Welcome to Gaia! ::

il-Lashtavar
Extraordinary Gentleman
il-Lashtavar
Extraordinary Gentleman
il-Lashtavar
Is someone offering you a Prius if you demonstrate your liberal values?

You're not accepting religious beliefs--you're tolerating them to be nonconfrontational. With the pretext that you believe in science, assumption being the two are logically comparable.

I would go on (faith vs experimentation and whatnot), but I don't feel like I need to do so.

"You believe in something (that I disagree with, mind you)? Good for youuuuu"
a**.


You need to relax, kid.

This is a discussion about my beliefs in comparison to yours.

You're judging me for believing in evolution.

God have mercy on you, sinner.
I'm judging you for being pretentious, not religious or atheistic.

Comparing your beliefs to mine, I see that you thing the two things compare. That's not acceptance; that's stupid. Religion and 'Scientific Theories' don't compare anymore than Aesop Fables and National Geographic.

Your religious views aren't any different than mine. You're just representing them in a way that's far more condescending than your realize.

Sentence one: Religions are wrong because science.
Sentence two: but you can believe what you want, despite that it's stupid.

I can continue to explain how this is a rude point of view if you want me to.
Mostly, I just hate to see this kind of ugly pretension. It wouldn't be any better if you were religious.


But, you're mad as ********.

On the internet.
I'm also incredibly drunk.

But when I wake up, I'll be sober and this thread will still be pretentious.


Churchill did it better.
il-Lashtavar's avatar

Shirtless Codger

Herald of Famine
il-Lashtavar
Extraordinary Gentleman
il-Lashtavar
Extraordinary Gentleman
il-Lashtavar
Is someone offering you a Prius if you demonstrate your liberal values?

You're not accepting religious beliefs--you're tolerating them to be nonconfrontational. With the pretext that you believe in science, assumption being the two are logically comparable.

I would go on (faith vs experimentation and whatnot), but I don't feel like I need to do so.

"You believe in something (that I disagree with, mind you)? Good for youuuuu"
a**.


You need to relax, kid.

This is a discussion about my beliefs in comparison to yours.

You're judging me for believing in evolution.

God have mercy on you, sinner.
I'm judging you for being pretentious, not religious or atheistic.

Comparing your beliefs to mine, I see that you thing the two things compare. That's not acceptance; that's stupid. Religion and 'Scientific Theories' don't compare anymore than Aesop Fables and National Geographic.

Your religious views aren't any different than mine. You're just representing them in a way that's far more condescending than your realize.

Sentence one: Religions are wrong because science.
Sentence two: but you can believe what you want, despite that it's stupid.

I can continue to explain how this is a rude point of view if you want me to.
Mostly, I just hate to see this kind of ugly pretension. It wouldn't be any better if you were religious.


But, you're mad as ********.

On the internet.
I'm also incredibly drunk.

But when I wake up, I'll be sober and this thread will still be pretentious.


Churchill did it better.
Churchill wasn't talking to some punk on the internet.
stealthmongoose's avatar

Dangerous Conversationalist

7,550 Points
  • Beta Forum Regular 0
  • Beta Citizen 0
  • Beta Contributor 0
Henry Hobo-Master
Jazin Kay
OP is just tolerant of others, which is okay.

Sure beats "believe in my specific deity or get yelled at" or "stop believing your fairy tales are true or get yelled at". OP is in the awesome ground. OP stands between the hatred.


Depends. There is not awesome ground to stand on. Nobody can be a winner when it comes to religion. The winners claim they are winners, while everyone else loses.

And OP's logic isn't sound, and IF God does exist, OP's logic is no longer awesome.

OP relies on science, and science isn't reliable (to a degree). Agnostic people on the other hand, who are open minded, are probably the most "awesome". They can be tolerant, and they can listen to various arguments without being biased.

But I do agree, tolerance is probably what OP is aiming for, but OP stands on questionable ground like everyone else.


