jelms said:
Likewise, my friend.....
Hey, how'd ya like the allusion the crazy Irish guy in Braveheart? Was he fkn nuts 'er what?
D
The Skeptics Thread
- Thread starter Azmal
- Start date
Likewise, my friend.....
Hey, how'd ya like the allusion the crazy Irish guy in Braveheart? Was he fkn nuts 'er what?
D
jelms
Full Access Member
Django said:Likewise, my friend.....
Hey, how'd ya like the allusion the crazy Irish guy in Braveheart? Was he fkn nuts 'er what?
D
I will have to admit that I have yet to see braveheart
I've pretty much lost interest in Mel movies since Mad Max...... Now that you point it out I will have to watch it this weekend to see what you are talking about.....
jelms said:I will have to admit that I have yet to see braveheart
Now that you point it out I will have to watch it this weekend to see what you are talking about.....
Here's the gist of the character.... He's out there ...rof.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gHH0ih867U&feature=related
D
jelms
Full Access Member
Thanks TimDjango said:
I'll add it to my list of things to watch this weekend.I do like a good movie....
jelms said:Thanks Tim
I do like a good movie....
It is a true historical classic........... a tragic, epic telling of the Scots bloody fight for their independence from England.. And their leader, William Wallace.
Tell me if ya liked the clip......:dontknow:
D
Azmal
Full Access Member
Yep, Hitchens is a pretty awesome guy.
have you seen the last debate between him and his brother? Priceless lol
Sorry for using 'religion' as a sort of umbrella idiom; I am aware you don't subscribe to religious doctrine and such and by no means is all of what I said directed at you. There's just one point I would really address to you specifically from this conversation so far and that's the argument from complexity. ie: It's very complex therefor it must have been created, or more technically, it has the appearance of and seems designed so it must be designed.
It's not just you who shares this view most certainly and I feel it is the key stone for most moderate believers of a supernatural deity. It's very normal to think in this way too so I don't want to sound like I'm being harsh but I do believe it is the illogical conclusion, well, assuming you agree with principles such as the age of the universe and can mostly agree with what cosmologists and astrophysicists have to say on the matter. If not, then I would have to back up and address other issues, but I'll roll with this.
(
And of course it could be all well and good to say 'let sleeping dogs lie' and agree that all that matters is to have good character traits and end my role in the conversation at that. But of course I want to press on and I'm not being insistent here either; this to me is entertaining and I like to practice my public speaking (typing?lol) and exercising my mind every now and again. (Doesn't get much ever since I moved back to this backwards small town)
)
So, continuing along. It may seem odd for things to simply 'emerge' spontaneously but if you look back at the course of our universe's history (or the models as we understand them anyway) you will find many examples of this. For example if we go back right after the 'bang' it took millions of years before there was light. It took time for all the hydrogen (dominantly hydrogen) atoms to gravitate together into the first giant galactic nebulae and then at the point of nuclear fusion when the gasses was dense enough, you then have stars and (constant) light; two things that were not in existence in our universe before then.
Then when the largest stars quickly burned their fuel up they exploded (supernova) scattering their star dust, it gave way for the formation of new solar systems with smaller (longer living) stars and planets. Another thing that wasn't there before the other events happened first.
Skip ahead to when our own planet started to cool and given the right conditions of conditions... See Wiki -> In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth emerged from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules. Scientific research theorizes that abiogenesis occurred sometime between 4.4 [2] and 2.7 billion years ago, when the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon (12C and 13C), iron (56Fe, 57Fe, and 58Fe) and sulfur (32S, 33S, 34S, and 36S) points to a biogenic origin of minerals and sediments[3][4] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis.[5][6] (blah blah blah)
Starting out with simple replicating RNA & DNA then going to single celled organisms, then multicelled organisms and then progressions thereof until you get consciousness and you can probably add technology in the mix.
And to add another example of simple things changing or evolving over time, imagine a human, which starts out as a few cells and turns into what we are now. A bit different but I hope it adds to the point.
Again, if you don't believe -any- of the claims science makes then I would have to back up and try to explain it from there but if that's the case I doubt I could do any good. Of course if you believe in the discoveries of science and agree with everything except what contradicts the bible or your book of choice, you're simply doing intellectual acrobatics to cherry pick your world view whether it's true or not and whether you're an intelligent person or not. (btw 'you' is meant to be understood you, not directed at any one person)
Hopefully that makes the foreign concept of spontaneous emergence more feasible in your mind(s) (to anyone who subscribes to that line of thought). If not, then you might think of how convenient the idea that a creator can spontaneously come to be.
