ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:32 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 76 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 3:52 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 918
Location: Elsewhere
Wrin wrote:
Tomkat wrote:
Radio wrote:
I revoke this DNI because lawlzevolutiondebating.


I re-instate it.

-Kitty


(light-hearted tone) I dare anyone to try and revoke my DNI other than me in the first place, especially in a joking way. ;)

I revoke yet again because 1) completely and utterly pointless. No initiations anymore so DNIs have no meaning. And 2) lawlzevolutiondebating.

At least kick it up a notch and debate gravity. Then it'd be worth it(if, you know, there was a point).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 3:59 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 6793
Location: OI!
Radio wrote:
Wrin wrote:
Tomkat wrote:
Radio wrote:
I revoke this DNI because lawlzevolutiondebating.


I re-instate it.

-Kitty


(light-hearted tone) I dare anyone to try and revoke my DNI other than me in the first place, especially in a joking way. ;)

I revoke yet again because 1) completely and utterly pointless. No initiations anymore so DNIs have no meaning. And 2) lawlzevolutiondebating.


Except, no.

He could be debating if grass is green. It's in the debate club. TC is doing a decent job. And he relents when he's doing wrong. And he's actually looked things up.

Fuck your LAWLZOPINION shit.

tacticslion, you're DNI'd by both Wrin and Myself. You're gonna wanna put that in your Sig - as Radio pointed out, we don't initiate much anymore, but DNIs are still a token worth wearing.

-Kitty

_________________
No. Antidisestablishmentarianism. Enigma. Muraena. Pundit. Malaise. Clusterfuck. Hootenanny.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: :o
PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:39 am 
Offline
Tourist
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 2:52 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Earth
Wow. I don't update in six days and apparently am still the subject of controversy! Ya wanna watch that... it can go to a guys head... get him thinking he could ramble forever... :D

Wrin and Kitty: :o
Thanks! I'm honored! :oops: / :D Sweet!

Radio: :confused:
What does 'lawlzevolutiondebating' actually mean anyway? (Off topic, but just curious). And thanks!

Tossrock: :D
Yes! I'm glad you're still hangin' out with us! Thanks!

Alright, before we go on, just a point of clarification: are you talking about the specific aspects of slavery and dietary laws only shown in the verses, or the two law-groups as a whole? It changes what I'm answering to, and helps me keep it shorter, if I'm not guessing what the question is. But, as a general rule I agree with most everything in the scriptures.

About the only place that anyone has the ability to get at me are the situations in which the Lord ordered the complete and wholesale slaughter of several cities (most notably this happened in the books of Joshua, Judges, and in the books of I & II Samuel and Kings (and the Chronicals which were repitious books of the Samuel and Kings). The kind of response I give myself, but I doubt it stands up to others, is that a) when the Lord did it Himself, it isn't such a bothering prospect (ex: Sodom and Gamorrah), so why is it when He tells people to do it, and b) He's God (my guess/reasoning behind why it doesn't bother me so much when it's Him doing it). There are other reasons (political backlash, idolotry, the afore-mentioned concept of inhereted sin/debt, etc), some of them better, and if you'd like I could try and get at them, but those are just mine.

If you want ammo for poking at what the Bible says and my belief, that's about all I can give you. After having read through it a bunch myself, it's about all I can find. If you want to debate any specific points, that's fun too!

But... I think I still owe Wrin an explanation of something about Jesus being conflicted? Anyway, I'd be happy to debate whichever point, because currently I'm uncertain of the questions being asked of me, but I think we'll either a) need to find a point and stick to it (which it seems to be currently, but not inexorably, gravitating toward either internal or external Biblical consistency) b) agree that I'm addicted to Mountain Dew after the last several days without sleep and c) look at the spinning Bill Nye head: :billnye: (aka I forgot points b and c)

_________________
DNI'ed by Wrin (for editing a bunch) and Tomkat (for being longwinded)!
_____________________________________
If a wizard did it,
And if Ian did it,
And if Sarda is the wizard who did it,
Does that make Sarda Ian's alias?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:59 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 12:31 am
Posts: 1587
Location: Bay Area
lawlzevolutiondebating means (no offense) that people who try and argue against evolution tend to be, how you say, <i>dumb</i>. You've certainly proven otherwise for yourself, but there you have it.

