Satori: Open debate challenge

[Socrates]

From here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=946)

Satori posts a verbose fact-free rant: :rant:

Here's my thing: I feel stonglyAnd you deny being emotional?? But you reveal right at the beginning that you're motivated by strong feelings.

that this creationist movement (which has probably mislead a number of you)One fact-free assertion.

is nothing more than an attempt by a dying religion to regain the respect and authority it had lost to people like Darwin, Galileo, Wrong again :doh:-- the Galileo affair happened because the Church was misled by the SCIENCE of its day, Ptolemaic astronomy. Galileo's first and bitterest opposition came from the Aristotelians at the Universities.
and to a lesser extent, Einstein's relativistic/subjective world view. Shows how little you know. Einstein's theories were all about physics :dunce:, and have nothing to do with any other sort of relavism, e.g. cultural or moral. Furthermore, Einstein's main postulate was that the speed of light was NOT relative but invariant regardless of the velocity of the observer! Furthermore, he preferred the name "Invariance Theory" but the term "relativity" stuck.


Creationsim inparticular seems to me to be nothing more than a lame and entirely unsuccessful attempt to get archaic theist ideasOh here we go, chronological snobbery. But it may interest you to know that truth or falsity is not determined by a calendar, but in correspondence with the facts.

taught in public schools in the southern US (which is still heavily steeped in religiousity) under the guise of "science". I am Australian, so can comment only on the Australian scene. But I point out that the largest creationist organisation in the USA is Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/), founded by an Australian. And they make itvery clear that they have no interest in compelling creation to be taught. But they would like teachers to be free to question the evolution dogma.

I'm not interested such non-emperical motivations, just cold logic and the facts.
You wouldn't know either if they slogged you in the gut!

If you are the type of person who gets emotionally involved in such debates, or if you use your religion as an emotional crutch to give your life purpose and direction (as in, if the thought that you are not in fact immortal disturbs you greatly (fear of death is one of you motivations for believing)), And of course, Satori uses evolution as an emotional crutch to justify his rebellion against his Creator, because he knows that if he's wrong, he's in for a hot hereafter. Two can play your game of cheap psychologization of your opponents. :bonk:

Philosophy is my bag, but I'm willing to go into science as well, as best as I am able. Judging by your naivety even in the philosophy of science, it's obvious that your ability in science is minuscule. :dufus:


Through all of this, please try to keep in mind that underneath it all I am a person of compassion and uncompromising ethics, Oh please excuse my mirth :rofl: having seen your vitriol on the site, and your self-confessed moral relativism. Check my signature to see the self-refuting nature of relativism.


If labels are necessary, then call me a lay quantum physicist of sorts, that is with regard to the unified brand of philosophy which is emerging from high-energy exploration in the elusive nature of reality (which I don't expect many people on this site to be aware of, but I'm quite willing to share).Here we go again with this pathetic snobbery. FYI, Jaltus and I are not just amateurs in quantum mechanics but have studied them seriously in a physics and chemistry degree respectively.

I don't mind a reasonable discussion on the issues, but I'll reply to any pathetic rhetorical devices in kind! :deal:

[joelkaki]

Satori, you say you have uncompromising ethics. Where do you get the basis for such ethics? How do you know they are what they should be?


Joel

[Satori]

joelkaki:
Satori, you say you have uncompromising ethics.

Yes. Absolutely.

Where do you get the basis for such ethics?

I feel they are, for me, in the realm of common sense.

How do you know they are what they should be?

I don't. I only know through personal experience and what our ancestors have taught us. And I feel anyone who claims otherwise is self-deluded.

Thanks for your question.

Satori

[Mr Stick71]

Common sense, huh? Can you give me the molecular formula for that?

Satori, I'm more than willing to debate you on this topic once you provide sufficient proof that life can come into existance apart from God. I'm not asking about evolution: I'm talking about the very beginning. Good luck finding an answer.

Aaron

[Satori]

Socrates:
Satori posts a verbose fact-free rant: :rant:

Spare me your analysis. It was an invitation to a discussion and nothing more, just trying to get people such as yourself thinking and writing. And it worked, in case that also didn't occur to you.

And you deny being emotional?? But you reveal right at the beginning that you're motivated by strong feelings.

You have made and error in your first statement there. You'll note that I never denied being emotional, only that I wanted only to debate with people who don't get too emotional about this. Besides, obviously, I consider this sort of debate with hard-core bible-thumpers to be rather nonsensical and fun because nothing usually comes from it, I don't think my presumed "immortal soul" is somehow hanging in the balance so this isn't all that serious to me, unlike theists. I understand very well the theists obligations to adhere to their constructs, and what is at steak for them. My speaking of emotion was an acknowledgement of that and I said it because I truly don't want to hurt anyone's feelings on this site (though I suspect I will, eventually, if not already). I'm not suprised that you were unable to discern this for yourself, but even if you did, would you still have not have made the assertion above? I'm inclined to think that you may have, just a hunch of course.

Wrong again :doh:-- the Galileo affair happened because the Church was misled by the SCIENCE of its day, Ptolemaic astronomy. Galileo's first and bitterest opposition came from the Aristotelians at the Universities.

Oh boy.

You say this as if it's actually relavant. I admire and understand, if not respect, your enthusiasm.

The fact remains that the church of the day held up this idea as the undisputable word of god, physically and financially threatened those who openly disagreed, and subsequently ended up looking quite foolish. Your attempt to sway the point I was making was unsuccessful. Unless it was the custom of the day for the church to cling to ideas and suppose they are the word of god without biblical verification (which would be quite foolish, as I'm sure you would agree), then we must assume that the officials of the day didn't just *assume* that the theories of the era's astronomers were to be considered as a "divine revelation", they almost certainly had biblical passages to support their dogma, and if they didn't then they are even more foolish than I previously thought. They likely used similar passages that modern geocentric nuts are using today. Therefore, I feel it's quite likely that the geocentric dogma wasn't ONLY the result of the the era's astronomers misleading the church, as you have naively suggested. Nice try however, and I appreciate your ingenuity.

Shows how little you know. Einstein's theories were all about physics :dunce:, and have nothing to do with any other sort of relavism, e.g. cultural or moral.

You are presenting your ignorance of the philosophical implications of quantum physics relating to the idea of relativism which has been discussed in a purely philosphical context by scientists such as Bohr and Capra. You also make the mistake of assuming that such philosophy in no way affects the way that society in general views themselves and the world, but that is simply not the case. You would be best to not make such assumptions, but I realize that assumptions are difficult to make because not eveyone knows about everything that's out there. We are all guilty of assuming things out of ignorance, so I'm not bashing you for your mistake, just pointing it out and saying that it's a mistake we all make so it's ok, no harm no foul.

Also, as a sidenote, I simply cannot relate to your desire to chop and divide reality into neat little sections, and I see no inherent logic in it whatsoever. I fully appreciate that such differentiation is one of the primary crutches of theism (division of creation from creator, good from evil, physical from spiritual), so I understand your many motivations for holding such a view since to think otherwise, to you, would constitute blasphemy (and since your immortal soul hangs in the balance, this is not something you are really at liberty to do). I hold a world view, present in some philosophies and sciences, that underneath all our mindful distictions and the many divisions of our reality there is an underlying commonality. In other words, if we dig deep into reality, as is the objective of high-energy physics, things seem more and more similar, not dissimilar and not so differentiated as I feel is your world view (correct me if I'm wrong about your world view, I'm just extrapolating based on what you said above). Since this is the very fabric of the universe we are discussing here, it seems quite naive to me that the philosophical implications of this would automactically be excluded from the rest of reality which it is derived from the same underlying fabric. Indeed, I have found that theists are quick to draw such lines (since the insistance of the absolute existance of such a line goes to the the very heart of their highly differentiated philosophies). Drawing such harsh distinctions is also the default mode of thinking by the philosophical descendants of greek philosophy, so I can further empathize with drawing such distinctions. I however do not share such a world view, though I once did.

Therefore, your insistance that the prevailing theories in physics have absolutely no cultural or social implications is not something I can entertain and I hope I have adequately explained why. If you think otherwise then we'll have to agree to disagree, but I question the liberty of your honesty in this matter considerng that you seem to think your soul hangs in the balance (that is, you have a huge motivation to swing in one direction rather than the other).

Furthermore, Einstein's main postulate was that the speed of light was NOT relative but invariant regardless of the velocity of the observer! Furthermore, he preferred the name "Invariance Theory" but the term "relativity" stuck.

If there was some counter-point to be made by this, and it wasn't just babble that equates to "look at how informed I am", then you'll have re-state it in the context of this discussion.

Oh here we go, chronological snobbery.

Such snobbery is not without a great deal of obvious support, as I'm sure you realize. As we intellectually evolve we come to understand more, and I feel that's extremely evident. I do see the point you are making of course, but still. Unfortunately for theists in our modern age, religiousity has become equated with archaic ideas and a great deal of ignorance, and this is not without good reason (of course). Perhaps this is partially due to the fact that emperical reasoning is continually gaining ground and the speculative tennants of religions seem more distasteful to more and more people.


But it may interest you to know that truth or falsity is not determined by a calendar, but in correspondence with the facts.

Duh.

I am Australian, so can comment only on the Australian scene. But I point out that the largest creationist organisation in the USA is Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/), founded by an Australian. And they make itvery clear that they have no interest in compelling creation to be taught. But they would like teachers to be free to question the evolution dogma.

When I think of "dogma", I think of stuff that is rammed down people's throats with force/threats, as has been the mode of religion (and dictatorship styled politics, which is also like christianity up until a short time ago). That's why the word dogma has become so synonymous with religions like christianity. I feel this word is used by people such as yourself to subtlely try to equate the science of evolution with the inherent weakness and brutality of theology, by claiming it is a "dogma". If evolution is indeed a "dogma" as you suggest, then so is everything else in the education systems. Therefore, we also have chemistry dogma, biology dogma, in fact, in that context, education itself is a dogma and the word loses it's meaning entirely.

You say that AiG has no interest in creationism being taught, but I seem to recall seeing a great deal of educational material on that site, and even some references to home-schooling. Please explain your comment in light of this. Were you simply unaware of this site's content?

I agree with you that teachers should be free to question evolution, on purely scientific grounds of course (that's what science is after all), but I don't think they should be allowed to do so by bringing in any references to theism or a "creator". That would be a violation of certain gov't principles we have come to hold dear.

Personally, I find the AiG site just ridiculous to the extreme. I have a hard time accepting that intelligent human beings think they can be taken seriously when working backwards by assuming a given theory is correct and then working towards proving it. You will undoubtedly argue that that is not the case, and I look forward to this argument, particularly in light of the fact that little if anything in this propaganda actually confirms their theist theories, even if they do manage to dig up something which supports the biblical version of events (?) this does not conclusively show that "god did it". Therefore, the "evidence" (and I use the term loosely here) is circumstantial and inconclusive at best, and worst, innane (I'm sure we'll discuss this at some point, and I look forward to that).

You wouldn't know either if they slogged you in the gut!.

Your speculation has been noted.

And of course, Satori uses evolution as an emotional crutch to justify his rebellion against his Creator, because he knows that if he's wrong, he's in for a hot hereafter. Two can play your game of cheap psychologization of your opponents. :bonk:

This was by far the most intriguing statement in your post (and the most amusing). You making some broad assumptions here, and I will point them out:

1. That the science of evolution is an "emotional crutch" to me. It's not. Like the vast majority of biologist and geologists I merely regard it as the best fit and nothing more because I harbour no thiestic constructs. Where it becomes emotional for me is that is lends some weight to my spirtual sensation of feeling derived from and perpetually connected to my environment and to the whole of reality (what you limitingly call "god"). It's not a crutch, it's a strength. I would feel spirtually connected to the universe even if evolution were wrong (but I don't think it is)

2. You are assuming that I a) have a "creator" and b) that I believe that such a "creator" actually exists in some regard. Wrong again.

3. You assume that, given your assumption that your first two assumptions were correct, that I feel this "creator" is a sadistic freak who is actually so lacking in ethics as to subject anyone to, as you proudly proclaim, "a hot hereafter" (hehe, that was hilarious).

Not only was your statement comprised entirely of presumptions, but within it you inadvertantly and loudly shouted the seat of your biase, your fears, and perhaps (I think) your TRUE motivations. Boy, talk about backfiring, doh! heheh

continued...

[Satori]

Judging by your naivety even in the philosophy of science, it's obvious that your ability in science is minuscule. :dufus:

Given your ignorance of the philosophical implications of science, I'm not suprised that you would make such a statement.

Oh please excuse my mirth :rofl: having seen your vitriol on the site, and your self-confessed moral relativism. Check my signature to see the self-refuting nature of relativism.

Are you serious? Wow, I had read your sig early and thought it was a joke. Well have to discuss this some day, I look forward to it.

Here we go again with this pathetic snobbery. FYI, Jaltus and I are not just amateurs in quantum mechanics but have studied them seriously in a physics and chemistry degree respectively.

Excellent, then I am far more compelled to converse with you then, but you must understand, science isn't my bag, non-theist philosophy is. I will try my best to keep up with you on such matter however. I look forward to your attempts to justify your theistic assertions with your knowledge in these disciplines. It should be quite entertaining to say the least.

best regards,

Satori

[Satori]

Mr Stick71:
Common sense, huh?

Yes. It contributes to the success of our species. In a rudimentary sense, it's the same reason a hungry tiger doesn't eat her own kittens, and why pack animals share food. Humans are pack animals, like most primates and many other mammals, and are most successful when they work together. This means that certain rules of conduct are necessary, just as they are in the animals. Humans simply have a far more advanced form of it because we have far more complex societies. I think that's extremely evident.

Can you give me the molecular formula for that?

Surely you are joking. Perhaps you'd like to give me a molecular formula for the existance of a human-like creator?

Satori, I'm more than willing to debate you on this topic once you provide sufficient proof that life can come into existance apart from God.

As I would be just as willing to debate you once you provide sufficent "proof" (cough, cough, like that's even *possible* at this stage in our intellectual evolution) that life absolutely cannot come into existance apart from "god".

I'm not asking about evolution: I'm talking about the very beginning.

Then I will pose the same challenge to you as well. Show me undeniable "proof" of your god theory and I'll believe you 100%. Unlike your god theory, which rests upon a presumption only and has no mathematical formulism (to my knowledge) to attempt to explain it, there are currently theories in the works which indicate that our 4-dimensional cause/effect reality doesn't necessarily apply to the pre-universe state. In short, the universe could be self-causing. However, the fact is that we simply don't know one way or the other, which is why *presuming* anything to be any more than a theory (as you are in fact doing) is so very foolish and self-defeating.

Good luck finding an answer.

Same to you my friend.

Satori

[Socrates]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:
Wrong again -- the Galileo affair happened because the Church was misled by the SCIENCE of its day, Ptolemaic astronomy. Galileo's first and bitterest opposition came from the Aristotelians at the Universities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Satori:
Oh boy.

You say this as if it's actually relavant.[quote]You serious?? OF COURSE it's relevant, since it totally oblitorates your claim that the Galileo affair was "religion v. science".
[quote]
The fact remains that the church of the day held up this idea as the undisputable word of god, physically and financially threatened those who openly disagreed, and subsequently ended up looking quite foolish. Your attempt to sway the point I was making was unsuccessful.They did look foolish, because they let themselves be persuaded by the scientists of their day that this "science" was taught in the Bible. Many modern churchians have made the same mistake with the modern fashion of evolution.


Unless it was the custom of the day for the church to cling to ideas and suppose they are the word of god without biblical verification (which would be quite foolish, as I'm sure you would agree), then we must assume that the officials of the day didn't just *assume* that the theories of the era's astronomers were to be considered as a "divine revelation", they almost certainly had biblical passages to support their dogma, and if they didn't then they are even more foolish than I previously thought.Science historian John Heilbron, in his book The Sun in the Church, favourably reviewed by the secular science journals New Scientist and Science, points out:

Galileo’s heresy, according to the standard distinction used by the Holy Office, was “inquisitorial” rather than “theological”. This distinction allowed it to proceed against people for disobeying orders or creating scandals, although neither articles violated an article defined and promulgated by a pope or general council. … Since, however, the church had never declared that the Biblical passages implying a moving sun had to be interpreted in favour of a Ptolemaic universe as an article of faith, optimistic commentators … could understand “formally heretical” to mean “provisionally not accepted”.

In fact, Heilbron's book is all about how the Church supported astronomical research, even turning their cathedrals into giant inverse-sundials called meridiane, which further contributed to the demise of the Ptolemaic world view.

Satori continues in his attempt to weasel out of his errors:


They likely used similar passages that modern geocentric nuts are using today.And they are nutty for the same reason the RC Church was -- because they are reading "science" into biblical passages, except that in the case of modern geocentrists, the science is not fashionable any more as it was in Galileo's time.


------------------------------------------------------------------
Satori:
and to a lesser extent, Einstein's relativistic/subjective world view.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Socrates:
Shows how little you know. Einstein's theories were all about physics , and have nothing to do with any other sort of relavism, e.g. cultural or moral. Furthermore, Einstein's main postulate was that the speed of light was NOT relative but invariant regardless of the velocity of the observer! Furthermore, he preferred the name "Invariance Theory" but the term "relativity" stuck.

