Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Flat Earth cirruculum..Follow

#152 Feb 10 2014 at 5:02 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,577 posts
Before going into the more philosophical portions of the debate:

Smasharoo wrote:
I don't know anything about that person in particular. Most people who identify themselves as creationists don't ascribe to the Young Earth Theory and certainly don't believe that anyone who doesn't isn't really a Christian.

Incorrect, in fact. Most people who *self identify* as 'creationists' DO subscribe (because we're using the English language by choosing words that are appropriate to context not just ones that may sound somewhat similar) to Young Earth creationism.


Seriously? It's not my fault that I apparently posses a greater vocabulary than you, but the word ascribe means:

as·cribe

verb (used with object), as·cribed, as·crib·ing.
1. to credit or assign, as to a cause or source; attribute; impute: The alphabet is usually ascribed to the Phoenicians.
2. to attribute or think of as belonging, as a quality or characteristic: They ascribed courage to me for something I did out of sheer panic.

the word subscribe on the other hand:

sub·scribe

verb (used with object), sub·scribed, sub·scrib·ing.
1. to pledge, as by signing an agreement, to give or pay (a sum of money) as a contribution, gift, or investment: He subscribed $6,000 for the new church.
2. to give or pay in fulfillment of such a pledge.
3. to append one's signature or mark to (a document), as in approval or attestation of its contents.
4. to attest by or as by signing.
5. to append, as one's signature, at the bottom of a document or the like; sign.


Funny that you corrected me by insisting that I should use an incorrect word that's commonly misused as the correct one that I used. But hey. You just keep on truckin'!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#153 Feb 10 2014 at 5:06 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
He's right, and you're a moron.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#154 Feb 10 2014 at 5:08 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
Funny that you corrected me by insisting that I should use an incorrect word that's commonly misused as the correct one that I used. But hey. You just keep on truckin'!


Link.

Quote:
Usually, when "ascribe" is mistakenly substituted for "subscribe" it is in a sentences like these, where "subscribe" means to give assent to something:


WRONG: He ascribes to the theory that the president is above the law.

CORRECT: He subscribes to the theory that the president is above the law.


WRONG: Most people refuse to ascribe to such conspiracy theories.

CORRECT: Most people refuse to subscribe to such conspiracy theories.


WRONG: Far too many people ascribe to the lie that Saddam Hussein was somehow connected to the September 11 terrorist attacks.

CORRECT: Far too many people subscribe to the lie that Saddam Hussein was somehow connected to the September 11 terrorist attacks.



The reason that "subscribe" means to agree with or to give assent to in these sentences is that one of the word's meanings is to sign underneath ("sub-scribe")--as, for example when one signs one's name to a petition to indicate agreement with the text of the petition.

If you are not sure about whether to use "ascribe" or "subscribe" in a given sentence, try substituting the word "credit" or "attribute" for "ascribe." If the sentence doesn't make sense with either of those words, then "ascribe" is not the word you want.
#155 Feb 10 2014 at 5:13 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
I was hoping we could spin this out over another ten posts before telling him why he was wrong, so that he'd never accept it.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#156 Feb 10 2014 at 5:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,753 posts
Page breaks are hard. Smiley: frown

Edited, Feb 10th 2014 3:32pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#157 Feb 10 2014 at 5:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,753 posts
Debalic wrote:
Stalker rdmcandie wrote:
Why so angry Smash. Does it make you mad that I can believe the science of the working body of our existence...and believe that there is a possibility that something made this great design for us to discover.

Or does it make you jealous?

The two beliefs aren't mutually exclusive...but hey believe what you want...you are just wrong.

One of those beliefs is entirely unnecessary and extraneous. It serves no purpose except to placate and control the grumbling masses.
The science one right?

Because if you give us money we can totally extend your lifespan. Smiley: nod
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#158 Feb 11 2014 at 7:51 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,327 posts
Funny

Sad, really. Your crippled learning ability must really affect your life in terrible ways. All that energy wasted insisting you are correct when you could actually LEARN something using half as much. Oh well, wanting something to be true is more important than data, eh?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#159 Feb 11 2014 at 7:54 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,327 posts
I was hoping we could spin this out over another ten posts before telling him why he was wrong, so that he'd never accept it.