It bears mentioning of the Anthropic principle which states something along the lines of "We observe the universe as we see it because if it were any other way, we wouldn't be here to study it at all"
Probably forgot to add something else but I gotta run for now
have you seen the last debate between him and his brother? Priceless lol
Sorry for using 'religion' as a sort of umbrella idiom; I am aware you don't subscribe to religious doctrine and such and by no means is all of what I said directed at you. There's just one point I would really address to you specifically from this conversation so far and that's the argument from complexity. ie: It's very complex therefor it must have been created, or more technically, it has the appearance of and seems designed so it must be designed.
It's not just you who shares this view most certainly and I feel it is the key stone for most moderate believers of a supernatural deity. It's very normal to think in this way too so I don't want to sound like I'm being harsh but I do believe it is the illogical conclusion, well, assuming you agree with principles such as the age of the universe and can mostly agree with what cosmologists and astrophysicists have to say on the matter. If not, then I would have to back up and address other issues, but I'll roll with this.
(
And of course it could be all well and good to say 'let sleeping dogs lie' and agree that all that matters is to have good character traits and end my role in the conversation at that. But of course I want to press on and I'm not being insistent here either; this to me is entertaining and I like to practice my public speaking (typing?lol) and exercising my mind every now and again. (Doesn't get much ever since I moved back to this backwards small town)
)
So, continuing along. It may seem odd for things to simply 'emerge' spontaneously but if you look back at the course of our universe's history (or the models as we understand them anyway) you will find many examples of this. For example if we go back right after the 'bang' it took millions of years before there was light. It took time for all the hydrogen (dominantly hydrogen) atoms to gravitate together into the first giant galactic nebulae and then at the point of nuclear fusion when the gasses was dense enough, you then have stars and (constant) light; two things that were not in existence in our universe before then.
Then when the largest stars quickly burned their fuel up they exploded (supernova) scattering their star dust, it gave way for the formation of new solar systems with smaller (longer living) stars and planets. Another thing that wasn't there before the other events happened first.
Skip ahead to when our own planet started to cool and given the right conditions of conditions... See Wiki -> In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth emerged from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules. Scientific research theorizes that abiogenesis occurred sometime between 4.4 [2] and 2.7 billion years ago, when the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon (12C and 13C), iron (56Fe, 57Fe, and 58Fe) and sulfur (32S, 33S, 34S, and 36S) points to a biogenic origin of minerals and sediments[3][4] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis.[5][6] (blah blah blah)
Starting out with simple replicating RNA & DNA then going to single celled organisms, then multicelled organisms and then progressions thereof until you get consciousness and you can probably add technology in the mix.
And to add another example of simple things changing or evolving over time, imagine a human, which starts out as a few cells and turns into what we are now. A bit different but I hope it adds to the point.
Again, if you don't believe -any- of the claims science makes then I would have to back up and try to explain it from there but if that's the case I doubt I could do any good. Of course if you believe in the discoveries of science and agree with everything except what contradicts the bible or your book of choice, you're simply doing intellectual acrobatics to cherry pick your world view whether it's true or not and whether you're an intelligent person or not. (btw 'you' is meant to be understood you, not directed at any one person)
Hopefully that makes the foreign concept of spontaneous emergence more feasible in your mind(s) (to anyone who subscribes to that line of thought). If not, then you might think of how convenient the idea that a creator can spontaneously come to be.
It bears mentioning of the Anthropic principle which states something along the lines of "We observe the universe as we see it because if it were any other way, we wouldn't be here to study it at all"
Probably forgot to add something else but I gotta run for now
TheSickness
Full Access Member
I believe that all organized religion is evil, stuffy, disingenuous and utter unmitigated Bullshit. I believe in God and I don't need a bunch of Bullshit to tell me how to be a good person. I certainly don't have any use for them in politics either. I think it muddles the thinking process and clouds peoples minds. I think the Bible is a good book full of just enough historical factoids to lend credibility as far as reference. I don't believe that Jesus was anything more special then Charles Manson in getting people to follow him.
After all God's own chosen people the Jews don't recognize him as their savior either. I don't believe that God would be so stupid as to trust any man to speak for him. Let alone hire them as Ghost writers to his word. I don't find the Bible credible that way at all....and if it is the one true word then why are there versions ? I mean the word is the word and no other version is necessary is there ? I really want to know from people why if the Bible is the word of God do they find it acceptable that 7 of the original books have been excluded...Where is the outrage ? Why would any of God's word be deemed heretical and silenced ?
Maybe those books said something...I encourage all true believers to research those...Sorry Tim I have asked these questions before and since this is a Philosophical discussion I would now enjoy reading a thought out response from those who have a philosophical difference to what I posted. I just don't think I can buy lock stock and barrel anything that picks and chooses which word of God they chose to follow. Ambiguity is the Bible and organized religon...Without the ambiguity many rich pastors would be out of work because there would be no need to decipher meaning of the one true word...Why interpret anything ?
