Originally posted by heyo
the spinelessness of your post is similiar to that of talking behind someone' back. I've always thought that making fun of people on the internet
was akin to threatening them. Your declaration was extremely personal and said more than just "i don't agree with religion" it said "religious
people are stupid". This of course must be because it has been proven that you're smarter than me right?
Well, I have no idea who you are, and I was making no judgements about intellect.
I was talking about my respect for the person, to be honest. It's nothing measurable, its just whether I feel that person's opinion is important to
If someone comes out, guns blazing, about how religious they are, it's weird, okay? Because ultimately, the sources for the religion are arbitrary
(i.e. you were born in a Christian society, not Muslim, thus dictates your side in the next crusade) and created in "ancient times" when people
clearly didn't know as much as they thought (aka the Babylonian concept of a domed Earth with the stars as a patchwork in it, etc, that made it into
Judaism) and the general untrustworthiness of the story (God goes to madman A and reveals the truth. Said madman goes to Village X to spread the
word, only everyone calls him a madman, and he is forced to leave with a few converts, the dejected idiots that the people have decided are mentalists
too, eventually the prophet dies and now nobody can prove he didn't say this or that because he's dead, and you can't even ask him, thus it becomes
legend, which in turn becomes "fact").
Do you get what I'm saying? The pretense is ridiculous. If I came to you saying how I was just tutored by a miracle-working son of God, he's dead
so you can't meet him but I learned all his stuff so I'll teach you if you become my bitch, you'd tell me to get lost because I was crazy. So why
the hell would you believe the same freaking story from someone a couple of milennia ago??
Anyone should be able to analyze the holes in this story and think "right, this is bull, and even if this is not bull, it isn't how it was
originally given out, so it still means little because it's probably mostly bull".
Originally posted by heyoLol "the biggest difference is i have faith, you have evidence." I love how the evidence available today is
somehow absolute. Scientists a hundred years ago thought the same. The evolution of science is just one incorrect conclusion after another until the
correct one is reached.
Yes! That is it exactly! And religion is one incorrect conclusion that will never, ever, ever become correct, no matter how many idiots you brainwash
The great thing about evidence is that it is a double-edged sword, that one can only be right if one is actually right (unlike religion, which is
which one has more swords). If you are in the wrong, eventually it will be shown.
Originally posted by heyoEvolution is kind of irrelevant to me, it is more abiogenesis that i have a problem with (but that's beside my
point.) So what proof do i have, as a layman, that correct conclusions are all at this point unarguable, and therefore 100% true?
You have no proof of electricity, but I think you probably aren't doubting Tesla when he put forward his theory on alternating current, are you?
Ever seen an electron with your own eyes? Of course not. Almost everything you know will be based on the faith that someone else has done the
research and that what they tell you is true, so lets not get silly and go down this road.
Our best bet is to go with the general inclinations of the scientific community as these are the fine minds that do actually spend their lives working
this stuff out so I can play Quake 3 some more.
Originally posted by heyoAfter teh debacle of man-made global warming, during which scientists the world over denied even the
possibility they were wrong, it has come to my attention that science is more about politics than science, just like organized religon is more about
politics than the soul. If you can't see the faith in science, i don't really care it is quite evident to me, and that way of thinking has cleared
up many aspects of the big picture for me.
Yes, lets not get started on Global Warming either...
I don't see how this disproves science, to be honest. Just because it's used by corrupt men to propagate their own power, it's not the fault of
science. They'd do it if they lived in mud huts, if they could.
Originally posted by heyoAn example of faith would be the faith that our senses are able to detect all factors in an experiment,
basically, if we can't see it, it's not there.
No, thats a fool's argument. I'm sure you can see why it would be foolish to say this, as I said above, most of the things you "know" you just
take on faith, but at least there is some logical evidence-based reason to do so other than "God talks to me! Honest!!".
Originally posted by heyoHow can you possible say you don't judge for religion when you said anyone who is religious drops a notch or
two in our book? What the hell kind of doublespeak are you selling here? The fact is you do judge religous people, because you think they're stupid.
I then called you on it, then defended your right to do it as per the subject of the thread.
I did not say they are stupid, to repeat, I lose respect for them because all religious dogma is half-arsed, drug-addled clap-trap from a social
reject from ancient times, whom the other ancient people also thought were full of it! It is pointless to judge religions as they are all alike:
believe this, don't believe that, no if's no but's. Whats the point in judging a beauty contest for a bunch of turds, at the end of the day, all
you'll choose is a beautiful-looking turd.
Originally posted by heyoI have no intent on a religous debate here,
He says, after the debate.
Originally posted by heyo just don't call me and everyone else religious stupid and then brag about how nonjudgemental you are. It's
hypocrisy in a very clear manifestation. Hypocrisy is a true mark of an evil man, but blind hypocrisy is just dumb.
I was bragging about nothing, I did not call you stupid and I don't judge religions, only people.
You are just jumping to conclusions without really thinking about what i've been saying