3w: liam76: /atheist.

Out of curiosity, when did that come about?


Back and forth between agnostic and atheist (yes I know technically they aren't mutually exclusive, but you know what I mean) since high school (17+ years ago). Pretty firmly athiest for at least the last 5 or so years.

I am not suprised you probably thought I was a fundie or a jew, since you have ahabit of cherry picking lines when you respond to me.

abb3w: liam76: Any remotely intelligent person knows you don't prove a negative.

Depends what sense of "prove" you mean....


Int he scientific sense. I am aware of the outrageous claims require outrageous proof argument, but peopel running around saying they can "disprove god" through science miss the mark. Both intellectually and as an actual argument against religion.
 
2012-11-29 09:47:39 AM
This just goes to prove (again and again) that Religion is BS, but it doesn't mean you can't believe in God.
 
2012-11-29 10:17:49 AM

verbaltoxin: common sense is an oxymoron: NutznGum: scannersexplodinghead.gif

Bevets may look something like that right about now.

He's too busy being i drunk what in another thread.


Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep god out of their brainwaves.

hey gaiz wats this thread?

/lets talk about science
 
2012-11-29 10:22:21 AM

GilRuiz1: This About That: Good for Pat Robertson, but WTF is "revealed science"? Is there also "secret science"?

Robertson is using the term to refer to the theological concept of "general revelation." General revelation refers to things that people can discover by exploring God's creation.


"General revelation is a term used by theologians which refers to a universal aspect of God, of God's knowledge and of spiritual matters, discovered through natural means, such as observation of nature (the physical universe)" ~link

aw cheese not this shiate again

/hey gil, howzit goin?
 
2012-11-29 10:25:52 AM

Jim_Callahan: Marine1: You'd be better off trying to define a Christian as someone who more or less uses Jesus as the focal point of religious life.

Awesome, so Muslims are Christians, too?


how about mormons, catholics, branch davidians, etc.. and so on?

ghandi liked jesus, is he also a christian?
 
2012-11-29 01:44:13 PM

Ed Grubermann: Why would you need to read theology if you already are aware that all gods are the creation of human imagination?


Seeking out the best counter-arguments available, in an effort to actively avoid confirmation bias.

Son of Thunder: Molecular biophysicist Alister McGrath did something similar, and ended up converting from atheism to Christianity.


Conversion from an irreligious background to a religious one does happen sometimes, yes. It's more common in the more pronounced cases (larger shift in religiosity) to be associated with emotional stresses in life, and finding some sense of comfort from religion. Intellectual inquiry tends to be more often associated with religious-to-irreligious transition, particularly when some manner of doubt triggers an examination using sources arguing both for and against the original position, rather than merely looking for arguments supporting one's original position.

It's quite possible that Alister McGrath is an outlier, of course.

However, if you're professionally interested as a psychologist on such conversions, you might look into the Altemeyer/Hunsberger "Amazing Conversions" study I mentioned earlier.

Son of Thunder: And the snarkfest you linked to is hardly a thoughtful engagement or even an honest attempt to understand.


Rather, the snarkfest is Dr. Coyne's social signaling of the outcome of his evaluation (using a couple brief excerpts as highlights), from having made attempts to read the arguments of "sophisticated theology" with a critical eye, and identified what Dr. Coyne considers severe weaknesses in the argument. The one I linked is one of the later pieces he's done; he's been reading for a while, and subjectively has gotten more snarky with time. But in short, he appears to understand the arguments; he just doesn't think they adequately supports the conclusions. (Mene, mene, tekel....)

And, more to the point, he has indeed made an effort to read it.

liam76: Back and forth between agnostic and atheist (yes I know technically they aren't mutually exclusive, but you know what I mean) since high school (17+ years ago). Pretty firmly athiest for at least the last 5 or so years.


About four years back, you seemed to be using some of the common religious critiques on atheism, but hokay.

liam76: Int he scientific sense.


In the scientific sense, proof is never absolute, and thus in that sense proof of a negative is actually possible, via parsimony. (Or in Popper's terms, simplicity -- though he was significantly mistaken about a few points with that.)

liam76: peopel running around saying they can "disprove god" through science miss the mark


Miss which mark?
 
