The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Started by Dr McBeefington3,287 pages
Dr McBeefington Restricted

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Ask me any question regarding my theory of the super computer programming. Go on. I'll have an answer to every question. The problem is, there would be nothing indicating these answers are correct.

Except we have a 4,000 year old book which is 100% logical, which you can't refute if you tried, and which doesn't in any way contradict science.

Similarly, the Bible is just a book. That's it. A ****ing book. A 4000 year old one at that (and thus having nothing to do with modern science or logic). If you disagree, you have to prove it.

And if you claim it has nothing to do with logic or science, you have to prove that.

So how did God come to be, what was he doing before he created the universe, and for what purpose did he do so?

What's the relevance of the why? And how? He was always there. Infinite. Unless of course you'd like to prove how something came out of nothing. You call the bible illogical when there's no evidence, science has the same kind of illogical nonsense which you choose to follow.

]I really don't think you have the right to tell what is a 'scientific impossibility' to a professor of theoretic physics and natural philosophy, who is basing his essay on ideas proposed by Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein (both of whom you said are 'smarter than you or I' will ever be).

I read Stephen Hawking's assertion. "The Universe was created out of nothing but I have no kind of backing for this assertion". And yes I have the right because I (and the rest of the science world) understand scientific impossibilities. I guess by your logic then, you don't have the right to tell the astrophysicist in the lecture that he's wrong.

Now, the human brain is incapable of grasping the concept of a genuine 'nothing', and similarly, that paper poses some very abstract scientific and physical concepts that are, in detail, most beyond the comprehension of anyone who didn't extensively study these ideas. However, the paper does provide an answer (or something of it): quantum physics, in which he insinuated that 'the commonsense rules of cause and effect are suspended'.

Right. We can pick and choose in science, and ignore logic and common sense, but when it comes to the bible, everything is illogical. Good logic there.

Master Crimzon Baby Killer
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Except we have a 4,000 year old book which is 100% logical, which you can't refute if you tried, and which doesn't in any way contradict science.

100% logical? Care to explain the events of Genesis, why they are logical, and what facts do we have indicating that they are the correct explanations. Just one cold, irrefutable fact.

Go on. 'Refute' the claim that we're all part of an aliens' computer program.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
And if you claim it has nothing to do with logic or science, you have to prove that.

Hmmm... maybe because nothing in the Bible is based upon modern scientific concepts? What exactly does the story of the slaves in Egypt and the way God launched ten strikes against the Egyptians, in a supernatural manner, have anything to do with science?

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
What's the relevance of the why? And how? He was always there. Infinite. Unless of course you'd like to prove how something came out of nothing. You call the bible illogical when there's no evidence, science has the same kind of illogical nonsense which you choose to follow.

I can't prove that because I'm not a college professor who spent his entire life studying advanced, abstract physics. Regardless of this, I trust the beliefs of Einstein and Hawking- both of whom have extensive mathematical calculations and experiments to support their claims- far more than people who operate on ideas that have no logical backing to them.

Science is not illogical: it simply exists on a scope of comprehension that is far beyond most people's intellectual capacity. Every theory in science has some sort of facts indicating them. There is nothing of that sort in religion.

You love to scream 'Prove it!'. Now prove that religious theories have any sort of facts behind them.

Why does God exist? For what purpose did he create the universe? What was he doing before he has done that? Does God exist 'just because'? Then perhaps matter exists 'just because'? You see, these are logical questions. You claim every one of these are answered by religion.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I read Stephen Hawking's assertion. "The Universe was created out of nothing but I have no kind of backing for this assertion". And yes I have the right because I (and the rest of the science world) understand scientific impossibilities. I guess by your logic then, you don't have the right to tell the astrophysicist in the lecture that he's wrong.

The very paper asserted that advanced quantum physics defy basic notions of 'common sense'. Stop sticking to childish concepts of 'well that doesn't sound right and is a scientific impossibility according to the [precious little] amount of science I learned so it can't be right!'. Here's the deal. People like Hawking and Einstein spent their entire lives utilizing their genius intellect to study the deeper and more abstract mechanics of the world; people like you stick to basic 'common sense' and religious ideas.

I have every right to defy anything said by a religious authority because there are no facts within religion. Thus, everything in religion is purely upon the level of faith and psychological interpretation. Advanced science operates on complex facts and explanations that simply cannot be countered or grasped by anyone who hasn't spent decades studying them.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Right. We can pick and choose in science, and ignore logic and common sense, but when it comes to the bible, everything is illogical. Good logic there.

