View Full Version : The Devil and God Play Uno: God Thread Pt. 4
UNO!!!
If you don't know what this thread is for by now...don't bother posting.
The Personist
09/05/09, 06:51 PM
Sweet!
Jake Denning
09/05/09, 07:04 PM
Sour!
Maybe some kind of disclaimer just for new members and such?
Josh Weinstein
09/05/09, 08:28 PM
Alanis Morisette is the human embodiment of God... I saw it in a movie once.
AsItFallsApart
09/05/09, 09:25 PM
the devil is holding a surprising amount of wild draw fours
maxvsmaradona
09/05/09, 10:14 PM
God is love, and love is real.
/mwY
There is no god. Listen to to Ringwom.
stereokiller
09/06/09, 05:10 AM
Maybe some kind of disclaimer just for new members and such?
yes please. -_-
Is this thread related to Brand New's third album????????????????
jawstheme
09/06/09, 08:26 AM
4 already? Wow.
jawstheme
09/06/09, 08:28 AM
Is this thread related to Brand New's third album????????????????
Brand New's third album is the newest testament in the mormon bible.
The Personist
09/06/09, 08:42 AM
Brand New's third album is the newest testament in the mormon bible.
No wonder it sucks so much! :-p
beamsofthesun
09/06/09, 09:39 AM
I guess they got too drunk in the other thread
where did it go?
My Broken Fever
09/06/09, 10:13 AM
The hell happened to #3? Full already? And where are the crazies. :-(
God is love, and love is real.
/mwY
Are the dead dancing with the dead?
Brand New's third album is the newest testament in the mormon bible.
Only if Jesse Lacey stuck his face into a hat and looked at a seer-stone inside to come up with the lyrics!
maxvsmaradona
09/06/09, 11:18 AM
Are the dead dancing with the dead?
Yes they are. (possibly my favorite mwY song)
Only if Vinny stuck his face into a hat and looked at a seer-stone inside to come up with the lyrics!
fixed!
Daisy is such a terrible album. And it will show up on so many aoty lists. Fuck that. It deserves to be in the gutter right next to mwY's latest offering.
vGz3wO1zxao
RNy6ziOyxoA
Regards
09/06/09, 02:09 PM
mewithoutYou's latest album was really good. Should never be in the same sentence with Brand New
oncedarkness
09/06/09, 02:38 PM
mewithoutYou's latest album was really good. Should never be in the same sentence with Brand New
People hated on mwY's new record too much. I love it.
beamsofthesun
09/06/09, 04:19 PM
Yes they are. (possibly my favorite mwY song)
Daisy is such a terrible album. And it will show up on so many aoty lists. Fuck that. It deserves to be in the gutter right next to mwY's latest offering.
]
mewithoutYou's latest album was really good. Should never be in the same sentence with Brand New
People hated on mwY's new record too much. I love it.
Enough about mewithoutyou
back to discussion people!
maxvsmaradona
09/06/09, 04:21 PM
mewithoutYou writes songs dealing with judeo-christian things. Pretty on topic.
beamsofthesun
09/06/09, 04:25 PM
mewithoutYou writes songs dealing with judeo-christian things. Pretty on topic.
I actually think that's a thread, views on religion in music
well then, is religion in music moving or overpowering?
maxvsmaradona
09/06/09, 04:27 PM
I actually think that's a thread, views on religion in music
well then, is religion in music moving or overpowering?
Depends. Aside from mwY's last album, they were sorta subtle about it. But on it's all crazy!, "Allah Allah Allah", it's over powering. But then when you listen to Jars of Clay or The David Crowder Band, it's overpowering as well.
If we are all children of God then whats so special about Jesus?
it's amazing how quickly the second and third thread went by but how long it took the first thread to get full.
That's because the first one was full of arguments and the last couple ones have been chat threads at times.
The Personist
09/06/09, 11:00 PM
"“The heavens are telling the glory of God, and the firmament proclaims God's handiwork.” The words of the Psalmist are no less true today than when they were penned three thousand years ago. We still look up at the heavens and marvel. And yet, for too many Christians, our science has become an opponent to faith. Something that must be argued against. Evolution. Quantum physics. Paleontology. Psychology. All stand in opposition to the claims of faith. But a Christians should be able to embrace both science and the claims of Christian faith. Theologians throughout history have not had anything to fear from science; as they saw it "truth does not oppose truth." There is nothing in our science that cannot be affirmed by Christians. Affirming evolution does not deny our being made in the image of God. Affirming the Big Bang does not deny God as creator of the universe. For the fundamental truths of Christian faith are only deepened by our scientific understandings. And our science is part of how we love God with our whole mind, as Jesus instructed us to. And so we keep our minds open, we embrace science, and we continue to regard the universe with wonder and awe."
Weekly e-pistle (lol) from the UMC on campus. How great is that?
The Personist
09/06/09, 11:52 PM
Haha, this from the libertarian.
The Personist
09/07/09, 12:29 AM
Haha, this from the guy with the Talking Heads avatar.
The Personist
09/07/09, 12:38 AM
They're all right.
BrennanHickson
09/07/09, 10:06 AM
:wave: I'm back.
jawstheme
09/07/09, 05:27 PM
The Talking Heads are great and Daisy is great. The Devil and God is great.
/my opinion
Who the hell is brennanhickson?
if memory serves me correct she's on your side.
BrennanHickson
09/08/09, 04:56 AM
if memory serves me correct she's on your side.
On his side regarding... what, exactly?
On his side regarding... what, exactly?
The question at hand.
Animalhill
09/08/09, 06:34 AM
Love the new thread title, despite my inability to understand the game known as, "Uno".
My Broken Fever
09/08/09, 07:14 AM
I was called a spawn of satan by someone today, as in; she actually thought I was a child of satan. I'm so happy.
perceptrons
09/08/09, 07:57 AM
I love all things Uno, especially the pizza.
Animalhill
09/08/09, 08:07 AM
I was called a spawn of satan by someone today, as in; she actually thought I was a child of satan. I'm so happy.
The same has happened to me. Haha multiple times, actually.
I love all things Uno, especially the pizza.
Agreed.
maxvsmaradona
09/08/09, 08:21 AM
Draw 4, bitches.
Regards
09/08/09, 09:05 AM
I think I'd enjoy these threads more if they were all about Uno, pizza, and mewithoutYou.
Animalhill
09/08/09, 10:14 AM
I think I'd enjoy these threads more if they were all about Uno, pizza, and mewithoutYou.
haha unfortunately, we have far sinister motives... *rubs hands and 'mu-hah-hah's*
Whats up man?
Regards
09/08/09, 10:28 AM
haha unfortunately, we have far sinister motives... *rubs hands and 'mu-hah-hah's*
Whats up man?
Haha, not a whole lot dude. Just trying to get used to living in Chicago and doing the school thing versus living in a town of 10,000 and working full time. Its been an interesting transition. How about you, how's the band going?
Animalhill
09/08/09, 10:29 AM
Haha, not a whole lot dude. Just trying to get used to living in Chicago and doing the school thing versus living in a town of 10,000 and working full time. Its been an interesting transition. How about you, how's the band going?
I've just been working full time (and then some) and playing mad music. We're recording an EP in a few weeks- stoked to show all my fellow APers.
Regards
09/08/09, 11:28 AM
I've just been working full time (and then some) and playing mad music. We're recording an EP in a few weeks- stoked to show all my fellow APers.
Righteous! I'll be expecting a copy ;-)
Animalhill
09/08/09, 11:30 AM
Righteous! I'll be expecting a copy ;-)
But of course, sir! I'll most likely just make a thread entitled "Attn: Animal Hill".
Jefferson Rank
09/08/09, 11:32 AM
That must be one badass game of cards.
Regards
09/08/09, 11:36 AM
But of course, sir! I'll most likely just make a thread entitled "Attn: Animal Hill".
Good call. Nothing more core than making your own bands thread on AP. I did the same haha.
Animalhill
09/08/09, 11:45 AM
Good call. Nothing more core than making your own bands thread on AP. I did the same haha.
:-d Not really to grab EVERYONES attention- more to grab the attention of the people I'm familiar with on here ;just far too lazy to shoot each of them a PM.
perceptrons
09/08/09, 03:12 PM
There's a church near my campus that apparently has a piece of bread that was once the flesh of Jesus. I'm not talking metaphorically either.
beamsofthesun
09/08/09, 06:18 PM
Love the new thread title, despite my inability to understand the game known as, "Uno".
I challenge you to a hand of uno, winner takes all
There's a church near my campus that apparently has a piece of bread that was once the flesh of Jesus. I'm not talking metaphorically either.
delicious?
BrennanHickson
09/08/09, 06:39 PM
The question at hand.
I am not sure I know what the question at hand is. Would you mind refreshing my memory?
beamsofthesun
09/08/09, 06:40 PM
I am not sure I know what the question at hand is. Would you mind refreshing my memory?
read
I suppose this goes here
Creation, starring Paul Bettany, details Darwin's "struggle between faith and reason" as he wrote On The Origin of Species. It depicts him as a man who loses faith in God following the death of his beloved 10-year-old daughter, Annie.
The film was chosen to open the Toronto Film Festival and has its British premiere on Sunday. It has been sold in almost every territory around the world, from Australia to Scandinavia.
However, US distributors have resolutely passed on a film which will prove hugely divisive in a country where, according to a Gallup poll conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.
discuss
The Personist
09/13/09, 12:08 PM
I suppose this goes here
Creation, starring Paul Bettany, details Darwin's "struggle between faith and reason" as he wrote On The Origin of Species. It depicts him as a man who loses faith in God following the death of his beloved 10-year-old daughter, Annie.
The film was chosen to open the Toronto Film Festival and has its British premiere on Sunday. It has been sold in almost every territory around the world, from Australia to Scandinavia.
However, US distributors have resolutely passed on a film which will prove hugely divisive in a country where, according to a Gallup poll conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.
discuss
It's absolutely idiotic. I don't get why people think science and faith are mutually exclusive.
beamsofthesun
09/13/09, 03:32 PM
I suppose this goes here
Creation, starring Paul Bettany, details Darwin's "struggle between faith and reason" as he wrote On The Origin of Species. It depicts him as a man who loses faith in God following the death of his beloved 10-year-old daughter, Annie.