Why on Earth would think he's going to accept it? He's mentally ill, he is incapable of taking responsibility for even the most trivial error.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#160 Feb 11 2014 at 9:11 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
There is a bit of funny in that he's also the guy insisting on everyone speaking English.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#161 Feb 11 2014 at 12:13 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I was hoping we could spin this out over another ten posts before telling him why he was wrong, so that he'd never accept it.

Why on Earth would think he's going to accept it? He's mentally ill, he is incapable of taking responsibility for even the most trivial error.


I've seen him accept he's wrong on relatively simple & trivial issues when confronted immediately with evidence. Far from a sure thing, you know, but there's always that small risk if you don't give him enough time to exercise his disability.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#162 Feb 11 2014 at 1:12 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,327 posts
I've seen him accept he's wrong on relatively simple & trivial issues when confronted immediately with evidence.

Nah. Not after insisting he was right once, that's the point where the disability kicks in. Make a minor mistake -> someone notices -> oh haha. Sure, that happens occasionally. Make a minor mistake -> someone notices -> insist it was they who made the mistake....cue the calliope music because we're on the merry go round of insanity now boys. There's no turning back from that ****
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#163 Feb 11 2014 at 1:39 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Yeah, you're right. I was too late to be the cause of one of his denial jaunts.

Still, there's always next time. That's the thing with gbaji, there's always a next time.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#164 Feb 11 2014 at 10:05 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,954 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I've seen him accept he's wrong on relatively simple & trivial issues when confronted immediately with evidence.

Nah. Not after insisting he was right once, that's the point where the disability kicks in. Make a minor mistake -> someone notices -> oh haha. Sure, that happens occasionally. Make a minor mistake -> someone notices -> insist it was they who made the mistake....cue the calliope music because we're on the merry go round of insanity now boys. There's no turning back from that sh*t.


It's a function of him deciding on something, and then sticking with it **** or high water. If you catch him before he has made a decision he is somewhat open to proof, but after that brief window closes there is no point. This is why nuanced explanations are more or less useless and any sort of grey area is alien. Think of him like a superhero; elevator pitch man.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#165 Feb 12 2014 at 9:19 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
I wonder if gbaji is a happy person?
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#166 Feb 12 2014 at 9:26 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,896 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
I wonder if gbaji is a happy person?

I imagine he has some fun trolling this forum.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#167 Feb 12 2014 at 10:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,753 posts
Elinda wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
I wonder if gbaji is a happy person?

I imagine he has some fun trolling this forum.
He probably votes Green Party too, it's all a farce. Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#168 Feb 12 2014 at 10:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sometimes I'd like to think that the usual goofs are just trolling.

Then I look at the current make-up of Congress and some of the nut bats serving terms. Then it seems more likely that half of the "liberal" posters here are just trolling Gbaji and ThiefX.

Also, I'm adding this line to get around the Duplicate Post filter.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#169 Feb 12 2014 at 7:03 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,577 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I've seen him accept he's wrong on relatively simple & trivial issues when confronted immediately with evidence.

Nah. Not after insisting he was right once, that's the point where the disability kicks in. Make a minor mistake -> someone notices -> oh haha. Sure, that happens occasionally. Make a minor mistake -> someone notices -> insist it was they who made the mistake....cue the calliope music because we're on the merry go round of insanity now boys. There's no turning back from that sh*t.


Huh? No. I was wrong in this case, but not necessarily for the reason you think. Even though I wrote the sentence one way, I was thinking of it in the opposite (more correct) way. What makes the difference between ascribe and subscribe in many cases (and definitely in this one) is the direction of the relationship. You can "ascribe" the Young Earth Theory to Creationists, but Creationists "subscribe" to the Young Earth Theory. The reason I was so sure I was right was because even though I wrote it wrong, the relationship between Creationists and the Young Earth Theory does match the meaning of ascribe more than subscribe. Young Earth Theory only exists as a claim of Creationists. Creationists don't really "subscribe" to the Theory because they made it. It's a subset of their own beliefs, not the other way around.