Again with the common sense. People with high degrees in science claimed that, occasionally, common sense is a childish concept that does not apply to the most advanced of physics.

Here's my request: logically substantiate any theory within the Bible. Explain why these things are real. There are countless logical substantiations within every scientific theory.

Nephthys The Gr8est!!!!!!!!
Except we have a 4,000 year old book which is 100% logical

How is some hulk hogan wannabe getting superstrength from his hair 100% logical.

Dr McBeefington Restricted

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
100% logical? Care to explain the events of Genesis, why they are logical, and what facts do we have indicating that they are the correct explanations. Just one cold, irrefutable fact.

Go on. 'Refute' the claim that we're all part of an aliens' computer program.


Don't have to. There's no basis for it, no ancient texts, and it contradicts science. Religion doesn't do that. And I've already shown you a link that indicates some "great flood" 6,000 years ago. Show me how the universe came from nothing.

Hmmm... maybe because nothing in the Bible is based upon modern scientific concepts? What exactly does the story of the slaves in Egypt and the way God launched ten strikes against the Egyptians, in a supernatural manner, have anything to do with science?

IT doesn't have to do anything with science. Again. if you don't have ANY kind of evidence that shows how the bible and science contradict one another, drop the argument.

I can't prove that because I'm not a college professor who spent his entire life studying advanced, abstract physics. Regardless of this, I trust the beliefs of Einstein and Hawking- both of whom have extensive mathematical calculations and experiments to support their claims- far more than people who operate on ideas that have no logical backing to them.

Good for you. And I trust astrophysicists who HAVE logical backing behind them rather than Hawking who states "Just because". Of course you pick and choose your arguments and who you trust, nevermind the fact that Hawking never authored one logical reason for his assertion. So I doubt that you believe in only logical things, and instead believe in anything not called religion, no matter how illogical it is.

Science is not illogical: it simply exists on a scope of comprehension that is far beyond most people's intellectual capacity. Every theory in science has some sort of facts indicating them. There is nothing of that sort in religion.

Rofl. Hilarious logic. Guess what. I'll use the same for Religion. OR is this more double standards coming from you? Here. Religion is not illogical. It simply exists on as cope of comprehension that is far beyond most people's intellectual capacity. Have a problem with it? Prove your assertion.

Why does God exist? For what purpose did he create the universe? What was he doing before he has done that? Does God exist 'just because'? Then perhaps matter exists 'just because'? You see, these are logical questions. You claim every one of these are answered by religion.

Which are all irrelevant to the discussion. Matter has always existed, so has energy. The 1st law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of matter seem to disprove your notion of the universe being created from nothing.

The very paper asserted that advanced quantum physics defy basic notions of 'common sense'. Stop sticking to childish concepts of 'well that doesn't sound right and is a scientific impossibility according to the [precious little] amount of science I learned so it can't be right!'. Here's the deal. People like Hawking and Einstein spent their entire lives utilizing their genius intellect to study the deeper and more abstract mechanics of the world; people like you stick to basic 'common sense' and religious ideas.

Stop picking and choosing because you have no argument. What you're saying is we don't understand things in science because we just don't have the ability to comprehend them, but when I state the exact same thing for religion, you ***** and moan. Appealing to the authority when that authority has no kind of backing for their arguments, is a fallacy. By your logic, I'll appeal to the great Sages, and the astrophysicist that DOES have logical backing.

I have every right to defy anything said by a religious authority because there are no facts within religion. Thus, everything in religion is purely upon the level of faith and psychological interpretation. Advanced science operates on complex facts and explanations that simply cannot be countered or grasped by anyone who hasn't spent decades studying them.

Right. I've already dealt with the double standards of this excuse.

Again with the common sense. People with high degrees in science claimed that, occasionally, common sense is a childish concept that does not apply to the most advanced of physics.

Then the same can go for religion, since only a handful of people actually understand what is written in the bible. See the similarity?

Here's my request: logically substantiate any theory within the Bible. Explain why these things are real. There are countless logical substantiations within every scientific theory.

No, there really is not. You just spent most of the post trying to justify science, quantum mechanics, and that the MAJORITY of people are inacapable of understanding science (excuse for no logical basis), and now you state that there are countless logical substantiations. That was a quick contradiction.

Master Crimzon Baby Killer
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Don't have to. There's no basis for it, no ancient texts, and it contradicts science. Religion doesn't do that. And I've already shown you a link that indicates some "great flood" 6,000 years ago. Show me how the universe came from nothing.

