The old evolution debate

[FArchivist]

I don't know. I was pretty much satisfied with what I had posted a few days ago.

Then I'll tell you why you did, even if you won't admit it. You wanted to play dumb and ignorant, fulfilling every stereotype of the anti-theist just to fuck around instead of having an honest discussion. Pure blatant trolling. Disgusting. You're right, I did waste time - concern trolls are always a waste of time, just like trolls of any other type. And lacing it with a smug "Stupid theist. Behold my superior logical atheisms." as well, which I assume was your entertainment.

So if you don't mind, I'll actually waste time by working on social justice issues rather than playing with a troll.

[Rapscallion]

...you really don't understand how all this differing doctrine stuff works, do you? Have you ever taken a course in Philosophy while you were at University?

Never went to university. Oddly enough, there are more important things in life than arguing over the meaning of an ancient text - if I had gone to university I'd have gone for something more satisfying, such as archaeology or similar.

Have you ever read your religious text of preference? The Vengeful Sky Pixie has not changed. He sent down part of himself, VSP Junior, who the christians are supposed to try and be like from what I understand, and then quite famously said he was there not the break the law. All the rest is sophisty and bollocks.

Oh yes, and then the VSP killed himself, because Junior was part of the VSP in human form.

I fully understand how the doctrinal stuff works. It's very straightforward.

"I want to be a member of this gang. I don't like this rule or that rule. I'll talk bollocks until people give in to make me shut up and they'll accept me as sort of part of their gang."

Simples!

I bet you're going to come back and explain how the phrase from Mark 5-1 doesn't actually mean what it says. I fully expect it. Word games. Problem is, I don't intend to go down that route. You're missing the fundamental part of the argument.

If creationism is correct, prove it.

Rapscallion

[Ipecac Drano]

Then I'll tell you why you did, even if you won't admit it. You wanted to play dumb and ignorant, fulfilling every stereotype of the anti-theist just to fuck around instead of having an honest discussion. Pure blatant trolling. Disgusting. You're right, I did waste time - concern trolls are always a waste of time, just like trolls of any other type. And lacing it with a smug "Stupid theist. Behold my superior logical atheisms." as well, which I assume was your entertainment.

So if you don't mind, I'll actually waste time by working on social justice issues rather than playing with a troll.

And, once cornered, they always lash out with ad hominems. You've been stocking up at Fallacies"Я"Us.

[FArchivist]

Never went to university. Oddly enough, there are more important things in life than arguing over the meaning of an ancient text - if I had gone to university I'd have gone for something more satisfying, such as archaeology or similar.

*sigh* I really hate anti-intellectualism. Nobody engages in the arts of rhetoric, analysis, or any of the other methods of the cultural arts anymore outside of a select few.

Have you ever read your religious text of preference?

Yes.

The Vengeful Sky Pixie has not changed. He sent down part of himself, VSP Junior, (SNIP)

I'm just going to summarize the key words here. "Sophistry and bollocks." "Very straightforward." "Simple!" "Word games."

I hear these same phrases all the time not just from people who have never touched religion, but have never touched philosophy. "It's all just fru-fru thinking bullshit." Or art. "Renaissance, Impressionist, it's all just paint slapped on canvas." Or law. "There's no need to interpret anything!"

In short, no, it is not as simple as it seems. It is NEVER as simple as it seems. And the people who say these phrases never care why it's not as simple as all that.

*shrug* And I don't care to teach people. I'm not going to come back with an argument you are not going to listen to, care about, or even hear. I'm 34 years old and I've been discussing these things with people on the internet for 20 years. Dawkins understands these things and can argue about them with skill and aplomb; people like you just dismiss them out of hand.

If creationism is correct, prove it.

Creationism ISN'T correct, if we're referring to the current usage of creationism in terms of Young Earth Creationism. I will assume that is what you are referring to. Everyone knows that creationism as promoted by the Evangelists is contradicted by science and the laws of nature. That's why YEC is a false doctrine. The book of Genesis in the Bible is a creation narrative, a cosmogonic myth. Anyone who takes it as literal is an idiot.

But why tell you that? You don't give a shit. You just think I'm some Evangelist twit, all "JESUSIFY! CONSERVATIZE! YOU GOTS TO GET GODLY!" I'll be happy to leave you to preconceptions.

[FArchivist]

And, once cornered, they always lash out with ad hominems. You've been stocking up at Fallacies"Я"Us.

It's not ad hominem if it's true. Just admit you're not interested in having an honest discussion over this. We both know it to be so.

[Ipecac Drano]

It's not ad hominem if it's true. Just admit you're not interested in having an honest discussion over this. We both know it to be so.

You gotta know when to pick and choose your battles...

[Greenday]

Never went to university. Oddly enough, there are more important things in life than arguing over the meaning of an ancient text - if I had gone to university I'd have gone for something more satisfying, such as archaeology or similar.