My mistake was how I wrote it, not the word I used. However, given that I did write it that way, you were correct to point out that the correct word to use in that sentence was subscribe and not ascribe. Um... Whatever. You're free to claim victory if that's what floats your boat.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#170 Feb 12 2014 at 7:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,224 posts
Transitive verbs, how do they work?
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#171 Feb 12 2014 at 7:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
31,577 posts
Samira wrote:
Transitive verbs, how do they work?


Aren't they they ones dressed as nouns?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#172 Feb 12 2014 at 7:37 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,842 posts
gbaji wrote:
Samira wrote:
Transitive verbs, how do they work?


Aren't they they ones dressed as nouns?


Full habit and everything, or the skimpy, **** type?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#173 Feb 12 2014 at 9:36 PM Rating: Good
******
30,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
Samira wrote:
Transitive verbs, how do they work?


Aren't they they ones dressed as nouns?


Ok, that one was pretty good.
#174 Feb 12 2014 at 10:04 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,327 posts

Huh? No. I was wrong in this case, but not necessarily for the reason you think. Even though I wrote the sentence one way, I was thinking of it in the opposite (more correct) way. What makes the difference between ascribe and subscribe in many cases (and definitely in this one) is the direction of the relationship. You can "ascribe" the Young Earth Theory to Creationists, but Creationists "subscribe" to the Young Earth Theory. The reason I was so sure I was right was because even though I wrote it wrong, the relationship between Creationists and the Young Earth Theory does match the meaning of ascribe more than subscribe. Young Earth Theory only exists as a claim of Creationists. Creationists don't really "subscribe" to the Theory because they made it. It's a subset of their own beliefs, not the other way around.

My mistake was how I wrote it, not the word I used. However, given that I did write it that way, you were correct to point out that the correct word to use in that sentence was subscribe and not ascribe. Um... Whatever. You're free to claim victory if that's what floats your boat.


Nah, you didn't know the difference. Hence my having to explain it to you and you still insisting you were using it correctly. While it's tempting (trust me) to believe you have no idea what you type and actually are thinking something entirely different, that clearly isn't the case here. It's universally acknowledged that you're a terribly poor writer, less frequently mentioned is your nightmarishly bad choice of word usage. Many of your posts read like Mike Tyson quoting Shakespeare. Words appear, but no one really seems sure why, you least of all.

Also, I went to Harvard and you didn't, so obviously I knew I was right.

Edited, Feb 12th 2014 11:05pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#175 Feb 13 2014 at 6:01 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,577 posts
Uh. Sure Smash. Whatever floats your boat.

Grammar issues aside, my point still stands though. I think that folks love to stretch or shrink the size of "creationists" to suit whatever aspect of the argument they're making at the moment. When attempting to paint all people of faith as anti-science, creationists includes all people who believe in any aspect of the Bible, including the vast majority who don't believe at all in a literal 6 24 hour creation, or counting all the folks since Adam and concluding the Earth is only a few thousand years old. But when someone counters that by pointing out that these people don't hold any beliefs that contradict science and evolution, suddenly "creationists" shrinks to only include those who do.

My point is that it's not contradictory for people to both believe in science and have faith in the divine. And cherry picking the few exceptions doesn't disprove that point.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#176 Feb 13 2014 at 8:30 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,327 posts
My point is that it's not contradictory for people to both believe in science and have faith in the divine. And cherry picking the few exceptions doesn't disprove that point.

OF course it is. I explained it earlier when I was pointing out your inability to communicate effectively in the English language. You'll be able to tell it's my post when you find it's readable and makes a salient point briefly. You may have to scroll about a bit to find it, obviously.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#177 Feb 13 2014 at 9:23 PM Rating: Excellent
**
501 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
My point is that it's not contradictory for people to both believe in science and have faith in the divine. And cherry picking the few exceptions doesn't disprove that point.

OF course it is. I explained it earlier when I was pointing out your inability to communicate effectively in the English language. You'll be able to tell it's my post when you find it's readable and makes a salient point briefly. You may have to scroll about a bit to find it, obviously.