The film was chosen to open the Toronto Film Festival and has its British premiere on Sunday. It has been sold in almost every territory around the world, from Australia to Scandinavia.
However, US distributors have resolutely passed on a film which will prove hugely divisive in a country where, according to a Gallup poll conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.
discuss
wow I forgot we lived in a nation based on faith alone.
oh wait...
Machu505
09/13/09, 03:43 PM
The film has sparked fierce debate on US Christian websites, with a typical comment dismissing evolution as "a silly theory with a serious lack of evidence to support it despite over a century of trying".
Hmm... that sounds familiar.
zion the lion
09/13/09, 03:58 PM
I suppose this goes here
Creation, starring Paul Bettany, details Darwin's "struggle between faith and reason" as he wrote On The Origin of Species. It depicts him as a man who loses faith in God following the death of his beloved 10-year-old daughter, Annie.
The film was chosen to open the Toronto Film Festival and has its British premiere on Sunday. It has been sold in almost every territory around the world, from Australia to Scandinavia.
However, US distributors have resolutely passed on a film which will prove hugely divisive in a country where, according to a Gallup poll conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.
discuss
First of all, I'm not in on the details of this movie, but just based on the two sentences here, I think it should be shown in America. Exactly 1 year ago, my aunt's 21 year old son was murdered (shot in the head on the sidewalk) and two years ago my other aunt lost her 23 year old son in a car accident. Both of them, and others who go through such a thing could maybe benefit in seeing that they arent alone in those struggles.
As for the poll results, I'm one of the 61 percent who doesnt "believe" in it.
As for the poll results, I'm one of the 61 percent who doesnt "believe" in it.
:eyebrow:
Excuse me while I go wiggle my tailbone, remove my appendix, and get rid of the wisdom teeth that don't fit in my mouth.
beamsofthesun
09/13/09, 04:14 PM
:eyebrow:
Excuse me while I go wiggle my tailbone, remove my appendix, and get rid of the wisdom teeth that don't fit in my mouth.
:-d now now, as long as he does not think a T-Rex was on the Ark he's ok in my book
As for the poll results, I'm one of the 61 percent who doesnt "believe" in it.
The 18th century called, they want their vapid beliefs back.
zion the lion
09/13/09, 04:28 PM
:eyebrow:
Excuse me while I go wiggle my tailbone, remove my appendix, and get rid of the wisdom teeth that don't fit in my mouth.
Macro, not micro.
Macro, not micro.
That's just as bad.
-1
zion the lion
09/13/09, 05:15 PM
That's just as bad.
-1
Hmm no, it isnt. If you're raised in the church, where you're told every week in sunday school that god created everything and each species was its own species, then you dont learn anything about macro-evolution until the beginning of middle school (7th grade) where it's just the bare minimum (we came monkeys, Darwin came up with the theory because of going to the Galapagos Islands), I dont think it's just as bad at all.
But I would like to know how it's just as bad.
beamsofthesun
09/13/09, 05:18 PM
Hmm no, it isnt. If you're raised in the church, where you're told every week in sunday school that god created everything and each species was its own species, then you dont learn anything about macro-evolution until the beginning of middle school (7th grade) where it's just the bare minimum (we came monkeys, Darwin came up with the theory because of going to the Galapagos Islands), I dont think it's just as bad at all.
Not to mention the fact that I see the evidence of macro-evolution anywhere in my everyday life, but I look at my photo album and see the evidence in my own family.
Wow, how did I make it out...
I see what you mean though, but it doesn't allow you to turn a deaf ear to it now
zion the lion
09/13/09, 05:27 PM
Wow, how did I make it out...
I see what you mean though, but it doesn't allow you to turn a deaf ear to it now
I never said that I've turned a deaf ear to it, I said I dont believe in it. If you're told something all of your life, it ends up as common knowledge. Just like I was told that the sky is blue, so on a cloudy day, if someone comes up to me and tells me its green, I'll be interested to hear their theory.
My Broken Fever
09/13/09, 11:35 PM
As for the poll results, I'm one of the 61 percent who doesnt "believe" in it. It has nothing to do with believing anymore, it has to do with either how arrogant or how ignorant someone is. Not believing in it is like saying that the earth isn't round but flat.
zion the lion
09/14/09, 03:10 AM
It has nothing to do with believing anymore, it has to do with either how arrogant or how ignorant someone is. Not believing in it is like saying that the earth isn't round but flat.
If you think about it, the true arrogance is saying that you know for certain something you'll never really know. Yes I'm ignorant to the whole theory on evolution, I've already said it. But quite frankly (and I know this wont be well received) we're all ignorant, as far as I know, nobody was there 13.7 billion years ago. And we're pretty arrogant to think that we're that technologically advanced to assume we know so much about it all. The furthest our species has gone is to the moon, and our biggest accomplishment in unmanned space exploration is that in 2015 we will finally take Pluto's virginity (on my birthday!). We have never left the solar system, we have never left this galaxy, we dont know how big this universe is. Can you even tell me where our galaxy is in the universe?
I think it has everything to do with "believing" still, and it always will. If you knew/know nothing about the urinary system or even the body, and I came up and said that my kidneys work in reverse, you wouldnt believe me until I told you what I meant. I'm open to anything, and I would gladly accept the theory of evolution as a fact if I had the chance to learn it. At this point in time, I cant do that, but in a few months - years, when I get the chance, I'll learn about it and become part of that 39%.
My Broken Fever
09/14/09, 04:46 AM
If you think about it, the true arrogance is saying that you know for certain something you'll never really know. Yes I'm ignorant to the whole theory on evolution, I've already said it. But quite frankly (and I know this wont be well received) we're all ignorant, as far as I know, nobody was there 13.7 billion years ago. And we're pretty arrogant to think that we're that technologically advanced to assume we know so much about it all. The furthest our species has gone is to the moon, and our biggest accomplishment in unmanned space exploration is that in 2015 we will finally take Pluto's virginity (on my birthday!). We have never left the solar system, we have never left this galaxy, we dont know how big this universe is. Can you even tell me where our galaxy is in the universe?
I think it has everything to do with "believing" still, and it always will. If you knew/know nothing about the urinary system or even the body, and I came up and said that my kidneys work in reverse, you wouldnt believe me until I told you what I meant. I'm open to anything, and I would gladly accept the theory of evolution as a fact if I had the chance to learn it. At this point in time, I cant do that, but in a few months - years, when I get the chance, I'll learn about it and become part of that 39%.
The arrogance is rejecting evidence. And we know so much about it all because we observe and gather evidence, so we can say we do know quite a bit about our world. We actually do know where we are in the universe, the milky way has been mapped and so have large parts of the rest of the universe.
You don't have to have been somewhere to know it exactly, the evidence leads to the same conclusions. And as far as evolution goes, all the evidence points towards it; the only logical conclusion is that we evolved. Every creationist theory is nonsense, so evolution is the only thing that's left.
Animalhill
09/14/09, 05:43 AM
:eyebrow:
Excuse me while I go wiggle my tailbone, remove my appendix, and get rid of the wisdom teeth that don't fit in my mouth.
The arrogance is rejecting evidence. And we know so much about it all because we observe and gather evidence, so we can say we do know quite a bit about our world. We actually do know where we are in the universe, the milky way has been mapped and so have large parts of the rest of the universe.
You don't have to have been somewhere to know it exactly, the evidence leads to the same conclusions. And as far as evolution goes, all the evidence points towards it; the only logical conclusion is that we evolved. Every creationist theory is nonsense, so evolution is the only thing that's left.
I ain't no ape! I didn't come from no monkeys. I'm an AMERICAN- I come from the dick of Adam and the cunt of Eve!
*waives american flag and whistles the national anthem because I don't actually know the words"
caveBEAR
09/14/09, 07:00 AM
If you think about it, the true arrogance is saying that you know for certain something you'll never really know. Yes I'm ignorant to the whole theory on evolution, I've already said it. But quite frankly (and I know this wont be well received) we're all ignorant, as far as I know, nobody was there 13.7 billion years ago. And we're pretty arrogant to think that we're that technologically advanced to assume we know so much about it all. The furthest our species has gone is to the moon, and our biggest accomplishment in unmanned space exploration is that in 2015 we will finally take Pluto's virginity (on my birthday!). We have never left the solar system, we have never left this galaxy, we dont know how big this universe is. Can you even tell me where our galaxy is in the universe?
I think it has everything to do with "believing" still, and it always will. If you knew/know nothing about the urinary system or even the body, and I came up and said that my kidneys work in reverse, you wouldnt believe me until I told you what I meant. I'm open to anything, and I would gladly accept the theory of evolution as a fact if I had the chance to learn it. At this point in time, I cant do that, but in a few months - years, when I get the chance, I'll learn about it and become part of that 39%.
...are you saying you believe that evolution is real, but because you haven't had the chance to learn about it you choose to not believe in it?
The Personist
09/14/09, 07:43 AM
I don't get how people don't "believe" in evolution. That's like not believing 2+2=4.
Animalhill
09/14/09, 07:44 AM
I don't get how people don't "believe" in evolution. That's like not believing 2+2=4.
2 + 2 = 5 David. FIVE.
EDIT: Truth is unamerican.
The Personist
09/14/09, 07:47 AM
2 + 2 = 5 David. FIVE.
EDIT: Truth is unamerican.
FACT is unamerican. Truth is subjective ;-)
Animalhill
09/14/09, 07:49 AM
FACT is unamerican. Truth is subjective ;-)
haha how you been man? What year are you in college?
The Personist
09/14/09, 07:54 AM
haha how you been man? What year are you in college?
Junior. I should be doing homework right now...ughh. Procrastination (and girl trouble) is a bitch.
Animalhill
09/14/09, 07:56 AM
Junior. I should be doing homework right now...ughh. Procrastination (and girl trouble) is a bitch.
Word. I would have been a senior this year. Oh well. Yeah, I hear you on the girl trouble man... fucking women- they truly elude me.
perceptrons
09/14/09, 09:31 AM
Page 5 hurt my brain.