>Not wanting to go to school to argue over ancient texts
>Wanting to go to school to study ancient ruins and such that have no effect on today's society.

Gonna rip on one major, don't be surprised to see your interests nailed.

[Rapscallion]

>Not wanting to go to school to argue over ancient texts
>Wanting to go to school to study ancient ruins and such that have no effect on today's society.

Gonna rip on one major, don't be surprised to see your interests nailed.

Those who forget the lessons of the past are condemned to repeat the mistakes.

There's a big difference between learning about ourselves and our history and believing in an unprovable omnipotent being. Archaeology involves proof.

*sigh* I really hate anti-intellectualism.

Archaeology is anti-intellectual? I'd have said batting for an unprovable omnipotent being is anti-intellectual, twisting meanings and playing games - such as redetermining time scales - to be anti-intellectual. It's trying to prove a hypothesis by reinventing data.

people like you just dismiss them out of hand.

Well, oddly enough I'm a happy amateur at such things, and Dawkins is paid rather well to concentrate on such matters for us. I have to point out that he's done all the work, and therefore the matters at hand are eminently dismissable.

I hear these same phrases all the time not just from people who have never touched religion, but have never touched philosophy.

I don't see a necessity to study philosophy in detail to ask for proof of a divinity. I don't see it as required in order to expect someone to actually follow the rules of the religion they declare alleigance to.

But why tell you that? You don't give a shit. You just think I'm some Evangelist twit, all "JESUSIFY! CONSERVATIZE! YOU GOTS TO GET GODLY!" I'll be happy to leave you to preconceptions.

Hardly. I just expect you to follow the rules you claim to believe in. If your god didn't create the world, then he's not omnipotent. If you're trying to subjugate science to make it look as if your god created the world, then you're using smoke and mirrors, trying to use something credible to justify the incredible. If you're changing the rules, then join another club.

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

Those who forget the lessons of the past are condemned to repeat the mistakes.

There's a big difference between learning about ourselves and our history and believing in an unprovable omnipotent being. Archaeology involves proof.

What am I going to learn from ancient ruins that will keep me from making any mistakes in the future? I mean, I've met plenty of people who are, for lack of a better word, stupid when it comes to history. Yet somehow they haven't committed genocides, bought slaves, kept people down because of race/gender/sexual orientation/etc.

I just find it ironic to rip on one person's past time for being pointless when the one you suggest doesn't exactly do anything to change today's society.

[Rapscallion]

What am I going to learn from ancient ruins that will keep me from making any mistakes in the future? I mean, I've met plenty of people who are, for lack of a better word, stupid when it comes to history. Yet somehow they haven't committed genocides, bought slaves, kept people down because of race/gender/sexual orientation/etc.

Scientists and the like can discover truth. They can present it logically and give people the chance to make up their own minds.

They can't stop people being idiots. It gives no moral authority to force people to act in one way or another.

I just find it ironic to rip on one person's past time for being pointless when the one you suggest doesn't exactly do anything to change today's society.

Religion isn't a past time. It's how someone lives their life, and that affects others.

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

Religion isn't a past time. It's how someone lives their life, and that affects others.

Unless they have one of those stupid door-to-door religions, no it doesn't. It's their choices that affects others. They don't have to push their religion on others. I have past friends who were very much against homosexuality, but they accepted gay people anyway because that's who they are and they didn't make it their life mission to convert them.

Religion isn't bad. It's people's personal choices to use that religion to press their personal beliefs on other people that is bad.

[Ipecac Drano]

Unless they have one of those stupid door-to-door religions, no it doesn't.

Those "door-to-door" religions don't affect others as much as other religions do. Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses may interrupt your morning routine, but some of the Baptists are trying to upset school curricula and both they and the Catholics are putting limitations on what a woman can do with her body.

[Greenday]

Those "door-to-door" religions don't affect others as much as other religions do. Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses may interrupt your morning routine, but some of the Baptists are trying to upset school curricula and both they and the Catholics are putting limitations on what a woman can do with her body.

You didn't state anything that conflicts with what I said. Religion isn't making people do it. It's their personal beliefs and their personalities. They are against abortion because they think fetuses are living and it's wrong to kill. You don't need religion to come up with that opinion. And I don't care if religion is taught in school as long as all religions are taught.

[Ghel]

And I don't care if religion is taught in school as long as all religions are taught.

As long as it's being taught as part of a comparative religions course, I agree. The problem comes when religion, in the form of creationism, is being taught in science classes. That's religious thinking and propaganda being pushed on unsuspecting children.

Religion is also the primary (and probably only) factor behind same-sex marriage bans.

I would prefer if religion were merely a pastime, but in reality, it affects others.

[Greenday]

Religion is also the primary (and probably only) factor behind same-sex marriage bans.

You mean after people just being plain bigoted, right?