How does our existence as part of a hyper-advanced computer program contradict science? There is no basis for religion, either. Ancient texts aren't right because they are ancient; there is simply nothing within them that indicates that they are anything more than the ramblings of ancient men (who were far less intelligent than men today).

As for how the universe came from nothing? I've showed you complex, abstract physics, including the beliefs of Einstein and Hawking, that all support the notion of the universe coming 'from nothing', in the simplistic sense.

Since the very dawn of mankind, we've always attempted to explain everything: and religion poses a very easy way to explain everything without actually working, only using a well-developed imagination. And no religion can genuinely be disproven. There is nothing suggesting Judaism is truer than Buddhism, or the ancient worship of Egyptian Gods, etc; the facts that 'some societies survive' has nothing to do with the very nature of their religion.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
IT doesn't have to do anything with science. Again. if you don't have ANY kind of evidence that shows how the bible and science contradict one another, drop the argument.

I never said the Bible contradicts science- merely that it has absolutely nothing to do with it. God's actions 'defy' scientific logic, but that can be refuted by explaining that God exists beyond the laws of science, so it's honestly a pointless thing to bring up.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Good for you. And I trust astrophysicists who HAVE logical backing behind them rather than Hawking who states "Just because". Of course you pick and choose your arguments and who you trust, nevermind the fact that Hawking never authored one logical reason for his assertion. So I doubt that you believe in only logical things, and instead believe in anything not called religion, no matter how illogical it is.

Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein spent their entire life researching complex physics- eventually, utilizing multiple facts, theories, observations, and experiments, they came to conclusions that would indicate the universe came into being 'just because' (although it's actually infinitely more complicated than that).

I tend to believe anything that is widely agreed upon by the scientific community, yes, because that would mean there is a very large degree of support for theories that must be based on facts (otherwise they would not be dubbed 'science). While I understand that concepts like the Big Bang are not full proof, there are plenty of things to suggest that it is the correct explanation, and there is reason to believe in it.

And will you please just explain why the events of the Bible are true instead of avoiding the question? What FACTS (highly emphasized so you finally get the point) indicate that the events of the Bible are true?

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Rofl. Hilarious logic. Guess what. I'll use the same for Religion. OR is this more double standards coming from you? Here. Religion is not illogical. It simply exists on as cope of comprehension that is far beyond most people's intellectual capacity. Have a problem with it? Prove your assertion.

Do you have any knowledge of advanced physics that is anywhere on par with the people whose opinions I listed? Physics are based on facts.

Religion, on the other hand, is not; being that there are no facts within it, it takes no deep 'intellectual comprehension' to grasp them.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Which are all irrelevant to the discussion. Matter has always existed, so has energy. The 1st law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of matter seem to disprove your notion of the universe being created from nothing.

Except the '1st law of thermodynamics' and all that shit simply does not apply to quantum physics, as proposed by multiple scientists who spent their entire lives researching such concepts, including those you are familiar with.

It is completely relevant to understand why an omniscient being would create the universe and why does he exist, because it establishes the nature of God or serves to substantiate our philosophical debate. For what purpose would God create the universe? To entertain him? But why does he need to be entertained? After all, the desire for fun and boredom are human traits, not shared by such omniscient being. Face it: if we are to establish God as an all-powerful being, there would simply be no logical reason for him to create the universe. Care to explain otherwise?

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Stop picking and choosing because you have no argument. What you're saying is we don't understand things in science because we just don't have the ability to comprehend them, but when I state the exact same thing for religion, you ***** and moan. Appealing to the authority when that authority has no kind of backing for their arguments, is a fallacy. By your logic, I'll appeal to the great Sages, and the astrophysicist that DOES have logical backing.

Then show them. Show me a single fact indicating religious explanation for the world are the true ones. Just do it. Please.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Right. I've already dealt with the double standards of this excuse.

Right, right, right, whatever you say, brother.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Then the same can go for religion, since only a handful of people actually understand what is written in the bible. See the similarity?

That's probably correct, but what insinuates that the events of the Bible are true? I understand that some of it is history, but the supernatural claims simply cannot be logically substantiated. What makes the Bible anything more than philosophical ramblings, never substantiated by logical fact?

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
No, there really is not. You just spent most of the post trying to justify science, quantum mechanics, and that the MAJORITY of people are inacapable of understanding science (excuse for no logical basis), and now you state that there are countless logical substantiations. That was a quick contradiction.

Countless logical substantiates posed by quantum mechanics and such. There is plenty of logical basis to it; merely that the 'logic' of those inexperienced in science (cause and effect, common sense) simply does not apply to advanced physics.

