Total posts: 144
Posted in:
The debate over religion has always been contentious, which is understandable since there is always one side in particular that will not look at the facts and what is logical and reasonable. Following are a few reasoned, logical facts that we should consider:
Creation:
Unless you have been living on another planet for the past 100 years you would know that any notion of life having been created has been completely been kiboshed owing to the irrefutable and overwhelming evidence that life evolved through natural selection.
Nobody can prove God doesn't exist:
A completely absurd proposition to infer that this gives even an ounce of viability or credibility to the existence of God.
We don't yet have the technology to prove God:
Probably the most hollow and deceptive delaying tactic used by theists and will, of course, be used forever and a day. We can assume however that since theists know we don't yet have the technology, they must know what technology is required and are frantically working hard to develop it.
You have to believe/have faith:
The good old warm and fuzzy, we're special and you don't understand excuse. Belief and faith do not make god exist and are merely euphemisms for delusion.
We have always believed in God so there must be some truth in it:
"We" haven't always believed such nonsense; only the superstitious, naive and gullible have ever fallen for the fallacy. Others who say they believe, use religion as a tool to gain power and influence others.
It doesn't hurt to believe just in case God is real:
I'm sure that if there is a God that is all-powerful, omnipotent and knowing, he would see straight through that sort of false front.
Something must have given us a soul and consciousness:
There are no such things as souls or consciousnesses except as metaphors to describe certain characteristics of brain functions.
Created:
Posted in:
It has been done before. There will always be some colorful charlatan who comes out of the woodwork to suck in a bunch of naive, gullible followers to believe and do exactly what he tells them.
For example, we have seen the likes of Jim Jones and David Koresh who did more than their fair share of damage to society. Both shared the same characteristics; charismatic, narcissistic, controlling and self-righteous. Each claimed to be the son of God. Yet, each of them offered a life of purity and an afterlife of bliss to their impressionable disciples and flocks.
In each case, the leaders (plus a heaping helping of their followers) met with a sticky and gruesome ending. What's the bet that oh, let's say, three hundred years from now, a bunch of hermits; outcasts from town, find a bunch of old Time magazines scrunched up like a scroll in their cave. One edition (November 1978) just so happens to depict the Jonestown massacre. The hermits go to a Greek publisher to tidy up the text a bit and print something that sounds a lot nicer.
The publisher says, "Hey guys, I think we're onto something here. Lets make this into a story of righteousness and everything that is good and sell it off as a blueprint for everyone to live by. Nobody can check on the authenticity since three hundred years have passed and, gee wiz, there are plenty of suckers out there who will believe it anyway. I reckon this book could make it onto the number one best sellers list."
The question is, could this happen?
After all, this has been done before.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
my guess, is that you are just pulling this out of nowhere.
You can guess all you want but the fact is that you lost the argument having been asked to provide evidence more than once (see how lenient I am?). Coming back and stating "Ohh! But I was right" after the fact matters diddly squat because you had already lost the argument by default.
Debating is not a matter of who is right but how an argument is presented. Using such words as "idiot" and "stupid", making ad hominem attacks and not providing evidence when challenged will always lose.
You lost, deal with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Nonetheless, I've sort of lost my train of thought, in respect of this discussion....
That's okay. While you gather your thoughts I will ponder the word "Ebucian".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Maybe he'll return as a deadly virus like he once stated.
That's a thought. They say that major pandemics do their rounds every 100 years and Philip was just shy of his 100th birthday.
Just saying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Undoubtedly.
Thanks for your overwhelming, in-depth and informative reply. It has taken me quite some time to dissect your compellingly persuasive and meaningful argument. Although I may not be so comprehensive and verbally articulate, I will give it a go.
I notice that you commenced your lengthy and articulate prose with "un". I did considerable research on this topic and there are many scenarios that could apply here. Obviously, the use of such a prefix usually sets the tone of the forthcoming text which alerted me to the fact that you are definitely onto something here and that you certainly won't necessarily abide with the status quo.
I will diligently aim to finish my post mortem of the body of your eloquent, if not, lengthy work but, as a new member here I can see that I am up against some truly worthy wordsmiths and sages to spar with.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
you may feel unobligated to google this, but if you did, you would see a whole list of sites that say the same thing. the science on this is settled, even if you dont like it.
And you may feel obliged on your next three second visit to Google that there are just as many websites that say otherwise.
That is irrelevant anyway since, you failed to come up with any viable evidence and only did so after being prompted three times and after dishing out inappropriate, unwarranted abuse. Is that any way to debate? No, it isn't. Do those sort of tactics win debates? No, they didn't.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
ok i repeated my three second search, and got google's source of information. a very reputable website.