It's only contradictory if you're a reductionist. If you're more philosophically minded, there's no issue at all.



Time and space didn't exist to create themselves, so whatever created our physical universe must exist outside the constraints of time and space. Being as there's no way to quantify such an entity, there's no way for us to understand it by any empirical, scientific means. To us, it's "nothing", but it isn't nothing, it's just beyond us.


Physicalists really want the universe to be a grossly oversimplified 2+2 = everything, but the universe isn't obligated to conform to our limitations. Science is a great tool for figuring out how the universe works, but wholly inadequate at answering how/why it exists at all.

Edited, Feb 13th 2014 10:28pm by CoalHeart
____________________________
Never regret.To regret is to assume.
#178 Feb 13 2014 at 9:47 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,577 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
My point is that it's not contradictory for people to both believe in science and have faith in the divine. And cherry picking the few exceptions doesn't disprove that point.

OF course it is. I explained it earlier when I was pointing out your inability to communicate effectively in the English language. You'll be able to tell it's my post when you find it's readable and makes a salient point briefly. You may have to scroll about a bit to find it, obviously.


It's interesting to me how "explained it" for you really just means repeating the same claim again. Just saying something doesn't make it true. Your statement about creationists only works if we take a very narrow (and in this case circular) definition of creationist. Which would be fine if you constrained your criticisms to merely that group. The problem is that you expand the group you attack as "anti-science" to include all people who believe in the divine. So you are arguing that one must either abandon every word in the Bible (not just the literal creation stuff) *or* abandon science.

I don't agree that this is required. I don't think that anything in science discounts the possibility that a divine force caused the whole universe to come into being, nor that said divine force isn't still lurking about and making changes. Note, that I also don't believe that the idea that a divine force may have created the universe and even still makes occasional changes discounts the theory of evolution either. For me, there's no need to attack the other.


I guess what bugs me about this entire topic is that even when Darwin was assembling his facts and setting down his theory, most people knew that the Earth was much older than a literal biblical accounting indicated. Geology was studied before Evolution came along, and we'd been pulling out bones from the ground long before Darwin, but it's like for some people they must believe that prior to Darwin everyone believed in a literal 6 day creation and young earth. Evolution was just another bit of data proving something that was already pretty well established. So I really don't get the whole "evolution proves the bible is wrong" bit. Even then, most people interpreted genesis in a more allegorical way. The idea that everyone believed in a literal 6 day creation prior to Darwin proving them wrong is just as much a myth as the idea that everyone believed the earth was flat until Columbus proved them wrong, or that women were relegated to raising the children and working in the kitchen until the 20th century women's rights movements came along. All are useful myths for one reason or another, but they are all just that: myths.

What actually happened is that literal creationism rose up in response to Evolution among some of the more dogmatic Christian sects. And in many cases, it was precisely because they fell for the "evolution disproves the bible" trap. It would not surprise me if more people believe in a literal creation today (as a percentage) than did back in the 19th century. Never underestimate the ability of an attack on something people believe in to get them to double down on said belief and adopt more strict interpretations than they would otherwise. Ask a sports fan what he thinks about his local team, and he'll likely give you a pretty reasonable pro and con assessment. Tell him his team sucks, and you'll get a far less objective response.

Same deal here IMO.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#179 Feb 13 2014 at 10:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,753 posts
CoalHeart wrote:
Physicalists really want the universe to be a grossly oversimplified 2+2 = everything, but the universe isn't obligated to conform to our limitations. Science is a great tool for figuring out how the universe works, but wholly inadequate at answering how/why it exists at all.
As of now, just wait! Smiley: nod

My biggest misgiving is more that a lot of people have the same blind faith in science that others have in religion. They really have no idea how science works, how it was performed, or what the results mean, but they'll take them at face value. Of course they'll also take at face value the creative speculation the author threw at the end of paper simply so he could get more funding. And completely believe "scientific studies" which are anything but. Frankly it is all a little disturbing. Smiley: frown

Because that Mediterranean diet totally is the greatest thing since sliced pasta. Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Feb 13th 2014 8:24pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#180 Feb 13 2014 at 10:41 PM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's interesting to me how "explained it" for you really just means repeating the same claim again. Just saying something doesn't make it true.
"At the risk of repeating yourself."
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#181 Feb 13 2014 at 11:41 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,942 posts
CoalHeart wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
My point is that it's not contradictory for people to both believe in science and have faith in the divine. And cherry picking the few exceptions doesn't disprove that point.

