Sign in to follow this  
MusicLover_2007

Death threat against South Park creators about depicting Allah

Recommended Posts

quote:
Originally posted by Be like the water, people.:

I don't remember who-- Good > Perfect, perhaps (sorry if i got that wrong!) pointed out that life from God's breath is just the same as life from disorder.

close! actually, i was arguing that evolution in no way contradicts your scripture. as in, god breathes life into dust = life springing from "goo" as you like to call it.

i feel that you will respond by saying you don't believe we are related to primates again. but there is nothing in the bible that contradicts that, it even supports in a way. i mean, all creations must be related as they are designed by the same entity. i think modern day christians might be simply offended by the idea of it.

do you share the creationists' belief about the life of the dinosaurs? i am not sure how strictly literal you are. but if we agree that the "7 days" mentioned in genesis weren't literal 24 hour periods, this helps to see how evolution can fit into the story.

quote:
what good does it do if such a highly evolved creature can experience such joy from killing those of its own species?

oh and again, we are confusing the word morals. just because it is ingrained in us not to murder morally, doesn't mean that those morals can't be broken. in such a "highly evolved creature," we have free will and a choice in everything we do. and also a side note- the hunt is also a primal instinct. what is hunted is irrelevant, but the joy of the hunt is a remnant of the days when hunting was a means of survival. combine these two and add a dash of society telling you who "deserves to die," and there ya go! one french colonizer at your service!

(sorry i had no input in the whole chaos theory or whatever discussion, haha. the way i see it- humans evolved, and as they learned to shape and control their environment to suit their needs, civilizations grew etc... anyway seems to me, the world is much more chaotic now than it was back then. hey whaddya know, it works out after all)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me back up on the moral subject. And re-do my argument. My Darwinian explanation for the origin of our raw moral sense explains why we are good. Why I don't kill, why I treat others the way I would like to be treated. It explains it as a desire to be good.

As far as people doing things and not feeling remorseful: I think that they will usually make up an excuse of some sort to try and justify what they do. Sometimes it is a religious excuse. All I am saying is that we have a possible natural explanation for the origins of our raw moral sense. There's never been any evidence or law found that goes against the possibility of our moral sense coming about from purely natural causes. We observe morality in other animals as well that help further the survival of their species. As long as we have a possible natural explanation for something, we need not use superstitious religion. I am providing observations to support my claim as to where our moral sense comes from. I yet to hear you provide any evidence or observations to support your claim.

quote:
explosion

The Big Bang was not an explosion. It was a rapid expansion.

quote:
we can't go from goo to people,

Goo? What are you talking about? PLEASE go do some decent research on the theory.

quote:
This isn't proof that we were not designed, it just means that we were designed on a collision course. So what?

So you're saying god's plan was to have black holes, gamma ray bursts, colliding galaxies, and quasars? That's like making a car go 100 mph w/ no safety equipment, brakes, airbags, & decrying it to be a great design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:
Originally posted by Brady:

Let me back up on the moral subject. And re-do my argument. My Darwinian explanation for the origin of our raw moral sense explains why we are good. Why I don't kill, why I treat others the way I would like to be treated. It explains it as a desire to be good.

Yes. and it's a nice story. I'd hardly call it science, any more than you'd call Genesis history.

quote:
As far as people doing things and not feeling remorseful: I think that they will usually make up an excuse of some sort to try and justify what they do.

Not always, and i'd argue that there have been enough cases throughout history against that arguement that it's safe to say you have too much faith in the goodness of people. I absolutely agree that we all have a basic understanding of how things should be. What's missing from your statement, though, is an explanation of how happy so many people are to blatantly disregard that understanding in ways that don't further their own genetic line, nor do they benefit the species. My point: shouldn't they have been weeded out by now? And why is it possible for people to kill at all? When has that benefitted humanity? Maybe evolution would be better supported with less free will, and more mechanical, robotic organims...

quote:
Sometimes it is a religious excuse. All I am saying is that we have a possible natural explanation for the origins of our raw moral sense. There's never been any evidence or law found that goes against the possibility of our moral sense coming about from purely natural causes.

This sounds like a faith-based hypothesis. "We don't see where this is neccessarily wrong, so let's believe it."

quote:
We observe morality in other animals as well that help further the survival of their species.

It could just as easily be said that God designed them to be that way, just as He designed us.

quote:
As long as we have a possible natural explanation for something, we need not use superstitious religion. I am providing observations to support my claim as to where our moral sense comes from. I yet to hear you provide any evidence or observations to support your claim.

Since you wanted to group all of christianity as sharing a mindset with the crusaders, i showed you a man who took pleasure in dehumanizing and slaughtering innocent peoples, all under the guise of "religion".

I don't think that it's possible to find situations that disprove the possibility that our moral sense came about by natural causes. Neither can you disprove that God has given it to us. In light of this, i can highjack your examples and present them as support for a common origin, not in genetic terms, but in terms of our creator...