If you think about it, the true arrogance is saying that you know for certain something you'll never really know. Yes I'm ignorant to the whole theory on evolution, I've already said it. But quite frankly (and I know this wont be well received) we're all ignorant, as far as I know, nobody was there 13.7 billion years ago. And we're pretty arrogant to think that we're that technologically advanced to assume we know so much about it all. The furthest our species has gone is to the moon, and our biggest accomplishment in unmanned space exploration is that in 2015 we will finally take Pluto's virginity (on my birthday!). We have never left the solar system, we have never left this galaxy, we dont know how big this universe is. Can you even tell me where our galaxy is in the universe?
I think it has everything to do with "believing" still, and it always will. If you knew/know nothing about the urinary system or even the body, and I came up and said that my kidneys work in reverse, you wouldnt believe me until I told you what I meant. I'm open to anything, and I would gladly accept the theory of evolution as a fact if I had the chance to learn it. At this point in time, I cant do that, but in a few months - years, when I get the chance, I'll learn about it and become part of that 39%.
http://onionesquereality.files.wordpress.c om/2008/06/the_selfish_gene3.jpg
Read this book. Pretty please. Full-text PDF (http://www.zshare.net/download/65560650ceac5e0d/). No excuses.
zion the lion
09/14/09, 12:41 PM
The arrogance is rejecting evidence. And we know so much about it all because we observe and gather evidence, so we can say we do know quite a bit about our world. We actually do know where we are in the universe, the milky way has been mapped and so have large parts of the rest of the universe.
You don't have to have been somewhere to know it exactly, the evidence leads to the same conclusions. And as far as evolution goes, all the evidence points towards it; the only logical conclusion is that we evolved. Every creationist theory is nonsense, so evolution is the only thing that's left.
I dont think you got what I was saying. I was trying to say that in 1000 years they'll probably think about our technology and what we know and think "wow they were stupid" the same way we think that the people who said that the earth was flat or that we were the center of our universe were dumb. We dont know as much as we like to think we do.
...are you saying you believe that evolution is real, but because you haven't had the chance to learn about it you choose to not believe in it?
I know that I have some pretty awful communication skills, but I didnt think they were that bad. I'm saying I would probably believe it if I ever learned it, and that I would love to know about it. Like if you handed me the biography of Obama but it was in Russian, I wouldnt be able to say that its true because I dont know Russian anymore. I dont think it's choosing not to believe in it, when I get the chance, I'll learn about it, and decide where to go from there.
http://onionesquereality.files.wordpress.c om/2008/06/the_selfish_gene3.jpg
Read this book. Pretty please. Full-text PDF (http://www.zshare.net/download/65560650ceac5e0d/). No excuses.
That one didnt work. Is there another link?
That one didnt work. Is there another link?
Hmm.. worked for me. Try this one (http://www.megaupload.com/?d=QTDPX2U3).
zion the lion
09/14/09, 02:21 PM
Hmm.. worked for me. Try this one (http://www.megaupload.com/?d=QTDPX2U3).
That one worked. Thanks.
paper halo
09/15/09, 12:50 AM
Macro, not micro.
Macro = micro, micro, micro, micro.
It's that simple.
zion the lion
09/15/09, 01:14 AM
Macro = micro, micro, micro, micro.
It's that simple.
Just times a billion, which no longer makes it micro, but macro.
Baby steps my friend, baby steps.
edit: is there a dr. seuss book on this because that would make learning a lot easier.
paper halo
09/15/09, 01:19 AM
Just times a billion, which no longer makes it micro, but macro.
Baby steps my friend, baby steps.
But it's still the same fucking process. Here: http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/micro_macro.htm (http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/micro_macro.htm)
zion the lion
09/15/09, 01:26 AM
But it's still the same fucking process. Here: http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/micro_macro.htm (http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/micro_macro.htm)
But on a way larger scale. The reason I even said baby steps, was because it's a little fucking hard to wrap my head around right now, so I'm taking baby steps.
by the way, I've already read that.
Inc.onsolable
09/15/09, 10:45 AM
Alanis Morisette is the human embodiment of God... I saw it in a movie once.
Lol!
There's a church near my campus that apparently has a piece of bread that was once the flesh of Jesus. I'm not talking metaphorically either.
If I were you, I'd show up with a bottle of Jiff and a bottle of Smuckers, a butter knife, and a look of hungry anticipation/religious fanaticism.
beamsofthesun
09/21/09, 02:19 PM
If I were you, I'd show up with a bottle of Jiff and a bottle of Smuckers, a butter knife, and a look of hungry anticipation/religious fanaticism.
:-d tell them you've had a revelation and you want to feast on the bread of your new-found life
vodyanoj
09/22/09, 05:15 PM
Macro, not micro.
There is no qualitative difference between the two.
perceptrons
09/23/09, 11:50 AM
If I were you, I'd show up with a bottle of Jiff and a bottle of Smuckers, a butter knife, and a look of hungry anticipation/religious fanaticism.
I wouldn't feel safe around those people, especially since I doubt I would be able to stifle my laughter.
Animalhill
09/23/09, 12:00 PM
I wouldn't feel safe around those people, especially since I doubt I would be able to stifle my laughter.
I don't blame you. How could ANYONE actually believe that though? Baffles me.
perceptrons
09/23/09, 12:14 PM
I don't blame you. How could ANYONE actually believe that though? Baffles me.
Their little flyers say that they have multiple testimonies from scientists that all concluded it was once flesh as well. I almost want to go to find out what bullshit they're saying, but I don't want to add to their attendance numbers.
Animalhill
09/23/09, 12:17 PM
Their little flyers say that they have multiple testimonies from scientists that all concluded it was once flesh as well. I almost want to go to find out what bullshit they're saying, but I don't want to add to their attendance numbers.
Haha I don't blame you. I'm sure said, 'scientists' would not stake their careers on proclaiming it to be the flesh of Senor Christ.
jawstheme
09/24/09, 01:04 PM
Their little flyers say that they have multiple testimonies from scientists that all concluded it was once flesh as well. I almost want to go to find out what bullshit they're saying, but I don't want to add to their attendance numbers.
hahahaha, I want it!
Their little flyers say that they have multiple testimonies from scientists that all concluded it was once flesh as well. I almost want to go to find out what bullshit they're saying, but I don't want to add to their attendance numbers.
Unless he was mummified or encased in ice...I'm pretty sure "flesh" doesn't last for 2000 years. Their "scientists" are probably employed at certain "colleges" run by mega-church preachers.
macabre
09/24/09, 02:53 PM
Unless he was mummified or encased in ice...I'm pretty sure "flesh" doesn't last for 2000 years. Their "scientists" are probably employed at certain "colleges" run by mega-church preachers.
http://eugenecho.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/mn_falwell_1730272.jpg
Headline Reads:
Desperate Preacher not getting any, demands "group-touch" from parishoners
macabre
09/24/09, 06:45 PM
Headline Reads:
Desperate Preacher not getting any, demands "group-touch" from parishoners
Haha, that's actually Jerry Falwell after a speech at Liberty University. He was such a rock star.
Regards
09/24/09, 06:52 PM
If its a church group how would they have a piece of His flesh? Our faith, as Paul wrote about, is in the fact that He was resurrected lol.
Kozzy333
09/24/09, 07:25 PM
Their little flyers say that they have multiple testimonies from scientists that all concluded it was once flesh as well. I almost want to go to find out what bullshit they're saying, but I don't want to add to their attendance numbers.
I fucking lol'd.
beamsofthesun
09/24/09, 07:43 PM
Haha I don't blame you. I'm sure said, 'scientists' would not stake their careers on proclaiming it to be the flesh of Senor Christ.
Unless he was mummified or encased in ice...I'm pretty sure "flesh" doesn't last for 2000 years. Their "scientists" are probably employed at certain "colleges" run by mega-church preachers.
ugh, what if it's some poor bastards remains hanging out on display?
vodyanoj
09/24/09, 08:14 PM
"Science does not make it impossible to believe in God [or design or purpose]. It just makes it possible to NOT believe in God [or design or purpose]."
--Steven Weinberg
Discuss.:-)
perceptrons
09/25/09, 09:55 AM
If the flyer is still up, I'll try and take a picture of it next time.
beamsofthesun
09/28/09, 07:14 PM
I can hear crickets in here
"Science does not make it impossible to believe in God [or design or purpose]. It just makes it possible to NOT believe in God [or design or purpose]."
--Steven Weinberg
Discuss.:-)
I agree. Since you can't prove a negative, science doesn't really make anything IMPOSSIBLE in an absolute sense.
Regards
09/28/09, 09:38 PM
Science, in its simplest terms, is the ability to prove or disprove something. God is something you can neither prove nor disprove therefore is not scientific.
Totally agree with Weinberg's statement in this case.
jawstheme
09/29/09, 01:38 PM
"Science does not make it impossible to believe in God [or design or purpose]. It just makes it possible to NOT believe in God [or design or purpose]."
--Steven Weinberg
Discuss.:-)
I agree
vodyanoj
09/29/09, 11:25 PM
I can hear crickets in here
Whippoorwills. And the Deep Ones are coming, quietly. Ia! Ia! Shub-Niggurath! Black goat of the woods with a thousand young!
The Personist
09/29/09, 11:31 PM
I agree with Weinberg.
vodyanoj
09/30/09, 03:00 AM
I agree with Weinberg.
It looks like anyone with a shred of a functioning brain does. Well, that was no fun!
On the other hand, I just got Pyysiainen's "Supernatural Agents". Will report as I go along.