Bit too late don't you think? You lost the argument the moment you tried ducking and dodging. You were out in the first round.
In any case, the argument was not about glaucoma, was it?
You may feel insulted but I certainly made no insult whatsoever as already discussed. And you will no doubt continue to feel insulted until you acquire some basic debating skills. I'm politely advising you not insulting because, man, you are way short of the mark.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
my quote was google's official answer, which is pretty authoritative.
Google is only a conduit for information, it neither confirms nor validates it. It may, however, quote the source of the information. It is very telling that you have repeatedly refused to state the source of your "evidence" to your claim and even admit to taking a mere three seconds to find the dubious, unqualified nonsense that you did come up with.
polytheist witch also cited information that says serious damage to the retina is irreverssible
Is Polytheist Witch the unquestioned authority on everything that is right on this site? No, I think not. In any case, the onus was on you to provide evidence, which you continue to avoid at all costs. Shoving the responsibility of providing evidence onto someone else is a pretty poor show to say the least.
my initial article on the miracle stated that as well
There are no such things as miracles and there is not one piece of evidence to prove otherwise, so you needn't even bother thinking of doing a three second Google search on that one.
so far all i see from you is an inability to use weigh sources and insults "ridiculous" "uneducated" etc. you're too unsophisticated to know that the argument is in my favor at this point
My words were completely justified and fully backed-up ("apparently u r too stupid to do a google search. you look like u a newbie to debating, so i suppose i should expect idiocy.").........that sort of talk is untrue, crude, vitriolic, personally attacking and, as I understand it, contravenes the rules of this site.
Your debating skills I'm afraid, are way below par and you would need to sharpen your act quite considerably before even thinking of coming anywhere near to arguing on this level.
you're too unsophisticated and partisan to know that the argument is in my favor at this point, and that you need to do your own research to verify what i say is true, or for you to provide contrary evidence.
I need not do any research whatsoever to disprove a spurious claim that has not been proven in the first place by you. And, to provide evidence that is "contrary" to or invalid evidence is a completely absurd suggestion anyway.
Created:
-->
@janesix
There are many other changes to the world as well, and we can get into those if you would like.
The thing is that evolution doesn't necessarily make a particular change to make that particular feature look or be better. Change comes about (even if it is inferior) as a priority for the host (human) to adapt to the surrounding or changing environment better in order to survive.
The same thing happens in the manufacturing world. When iPods and music streaming came out the sound format was MP3, a compressed format somewhat inferior to that of CDs. However, manufacturers had to make that retrograde step in order to save themselves in the marketplace. Portable and more accessible music became stronger and more adaptable to our needs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Because nature is nature and science is science.
That is hardly a valid, intelligent, nor rational explanation as the difference between the two words, is it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Is there a spiritual element to the forces of nature
No.
I presume that was a question; there is no question mark.
Science is merely a label we place on the behavior of our natural environment and there is absolutely nothing spiritual about that.
.......why does it create such emotional responses?
Obviously, if your house were about to be blown over and your life was in danger, you would tend to get just a tad emotional about it.
Created:
Posted in:
As we know, the story of the immaculate conception starts off with a messenger of God propositioning a young virgin bride to be by telling her that "the Boss" has an overwhelming desire to inseminate her.
To which she naturally says "No". But then, she is asked a second time to submit to the request. Again, she makes it quite clear that the answer is "No".
Mary was then given an ultimatum that she had better do as she is told because it is the "Boss" and the "Boss" is going to be not happy otherwise. The rest is Biblical history of course....a perfect baby who doesn't cry for some reason, is born.
Now, considering the barbaric and uncivilized ways that were rife in those times let's just fast-forward to today's more genteel and sensitive new-age society. Picture this; a young lady goes to work one day, oh and she just happens to be a virgin and engaged to her boyfriend. A colleague comes up to her and says, "Hey, the Boss wants you in his office right now. He is going to get you pregnant". The lady, of course, refuses the invitation and says "No" yet the colleague says it again....."Come on now, you know you want to do it for the Boss, now do it". She again refuses the request by saying "No" in no uncertain way at which time the colleague states, "Listen, read my lips. Get into the boss's office right now or you will suffer the consequences". The rest is history and the reluctant mother gives birth nine months later. Now, in this scenario, what legal term would we give to the act which took place in the Boss's office and what word, starting with the same letter would we legally call the boss? And, what is the meaning of the word "No"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
In general or what? Should we kill some or should we absolutely rumble the upside-down upon them, murdering all of them?