Satori ignored my key point about the invariance of c, and tried to argue:


You are presenting your ignorance of the philosophical implications of quantum physics relating to the idea of relativism which has been discussed in a purely philosphical context by scientists such as Bohr and Capra.
D'oh again :doh:, this has nothing to do with Einsteinian relativity. Einstein was fervently opposed to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics all his life!! And note that this is an interpretation.


You say that AiG has no interest in creationism being taught, but I seem to recall seeing a great deal of educational material on that site, and even some references to home-schooling. Please explain your comment in light of this. Were you simply unaware of this site's content??Read what I said: :argh:

And they make it very clear that they have no interest in compelling creation to be taught. (Emphasis added)

[Mr Stick71]

Way not to answer my question Satori. I asked you to prove that common sense exists. You asserted that it exists: prove it.

I cannot prove that life cannot come from anything but God, just as you cannot "prove" that you even exist. But you seem pretty sure that life somehow evovled, so I'm asking you to prove it, starting at the beginning. You don't start a race halfway through. So, again, I want you to prove that life could come into existance apart from God (shouldn't be that hard, it happened once without intelligent intereference didn't it?)

:rofl:

As for your theories about a 4 dimensial pre-universal state, show me the lab work on it. Not the arm-chair philosopher work, but the actually chemical and test tube lab work. Enjoy.

Oh, and one final note: I don't puport that Creation is an undeniable fact; I also don't see it taught in schools as such, whereas evolution is. Makes ya wonder.

Aaron

[b488]

...I have missed something important in all the bruhaha of everyone flexing their rhetorical muscles before the smackdown begins.

First of all, hello Satori :smile:

Now, to what i missed.

Satori, what exactly would you like to debate on?

You mentioned your distaste for 'creationism'.

You said (Im not quoting you, just summarizing in my own words) that creationism was a result of certain adherents of christianity attempting to save the sinking ship of their own religiosity.

I seem to be getting from your posts that you think strongly that christians do not deal in any way with facts rationality or logic.
Is this true?

If so, this leaves another area of debate, although not as yet clearly defined, up for grabs. And this area would be much more interesting for me than 'scientific creationism'. I do not follow this very closely and, in fact, too broad to allow for a structured debate. For example there are special creationists and there are theistic evolutionists? Which would you rather debate?

Unless you are more specific in what you are after, I think you will be left with more heckling than anything else, since there is nothing more substantive to comment on as of yet. (except for semantic and stylistic issues, i suppose :tongue:

Anyway, enough of my rambling. I am very interested in hearing from you and anyone else here who would actually like to 'put something together out of a thread that seems to be adrift. Let's try very hard not to have yet more JPH/Till-style entrenchments. Its fun for a while, but then turns only into a waste of bandwith
:zzz:

Ciao! :thumb:

[Satori]

Socrates:
OF COURSE it's relevant, since it totally oblitorates your claim that the Galileo affair was "religion v. science".

My claim, or your misinterpretation? Let's see...

"...an attempt by a dying religion to regain the respect and authority it had lost to people like Darwin, Galileo..."

Clear as mud? I made no such "claim". What I intended however was that the Galileo affair was a conflict which arose between Galileo's emperical reasoning and the church's long held dogma which was further justified by the science of the day.

They did look foolish, because they let themselves be persuaded by the scientists of their day that this "science" was taught in the Bible.

I find it just a little sad that you are attempting to blame "science" for this error/conflict, but at that time science was in its infancy and was simply unwilling and unable to challenge the brutal authority of the church (even Galileo was eventually forced to recant on his findings to save himself, in case you are unaware). You are desparately trying to make it sound as if the astronomers mislead the church, but the church was not in a position to be mislead so easily. They agreed with the findings because it supported their own geocentric ideologies, at least in part, if it went against their dogma then the astronomers would've been forced to recant or else be charged with heresy and promptly totured and/or executed (lovely thought).

Unfortuantely your attempts to sway what I said and put it in the light of "it was the fault of science, not of the church" have been unsuccessful. I truly don't care *where* they got the idea from however, for me it's a non-issue. The fact remains they upheld it, violently and dogmatically. Seeing as you failed to get the gist of what I was say, I feel it's worth repeating:

The fact remains that the church of the day held up this idea as the undisputable word of god, physically and financially threatened those who openly disagreed, and subsequently ended up looking quite foolish. Your attempt to sway the point I was making was unsuccessful. Unless it was the custom of the day for the church to cling to ideas and suppose they are the word of god without biblical verification (which would be quite foolish, as I'm sure you would agree), then we must assume that the officials of the day didn't just *assume* that the theories of the era's astronomers were to be considered as a "divine revelation", they almost certainly had biblical passages to support their dogma, and if they didn't then they are even more foolish than I previously thought. They likely used similar passages that modern geocentric nuts are using today. Therefore, I feel it's quite likely that the geocentric dogma wasn't ONLY the result of the the era's astronomers misleading the church, as you have naively suggested. Nice try however, and I appreciate your ingenuity.

And I do appreciate your ingenuity, don't get me wrong, but you'll simply have to do better than that I'm afraid. Perhaps arguing such pointless semantics works on most of your opponents, and I'm sure it does, but not with me. Please take another stab at showing that the church was in *no way* at fault or in error for its genocentric blunder. Good luck with that, and I look forward to your reply.

Many modern churchians have made the same mistake with the modern fashion of evolution.[QUOTE]

Your opinion has been noted.

[QUOTE]Science historian John Heilbron, in his book The Sun in the Church, favourably reviewed by the secular science journals New Scientist and Science, points out:

Galileo’s heresy, according to the standard distinction used by the Holy Office, was “inquisitorial” rather than “theological”. This distinction allowed it to proceed against people for disobeying orders or creating scandals, although neither articles violated an article defined and promulgated by a pope or general council. … Since, however, the church had never declared that the Biblical passages implying a moving sun had to be interpreted in favour of a Ptolemaic universe as an article of faith, optimistic commentators … could understand “formally heretical” to mean “provisionally not accepted”.

I guess that means the church was NOT in error in any way then huh? They were merely victimized by the stupidity of "science". Please.

Satori continues in his attempt to weasel out of his errors:

Errors? Are you still attempting to assert that the church was in no way at fault and that it was entirely because they were "mislead" by the astronomers of the era? You'll have to do better I'm afraid, and I'm expecting you to do just that.

And they are nutty for the same reason the RC Church was -- because they are reading "science" into biblical passages,

Interesting. I suppose you do not read science into biblical passages as is the creationist mode of upholding the bible as being at least somewhat accurate in creationist accounts? Please explain. As I see it, creationist read a whole lot of science into the bible, and Ken Ham of your favorite aussie site seems to be leading the pack with his silly literalist interpretations.

except that in the case of modern geocentrists, the science is not fashionable any more as it was in Galileo's time.

While I agree, I feel you are stating this as an absolute "fact" and disregarding the subjective nature of interpretation, and considering your desire and motivations to cling to absolutist type notions and assert your own objectivity, I don't find this the least bit suprising.

Satori ignored my key point about the invariance of c, and tried to argue:

I didn't ignore, I just didn't see it as entirely relevant because I assumed you knew what I was talking about (which I know see that you didn't, my mistake, so I will take the time to explain it in this post). And you say this as if you didn't completely ignore a great deal of what I said. Opps. hehe

Satori said: "You are presenting your ignorance of the philosophical implications of quantum physics relating to the idea of relativism which has been discussed in a purely philosphical context by scientists such as Bohr and Capra."

D'oh again :doh:, this has nothing to do with Einsteinian relativity. Einstein was fervently opposed to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics all his life!! And note that this is an interpretation.

Note: the very act of perceiving anything at all denotes interpretation and brings into play all our intellectual expectations and biases. This is unavoidable, of course.

Einstein made significant contributions to quantum physics, as well as (though indirecty) philosphical modern "relativatism" (indirectly being the key word there). Yes, it was not his intent to do that, and I realize this is the result of a select interpretation Einstein's work by laymen who gained insights from it nonetheless. I sincerely ask you to consider what I'm about to say rather than simply dismiss it altogether or merely scan it looking for something to disagree with:

I feel you are presuming I'm falling in with the majority of people who misinterpret Einstein's idea with the bs "everything is relative" pop-philsophy catch phrase that has become so popularized in our culture. But Einstein wasn't the father of the idea I was eluding to (which I'll briefly detail shortly and I stated it as a way of opening up discussion in this issue) he was merely wrongly credited as such, and it doesn't take an Einstein to realize that our perceptions are slanted by our inherent bias and world view. Einstein only lent credibility to this idea, which was furthered by quantum physicists who held that peculiar mystical/unified philosphical slant (as many of them do, as I do as well). Einstein's inadvertant (and highly misunderstood) philosophical contribution in this area wasn't that "everything is relative", it was that the observer is an active participant and *part*of the system itself, part of reality, part of the experiment, a blow to newtonian styled absolute objectivism, as I am sure you are aware. In other words, what we see is dependent on where we stand and how we look (and even what we expect to find). What we perceive of reality is governed by the questions we ask and how we interpret the answers nature gives us, and we are further limited by our senses and our biological/intellectual history/makeup. This diminished absolute objectivism in science, which long held that the observer was completely independent of the observation, and brought it more in line with relativisitic philosophy (something which actually predates christianity), which most people hold whether they agree with "relativism" or not. Nothing new there. Reality is not relative, that's just innane, that's just the common way of stating the idea, what IS "relative" (to US and interpersonally) is our subjective *interpretation* of reality, and that's really all we have to go on. Also, "reality isn't subjective" (another pop-philosophical bit of nonsense), it is our *experience* of reality which is subjective/interpretive, this is what pop-philosophers really intend when they say that "everything is relative" nonsense (which people such as yourself misinterpret and dismiss). Besides, as any scientist will surely state, things are never as they appear to be on the surface. If we merely ask nature a different kind of question we'll get a different answer. Sometimes these answers even contradict each other, which further demonstrates our inherent inability to conceptualize contradictory aspects of reality in the context of our inherited greek philosophical constructs (the same constructs that fueled the formation of absolutist, non-unified, and human-centric philosophies such as judiasm and the various spin-off religions which evolved from it). It may interest you to note that Indian/Asian philosophies do not have this intellectual limitation, contradictions (ie. particle/wave, good/evil, self/non-self, creator/creation, etc.) are viewed not as polar opposites but as 2 sides of a single coin which owe their very definitions to their polarities (ie. if there were no such thing as light then we'd have means to conceptualize darkness and we wouldn't be aware of its existance (and would it even exist to our senses if it didn't exist in *relation* (relative) to something else??)). In this view, reality isn't "relative" (sarcasm) and not comprised of disjointed parts and conflict with one another, it's *relational*. Not at all surprisingly, this is the world view which is also emerging from quantum physics, to which Einstein made significant contributions, which is why I mentioned him.

continued...

[Satori]

Relativism is widely misunderstood and condemned by theists such as yourself because it contrasts so sharply with your absolutist and disjointed/mechanistic and largely newtonian world view. For this reason, whenever I encounter someone such as yourself who has this automatic knee-jerk reaction to this word, I prefer instead to use "subjectivism". The reason I didn't use subjectivism initially is because I have found that very few people know what is meant by it. Pop philosophers often equate relativism with subjectivism and use the the former to express the latter.

This relational world view is also emerging in other areas, not just philosophy (where it has always been), but also in ecology, medicine, and biology. Here are some examples of this:

Ecology: Our previous (mechanistic, disjointed, newtonian) way of looking at nature lead us to conclude that we are absolutely separate from nature, that nature was something to be tamed and dominated and used for our gain with little regard for the consequence. Such a view was also supported by misguided though well-intentioned christian theology, which, when interpreted literally, lead to this conclusion. I won't bother looking up the bible passages, but I trust you are aware of them. I'm eluding to that stuff about how the earth is a gift to man from "god" and such. I find such a view environmentally (and therefore ethically) repugnant and just plain stupid. But the times they are a-changing, fortunately. We are now emerging with an ecological world view that is more in tune with the emerging ideas of quantum physics, that is, that we exist not in differentiation/opposition with nature, but instead in an inherent symbiotic relationship with it. Native religions understood this from the get-go, but unfortunately such entirely obvious wisdom was unknown to the creators of judaism and its subsequent spin-off religions which hold steadfast to the notion that humans are absolutley differentiated from nature (and even that mind is absolutely distinct from body, with the whole "soul" concept).

I was going to give you examples in medicine and biology as well, but I feel I've said enough to make the point I intended. Perhaps I will discuss this more at a later time.

(Note: your mindset of division, and my mindset of unification, is the root of what I believe leads both of us to hold such opposing world views. My challenge to you in a nutshell is this: do you feel your world view is practical, logical, or even beneficial to humanity and the planet we inhabit? I feel it is not, obviously. Your world view is beneficial however to the protection and propogation of your own ego, and I suspect that is the underlying motivation, a highly advanced form of the animal instinct to survive and flourish, and in humans, this has surfaced in a desire to defeat the river of constant change, the assumption and subsequent desire for immortality which is the cornerstone of your theology, even though such an idea has NO logical or practical basis in the nature of which we are obviously an integral part. More on this later.)


Anyway that's what I was eluding to in my initial statement which prompted your semantic tirade built upon a presumption. You seem to have a habit of mistaking your indepth interpretations as being the true intentions of the person you are replying to, and each time you jump to such conclusions I will gently correct you, as I have done here. I suggest that before you get yourself all geared up to argue against your particular intrepretation of what someone is saying that you seek the clarification you need to warrant such outbursts. This will save us a great deal of time because I won't have to deconstruct your misunderstandings, though, in this case, without knowing me, I can appreciate how you could jump to such a conclusion, as it is a very commonly held misconception that I'm sure you've encountered many times before, so I in no way "blame" you for lumping my intentions in with those of the majority of people who don't take such a deep interest in such things.

Read what I said: :argh:

Wow, you really get excited about this, don't you? I can't blame you, considering that you actually believe that your presumed immoratal soul hangs in the balance and it's final destination is intrinsically linked to your ability to swallow the doctrine of just one of the world's many religions.

I said:

"Creationsim inparticular seems to me to be nothing more than a lame and entirely unsuccessful attempt to get archaic theist ideas taught in public schools in the southern US (which is still heavily steeped in religiousity) under the guise of "science". "

I openly admit to the American-centric mode of my statement, and I wasn't trying to hide it, which is why I made the direct reference to the US. When I made it, I was referring to the state of affairs in the US, though I could've worded it better for sure, and I thank you for pointing that out. I'm sorry that my statement seemed too general for you, and I agree that it was a little (depending on how you interpret if of coruse). At any rate, semantics. I think it's an interesting aspect of your character and motivation however that you feel the need to jump on every little thing you can find to counter what I have said, even if it's not very relevant or worthy of debating. Also, when I looked at that awful AiG "upholding the authority of the bible from the very first verse" (haha) site, I found loads of references to education, so I of course assumed that it was the point of this site to "educate" the public in their faithfully derived creationist views, though not necessarily to have their views taught in public schools, as is the case in parts of the US (though I feel that Ken Ham wouldn't exactly *decline* such an opportunity, and I'm sure you would agree, though in Austraila that's probably even more unlikely to happen than it is in the US). Again, I feel your desire to muddy things with semantics is evident, but considering what you feel is at steak for you, I can fully empathize with your motivations and emotions in this pursuit of yours to save yourself by adhering to theological constructs.

have fun and good nite,

Satori

[dawnghost]

Satori,

it's empIrical, not empErical.

whew!! that was getting on my nerves already. thanks!

[Satori]

Mr Stick71:
Way not to answer my question Satori.

By expecting an answer you are falling victim to the notion that there IS an answer, and you have no reason to harbour this assumption. Therefore, it's your question that is the problem, because it presumes there IS an answer that we can actually understand, not the apparent lack of an answer. I feel you are bound in your own human subjectivity and are very limited by it, and some day I hope to hold a discussion with you about this so I get to the root of you presumptions/misconceptions. In short, for now, I will simply say this and hope it affords you some insight: the map in not the territory.

I asked you to prove that common sense exists. You asserted that it exists: prove it.

I can see how inexperienced you are in this, so I will proceed slowly. Common sense is something derived from mind. It's not some absolute concept that's out there for the taking.

I'll pose a far easier question to you, to demonstrate this notion to you, seeing as you seem to think that ALL our thought-based concepts can be "proven" (cough, cough). Prove to me that the colour blue exists. I'll be waiting...

I cannot prove that life cannot come from anything but God,

Which is precisely why desparately clinging to such abstractions is so absurd and ultimately limiting, and why it's not considered to be empirical or respectable by anyone expect those who have the same desire to cling to them as you do.

just as you cannot "prove" that you even exist.

Nor can you. This sounds like conversations I had in high school btw, and my patience for such rudimentary philosophical ideas is limited because I feel there are far more important questions to explore. I will try to give you as much time as I can however. If I miss or overlook anything, PLEASE copy it to your hard drive or whatever and pose it to me when I'm not so busy. I'd appreciate that very much.

But you seem pretty sure that life somehow evovled,

Wrong again. I'm not "pretty sure", it's merely a loosely held opinion of mine because I don't regard it as "impossible" like you do, and I feel it's also the best empirical explanation we currently have. Sorry, but "god did it" just doesn't cut it for me, history has taught us that jumping to such supernatural conclusions can be very problematic, so I've opted out of that route because I feel it's in the best interest of everyone.

Besides, you are FAR more confident that "god did it", and you probably have a lot of motivations for holding this conclusion, motivations which play upon your base instincts like fear of death and self-propagation.

so I'm asking you to prove it, starting at the beginning.

This is simply too naive for me to entertain, but I will try. NOTHING metaphysical can be proven to a certainty, nothing. As I said, that is why clinging to any one theory and denying all others is so deeply absurd, an error, and yet that is exactly what you appear to be doing. Very interesting, don't cha think? ;)

I would ask you to "prove" your god theory, but I won't because I know you cannot and I would be embarrassed to ask you to seriously make the attempt. Therefore, stalemate. Where I have the upper hand in this of course is that my opinions are loosely held, based in emperical reasoning instead of presumption and fear/wishful thinking, and open to change at any time, and I have no deep-seated motivations which sway what little objectivity a mind can hold, while yours are faithful beliefs in "absolute truths" which you feel you must cling to for your own self-preservation (I'm assuming, that is what christians do after all, is it not?)

The fact is, you just don't know, and yet you cannot fully admit this to yourself I'm guessing, and that why your "faith" is really just an exercise in convincing yourself that you know the unknowable, it's an act of self-deception stemming from egocentric (selfish) motivations.

You don't start a race halfway through.

I don't start this race at all because I think it's just ridiculous and naive.

So, again, I want you to prove that life could come into existance apart from God (shouldn't be that hard, it happened once without intelligent intereference didn't it?)
:rofl:

Your childish naivity is extremely evident, in case you are unaware (and I will point this out every time you feel the urge to use one of those condescending graphics to depict you emotions).

Why don't you show me that life (or anything for that matter) can only come about from the result of the will of a human-like "god" who is filled with desires and expectations, including but not limited to the desire to have it's glutes kissed by puny subserviant animals such as ourselves. I find such whacky presumptions to be sad and yet amusing, an indication of how confused and egocentric most humans truly are.

Biologists and physicists are working on these problems, and while it's possible they may come up with very sound theories, "proof" is perhaps outside the realm of possibility for us. That's why they are humbly called "theories", not ignorantly and naively called "truths", as is the custom of the world's theologies. After all, we can't even "prove" that the colour blue exists (though I'm really hoping you'll take a stab at trying, heheh).

As for your theories about a 4 dimensial pre-universal state, show me the lab work on it. Not the arm-chair philosopher work, but the actually chemical and test tube lab work. Enjoy.

You can do the search yourself I'm sure, but I doubt you will really be able to understand it because you'd pretty much need a degree and some experience in quantum/theoretical physics for that. You are free to make the effort however, and I sincerely hope you will.

I'm amused by the way you present this child-like naivity, as IF it actually lends ANY credibility to your "god did it" theory whatsoever. It does not, and I think it's time you woke up and realized that because I feel you are embarassing yourself. Sorry, but that's how I feel.

Oh, and one final note: I don't puport that Creation is an undeniable fact;

Interesting, so you see your "god did it" theory as merely one theory among many equally plausible theories? I wonder how your presumed god feels about being equated with these lowly secular/scientific philsophies. I wonder if this presumed god getting its presumed temper all in a flair over your lack of "faith". Are you scared yet? Better say 10 hail mary's before bed tonight, just to be safe then, hehe ;) Sorry, couldn't resist, no disrespect intended, just good-natured sarcasm poking fun at how seriously I'm assuming you are taking all this theoretical nonsense. Lighten up dude, life's too short to take everything to be so serious and dire. ;)

I also don't see it taught in schools as such, whereas evolution is. Makes ya wonder.

It doesn't make me wonder at all. While evolution does have theological implications, those implications aren't its prime objective, just a side-effect. The same cannot be said of creationism, which, at it's root, is theological and is therefore likely to create personal and interpersonal conflicts because there are far more many "god" theories in the world than just the one you are proposing. I know hope you understand why creationism, like the religion from which is derived, cannot and should not be taught in schools.

take care Aaron,

Satori

PS: I hope you have taken this post in all the loving wit and humour in which I intended it. It's not my intent to hurt your feelings, just to jog your mind in looking at things from alternate perspectives. I look forward to continuing this discussion with you some day, if not sooner then definitely later.

[Satori]

dawnghost:
Satori,

it's empIrical, not empErical.

whew!! that was getting on my nerves already. thanks!

Did I misspell empirical more than once? If so, I apologize, it was not intentional, and not because I don't know how to spell the wold (though there are many words I probably can't spell and just don't know about, hehe).

Satori

edit: actually, I noted I misspelled the world more than once, I guess I'm thinking to deeply about what I'm saying that I'm not picking up on my own type-o's as I make them. I'll try to be more careful. Thanks for pointing that out. cheers

[dawnghost]

Dear Satori,

Please remember I am not debating you, I am here just to call two issues to attention.

first issue, regarding this whole conversation here:

Satori:
Biologists and physicists are working on these problems, and while it's possible they may come up with very sound theories, "proof" is perhaps outside the realm of possibility for us. That's why they are humbly called "theories", not ignorantly and naively called "truths", as is the custom of the world's theologies. After all, we can't even "prove" that the colour blue exists (though I'm really hoping you'll take a stab at trying, heheh).

actually the problem with using the word ‘theory’ in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. the subject some time ago was about AIG compelling creation to be taught or not. well, if this 'aussie institution' is a pro-creationist one, it's rather clear that it will offer literature that supports a creationist framework. that's obvious really.

what AIG states, though, is that students SHOULD question evolution in school. I have been there, evolution is taught with such dogmatic authority that no one even dares question it, it's like every piece of the puzzle has been assembled and is there for everyone to see.

it would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.

now, this has to do with the nature of this "truth", 'custom of the world's theologies' as Mr. Satori stated. aren't we here to debate this very subject amongst many others? this leads me to:

second issue, regarding this thread.

it's a mess again. Mr. Satori and members of TWeb, this space is not to be used to debate, but actually to pick a subject that both the challenger and Satori will agree on and have an organized discussion!

and then STICK to the subject!

[Ishmael]

Profundus Maximus (http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame16.html)

I read through the entire thread and even taking into consideration the depth of some of Satori's comments I still think that this cartoon from http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html is unusually appropriate for our new friend Satori.

Who will bet me that in his "debate" the note under this cartoon at the website mentioned above proves to be true about him?


Not everyone at once.....

[dawnghost]

hahahahahahahahahaha what an awesome link!

hmmm I'd say he's a mix of:

Profundus Maximus (http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame16.html)

Stone Deaf (http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame78.html)

Artful Dodger (http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame60.html)


hahaha sorry Satori, but that link is great, you should check it out really!! :wink:

[Mr Stick71]

Satori, no offense taken :cheers:

Time isn't my best friend, so I don't have time to take part in a debate. Hope ya enjoy debating with whoever it is that does have the time :thumb:

Aaron

[b488]

*sigh*

[Satori]

Dawnghost:

"Profundus Maximus eagerly holds forth on all subjects, but his thin knowledge will not support a sustained assault and therefore his attacks quickly peter out. Profundus Maximus often uses big words, obscure terms and...ahem...even Latin to bluff his way through battle."

I'm sorry that you feel I'm using big words and obscure terms. Believe it or not, I'm actually doing my absolutely BEST to present these ideas in as simple a way as possible.

If there is something that you need clarity on, by all mean, just ask, and I will glady clarify it for you.

"Stone Deaf is one of the few truly invincible Warriors because nothing can shatter his impenetrable armor of non recognition. His primitive battle strategy is maddening effective; he simply refuses to acknowledge any arguments he doesn't like. Kung-Fu Master can hammer away with devastating blows, Cyber Sisters can screech in full throat and Profundus Maximus can expound until he drops, but Stone Deaf remains utterly oblivious as he advances his dogged and often repetitious attacks. In the early stages of battle a wide array of Warriors will fling themselves at Stone Deaf, but inevitably they fall back exahusted or lose interest when they see that their best weapons have no effect. His only real enemy is Administrator, who has the power to eject him from the discussion forum. "

I'm sorry that you fail to realize that not only am I listening very intently to counter arguments, I am actually taking the time to deconstruct them and showing them to be based on a misinterpretation, a fallacy, or in the best case scenario, the limitation of subjectivism.

Perhaps you should try it, that is, if you have the courage of course. I eagerly await your rebuttal to anything I've said. If you can show that I am in error in something, then I will promptly change my point of view and thank you for your service. I hope that you have the humilty to say the same. That's the way it should be, don't cha think?

"Like Nitpick, Artful Dodger is a nimble and elusive Warrior. When faced with an attack he can't rebuff he maneuvers the discussion into an area where he feels he occupies the high ground. If, for example, in a moment of pique his opponent refers to him as a "sonofabitch", Artful Dodger will not only demand a public apology for his sainted mother, but will launch into a long harrangue about the sanctity of motherhood. Knowing full well that to stay on topic will assure his defeat, he is utterly impervious to counterattacks like, "that has nothing to do with this discussion"."

I'm sorry that you fail to realize that not only have I stayed on topic, I have expanded on those topics a great deal, as you can surely see above. I'm sorry that you do not seem to agree with the viewpoint that those silly graphics make people appear innane and childish, but you are free to hold your own opinions, just as I am free to point out how chilidish and self-defeating I feel a few of those certain graphics are.


Btw dear dawnghost, I think it's just a little sad, and yet highly amusing, that instead of actually getting *involved* in the discussion and attempting to counter *any* points I have made, you prefer instead to post those silly links, as if doing so makes you appear in any way intelligent, or makes me appear foolish. You should learn from this that such attempts will typically backfire when used on someone who sees through your petty ploys. While I'm sure that this behaviour may be valuable when used on people of equal or lower intelletual standards than yourself, they will not work on someone like me. Therefore, I suggest you refrain from such ploys in the future, as this will save me the trouble of pointing out the futility of your attempts, and it will save you the embarassment of being regarded as immateur.

As I have told you several times already, either REPLY to what I say which you don't agree with, or don't reply at all, otherwise, you will continually get your inability/unwillingness to present counter arguments shown to be the complete cop-out which everyone can see they are.

That being said, I officially challenge you to respond to the ideas to which you made the childish attempt at rebuttaling by posting those silly links. Seeing as you seem to think you are so enlightened and I am so confused, this shouldn't be very difficult for you. As always, I'll be waiting..

Satori

[Satori]

Calvinist:
Profundus Maximus (http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame16.html)

I read through the entire thread and even taking into consideration the depth of some of Satori's comments I still think that this cartoon from http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html is unusually appropriate for our new friend Satori.

Who will bet me that in his "debate" the note under this cartoon at the website mentioned above proves to be true about him?


Not everyone at once.....

Unfortuantely dear Calvinist, I expect more from you than this. While you may feel that such childish bashing and name-calling helps you in other areas, it will not in this one.

Just as I said to our good friend dawnghost, if you are unwilling or unable to counter something I've said then you are best to just stay quiet. As I see it, better to walk away from a discussion with your dignity than reveal to everyone your childishness and complete lack of ability/willingness to respond.

If you make this same mistake again, I'll point it out to you again.

Quite frankly, I'm a little disappointed. Dawnghost and Dee Dee both assured that if I came here I would get "thrashed". I'm still waiting for that to happen. That's why I asked for your best and brightest after all, in case that wasn't entirely evident. I've had enough to debating with non-intellectual theists in my life and it's starting to bore me, which is why I came here, to face new "challenges". If you cannot present such a challenge, and it certainly appears that way to me at the moment, then I suggest you simply avoid me altogether. Not only will it save you a great deal of embarassement, it will be easier for you to maintain "faith" in your baseless theories born of egocentricism.

However, if you feel you can challenge anything I've said, then I humbly await your response, but I'm not holding my breath.

Satori

[Satori]

b488:
...I have missed something important in all the bruhaha of everyone flexing their rhetorical muscles before the smackdown begins.

First of all, hello Satori :smile:

Now, to what i missed.

Satori, what exactly would you like to debate on?

You mentioned your distaste for 'creationism'.

You said (Im not quoting you, just summarizing in my own words) that creationism was a result of certain adherents of christianity attempting to save the sinking ship of their own religiosity.

I seem to be getting from your posts that you think strongly that christians do not deal in any way with facts rationality or logic.
Is this true?

If so, this leaves another area of debate, although not as yet clearly defined, up for grabs. And this area would be much more interesting for me than 'scientific creationism'. I do not follow this very closely and, in fact, too broad to allow for a structured debate. For example there are special creationists and there are theistic evolutionists? Which would you rather debate?

Unless you are more specific in what you are after, I think you will be left with more heckling than anything else, since there is nothing more substantive to comment on as of yet. (except for semantic and stylistic issues, i suppose :tongue:

Anyway, enough of my rambling. I am very interested in hearing from you and anyone else here who would actually like to 'put something together out of a thread that seems to be adrift. Let's try very hard not to have yet more JPH/Till-style entrenchments. Its fun for a while, but then turns only into a waste of bandwith
:zzz:

Ciao! :thumb:

Hey dude, sorry that I haven't responded. As you can see, I'm quite busy at the moment with others.

I would love to have a conversation with you about such things, as you seem to have more maturity than some people who have made attempts to degrade me thus far. Please keep me in mind in the future. I plan to do more posting in the Podium section so please look for me there and jump in whenever you have something to say.

best wishes,

Satori

[Satori]

yxboom:
Ok apparently after my admonition to have the Gym Guidelines read before further posting I will post the relevant Guidelines and from henceforth remove any posts that are not in line with the Guidelines.

boom, if you would be so kind, instead of deleting posts, please move this entire thread to the Podium section so it will not be limited in the freedom of what people can say. I'd appreciate that.

thanks

Satori

[Satori]

dawnghost:
Dear Satori,

Please remember I am not debating you, I am here just to call two issues to attention.

I will bear this in mind, though I feel the issues are more important than that.

first issue, regarding this whole conversation here:

actually the problem with using the word ‘theory’ in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data.

You have made a presumption which you are using as the basis of your argument. 'Theory' has a multitude of degrees with regard to its substantiation, not only the one you are suggesting.

The reason evolution theory is taught in schools (and I know your favourite inherently biased ministy website will disagree with this) is because it IS a sound theory which IS supported by the evidence. In fact, there's so much overwhelming logic and evidence supporting the idea of evolution that I have a hard time thinking than anyone with a partial clue cannot see that, prefering instead to board the "god did it" bandwagon (a bandwagon which, time and time again, has shown to be unreliable and based primarly on people's fears and desires rather than observations about our reality).

Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% in favour of smashing paradigms in favour of newer and better ones. That IS what science is after all, and I have a great deal of respect and commitment to that because I feel it is honest and forthcoming, our only real hope of objectivity and discovery. What I object to is the attempt to smash current theories with pseudoscience and mythology, which is precisely what I feel (and can show) that creationism is attempting to do.... and (mark my words) they will most likely be unsuccessful in that attempt because no one, apart from the theists who agree with your literalist interpreation of your specific theology, take them seriously. We actually think you are misguided and obligated to something OTHER than the "objective" truths/facts about our reality (and that, by all accounts, appears to be the case). That's why creationism isn't real science and it *never* will be, and that's why it will likely never be regarded or respected as such. It's a battle that's doomed to failure because of it's own complete lack of objectivity and misguided dishonesty (because it's obligated to theology instead of the truth no matter what that truth may be).

the subject some time ago was about AIG compelling creation to be taught or not. well, if this 'aussie institution' is a pro-creationist one, it's rather clear that it will offer literature that supports a creationist framework. that's obvious really.

Granted.

The really relavant question here is, is this "framework" worth the paper it's written on? Is it possible for a pseudoscience like creationism to even come up with a framework that anyone except like-minded theists will take seriously?

In those awful AiG articles I found numourous references to unestablished (and even laughable) theories, like noah's flood and this "fallen world". You actually regard that as "scientific" it seems. Oh boy. And you probably wonder why most people regard Ken Ham as a kook. Well, I don't wonder, I know why, and I can clearly and patiently explain it to anyone who asks, and I would consider it a privilige to do so.

Whacky conspriracy theories involving the inherent "anti-god" nature of secular and non-creationist religious researchers aside, if the world is very young and a recent global flood wiped out all life a very short time ago, then we'll likely figure this out and it WILL be taught in schools as a theory with a scientific basis (they just won't say "god did it" because that's theistic conjecture that's bound to offend the sensibilities of most people, many of whom hold different metaphysical presumptions and kiss up to a different "god"). Until such time, it will be granted no respect and those who preach it will be regarded as misguided fools, period.

It's interesting to note that you seem to feel that a presumed god who wants nothing more than to have it's ego stroked by us lowly humans (something I find absurd) would actually see fit to play this ridiculous game of hide and seek with us and go through the trouble of planting evidence on this earth to actually mislead us away from its own egocentric glute-smooching objective. That would be like a parent who asks their child to shovel the driveway of snow and then hides the shovel. Personally, if a god exists, then I adore and admire it, just as I adore and admire the universe itself, that's part of my human nature and I cannot deny it, but I have trouble adoring something which plays these childish head games with me as a "test of faith". Quite frankly, I find such theology and insult to my intelligence, and yours. To me it seems so obviously made up that I have trouble accepting that most people, when fed this nonsense early enough, actually get suckered in by it (but I feel I understand the psychological compulsion and mechanism behind this, and someday I'll explain it completely for you all to digest, and hopefully attempt to refute). That's why I'm here by the way, to try to free people from the intellectual prison imposed on them by the conveyors of organized religions (which I feel are inherently corrupt, dishonest, and self-serving political institutions that play on people's hopes, fears, inherent egocentricism, and general ignorance). More on this later.

what AIG states, though, is that students SHOULD question evolution in school. I have been there, evolution is taught with such dogmatic authority that no one even dares question it, it's like every piece of the puzzle has been assembled and is there for everyone to see.

I was taught evolution too, and it wasn't with dogmatic authority at all. To me, in catholic school, it was taught just the same as is math and history. I wonder if your subjectivism is playing a role in this "dogmatic" interpretation of yours. I feel this interpretation comes from a misunderstanding. Evolution is open for debate and ridicule, but NOT on a theological basis. That's why creationists aren't given the time of day, because their objectives and methodologies lead away from the objectivity of the scientific method. In fact, I think creationists should be thankful that any real scientists give them the time of day at all by refuting each and everyone one of their whacky theologically-based assertions. Quite frankly, if I were a scientist and not a philosopher, I wouldn't even touch the issue because it's not REAL science, not even close.

The fact remains the evolution is very consistent and supported by a great deal of evidence which supports it. It's incredibly consistent, and the greatest minds this world has ever known all seem to agree with that is some regard. If it turns out to be all a sham then we'll eventually discover this I'm sure, we humans are very good at figuring things out, but please realize that bible-thumping and pseudoscience do *nothing* to help that cause, and in fact, they only circumvent it by equating it with inherent dishonesty and kookiness. If Ken Ham really wanted to challenge evolution he would've done so on purely scientific grounds and by revealing that the the evidence we have does not support the theories, NOT by making ridiculous references to noah's ark and a "fallen world" because that's just innane and does not lend credibility to the rest of this statements (which aren't all that credible to begin with). Ken Ham is a preacher pretending to be a scientist, and that's extremely evident to everyone except those who agree with the basis and methods of this religion.

it would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.

It's not unsubstantiated, and besides, we are talking about evoution here, not abiogenesis. I never learned anything about abiogensis in school. Evolution is backed by a great deal of evidence and given weight by some of the best minds this world has ever seen, something you would realize if you bothered to venture beyond the creationist literature with any sort of non-theist objectivity (which is probably hard for you since you are so deeply obligated to cling to your faith out of the instinctual and entirely selfish desire for self-preservation, protection from the perverse sadism of this presumably "loving" creator (as self-contradiction)).

now, this has to do with the nature of this "truth", 'custom of the world's theologies' as Mr. Satori stated. aren't we here to debate this very subject amongst many others?

If evolution shouldn't be taught then neither should a great deal of what constitutes chemistry (which is, at its basis, pretty much purely mathematical and abstract, just a language for interpration). And history? It's just someone else's interpretation of something, and therefore not "truth", only a "theory".

this leads me to:

second issue, regarding this thread.

it's a mess again. Mr. Satori and members of TWeb, this space is not to be used to debate, but actually to pick a subject that both the challenger and Satori will agree on and have an organized discussion!

I don't care much for this forum, too many rules and regulations. I'm going to go exclusively to the podium section when this thread dies (or gets moved). I'm already sick of the whining about sticking to the rules.

and then STICK to the subject!

That's difficult when the subject is so broad, which is why the podium is the place for me, where people are (apparently) free to express themselves in any manner they deem appropriate without getting flack for it.

Satori

[Satori]

Mr Stick71:
Satori, no offense taken :cheers:

Time isn't my best friend, so I don't have time to take part in a debate. Hope ya enjoy debating with whoever it is that does have the time :thumb:

Aaron

Thanks Aaron. I hope that in the future you will get some extra time to converse with me, as I feel there is a lot of ground we still have to cover.

take care

Satori

[yxboom]

Satori,

I will take up that request to move the comments to an appropriate section, because of the content of the debate topics I would move the thread into the Religion 101 section as the Podium is for debates or discussion specifically dealing with Current Events.

[Satori]

Please tell me, if I just want to have general discussion, of any kind, with as few rules as possible, where should I post?

thanks for all your help dude,

Satori

[dizzle]

Dear Satori:

The open debate sections are organzied by category. It seems like the three areas that you will be most interested in would be:

Religion 101 - questions on theism, Bible difficulties etc.
The Podium - Current Events
Science - Creation issues

Does that answer your question?

[yxboom]

The Gym and Liberal Arts Dept are the only sections that are heavily moderated with strict guidelines.

[Sheepdog]

Satori:
Here's my thing: I feel stongly that this creationist movement (which has probably mislead a number of you) is nothing more than an attempt by a dying religion to regain the respect and authority it had lost to people like Darwin, Galileo, and to a lesser extent, Einstein's relativistic/subjective world view.

it is ironic that you mantion Galileo, considering the quote of his i have in my signature.

sorry for going a bit off-topic. just find it amusing that many of the scientists we are indebted to for their historical finds were Christian. (or heavily theistic, as is Newton was).

[yxboom]

I have moved the posts from the Gym to this new thread.

[Satori]

For Boom:

Cool, then this is where I shall remain, in the area that isn't so strict where we are free to discuss anything in the manner of our choosing.

Thanks again boom. I appreciate your help and patience (especially considering my intentions on this site, hehe ;)).

Btw, not trying to slander you or anything, just in the interest of discussion and with the urge to speak my mind about such things, there are few things about your sig and such that I find, well, let's just say, "debatable". These are listed below.

1. The flames in the background behind your avatar are somewhat "hellish", and that in itself is disturbing and repugnant, to put it mildly. Such fear-mongering has never been something I've particularly cared for. Do you feel this is somehow "cool" or even remotely acceptable?

2. "Angel Of Vengeance"??? I assume you are referring to (and mocking) our good buddy Satan with that one. It's also disturbing (well, disturbing to anyone thinks there's any shread of truth/logic in that, I just find it amusing, as I do all personifications of "evil"). If that angel is not supposed to be Satan then I think it's even more disturbing, because that denotes that its vengeance is an extension of the sadistic god's will (again, blatant fear-mongering).

3. From your sig: "If even the omnipotent God cannot act to change the past, it does not seem any more conceivable that the omniscient God can know with certainty the unformed future." ?? I assume this is an attempt to shed any responsibility on the part of "god" for the horrible outcomes that its creation has unleashed on its victims. I find this not only intellectually immateur, but also sad and misleading. I will attempt to sum up why exactly in as few words as possible:

Since this presumed "god" is the creator of all that exists, then it is solely responsible for all that results. This, I feel, is unavoidable. This god created this universe and everything in it with full knowledge of what could potentially result. You'll recall that god even put the tree of knowledge in the garden to "tempt" Adam and Eve. God even allows the dark lord Lucifer to tempt humanity. As if that wasn't enough, this god infused into our beings very strong desires/instincts which can and do lead to "sin". God even created the world and humanity in such a way as to put its own *existance* into question (god apparently enjoys playing this insulting cosmic game of hide and seek with us, as some perverse test of our "faith", which is, in actuality, a test of our irrationality and gullibility). If god didn't want us to reason and conclude that it doesn't exist, then it shouldn't hide itself from us, nor should it have given us such reasonable minds to come to this conclusion, and then threaten us with its perverse cruel "vengeance" when we use our god-given rationality to conclude that the hundreds of cruel god stories throughout history are myths fabricated by humans for the purposes of political mind control. God created all these circumstances will FULL preconceived knowledge of what could potentially result, therefore, when things don't go the way god wants them to, it has no one to blame but itself.

To use an analogy, I decide to build a house. In this process I skip steps, use rusty pipes and nails, use rotten wood, poor wiring, poor foundation, basically, into this house I place literally hundreds of opportunities for the house to collapes/flood/burn. As if that wasn't enough, I built the house in a ghetto filled with gang violence and arsonists. A few days after, the house burns to the ground. Who is as fault here, me, or the house? The house didn't ask to be built (just as humans didn't ask to be brought into existance), and even if it did, it didn't ask to have all those built-in flaws (just as humans didn't ask to have their instincts/desires and negative emotions instilled into them).

Anyway, a creator is *responsible* for the creation because it is fashioned *exactly* as it intended it. Therefore, it doesn't make a shread of sense for the creator to blame the creation when it doesn't live up to its lofty expectations. God has no one to blame for the fate of humanity but itself, and it certainly has no right to torture people for simply being what it created them to be.

I feel christian theology tries very very hard, but ultimately fails, to show that god is in no way responsible for what happens, and if people sin and end up damned, god is like "sorry, wasn't my fault, you got what you deserved". Ridiculous.

4. From your sig: "Deuteronomy 32:41 If I whet My glittering sword, and My hand takes hold on judgment, I will render vengeance to My enemies, and repay those who hate Me." I assume that this is supposed to represent some sort of threat, and it does. I also suspect it's supposed to be considered "wise" or something, and it's not, it's just silly and extremely hateful. Personally, I like to think I'm better than that, I would like to think you are a better person that that too. I think compassion and forgiveness are the best routes, not "vengeance", not the use of judgemental swords against one's enemies, not repaying with even more hate those who hate us. If this is what passes for wisdom and philosophy in this era, then I'm extremely saddened. There's enough hate and thirst for vengeance in our world already *without* some presumed "god" telling us that that's the way it *should* be. Where's the compassion in that?

In conclusion boom, if I met you on a different site and you had all those same words and graphics I would assume that you were poking fun at the absurd and fundamentally cruel/hateful nature of christianity, and showing how it is, in fact, an insult to our intelligence and sensibilities. However, since you are here, and since you are an administrator, I am forced to conclude otherwise.

Anyway, just wanted to say those things, they've been bouncing around my head ever since I first encountered your character on here. Don't get me wrong, I think you are a nice guy and all, and I'm sure you are a good person beneath all that "hate" and "vegeance" nonsense, but I think the way you have presented yourself with all of that stuff makes you seem a lot less kind and reasonable than I am SURE you are. I hope that unlike the majority of people here who I've conversed with thus far on this forum, that you'll actually respond, but if you do not, I will understand. I also want you to realize that I'm not "picking" on you, this is not some ploy to make you look bad or anything, I'm only discussing my distaste with the way your chosen sig and such makes you appear, and quite frankly, I think you are a better person than that.

If you actually mean all that sarcastically, as a means of pointing out how foolish and repugnant most people's interpretation of christianity is, then I hereby retract everything I've said in this post and I commend you for your insight and stance.

peace out,

Satori

[Satori]

Sheepdog:
it is ironic that you mantion Galileo, considering the quote of his i have in my signature.

sorry for going a bit off-topic. just find it amusing that many of the scientists we are indebted to for their historical finds were Christian. (or heavily theistic, as is Newton was).

I find it sort of ironic too, but not in the way that you do I'm sure.

I find it ironic because it is theorized by moronic nuts like Ken Ham on the AiG website that modern science is somehow part of some (and I quote) "anti-god agenda". This conspiracy theory is quite ridiculous considering that the pioneers of modern science were themselves theists/creationists and were only hoping to discover the means by which their presumed god did things. To their shock, the physical evidence they found was in sharp contrast to doctrine, so they concluded that the doctrine was either wrong or never meant to be taken literally.

The mistake of the poor misguided creationists is that they think that their doctrine has more weight behind it than logic and physical evidence, and that is what leads them to a state of incomprehensible confusion and seeming idiocy. My heart goes out to them in their plight to believe the unbelievable for no other reason than to feed their own selfish desires for pleasure and self-preservatin (which is, as I said, the TRUE motivation behind their desire to self-delude).

Satori

[Ishmael]

Satori:


I find it sort of ironic too, but not in the way that you do I'm sure.

I find it ironic because it is theorized by moronic nuts like Ken Ham on the AiG website that modern science is somehow part of some (and I quote) "anti-god agenda". This conspiracy theory is quite ridiculous considering that the pioneers of modern science were themselves theists/creationists and were only hoping to discover the means by which their presumed god did things. To their shock, the physical evidence they found was in sharp contrast to doctrine, so they concluded that the doctrine was either wrong or never meant to be taken literally.

The mistake of the poor misguided creationists is that they think that their doctrine has more weight behind it than logic and physical evidence, and that is what leads them to a state of incomprehensible confusion and seeming idiocy. My heart goes out to them in their plight to believe the unbelievable for no other reason than to feed their own selfish desires for pleasure and self-preservatin (which is, as I said, the TRUE motivation behind their desire to self-delude).

Satori

More self-aggrandizing drivel with nothing but your half-strung opinion (laced with big words) to support your claim. You probably think you sound smart, but you are sounding more and more like an idiot each time you post your Freudian analysis of all things religious.

Why don't you use your verbosity and huge sounding words to say something besides
:rant: ?

[Socrates]

Satori :rant: :

I find it ironic because it is theorized by moronic nutsAs rational and calm and friendly as ever, I see.


like Ken Ham on the AiG website that modern science is somehow part of some (and I quote) "anti-god agenda".Please document this. I've never seen Mr Ham attack science -- he seems to be in favor of it, including genetics and natural selection. But he does attack evolution from goo to you via the zoo, which is not science at all, but a materialistic belief system masquerading as science.


This conspiracy theory is quite ridiculous considering that the pioneers of modern science were themselves theists/creationists and were only hoping to discover the means by which their presumed god did things.About time Satori got something right. Sorta destroys his claim that Christianity is harmful to science!

To their shock, the physical evidence they found was in sharp contrast to doctrine, so they concluded that the doctrine was either wrong or never meant to be taken literally.Once more, an assertion without documentation.

[Ishmael]

Satori:
Unfortuantely dear Calvinist, I expect more from you than this. While you may feel that such childish bashing and name-calling helps you in other areas, it will not in this one.


Thanks. But I really "expected" you were capable of "thought" more than is appearent from your posts.


Just as I said to our good friend dawnghost, if you are unwilling or unable to counter something I've said then you are best to just stay quiet. As I see it, better to walk away from a discussion with your dignity than reveal to everyone your childishness and complete lack of ability/willingness to respond.


Perhaps and... Because the volume of your posts, coupled with the totally "fact-less ness" of them, perhaps you should take this advice too.


If you make this same mistake again, I'll point it out to you again.


droll..........


Quite frankly, I'm a little disappointed. Dawnghost and Dee Dee both assured that if I came here I would get "thrashed". I'm still waiting for that to happen. That's why I asked for your best and brightest after all, in case that wasn't entirely evident.


You have to actually say something of substance to get thrashed here. There are some people here who would take you on (perhaps thrash you), but you make no sense. Your posts thus far are nothing more than wordy, inflammatory rants. That you don't know this, is why I say you are:

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame16.html


I've had enough to debating with non-intellectual theists in my life and it's starting to bore me, which is why I came here, to face new "challenges". If you cannot present such a challenge, and it certainly appears that way to me at the moment, then I suggest you simply avoid me altogether. Not only will it save you a great deal of embarassement, it will be easier for you to maintain "faith" in your baseless theories born of egocentricism.


See Satori, here is another instance of you restating you previous misguided assumption... apparently you believe that long, pointless, posts are a sign of superiority.

There is nothing to refute here. It's just lame, and consequently you once again look like a buffoon.


However, if you feel you can challenge anything I've said, then I humbly await your response, but I'm not holding my breath.
Satori

Ass DDW would say, "Sigh." You haven't said anything that makes sense. Propose to defend something and stop with all your loony generalizations and caricatures or continue to be........... Profundus Maximus! King of Smug, Self-Satisfaction!

[Satori]

Calvinist cops out, what a suprise.

Calvinist:
More self-aggrandizing drivel with nothing but your half-strung opinion (laced with big words) to support your claim.

If that's the case, then why are you so reluctant to even reply? Sorry dude, I expect more from you than this.

You probably think you sound smart, but you are sounding more and more like an idiot each time you post your Freudian analysis of all things religious.

I do think I sound smart, but that is quite beside the point. And I feel as much as you'd obviously LOVE to believe that I sound like an idiot, I think it's extremely evident to you and everyone else that I do not. However, if you think I do, then you are free to rebuttal, which is not something you've done, and I regard that a lame cop-out on your part.

Why don't you use your verbosity and huge sounding words to say something besides
:rant: ?

I'm sorry that my verbosity and language seem to be over your head. Believe it or not, I'm trying my very best to present these ideas in a way that is comprehensible to everyone, and I feel I am doing a good job of it, though I fully realize that it's very likely that the vast majority of the people who come here seeking reassurance for their "faith" are simply either lacking in enough intelligence, insight, or personal honesty to truly take to heart that which I have to say.

Your claim is that I'm trying to sound all "smart" or whatever. Trust me, if I wanted to sound all smart and confuse people like yourself, I could that with far greater brunt than this, and with less effort. My vocabulary and ability for sentence structure FAR exceeds what you are currrently reading. I am making huge efforts to tone down my language, use shorter and more comprehensive sentences, and present my insights in a rudimentary way so that they are accessible to everyone. As if that wasn't enough, I've said several times already, if I say something that over anyone's head, then PLEASE just ask, and I will do my best to explain it in a more easily understood way. Does this sound the words of someone who is try to confuse everyone with his lingual abilities? Please, too ridiculous. Considering how much sincere effort I'm putting into being comprehensible by non-philosophical people such as yourself, I find it simply sad that you would draw the conclusion you have.

I know what you are saying however, I have a friend named Xytokalon who is guilty of what your charging me with, he tries to confuse people with complex language and obscure terms in an effort to sound smarter than he is, and I keep making fun of him for it because I consider it another form of copping out. So don't think I can't relate to your charge, I do totally, I just know that I'm not guilty of that, and I think it's obvious. Besides, if you think my language is complex, you should try reading techinical science and philosophy type stuff where they don't actually *try* to tone it down, even I have trouble with that sort of stuff some times, and as you can see, I'm not exactly deficient in the english language by any stretch.

In short, I think you post was a cop-out, nothing more that meta-conversational bs in a lame attempt to dispute anything I've said without actually addressing it.

The thing is, for me, that these concepts like christianity and creationism are so obviously fraudulent and completely transparent that it's effortless for me to deconstruct them and show with plain common sense and reason how truly uninspired, unintelligent, dishonest, and misguided they are. You probabably think that I'm putting a great deal of effort into this, when in fact, I'm thinking far faster than I'm typing and I'm leaving out so much of what I want to say just to save time and space. For me, this type of conversation is easier than discussing politics or science.

So Cal, if you actually have anything meaningful to say then I invite you to do so, but if you continue in this fashion then I will continue to point out how sad your attempts are and how you are in fact unable to refute what I have sad. You are probably thinking at this point that I'm saying all this with the sole intention of making you look bad. Nothing could be further from the truth. In my heart of hearts I simply feel that you are confused and misguided for actually believing in this nonsense and I only wish to help overcome it, to free yourself from the intellectual prison that was imposed on your by well-meaning though misguided elders/society. I only want to help, out of compassion for my brother and sisters, because I feel that intellectual liberty is something we all should have a chance to achieve.

Please take what I'm about to say seriously:

If...
1. your intention is to cling to your religious constructs beyond all reason, and
2. the stuff I'm saying disturbs you and makes it more difficult for you to cling to these constructs because it's causing conflict within your mind with your reason and common sense battling against your "faith",
then I humbly suggest that you avoid reading anything I have written altogether. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings and cause conflicts in them, though you will likely conclude otherwise, perhaps even presuming that I'm somehow "evil" and doing the bidding of satan or some ridiculous nonsense like that.

Truly, if what I say disturbs you (and I fully realize how and why it can), ignore me, don't read it, it's just not worth it. Ignorance is the best defense against reason, and is therefore the #1 supporter of "faith". The less you know/understand, the easier it will be for you to cling to your religion, and I think that's extremely evident. Just read your bible and the pro-theology threads/sites and turn a blind eye to anything which disputes your mindset, it's your *best* defense against becoming faithless.

take care my friend, and good luck on your chosen path,

Satori

[Satori]

Calvinist:
Thanks. But I really "expected" you were capable of "thought" more than is appearent from your posts.

Perhaps and... Because the volume of your posts, coupled with the totally "fact-less ness" of them, perhaps you should take this advice too.

droll..........

You have to actually say something of substance to get thrashed here. There are some people here who would take you on (perhaps thrash you), but you make no sense. Your posts thus far are nothing more than wordy, inflammatory rants. That you don't know this, is why I say you are:

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame16.html

See Satori, here is another instance of you restating you previous misguided assumption... apparently you believe that long, pointless, posts are a sign of superiority.

There is nothing to refute here. It's just lame, and consequently you once again look like a buffoon.

Ass DDW would say, "Sigh." You haven't said anything that makes sense. Propose to defend something and stop with all your loony generalizations and caricatures or continue to be........... Profundus Maximus! King of Smug, Self-Satisfaction!

Another complete cop-out I see.

Profundus Maximus, is that really the BEST you can do? Childish name calling and avoiding the issues at hand like the plauge? This forum has been an even bigger disappointment than I thought it would be when dawnghost asked me to come here, and dee dee assured me I would get "thrashed". So far, you guys have shown yourselves to pose less of a challenge than secular folks who argue on your behalf, and I find that a little surprising (though I'm hoping that Socrates is going to give it another go, at least he TRIED, and I appreciate that a lot, which is more than I can say for the rest of you who replied to me so far).

If I am so misguided and full of bs, as you are claiming, then it should be quite easy for you to refute *anything* I have said. Yet, oddly, you have failed to do that, and you have even failed to make the attempt, which is simply shameful, and makes me feel like a bully and embarassed for you at the same time.

Don't think I don't see through your lame attempts at slandering me without so much as addressing ANY of the points I have made. Also, don't think that I don't realize you are doing this to make it easier for you to cling to your baseless constructs and feel better about yourself. You are as transparant as the ridiculous and self-contradictory constructs you endevour to maintain and defend.

Make all the excuses for not addressing the issues you want, call me all the names you want, it will not work, it will only continue to backfire on you and reveal how weak your stance truly is.

Satori

[Ishmael]

Resolved: No matter the argument, Satori's quixotic quest of rationality will force him to re-define the argument to beat his metaphysical drums.

Satori:
I will bear this in mind, though I feel the issues are more important than that.
You have made a presumption which you are using as the basis of your argument. 'Theory' has a multitude of degrees with regard to its substantiation,


Don't you mean it can have different meanings?


not only the one you are suggesting.
The reason evolution theory is taught in schools (and I know your favourite inherently biased ministy website will disagree with this) is because it IS a sound theory which IS supported by the evidence.


quixotic quest of rationality 1
Theists are always biased when it comes to Science. Only non-theists or agnostics can be objective about sceince.


In fact, there's so much overwhelming logic and evidence supporting the idea of evolution that I have a hard time thinking than anyone with a partial clue cannot see that, prefering instead to board the "god did it" bandwagon (a bandwagon which, time and time again, has shown to be unreliable and based primarly on people's fears and desires rather than observations about our reality).


The Evolutionary process is well established.

Of course, Satori here says something that is well known and then goes on the beat his little drum....

Hear it go boom, boom... "All us stupid theists" are on the "bandwagon" which "time and time again" is "unreliable" and based on... oh no!....... not Freud again.......

Why you expect to be taken seriously is beyond my comprehension.... but back to my resolution...

quixotic quest of rationality 2
Satori's appeal to "fear" as THE theististic motivation for belief.


Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% in favour of smashing paradigms in favour of newer and better ones. That IS what science is after all, and I have a great deal of respect and commitment to that because I feel it is honest and forthcoming, our only real hope of objectivity and discovery.


Science is the search for truth NOT the pursuit of "smashing paradigms.


What I object to is the attempt to smash current theories with pseudoscience and mythology, which is precisely what I feel (and can show) that creationism is attempting to do....


(And I say you can't show it.)

quixotic quest of rationality 3
"Creationism is trying to 'smash' science"


and (mark my words) they will most likely be unsuccessful in that attempt because no one, apart from the theists who agree with your literalist interpreation of your specific theology, take them seriously. We actually think you are misguided and obligated to something OTHER than the "objective" truths/facts about our reality (and that, by all accounts, appears to be the case). That's why creationism isn't real science and it *never* will be, and that's why it will likely never be regarded or respected as such. It's a battle that's doomed to failure because of it's own complete lack of objectivity and misguided dishonesty (because it's obligated to theology instead of the truth no matter what that truth may be).


quixotic quest of rationality 4
"creationism isn't real science and it *never* will be, and that's why it will likely never be regarded or respected as such. "


<sniped verbose drivel>
Is it possible for a pseudoscience like creationism to even come up with a framework that anyone except like-minded theists will take seriously?


Ummm, yes..... it is possible....


<snip of opinioned bashing of Creation Scientist>
Whacky conspriracy theories involving the inherent &quot;anti-god&quot; nature of secular and non-creationist religious researchers aside, if the world is very young and a recent global flood wiped out all life a very short time ago, then we'll likely figure this out and it WILL be taught in schools as a theory with a scientific basis (they just won't say &quot;god did it&quot; because that's theistic conjecture that's bound to offend the sensibilities of most people, many of whom hold different metaphysical presumptions and kiss up to a different &quot;god&quot;). Until such time, it will be granted no respect and those who preach it will be regarded as misguided fools, period.


quixotic quest of rationality 5
My "conjecture" is truth but "theists" conjecture is foolish.


<snip tired, atheist argument to egomanicial nature of God>
To me it seems so obviously made up that I have trouble accepting that most people, when fed this nonsense early enough, actually get suckered in by it (but I feel I understand the psychological compulsion and mechanism behind this, and someday I'll explain it completely for you all to digest, and hopefully attempt to refute). That's why I'm here by the way, to try to free people from the intellectual prison imposed on them by the conveyors of organized religions (which I feel are inherently corrupt, dishonest, and self-serving political institutions that play on people's hopes, fears, inherent egocentricism, and general ignorance). More on this later.


quixotic quest of rationality 6
Religious people got "suckered" into their religion.

<snip, cause you already said that about theories and stuff...>


The fact remains the evolution is very consistent and supported by a great deal of evidence which supports it. It's incredibly consistent, and the greatest minds this world has ever known all seem to agree with that is some regard. If it turns out to be all a sham then we'll eventually discover this I'm sure, we humans are very good at figuring things out, but please realize that bible-thumping and pseudoscience do *nothing* to help that cause, and in fact, they only circumvent it by equating it with inherent dishonesty and kookiness. If Ken Ham really wanted to challenge evolution he would've done so on purely scientific grounds and by revealing that the the evidence we have does not support the theories, NOT by making ridiculous references to noah's ark and a &quot;fallen world&quot; because that's just innane and does not lend credibility to the rest of this statements (which aren't all that credible to begin with). Ken Ham is a preacher pretending to be a scientist, and that's extremely evident to everyone except those who agree with the basis and methods of this religion.


That's it... say it over and over again... the volume of your argument will convinve him.


It's not unsubstantiated, and besides, we are talking about evoution here, not abiogenesis. I never learned anything about abiogensis in school. Evolution is backed by a great deal of evidence and given weight by some of the best minds this world has ever seen, something you would realize if you bothered to venture beyond the creationist literature with any sort of non-theist objectivity (which is probably hard for you since you are so deeply obligated to cling to your faith out of the instinctual and entirely selfish desire for self-preservation, protection from the perverse sadism of this presumably &quot;loving&quot; creator (as self-contradiction)).


And again....


If evolution shouldn't be taught then neither should a great deal of what constitutes chemistry (which is, at its basis, pretty much purely mathematical and abstract, just a language for interpration). And history? It's just someone else's interpretation of something, and therefore not &quot;truth&quot;, only a &quot;theory&quot;.


quixotic quest of rationality 7
"The evolutionary process can be empirically AND by observation, demonstrated just like chemistry and mathematics."


<snip sniveling about the forum or something>

Satori

:rant: = Satori

[Ishmael]

Satori:
Another complete cop-out I see.
Profundus Maximus, is that really the BEST you can do? Childish name calling and avoiding the issues at hand like the plauge? This forum has been an even bigger disappointment than I thought it would be when dawnghost asked me to come here, and dee dee assured me I would get &quot;thrashed&quot;. So far, you guys have shown yourselves to pose less of a challenge than secular folks who argue on your behalf, and I find that a little surprising (though I'm hoping that Socrates is going to give it another go, at least he TRIED, and I appreciate that a lot, which is more than I can say for the rest of you who replied to me so far).


Well maybe you see it as "childish" and a "cop-out" but I see it as dead on correct about you. You haven't said one thing that is even remotely connected to a decent argument.

You handed out some typical Atheist argument to the Egotist God and made some wide sweeping statements about Theism in vaguely Freudian or even Marxist terms... but that's about it. That you cannot see that you are not worthy of real debate is your problem, not mine.

I can guarantee that if you made any sense, JPHolding would have already taken your supposed "bate."


If I am so misguided and full of bs, as you are claiming, then it should be quite easy for you to refute *anything* I have said. Yet, oddly, you have failed to do that, and you have even failed to make the attempt, which is simply shameful, and makes me feel like a bully and embarrassed [sic] for you at the same time.


The sad thing is that you are so delusional that you actually think you make sense and are worthy of a response. You might fool the occasional layman, but I can see right through your facade.


Don't think I don't see through your lame attempts at slandering me without so much as addressing ANY of the points I have made. Also, don't think that I don't realize you are doing this to make it easier for you to cling to your baseless constructs and feel better about yourself. You are as transparent [sic] as the ridiculous and self-contradictory constructs you endevour [sic] to maintain and defend.


I don't think you see that at all. You keep saying, "...don’t think that I don't realize you are doing this to make it easier for you to cling to your baseless constructs and feel better about yourself..." in various ways as if you had already proven that theism is baseless. Maybe you are just an idiot savant?


Make all the excuses for not addressing the issues you want, call me all the names you want, it will not work, it will only continue to backfire on you and reveal how weak your stance truly is.
Satori

Sure it will, pal... just keep making long rant posts about your delusional opinions and tired attempts at Atheistic apologetics against theism...

Sound smart, that will win the day... :rofl:

[dawnghost]

Satori said:


And I feel as much as you'd obviously LOVE to believe that I sound like an idiot, I think it's extremely evident to you and everyone else that I do not.
sorry to disppoint you, but I DO think you sound like an idiot. not all the time, but most of the time. and that's precisely why I decided to quit debating you. so well, "you and everyone else" would be pushing yourself too far here! :tongue:

[Satori]

More metaconversational bs from the great Calvinist to avoid respondingn to anything I have said. Is this getting tiring yet?


Calvinist:
Resolved: No matter the argument, Satori's quixotic quest of rationality will force him to re-define the argument to beat his metaphysical drums.

You have yet to respond to anything I have said of a philosophical nature, and instead, you have made a serious of excuses to avoid responding. Lame cop-out.

Don't you mean it can have different meanings?

Isn't that what I said?

quixotic quest of rationality 1
Theists are always biased when it comes to Science. Only non-theists or agnostics can be objective about sceince.

Are you presuming that is not the case? Do you not feel that thiestic desire to cling to certain constructs invariably taints their objectivity? Please, too easy.

The Evolutionary process is well established.

Of course, Satori here says something that is well known and then goes on the beat his little drum....

I'm glad that you realize it's well known and well established, I was beginning to wonder if you were ignorant of this as well.

Hear it go boom, boom... &quot;All us stupid theists&quot; are on the &quot;bandwagon&quot; which &quot;time and time again&quot; is &quot;unreliable&quot; and based on... oh no!....... not Freud again.......

Is that truly the best you can do? How sad. Surely you can come up with better excuses to avoid addressing the issues.

Why you expect to be taken seriously is beyond my comprehension.... but back to my resolution...

Why you use this as a lame excuse to avoid replying is extremely evident to me, and anyone else with a partial clue. You may think you are pulling the wool over everyone's eyes with this nonsense, but you are not, your means are transparent (and so far you haven't said anything lend any weight to your own theism, which is another cop-out all in itself).

quixotic quest of rationality 2
Satori's appeal to &quot;fear&quot; as THE theististic motivation for belief.

Indeed. Are you suggesting that egocentricism and the resulting base instincts they evoke in no way motivate a theist to cling to their constructs? Perhaps you need to read more stuff from the AiG website which seems to be so popular with you people.

Science is the search for truth NOT the pursuit of &quot;smashing paradigms.

The search for truth involves smashing old paradigms, and that has always been the case with science and likely always will be. How you can not see that is not something I can understand, and at this point, I really feel like you are just spouting nonsense

Satori said: "What I object to is the attempt to smash current theories with pseudoscience and mythology, which is precisely what I feel (and can show) that creationism is attempting to do."

(And I say you can't show it.)

Please elaborate on this, it didn't seem to follow from what I said.

What you seem unwilling/incapable of doing is rebuttaling anything I've said, or giving any reason in support of your own whacky conclusions. Amazing. Do you always debate like this? Do you have anything relavant to actually say? Get with the program dude, this is pathetic.

quixotic quest of rationality 3
&quot;Creationism is trying to 'smash' science&quot;

Read some creationist propaganda, much of which involves dumping on currently held theories. You'll see this for yourself.

quixotic quest of rationality 4
&quot;creationism isn't real science and it *never* will be, and that's why it will likely never be regarded or respected as such. &quot;

Satori said: "Is it possible for a pseudoscience like creationism to even come up with a framework that anyone except like-minded theists will take seriously?"

Ummm, yes..... it is possible....

Wishful thinking. How typical. If creationism ever going to be taken seriously it's going to have to compete on a purely scientific ground, and that is something it hasn't done (though I'm sure you have been mislead into thinking otherwise). Disagee, then actually some some guts and RESPOND to something I've said for ONCE instead of side-stepping the issue once again, as is your method of debating. Ridiculous.


quixotic quest of rationality 5
My &quot;conjecture&quot; is truth but &quot;theists&quot; conjecture is foolish.

Nonsense. I didn't say I held truth, just that your opinion is not supported by the facts. Nice way to side-step the issue and avoid directing it.

And you didn't respond to it. Surprise, surprise. Lame.

quixotic quest of rationality 6
Religious people got &quot;suckered&quot; into their religion.

Yes, if you feel otherwise, have the guts to explain why (which is something you seem incapable of doing).

Satori said: "The fact remains the evolution is very consistent and supported by a great deal of evidence which supports it. It's incredibly consistent, and the greatest minds this world has ever known all seem to agree with that is some regard. If it turns out to be all a sham then we'll eventually discover this I'm sure, we humans are very good at figuring things out, but please realize that bible-thumping and pseudoscience do *nothing* to help that cause, and in fact, they only circumvent it by equating it with inherent dishonesty and kookiness. If Ken Ham really wanted to challenge evolution he would've done so on purely scientific grounds and by revealing that the the evidence we have does not support the theories, NOT by making ridiculous references to noah's ark and a "fallen world" because that's just innane and does not lend credibility to the rest of this statements (which aren't all that credible to begin with). Ken Ham is a preacher pretending to be a scientist, and that's extremely evident to everyone except those who agree with the basis and methods of this religion."

That's it... say it over and over again... the volume of your argument will convinve him..

Copping out again I see. Do you think that actually lends to your credibility, or for that matter, actually defends or even asserts your theistic viewpoints?

Have the guts to respond for once in your life.

And again....

Satori said: "If evolution shouldn't be taught then neither should a great deal of what constitutes chemistry (which is, at its basis, pretty much purely mathematical and abstract, just a language for interpration). And history? It's just someone else's interpretation of something, and therefore not "truth", only a "theory". "

Wow, you avoided responding yet again. Will wonders ever cease? haha


quixotic quest of rationality 7
&quot;The evolutionary process can be empirically AND by observation, demonstrated just like chemistry and mathematics.&quot;

And again you decline to respond. I'm beginning to a pattern here, how about you?

:rant: = Satori

Wow, that's the most intelligent thing you said in this post, and only thing I can regard as an actual *statement* from you (even though, like the rest of your post, it doesn't NOTHING to counter anything I've said, and NOTHING to support your own viewpoint.

Cal, seriously, maybe this childishness works with others, maybe you can even tire people out this way, but it's not working with me.

I say this in even terms YOU can understand:

Either poop or get off the potty.

Muster up some courage and actually respond, this is the last time I'll deconstruct and oviate you inability/unwilling to adress ANY of the things I said.

Let me say that again, since you appear to be hard of hearing:

Muster up some courage and actually respond, this is the last time I'll deconstruct and oviate you inability/unwilling to adress ANY of the things I said.

I'll be waiting...

Satori

[Satori]

dawnghost:
Satori said:
sorry to disppoint you, but I DO think you sound like an idiot. not all the time, but most of the time. and that's precisely why I decided to quit debating you. so well, &quot;you and everyone else&quot; would be pushing yourself too far here! :tongue:

Another cop-out from dawnghost. History is repeating itself I see.

hehe, too easy. You and Cal should start a club for cop-outs if this is your only means of debating, so you can give each other pointers on how to reply and avoid addressing anything I've said.

Satori

[Satori]

And yet another cop-out and a series of excuses to avoid responding, amazing:

Calvinist:
Well maybe you see it as &quot;childish&quot; and a &quot;cop-out&quot; but I see it as dead on correct about you. You haven't said one thing that is even remotely connected to a decent argument.

You handed out some typical Atheist argument to the Egotist God and made some wide sweeping statements about Theism in vaguely Freudian or even Marxist terms... but that's about it. That you cannot see that you are not worthy of real debate is your problem, not mine.

I can guarantee that if you made any sense, JPHolding would have already taken your supposed &quot;bate.&quot;



The sad thing is that you are so delusional that you actually think you make sense and are worthy of a response. You might fool the occasional layman, but I can see right through your facade.



I don't think you see that at all. You keep saying, &quot;...don’t think that I don't realize you are doing this to make it easier for you to cling to your baseless constructs and feel better about yourself...&quot; in various ways as if you had already proven that theism is baseless. Maybe you are just an idiot savant?



Sure it will, pal... just keep making long rant posts about your delusional opinions and tired attempts at Atheistic apologetics against theism...

Sound smart, that will win the day... :rofl:

Muster up some courage and actually respond, this is the last time I'll deconstruct and oviate you inability/unwilling to adress ANY of the things I said.

I'll be waiting...

Satori

[Satori]

Btw, you two cop-outs are just wasting bandwidth and getting further and further away from actually responding to anything I've said, which I suspect is your true objective.

Either poop, or get off the potty.

Satori

[Satori]

What's wrong, are you tired of thinking up reasons why you cannot respond? Sure there are many more excuses you can use.... why not say you don't have the time, or you have tummy-ache, or that god commands you not to waste any more time on me? Just trying to give you some ideas..

hehe

Satori

[dawnghost]

Satori:
Either poop, or get off the potty.

nice analogy, Satori. actually you're the only one to poop so far, and boy do you poop!
==============================================
it's not like we're running from your 'ability to deconstruct' our ideas. let me just tell you a little story that will help you understand this debate so far:

a kid talks to a man that's passing by:

- hey mister! do you believe in god?
- well, yes I do, why?
- because I don't, I think that's ridiculous and more! I can also prove that creationist scientists are biased fools, and that evolutionism is a fact that cannot be refuted!
- why that's very interesting, you may start.
- start?? you mean you REALLY do believe in creation?? oh boy, you poor misguided fool, I pity you!
- what? but show me some evidence that I am wrong then.
- EVIDENCE? you must be very disinformed really! evolution is backed-up by hard science and common sense!! and also... (at this point the kid talks about subjects ranging from the nature of God, history of the church, claims that creationism is pseudoscience and also states that evolution is backed up by hard science and the best scientists in the world more than 30 times. he also states that the 'theory' of evolution is consistent and supported by a great deal of evidence)
- kid, I see you have a great deal of things to say, but why don't we stick to one subject at a time?
- I will not! I want to debate freely on this!
- ah well, maybe I don't have time for this then.
- aha!!! you are giving up aren't you!! I knew it! every single theist whom I have debated has done the same thing! they can't hold their mindless claims for long!! you are just another person sucked in by religion!
- that's not it! in fact, I could take you on and refute your claims, but you've failed to present me anything worthy of refuting!
- I have presented them, but again you decline to respond! another cop-out! haha too easy!
- you haven't! those were fact-free personal opinions on MANY subjects at once, why are you being like this? let's pick one subject then eh?
- I have no patience for strict rules like the ones you propose. now, just poop or get out of the potty!
- your potty's already full of crap. goodbye.
==============================================

:thumb:

[yxboom]

Satori:
For Boom:

1. The flames in the background behind your avatar are somewhat &quot;hellish&quot;, and that in itself is disturbing and repugnant, to put it mildly. Such fear-mongering has never been something I've particularly cared for. Do you feel this is somehow &quot;cool&quot; or even remotely acceptable? Ever read a comic book called Azrael?
Satori:
2. &quot;Angel Of Vengeance&quot;??? I assume you are referring to (and mocking) our good buddy Satan with that one.Nope. Ever read a comic book Azrael?
Satori:
It's also disturbing (well, disturbing to anyone thinks there's any shread of truth/logic in that, I just find it amusing, as I do all personifications of &quot;evil&quot;). If that angel is not supposed to be Satan then I think it's even more disturbing, because that denotes that its vengeance is an extension of the sadistic god's will (again, blatant fear-mongering).This makes no sense to what I just said.
Satori:
3. From your sig: &quot;If even the omnipotent God cannot act to change the past, it does not seem any more conceivable that the omniscient God can know with certainty the unformed future.&quot; ?? I assume this is an attempt to shed any responsibility on the part of &quot;god&quot; for the horrible outcomes that its creation has unleashed on its victims.
You shouldn't assume because of what it makes you. BTW you summation is incorrect. It is a statement regarding the exhaustive definate foreknowledge of God, being that I am an Open View Theist I regard that statement. Your conclusion makes no sense or any connection to my purpose.
Satori:
I find this not only intellectually immateur, but also sad and misleading. I will attempt to sum up why exactly in as few words as possible:

Since this presumed &quot;god&quot; is the creator of all that exists, then it is solely responsible for all that results. This, I feel, is unavoidable. This god created this universe and everything in it with full knowledge of what could potentially result. You'll recall that god even put the tree of knowledge in the garden to &quot;tempt&quot; Adam and Eve. God even allows the dark lord Lucifer to tempt humanity. As if that wasn't enough, this god infused into our beings very strong desires/instincts which can and do lead to &quot;sin&quot;. God even created the world and humanity in such a way as to put its own *existance* into question (god apparently enjoys playing this insulting cosmic game of hide and seek with us, as some perverse test of our &quot;faith&quot;, which is, in actuality, a test of our irrationality and gullibility). If god didn't want us to reason and conclude that it doesn't exist, then it shouldn't hide itself from us, nor should it have given us such reasonable minds to come to this conclusion, and then threaten us with its perverse cruel &quot;vengeance&quot; when we use our god-given rationality to conclude that the hundreds of cruel god stories throughout history are myths fabricated by humans for the purposes of political mind control. God created all these circumstances will FULL preconceived knowledge of what could potentially result, therefore, when things don't go the way god wants them to, it has no one to blame but itself.
You make too many points to respond in such a limited space.
Satori:
To use an analogy, I decide to build a house. In this process I skip steps, use rusty pipes and nails, use rotten wood, poor wiring, poor foundation, basically, into this house I place literally hundreds of opportunities for the house to collapes/flood/burn. As if that wasn't enough, I built the house in a ghetto filled with gang violence and arsonists. A few days after, the house burns to the ground. Who is as fault here, me, or the house? The house didn't ask to be built (just as humans didn't ask to be brought into existance), and even if it did, it didn't ask to have all those built-in flaws (just as humans didn't ask to have their instincts/desires and negative emotions instilled into them). Terribly flawed but again space limitation for response.
Satori:
Anyway, a creator is *responsible* for the creation because it is fashioned *exactly* as it intended it. Therefore, it doesn't make a shread of sense for the creator to blame the creation when it doesn't live up to its lofty expectations. God has no one to blame for the fate of humanity but itself, and it certainly has no right to torture people for simply being what it created them to be.

I feel christian theology tries very very hard, but ultimately fails, to show that god is in no way responsible for what happens, and if people sin and end up damned, god is like &quot;sorry, wasn't my fault, you got what you deserved&quot;. Ridiculous.There is a term referred to as "reciprocity". It may clear up a lot of your conclusions.
[QUOTE]Satori:
4. From your sig: &quot;Deuteronomy 32:41 If I whet My glittering sword, and My hand takes hold on judgment, I will render vengeance to My enemies, and repay those who hate Me.&quot; I assume that this is supposed to represent some sort of threat, and it does. I also suspect it's supposed to be considered &quot;wise&quot; or something, and it's not, it's just silly and extremely hateful. Personally, I like to think I'm better than that, I would like to think you are a better person that that too. I think compassion and forgiveness are the best routes, not &quot;vengeance&quot;, not the use of judgemental swords against one's enemies, not repaying with even more hate those who hate us. If this is what passes for wisdom and philosophy in this era, then I'm extremely saddened. There's enough hate and thirst for vengeance in our world already *without* some presumed &quot;god&quot; telling us that that's the way it *should* be. Where's the compassion in that?Justice and judgment is not emotionally attached. To murder an innocent baby via abortion is hateful to execute that man is not. Justice is not hate or loving it is justice.
Satori:
Anyway, just wanted to say those things, they've been bouncing around my head ever since I first encountered your character on here. Don't get me wrong, I think you are a nice guy and all, and I'm sure you are a good person beneath all that &quot;hate&quot; and &quot;vegeance&quot; nonsense, but I think the way you have presented yourself with all of that stuff makes you seem a lot less kind and reasonable than I am SURE you are. I hope that unlike the majority of people here who I've conversed with thus far on this forum, that you'll actually respond, but if you do not, I will understand. I also want you to realize that I'm not &quot;picking&quot; on you, this is not some ploy to make you look bad or anything, I'm only discussing my distaste with the way your chosen sig and such makes you appear, and quite frankly, I think you are a better person than that.

If you actually mean all that sarcastically, as a means of pointing out how foolish and repugnant most people's interpretation of christianity is, then I hereby retract everything I've said in this post and I commend you for your insight and stance.

peace out,

Satori Would I be a better person to say "friends don't let friends be homos" or "God so loved the world"?

[Satori]

dawnghost:

nice analogy, Satori. actually you're the only one to poop so far, and boy do you poop!
==============================================
it's not like we're running from your 'ability to deconstruct' our ideas. let me just tell you a little story that will help you understand this debate so far:

a kid talks to a man that's passing by:

- hey mister! do you believe in god?
- well, yes I do, why?
- because I don't, I think that's ridiculous and more! I can also prove that creationist scientists are biased fools, and that evolutionism is a fact that cannot be refuted!
- why that's very interesting, you may start.
- start?? you mean you REALLY do believe in creation?? oh boy, you poor misguided fool, I pity you!
- what? but show me some evidence that I am wrong then.
- EVIDENCE? you must be very disinformed really! evolution is backed-up by hard science and common sense!! and also... (at this point the kid talks about subjects ranging from the nature of God, history of the church, claims that creationism is pseudoscience and also states that evolution is backed up by hard science and the best scientists in the world more than 30 times. he also states that the 'theory' of evolution is consistent and supported by a great deal of evidence)
- kid, I see you have a great deal of things to say, but why don't we stick to one subject at a time?
- I will not! I want to debate freely on this!
- ah well, maybe I don't have time for this then.
- aha!!! you are giving up aren't you!! I knew it! every single theist whom I have debated has done the same thing! they can't hold their mindless claims for long!! you are just another person sucked in by religion!
- that's not it! in fact, I could take you on and refute your claims, but you've failed to present me anything worthy of refuting!
- I have presented them, but again you decline to respond! another cop-out! haha too easy!
- you haven't! those were fact-free personal opinions on MANY subjects at once, why are you being like this? let's pick one subject then eh?
- I have no patience for strict rules like the ones you propose. now, just poop or get out of the potty!
- your potty's already full of crap. goodbye.
==============================================

:thumb:

Wow, another metaconversational cop-out.

You don't have anything to say, do you?

As I said, address the issues at hand, or don't say anything. Your failure to respond and make excuses for not responding will continue to backfire on you.

You are no more able to respond here than you were on the other site, you are just coming up with more excuses to justify your avoidance of the issues, and that's extremely evident.

I presume this is your "trump" card when you are out of ideas, because you only use it when you can't or won't reply.

Get off the potty dude, you are wasting space and bandwidth.

ta-ta,

Satori

[Ishmael]

Satori:
Calvinist cops out, what a suprise.[sic]
If that's the case, then why are you so reluctant to even reply? Sorry dude, I expect more from you than this.
I do think I sound smart, but that is quite beside the point. And I feel as much as you'd obviously LOVE to believe that I sound like an idiot, I think it's extremely evident to you and everyone else that I do not. However, if you think I do, then you are free to rebuttal, which is not something you've done, and I regard that a lame cop-out on your part.


Would you like me to take a pole on whether or not you sound smart in your posts? BTW I am fully aware that you "think" you sound smart.


I'm sorry that my verbosity and language seem to be over your head. Believe it or not, I'm trying my very best to present these ideas in a way that is comprehensible to everyone, and I feel I am doing a good job of it,


No, your wordiness is a lame "cop-out" for true dialogue and debate.


though I fully realize that it's very likely that the vast majority of the people who come here seeking reassurance for their &quot;faith&quot; are simply either lacking in enough intelligence, insight, or personal honesty to truly take to heart that which I have to say.


And this "what I have to say" is....? <insert sound of blowing wind here>

Oh I get it... "Personal Honesty" = denying Theistic Truth. Nice "argument."


Your claim is that I'm trying to sound all &quot;smart&quot; or whatever. Trust me, if I wanted to sound all smart and confuse people like yourself, I could that with far greater brunt than this, and with less effort. My vocabulary and ability for sentence structure FAR exceeds what you are currently [sic] reading.


I already knew you claimed it could be.


I am making huge efforts to tone down my language, use shorter and more comprehensive sentences, and present my insights in a rudimentary way so that they are accessible to everyone. As if that wasn't enough, I've said several times already, if I say something that over anyone's head, then PLEASE just ask, and I will do my best to explain it in a more easily understood way. Does this sound the words of someone who is try to confuse everyone with his lingual abilities? Please, too ridiculous. Considering how much sincere effort I'm putting into being comprehensible by non-philosophical people such as yourself, I find it simply sad that you would draw the conclusion you have.


You have already said this in another post and it is equally pompous and sad in this one.


I know what you are saying however, I have a friend named Xytokalon who is guilty of what your charging me with, he tries to confuse people with complex language and obscure terms in an effort to sound smarter than he is, and I keep making fun of him for it because I consider it another form of copping out. So don't think I can't relate to your charge, I do totally, I just know that I'm not guilty of that, and I think it's obvious. Besides, if you think my language is complex, you should try reading technical [sic] science and philosophy type stuff where they don't actually *try* to tone it down, even I have trouble with that sort of stuff some times, and as you can see, I'm not exactly deficient in the english language by any stretch.

In short, I think you post was a cop-out, nothing more that meta-conversational bs in a lame attempt to dispute anything I've said without actually addressing it.


You already said it was a "cop-out." Redundant verbosity runs in your blood I suppose.


The thing is, for me, that these concepts like Christianity [sic] and creationism are so obviously fraudulent and completely transparent that it's effortless for me to deconstruct them and show with plain common sense and reason how truly uninspired, unintelligent, dishonest, and misguided they are. You probabably [sic] think that I'm putting a great deal of effort into this, when in fact, I'm thinking far faster than I'm typing and I'm leaving out so much of what I want to say just to save time and space. For me, this type of conversation is easier than discussing politics or science.


Wow. You must really be impressed with yourself....


So Cal, if you actually have anything meaningful to say then I invite you to do so, but if you continue in this fashion then I will continue to point out how sad your attempts are and how you are in fact unable to refute what I have sad. You are probably thinking at this point that I'm saying all this with the sole intention of making you look bad.


Yeah... that's what I was thinking oh wise one....

I think you might have a mental disorder Profundus.


Nothing could be further from the truth. In my heart of hearts I simply feel that you are confused and misguided for actually believing in this nonsense and I only wish to help overcome it, to free yourself from the intellectual prison that was imposed on your by well-meaning though misguided elders/society. I only want to help, out of compassion for my brother and sisters, because I feel that intellectual liberty is something we all should have a chance to achieve.


I agree. Now try and post something which makes sense to other people besides yourself and maybe you will get a discussion going.


Please take what I'm about to say seriously:
If...
1. your intention is to cling to your religious constructs beyond all reason, and


That's not what Theists do. What you have said here is just an erroneous philosophical position held by some atheists. position. Saying, "religious constructs beyond all reason" does not make it true anymore than me saying, "Satori is an ignoramus" makes that true.


2. the stuff I'm saying disturbs you and makes it more difficult for you to cling to these constructs because it's causing conflict within your mind with your reason and common sense battling against your &quot;faith&quot;,
then I humbly suggest that you avoid reading anything I have written altogether. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings and cause conflicts in them, though you will likely conclude otherwise, perhaps even presuming that I'm somehow &quot;evil&quot; and doing the bidding of satan or some ridiculous nonsense like that.


You are truly insane. I am not in the least threatened by your very OLD and tired Atheist apologetics. What gives you the idea that anyone is binding Satan? Are you that ill prepared to face an educated Theist? I suggest you go back to school or to the happy, chatty board where people think you are intelligent.

Nothing you say makes any sense. You have not built one argument but instead have thrown out a couple of notions about how irrational it is to be a Theist. This is just plain opinion with no facts... but you go on and on....


Truly, if what I say disturbs you (and I fully realize how and why it can), ignore me, don't read it, it's just not worth it. Ignorance is the best defense against reason, and is therefore the #1 supporter of &quot;faith&quot;. The less you know/understand, the easier it will be for you to cling to your religion, and I think that's extremely evident. Just read your bible and the pro-theology threads/sites and turn a blind eye to anything which disputes your mindset, it's your *best* defense against becoming faithless.

take care my friend, and good luck on your chosen path,

Satori

Okay. Another ridiculous and very antiquated atheist argument….

Go on Profundus, say it over and over again in your next post... I am game......

[Ishmael]

a kid talks to a man that's passing by:

- hey mister! do you believe in god?
- well, yes I do, why?
- because I don't, I think that's ridiculous and more! I can also prove that creationist scientists are biased fools, and that evolutionism is a fact that cannot be refuted!
- why that's very interesting, you may start.
- start?? you mean you REALLY do believe in creation?? oh boy, you poor misguided fool, I pity you!
- what? but show me some evidence that I am wrong then.
- EVIDENCE? you must be very disinformed really! evolution is backed-up by hard science and common sense!! and also... (at this point the kid talks about subjects ranging from the nature of God, history of the church, claims that creationism is pseudoscience and also states that evolution is backed up by hard science and the best scientists in the world more than 30 times. he also states that the 'theory' of evolution is consistent and supported by a great deal of evidence)
- kid, I see you have a great deal of things to say, but why don't we stick to one subject at a time?
- I will not! I want to debate freely on this!
- ah well, maybe I don't have time for this then.
- aha!!! you are giving up aren't you!! I knew it! every single theist whom I have debated has done the same thing! they can't hold their mindless claims for long!! you are just another person sucked in by religion!
- that's not it! in fact, I could take you on and refute your claims, but you've failed to present me anything worthy of refuting!
- I have presented them, but again you decline to respond! another cop-out! haha too easy!
- you haven't! those were fact-free personal opinions on MANY subjects at once, why are you being like this? let's pick one subject then eh?
- I have no patience for strict rules like the ones you propose. now, just poop or get out of the potty!
- your potty's already full of crap. goodbye.


Did you read this analogy Satori?

This illustrates precisely the reason why no one will debate you and the reason I am currently pointing out how utterly false you are.

[dawnghost]

Satori:
As I said, address the issues at hand, or don't say anything. Your failure to respond and make excuses for not responding will continue to backfire on you.
this is interesting. read this: YOUR failure to provide facts for this discussion continues to backfire on you, Satori.

Satori:
You are no more able to respond here than you were on the other site
curiously enough, that's something I'd state about yourself really. if ranting endlessly about a subject without providing scientific backup is responding, then call me Captain Toenail, King of Bizarro World!

[Satori]

yxboom:
Ever read a comic book called Azrael?
Nope. Ever read a comic book Azrael?
This makes no sense to what I just said.

In the context of this site, you can see how your avatar could be interpreted as such, which is why I asked for clarification. For you, it's not serious, and I find that very relieving.

You shouldn't assume because of what it makes you. BTW you summation is incorrect. It is a statement regarding the exhaustive definate foreknowledge of God, being that I am an Open View Theist I regard that statement. Your conclusion makes no sense or any connection to my purpose.

So, what you are saying is that it in no way was intended to relieve god of the responsibiltity for the outcome of it's creations. Interesting, and refreshing.

You make too many points to respond in such a limited space.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that that's not a cop-out.

Terribly flawed but again space limitation for response.

Just pointing out the absurdity of a creator blaming the creation for the flaws that are a built-in PART of the creation. Once again, since you are so mature and kind, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt once again.

There is a term referred to as &quot;reciprocity&quot;. It may clear up a lot of your conclusions.

reciprocity:
A reciprocal condition or relationship.
A mutual or cooperative interchange of favors or privileges, especially the exchange of rights or privileges of trade between nations

Sorry, without an explanation on your part, it does not. But that's ok.

Justice and judgment is not emotionally attached.

I disagree. I feel emotions that result in compassion and mercy are intrinsically a part of both justice and judgement, just as they are in our secular justice system where our sense of humanity comes into play.

Personally, I would forgive anyone of nearly anything, whether they apologized or not, whether they were truly sorry or not. So you see, I have trouble worshipping a presumed god who doesn't live up to my own ethical standards. I hope you understand. I think anyone who cannot find it in their heart to have unconditional forgiveness for others is lacking in true compassion, just as your god is.

To murder an innocent baby via abortion is hateful to execute that man is not.

You state this as if it is an absolute fact, when it is actually just your subjective opinion. As I have said before, the map is not the territory, but I feel you think it is, and that's why you mistake your own subjectivism for absolutism, which it obviously is not.

I feel executing a man, for any reason, is unethical, because I don't feel we have the right to take any living human's life for any reason. What's more, I fully realize that his is only my subjective opinion and I in no way assert it to be absolute. What is true for one man may not hold true for another, because we are all different.

In biblical times, the people (and god) saw fit to toture people to death, and now we regard that as ethically repugnant (well, as least I HOPE we do anyway).

Justice is not hate or loving it is justice. .

Torturing/killing another living creature and not assuming any responsibility for it by calling it "justice", is, in my view, a moral cop-out, and the one I suspect "god" takes when disassuming any responsibility for its atrocities (ie. hell, if you actually believe that nonsense).

Would I be a better person to say &quot;friends don't let friends be homos&quot; or &quot;God so loved the world&quot;?

No. It would be better to say this, I think:

"Unconditional love, compassion, and forgiveness are virtues we should all endeavour to hold."

I wonder if you god would agree with that. Somehow, I don't think it would, because then it wouldn't have the means it requires to justify it's uncompromising "vengeance".

Satori

[Satori]

dawnghost:

this is interesting. read this: YOUR failure to provide facts for this discussion continues to backfire on you, Satori.


curiously enough, that's something I'd state about yourself really. if ranting endlessly about a subject without providing scientific backup is responding, then call me Captain Toenail, King of Bizarro World!

Yet another excuse to avoid responding, and yet another post that avoided responding. Surprise, surprise. Tell me, do you actually think anyone except for cal and perhaps a few other equally incapable philosophers here are actually taking you seriously? Do you think your enternal quest to avoid responding to the *issues* at hand lends to your maturity, insightfulness, or credibility?

But you've been copping-out since day one, so I've come to expect that from you now, so I'm not at all surprised. What does suprise me is the seemingly endless excuses you come up with to justify your avoidance of the issues.

Keep avoiding, and I'll keep pointing out your avoidance. Do you like this game? If so, keep it up.

Either poop or get off the potty.

Satori

[dizzle]

As the Drivel flows...

You state this as if it is an absolute fact, when it is actually just your subjective opinion. As I have said before, the map is not the territory, but I feel you think it is, and that's why you mistake your own subjectivism for absolutism, which it obviously is not.

I feel executing a man, for any reason, is unethical, because I don't feel we have the right to take any living human's life for any reason. What's more, I fully realize that his is only my subjective opinion and I in no way assert it to be absolute.

Absolutely?? LOL!!

What is true for one man may not hold true for another, because we are all different.

Then why in the world should we even care what you have to say!!! And where in the world do you get off saying that anyone else is wrong?? LOL

Does anyone else here that sound?? Listen carefully.. it is the sound of Satori's worldview imploding into self-refuting pits of stank.

[dawnghost]

Satori:
Yet another excuse to avoid responding, and yet another post that avoided responding. Surprise, surprise.
did you read that little story I wrote? I gets funnier and funnier every time you post.

Satori:
Tell me, do you actually think anyone except for cal and perhaps a few other equally incapable philosophers here are actually taking you seriously?
of course I woudn't state that. after all, I am not like you, who shamelessly posted:

Satori:
And I feel as much as you'd obviously LOVE to believe that I sound like an idiot, I think it's extremely evident to you and everyone else that I do not.
very humble eh Mr. Satori?

Satori:
Do you think your enternal quest to avoid responding to the *issues* at hand lends to your maturity, insightfulness, or credibility?
let me respond with something I wrote earlier:

dawnghost:
this is interesting. read this: YOUR failure to provide facts for this discussion continues to backfire on you, Satori.

Satori:
But you've been copping-out since day one, so I've come to expect that from you now, so I'm not at all surprised.
not actually day 1, maybe day 2, when your rhetoric and dialetic manipulation machine started to function full-speed.

Satori:
Keep avoiding, and I'll keep pointing out your avoidance. Do you like this game? If so, keep it up.
no no, this is silly. you say I am avoiding to answer, but you've yet to present ONE fact on ONE subject that would lend credibility to ANY of your claims.

Satori:
Either poop or get off the potty.

dawnghost:
- your potty's already full of crap. goodbye.

[Satori]

Dee Dee Warren:
As the Drivel flows...


Absolutely?? LOL!!

No, subjectively. Were you not paying attention?

Then why in the world should we even care what you have to say!!!

I see. So if anyone holds the opinion that opinions are inherently subjective, not absolute, then what they have to say holds no value? Cop-out.

And where in the world do you get off saying that anyone else is wrong?? LOL

I don't recall saying that (and I doubt that I did), but if I did, I didn't mean it in an absolutist way as you are implying, just my subjective opinion, of course.

Does anyone else here that sound?? Listen carefully.. it is the sound of Satori's worldview imploding into self-refuting pits of stank.

Cop-out.

Satori

[Satori]

dawnghost again does his best to justify his non-responsiveness. I'm as surprised as you are! hhehe

dawnghost:
did you read that little story I wrote? I gets funnier and funnier every time you post.

cop-out.


not actually day 1, maybe day 2, when your rhetoric and dialetic manipulation machine started to function full-speed.

You've used this excuse already. Dig deeper dude.

no no, this is silly. you say I am avoiding to answer, but you've yet to present ONE fact on ONE subject that would lend credibility to ANY of your claims.

hehe, ok, this was funny funny stuff. You are presuming god gives a rats behind what you do with your Sunday morning and now you are suggesting that "facts" are important to you?

Let me explain something to you, something you should've realized by now: facts, themselves, are interpretative. This is another way of saying: interpretation is subjective. Even the notion of a fact is subjective.

If you actually bothered to respond to *anything* I've said, I would substantiate everything I've said as much as I can, either with "facts" about our physical world, or plain logic and reason. Unfortunately, since you are unable to hold a conversation, I am unable to do that. Why no challenge something I've said? I invite you to do just that, and as always, I'll be waiting.

Besides, I know what you are trying to do, you are trying to put me on the defensive, and it's not working, as you can see.

Muster up some courage and reply to something I've written, because this is just pathetic.

Satori

[dawnghost]

Satori:
cop-out.
I am sorry if it hurts your feelings that what I've stated about you, running away from providing us with evidence, happens to be true. you can't just type 'cop-out' and expect this to work for you, sorry. we are still not in Bizarro World.

Satori:
You've used this excuse already. Dig deeper dude.
I don't remember having used this excuse already, but if I did, that's fine: it's still a valid excuse.

Satori:
hehe, ok, this was funny funny stuff. You are presuming god gives a rats behind what you do with your Sunday morning and now you are suggesting that &quot;facts&quot; are important to you?
are you really THIS dumb? no really, this is one of the most shameless cop-outs I've ever seen in my life! wow!

Satori:
Let me explain something to you, something you should've realized by now: facts, themselves, are interpretative. This is another way of saying: interpretation is subjective. Even the notion of a fact is subjective.
oh really? thanks for enlightening me on this, Mr. Satori! I don't know what would be of my life without your wisdom!

what if I said this: evolution is a way of interpreting data. and the same applies with creationism as well. if you have a 'a priori' compromise with materialism and the theory of evolution, and will interpret the data as it suits you, do you really think no 'evolution' scientist is biased at all? honesty? don't be childish Satori. I'd like to see you flexing your relativistic muscles to this one now.

oh yeah, and what I have pointed above does NOT include the fact that there are so many flaws in the 'theory' of evolution, that you could fill a truck with them.

Satori:
If you actually bothered to respond to *anything* I've said, I would substantiate everything I've said as much as I can, either with &quot;facts&quot; about our physical world, or plain logic and reason.
by 'facts' about our physical world I'll understand "not a single evidence at all" and by 'plain logic and reason' I'll understand "your unsubstantiated view on a subject, even if it includes appeals to belief and popularity, elephant-hurling, poisoning the well and ad hominens, hasty generalizatons etc"

Satori:
Unfortunately, since you are unable to hold a conversation, I am unable to do that. Why no challenge something I've said? I invite you to do just that, and as always, I'll be waiting.
may I propose a topic for everyone to discuss? how about this:

Resolved: there is no evidence that mutation or natural selection 'adds' information to the genetic code of a specie. i.e. lungs cannot develop in a lungless world.

Satori:
Besides, I know what you are trying to do, you are trying to put me on the defensive, and it's not working, as you can see.
maybe it is, but you wouldn't admit it would you? :brow: j/k

Satori: Muster up some courage and reply to something I've written, because this is just pathetic.
perhaps you'll cop-out from the topic proposed above?

edit: a few typos

[$cirisme]

Satori,

After reading all your posts, I can't help but think "Who peed in your wheaties?"

I can't help but think you are a very angry person, and I got that impression before you even joined TWeb.

What is your problem? :huh:

Like it or not, I will be praying for you. :smile:

[Ishmael]

Resolved: there is no evidence that mutation or natural selection 'adds' information to the genetic code of a specie. i.e. lungs cannot develop in a lungless world.


I will be willing to bet any taker that Satori doesn't have the slightest idea what this resolution even means.

[dizzle]

No, subjectively. Were you not paying attention?


Actually the problem is that I was. So let me get more precise.. it was not just mere drivel. It was subjective drivel.


So if anyone holds the opinion that opinions are inherently subjective, not absolute, then what they have to say holds no value? Cop-out.

Your opinion that what I said was a cop-out is only true for you, and thus only has value for you, so why should we even listen to you, since it is obviously not true for me, for I disagree. Wah, wah, wah, goes the tar baby.


I don't recall saying that (and I doubt that I did), but if I did, I didn't mean it in an absolutist way as you are implying, just my subjective opinion, of course.

Then why should I care since the very fact that I disagree shows that your opinion, in your own worldview, should have no meaning for me. Wah, wah, wah goes the tar baby.


Cop-out.

Satori


Your opinion that what I said was a cop-out is only true for you, and thus only has value for you, so why should we even listen to you, since it is obviously not true for me, for I disagree. Wah, wah, wah, goes the tar baby.

An imploding worldview is a pathetic thing to watch.

[Snowball]

cirisme:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After reading all your posts, I can't help but think "Who peed in your wheaties?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My thoughts exactly! Satori is very good at spouting off his own opinion (and very bad at spelling), then thinking he actually made an argument! I really don't see how you all have the fortitude to continue responding to him! I just laugh to myself and say 'how pathetic'. It must be tough living life with so much hate, especially when your world-view is one of atheism (depressing in and of itself). Satori -- who cares what theists believe in? Eat, drink, and be merry -- for tomorrow you die!!

Get the chip off of your shoulder, quit worrying about what everyone else believes (it is all relative anyway, right?), and start living dude! Life is short! Or, did God do something "bad" to you and you are trying to punish Him for it?

Satori: "I understand very well the theists obligations to adhere to their constructs, and what is at steak for them."

Pass the filet mignon! :rofl:

Take care,
Snowball

[Ishmael]

Resolved: there is no evidence that mutation or natural selection 'adds' information to the genetic code of a specie. i.e. lungs cannot develop in a lungless world.


Calvinist:


I will be willing to bet any taker that Satori doesn't have the slightest idea what this resolution even means.

wait..................
........is that the sound of Profundus' head going into the sand?

[dawnghost]

Calvinist:
wait..................
........is that the sound of Profundus' head going into the sand?
hey brother... maybe he's doing some research eh? let's give him the benefit of doubt. who knows? he may surprise us or something. :wink:

btw Cal do you have ICQ? if so, pm me! :thumb:

[dawnghost]

:zzz:

[Ishmael]

What happened to Satori? If anyone knows where I can find him...............

[Satori]

02-19-2003 @ 11:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=19467#post19467)
cirisme:

Satori,

After reading all your posts, I can't help but think &quot;Who peed in your wheaties?&quot;

No one, but thanks for asking ;)

I can't help but think you are a very angry person, and I got that impression before you even joined TWeb.

Nah, I'm just having fun by pointing out the inherent weakness and ethical deficiency of the theist viewpoint, and I'm also doing it because I feel it's the right thing to do. But I don't expect you to realize that, and even if you did, I certainly wouldn't expect you to admit it.

What is your problem? :huh:

I don't know. Seeing as you seem to have me all figure out, perhaps you could tell me? ;) hehe

Like it or not, I will be praying for you. :smile:

I neither like it or not like, I simply don't care either way. However, if "praying" for me makes you happy and if you think it wins you some moral browny points or whatever whackiness your metaphysical theories affords you, then by all mean, knock yourself out ;)

Sincerely,

Satori

[Satori]

02-21-2003 @ 12:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=21122#post21122)
Calvinist:

wait..................
........is that the sound of Profundus' head going into the sand?

That's it, childish name-calling and avoiding the discussion make you appear very mature and intelligent, hehe ;)

Do you have anything to say? I'm waiting...

Satori

[Satori]

02-20-2003 @ 06:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=20245#post20245)
Snowball:

My thoughts exactly! Satori is very good at spouting off his own opinion (and very bad at spelling), then thinking he actually made an argument!

Umm.. yea, sure man, whatever you have to convince yourself to cling to your innane metaphysical theories is quite fine by me. ;)

I really don't see how you all have the fortitude to continue responding to him!

As you can see in this thread, very few people actually responded, they simply heckled and copped-out.

I just laugh to myself and say 'how pathetic'. It must be tough living life with so much hate, especially when your world-view is one of atheism (depressing in and of itself).

There are many things wrong with this statement, and I will do you the favour of listing them for you:
1. I woudn't know if living life with "hate" is hard or not, because I don't live that way. I have a deep love for everything and everyone, it's simply who I am and I cannot deny that. I think you are allowing the intensity of the debate to undermine your ability to see that.
2. My world view is not one of atheism, I am agnostic (unlike you I have the guts to admit that I simply don't know and perhaps cannot know).
3. You say that the world view of atheism is "depressing", and you state that as if it were a solid fact, rather than just your personal opinion. I suggest you take note of the distinction so you do not make that mistake once again. I know a lot of people who are athiest and none of them are depressed, they are happy with their lives and they don't cling so tightly to their metaphyical theories that they are unable to think outside the box (in other words, if god said "hello" to them at any point, they'd no longer be athiest. Most atheists are THAT open-minded, in case you were unaware of that.)

Satori -- who cares what theists believe in? Eat, drink, and be merry -- for tomorrow you die!!

I care that children are having their minds tinkered with and their personal liberties truncated by vile theist threats and lofty promises of rewards. I think children deserve better than that, they deserve the right to reach puberty without having some theism (ie. judaism, christianity, islam) imposed on them in such a way that they will likely not ever be able to escape it, or think outside the box, or even recognize the limitations of their own personal subjectivity. I don't expect you to understand that however, seeing as clinging to moral absolutism is something you are probably obligated to do, as incredibly innane and easily dismantled as that idea actually is.

Get the chip off of your shoulder, quit worrying about what everyone else believes

What chip? I can't help that I care about others, nor do I want to change it. I'm not worrying about it, I just think everyone deserves the opportunity to be liberated from whatever dogma was imposed on their minds before they were old enough to tie their own shoe laces. What adults choose in life is their choice, I simply feel it's unethical to be imposing such barbaric and scary nonsense on the minds of innocent children who (I think) quite frankly deserve better. That is the source of my compassion, in case you didn't catch that at any point, now you know.

(it is all relative anyway, right?),

Yes, and subjective/interpretive, but I doubt you fully realize this, seeing as you are likely bound in the delusion that your mental map is a perfect representation of the territory and that you actually "understand" the basis of this reality enough to cling to a single point of view at the negation of all others. But I expect no less of you, or most people for that matter. You probably actually think the sky is *actually* blue for that matter, I wouldn't be surprised if you did, hehe.

and start living dude! Life is short!

I am living man! you have no idea how much ;) And as short as life is, I still find it quite long, and I'm a quite happy and satisified with the time I have, so much in fact that I don't have to delude myself with desires for immortality in some sort of blissful afterlife just to give my life meaning, and I don't need to auto-convince myself that I will somehow cheat my own death. I'm happy with what I have and not only do I think that idea of immortality is simply innane and the result of wishful thinking/fear of death, I welcome death as a part of life and I don't want it to be any different. Accepting reality exactly as it presents itself is one of the things I pride myself on doing. You should try it sometime.. opps, my mistake, you can't, you are obligated to cling to the theories that were fed to you in your formative years and your liberty to think outside that box and simply accept reality as it presents itself is not an option for you. So the next best thing you can do is to pray to your god(s) and/or godess(es) (depending on whatever theory you hold, it doesn't really matter) and be a good boy and cling to your irrational faith in hopes that you are in fact immortal and that you'll live forever somehow, somewhere. Good luck with that, and enjoy! ;)

Or, did God do something &quot;bad&quot; to you and you are trying to punish Him for it?

hehe:
1. If "god" didn't something "bad" to me, I'm not aware of it, because I'm a pretty lucky guy in every aspect of my life.

2. You referenced "god" as "Him". God is a man? Really? What use would a "god" have for a gender? Surely you realize that gender is determined by one's sexual organs, so please enlighten me, what use does "god" have for a penis and a pair of testicles? Please share your immense wisdom with me on that.

3. If there were any gods or goddesses, then I would love them just as I love all things, because that is simply who I am and I cannot deny or change that. I'd have NO desire to "punish" any gods of any sort because I feel that forgiveness and acceptance are a much better alternative (though I sincerely doubt you'll see the obvious wisdom and compassion in that, seeing as you are wrapped up in this innane punishment/reward system indicative of western religions).

Satori said: &quot;I understand very well the theists obligations to adhere to their constructs, and what is at steak for them.&quot;

Pass the filet mignon! :rofl:

How unfortunate that the best you could do was to point out a spelling error. That is barely a step above name-calling. I hope in your next post that you'll try a little harder and actually say something of value. I invite you to do just that, however, I won't think any less of you if you decline, or even if you cop-out and resort to name-calling and childish heckling, as this seems to be the favoured method on this site to avoid replying.

Take care,
Snowball

Will do! Best wishes, in reason and loving compassion,

Satori

[Satori]

I was reading this thread, it's highly amusing, I think, that not one person gave ANY solid reason for adhering to whatever religious dogma or metaphysical theory they hold up as "the truth".

A good offense is as good as a good defense I suppose eh?

I've noted that is the method of debating favoured by the poor misguided creationist sorts. They have no solid evidence to support their own highly speculative claims, so they are forced to resort to pointing out the fact that we do not yet know all the particulars of how one lifeform evolves into another (oblivious to the fact that transitional lifeforms give every indication that it did in fact occur, doh!), as if that is ANY way supports their own whacky and baseless assertions. It does not, but I'm sure some of you already realize that. I guess that's where "faith" comes in, when you don't have any solid reasons to believe something, and you feel you MUST believe it for the sake of your alleged "immortal soul", then just have faith, problem solved, right? Creationists amuse me, but I also find it sad. Many of them think that "god did it" is the *default* theory in somehow, and unless we know 100% of everything about biology and the processes of evolution (completely overlooking the fossil record which gives us very solid reasons to conclude that it DID occur of course) then the theory of evolution is somehow "suspect" and therefore, somehow, through irrational leaps of logic, it MUST also be "wrong" (simply because it's not complete and we do not know everything). How sad. But I guess that's what passes for a valid "god did it" argument to those people who hold a pre-existing obligation to buy into whatever theory is being preached with vile threats and lofty promises of reward.

I'm sorry that so many of you get suckered in by this creationist nonsense, and I feel that if you ever put aside your obligations to adhere to the "god did it" theory and honestly read the many secular refutions of bogus creationist claims that you'd realize that misguided creationist fools like Ken Ham are practicing pseudoscience by attempting to make the data fit with the theory, instead of formulating a theory which fits the data. It doesn't work that way I'm afraid, and as of yet, I am unaware of any evidence which actually points to the "god did it" theory as being even remotely accurate. That's probably because there isn't any, and the only thing a creationist can do is poke holes in other theories and hope that the people who buy into their conjecture don't realize that that tactic does nothing to support their own baseless theories. I hope at least some of you understood what I just said, I hope the communication barrier between us isn't that great. I think it's simply ridiculous (and sad) that god loving/fearing creationist sorts have the audacity to deny the fossil record and the simply overwhelming logic and evidence in favour of evolution in favour of a "god did it" theory which they have NO evidence in support of WHATSOEVER. To me, that is the height of self-delusion, and I find it disheartening.

But anyway, if you are a creationist, I don't expect you to take to heart anything I just said. After all, for you, clinging to your faith is your primary objective, and anything that makes that easier for you is your "truth", and anything that makes it harder for you must be a falsehood. For you, what's true and what's not isn't the issue, as your god(s) is/are only concerned with what you autoconvince yourself into *believing*. Just have faith right? Faith will save you after all, seeing as your god(s) is/are primarily concerned with your adherance to your beloved "faith". Deep-rooted obligations to cling to one theory and negate all others doesn't give you a lot of freedom to explore alternatives, I understand.

As I sidenote, I'd like to point out how competely ridiculous I feel "faith" really is, as if an omnipotent being of some kind would be so petty and self-absorbed as to actually concern itself so very much with your ability to swallow various lengends and unsubstantiated theories without any good reasons for doing so (other than the typical vile threats and promises of reward I mean, which is plenty for most people to autoconvince themselves of whatever rhetoric is fashionable in their society, as we all can clearly see). I think that the emphasis on "faith" is your best indication that religions are elaborate hoaxes concocted by power-hungry huamans meant to keep your minds in ignorance and bondage. If any of that stuff were actually true, you wouldn't need your beloved faith, it would simply be a matter of accepting reality. But for some bizarre reason your god sees fit to play this childish game of hide and seek with you, this god wants you, for some odd and unexplained "reason", to "believe" that it exists while it is quite careful to continually avoid direct detection, and careful not to leave any solid evidence lying around which could be regarded as proof of its existence (in fact, it even fabricated evidence (ie. the fossil record) and allowed hundreds of other religions/gods to pop up to lead you away from what it egocentrically wants you to believe and do). Absurd to the extreme. I'm sure a great many of you here have gone through your whole lives and never even questioned this "faith" business, you were told that "faith is good" and it's "what god desires", and that's good enough for you, never stopping to consider for a second: "why in the world would my acceptance of various dogmas, in the absense of supporting evidence, be something favoured by god?" I smell a rat, and it's rotting and foul. Here's a little insight for you all: if someone tells you something which they want you very much to believe, and they spend more time telling you that you "must believe it" than giving you solid reasons for buying into it, chances are you are being mislead. If something is actually true, there is no need for "faith" or blind acceptance of it, it's simply a matter of accepting reality. Just stating the obvious. But of course, god has this faith-fetish, and that explains everything, doesn't it? How lame.


To continue...
It's a shame how much the personal obligations (under threat of punishment and promises of reward) to cling to theist theories disrupts one's ability to be somewhat objective, but I totally understand this need. Best of luck with those obligations, since as science progresses and we learn more and more about our physical world (as has been the continuing trend) it will become increasingly difficult for self-deluded fools like Ken Ham and those who actually listen to his innane nonsense to fulfill their outterworldly obligations by actually buying into that misguided and inherently dishonest rhetoric.

It's easy to fool people, and it's easy to fool yourself too, when your intent is to find reasons to adhere to a limited viewpoint which you are metaphysically obligated to convince yourself of out of fear and desire for self-preservation. Perhaps it doesn't suprise any of you to learn that the vast majority of people who study the origin of species think that creationists are misguided and self-deluded and they don't give them the time of day, and many of these people are theists themselves. So much for Ken Ham's theory about the evil secular anti-god agenda of modern science. That would be funny if it were not so very sad.

Where there is such a deep set obligation to believe something, objectivity is quite impossible. But I'm sure all the creationist sorts here pride themselves on being totally open-minded and objective while their beloved god(s) hold a virtual blowtorch to their souls, threatening to ignite it if they do something as innocent as holding the "wrong" evolutionary opinion. Yea, that's what passes for "objectivity" and self-honesty I suppose, just keep telling yourselves that, wrap that bit of self-deceit around you like a blanket as protection from the savage wrath of your beloved god(s).

I'm just trying to jumpstart some sleeping minds, please try to keep in mind that I'm simply doing what I feel in my heart is the right thing. I think creationism is a true hoax which people need protection from, otherwise they might get suckered in by it, and that would be a shame.

in loving compassion, and reason,

Satori

[dawnghost]

even though Calvinist posted

Resolved: there is no evidence that mutation or natural selection 'adds' information to the genetic code of a specie. i.e. lungs cannot develop in a lungless world.

I will be willing to bet any taker that Satori doesn't have the slightest idea what this resolution even means.

wait..................
........is that the sound of Profundus' head going into the sand?

that wasn't enough to remind our friend Satori that I posted:


cop-out.

I am sorry if it hurts your feelings that what I've stated about you, running away from providing us with evidence, happens to be true. you can't just type 'cop-out' and expect this to work for you, sorry. we are still not in Bizarro World.

You've used this excuse already. Dig deeper dude.

I don't remember having used this excuse already, but if I did, that's fine: it's still a valid excuse.

hehe, ok, this was funny funny stuff. You are presuming god gives a rats behind what you do with your Sunday morning and now you are suggesting that "facts" are important to you?

are you really THIS dumb? no really, this is one of the most shameless cop-outs I've ever seen in my life! wow!


Let me explain something to you, something you should've realized by now: facts, themselves, are interpretative. This is another way of saying: interpretation is subjective. Even the notion of a fact is subjective.

oh really? thanks for enlightening me on this, Mr. Satori! I don't know what would be of my life without your wisdom!

what if I said this: evolution is a way of interpreting data. and the same applies with creationism as well. if you have a 'a priori' compromise with materialism and the theory of evolution, and will interpret the data as it suits you, do you really think no 'evolution' scientist is biased at all? honesty? don't be childish Satori. I'd like to see you flexing your relativistic muscles to this one now.

oh yeah, and what I have pointed above does NOT include the fact that there are so many flaws in the 'theory' of evolution, that you could fill a truck with them.


If you actually bothered to respond to *anything* I've said, I would substantiate everything I've said as much as I can, either with "facts" about our physical world, or plain logic and reason.

by 'facts' about our physical world I'll understand "not a single evidence at all" and by 'plain logic and reason' I'll understand "your unsubstantiated view on a subject, even if it includes appeals to belief and popularity, elephant-hurling, poisoning the well and ad hominens, hasty generalizatons etc"


Unfortunately, since you are unable to hold a conversation, I am unable to do that. Why no challenge something I've said? I invite you to do just that, and as always, I'll be waiting.

may I propose a topic for everyone to discuss? how about this:

Resolved: there is no evidence that mutation or natural selection 'adds' information to the genetic code of a specie. i.e. lungs cannot develop in a lungless world.


Besides, I know what you are trying to do, you are trying to put me on the defensive, and it's not working, as you can see.

maybe it is, but you wouldn't admit it would you? :brow: j/k

Muster up some courage and reply to something I've written, because this is just pathetic.

perhaps you'll cop-out from the topic proposed above?

there you are. you should focus on replying to what's stated in bold, red letters. even though I won't be responding (since I have stated in that other (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4477&perpage=16&pagenumber=1) thread that I am too busy for researching and replying to your lengthy posts), I am sure you'll find some people here that would be eager to debate you on that.

see ya! :hi:

[Ben Franklin]

I was reading this thread, it's highly amusing, I think, that not one person gave ANY solid reason for adhering to whatever religious dogma or metaphysical theory they hold up as "the truth"...

... I'm just trying to jumpstart some sleeping minds, please try to keep in mind that I'm simply doing what I feel in my heart is the right thing. I think creationism is a true hoax which people need protection from, otherwise they might get suckered in by it, and that would be a shame.

in loving compassion, and reason,

Satori

Heheheheh... that's a good one. I never heard anyone argue from a premise of wishful thinking until now. You wanna change the world, better start with yourself. You wanna show people the error of their ways, dig up some facts. If you're so concerned with exposing false-hoods, you better take a long look in the mirror, pal.

"Feelings.... whoa, whoa, whoa, feelings... feelings deep in my heart..." :lol: Gimme a break !

Get a clue, Satori, baby ! :ahem: Heaven's "Ki" is real, and so is the Universal "Tao" ! :cheers:

Better spend some more time on the meditation mat until it comes to you... :thumb:

[TuckEverlasting]

Great work, Satori! You sure put ol' Soc in his place. :thumb:

[curium]

Why did Socrates leave TWEB?