OF course it is. I explained it earlier when I was pointing out your inability to communicate effectively in the English language. You'll be able to tell it's my post when you find it's readable and makes a salient point briefly. You may have to scroll about a bit to find it, obviously.


It's only contradictory if you're a reductionist. If you're more philosophically minded, there's no issue at all.

Time and space didn't exist to create themselves, so whatever created our physical universe must exist outside the constraints of time and space. Being as there's no way to quantify such an entity, there's no way for us to understand it by any empirical, scientific means. To us, it's "nothing", but it isn't nothing, it's just beyond us.

Physicalists really want the universe to be a grossly oversimplified 2+2 = everything, but the universe isn't obligated to conform to our limitations. Science is a great tool for figuring out how the universe works, but wholly inadequate at answering how/why it exists at all.

So should we just stop looking? Say, There can't possibly be anything *before* the Big Bang but some sky wizard, so let's just stop probing the earliest recesses of the universe in case we risk angering him?

So many things have been unexplainable to us until we developed means to understanding how things worked. That hasn't changed. Saying "it's magic, leave it alone" is a real threat to understanding anything.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#182 Feb 14 2014 at 7:19 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,327 posts
Time and space didn't exist to create themselves, so whatever created our physical universe must exist outside the constraints of time and space

There's nothing to indicate this is the case. Absolutely nothing. The whole concept that anything had to have been "created" is idiotic. The entire **** premise BEGINS with the most childish tautology possible "There had to be something before this because I just created the idea "before" and decided arbitrarily that there is a "beginning" to time." Why? Oh right, because people don't understand math.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#183 Feb 14 2014 at 7:25 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,327 posts


It's interesting to me how "explained it" for you really just means repeating the same claim again. Just saying something doesn't make it true.


No, the evidence does. See, unlike religious belief, it's an easy bar to get over. There is a mountain of evidence. The most religious people are the least well educated and, in point of fact, have the lowest mean IQ when compared to agnostics or the 'casually religious'. Now compared to people who argue that anthropomorphic climate change isn't occurring they look like Einstein, sure, but they're still very very very very stupid. Also provably wrong. No one of any substantial intellect or education takes religion seriously on it's face. They may find it a useful means of social control or a convenient shorthand for a moral system they favor, virtually none of them believe in an actual invisible man in the sky impregnating random mortal women with his invisible **** and then those women going on to have magic water walking babies who sacrifice themselves for everyone.

Because to do so requires either brain damage or an astonishingly lack of critical thinking ability. It makes them less as people, the religious. By any measurement, they are less then.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#184 Feb 14 2014 at 10:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,753 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
virtually none of them believe in an actual invisible man in the sky impregnating random mortal women with his invisible **** and then those women going on to have magic water walking babies who sacrifice themselves for everyone.
What's the difference between religion and some movie you find on an obscure Japanese website in the wee hours of the morning?

Virtually nothing.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#185 Feb 14 2014 at 10:39 AM Rating: Excellent
**
501 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Time and space didn't exist to create themselves, so whatever created our physical universe must exist outside the constraints of time and space

There's nothing to indicate this is the case. Absolutely nothing. The whole concept that anything had to have been "created" is idiotic. The entire @#%^ing premise BEGINS with the most childish tautology possible "There had to be something before this because I just created the idea "before" and decided arbitrarily that there is a "beginning" to time." Why? Oh right, because people don't understand math.



You're right in that I'm not very good at math, but there are some principles everyone knows. Such as, you can't divide by zero and you can't get something from nothing. To my understanding, the greatest distance isn't 1 to infinity, but rather from zero to one.