I'm curious about this post for a small number of reasons.

1. Science is reliable and accurate in almost every medium that it is applied to. In what ways is Science inaccurate? Using the scientific method properly, even your most ignorant and asinine douche who tries to sneak in false information can be routed out for their lies. Where do you see an inaccuracy in this method, and where does the inaccuracy apply? More importantly, how does this inaccuracy compare to the inaccuracy of other systems?

2. I see you're using Pascal's Wager to justify the idea that OP's logic (for lack of accounting for your or someone else's favorite superhero) is somehow invalid. This argument pretty much defeats itself, and my attitude on the matter doesn't change the truth of the statement. How does being more gullible than your average person make someone more awesome? I'm sorry Henry, but i'm just not seeing how someone more gullible makes them a better person or more capable of defending their position. And that's what you're proposing an agnostic person is. Someone who is open-minded to the point of rejecting scientific corroborative evidence and actual possibility. I suppose you'll be up there with the people who think reptilians are ruling the universe and considering the opposition biased for using physical evidence to counter their claims.

3. Tolerance of their rituals, and acceptance that they believe their own s**t. If he were only tolerant of their beliefs, he wouldn't be apt to let them even claim that they believe it without saying that they do not. I do agree, however, that every stance is questionable, but some are much more solid than others...and not because of some pandering and sycophantry towards social etiquette and "Who has the better attitude" rather than "who is right".




Notice in the example above how even without the polite words and near sexual obsession with manners, the reality of our universe is presentable in a comparable way. Religion has a basis of fiction, while science has a basis of fact.

The tolerance or intolerance/acceptance of your belief is a moot point, since the truth of our universe is not only observable, but comparable to many religious claims. In the case of the unfortunate Christian Doctrine, it has been proven WRONG time and time again on various principles, and yet the change that should come to the doctrine is not forthcoming for the sake of preserving religious bullshit (and i use that word as lightly as possible).

To those who insist on screaming against a mountain and expecting it to move by your words alone, remember that science CAN BE USED TO DEBUNK RELIGIOUS CLAIMS!
M a h z a l a's avatar

Anxious Browser

7,350 Points
  • Hygienic 200
  • Signature Look 250
  • Forum Regular 100
Extraordinary Gentleman

Islam murders women just because they dont dress a certain way


I was actually about to call you a really nice guy for trying to be all tolerant and whatnot, and just be accepting of the religions followed around you, but now I can't. I also have to add that you are very ignorant about some of them as well.

Islam does not call for the murder of women if they don't dress a certain way.

Quote:
you cant expect me to believe that a god had created everything.


You can't expect me to believe that a God didn't create everything.

And also what if you follow a religion that has both faith and science?
AvenirLegacy's avatar

Gaian

Extraordinary Gentleman
For I believe in no religion, because science has made every religion mute.

But good for you that you believe in something, I, however, belive in evolution.


Is there a discussion here, or should we burn you alive with your white parasol?
AvenirLegacy's avatar

Gaian

Extraordinary Gentleman


You're judging me for believing in evolution.


Oh, now we got something.

So some statements.

-You believe in Evolution
-Some people believe in God
-Some people believe in Creationism
-Some people believe in Divine Intervention
-Some people believe in Intelligent Design

Can you prove any of these? Can you disprove any of these?

You can prove you believe in them, but that makes you no different than someone who believes in Creationism.
stealthmongoose's avatar

Dangerous Conversationalist

7,550 Points
  • Beta Forum Regular 0
  • Beta Citizen 0
  • Beta Contributor 0
M a h z a l a
Extraordinary Gentleman

Islam murders women just because they dont dress a certain way


I was actually about to call you a really nice guy for trying to be all tolerant and whatnot, and just be accepting of the religions followed around you, but now I can't. I also have to add that you are very ignorant about some of them as well.

Islam does not call for the murder of women if they don't dress a certain way.