From amazon blurb: "The cognitive science of religion is a rapidly growing field whose practitioners apply insights from advances in cognitive science in order to provide a better understanding of religious impulses, beliefs, and behaviors. In this book Ilkka Pyysiainen shows how this methodology can profitably be used in the comparative study of beliefs about superhuman agents. He begins by developing a theoretical outline of the basic, modular architecture of the human mind and especially the human capacity to understand agency. He then goes on to discuss examples of supernatural agency in detail, arguing that the human ability to attribute beliefs and desires to others forms the basis of conceptions of supernatural agents and of such social cognition in which supernatural agents are postulated as interested parties in social life. Beliefs about supernatural agency are natural, says Pyysiainen, in the sense that such concepts are used in an intuitive and automatic fashion. Two dots and a straight line below them automatically trigger the idea of a face, for example. Given that the mind consists of a host of such modular mechanisms, certain kinds of beliefs will always have a selective advantage over others. Abstract theological concepts are usually elaborate versions of such simpler and more contagious folk conceptions. Pyysiainen uses ethnographical and survey materials as well as doctrinal treatises to show that there are certain recurrent patterns in beliefs about supernatural agents both at the level of folk-religion and of formal theology. "
vodyanoj
09/30/09, 03:03 AM
I agree. Since you can't prove a negative, science doesn't really make anything IMPOSSIBLE in an absolute sense.
I think that the second sentence is the key here. It is the same statemtn that Dawkins makes about evolutionary theory: it does not require one to become an atheist, but only allows one to do so and remain intellectually respectable. Of course, that is precisely the reason so many religionists (of more fundamental stripe, as a rule) are so opposed to it. If evolutionary theory is shown to be incorrect, atheism will lose a crucial underpinning concept.
perceptrons
09/30/09, 06:14 AM
I think that the second sentence is the key here. It is the same statemtn that Dawkins makes about evolutionary theory: it does not require one to become an atheist, but only allows one to do so and remain intellectually respectable. Of course, that is precisely the reason so many religionists (of more fundamental stripe, as a rule) are so opposed to it. If evolutionary theory is shown to be incorrect, atheism will lose a crucial underpinning concept.
Evolution is definitely unnecessary for atheism to be an intellectually respectable standpoint, though.
vodyanoj
09/30/09, 08:39 PM
Evolution is definitely unnecessary for atheism to be an intellectually respectable standpoint, though.
Without evolution one perforce falls back on ideas of intelligent design and guided creation implying some intelligent agent responsible for life as we see it. One can always plead ignorance, of course, but that is not a strong position. With evolution one does not need to do so.
vodyanoj
10/01/09, 04:24 AM
http://controversy.wearscience.com/
perceptrons
10/01/09, 07:43 AM
Oh man, I want a bunch of those.
Crowe41
10/01/09, 10:24 AM
Looks like the theory of evolution will have some edits.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/photogalleries/oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-pictures/
Looks like the theory of evolution will have some edits.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/photogalleries/oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-pictures/
I was going to say "looks like the theory of intelligent design will have some edits".
Oh man, I want a bunch of those.
Easily done with Alt+Print Screen, paint shop, a printer, a 3 dollar blank t-shirt from walmart and a 5 dollar pack of iron-on printer paper ;-)
I call it T-Shirt piracy.
Crowe41
10/01/09, 10:33 AM
Lol.
In that article it suggests humans may have adapted to be bipedal because they needed their arms to carry food in order to maintain sexual loyalty from their partner.
I don't know why I didn't think about that before, but sex probably motivated a lot of evolutionary traits.
Lol.
In that article it suggests humans may have adapted to be bipedal because they needed their arms to carry food in order to maintain sexual loyalty from their partner.
I don't know why I didn't think about that before, but sex probably motivated a lot of evolutionary traits.
Kindof ironic, innit? I mean, we stand up to maintain sexual loyalty, only then to demand that our partners bend over. Crazyness.
beamsofthesun
10/03/09, 08:01 PM
Easily done with Alt+Print Screen, paint shop, a printer, a 3 dollar blank t-shirt from walmart and a 5 dollar pack of iron-on printer paper ;-)
I call it T-Shirt piracy.
you should
then sell one to me :-d
The good folks at Conservapedia (http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page) ("The Trustworthy Encyclopedia") have embarked on The Conservative Bible Project (http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project) to remove all traces of "liberal bias" from the Good Book.
Declaring that "Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations", they have embarked on an ambitious project to strip all Christian principles from the Christian Bible.
Step 1--get rid of Luke 23:34:[7]: Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."
This quotation is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible.
Step 2--Reaffirm the well-known fact that Jesus was a capitalist: Socialistic terminology permeates English translations of the Bible, without justification. This improperly encourages the "social justice" movement among Christians.
Their entire set of guidelines:
Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level[3]
4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[4] defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".
5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[5] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."
The translated Bible can be found here (http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible).
http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/5/789941/-Wingnuts-Rewriting-the-Bible-to-Make-it-Less-Liberal
oh...and
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/3199/whatwouldrepublicanjesu.jpg
vodyanoj
10/05/09, 05:50 PM
The good folks at Conservapedia (http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page) ("The Trustworthy Encyclopedia") have embarked on The Conservative Bible Project (http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project) to remove all traces of "liberal bias" from the Good Book.
Declaring that "Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations", they have embarked on an ambitious project to strip all Christian principles from the Christian Bible.
I call a poe on this one. It is hilarious, nevertheless.
vodyanoj
10/05/09, 09:09 PM
Lol.
In that article it suggests humans may have adapted to be bipedal because they needed their arms to carry food in order to maintain sexual loyalty from their partner.
I don't know why I didn't think about that before, but sex probably motivated a lot of evolutionary traits.
It isn't a new idea, of course. See Cronin's The Ant and the Peacock; as well as Darwin's own work on sexual selection.
vodyanoj
10/05/09, 09:18 PM
On theologians and their lies:
http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/godless-cosmology/
xJesusFreakx
10/12/09, 08:18 PM
I don't know who already knows this here (maybe everyone), but Dave was perma banned today.
Machu505
10/12/09, 08:22 PM
Like Ben-caliber permabanned? What's the story?
vodyanoj
10/12/09, 08:36 PM
I don't know who already knows this here (maybe everyone), but Dave was perma banned today.
Dave? Dave's not here, man.
xJesusFreakx
10/12/09, 08:48 PM
Like Ben-caliber permabanned? What's the story?
Not that level, since his posts haven't been deleted, but beyond that, yeah. Check out the Say Anything official thread (for the band, not the upcoming album) in the music forum. Their guitarist started posting in there, defending Max Bemis, and a huge argument ensued. Dave made a big multi-quote post, and Jason came in and Instant Banned him.
He posted a lot in here, so I thought I'd let people know. He told me to give his Facebook url to any friends from the site that want to keep in touch.
Machu505
10/12/09, 08:54 PM
Damn. Well at least his contributions weren't wiped from existence.
Regards
10/12/09, 08:55 PM
Not that level, since his posts haven't been deleted, but beyond that, yeah. Check out the Say Anything official thread (for the band, not the upcoming album) in the music forum. Their guitarist started posting in there, defending Max Bemis, and a huge argument ensued. Dave made a big multi-quote post, and Jason came in and Instant Banned him.
He posted a lot in here, so I thought I'd let people know. He told me to give his Facebook url to any friends from the site that want to keep in touch.
Ahahahahahahaha. Sounds about right. That bites. He was an interesting dude.
I don't know who already knows this here (maybe everyone), but Dave was perma banned today.
Hahaha!! I simply cannot stop giggling to myself.
.invisible ink.
10/13/09, 03:54 AM
Damn. Well at least his contributions weren't wiped from existence.
exactly. he was a pretty interesting guy, better than half the people that post around this site.
BAM! His omnipotent god is no match for the banhammer.
perceptrons
10/13/09, 07:50 AM
Sucks about David, I enjoyed my conversations with him.
Dave? Dave's not here, man.
Just open up the door, man!
SlappedActor
10/13/09, 01:38 PM
The Personist was banned? Hahahahaha.
Dude got artfully aborted.
vodyanoj
10/13/09, 02:38 PM
exactly. he was a pretty interesting guy, better than half the people that post around this site.
That sounds like perfectly average, actually.
vodyanoj
10/13/09, 02:57 PM
Sucks about David, I enjoyed my conversations with him.
Just open up the door, man!
Sure, so did I, and I see no reason to ban him, when a crowd of other yahoos is allowed to run unchecked. But, it's not that difficult to get a new account, after all.
jawstheme
10/14/09, 05:04 PM
I don't know who already knows this here (maybe everyone), but Dave was perma banned today.
That's dumb. I think I'm about done with this site anyway. Care to pm me his facebook link sometime?
Jason Tate
10/20/09, 09:04 AM
"No God (http://twitter.com/#search?q=%22No%20God%22)" is a trending topic on twitter. Heh.
Was supposed to be "No God, No Peace" - but it didn't work. Irony aside, interesting debate.
perceptrons
10/20/09, 09:10 AM
"No God (http://twitter.com/#search?q=%22No%20God%22)" is a trending topic on twitter. Heh.
Was supposed to be "No God, No Peace" - but it didn't work. Irony aside, interesting debate.
The number of stupid tweets there was amazing. I thought the redone version, "Know God, no peace; No god, know peace" was more accurate.
alice+interiors
10/20/09, 01:25 PM
The number of stupid tweets there was amazing. I thought the redone version, "Know God, no peace; No god, know peace" was more accurate.
The irony here is stupendous.
Simulcast
10/20/09, 01:51 PM
God or no God is not going to change the fact that humans have been, and will continue to be notoriously evil towards one another. Nothing will ever change this fact.
Regards
10/20/09, 09:09 PM
The irony here is stupendous.
Agreed.
caveBEAR
10/20/09, 09:26 PM
The irony here is stupendous.
I think there may be irony afoot here as well, but I'm not sure.
perceptrons
10/21/09, 06:17 AM
The irony here is stupendous.
If you say so.
caveBEAR
10/21/09, 10:12 AM
Do Christians not come to this thread? Is that why there was a big argument in the Christian thread and not in here?
Matt Chylak
10/21/09, 11:08 AM
Do Christians not come to this thread? Is that why there was a big argument in the Christian thread and not in here?
why would christians come into this thread when all anyone does is mock them for their lack of proof in god's existence?
caveBEAR
10/21/09, 11:27 AM
why would christians come into this thread when all anyone does is mock them for their lack of proof in god's existence?
I don't know, just seems like they can't get pissed at Geebee for posting in the Christianity thread if they don't post in here.