I'm referring to the law groups in general; do you follow kosher laws and agree with slavery? Most christians don't. I consider pretty much the whole old testament a crazy jewish fairy tale. Obviously the "believe all of the scriptures" statement brings up the issue of inherrant contradictions in the bible: eye for an eye or turn the other cheek?

Back on the subject that got this whole thing started, I doubt you'll ever be able to sufficiently answer the problem of evil to convince me; I'm cynical and mean. At least Hinduism has the balls to straight up say, "those fuckers got what was coming to them"; I can respect that. Just as dumb overall, but at least internally consistent.

Oh well. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree; we both have our viewpoints, and I doubt they'll ever be changed by debate.

_________________
<img src="http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f340/Tossrock/sigreducedjx2-1.jpg">


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:08 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 918
Location: Elsewhere
Tossrock wrote:
lawlzevolutiondebating means (<s>no offense</s>) that people who try and argue against evolution tend to be, how you say, <i>fucking moronic</i>. <s>You've certainly proven otherwise for yourself, but there you have it.</s>

Fixed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:15 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1276
Location: Hanging in the endless void with nothing but entropy and fluff for company.
Radio wrote:
Tossrock wrote:
lawlzevolutiondebating means (<s>no offense</s>) that people who try and argue against evolution tend to be, how you say, <i>fucking moronic</i>. <s>You've certainly proven otherwise for yourself, but there you have it.</s>

Fixed.


Radio, you've been a little bit...overly...abusive lately in some of your posts. What the hell's going on? It seems to be kind of random...

_________________
~ Wrin
Labrat wrote:
As screwed up as the world is, it has to have been designed by comittee. Diskworld-style.

Jin wrote:
...I cursed at the computer screen for an hour and a half while striking it with my genitals.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:49 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 918
Location: Elsewhere
Wrin wrote:
Radio wrote:
Tossrock wrote:
lawlzevolutiondebating means (<s>no offense</s>) that people who try and argue against evolution tend to be, how you say, <i>fucking moronic</i>. <s>You've certainly proven otherwise for yourself, but there you have it.</s>

Fixed.


Radio, you've been a little bit...overly...abusive lately in some of your posts. What the hell's going on? It seems to be kind of random...

In this instance, abuse is not intended. Whether it is regarded as abuse, I don't necessarily care. Simply put though, this is not an instance of a smart individual capably arguing a controversial position. He may very well be intelligent. His arguments here do not prove this, as they are hardly capable ones, using every sleight of hand available to him.

Quote:
So… why, then, besides the fact that it’s unpleasant to admit that we’re beholden to a Being much greater than ourselves, and are incapable of making restitution on our own, is it ‘bullshit’ to believe in a mythical progenitor? Heck, Hinduism, one of the most popular religions on earth right now, believes we came from milk. Very well divinely churned, infinite milk. Holy cow. Literally. Technically, so does Buddhism, one of the most respected religions on the planet. And evolution believes that natural processes that have a zero percent success rate are responsible for life, the universe, and everything. Huh. People will believe the craziest things.

Quote:
he fact is, none of us were there, at least not on any kind of scientific record. We can’t say for sure we existed more than three seconds ago…

Quote:
Still, we talked for a while, and then he said the strangest thing. He's not a Christian, and when he'd gone into astronomy, like any good kid who learned everything he could, he was an atheist. Recent surveys, he told me, indicated that 75% of astronomers started our atheists. By retirement age 75% of astronomers ended theists or more religious. Interesting reversal of roles. I thanked him and left, feeling dejected, not realizing the importance of what he said at the time. Funny how life works like that.

Quote:
Yet, ultimately, we still fail to prove anything. Because the sources are under debate to crediblity, we can't rely on them... unless we choose to. Ultimately, this is what it all comes down to. If you look at it in any way, no matter what, it's all a choice. A choice on what to believe, what to accept, and why.

Quote:
Given all the evidence that we have, we've proven that either a) no one has found the truth yet (because again, the post-Big Bang events have zero percent chance to actually succeed in making us as we are, and obviously, anything with religion in it can't be trusted by science) or b) someone has found the truth and there are things that obscure it so it's not obvious to all. I'd tend to fall under b) myself, but again, it's a choice.