Quote:
you cant expect me to believe that a god had created everything.


You can't expect me to believe that a God didn't create everything.

And also what if you follow a religion that has both faith and science?


Even though that argument was directed OP, i'd like to take a crack at your 'points.'

1. You seem to be spot on with this one, as the Qu'Ran only suggests that you BEAT wives who are defiant of the dress code , not kill them. So much better... e . e

2. Science is not dependent on faith. If you steal the hard work of scientists and then claim a deific presence behind it, then you are not doing science and your results will come out flawed unless you steal more information from legitimate scientists and then slap a deity where the unknowns are.

User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.
stealthmongoose's avatar

Dangerous Conversationalist

7,550 Points
  • Beta Forum Regular 0
  • Beta Citizen 0
  • Beta Contributor 0
AvenirLegacy
Extraordinary Gentleman


You're judging me for believing in evolution.


Oh, now we got something.

So some statements.

-You believe in Evolution
-Some people believe in God
-Some people believe in Creationism
-Some people believe in Divine Intervention
-Some people believe in Intelligent Design

Can you prove any of these? Can you disprove any of these?

You can prove you believe in them, but that makes you no different than someone who believes in Creationism.


Abiogenesis and evolution both have proofs that are concurrent with their burdens and in sync with the universe we inhabit No major religion or holy book is concurrent with the evidence to the degree that science is.



Our natural geography and paths of evolution from the standpoint of one species to the de-integration and separation into two or more separate species is well accounted within science as well. No religion or intelligent design can claim the accuracy to which science demonstrates the truth to us.



These videos both include VISUAL PROOFS and references to observable and REPEATABLE experiments to demonstrate the accuracy of their theories. Science is not about injecting your imagination into whatever you're looking for, it's about looking at the data as it is and following those patterns to try to figure out what is actually next.
M a h z a l a's avatar

Anxious Browser

7,350 Points
  • Hygienic 200
  • Signature Look 250
  • Forum Regular 100
stealthmongoose

1. You seem to be spot on with this one, as the Qu'Ran only suggests that you BEAT wives who are defiant of the dress code , not kill them. So much better... e . e


I suggest you read the verse again. It doesn't say you can beat your wives if they don't dress a certain way.

An explanation on that verse can be found here.

Quote:
2. Science is not dependent on faith. If you steal the hard work of scientists and then claim a deific presence behind it, then you are not doing science and your results will come out flawed unless you steal more information from legitimate scientists and then slap a deity where the unknowns are.


I never said that any of them are dependent on each other, just that in my religion both of them coincide. Islam does not accept the world is 6,000 years old or that the earth is the center of the universe, etc. People are still trying to prove that a God exists or not with science, when already for me and many people science itself is the proof of the existence of a God. The advances in science actually increase my faith in God not decrease it.
stealthmongoose's avatar

Dangerous Conversationalist

7,550 Points
  • Beta Forum Regular 0
  • Beta Citizen 0
  • Beta Contributor 0
M a h z a l a
stealthmongoose

1. You seem to be spot on with this one, as the Qu'Ran only suggests that you BEAT wives who are defiant of the dress code , not kill them. So much better... e . e


I suggest you read the verse again. It doesn't say you can beat your wives if they don't dress a certain way.

An explanation on that verse can be found here.

Quote:
2. Science is not dependent on faith. If you steal the hard work of scientists and then claim a deific presence behind it, then you are not doing science and your results will come out flawed unless you steal more information from legitimate scientists and then slap a deity where the unknowns are.


I never said that any of them are dependent on each other, just that in my religion both of them coincide. Islam does not accept the world is 6,000 years old or that the earth is the center of the universe, etc. People are still trying to prove that a God exists or not with science, when already for me and many people science itself is the proof of the existence of a God. The advances in science actually increase my faith in God not decrease it.