I would never sanction the "murder" of any species. and I am merely putting a hypothetical out there to discuss.
In the case of dolphins, I really couldn't care too much if they become extinct anyway.
As for whales, any animal rights extremist would call the slaughter of any animal "murder", however I am suggesting the idea that it is smarter for us to humanely kill a whale for food and its byproducts instead of ruthlessly slaughtering 150 cattle to do the same thing.
And, how much farming, land occupation, cultivation and emission of greenhouse gases does it take to raise those 150 cattle compared with one whale?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Obviously my approach is akin to Occam's Razor, but there is no evidence that anyone did murder him.
How do you know that there is no such evidence?
What thorough investigation did you undertake in order to form such a view?
Especially considering the facts that I presented.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Hey Mr Conspiracy Theorist.
Just wait for it. Give it a year or so after the Queen has passed and it will be a journalistic frenzy of scraping up all the dirt they possibly can to entertain us (or, those who want to listen) for many more years to come. And...is someone plotting to murder Her Majesty, or Charles, or William....stay tuned because you will hear it here first.
Created:
Posted in:
Take a look at dolphins. Really cute and inquisitive creatures that have an obvious affection and affinity with us humans. And that infectious never-ending smile on their dials shows that they are infinitely happy-go-lucky creatures.
But, wait a minute. Did you know that dolphins rank upon one of the ugliest, vial and cruel predators ever to swim the oceans? They commonly reproduce by means of the males of the species roaming around in packs gang-raping the females, often causing severe wounds or death. They also often "play" with infant dolphins like football, again, causing grisly fatal injuries. And, forget about that so-called "smile"....that just so happens to be the default biological shape of their mouths which of course, belies their cruel, bullish nature. Like any other animal that sucks up to humans, dolphins are after only one thing.....food. In any case it has been known that dolphins have frequently made vicious attacks on humans. So, could this be a case whereby we could do without such a lecherous, inharmonious species?
Whales on the other hand, are quite placid creatures that go about their daily business of feeding and reproducing without harming anyone. But then, so are cows and bulls, yet we breed, torture, bondage and slaughter them by the millions every year for beef and dairy products.
Think about it. Whale hunting was a big industry and many countries were built up on the trade of the many biproducts from whales; meat in many forms, fuel, medical potions, cosmetics. And all from one animal. Perhaps animal rights activists and blubber-huggers should take note that for every one hundred and fifty cattle we slaughter we only need to harpoon one whale to get the same yield. Worth thinking about; and we don't need to take up so much land and use so much fertilizers raising cattle that contribute more than cars to global warming due to methane emissions. Whales could be responsibly farmed in the ocean and be processed humanely and far more efficiently than the bovine alternative.
So, should we be doing the right thing and get rid of undesirable, cruel species (dolphins) and adopt more reasonable methods of farming protein and countless more biproducts (whales)? As for me, well, I'm going to hoe down into healthy bowl of miso with whale sushi and fried blubber puffs and watch a retro-series of Flipper on TV.
Created:
Posted in:
After all, ninety-nine years old is no big deal nowadays so we can't just blindly write off the death of such a figure as simply being due to "old age" can we? Especially given that he had the best resources and lifestyle of anyone in the world to live longer.
And, there were many motives for any number of people to want Philip knocked off his perch. We could start with his wife for example. The Queen had to endure a whole marriage of infidelity from her second fiddle and there is evidence of spousal violence from her majesty; it is well recorded that she had a penchant for demolishing pieces of fine bone china over Philip's skull.
And what about those frequent bouts of illness and hospitalization of Philip over the past few years. Such a regimen is consistent with someone having been poisoned with cyanide or arsenic whereby toxins build up in the body over time and causing bouts of illness after each dose....only saying.
We also have to look at the fact that it was only 2 months until Philip would have turned 100. Now that is a coincidence that we should not ignore.
So, what about other parties that would have wanted to end the reign of his highness. Philip was known for his undiplomatic slips of the tongue and his undercurrent of racism and bigotry. Some time back, when greeting an Australian Aboriginal in one of the usual after function line-ups, he made the comment, "Where's your spear?" That indigenous guy had every reason to throw a boomerang in the direction of his highness, without the intention of it returning either. Of course, the palace would keep quiet about the fact that the royal surgeons would have spent hours removing v-shaped splinters of gumtree from the fatally wounded prince's brain.
Will we ever get to know the truth?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
"With sufficient damage, sight is lost. Damage to the optic nerve is irreversible because the cable of nerve fibers doesn't have the capacity to regenerate, or heal itself, whendamage occurs.Oct 29, 2017"apparently u r too stupid to do a google search. you look like u a newbie to debating, so i suppose i should expect idiocy.