Quote:
In science, we're essentially guessing about everything, based on reason and logic and repeatable experiments. If this is our only standards were reason and logic, we get to the point where we question even everything we experience and recieve, according to our senses. Who is to say that we aren't experience a consentual mass-hallucination right now? Logically, we have no reason to deny it, since we know that our own senses can be fooled, they can't be trusted in all things, and if they can't be trusted in all things, then why trust them at all?

Quote:
The fact is, according to science's basic tennets, if we weren't there, we can't define it as science. For anything that lacks a historical record, we can't assume that we were there. That means, it's not science.

Quote:
Instead, evolutionary theory became suddenly very popular as a means of excising God from a group of scientists who wanted something other than the oppressive religion they'd grown up under. Of course Darwin's theory matched the Deep Time... he'd made his theory based on it. We've now proven that Darwinian evolution is more rediculous than most theories, yet evolution itself persists, just in very different forms. It's getting more refined, more reasonable, and more accurate as time goes on... it's just not there yet, in my opinion, and in the opinion of several very well respected multi-PhD athiests.

Quote:
Finally, even given that evolution is proven to happen today, we'd have to prove, for creationist (like I am) that it happened in the past, which is patently impossible. We can conjecture, and point, and say 'well it's logical that...' but there is no way to prove it.

Quote:
I've never intentionally stated that evolutionists are rediculous, only one specific evolutionary theory. Specifically Darwinian evolution, because it's based on a flawed scientific theory that has been proven false. Current evolutionary theory (Post Neo Darwinian evolution) is based off of scientific theories that are not proven false, but their original foundation (Darwinian evolution) was.

These statements are utter bullshit. Semantics, Jack Chick science, ridiculous notions of "evolution is because of atheism!" and completely ignoring logical statements(no, very low odds do not automatically equal "zero chance of success" despite the repitition) do not equate to evolution being seriously flawed or even remotely near the same levels as arguments from religious sources. Creationist theories are junk. Evolution is superior to every single one of them.

Simply being more polite than Mibbers does not make one a good debater.

And one last note: bullshit conciliatory statements are just that. Bullshit. "I'm totally not trying to tell you that evolution is worthless, nosirree, but... evolution is worthless." You can change the phrases to whatever synonymous ones you want, but every time, it's nothing more than an insult to your target/reader's intelligence. Say what you mean and mean what you say. None of this nonsense.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:12 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:45 pm
Posts: 368
Location: Washington
Pro-theist arguments always reminded me of post-death spasms.

_________________
----
dA


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Er...
PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:18 am 
Offline
Tourist
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 2:52 pm
Posts: 59
Location: Earth
Radio: :confused:
Er... what?

No. I've never said evolution is worthless. In specific instances, yes. In specific aspects of some theories, yes. I've pointed out logical, mathematical, and, yes, semantic problems. I've even touched on 'intellectual masturbation' for the sake of the topic. But what I've claimed is that a) this is my own belief, and that's all and b) this is the form of my belief, the logic behind it, and my reasoning. I cannot claim to disprove evolution. Re-read my statements - long and boring as they might be - and look at what I'm actually saying.

And Radio, as for my quotes: forgive me if my language or the form of words I used to show my logic and beliefs offended you. If it's just my beliefs, however, you have no reason to be petty. You show no evidence, and have contributed nothing to the argument other than insults to me.

This is not an evolution-debate thread. If you wish to debate evolution with me, I'd be glad to... simply necro-fu the appropriate debate thread, and then you can feel free to be belligerent to my awkward attempts to point out the fact that my religious beliefs aren't science. They can't be.

I am now responding to something I said I wouldn't (creation/evolution-debate post), and I'm sorry that I'm doing so, however, I thought I'd give it one more chance for a civil discourse. If you wish to debate my beliefs, feel free. But don't insult them on purpose. I shall try not to insult your intelligence either.

Let's recap: My beliefs are not science. I never claimed they were. My point wasn't to ruin others' beliefs, but to simply show mine, and if others were challenged, so much the better for both of us (because mine certainly are). I will no longer be responding to flames and/or creation-v-evolution posts here, though I will, if someone necro-fu's the board, gladly join in a reasonable discussion about evolution and/or creation. Also, I talk too much.