1. I have read the verse again. It terms defiance as grounds for beating someone. The terminology is not changed by translation any more than the bible is, in which the practices and precepts at their core have only been edited by the councils and so on that removed whole verses and books for the sake of societal pandering and deception.

2. If science and your religion coincide, then you have made a concession of one over the other rather than explore the truths of both to see how different they truly are in their approach to observing the universe. I will now disprove islam with science, though you're welcome to tell me what your particular religion is at any time.



Embryonic development, semen dispersal, the very basic functions of SEX are beyond the grasp of the Quran as a holy book. I see no difference between your claim that both practices (religion and science) coincide and the claim that you are using FAITH to determine what should be determinable and attributable by science to our natural world.

Rather than keep your beliefs shrouded in mystery however, i would suggest putting them on the table so that we can investigate and observe the truths about them.
Extraordinary Gentleman's avatar

Beloved Regular

M a h z a l a
Extraordinary Gentleman

Islam murders women just because they dont dress a certain way


I was actually about to call you a really nice guy for trying to be all tolerant and whatnot, and just be accepting of the religions followed around you, but now I can't. I also have to add that you are very ignorant about some of them as well.

Islam does not call for the murder of women if they don't dress a certain way.


In Shariah law, it is illegal for women to be out in public without dressing modestly.

In Saudi Arabia, even, women who are not covered head to toe in modest clothing can be beaten and killed.

I.E. Murdered
AvenirLegacy's avatar

Gaian

stealthmongoose
AvenirLegacy
Extraordinary Gentleman


You're judging me for believing in evolution.


Oh, now we got something.

So some statements.

-You believe in Evolution
-Some people believe in God
-Some people believe in Creationism
-Some people believe in Divine Intervention
-Some people believe in Intelligent Design

Can you prove any of these? Can you disprove any of these?

You can prove you believe in them, but that makes you no different than someone who believes in Creationism.



These videos both include VISUAL PROOFS and references to observable and REPEATABLE experiments to demonstrate the accuracy of their theories. Science is not about injecting your imagination into whatever you're looking for, it's about looking at the data as it is and following those patterns to try to figure out what is actually next.


Excellent. You proved it with evidence. I would love to see the OP do it in his own words. Don't fight his battles, I'm just testing the waters to see how full of crap he really is.
stealthmongoose's avatar

Dangerous Conversationalist

7,550 Points
  • Beta Forum Regular 0
  • Beta Citizen 0
  • Beta Contributor 0
AvenirLegacy
stealthmongoose
AvenirLegacy
Extraordinary Gentleman


You're judging me for believing in evolution.


Oh, now we got something.

So some statements.

-You believe in Evolution
-Some people believe in God
-Some people believe in Creationism
-Some people believe in Divine Intervention
-Some people believe in Intelligent Design

Can you prove any of these? Can you disprove any of these?

You can prove you believe in them, but that makes you no different than someone who believes in Creationism.



These videos both include VISUAL PROOFS and references to observable and REPEATABLE experiments to demonstrate the accuracy of their theories. Science is not about injecting your imagination into whatever you're looking for, it's about looking at the data as it is and following those patterns to try to figure out what is actually next.


Excellent. You proved it with evidence. I would love to see the OP do it in his own words. Don't fight his battles, I'm just testing the waters to see how full of crap he really is.


This is not a formal debate. If you wish to have a formal debate, i would suggest setting up a skype video call or perhaps a PM bout between you two and screencap the results or something.

"Stay out of this" is not an argument that i'm going to participate in within this forum. I agree that as the creator of this thread he should be well-prepared and capable of defending his position, but preventing me from speaking my position and providing data that OP could cite and source as well as research isn't going to make me any less inclined to speak my view on the matter.
AvenirLegacy's avatar

Gaian

stealthmongoose
AvenirLegacy
stealthmongoose
AvenirLegacy
Extraordinary Gentleman


You're judging me for believing in evolution.