Speaking of common traits providing "evidence" for evolution, is it possible for you to name some animals that display moral sense, and then show how they evolved into people?

Or has natural selection really provided so many unrelated species with so many similarities?

quote:
quote:
explosion

The Big Bang was not an explosion. It was a rapid expansion.

I've never heard anyone describe the big bang without the word 'explosion'. Sorry for my poor choice of vocabulary. Smiler

quote:
quote:
we can't go from goo to people,

Goo? What are you talking about? PLEASE go do some decent research on the theory.

What was the simplest life form? Amoebas, yes? Little single-celled organisms that, at the foundation of evolution were thought to be simple enough to maybe have come about by chance. (we now know that's not the case, but apparently the evolutionist's mantra is, "the show must go on!"...) When i say goo, i'm refering to the mass of simple organisms that are considered the foundation of life on this planet... Or have we put that to rest, and are now claiming that we pretty much randomly appeared as very complex organisms?

quote:
quote:
This isn't proof that we were not designed, it just means that we were designed on a collision course. So what?

So you're saying god's plan was to have black holes, gamma ray bursts, colliding galaxies, and quasars? That's like making a car go 100 mph w/ no safety equipment, brakes, airbags, & decrying it to be a great design.

I'm not sure why, but this made me smile.. Maybe it just reminds me of Dawkins and his aversion to a power superior to his own.

Anyway, why do you have such a problem with black holes and the like? Surely none have cropped up in your bedroom floor, leading you to assume that God screwed up royally? (i suppose He's done something right, because you're here typing...) The super dangerous, crazy stuff is out there in space. It's amazing, and more than a little over our heads, but that certainly doesn't make me doubt the fact that they were made by an intelligent, complex god. Why do they make you doubt?

Maybe, and this is my own little half-baked idea, this was another little message from God about how fleeting this earth and humanity realy are (probably not their only purpose, mind you). He can create and destroy things--there are soooo many things that would tear us to shreds (to something more basic than shreds!) and yet He never bats an eye--indeed, He has numbered the stars and calls them each by name. So i sincerely doubt that God is scared of gamma ray bursts, even if Dawkins squirms at the thought.

just avoiding a double post here. New point introduced below Smiler

Another point i want to bring up, though i doubt that we'll discuss it long.

I was curious about the support held for a young earth, supporting a rather literal interpretation of Genesis (which i hold) versus the long timeline integral to evolution.

What i found was a list of different dating methods which support young earth, followed by everything that so wrong with them.

I also found many methods that support an old earth, but no flaws were listed with them.

I went back to the young earth section, and found an evolutionist's take on a creationist's critique of cardon dating. I assumed that the points the creationist raised would be shot down along with salinity, etc. But what's interresting is that his points were not disputed.

Essentially everything that's wrong with the support for a young earth is also wrong with the support for old earth. The difference is that old earth is taught in schools.

In light of this, i guess i could cite Dawkins' point that is usually pointed toward Christians' belief in the Bible: "You only believe in it because you grew up with it."

In reality, it appears that our methods of dating items and even the earth itself are not scientifically sound. Again, this was admitted by evolutionists.

So i ask, do you really think that evidence against evolution would be big news? Or maybe it gets a sniff, and is promptly swept under the rug...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:
Originally posted by Be like the water, people.:

And why is it possible for people to kill at all? When has that benefitted humanity?

sorry, what? when has the ability to kill benefited humanity? we originated as hunters and gatherers. as in, you know, hunting. which is killing. people still hunt. it is a way to survive. and if we can kill for food, we can use the same ability in different ways.

quote:
Speaking of common traits providing "evidence" for evolution, is it possible for you to name some animals that display moral sense, and then show how they evolved into people?

hmmm...it seems you have restated the theory of evolution in question form. so...yes?

quote:

In reality, it appears that our methods of dating items and even the earth itself are not scientifically sound. Again, this was admitted by evolutionists.

you are saying that carbon dating is not scientifically sound? and this is supported by actual scientists? please provide a link! because as far as i know, its pretty much simple math...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:
Yes. and it's a nice story. I'd hardly call it science, any more than you'd call Genesis history.

We see it in other animals. It is a well worked out Darwinian rationale......

quote:
And why is it possible for people to kill at all?

It is a desire. A desire that can be overcome. Why is it Briana, that when I see an unfortunate person, I want to help them? What is your explanation for that? We have a desire to be good, this is fact.

quote:
This sounds like a faith-based hypothesis. "We don't see where this is neccessarily wrong, so let's believe it."

Faith is belief without evidence. I said that we have a possible natural explanation. So we don't need to use Religion. Even if the current natural explanation is not good, that doesn't mean that we won't have a better model/understanding in the future. I'm not saying that the natural explanation I have proposed is fact.

quote:
It could just as easily be said that God designed them to be that way, just as He designed us.