Every scientific theory is supported by facts, which are tested. Care to show me anything indicating that Biblical theories are the correct ones?

Autokrat Unknown

This thread has turned into a morality tale of sorts. Don't try to debate with a hardcore idiot, because the debate will never end.

Dr McBeefington Restricted

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
How does our existence as part of a hyper-advanced computer program contradict science? There is no basis for religion, either. Ancient texts aren't right because they are ancient; there is simply nothing within them that indicates that they are anything more than the ramblings of ancient men (who were far less intelligent than men today).

And there's actually nothing that indicate they are ramblings of ancient men. And if I have to tell you how your theory of aliens contradicts with science and evolution, you've already lost.
And I'm sorry to tell you that those "ancient men" are far more intelligent than men today. They had nothing to do but sit around and study. We don't have that luxury. Unless of course you can prove your assertion (you can't).
As for how the universe came from nothing? I've showed you complex, abstract physics, including the beliefs of Einstein and Hawking, that all support the notion of the universe coming 'from nothing', in the simplistic sense.

No, you haven't. You've stated 'But stephen hawking said". I've shown you through the law of conservation of matter and through the 1st law of thermodynamics that whatever you've shown me is wrong. Unless of course you want to prove those laws wrong. And again, astrophysicists seem to disagree with Hawking's baseless assertion.

Since the very dawn of mankind, we've always attempted to explain everything: and religion poses a very easy way to explain everything without actually working, only using a well-developed imagination. And no religion can genuinely be disproven. There is nothing suggesting Judaism is truer than Buddhism, or the ancient worship of Egyptian Gods, etc; the facts that 'some societies survive' has nothing to do with the very nature of their religion.

So you say. I would suggest differently since the Jewish people are the ONLY one of their kind to return to their homeland after 3,000 years later. And secularism is also a very easy way to explain things. "Oh it's science", or "oh it's mother nature".

I never said the Bible contradicts science- merely that it has absolutely nothing to do with it. God's actions 'defy' scientific logic, but that can be refuted by explaining that God exists beyond the laws of science, so it's honestly a pointless thing to bring up.

Actually, they don't. Science and the Bible seem to go hand in hand. And science can't possibly defy G-d's laws because you said yourself, there are certain things that defy science and logic themselves. So which one is it? Or are you here to pick and choose as usual. And science seems to explain biblical events scientifically. There's no controversy, so there's no reason not to believe in both, unless you want to convince yourself that you're more intelligent if you don't believe in religion.

Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein spent their entire life researching complex physics- eventually, utilizing multiple facts, theories, observations, and experiments, they came to conclusions that would indicate the universe came into being 'just because' (although it's actually infinitely more complicated than that).

Right, so G-d's laws defy science, while these so called baseless assertions (which are baseless because they make no sense) don't defy science. That makes a lot of sense. Except nobody's going to take Hawking at his word unless he has some kind of basis for his assertion. Simply stating "well he's an authority" is a fallacy. I'll wait for him to disprove the 2 laws I mentioned.

I tend to believe anything that is widely agreed upon by the scientific community, yes, because that would mean there is a very large degree of support for theories that must be based on facts (otherwise they would not be dubbed 'science). While I understand that concepts like the Big Bang are not full proof, there are plenty of things to suggest that it is the correct explanation, and there is reason to believe in it.

Yet the scientific community as a whole does not believe the universe came out of nothing. But of course you don't believe that because it leaves room for the idea that there could be something "higher" that created the big bang. So is it that you're more into believing science, or just less into believing religion? And it's foolproof.

[/quote]And will you please just explain why the events of the Bible are true instead of avoiding the question? What [B]FACTS (highly emphasized so you finally get the point) indicate that the events of the Bible are true?[/quote]
I've already listed the great flood. I haven't avoided the question. You've just refused to read the answer.

Do you have any knowledge of advanced physics that is anywhere on par with the people whose opinions I listed? Physics are based on facts.

Nope, and neither do yo. But I listen to scientific lectures while you find whatever google site you can post without reading it and understanding that there have been no logical basis for what Hawking is proposing.

Religion, on the other hand, is not; being that there are no facts within it, it takes no deep 'intellectual comprehension' to grasp them.

Of course it does. Since religion is based a lot on faith, it takes a LOT of intellectual comprehension to grasp it. That's what I love about secularists. They have to convince themselves they're intelligent because they don't believe in religion.

Except the '1st law of thermodynamics' and all that shit simply does not apply to quantum physics, as proposed by multiple scientists who spent their entire lives researching such concepts, including those you are familiar with.