Oh, now we got something.

So some statements.

-You believe in Evolution
-Some people believe in God
-Some people believe in Creationism
-Some people believe in Divine Intervention
-Some people believe in Intelligent Design

Can you prove any of these? Can you disprove any of these?

You can prove you believe in them, but that makes you no different than someone who believes in Creationism.



These videos both include VISUAL PROOFS and references to observable and REPEATABLE experiments to demonstrate the accuracy of their theories. Science is not about injecting your imagination into whatever you're looking for, it's about looking at the data as it is and following those patterns to try to figure out what is actually next.


Excellent. You proved it with evidence. I would love to see the OP do it in his own words. Don't fight his battles, I'm just testing the waters to see how full of crap he really is.


This is not a formal debate. If you wish to have a formal debate, i would suggest setting up a skype video call or perhaps a PM bout between you two and screencap the results or something.

"Stay out of this" is not an argument that i'm going to participate in within this forum. I agree that as the creator of this thread he should be well-prepared and capable of defending his position, but preventing me from speaking my position and providing data that OP could cite and source as well as research isn't going to make me any less inclined to speak my view on the matter.


Oh, I wasn't trying to silence you. I just assumed the OP did not have respect for others when he called someone a sinner, or even used the word "Judgement", even in jest. Our views are already firmly established, he may have started the debate, he should at least tune in when he's called on in his own thread.
stealthmongoose's avatar

Dangerous Conversationalist

7,550 Points
  • Beta Forum Regular 0
  • Beta Citizen 0
  • Beta Contributor 0
AvenirLegacy
stealthmongoose
AvenirLegacy
stealthmongoose
AvenirLegacy
Extraordinary Gentleman


You're judging me for believing in evolution.


Oh, now we got something.

So some statements.

-You believe in Evolution
-Some people believe in God
-Some people believe in Creationism
-Some people believe in Divine Intervention
-Some people believe in Intelligent Design

Can you prove any of these? Can you disprove any of these?

You can prove you believe in them, but that makes you no different than someone who believes in Creationism.



These videos both include VISUAL PROOFS and references to observable and REPEATABLE experiments to demonstrate the accuracy of their theories. Science is not about injecting your imagination into whatever you're looking for, it's about looking at the data as it is and following those patterns to try to figure out what is actually next.


Excellent. You proved it with evidence. I would love to see the OP do it in his own words. Don't fight his battles, I'm just testing the waters to see how full of crap he really is.


This is not a formal debate. If you wish to have a formal debate, i would suggest setting up a skype video call or perhaps a PM bout between you two and screencap the results or something.

"Stay out of this" is not an argument that i'm going to participate in within this forum. I agree that as the creator of this thread he should be well-prepared and capable of defending his position, but preventing me from speaking my position and providing data that OP could cite and source as well as research isn't going to make me any less inclined to speak my view on the matter.


Oh, I wasn't trying to silence you. I just assumed the OP did not have respect for others when he called someone a sinner, or even used the word "Judgement", even in jest. Our views are already firmly established, he may have started the debate, he should at least tune in when he's called on in his own thread.


A contingency in case you were, nothing more. I don't think sattire is a form of disrespect so much as communication, especially when the source of the sattire is fictional. In calling his opposition a sinner, I observe that he is rebutting his opposition's point in relativity to his opposition's attitude.

If, for example, you came up to me in the middle of the street and told me to ******** off, i wouldn't regale you with the reasons why your suggestion for me to have sexual intercourse while leaving was a silly notion, or go into the etymology of the word ********.

Instead, i'd probably flip you a middle finger, since that would be the language this hypothetical you seems to understand upon first encounter, and request that you anally rape yourself and proceed to imbibe large amounts of feces. In slang though, of course.

In this way, i think OP's response was quite fitting to the nature in which his opponent approached him, and while his argument is a bit on the raw side, i don't find anything wrong with it.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games