2012-11-29 02:10:07 PM

abb3w: liam76: Back and forth between agnostic and atheist (yes I know technically they aren't mutually exclusive, but you know what I mean) since high school (17+ years ago). Pretty firmly athiest for at least the last 5 or so years.

About four years back, you seemed to be using some of the common religious critiques on atheism, but hokay.


Don't recall that, and I can't ever see myself doing that unless it is with whiny teen trying to piss of my parents type athiest.


abb3w: Miss which mark?


Enlighten people? Educate people?

Pretty much any exchange of ideas that doesn't amount to trying to piss the other guy off.
 
2012-11-29 02:13:02 PM

I drunk what: General revelation is a term used by theologians which refers to a universal aspect of God


Yeah, "they" got 'em trained to say that. err... it's all in the wording see:

A "universal aspect of God" is just a universal saying. More so, the universal IS the only aspect to God. Universalism, on the other hand is a theological constant in the primary sense, especially when considered as the very human concept of a superhuman agency or agencies.

See in this discussion, it would be proper to say, God is the universe or abstract matter/antimatter and the whole space considered.

In short, God IS nature. Both the physical and non-physical

It's just easier to make that distinction.
 
2012-11-29 02:44:57 PM

abb3w: In the scientific sense, proof is never absolute


that's why we have faith

to get stuff done

abb3w: Miss which mark?


IDW's One True Definition of Nature, and furthermore an elementary understanding of Science vs. Religion, which the definition brings clarity to

abb3w: xynix: From a historical outlook it's interesting and puts some things into perspective from a Christian standpoint. However it's outdated.

That's a pretty common attitude among the mainline protestant churches; the more fundamentalist protestants tend to disagree.


that's because the Imbecile Squad makes the same mistakes the Idiot Brigade makes, and tries to argue that any words that appear in the Bible are equally valid and haven't the foggiest clue of what makes the New Testament different from the Old, nor who it even applies to.

how many thousands of times have we already covered this? do we need to revisit it again??

abb3w: There are other verses of the NT to argue the other way.


such as?
 
2012-11-29 02:48:20 PM

vactech: In short, God IS nature.


what are the physical properties of God?

which part of Sin is God?
 
2012-11-29 03:19:23 PM

I drunk what: what are the physical properties of God?


You have some of them listed in your definition (but mine is more comprensive). Let's look at your definition again. Please pay attention this time. This is from a previous post:

Nature is MIND. Wrong! God IS Mind and God is in all of our minds. God Mind (see. my definition).

Nature is Physical....such as Heat, energy, and temperature. BUZZ! Wrong again IDW! God IS Fire. God IS Light.

Nature is Spiritual. FAIL! He IS the spirit.

Nature is Life. Pfft! God IS Life

I drunk what: which part of Sin is God?


It's hard to say. God has more dimensions than we can evaluate here on Earth (or this set). Jesus tried to explain this when he said Heaven was like 7 virgins lighting your lamp. The 7 may refer to dimensions...(I'm working on it).

But you are going about this backward again, and missing the larger point of my post. I was talking about universal terms. Imagine God like a universal concept, an abstraction if you will. All encompassing in his Glory. Where questions about "sin", and "ethics" and "morality" don't really apply. HE is beyond all that smallness. Universal. Like, everything and nothing all at the same time. It's abstract, I know. But you've got to try IDW!

Take nothingness for instance. Close your eyes, and think about God being nothing...the alpha and the omega...

...
...
...
Did you see now? That's is True(TM) belief my friend.
 
2012-11-29 03:27:06 PM

vactech: That's is


It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the-if he-if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not-that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement

vactech: Nature is MIND. Wrong! God IS Mind and God is in all of our minds. God Mind (see. my definition).

Nature is Physical....such as Heat, energy, and temperature. BUZZ! Wrong again IDW! God IS Fire. God IS Light.

Nature is Spiritual. FAIL! He IS the spirit.