Sorry. Your excuses are running out. Energy and matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Until those theories can be disproved, you don't have an argument. Funny how you say science applies to everything, but except (quantum physics/whatever other excuse you can come up with). Quantum physics and mechanics deal with subatomic particles which are all part of this universe. You're not going to exclude them just to fit your argument. So you're wrong.

It is completely relevant to understand why an omniscient being would create the universe and why does he exist, because it establishes the nature of God or serves to substantiate our philosophical debate. For what purpose would God create the universe? To entertain him? But why does he need to be entertained? After all, the desire for fun and boredom are human traits, not shared by such omniscient being. Face it: if we are to establish God as an all-powerful being, there would simply be no logical reason for him to create the universe. Care to explain otherwise?

No, the why is irrelevant in this discussion. You're not interested in logic, judging by your contradictions.

Then show them. Show me a single fact indicating religious explanation for the world are the true ones. Just do it. Please.

I don't have to. There have been references to the great flood that I've posted. I'm sure I could find other biblical references such as Sodom and Gemorrah that have been dealt with by science. None of this indicates any real truth to what happened but it seems that you're on your last resort arguments, so you want something found specifically tailored to your needs.

That's probably correct, but what insinuates that the events of the Bible are true? I understand that some of it is history, but the supernatural claims simply cannot be logically substantiated. What makes the Bible anything more than philosophical ramblings, never substantiated by logical fact?

You can't prove the bible is false. And science doesn't contradict the bible. So there's no reason for you to claim it's false because unless it can be disproved. I believe it's true, as in a personal belief, so I don't have to prove which concepts are 100% true. You CLAIM it's false so you have to prove it in some way. And since you can't, they go hand in hand, and I believe in both.

Countless logical substantiates posed by quantum mechanics and such. There is plenty of logical basis to it; merely that the 'logic' of those inexperienced in science (cause and effect, common sense) simply does not apply to advanced physics.

No, there's not. You can't pick and choose which part of science YOU want to follow just to disprove religion. Furthermore, please show me how these so called theories have been accepted by the science community.

Every scientific theory is supported by facts, which are tested. Care to show me anything indicating that Biblical theories are the correct ones? [/B]

No they aren't. Most theories are, while the others get disproved for different theories the next day. Again I am under no obligation to prove which theories in the bible are true because they are speculation based on logic, and some scientific evidence. Since there are no contradictions, you have no argument except "waaaa religion was made by man and i'm smart because I don't follow it".

Dr McBeefington Restricted
Originally posted by Autokrat
This thread has turned into a morality tale of sorts. Don't try to debate with a hardcore idiot, because the debate will never end.

This coming from a moron who couldn't prove his argument in any way, shape, or form, and ran away. Next you'll be calling me a 'religious zealot' because you don't have any kind of logical rebuttal, and it's what you've been taught to follow in your school.

Dr McBeefington Restricted

Faunus and MC, i'll settle this issue with you once and for all. Veneficus don't bother, you'll just hurt yourself.

1. I follow my religion and my values and it makes me a better person
2. I have never met a religious Jew that was either unintelligent, or
unhappy with his life. Every one of them follow all or close to the 613 commandments, and the character of their childrenand community show these values.
3. The divorce rate in orthodox judaism is under 6%. Draw your own conclusions.
4. Religion is NOT the only true path, nor can one claim it is. However, it is for me and orthodox Jews who have had it work for them. And in case people ask, I've been secular for the majority of my life.
5. The arrogance of secularism to say that religious people follow something imaginary is the same as religious people claiming secularists believe only what's in front of their eyes.
6. I believe that many (don't know about most)secularists deny religion because it provides them a justification for any kind of action possible.
7. The Bible and science do NOT contradict each other, which is why I follow both. If they did, I would be required to follow science.
8. Since religion cannot be definitively proved or disproved, and since science and religion go somewhat hand in hand there is no logical basis for saying it's false.

Eminence Boss

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I didn't say it was, nor that it wasn't. I said it was for me, which is why I gave you options for yourself.
You spent several dozen pages emphasizing the notion that there are "universal" rights and wrongs that apply to everyone. When I asked you who defined those universal rights and wrongs, you pointed me to the Torah, the Bible, and God, the implication being that any of those on its own could stand as a universal dictator of morality.

You also just admitted the existence of moral subjectivity ("[the Bible] was [a dictator of universal rights and wrongs] for me"😉. I win.

You don't. Welcome to explanations.
You lost me.