After all God's own chosen people the Jews don't recognize him as their savior either. I don't believe that God would be so stupid as to trust any man to speak for him. Let alone hire them as Ghost writers to his word. I don't find the Bible credible that way at all....and if it is the one true word then why are there versions ? I mean the word is the word and no other version is necessary is there ? I really want to know from people why if the Bible is the word of God do they find it acceptable that 7 of the original books have been excluded...Where is the outrage ? Why would any of God's word be deemed heretical and silenced ?
Maybe those books said something...I encourage all true believers to research those...Sorry Tim I have asked these questions before and since this is a Philosophical discussion I would now enjoy reading a thought out response from those who have a philosophical difference to what I posted. I just don't think I can buy lock stock and barrel anything that picks and chooses which word of God they chose to follow. Ambiguity is the Bible and organized religon...Without the ambiguity many rich pastors would be out of work because there would be no need to decipher meaning of the one true word...Why interpret anything ?
TheSickness
Full Access Member
Well Shit I posted a response but did not see this thread until now LOL....It would have prolly been better in this thread then on Tim's
includemeout
Full Access Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 6,481
- Reaction score
- 0
TheSickness said:Well Shit I posted a response but did not see this thread until now LOL....It would have prolly been better in this thread then on Tim's
You are los'in it Doomcough
includemeout
Full Access Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 6,481
- Reaction score
- 0
TheSickness said:
And your point is??
TheSickness
Full Access Member
I some how expected moreincludemeout said:And your point is??
includemeout
Full Access Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 6,481
- Reaction score
- 0
TheSickness said:I some how expected more
That is twice in 2 weeks you have used the same reply you pias pig
TheSickness
Full Access Member
Until tonight I had not been on since last wednesday stretch lipsincludemeout said:That is twice in 2 weeks you have used the same reply you pias pig
Have Wifey grill you up a Nutter Butter and STFU :marchmellow:
includemeout
Full Access Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 6,481
- Reaction score
- 0
TheSickness said:Until tonight I had not been on since last wednesday stretch lips
That is only 8 days El Stretcho :argh: So bite me
Ram From Hell
Full Access Member
includemeout said:You are los'in it Doomcough
That's "dummkopf", sheizekopf.
(j/k about the sheizekopf)
Ram From Hell
Full Access Member
Azmal said:
Ah, now who's being apologetic.
Interesting how devoid this thread has beenof counterpoints from the faithful. So far, every response has proven my initial points in one way or another. Is there no logic or reasoning behind religion? Is it because religion has always been about "because I say so" that makes it inarguable?
Tell me this: Doesn't it bother any of you of faith when you shove that gas/diesel nozzle into your ride that your creator has no explanation for the origin of what's coming out of it? Do you just gloss over this out of convenience?
It appears that selective belief is more the rule than the exception anyway, judging by the additions and omissions between the various religions. New testament here, but not there. He said this here, but not there. Accepting things on faith must be the same as "I don't care. I was told it was true, so it must be.", so apparently it doesn't matter whether it contradicts something else at all.
How do you function with this kind of logic?
While aligned with the general tenor of the comments above I do have tolerance for those who have pretty overt religious views...
Religion provides some with a cosmic orientation. It creates a sense of rationale for existence, a guide post for decision making, and reason for existence. People are all different. In recognition of that, there is the segment of humans that are comforted by the structure provided by religious rules, ritual and assumed rights.
Some people need those things, some don't. Some of us need speed others don't, most of us here need powerful machines, a few (strange creatures) don't.
I'm not sure that the question is who is right, rather it is different strokes...
Religion provides some with a cosmic orientation. It creates a sense of rationale for existence, a guide post for decision making, and reason for existence. People are all different. In recognition of that, there is the segment of humans that are comforted by the structure provided by religious rules, ritual and assumed rights.
Some people need those things, some don't. Some of us need speed others don't, most of us here need powerful machines, a few (strange creatures) don't.
I'm not sure that the question is who is right, rather it is different strokes...
OCBob
VIPER POWERED
I was want to take a second to thank everybody that has been taking part in this thread. It's good to see a discussion of this nature not turn into a bashing session. Thanks ya'll.
Cudajon
Full Access Member
OCBob said:
Well, Jesus does work at the movie theater... maybe I'll just ask him where I'm gonna go when I die.
OCBob
VIPER POWERED
ummmm, huh??? Maybe it's just early here, but color me confused hehehe.Cudajon said:
Support Us
Become A Supporting Member Today!