Matt Chylak
10/21/09, 11:37 AM
I don't know, just seems like they can't get pissed at Geebee for posting in the Christianity thread if they don't post in here.
i think they don't post in here specifically because they don't want to be told their beliefs don't make sense.
caveBEAR
10/21/09, 11:44 AM
i think they don't post in here specifically because they don't want to be told their beliefs don't make sense.
Which makes sense, but then they can't get on people's cases for discussing God's existence in their thread. I mean, it's bound to come up. Someone can talk about whether the Bible literally means so many days of creation, but they can't take it steps from there? Seems a bit lame to me.
I could be totally talking out of my ass, I never bothered to read their fabled 'first page'.
paper halo
10/21/09, 11:52 AM
why would christians come into this thread when all anyone does is mock them for their lack of proof in god's existence?
False. There was some really good discourse in earlier versions of this thread. Of course, a lot of that came from a member who has now been banned.
I don't know, just seems like they can't get pissed at Geebee for posting in the Christianity thread if they don't post in here.
It's damn stupid to think one can isolate ones self in a thread and demand no one call BS on baseless assertions. That's essentially what they're trying to do. Unfortunately for them, I don't give a shit about etiquette on open forums.
False. There was some really good discourse in earlier versions of this thread. Of course, a lot of that came from a member who has now been banned.
God rest his soul.
Has he started over?
a speedo model
10/21/09, 01:42 PM
I don't know, just seems like they can't get pissed at Geebee for posting in the Christianity thread if they don't post in here.
I don't get the logic here. Because Christians won't come in the thread specified for discussions on the issue, those said discussions may be sought out in threads not specified for them?
I don't get the logic here. Because Christians won't come in the thread specified for discussions on the issue, those said discussions may be sought out in threads not specified for them?
Good god you fucking crybaby. When has a thread EVER not devolved into something OTHER than it was intended for? WHERE is it written that the original poster's requests MUST BE ABIDED? Get the fuck over it and defend your position on the subject, instead of whining incessantly that someone has the AUDACITY to refute it!
Matt Chylak
10/21/09, 04:16 PM
Which makes sense, but then they can't get on people's cases for discussing God's existence in their thread. I mean, it's bound to come up. Someone can talk about whether the Bible literally means so many days of creation, but they can't take it steps from there? Seems a bit lame to me.
I could be totally talking out of my ass, I never bothered to read their fabled 'first page'.
False. There was some really good discourse in earlier versions of this thread. Of course, a lot of that came from a member who has now been banned.
i couldn't care less. someone asked a question and i answered. go into their forum if you want to argue
paper halo
10/21/09, 04:50 PM
i couldn't care less. someone asked a question and i answered. go into their forum if you want to argue
And I corrected your assertion. Deal with it.
a speedo model
10/21/09, 06:22 PM
Good god you fucking crybaby. When has a thread EVER not devolved into something OTHER than it was intended for? WHERE is it written that the original poster's requests MUST BE ABIDED? Get the fuck over it and defend your position on the subject, instead of whining incessantly that someone has the AUDACITY to refute it!
Hahaha, what the fuck are you talking about?
Regards
10/21/09, 06:40 PM
I don't know, just seems like they can't get pissed at Geebee for posting in the Christianity thread if they don't post in here.
If we wanted to come in here, we would. Plain and simple.
Jason Tate
10/22/09, 08:56 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,569121,00.html?test=latestne ws
A North Carolina pastor plans to host a Halloween event at his church to burn heretical books. At the top of the list — the Bible.
:lol:
xshady121
10/22/09, 10:12 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,569121,00.html?test=latestne ws
A North Carolina pastor plans to host a Halloween event at his church to burn heretical books. At the top of the list — the Bible.
:lol:
I find it funny he says King James is the only version. The King James is one of the LEAST accurate translations of the bible. Biblical Scholars won't use it because, as poetic as it may be, it is inaccurate to the original meaning. You would think a pastor would want to preserve God's true word.
I find it funny he says King James is the only version. The King James is one of the LEAST accurate translations of the bible. Biblical Scholars won't use it because, as poetic as it may be, it is inaccurate to the original meaning. You would think a pastor would want to preserve God's true word.
Mormons consider King James version to be the definitive and "most correct translation". It's staggering how ignorant that claim is...
caveBEAR
10/23/09, 08:13 AM
Lurking the Christianity thread feels to me like lurking a PokeMon thread where everyone in it thinks PokeMon are real, and are having heated debates over whether Pikachu can be born as Pikachu or must come from Pichu.
It just baffles me.
Lurking the Christianity thread feels to me like lurking a PokeMon thread where everyone in it thinks PokeMon are real, and are having heated debates over whether Pikachu can be born as Pikachu or must come from Pichu.
It just baffles me.
Hahaha, this is so true. Then they get pissed when you remind them Pokemon isn't real, and they flip out at you for not staying in reality-based threads like the OP asked nicely for.
If we wanted to come in here, we would. Plain and simple.
The same logic applies to your Christianity thread. We want to go in there and poke holes in your logic. So we do. Plain and simple.
caveBEAR
10/23/09, 07:57 PM
The same logic applies to your Christianity thread. We want to go in there and poke holes in your logic. So we do. Plain and simple.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
beamsofthesun
10/24/09, 07:56 PM
False. There was some really good discourse in earlier versions of this thread. Of course, a lot of that came from a member who has now been banned.
whoa who was banned?
Dicebox
10/24/09, 08:42 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,569121,00.html?test=latestne ws
A North Carolina pastor plans to host a Halloween event at his church to burn heretical books. At the top of the list — the Bible.
:lol:
Haha, I love how this will happen along side a BBQ dinner. I hope they enjoy their heresy burgers. lol
alice+interiors
10/27/09, 04:25 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,569121,00.html?test=latestne ws
A North Carolina pastor plans to host a Halloween event at his church to burn heretical books. At the top of the list — the Bible.
:lol:
Um, Fox News? Odd source to quote but yeah, nevertheless, clearly someone just focusing a bit too closely on one aspect of the religion, rather than taking the longview.
I find it funny he says King James is the only version. The King James is one of the LEAST accurate translations of the bible. Biblical Scholars won't use it because, as poetic as it may be, it is inaccurate to the original meaning. You would think a pastor would want to preserve God's true word.
It is not one of the least accurate translations. The most recent ones aim to translate in a much broader fashion - trying to translate the gist of the sentence rather than the individual words or small phrases, and their intricate meanings. I'm not trying to claim that it is the best, just stating the facts.
As for 'Biblical Scholars not using it' - almost each different scholar/lecturer uses a different translation, any figure on that topic is next to meaningless.
Jason Tate
10/27/09, 04:35 PM
As for 'Biblical Scholars not using it' - almost each different scholar/lecturer uses a different translation, any figure on that topic is next to meaningless.
Not true.
xshady121
10/27/09, 04:38 PM
Um, Fox News? Odd source to quote but yeah, nevertheless, clearly someone just focusing a bit too closely on one aspect of the religion, rather than taking the longview.
It is not one of the least accurate translations. The most recent ones aim to translate in a much broader fashion - trying to translate the gist of the sentence rather than the individual words or small phrases, and their intricate meanings. I'm not trying to claim that it is the best, just stating the facts.
As for 'Biblical Scholars not using it' - almost each different scholar/lecturer uses a different translation, any figure on that topic is next to meaningless.
If you could link me to one reputable biblical scholar that says King James is an acceptable form of the text than I would love to see it. It's not happening. Any scholar that attempted to use King James would be laughed out of the community.
Of course translations like NLT and these newer translations are crafted with the intent of furthering there own interest and not being accurate to the original intent. That doesn't change the fact that King James is, for all intents and purposes, garbage. Maybe for a christian it's a good piece to practice faith with but for a scholar it's not worth the paper it's printed on.
When you're half way to a double major in Religious Studies and have actually written and exegesis, then I'll listen to you. Until then you're talking about stuff you know nothing about.
Good day sir.
alice+interiors
10/27/09, 04:38 PM
Not true.
Which part? Figures being meaningless, or different scholars/translations?
alice+interiors
10/27/09, 04:40 PM
If you could link me to one reputable biblical scholar that says King James is an acceptable form of the text than I would love to see it. It's not happening. Any scholar that attempted to use King James would be laughed out of the community.
Of course translations like NLT and these newer translations are crafted with the intent of furthering there own interest and not being accurate to the original intent. That doesn't change the fact that King James is, for all intents and purposes, garbage. Maybe for a christian it's a good piece to practice faith with but for a scholar it's not worth the paper it's printed on.
When you're half way to a double major in Religious Studies and have actually written and exegesis, then I'll listen to you. Until then you're talking about stuff you know nothing about.
Good day sir.
Which translations are better/should I be using?
xshady121
10/27/09, 04:40 PM
Not true.
This. I'm pretty sure he's confused on the definition of biblical scholar.
On a related note, I would recommend reading Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible? That's a scholar who knows what's up.
xshady121
10/27/09, 04:44 PM
Which translations are better/should I be using?
On the whole, the NRSV is a good book. It's considered to be one of the most all around accurate translations.
This site sums up the differences fairly well in regards to serious biblical study.
http://courses.missouristate.edu/markgiven/rel102/bt.htm
alice+interiors
10/27/09, 04:44 PM
:clap:
This. I'm pretty sure he's confused on the definition of biblical scholar.
On a related note, I would recommend reading Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible? That's a scholar who knows what's up.
Could be the case, haha. I don't like to claim I'm always channeling my opinion down the correct avenues.
alice+interiors
10/27/09, 04:48 PM
On the whole, the NRSV is a good book. It's considered to be one of the most all around accurate translations.
This site sums up the differences fairly well in regards to serious biblical study.
http://courses.missouristate.edu/markgiven/rel102/bt.htm
It's interesting, are more of these 'acceptable' translations American based? There's several that I haven't heard of, and I've attended/been in contact with a wide range of denominations over my lifetime.
xshady121
10/27/09, 04:50 PM
Could be the case, haha. I don't like to claim I'm always channeling my opinion down the correct avenues.
It's always the case.