Autokrat Unknown
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
This coming from a moron who couldn't prove his argument in any way, shape, or form, and ran away. Next you'll be calling me a 'religious zealot' because you don't have any kind of logical rebuttal, and it's what you've been taught to follow in your school.

Ran away? You misunderstand. Would I attempt to hold a rational argument with my dog? No, I wouldn't. It is much the same thing. Within a few posts I destroyed any argument you had, as have MC and Red Nemesis and yet here you are, barking your head off.

Dr McBeefington Restricted

Right. Which translates into you having no argument and running off like a little girl. Lying to yourself doesn't help. MC hasn't done anything resembling destroying my argument, and neither has RH, but they're still debating it from a somewhat logical standpoint. You posted your nonsense, claimed it was legitimate, and ran off crying. Perhaps you should stop posting and let the big boys do your job for you.

Dr McBeefington Restricted

Originally posted by Eminence
You spent several dozen pages emphasizing the notion that there are "universal" rights and wrongs that apply to everyone. When I asked you who defined those universal rights and wrongs, you pointed me to the Torah, the Bible, and God, the implication being that any of those on its own could stand as a universal dictator of morality.

You also just admitted the existence of moral subjectivity ("[the Bible] was [a dictator of universal rights and wrongs] for me"😉. I win.


No, I attempted to explain my beliefs. Of course I believe in an a higher authority and would love it if everyone did, but other people can lead successful lives without believing. Furthermore, I listed the Bible as ONE of the dictators of the universal rights and wrongs. It is my main dictator, as is society. So I don't quite see how you "won". And again, when I pointed you to The Torah/Bible/G-d, society, I gave you choices of what you can consider a dictator. I happen to consider all of them, more or less.

You lost me.

I don't recall what this is in response to.

Eminence Boss

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Faunus and MC, i'll settle this issue with you once and for all. Veneficus don't bother, you'll just hurt yourself.

1. I follow my religion and my values and it makes me a better person

I'm happy for you.

5. The arrogance of secularism to say that religious people follow something imaginary is the same as religious people claiming secularists believe only what's in front of their eyes.
What's in front of our eyes is tangible. We can test it, we can experience it, we can understand it, we can sometimes even create it. We know it's there; you cannot say the same thing about faith. So no, it's not at all the same.

6. I believe that many (don't know about most)secularists deny religion because it provides them a justification for any kind of action possible.
You're confusing atheists with anarchists.

7. The Bible and science do NOT contradict each other, which is why I follow both. If they did, I would be required to follow science.
So it's fair to pick and choose, then? You can take the "moral" aspects of the Bible as literally as you'd like while dismissing the scientifically null bits?

8. Since religion cannot be definitively proved or disproved,
Emphasis mine. As Crimzon has pointed out, the idea that we're all stuck in something akin to the Matrix can't be "disproved," either.

and since science and religion go somewhat hand in hand there is no logical basis for saying it's false.
It's an ideology based on faith, nothing more. It is not a work of logic, it is an ancient attempt to explain the unknown and establish some sort of order. These days, science does the former, the legal system does the latter.

Dr McBeefington Restricted

Originally posted by Eminence
I'm happy for you.

What's in front of our eyes is tangible. We can test it, we can experience it, we can understand it, we can sometimes even create it. We know it's there; you cannot say the same thing about faith. So no, it's not at all the same.


So when you're drunk, on drugs, high, you see things. Based on your definition of tangible, I guess you have to believe everything you see because it's in front of your eyes.

You're confusing atheists with anarchists.

Possibly.

So it's fair to pick and choose, then? You can take the "moral" aspects of the Bible as literally as you'd like while dismissing the scientifically null bits?

What of science have I dismissed?

Emphasis mine. As Crimzon has pointed out, the idea that we're all stuck in something akin to the Matrix can't be "disproved," either.

It's an ideology based on faith, nothing more. It is not a work of logic, it is an ancient attempt to explain the unknown and establish some sort of order. These days, science does the former, the legal system does the latter.


Yet it's logical. What isn't logical about it exactly? And again, science can't prove a lot of things, in fact a great deal of things, unless you want to claim we've figured out everything. I gave you an example of the great flood, although it can't be proven 100% to be the great flood, scientific evidence suggests it could be the great flood in the bible. My point is that neither contradicts one another, which gives nobody a legitimate reason to claim it being false.

Master Crimzon Baby Killer

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Faunus and MC, i'll settle this issue with you once and for all. Veneficus don't bother, you'll just hurt yourself.