Tossrock: :)
S'ok. I never expected to change anyone! It IS fun, though!
So if you're interested I will gladly get to the laws at somepoint. For now, however, forgive me because I've spent too much time talking and have stuff to do before work today. Sorry!

_________________
DNI'ed by Wrin (for editing a bunch) and Tomkat (for being longwinded)!
_____________________________________
If a wizard did it,
And if Ian did it,
And if Sarda is the wizard who did it,
Does that make Sarda Ian's alias?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:04 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 918
Location: Elsewhere
YOU wrote:
And evolution believes that natural processes that have a zero percent success rate are responsible for life, the universe, and everything. Huh. People will believe the craziest things.

You did. Don't lie.

And again, stop with the conciliatory bullshit like "forgive me if my logic and beliefs offended you." I'm not and the assuming that I am appears to be nothing more than an attempt to wave off disagreement. I'm simply laughing at other people having taken your posts so seriously before.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:29 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1276
Location: Hanging in the endless void with nothing but entropy and fluff for company.
Radio wrote:
TC wrote:
And evolution believes that natural processes that have a zero percent success rate are responsible for life, the universe, and everything. Huh. People will believe the craziest things.

You did. Don't lie.

And again, stop with the conciliatory bullshit like "forgive me if my logic and beliefs offended you." I'm not and the assuming that I am appears to be nothing more than an attempt to wave off disagreement. I'm simply laughing at other people having taken your posts so seriously before.


Radio, regardless of whether or not he allows himself to be swayed by logic, critical thinking, scientific method, common sense or even a gun to the head this is a debate forum. He is debating, even if that is by recycling arguments. If you don't feel like reading it then don't check the thread. The name is obvious, and you don't have to be an asshole about it. Also, if you don't think his arguments are legitimate ask for sources. This, for instance:
TC wrote:
...because it's based on a flawed scientific theory that has been proven false...

TC, where and by whom has evolution been "proven false?" Who told you this?

Also, Radio, I hate to say it but it's a lot easier to prove something false than it is to prove it true because by the scientific method you only have to negate one aspect of something to say it's incorrect, and you have to prove that nothing CAN be wrong with it to say it's correct. The other side of this is that if you prove only one aspect of a theory false, it is simply revised, reanalyzed and resubmitted for study. So please, don't be an ass when you don't have to be.

_________________
~ Wrin
Labrat wrote:
As screwed up as the world is, it has to have been designed by comittee. Diskworld-style.

Jin wrote:
...I cursed at the computer screen for an hour and a half while striking it with my genitals.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:55 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:45 pm
Posts: 368
Location: Washington
These arguments are useless, join my church.

Eternal salvation for thirty bux, beat that!

_________________
----
dA


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 2:26 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 1:34 am
Posts: 2715
Location: Podunk, MI
As an ordained minister, I can offer eternal salvation from Bob, God of shiny things. And it'd be legal too. In fact, I married my best friend to his current wife last summer. It was bloody awesome.

http://www.ulc.org/ bitches!

_________________
"Oh, look who it is / It's my supportive wife/ And she thinks she's going to squeal/ Hey where do you think you're going?/ Don't you walk away from me/ You put down that telephone /You're not calling anyone"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 3:06 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:45 pm
Posts: 368
Location: Washington
Rusty wrote:
As an ordained minister, I can offer eternal salvation from Bob, God of shiny things. And it'd be legal too. In fact, I married my best friend to his current wife last summer. It was bloody awesome.

http://www.ulc.org/ bitches!


Wow, that's a cool alternative to a run-of-the-mill christian wedding. I'd totally get ordained and marry two people at a bondage themed wedding.

: D

_________________
----
dA


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 11:40 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 918
Location: Elsewhere
Wrin wrote:
He is debating, even if that is by recycling arguments. If you don't feel like reading it then don't check the thread.

He debated poorly which is why I simply posted denying him a pointless DNI, and further elaborated on why.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:33 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3706
Thread locked. There's very little actual Debate and much more of Unrelated Stuff-style off-topic chit chat. Those of you who wish to seriously debate the topic at hand can continue to do so <a href="http://forums.kyhm.com/viewtopic.php?t=8859">here</a>.

ptlis

_________________
There's mischief and malarkies but no queers or yids or darkies
within this bastard's carnival, this vicious cabaret.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 76 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group