I can't tell you how many people show up to classes here, like Understanding The Bible and assume it's going to be basically your fifth grade CCD class.
I suppose that's the fault of the administration. They should title the class "Deconstructing the Bible and examining it through a historical lens".
There certainly is a vast difference between serious academic biblical study and a study of theology.
xshady121
10/27/09, 04:52 PM
It's interesting, are more of these 'acceptable' translations American based? There's several that I haven't heard of, and I've attended/been in contact with a wide range of denominations over my lifetime.
What bible are you using? A lot of times your bible (be it the New Oxford Annotated Bible or another) is using a translation such as NSRV.
It's usually printed on one of the inside pages what translation is used. I'd be interested in seeing what it is.
edit: a lot of the ones to avoid are american translations.
Theseventhson
10/27/09, 05:09 PM
Subscribing.
vodyanoj
10/27/09, 05:21 PM
Um, Fox News? Odd source to quote but yeah, nevertheless, clearly someone just focusing a bit too closely on one aspect of the religion, rather than taking the longview.
It is not one of the least accurate translations. The most recent ones aim to translate in a much broader fashion - trying to translate the gist of the sentence rather than the individual words or small phrases, and their intricate meanings. I'm not trying to claim that it is the best, just stating the facts.
As for 'Biblical Scholars not using it' - almost each different scholar/lecturer uses a different translation, any figure on that topic is next to meaningless.
Most Biblical scholars do not use translations, but primary texts. Just saying...:)
This. I'm pretty sure he's confused on the definition of biblical scholar.
On a related note, I would recommend reading Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible? That's a scholar who knows what's up.
What are your thoughts on Finkelstein and Herzog? I find them to be the most informative on biblical historicity.
xshady121
10/27/09, 06:58 PM
What are your thoughts on Finkelstein and Herzog? I find them to be the most informative on biblical historicity.
I've read excerpts of The Bible Unearthed. I need to sit down and read it in it's entirety. I'm not familiar with Herzog though.
I've read excerpts of The Bible Unearthed. I need to sit down and read it in it's entirety. I'm not familiar with Herzog though.
Bible Unearthed is a great volume.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ze'ev_Herzog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ze%27ev_Herzog)
FueledByFrodo
10/27/09, 07:40 PM
I officially say: "Fuck religion." It's supposed to bring people together as a community but all it does is cause problems.
Edit: I feel the need to say I was pissed at people criticizing me for the religion I was born into when I made this comment, which I made out of frustration.
xshady121
10/27/09, 07:46 PM
I officially say: "Fuck religion."
a hearty round of applause for the 15 year old that came into the god thread to say "fuck religion". That's never been done before. You, sir, are obviously the most original and most awesome poster on these forums. I hope one day I can even be half that awesome.
This thread should end here as there will never be anything more enlightening posted from here on out.
Congratulations.
FueledByFrodo
10/27/09, 07:50 PM
a hearty round of applause for the 15 year old that came into the god thread to say "fuck religion". That's never been done before. You, sir, are obviously the most original and most awesome poster on these forums. I hope one day I can even be half that awesome.
This thread should end here as there will never be anything more enlightening posted from here on out.
Congratulations.
Ha. Clever. If you didn't see I edited my post. Also, the reason I say this is because of the fact that countless arguments, fights, wars, and genocides occur over religion. If it's supposed to bring people together, why does it divide people even further?
Edit: I should have said organized religion. I feel people should have the ability to believe what they want without being criticized for it.
jeremypeele
10/28/09, 06:18 AM
Ha. Clever. If you didn't see I edited my post. Also, the reason I say this is because of the fact that countless arguments, fights, wars, and genocides occur over religion. If it's supposed to bring people together, why does it divide people even further?
Edit: I should have said organized religion. I feel people should have the ability to believe what they want without being criticized for it.
Do you really not know the answer to that question?
It divides people further apart because there are so many (different) religions. Religion A can't stand Religion B, and Religion C wants to kill Religion A, and Religion D is really just a cult, and No-Religion A thinks everyone is full of shit. Everyone thinks they are right and that everyone else is wrong. That's the way it goes.
TheReckoner
10/28/09, 08:11 AM
My religion is t-rexaballoonism. Hear me roar.
FueledByFrodo
10/28/09, 11:29 AM
Do you really not know the answer to that question?
It divides people further apart because there are so many (different) religions. Religion A can't stand Religion B, and Religion C wants to kill Religion A, and Religion D is really just a cult, and No-Religion A thinks everyone is full of shit. Everyone thinks they are right and that everyone else is wrong. That's the way it goes.
Rhetorical question. Thank you for answering though.
jeremypeele
10/28/09, 01:17 PM
Rhetorical question. Thank you for answering though.
I never know when things are rhetorical haha
props on your seinfeld avatar though.
FueledByFrodo
10/28/09, 01:33 PM
I never know when things are rhetorical haha
props on your seinfeld avatar though.
It's tough to get rhetorical on the internet. And thank you.
It's tough to get rhetorical on the internet. And thank you.
i don't like anything you've said thus far in this thread.
Also, I just got a call from the jerk store...
FueledByFrodo
10/28/09, 02:11 PM
i don't like anything you've said thus far in this thread.
Also, I just got a call from the jerk store...
Lol.
But to me, with religion comes debate. If we strive for equality for all in this country, religion, or at least public religion, would have to be obsolete. With multiple religions comes a war for dominance between them. Also, following texts thousands of years old does nothing, because at that time they were following what they thought they knew about the world, which turned out to be wrong in quite some ways.
i don't like anything you've said thus far in this thread.
Also, I just got a call from the jerk store...
What difference does it make when you're their best seller?
ZING!
Lol.
But to me, with religion comes debate. If we strive for equality for all in this country, religion, or at least public religion, would have to be obsolete. With multiple religions comes a war for dominance between them. Also, following texts thousands of years old does nothing, because at that time they were following what they thought they knew about the world, which turned out to be wrong in quite some ways.
I don't disagree with you. You simply should have started out with the above, rather than the stereotypical "fuck religion".
FueledByFrodo
10/28/09, 02:22 PM
I don't disagree with you. You simply should have started out with the above, rather than the stereotypical "fuck religion".
I went back and edited. I hate people who criticize, and was angry.
perceptrons
10/28/09, 03:12 PM
I went back and edited. I hate people who criticize, and was angry.
You hate people who criticize? You'll hate it here then.
danielineffigy
11/02/09, 12:40 PM
What difference does it make when you're their best seller?
ZING!
I had sex with your wife.
I had sex with your wife.
his wife is in a coma
danielineffigy
11/02/09, 01:53 PM
his wife is in a coma
i work with what i get
mickqueue
11/12/09, 11:15 AM
I'm sure plenty of people will try to refute anything I say, and try to make me look bad. I don't understand the negativity towards Christians and their belief in God. I mean, sure there are people who are ridiculous and haven't ever questioned what they believe. I personally believe in Evolution, and the Big Bang. However, I also believe in God. I don't honestly think that there's anything wrong with that. Maybe everyone may disagree with me, but I don't believe in accidents, and I find it much easier to have the universe beginning with an all powerful being as opposed to energy coming from nowhere. Just my beliefs, I'm not trying to tell anyone they're wrong.
vodyanoj
11/13/09, 12:13 AM
I'm sure plenty of people will try to refute anything I say, and try to make me look bad. I don't understand the negativity towards Christians and their belief in God. I mean, sure there are people who are ridiculous and haven't ever questioned what they believe. I personally believe in Evolution, and the Big Bang. However, I also believe in God. I don't honestly think that there's anything wrong with that. Maybe everyone may disagree with me, but I don't believe in accidents, and I find it much easier to have the universe beginning with an all powerful being as opposed to energy coming from nowhere. Just my beliefs, I'm not trying to tell anyone they're wrong.
Your personal beliefs are quite fine (although I consider them to be wrong: for example, the energy didn't come from nowhere"). But it is always interesting to debate the points of fine logic: for example, you make an assumption that God is eternal and does not need an explanation. Why? It's easier to make an assumption that the Universe is eternal and causeless by itself, without "multiplying entities needlessly".
thursday727
11/13/09, 03:55 AM
I would think of something smart to say about my lack of belief but i think Patton explains my position so well.
55h1FO8V_3w
TheReckoner
11/13/09, 08:05 AM
I changed my religion to Tyranism. Tyra Banks is my new god.
mickqueue
11/13/09, 04:54 PM
Your personal beliefs are quite fine (although I consider them to be wrong: for example, the energy didn't come from nowhere"). But it is always interesting to debate the points of fine logic: for example, you make an assumption that God is eternal and does not need an explanation. Why? It's easier to make an assumption that the Universe is eternal and causeless by itself, without "multiplying entities needlessly".
Well Christianity is by nature based on faith. Nothing about God can truly be explained by science, and while you may not believe in God, I'm sure that if you did you'd agree that based on what scripture says God requires a certain amount of faith. Assumptions are somewhat required in the case of faith.
And in the same vein, you have to assume that the theories of evolution and the big bang are true in order to come to other conclusions. While generally accepted within the scientific community, there are dissenters.
As far as the comment about energy, I was simply saying that its easier for me to believe in an all-powerful being, being around before everything else than it is for me to believe that a primordial hot state of matter expanded the universe.
vodyanoj
11/14/09, 12:31 AM
Well Christianity is by nature based on faith. Nothing about God can truly be explained by science, and while you may not believe in God, I'm sure that if you did you'd agree that based on what scripture says God requires a certain amount of faith. Assumptions are somewhat required in the case of faith.
And in the same vein, you have to assume that the theories of evolution and the big bang are true in order to come to other conclusions. While generally accepted within the scientific community, there are dissenters.
As far as the comment about energy, I was simply saying that its easier for me to believe in an all-powerful being, being around before everything else than it is for me to believe that a primordial hot state of matter expanded the universe.
1.There are always "dissenters". There are people who believe that the earth is flat as well. If you look at them, you'll realize that in most cases their objections are motivated by specific religious or (being VERY generous here) philosophical points that have nothing to do with the actual science.
EDIT: Oh, and both evolutionary biology and Big Bang cosmology are supported by tremendous amounts of evidence, observable and, IMHO, conclusive.