1. I follow my religion and my values and it makes me a better person
2. I have never met a religious Jew that was either unintelligent, or
unhappy with his life. Every one of them follow all or close to the 613 commandments, and the character of their childrenand community show these values.
3. The divorce rate in orthodox judaism is under 6%. Draw your own conclusions.
4. Religion is NOT the only true path, nor can one claim it is. However, it is for me and orthodox Jews who have had it work for them. And in case people ask, I've been secular for the majority of my life.
5. The arrogance of secularism to say that religious people follow something imaginary is the same as religious people claiming secularists believe only what's in front of their eyes.
6. I believe that many (don't know about most)secularists deny religion because it provides them a justification for any kind of action possible.
7. The Bible and science do NOT contradict each other, which is why I follow both. If they did, I would be required to follow science.
8. Since religion cannot be definitively proved or disproved, and since science and religion go somewhat hand in hand there is no logical basis for saying it's false.

Do you want me to retort to your previous post or leave it at that? (Just curious, because you said 'once and for all'😉

I have absolutely no problem with you following religion- in fact, a chief reason for the separation of Church and State is to ensure freedom of religious expression. My personal opinion is that religion is a silly belief- the 'opium of the masses', as Marx said. But that's my personal opinion, and I'm happy that your path in life enables you to find your happiness. The only problem I have is when you implement religions and Biblical ideas within politics, which must be purely pragmatic and cannot be based upon ideals like subjective faith. I have a lot of respect for certain religious figures, and I can genuinely like religion when it is used to enhance art forms.

Aside from that, though, there are some things I'd like to point out in your 'points':

1. Israel has an immensely high divorce rate. And besides, I think it's far better to divorce than to live a life of unhappiness and conformity with a partner you dislike.

2. Well, I think that your opinion regarding Jews and their intelligence is rather biased. In the same way, I tend to think atheists and secular people are generally smarter; it's all a point of perspective. (Which means I'm biased, too)

3. Yeah, secularists aren't amoral people. Moral relativism isn't the same as 'no morality' exists; simply that morality is a matter of subjectivity and is not universal. I'm an atheist, but I won't kill a man, no matter if that action is not universally immoral. That is because it is immoral to that individual, and is the equivalent of destroying his interests in order to fulfill another one's. That is wrong and must be avoided. I don't need a universal morality in order to form certain moral standards.

Dr McBeefington Restricted

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Do you want me to retort to your previous post or leave it at that? (Just curious, because you said 'once and for all'😉

Might leave it at that otherwise it will continue endlessly. My point was the universe wasn't made from nothing, and that since religion doesn't contradict science, you don't necessarily have to follow it but you can't deem it wrong.

I have absolutely no problem with you following religion- in fact, a chief reason for the separation of Church and State is to ensure freedom of religious expression. My personal opinion is that religion is a silly belief- the 'opium of the masses', as Marx said. But that's my personal opinion, and I'm happy that your path in life enables you to find your happiness. The only problem I have is when you implement religions and Biblical ideas within politics, which must be purely pragmatic and cannot be based upon ideals like subjective faith. I have a lot of respect for certain religious figures, and I can genuinely like religion when it is used to enhance art forms.

Marx also intended to justify every little injustice possible by getting rid of religion. May I remind you the two factions that arose in the absence of religion, in the 20th century? Nazism and Communism, both viewed as evils.

1. Israel has an immensely high divorce rate. And besides, I think it's far better to divorce than to live a life of unhappiness and conformity with a partner you dislike.

Reread my statement. I said orthodox Jews. They understand certain values and principles that they internalize, and because of that they have successful marriages.

2. Well, I think that your opinion regarding Jews and their intelligence is rather biased. In the same way, I tend to think atheists and secular people are generally smarter; it's all a point of perspective. (Which means I'm biased, too)

I would never compare myself to Rambam or Rashi. Rambam was a scholar, a lawyer, and a doctor for Saladin. They engulfed their lives with the study of something (aside from Torah). While there are very smart people today, I don't think they are on par with the old sages(that includes Greeks and Roman geniuses). But that's my opinion.

3. Yeah, secularists aren't amoral people. Moral relativism isn't the same as 'no morality' exists; simply that morality is a matter of subjectivity and is not universal. I'm an atheist, but I won't kill a man, no matter if that action is not universally immoral. That is because it is immoral to that individual, and is the equivalent of destroying his interests in order to fulfill another one's. That is wrong and must be avoided. I don't need a universal morality in order to form certain moral standards.

So where did you derive your moral standards from?

