Congrats, and there were some good debates. Until certain people arrived...
Originally posted by Devil King
And it's good you aren't man enough to own it too. Nice way to be a coward.Again, thank you for posting several accusations, none of which have a damn thing to do with the thread. Cheers on continuing to be irrelevant.
Playing victim now? Actually, I was on topic until you started behaving like an obsessive antagonist again. And nice to see you continue your aggressive rampage. Just to make it clear: give one example where I call you a name (and levae the whole sentence and context in tact please). I am not aggressive... annoying maybe, but not aggressive, not like you.
And I told you what you can do with your accusations and victim play.
And you were on topic, until I posted in this thread. At which point you wanted to bring your personal feelings towards me into this:
Originally posted by queeq
You seem to know Him quite well. I have some questiions for Him, care to pass them along?
Again, if you'd like to discuss the topic, we can do that. But you don't.
All you've done since I entered the conversation was address me through sarcasm, accusation and victim play.
Originally posted by Devil King
And I told you what you can do with your accusations and victim play.And you were on topic, until I posted in this thread. At which point you wanted to bring your personal feelings towards me into this:
Again, if you'd like to discuss the topic, we can do that. But you don't.
All you've done since I entered the conversation was address me through sarcasm, accusation and victim play.
And you would be completely innocent? 🙄
well here's my thoughts. i dont think you need a religion or a book to tell you that certain crimes like theft and murder are wrong - it's just plainly obvious that those things are wrong, and that they have no place in a civilised world. I think it's great that people live by the book whatever religion that may be, and people who use it for salvation and making choices, etc. But because i'm an atheist, it doesnt mean i dont follow these morals. I think that many if not all atheists share the same morals as christians do. As for me? i dont believe god exists as opposed to some people who probably believe there is a god but choose to break the rules regardless.
Originally posted by dadudemonYou say that like it's a bad thing... 😖hifty:
...this lady from the link...freaks me out....
Originally posted by DigiMark007* thinking of about a dozen new threads with "atheist" in the title...*
I supposed anything with "atheist" in the title is bound to stir up discussion...
Originally posted by Stun
well here's my thoughts. i dont think you need a religion or a book to tell you that certain crimes like theft and murder are wrong - it's just plainly obvious that those things are wrong, and that they have no place in a civilised world.
The idea of something being "right" or "wrong" is a construct though. Theft and murder being "wrong" is untrue except within an agreed upon system. In reality they are just disruptive.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Heh. I'm making creationist arguments now?The genetic similarity has to do with how recently we branched off from one another in the evolutionary process. Nothing more. We can map our similarities/differences to other species, and in doing so approximate how far back (usually in millions of years) when we branched off from various species.
I know this. I wasn't arguing the side of the creationist, rather, I was stating their perspective to explain how or why they would use the "oneness" argument.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
If it makes a creationist argument about difference between species, I fail to see how it has religious implications, or indeed anything but purely scientific import.
I fail to see the religious implications as well, but that doesn't stop a creationist from bringing up the "polymorphism" point. "ZOMG! LEIK hoomans are so unique because we are so closely related...dat means Adam and Eve beetches!!!"
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Anyway, inamilist handled the stats stuff better than I could've.
Sort of. He brought up more questions than he addressed. I was using old data that has recently become antiquated. (That happens often in the science community.)
Originally posted by Devil King
How important is your religion if you look a it like it was the one on sale the day you went into the religion store to purchase it?
I agree with you point, however, I do not hold my religion in such a light...more like the hidden treasure at the bottom of an abyss.
Originally posted by Devil King
Being accused of wanting to have your cake and eat it too is akin to being told you want two things that can't be had at the same time. Pie is irrelevant to the idiom. Skepticism is one thing, but when you constantly dismiss that skepticism in favor of your religious beliefs, you don't really have any claim to atheism.
I was hoping you would point out my arguments flaw. When I thought about it, I wasn't using the "have your cake and eat it too" saying properly. If I am tasting some of the pie and cake at that same time, they slowly disappear.
A little back on subject, more often than not, I am dismissing religion in favor of atheistic skepticism.
I know you know that I understood your idiom.
The way I was "bending" the idiom to fit my perspective can still be accomplished. As I eat the pie or eat the cake, it replenishes itself. This replenishments comes in the form of new evidence and spiritual experiences. In other words, both perspectives are constantly being reinforced.
As Shaky would put it, it all goes back to faith. If the religionist's propaganda is true, then I should always have to question my religious beliefs and decide to stick with it because of this word "faith".
Would it make more sense if I said I was a religionist who holds many atheist perspectives?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The idea of something being "right" or "wrong" is a construct though. Theft and murder being "wrong" is untrue except within an agreed upon system. In reality they are just disruptive.
Stated very well. In some animal social systems, theft and murder are a part of life.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And you would be completely innocent? 🙄
I'm not the one claiming innocence and crying victim, am I?
Originally posted by dadudemon
In other words, both perspectives are constantly being reinforced.
So, basically you subscribe to religion when it suits you.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Would it make more sense if I said I was a religionist who holds many atheist perspectives?
No.
Originally posted by dadudemonHmmmm, this doesn't occur quite often, but I disagree with you:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056_pf.html
Nice link. Grossman's book: "on killing," is another example. His studies found that most soldiers through out history had a strong innate rebellion to killing in combat situations, to the point of risking their own lives.
Originally posted by lil bitchinessIronic. My ancestors are from the East. Also spelling ancestors right while trying to be snarky tends to make it more effective.
I am sorry, did I actually say that? No.WEST is built upon Judeo-Christian tradition. Morality in the East existed when your ansestors were climbing trees.
Western "morality" is derived from Judaism is derived from prior philosophies and religions. The idea of natural justice was a precept of Roman Law.
And all morality has a biological basis. "Morality" is derived from the evolution of empathy, which predate documented history.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Would it make more sense if I said I was a religionist who holds many atheist perspectives?
Why do you need a label to make sense? As if a "religionist" or "creatonist" only says stupid things and an "atheist" only wise things, or the other way around. I know it helps to label someone to make the world a bit more comprehensible, but I find it a little immature in a debating arena. If the argument is only judged by the label of the one bringing it up, why debate? Let's just throw labels at each other and have some fun...
Originally posted by queeqlabels are helpful, but when labels themselves are the debate it gets complicated.
Why do you need a label to make sense? As if a "religionist" or "creatonist" only says stupid things and an "atheist" only wise things, or the other way around. I know it helps to label someone to make the world a bit more comprehensible, but I find it a little immature in a debating arena. If the argument is only judged by the label of the one bringing it up, why debate? Let's just throw labels at each other and have some fun...
Originally posted by Devil King
So, basically you subscribe to religion when it suits you.
Yes.
In a weird twisted way, isn't that the purpose of religion anyway?
I also subscribe to atheism when it suits me as well.
Originally posted by Devil King
No.
Oh well, I will continue with my doubts and beliefs for both sides and just do without labels.
Originally posted by queeq
Why do you need a label to make sense? As if a "religionist" or "creatonist" only says stupid things and an "atheist" only wise things, or the other way around. I know it helps to label someone to make the world a bit more comprehensible, but I find it a little immature in a debating arena. If the argument is only judged by the label of the one bringing it up, why debate? Let's just throw labels at each other and have some fun...
Yup.,....you are right. I wish I would have thought of this years ago. Labels and the such can lead to prejudices, anger, hate, destruction, etc.