Nature is Life. Pfft! God IS Life


so then God isn't Nature? i concur
 
2012-11-29 03:29:25 PM

Ed Grubermann: Why would you need to read theology if you already are aware that all gods are the creation of human imagination? Your particular god is no more real than Zeus, Ra, Odin, etc. etc. etc.


i heard jesus was a myth, don't bother

only a fool would believe there is a god
 
2012-11-29 03:33:57 PM

abb3w: Conversion from an irreligious background to a religious one does happen sometimes, yes. It's more common in the more pronounced cases (larger shift in religiosity) to be associated with emotional stresses in life, and finding some sense of comfort from religion.


do you dream of electric sheep?

abb3w: Intellectual inquiry tends to be more often associated with religious-to-irreligious transition, particularly when some manner of doubt triggers an examination using sources arguing both for and against the original position, rather than merely looking for arguments supporting one's original position.


that's an awfully longwinded way to say, "religious people are dumb and skeptical freethinkers iz smrt"

/have you been hanging around KB again?
 
2012-11-29 03:34:39 PM

I drunk what: so then God isn't Nature?


In a universal sense you are correct, in so much as life is not nature, or heat is not, etc. But in another way, you have totally missed the meaning of what I have typed, again.

There is just no getting through to these ISers.

I drunk what: vactech: That's is


Yes. I farked that up.
 
2012-11-29 03:37:11 PM

vactech: HE is beyond all that smallness.


and how about Man? are we ok?
 
2012-11-29 03:40:27 PM

vactech: Yes. I farked that up.


deep breathes lad, take your time

vactech: There is just no getting through to these ISers.


tell me more about this "Imbecile Squad" i'm intrigued...
 
2012-11-29 03:49:37 PM

liam76: Enlighten people?


yes

liam76: Educate people?


yes

liam76: Pretty much any exchange of ideas that doesn't amount to trying to piss the other guy off.


but what happens when speaking the Truth inevitably ends up pissing the other guy off?

presuming the previous two conditions were met
 
2012-11-29 03:54:48 PM

I drunk what: vactech: Yes. I farked that up.

deep breathes lad, take your time


This is strictly a 8am-4pm thing for me. I have to get my posts in or wait until tomorrow morning.

I drunk what: and how about Man? are we ok?


Hell no! We're screwed.

bluraymedia.ign.com 

Haven't you read your bible, dude?
 
2012-11-29 04:23:33 PM
bluraymedia.ign.com

This pic is funny.

You've got Merle from the Walking Dead photo bombing. Ringo is all like "I drank what?". And the guy in the back, on the horse, is like "Yo! Toss me one of 'dem Coronas!"
 
2012-11-29 06:30:58 PM

I drunk what: liam76: Pretty much any exchange of ideas that doesn't amount to trying to piss the other guy off.

but what happens when speaking the Truth inevitably ends up pissing the other guy off?

presuming the previous two conditions were met


Bound to happen, but there is a difference between trying to do that.
 
2012-11-29 09:49:19 PM

liam76: Don't recall that, and I can't ever see myself doing that unless it is with whiny teen trying to piss of my parents type athiest.


The thread I flagged was 3512545; the "why be good if no-one's watching" part of your argument seemed that sort. There were a couple others around that time, I think.

liam76: Enlighten people? Educate people?


Hey, I've managed to teach a few Farkers some of the basics of logic and set theory, anyway. Incremental, but education nonetheless.

liam76: Pretty much any exchange of ideas that doesn't amount to trying to piss the other guy off.


Ah; you seem to neglect to consider the possibility that the point is to persuade the audience, rather than the person you're nominally talking to.

I drunk what: such as?


The bit in Matthew 5:17-20 is one of the most common sections taken as a supporting proof text.

I drunk what: do you dream of electric sheep?


Nope.

I drunk what: that's an awfully longwinded way to say, "religious people are dumb and skeptical freethinkers iz smrt"


That's an oversimplification, and much harder to solidly support with particular evidence.
 
2012-11-30 08:10:39 AM

abb3w: liam76: Don't recall that, and I can't ever see myself doing that unless it is with whiny teen trying to piss of my parents type athiest.

The thread I flagged was 3512545; the "why be good if no-one's watching" part of your argument seemed that sort. There were a couple others around that time, I think.


Still never heard a good answer for that. Doesn't change what I believe.


abb3w: Ah; you seem to neglect to consider the possibility that the point is to persuade the audience, rather than the person you're nominally talking to.