In an action/reaction, cause and effect world, how do you "mathematically" explain something coming from nothing for absolutely no reason? Granted, that in no way implies a God or Gods created the Universe, but I still fail to see how science ( and by extension Math) could possibly provide "factual" answers.


To my understanding you seem to be saying there wasn't a "before", that there was never nothing as time didn't exist ( perhaps I'm misunderstanding you?). That still means that there was nothing, then something, or everything has always existed. Neither sound plausible to me.




Edited, Feb 14th 2014 11:51am by CoalHeart
____________________________
Never regret.To regret is to assume.
#186 Feb 14 2014 at 10:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,753 posts
Wait... who said something came from nothing now? Smiley: confused
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#187 Feb 14 2014 at 11:17 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
What's the difference between religion and some movie you find on an obscure Japanese website in the wee hours of the morning?

Virtually nothing.
Less tentacles in the religion, probably about the same amount of semen.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#188 Feb 14 2014 at 11:22 AM Rating: Good
Smasharoo wrote:
My point is that it's not contradictory for people to both believe in science and have faith in the divine. And cherry picking the few exceptions doesn't disprove that point.

OF course it is.


Ya no it isn't. Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive to each other. You can most certainly accept science and religion. Its quite ridiculous to see you argue the contrary though. Seriously you are a @#%^ing mong if you think one can not believe in science and religion. Then again you probably believe that religious belief is represented by the "I take this crudely translated old as balls Text literally word for word", but I can tell you that isn't religion and that religion has its whack jobs, just like the scientific community has people who think Humans cause Global warming (contribute =/= cause, and you are very very very naive to think differently as the scientific community will tell you).


All religion is and ill make it really short for you because you obviously do not have even a basic idea:
Belief in a spirit that embodies us and that living your life as a good person will grant you a peaceful death.

That is it.

All the rules and stories is just man made sh*t. Granted some people get caught up in the stories and sh*t, people like you who can't look past the fallacies in a 1500 year old book and think that its religion. As someone who is religious, and greatly appreciates science. Go @#%^ yourself for telling me I can't believe both at the same time...because I do every @#%^ing day...and no, one does not conflict with the other. Sorry to burst your bubble dude.

I use Religion loosely here, because obviously Faith is not Religion, Religion is an organization of like minded individuals who share a common belief structure, and also before you ask I don't prescribe to any Religious body. I read and study the histories and lessons of nearly all religions. Mostly because Religious text is just a glorified chronicle of the history of the period. Moses did part the Red Sea, but in the sense that instead of Egypt controlling it all, Egypt controlled the West, the Jews controlled the East. Parted the Sea...get it? Its pretty appalling to see you think religious faith is solely for the tools who take words of the text in a literal sense, but hey you are Smasharoo and it wouldn't be the first time your narrow intellectual scope limited your ability to be see a difference.

Edit: I figured it out. Smash is like Gbaji, but uses less words to look like an idiot.


EditEdit: I mean **** dude. For all we know we are just a bacteria colony sitting in a petri dish in some **** lab.

Edited, Feb 14th 2014 12:36pm by rdmcandie

Edited, Feb 14th 2014 12:51pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#189 Feb 14 2014 at 12:06 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,942 posts
Quote:
I mean sh*t dude. For all we know we are just a bacteria colony sitting in a petri dish in some @#%^ing lab.


To the Xel'naga, we are. That doesn't mean this ancient alien race is God. They're just more advanced than us.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#190 Feb 14 2014 at 12:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,224 posts
Quote:
To my understanding you seem to be saying there wasn't a "before", that there was never nothing as time didn't exist ( perhaps I'm misunderstanding you?). That still means that there was nothing, then something, or everything has always existed. Neither sound plausible to me.


It really doesn't matter how plausible it sounds to you. "Everything has always existed in some form" makes every bit as much sense as "God has always existed." In fact, depending on how you define God, maybe you're saying the same thing. Why accept the second statement and not the first?