Autokrat Unknown
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Right. Which translates into you having no argument and running off like a little girl. Lying to yourself doesn't help. MC hasn't done anything resembling destroying my argument, and neither has RH, but they're still debating it from a somewhat logical standpoint. You posted your nonsense, claimed it was legitimate, and ran off crying. Perhaps you should stop posting and let the big boys do your job for you.

I took the stance that there are no absolute right and wrongs. I backed up my argument with historical examples and logic. Arguments that any college freshmen would know from a intro Philo class.

Perhaps you should read some Nietzsche, Sarte or Camus, so you can at least know what you are attempting to refute. Hell go ahead and do a basic rundown read on the different types of moral realtivism. Perhaps then, you won't sound like a idiot.

And, I still think it's hilarious that you thought I was a liberal, absolutely hilarious.

Dr McBeefington Restricted

Originally posted by Autokrat
I took the stance that there are no absolute right and wrongs. I backed up my argument with historical examples and logic. Arguments that any college freshmen would know from a intro Philo class.

Yawn. And i believe I told you to quit regurgitating what your philosophy professor taught you. And I trumped your "historical" examples with my historical examples, how the 3 major truths have remained the same after thousands of years.

Perhaps you should read some Nietzsche, Sarte or Camus, so you can at least know what you are attempting to refute. Hell go ahead and do a basic rundown read on the different types of moral realtivism. Perhaps then, you won't sound like a idiot.

You're the one sounding like a pseudo intellectual buffoon. At least faunus doesn't sit there spouting nonsense from a freshman philosophy class. Guess what numbnuts, learning something in philosophy class doesn't make it true. Now again, stop regurgitating nonsense to attempt to make yourself appear smarter.

And, I still think it's hilarious that you thought I was a liberal, absolutely hilarious.

If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck. What I find hilarious is you spouting what you learned in philosophy 101 to attempt to sound intelligent. Guess what big boy, I consider philosophy as retarded as you consider religion. And ask your professor about Hitler and Stalin, and report back to me what bullshit he tells you, instead of calling it a "cop out" you can't refute.

Perhaps instead of engaging in meaningless mental masturbation to boost your self esteem, you should search out something more practical. I wonder how long it's going to take you to realize that liberal arts is the most useless degree in undergrad.

Master Crimzon Baby Killer
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Might leave it at that otherwise it will continue endlessly. My point was the universe wasn't made from nothing, and that since religion doesn't contradict science, you don't necessarily have to follow it but you can't deem it wrong.

I understand that religion does not contradict science, but still, the advanced branch of quantum physics would insinuate that the basic laws of science are simply ignored when dealing with such high physics. I don't follow religion because I see no reason to; there is no evidence contradicting it, like the 'Matrix' example I supplied, but there is simply not reason to believe in it, at least for me. But if it makes you happy, then who am I to tell you not to follow it?

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Marx also intended to justify every little injustice possible by getting rid of religion. May I remind you the two factions that arose in the absence of religion, in the 20th century? Nazism and Communism, both viewed as evils.

Well, Nazism didn't exactly have anything to do with the lack of religion. Stalin took Marx's beliefs and 're-interpreted' them (I'm trying not to say 'perverted'😉 into a fascistic and totalitarian ideology. Communism as a purely financial ideology, while I personally disagree with it, isn't all that bad.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Reread my statement. I said orthodox Jews. They understand certain values and principles that they internalize, and because of that they have successful marriages.

Alright. Good for them. That being said, though, I do not believe discipline to be a very treasured value.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I would never compare myself to Rambam or Rashi. Rambam was a scholar, a lawyer, and a doctor for Saladin. They engulfed their lives with the study of something (aside from Torah). While there are very smart people today, I don't think they are on par with the old sages(that includes Greeks and Roman geniuses). But that's my opinion.

Look at the world today and look at how the world was back then. People like Einstein and Hawking work at a level of science that exists beyond the intelligence and scientific grasp of the people back then. Studies also show rising IQ levels throughout the ages.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
So where did you derive your moral standards from?

I don't need to derive my moral standards from an external source. Instead, I believe I'm smart or competent enough to create them myself, based on my form of logic and philosophy (liberalism, atheism, relativism, humanism, whatever). However, I do understand that my moral code is not universal; it's my subjective opinion. I don't need there to be a high being to 'verify' it.

Throughout the course of our extremely long political debate, I've explained, to be the best of my ability, why I think that my ideology, if implemented, will lead to a better world. But I still understand that it is my ideology and not some sort of divine, all-powerful one.

Edit: Just curious, what do you consider 'liberal arts'? Do you mean things like cinema and the like? Because I think the world would be a shitty place without philosophy and intellectua stimulation, which includes the realm of art.