I think anybody on the fence is going to be tune you out with those type of broad "attacks".
 
2012-11-30 09:01:00 AM

abb3w: Hey, I've managed to teach a few Farkers some of the basics of logic and set theory, anyway. Incremental, but education nonetheless.


and to your credit you're the only farker, that i've ever witnessed that is able to comprehend simple to intermediate logic

and everyone knows how hard it is to get that endorsement from me

that still doesn't address the enlighten part which i think could use some major improvement

abb3w: you seem to neglect to consider the possibility that the point is to persuade the audience, rather than the person you're nominally talking to


tell you what, how about we change up for a bit, you take the IB and i'll take the IS...

the current format of IDW versus them all is probably beginning to appear as the ole crazy guy vs windmills scenario

abb3w: Nope.


www.scifitv.com.au

whatever you say

i'll just leave this here for ya

ombresblanches.files.wordpress.com

abb3w: why be good if no-one's watching


liam76: Still never heard a good answer for that. Doesn't change what I believe.


i'm your huckleberry

shall i reread the entire thread or can you summarize the problem?

liam76: I think anybody on the fence is going to be tune you out with those type of broad "attacks".


neither abbey or IDW have a problem with knocking people off the fence

in fact the only major disagreement we seem to have, is which side of the fence to knock them over to...

however unlike most others we don't suffer from the problem of overly broad brushed strokes, we have simply chosen efficiency over minimizing the amount of feelings that will get bruised, luckily we don't hesitate to remind each other, and will gladly welcome any input you have as well

liam76: Bound to happen, but there is a difference between trying to do that.


inevitable. including conversations one has with oneself

you are completely correct that there is a significant difference between trolling for teh lulz and consistently sticking with the Truth regardless of whose toes get stepped on

and unfortunately we've reached a point in our society (global even) where we cannot sugar coat the Truth enough to make it palatable for everyone's tongue

in fact very very very very very few can manage to swallow that jagged pill once they've gotten to the crunchy center

but we can save that for another thread
 
2012-11-30 09:14:14 AM

I drunk what: liam76: Still never heard a good answer for that. Doesn't change what I believe.

i'm your huckleberry

shall i reread the entire thread or can you summarize the problem?


Never heard a solid reason as to why one should do "good" when they can get away with "evil". I wouldn't call it a problem. Most ansers boiled down to empathy (not a reason) becasue you may be on the other side of that choice (not a reaon, karma isn't real).

I am not saying this as a reason why we need god. I am not saying we are not capable of doign that without god. IIRC it was in a conversation about religion only being evil.
 
2012-11-30 11:07:14 AM

liam76: Never heard a solid reason as to why one should do "good" when they can get away with "evil".


if there is no God, then we are gods and can determine what is "good" or "evil", which is exactly why we have ethics

liam76: I wouldn't call it a problem.


of course it isn't, IF there is no God there is NO Morality

liam76: Most ansers boiled down to empathy (not a reason) becasue you may be on the other side of that choice


correct, though your spelling is atrocious (is english your primary language?)

liam76: karma isn't real


oh it's definitely real, it just may not manifest itself in this life (which is the traditional teaching)

and we don't call it karma, we call it Justice

liam76: I am not saying this as a reason why we need god.


there's plenty of other reasons (mainly just the important ones)

liam76: I am not saying we are not capable of doign that without god.


accidents do happen, but still lack value

you'd be surprised how many xians still don't understand the concept of Faith AND Works not OR

liam76: IRC it was in a conversation about religion only being evil.


this is one of the dumbest things i have ever heard, i'm trying to imagine how to make a statement that could be more wrong than this... but i'm at a loss
 
2012-12-01 12:33:07 AM
I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that you don't get it.

After all, the very best villains have always believed what they were doing was right.
 
2012-12-01 12:33:53 AM
I thunk what?
 
2012-12-01 09:01:07 AM

scalpod: After all, the very best villains have always believed what they were doing was right.


and that's why you have ethics

some of them even do it "in the name of God" and call it "religion"

they are dead wrong

i'm glad we agree
 
Displayed 43 of 193 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report