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#191 Feb 14 2014 at 12:43 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,327 posts
Ya no it isn't. Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive to each other. You can most certainly accept science and religion. Its quite ridiculous to see you argue the contrary though. Seriously you are a @#%^ing mong if you think one can not believe in science and religion. Then again you probably believe that religious belief is represented by the "I take this crudely translated old as balls Text literally word for word"

No, I believe that religious belief is represented by "here is something I feel to be true with no evidence whatsoever," but with magic. So basically New and Improved Ignorance, Now With Miracles! Which, unequivocally, categorically, unarguably, is what religion is. All religions. Every religion. "Here are are a some things that are true. No one can possibly understand why. No one can prove or disprove them. Also: Magic!"

The moronic special treatment we give to this idiocy is simple a flaw in human psychology. "I belive eggs cause earthquakes" -lunatic "I believe angels help me in times of need" - someone we're supposed to respect and take seriously. Give me a **** break already. No sale. Give people actual **** opiates to deal with their ennui over the human condition. It would at least be honest and I might feel some compassion for them.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#192 Feb 14 2014 at 12:59 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,327 posts
In an action/reaction, cause and effect world, how do you "mathematically" explain something coming from nothing for absolutely no reason?

There is zero reason to think there was a "before" a "nothing" a "prior to the big bang". None of that has any actual meaning. This isn't a new concept. If we do, for whatever reason, take it to have meaning, it becomes a "because a wizard did it" meaningless argument almost instantly. The 5 year old in Sunday school who asks "who created God, though" understands this, how the **** did you make it to adulthood without having that realization?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#193 Feb 14 2014 at 1:25 PM Rating: Default
Smasharoo wrote:
Ya no it isn't. Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive to each other. You can most certainly accept science and religion. Its quite ridiculous to see you argue the contrary though. Seriously you are a @#%^ing mong if you think one can not believe in science and religion. Then again you probably believe that religious belief is represented by the "I take this crudely translated old as balls Text literally word for word"

No, I believe that religious belief is represented by "here is something I feel to be true with no evidence whatsoever," but with magic. So basically New and Improved Ignorance, Now With Miracles! Which, unequivocally, categorically, unarguably, is what religion is. All religions. Every religion. "Here are are a some things that are true. No one can possibly understand why. No one can prove or disprove them. Also: Magic!"

The moronic special treatment we give to this idiocy is simple a flaw in human psychology. "I belive eggs cause earthquakes" -lunatic "I believe angels help me in times of need" - someone we're supposed to respect and take seriously. Give me a @#%^ing break already. No sale. Give people actual @#%^ing opiates to deal with their ennui over the human condition. It would at least be honest and I might feel some compassion for them.


Thats an interesting take, and just emphasis your narrow intellectual scope even more. Just because you don't agree with the evidence that means there is no evidence? When people were sacrificing virgins to make it rain, and then it started to rain, that is evidence that their sacrifice worked. If it didn't rain they wouldn't have spent thousands of years sacrificing virgins to make it rain. Alas observational dependency is a great human weakness. When a family prays in their cellar for a tornado to miss their house then emerge to being the only house left standing on the block is that not evidence that their prayer worked, or did they just get lucky? Just because you don't agree with the evidence doesn't mean there isn't thousands of years of events that support the notion of an omnipotent being intervening in our existence. Whether you personally subscribe to that is irrelevant, the fact that billions of people have witnessed acts of god, is evidence to support the notion that divine intervention is just as probable and explanation as ocean current dictating weather patterns across North America.

Same really applies to our science. We have countless scientific analysis that are supported by observations. We can see the data supports the model. Just because we can see this doesn't make it any more factual than a god drinking the blood of a virgin to make it rain. There is no actual confirmation that anything we have "discovered" actually is fact. **** we could all just be getting trolled by the big guy in the sky who simply makes the system work so we can see what we want to see. Nothing we have discovered, studied, believe in, etc is based on any actual fact, because we have nothing to compare it to other than our own studies. We could be right, we could be wrong. Until we can compare notes with other intellectual and spiritual species, nothing we hold true can actually be called truth, because its all been compiled by a species that is entirely dependent on observation and experiences that we have witnessed.