You have not given the source of your "so-called" evidence and nor does the date provide any authenticity so you have therefore maintained a continued refusal and inability to provide viable evidence to back up your erroneous claim which is now quite rightly, well and truly dismissed.
I think you will also find that making personal attacks and using vitriolic, unintelligent language are more the traits of someone who is not very capable of debate let alone trying to deceptively get away with providing bogus evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If you're not a Christian who cares if the church cares.
I suppose anyone should care to a certain extent since Christianity still wields substantial influence. There is nothing worse than sticking your head in the sand.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I am not out trying to screw atheists over.
At least, not intentionally.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
People expressing tired old views.
Then, stick around because some real good doozies are coming up.
You heard it here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
They did in part as they did the Torah. But as for them "only copying what is true" can be argued until the day that I ride my next unicorn.
Quite true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
If you have specific comment by me you want to take issue with please share.
Yes, what does "the most whlolistic set" mean? My investigation reveals something to do with indigenous people and alternative medicine which does not tie in with what you are supposedly saying.
Also "occupied space", as this usually refers to what is on earth.
And "texticonic 2ndary symbolisms" shows up some sort of airy fairy stuff about Descartes philosophy which doesn't seem to mean anything.
And if "A religion is any set of regular { daily, weekly etc } intentional practices, that, aid the human it getting the most, joy, contentment, satisfaction or whatever it may be they desire, out of their life" then isn't that being too general since going to the toilet fills that definition and you would therefore be saying that taking a dump is a religion.
Is that technically right?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
IF the goal is (de)conversion THEN "help" in "accepting the truth" from someone regarded as an oppositional figure is unlikely the answer.
That is illogical. What if that "oppositional figure" just happens to be right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
1} Ive used these texticonic 2ndary symbolisms here, former DART
Okay. See, being new here, I thought that maybe you had lost a couple of tiles during re-entry and were just reeling off a load of non-sensical gibberish but now I can see into your eloquent prose.
You know what they say: "one person with spiritual thoughts is called loony; a group of people with spiritual thoughts is called a religion."
Created:
-->
@Reece101
It gets boring.
"It", being what?
People expressing views contradictory to yours?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
feel free to provide evidence
You didn't provide any evidence of your uneducated, ridiculous claim so such a claim can be dismissed with no evidence.
Anyone with less than half a brain knows that the body heals itself (including a damaged optical nerve of which I have just finished recovering from without any operation). And it takes even less cranial capacity to do a Google search to realize that what you said is 100% wrong. You might want to do your research next time before making absurd untruths.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
Doesn’t apologetics get tiring?
Only to people who don't have the intellect to think of anything worthwhile to say.
Is apologetics boring to you?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Perhaps the better approach, assuming you know what they believe at all, is to ask why they believe it and take the conversation from there.
Maybe your missing the point of your own suggestion and being too simplistic.
Surely if someone believes something that isn't true he doesn't need to be asked why he believes such nonsense because obviously there is something a bit loose going on in his head. We should be asking, "How can I help you?"
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
optic nerves dont just heal themselves.
Yes they do. You are completely wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
This all seems to be something that you have quoted from somewhere and that not one word is yours.
Should you not state your source and/or give credit to it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
If I'm not mistaken, this has nothing at all to do with religion.
Shouldn't you be talking this stuff in the science forum or the personal forum?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
We all know the feeling towards homosexuality in the Muslim world and the punishment . The punishment is the same in the bible, isn't it?
Punishments change with the times but the crime doesn't. And, as we all know, the Muslims only copied what is true in the Bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I suppose it depends on the question you ask. If you ask a question such as, "Should I do this or should I do that", you are asking for guidance. However,, if you ask, "God, I really question why you let so many people die and I really question your motives about gay marriage, are you homophobic, or what?".....I don't think God is going to be too happy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
God is a soul and he gives us a soul. We are all part of God so that is why we have a soul and proves that God is in fact a soul.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Whether or not a marriage is legal it doesn't make it right because only a marriage sanctioned by the church is recognized by God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The Pope was right. It goes against every bit of common sense that men marry men. But it shows the Pope is compassionate because we should help these people help themselves so that they can become normal again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
It is obvious that if he is an atheist he is going to talk atheist things anyway don't you think?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dynasty
He sounds like an atheist but doesn't realize that atheism is a religion anyway so he should ban himself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Any true beliver in God does not need to ask any questions to God and also God did state in the Bible to ask no questions.
Why would you want to question God anyway?
Created: