I feel I responded to ER1C0's arguments where I could, unless someone beat me to it. For the last dozen of pages all he would talk about was the lack of evidence of Julius Caesar's existence though, it was hard to debate with him refusing to change the argument, or give ground. No-one has asked ER1C0 to leave, he left of his own free will, and I respect his decision. Making a post that casts himself as the "Suffering hero fighting against the big bad Athiests" though: there's little I can say to impress how pathetic I think that is. No offence Randle, but look back a few pages. ER1CO hasn't brought any information here in quite a while, and being close-minded is being stubbornly resistant towards new ideas. ER1C0 has given me nothing to be close-minded towards. Person A Person B Person C Person D Person E Person F Which one am I? Either way, i'm offended.
First, calling me stupid in a sentence with awful punctuation is pretty sweetly ironic. Tough to prove any point you have about American education. What is the right-wing's fascination with capitalizing every noun? What are you, German? Bring a little more style when you try to rebut me. Anyways... Have you ever heard of the Discovery Institute? They've got a little thing called the wedge project, that aims, through endless political manipulation, to replace all science teaching in the next 30 years entirely with biblical science. This group has the ear of every religious right wing politician in the States, of which there is many. Biblical science would be the death of American science. Only results that don't contradict the beloved bible would be acceptable; therefore, no real scientific work would get done. I'm not saying that science isn't going to be taken in schools, but you better believe that there are people working day and night to make it an entirely religious class. Sounds like hyperbole, but look it up. America has been behind the curve for a long time, and it's getting worse. Want good secular schooling, try Denmark. So where do you get this whole belief in god, and where does it end? Why not buy into the whole deal, if you're going to believe? Why do you get the convenience of getting to pick and choose the parts of religion that make you all warm and fuzzy? You might as well believe with all your heart in unicorns. We'll never see one, but they must be out there somewhere, and it's so much of a better universe with them in it! This is part of the decadence I'm talking about, this feel-good mix of religions that people pick like a buffet, and then preach loudly about. What do you believe? Yours is an unoriginal mutt of belief, get over it. Also, Erico was a tool. Not just because I disagreed with him, just because he was the definition of a troll. He comes in here and literally shits bricks when he sees a dissenting opinion. Wtf did he expect? Using his dead grandmother to make his argument was classy, too.
What can I say? What hasnt been mentioned by the people above me that hasnt been covered. I refuse to mask my happiness all right? We won, we arent stubborn, scientists, or god. We just bring facts to the table and try to convince the majority of the unstubborn people to debate this with us.
I did not call you stupid, I basically said you are "acting" stupid. All those insults in your previous post made your argument lose some points. Sorry about my punctuation, it was 12:00, I lol'd at the German. Link please. I believe you, I just want to make sure... That's not good, I'd much rather accept science that contradicts Religion so that these debates can end, although I would much rather support the idea that God Exists. Because some parts don't make sense and have been proven by science. Stop with Unicorns it's annoying. ... This was a lot better then your last post since you calmed down and I am willing to accept science but it has yet to completely disprove the bible. You haven't won. You've just surrounded the castle, but you have yet to place your flag on it.
Here's the link to the Discovery Institute's wedge strategy: The Discovery Institute's "Wedge Document" Now, in particular, what do you feel that science has fallen short on explaining, that religion has done better? Of course things like life after death can't be explained, so let's stick to empirical topics.
I can appreciate that. That's pretty terrible. The basic premise is "let's infect science with theistic values." They're essentially suggesting going to war with the philosophical concept of Materialism. Spoiler INTRODUCTION The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences. Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology. Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions. Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth. Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism.
Please elaborate on this. I am not sure if it was sarcasm or not. Either way, why are you speechless?
And just like that Nitrous's heart grew three times its normal size. Christmas was in trouble and it was Nitrous who was going to save it. So he hurried and readily made yuletide preparations for the night that was to ensue. Streams of garland and ornaments and lights and toys and all sorts of wonderful things were packed with care and with the knowledge that Christmas would soon be there. On Radiant, he cried! On aMoeba! On El Diablo and Rabid and Golden and Blitzen! And with a mighty tug and rush of air the sleigh lurched forward. On Shiruken! On Randle! The sleigh rumbled and bumbled until finally the wisps of air were all that held it. With steadfast courage Nitrous continued as the snow delicately whipped and whirled behind. The Children, long asleep, awaited Christmas morning with the hope that presents would be there. But what's this? Sally Sue, tall and stout, was up and around surely she knows what Christmas is about?! As Nitrous came in to deliver the presents he saw young Sally Sue. Nitrous! she said with glee. Are those presents all for me? Nitrous said to Sally Sue with a twinkle in his eye, but of course it is my dear, it's Christmas morning! Didn't you hear? They all were there. A dolly and house, a cat for her mouse, and a flowing pink blouse. With a shriek and a squeal she hugged Nitrous and called out into the night, God bless us, everyone. And with a wink he vanished, never to be seen again. Sally Sue never forgot Nitrous or the wonderful presents she received and to this day the spirit of Christmas lives on thanks to the kind Nitrous and his will to save Christmas. And that's how Nitrous became a Christian. Oh, Erico was there to but he was to busy crying to be written in.
I love knowledge, and to be deprived from it is a big pet peeve of mine. I think that is one way for Nitrous to calm the debate down/ -.-
The second "to" is actually supposed to be spelled "too". C: I forgot to add Nitrous to that little story of mine... Part II anyone? Nah, you're too busy saying things behind my back. So I'll leave now.
Are you leaving or not? Stop getting everyone excited and then crushing their big smiles. Also, resorting to fixing grammatical errors is a sign of insecurity or a sign of loss.
In red. What a little douchebag you are when you debate. You can't go two sentences without trying the "Hey if I insult my opponents that makes them wrong" approach. Also you use the word decadent too much, get some better palaver. And woop-de-do you don't like Fundamentalism, welcome to the club. Oh so when science gains new insights and changes it's acceptable but when priests stop preaching the Earth is the center of the universe that means everything about religion is wrong. Don't you see some hypocrisy there? Okay I see what you did there. You are just trolling as far as I can see because the only person who held the beliefs you are trying to disprove was Erico, so I really don't see to whom you are talking. "So next time you start preaching, remember that every time the bible has postulated something, science has knocked it down, unequivocally." Like: God's existence? The creation of the universe? Jesus? I don't want your speculations on what could be the explanation for such things I want this unequivocal stuff you're talking about. "The world belongs to science now, you're an anachronism." Snappy comeback #1 talk to the chart. Snappy comeback #2 Go tell that to the government of Iran, see how that goes. Is this that blog explanation you referred to awhile(long while) ago? GASP! I'm sorry you lose. Here is the easiest fix to your problem. "So, I'll leave now." oh and before you go. It's Erico not Er1c0. Just leave already, unless you want to be like me. Who doesn't? or being a perfectionist or OCD. Also he could possibly want to be an English teacher in the future and is practicing.
I honestly don't care if I come off as insulting, the whole concept of believing in a god seems completely ridiculous. I don't really care if I don't get my message across because you're on the defensive, because it's not like you're interested in evidence anyways. I'm not trolling, but come on, there's nobody that has some talking points that we haven't heard a million times before? I'm not new at this. Maybe I'm in the wrong place for it, but I love forging and it's just a click away, haha. So if you had to prove to a skeptic that does his homework that god existed, what would you say?
Gasp is right. Ideas, especially philospophical ideas, should be outmoded when they're proven wrong, not when a specific group decides they don't like it.
You know what I hate about Christians(at least the ones I know)? They can pretty much do/say anything they want and consider themselves to be more pure than me. I swear, when my family has people over from church for a party or something, it's like an AA party. Alcohol is God's greatest invention, apparently. And why can a former serial killer accept Jesus into his life and appear holier than atheists/agnostics? It's a joke. /rant. I'm a little on-edge right now.
Actually both should have been 'too.' It was written with the intent of being funny and I didn't care much about grammer. I usually proof two to three times before posting. I apologize for not doing it for my most recent post. But I am curious. How could I talk behind your back if it was in plain sight? How can you leave again for the third time? And, one final question; will you please tell me how you feel I debate in this forum? This is for my benefit. @Diablo - Not quite haha. I'll get back to doing those eventually. I just have to stop not caring (double negative?).
Has anyone ever realized that this thread is long passed it's prime, and is a never ending debate? The sides are drawn and anyone on the fence can read the thread and make up their minds. I'm inclined to lock it, but if you have solid reasoning as to why it should remain open, please provide.