2.However, there are specific, well-defined equations describing precisely how it (could have) happened; I find them much easier to accept than the alternative.
mickqueue
11/14/09, 09:52 AM
1.There are always "dissenters". There are people who believe that the earth is flat as well. If you look at them, you'll realize that in most cases their objections are motivated by specific religious or (being VERY generous here) philosophical points that have nothing to do with the actual science.
EDIT: Oh, and both evolutionary biology and Big Bang cosmology are supported by tremendous amounts of evidence, observable and, IMHO, conclusive.
2.However, there are specific, well-defined equations describing precisely how it (could have) happened; I find them much easier to accept than the alternative.
Wow, intelligent, respectful conversations about religion. What is the world coming to?
Regards
11/14/09, 09:54 AM
Wow, intelligent, respectful conversations about religion. What is the world coming to?
You haven't met GeeBee.
vodyanoj
11/15/09, 12:16 AM
Wow, intelligent, respectful conversations about religion. What is the world coming to?
Meh, if you are familiar with my comments, you would realize that I (as well as GeeBee,,,;)) have no problems with people's beliefs per se; it is only the specific idiots spouting such beliefs (and presenting them as facts, equivalent to empirical observations) that are an issue.
Lest I lose any atheist cachet I have left I shall note that I find your belief system to be irrelevant, illogical and incompatible (don't ask me with what!) But I am a pagan atheist, so I am excused.
Well Christianity is by nature based on faith.
So what? Belief in sprites and fairies would have to be based on faith. That's not a justification. It says absolutely nothing. It's not a cognitively meaningful statement. Nothing about God can truly be explained by scienceActually, nothing about "god" can be said at all, because you have to DEFINE what the word means before you can attribute something to it. And you can't.
and while you may not believe in God, I'm sure that if you did you'd agree that based on what scripture saysWhose scripture? And beyond that, who says that that scripture is valid?
God requires a certain amount of faithAgain, this statement means nothing. My standing as king of the universe also requires faith.
Assumptions are somewhat required in the case of faith.Which pretty much seals the deal for "faith". I for one refuse to live my life and base my decisions on assumptions.
And in the same vein, you have to assume that the theories of evolution and the big bang are true in order to come to other conclusions. Bullshit. Gravity is still just a theory, but I for one am not going to be doing any jumping off buildings. There's a wide gap between "assuming" and going on the best possible information available.
While generally accepted within the scientific community, there are dissenters.
Dissenters with nothing better to offer but their dissent.
As far as the comment about energy, I was simply saying that its easier for me to believe in an all-powerful being, being around before everything else than it is for me to believe that a primordial hot state of matter expanded the universe.
Again, this statement means little. It was easier to believe that Santa would bring me presents than to believe that my parents were bullshitting me, but life's tough.
You haven't met GeeBee.
What can I say...rational, critical, logical thinking is not often kind to those who prefer delusional speculation and attempt to pass it off as fact that we stubborn atheists are simply too proud to acknowledge.
Meh, if you are familiar with my comments, you would realize that I (as well as GeeBee,,,;)) have no problems with people's beliefs per se; it is only the specific idiots spouting such beliefs (and presenting them as facts, equivalent to empirical observations) that are an issue.
Lest I lose any atheist cachet I have left I shall note that I find your belief system to be irrelevant, illogical and incompatible (don't ask me with what!) But I am a pagan atheist, so I am excused.
Quoted for truth.
Regards
11/15/09, 06:30 PM
So what? Belief in sprites and fairies would have to be based on faith. That's not a justification. It says absolutely nothing. It's not a cognitively meaningful statement. Actually, nothing about "god" can be said at all, because you have to DEFINE what the word means before you can attribute something to it. And you can't.
Whose scripture? And beyond that, who says that that scripture is valid?
Again, this statement means nothing. My standing as king of the universe also requires faith.
Which pretty much seals the deal for "faith". I for one refuse to live my life and base my decisions on assumptions.
Bullshit. Gravity is still just a theory, but I for one am not going to be doing any jumping off buildings. There's a wide gap between "assuming" and going on the best possible information available.
Dissenters with nothing better to offer but their dissent.
Again, this statement means little. It was easier to believe that Santa would bring me presents than to believe that my parents were bullshitting me, but life's tough.
What can I say...rational, critical, logical thinking is not often kind to those who prefer delusional speculation and attempt to pass it off as fact that we stubborn atheists are simply too proud to acknowledge.
Quoted for truth.
Yahtzee!
stupid__kid
11/16/09, 10:40 PM
after reading Harris i was profoundly struck by this:
"Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious. In fact, 'atheism' is a term that should not exist"
personally i could not agree more. the word Atheism insinuates incorrect ideas about what it actually is..
it's often confused to be a religion, or at least it's understood as adhering to a decree or dogma similar to religion. people often accuse me of "believing in science" ergo, it is a religion. this is completely inaccurate. (disreagrding the obvious that Atheism has never started or eventuated to anything as horrific as religion) atheism does not promote anything other than rationality, logic and reason. these are nothing more than qualities and ideas.
because of semiotics (the simple presence of the word theology) people tend to misunderstand the entire concept of Atheism.
Religion is the bane of my existence (literally). it hinders progression - ie. scientifically in the case of stem cell research.
it is mind boggling to be that in some US states individuals have received prison sentences for conducting research in this field.
now religious people have a issue with stem cell research when it comes to morality.
well folks, did you know that the average human stem cell contains 150 cells, whereas the brain of a fly contains 100,000 (that's correct one hundred thousand).
what is moral about forbidding millions of conscious LIVING individuals at the present moment from accessing treatment that will dramatically improve their lives? stem cell research has unimaginable benefits and YET it is resisted by religion and it's followers. why?
TheReckoner
11/17/09, 10:01 AM
after reading Harris i was profoundly struck by this:
"Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious. In fact, 'atheism' is a term that should not exist"
personally i could not agree more. the word Atheism insinuates incorrect ideas about what it actually is..
it's often confused to be a religion, or at least it's understood as adhering to a decree or dogma similar to religion. people often accuse me of "believing in science" ergo, it is a religion. this is completely inaccurate. (disreagrding the obvious that Atheism has never started or eventuated to anything as horrific as religion) atheism does not promote anything other than rationality, logic and reason. these are nothing more than qualities and ideas.
because of semiotics (the simple presence of the word theology) people tend to misunderstand the entire concept of Atheism.
Religion is the bane of my existence (literally). it hinders progression - ie. scientifically in the case of stem cell research.
it is mind boggling to be that in some US states individuals have received prison sentences for conducting research in this field.
now religious people have a issue with stem cell research when it comes to morality.
well folks, did you know that the average human stem cell contains 150 cells, whereas the brain of a fly contains 100,000 (that's correct one hundred thousand).
what is moral about forbidding millions of conscious LIVING individuals at the present moment from accessing treatment that will dramatically improve their lives? stem cell research has unimaginable benefits and YET they are resisted by religion and it's followers. why?
Stupid kid, give yourself more credit. You're not stupid at all :)
after reading Harris i was profoundly struck by this:
"Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious. In fact, 'atheism' is a term that should not exist"
personally i could not agree more. the word Atheism insinuates incorrect ideas about what it actually is..
it's often confused to be a religion, or at least it's understood as adhering to a decree or dogma similar to religion. people often accuse me of "believing in science" ergo, it is a religion. this is completely inaccurate. (disreagrding the obvious that Atheism has never started or eventuated to anything as horrific as religion) atheism does not promote anything other than rationality, logic and reason. these are nothing more than qualities and ideas.
because of semiotics (the simple presence of the word theology) people tend to misunderstand the entire concept of Atheism.
Religion is the bane of my existence (literally). it hinders progression - ie. scientifically in the case of stem cell research.
it is mind boggling to be that in some US states individuals have received prison sentences for conducting research in this field.
now religious people have a issue with stem cell research when it comes to morality.
well folks, did you know that the average human stem cell contains 150 cells, whereas the brain of a fly contains 100,000 (that's correct one hundred thousand).
what is moral about forbidding millions of conscious LIVING individuals at the present moment from accessing treatment that will dramatically improve their lives? stem cell research has unimaginable benefits and YET they are resisted by religion and it's followers. why?
Damn fine rant, quoted for truth.
vodyanoj
11/17/09, 07:04 PM
after reading Harris i was profoundly struck by this:
"Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious. In fact, 'atheism' is a term that should not exist"
personally i could not agree more. the word Atheism insinuates incorrect ideas about what it actually is..
it's often confused to be a religion, or at least it's understood as adhering to a decree or dogma similar to religion. people often accuse me of "believing in science" ergo, it is a religion. this is completely inaccurate. (disreagrding the obvious that Atheism has never started or eventuated to anything as horrific as religion) atheism does not promote anything other than rationality, logic and reason. these are nothing more than qualities and ideas.
because of semiotics (the simple presence of the word theology) people tend to misunderstand the entire concept of Atheism.
Religion is the bane of my existence (literally). it hinders progression - ie. scientifically in the case of stem cell research.
it is mind boggling to be that in some US states individuals have received prison sentences for conducting research in this field.
now religious people have a issue with stem cell research when it comes to morality.
well folks, did you know that the average human stem cell contains 150 cells, whereas the brain of a fly contains 100,000 (that's correct one hundred thousand).
what is moral about forbidding millions of conscious LIVING individuals at the present moment from accessing treatment that will dramatically improve their lives? stem cell research has unimaginable benefits and YET they are resisted by religion and it's followers. why?
Nice!
stupid__kid
11/17/09, 10:48 PM
Stupid kid, give yourself more credit. You're not stupid at all :)
Damn fine rant, quoted for truth.
Nice!
thank you ^_^
jawstheme
11/21/09, 06:58 PM
after reading Harris i was profoundly struck by this:
"Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious. In fact, 'atheism' is a term that should not exist"
personally i could not agree more. the word Atheism insinuates incorrect ideas about what it actually is..
it's often confused to be a religion, or at least it's understood as adhering to a decree or dogma similar to religion. people often accuse me of "believing in science" ergo, it is a religion. this is completely inaccurate. (disreagrding the obvious that Atheism has never started or eventuated to anything as horrific as religion) atheism does not promote anything other than rationality, logic and reason. these are nothing more than qualities and ideas.
because of semiotics (the simple presence of the word theology) people tend to misunderstand the entire concept of Atheism.