Ultimately however despite your gross ignorance into what "evidence" actually is, nothing that you said supports your position that a person can not both believe in scientific analysis while at the same time hold faith in a religion. Not a single thing you have said in this entire thread supports that position, because it is unsupportable. Hundreds of millions of people trust in science and have faith in religion.

In short get bent, and stop making excuses for being antireligious. I don't care if you don't buy into religion, that is your thing, but to sit here and say you can not believe in Science, and hold faith is functionally retarded.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#194 Feb 14 2014 at 1:37 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,327 posts
Same really applies to our science. We have countless scientific analysis that are supported by observations. We can see the data supports the model. Just because we can see this doesn't make it any more factual than a god drinking the blood of a virgin to make it rain.

It does, actually. That's what "fact" means, by definition. If your point is "butterfly dreaming I'm a man" garbage, no one cares. You're not deep, you're wasting the time of anyone who isn't an adolescent.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#195 Feb 14 2014 at 1:46 PM Rating: Default
Smasharoo wrote:
Same really applies to our science. We have countless scientific analysis that are supported by observations. We can see the data supports the model. Just because we can see this doesn't make it any more factual than a god drinking the blood of a virgin to make it rain.

It does, actually. That's what "fact" means, by definition. If your point is "butterfly dreaming I'm a man" garbage, no one cares. You're not deep, you're wasting the time of anyone who isn't an adolescent.



Id rather waste peoples time being right, than waste it being wrong. You seem pretty effective in practicing the latter.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#196 Feb 14 2014 at 2:17 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,896 posts
Stalker rdmcandie wrote:
When people were sacrificing virgins to make it rain, and then it started to rain, that is evidence that their sacrifice worked. If it didn't rain they wouldn't have spent thousands of years sacrificing virgins to make it rain.
This isn't evidence. This is belief. There's no cause and effect what-so-ever.
Quote:
Alas observational dependency is a great human weakness. When a family prays in their cellar for a tornado to miss their house then emerge to being the only house left standing on the block is that not evidence that their prayer worked, or did they just get lucky?
Same thing. Take two exact houses set them in the same exact path of the exact tornado add two identical families that take the exact same actions ....except one prays while the other simple sings grateful dead tunes - do it over and over again, then tell me if you have evidence.

This is the difference between science and faith. Faith isn't evidence.

Edited, Feb 14th 2014 9:17pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#197 Feb 14 2014 at 2:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,753 posts
Elinda wrote:
This is the difference between good science and faith.
If I had a dollar for every idiot that wanted to publish an n=1 experiment and confirm their data with a poorly suited statistical test I'd be happily retired.

Well okay, maybe I'd have enough for a new ipad, that's still something though.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#198 Feb 14 2014 at 3:22 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
Stalker rdmcandie wrote:
Id rather waste peoples time being right,
When do you plan to start?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#199 Feb 14 2014 at 4:18 PM Rating: Decent
**
501 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
In an action/reaction, cause and effect world, how do you "mathematically" explain something coming from nothing for absolutely no reason?

There is zero reason to think there was a "before" a "nothing" a "prior to the big bang". None of that has any actual meaning. This isn't a new concept. If we do, for whatever reason, take it to have meaning, it becomes a "because a wizard did it" meaningless argument almost instantly. The 5 year old in Sunday school who asks "who created God, though" understands this, how the @#%^ did you make it to adulthood without having that realization?



How the **** could an adult possibly believe I hadn't made such a realization? I get that in your mind anyone who disagrees with you must be an idiot. What I don't get is how your brain can possibly make such extreme contortions of reality just to protect your fragile "I'm smarter than others" fallacy.


I never said a wizard did it. Actually, I didn't offer any explanation. I simply said it was beyond us to understand. That goes for science AND religion.
____________________________
Never regret.To regret is to assume.
#200 Feb 14 2014 at 4:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,753 posts
Smiley: popcorn
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#201 Feb 14 2014 at 4:32 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,842 posts
CoalHeart wrote:
I simply said it was beyond us to understand. That goes for science AND religion.


Except science chooses to keep exploring a possible answer, testing theories and evolving. Religion does not. Saying "We can't ever understand, so why try" is a pretty stupid thing to believe.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 53 All times are in CDT