Religion is the bane of my existence (literally). it hinders progression - ie. scientifically in the case of stem cell research.
it is mind boggling to be that in some US states individuals have received prison sentences for conducting research in this field.
now religious people have a issue with stem cell research when it comes to morality.
well folks, did you know that the average human stem cell contains 150 cells, whereas the brain of a fly contains 100,000 (that's correct one hundred thousand).
what is moral about forbidding millions of conscious LIVING individuals at the present moment from accessing treatment that will dramatically improve their lives? stem cell research has unimaginable benefits and YET it is resisted by religion and it's followers. why?
Taking religion out of the equation, I think stem cell research would still be heavily debated. The problem for semi-intelligent people is not that they are using these embryos that would otherwise go to waste, the problem is that they are worried it will lead to the generation of pregnancies just for the use of the embryos (not an attractive thought for most people) eventually as stem cell research progresses and is used more and more often. I could easily see people being upset about that, religious or not, although the argument against it is certainly catered toward religious people. The side in which you bash simply wants research funding to go to other areas that don't lead to a slippery slope instead of dumping money into something that is probably going to be debated and banned over and over.
However, I kind of hate the slippery slope argument and it makes me wonder if people think scientists are just immoral monsters. Stem cell research can do a whole fucking lot of good, and if my uncle can walk again someday because of stem cells from an otherwise discarded fetus then we should be throwing money and research into it. So I do agree with you, but to bash all religion because there are a bunch of idiot sheep is a little simple-minded. Yes there are a lot of complete religious morons who think stem cell research is kiilling babies. There are also a lot of idiot atheists that think anarchy is the way to go.
caveBEAR
11/21/09, 07:48 PM
Taking religion out of the equation, I think stem cell research would still be heavily debated. The problem for semi-intelligent people is not that they are using these embryos that would otherwise go to waste, the problem is that they are worried it will to the generation of pregnancies (not an attractive thought for most people) eventually as stem cell research progresses and is used more and more often. I could easily see people being upset about that, religious or not, although the argument against it is certainly catered toward religious people. The side in which you bash simply wants research funding to go to other areas that don't lead to a slippery slope instead of dumping money into something that is probably going to be debated and banned over and over.
However, I kind of hate the slippery slope argument and it makes me wonder if people think scientists are just immoral monsters. Stem cell research can do a whole fucking lot of good, and if my uncle can walk again someday because of stem cells from an otherwise discarded fetus then we should be throwing money and research into it. So I do agree with you, but to bash all religion because there are a bunch of idiot sheep is a little simple-minded. Yes there are a lot of complete religious morons who think stem cell research is kiilling babies. There are also a lot of idiot atheists that think anarchy is the way to go.
Think you're missing a word or sentence somewhere, because none of this (especially the bolded part) makes any sense.
jawstheme
11/21/09, 11:32 PM
Think you're missing a word or sentence somewhere, because none of this (especially the bolded part) makes any sense.
Fixed, thanks. I'm using the literal definition of generation by the way. The one meaning the act of producing offspring.
Regards
11/22/09, 12:28 AM
Global warming? Blame it on religion!
vodyanoj
11/22/09, 03:40 AM
There are also a lot of idiot atheists that think anarchy is the way to go.
Anarchy is the only way to go, eventually. Ultimately, every law and regulation has to be justified in view of violating individual freedoms. Sometimes they are worth it; most of the time they aren't. (And I am not talking about business regulations: only las restricting freedoms of individuals, not freedoms of corporations and markets).
vodyanoj
11/22/09, 03:41 AM
Global warming? Blame it on religion!
there's some truth to that: I know people who think that there is no point in worrying about the environment since the rapture is coming any day now and God will fix things for them.
jawstheme
11/22/09, 06:57 AM
Anarchy is the only way to go, eventually. Ultimately, every law and regulation has to be justified in view of violating individual freedoms. Sometimes they are worth it; most of the time they aren't. (And I am not talking about business regulations: only las restricting freedoms of individuals, not freedoms of corporations and markets).
I don't believe that you actually think that anarchy is the only way to go.
I don't believe that you actually think that anarchy is the only way to go.
It seems to be the only logical conclusion to people who value "liberty" over a civil society.
open mind
11/22/09, 02:35 PM
It seems to be the only logical conclusion to people who value "liberty" over a civil society.
if civil society goes so does progress.
TachyonEvan
11/22/09, 02:59 PM
I fucking love Uno.
if civil society goes so does progress.
Agreed.
I fucking love Uno.
Yet another valid contribution from this site's resident moron.
Love As Arson
11/22/09, 04:59 PM
I don't believe that you actually think that anarchy is the only way to go.
ANARCHISM (from the Gr. av, and aoxn , contrary to authority), the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilised being. In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all the fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state in all its functions. They would represent an interwoven network, composed of an infinite variety of groups and federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national and international temporary or more or less permanent - for all possible purposes: production, consumption and exchange, communications, sanitary arrangements, education, mutual protection, defence of the territory, and so on; and, on the other side, for the satisfaction of an ever-increasing number of scientific, artistic, literary and sociable needs. Moreover, such a society would represent nothing immutable. On the contrary - as is seen in organic life at large - harmony would (it is contended) result from an ever-changing adjustment and readjustment of equilibrium between the multitudes of forces and influences, and this adjustment would be the easier to obtain as none of the forces would enjoy a special protection from the state.
http://libcom.org/library/anarchism-britannica-kropotkin
TachyonEvan
11/22/09, 05:03 PM
Card games > religion.
ANARCHISM (from the Gr. av, and aoxn , contrary to authority), the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilised being. In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all the fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state in all its functions. They would represent an interwoven network, composed of an infinite variety of groups and federations of all sizes and degrees, local, regional, national and international temporary or more or less permanent - for all possible purposes: production, consumption and exchange, communications, sanitary arrangements, education, mutual protection, defence of the territory, and so on; and, on the other side, for the satisfaction of an ever-increasing number of scientific, artistic, literary and sociable needs. Moreover, such a society would represent nothing immutable. On the contrary - as is seen in organic life at large - harmony would (it is contended) result from an ever-changing adjustment and readjustment of equilibrium between the multitudes of forces and influences, and this adjustment would be the easier to obtain as none of the forces would enjoy a special protection from the state.
http://libcom.org/library/anarchism-britannica-kropotkin
I'm afraid I put anarchism and libertarianism (the Ayn Rand/Glenn Beck variety) on the same plane of unrealistic would-be utopian idealogies.
Love As Arson
11/22/09, 05:44 PM
I'm afraid I put anarchism and libertarianism (the Ayn Rand/Glenn Beck variety) on the same plane of unrealistic would-be utopian idealogies.
If you haven't already, I'd recommend reading about the success of anarchism in Spain before Franco took power. In any event, I felt the need to clarify what anarchism meant if the topic of "idiotic atheists that believe in anarchy" was to proceed.
If you haven't already, I'd recommend reading about the success of anarchism in Spain before Franco took power. In any event, I felt the need to clarify what anarchism meant if the topic of "idiotic atheists that believe in anarchy" was to proceed.
I'm very interested, so I'll do some reading on that forthwit! Thanks for the rec.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on issues such as these, as I admit to only having a cursory knowledge of anarchy. My previous comment was merely my impression as is.
rawesome
11/22/09, 08:53 PM
Taxing churches? Yes or no, and why?
saysmydoctor
11/22/09, 09:19 PM
Yes and to why: why not?
caveBEAR
11/22/09, 09:34 PM
Card games > religion.
Holy hell, shut the fuck up. I know you think you're being cute and witty and all, but you're not.
TachyonEvan
11/22/09, 09:41 PM
At least in a card game, there's a winner, unlike religion, in which everybody loses.
caveBEAR
11/22/09, 09:41 PM
Taking religion out of the equation, I think stem cell research would still be heavily debated. The problem for semi-intelligent people is not that they are using these embryos that would otherwise go to waste, the problem is that they are worried it will lead to the generation of pregnancies just for the use of the embryos (not an attractive thought for most people) eventually as stem cell research progresses and is used more and more often. I could easily see people being upset about that, religious or not, although the argument against it is certainly catered toward religious people. The side in which you bash simply wants research funding to go to other areas that don't lead to a slippery slope instead of dumping money into something that is probably going to be debated and banned over and over.
However, I kind of hate the slippery slope argument and it makes me wonder if people think scientists are just immoral monsters. Stem cell research can do a whole fucking lot of good, and if my uncle can walk again someday because of stem cells from an otherwise discarded fetus then we should be throwing money and research into it. So I do agree with you, but to bash all religion because there are a bunch of idiot sheep is a little simple-minded. Yes there are a lot of complete religious morons who think stem cell research is kiilling babies. There are also a lot of idiot atheists that think anarchy is the way to go.
Yeeaaah...that's never ever, ever gonna happen. You're not going to have an entire generation decide 'fuck kids, we can just hand off the embryos and be done with it'. It's not a slippery slope, it's The Shire, as in, imaginary. If that's really the reason that people are going to send stem cell research funds to other areas, then we need to just ignore them like we did the kids who ate glue in 5th grade.
caveBEAR
11/22/09, 09:43 PM
At least in a card game, there's a winner, unlike religion, in which everybody loses.
Yup, still not cute or witty. Oh, and 'everybody loses'? Sure.
TachyonEvan
11/22/09, 09:51 PM
Yes, everyone loses in religion. That's what I said.
saysmydoctor
11/22/09, 10:01 PM
Shut the fuck up, Evan. Go back to the Music forum, Politics isn't your speed.
caveBEAR
11/22/09, 10:01 PM
Yes, everyone loses in religion. That's what I said.
Care to expand upon that?
TachyonEvan
11/22/09, 10:04 PM
I think I'm going to take Sean's advice. Because no argument I make will be taken seriously anyway.
vBulletin v3.6.0, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.