Your shooting yourself in the foot when you make that argument. Because the designer deserves an even bigger explanation for it's own origins. Anything complex enough to design life deserves an even bigger explanation for itself. The argument from design is the most regressive argument I have ever heard.

quote:
is it possible for you to name some animals that display moral sense, and then show how they evolved into people?

What the heck. None of our ancestors are around today.

quote:
What was the simplest life form?

Prokaryotes

quote:
Why do they make you doubt?

Can I just ask you why he created them?

quote:
and yet He never bats an eye

That's why he allows tons of comet impacts, one of which almost wiped out all life on Earth. And that is why he created the sun with a limited fuel supply so that it may explode and destroy this entire solar system.

quote:
I was curious about the support held for a young earth, supporting a rather literal interpretation of Genesis (which i hold) versus the long timeline integral to evolution.

Your one of the those young earth creationists! You do realize that that is equivalent to believing that the distance from San Francisco to New York is ten yards right?

The rejection of the validity of fossils and of dating by religious fundamentalists creates a problem for them:

Religious fundamentalists are forced to claim that all the fossils are of the same age, somehow buried in the rocks by some extraordinary catastrophe, perhaps Noah’s flood. How exactly they believe that all the dinosaurs, mammoths, early humans, heavily-armored fishes, trilobites, ammonites, and the rest could all live together has never been explained. Nor indeed why the marine creatures were somehow ‘drowned’ by the flood.

Rejecting fossil data cannot be supported by proof.

The rejection of dating by religious fundamentalists is easier for them to make, but harder for them to demonstrate. The fossils occur in regular sequences time after time; radioactive decay happens, and repeated cross testing of radiometric dates confirms their validity.

???????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:
Originally posted by Brady:

We see it in other animals. It is a well worked out Darwinian rationale......

Just like "God placed on every man's heart the understanding of His law" is a well worked out Biblical rationale. My point is that what you're saying isn't more scientific than what i'm saying.

quote:
It is a desire. A desire that can be overcome.

Where did the desire come from? The desire to raid other peoples' homes and rape them and kill them? To take joy in counting their carcassses? Our ancestors? Or our sin nature?

quote:
Why is it Briana, that when I see an unfortunate person, I want to help them? What is your explanation for that? We have a desire to be good, this is fact.

Because God created all men with the understanding of how we should conduct ourselves.

Besides, it's silly to claim that your every impulse is from evolution. I want to acknowledge God's influence on me, but i don't claim that every inkling i have comes from Him. Likewise, you should acknowledge that your society and the morals you were raised with have had a tremendous effect on you. So while i don't believe it's the only reason, it's very likely that you're proud of the impulse to help others because throughout your entire life, everyone has been determined simply as a "good person" or "bad person" based on things like whether they help others.

quote:
Faith is belief without evidence. I said that we have a possible natural explanation. So we don't need to use Religion. Even if the current natural explanation is not good, that doesn't mean that we won't have a better model/understanding in the future.

Restating your arguement: "We can make up explanations that exclude a god. We're aware that sometimes the things we make up are silly, but there's plenty of time to make things up that are more plausible. No rush."

quote:
I'm not saying that the natural explanation I have proposed is fact.

Then why bother with it? It's all stories. You need to have faith in them, or they fall apart. You don't think it's fact, yet you defend it under scrutiny. Science? No.

quote:
Your shooting yourself in the foot when you make that argument. Because the designer deserves an even bigger explanation for it's own origins.

in the Bible God states, "I am that I am". He is self-existant. Infinitely complex. So He needs "an even bigger explanation", not for His origins (He has no beginning), but for His existance. And it's all wrapped up in those 5 words.

quote:
The argument from design is the most regressive argument I have ever heard.

(in your many years of debate? Razzer)

quote:
quote:
What was the simplest life form?

Prokaryotes

Okay, so, do you understand what i meant by "goo?" And did you understand my question? I was asking, do scientists still believe that, after this natural non-explosion, these life forms were the first to come about, and progressed into the more complex organisms we observe today?

quote:
Can I just ask you why he created them?

Honestly, I don't know.

Maybe as a testament to His greatness, maybe they're a byproduct of the way He created the world.

No matter His reasons, their existance doesn't disprove His.

quote:
That's why he allows tons of comet impacts, one of which almost wiped out all life on Earth.

First, can I point out that you're disputing God's existance based on the fact that you personally don't understand His logic?

Anyway, take carful note of two things:

1: the word almost. It almost wiped out life on earth, yet here we are.

2: At least one Biblical occasion comes to mind when i think of comets hitting the earth (Sodom and Gommorah)... scratch that. Two, because the Bible says God will bring a comet/meteor out of space to destroy the earth. In Revalation, i think.

quote:
And that is why he created the sun with a limited fuel supply so that it may explode and destroy this entire solar system

It may explode.. sure, many things may happen. But according to the Bible, assuming i've got this right, that's not how this planet will meet its demise (do planets meet demises?).

quote:
Your one of the those young earth creationists! You do realize that that is equivalent to believing that the distance from San Francisco to New York is ten yards right?

Technically, just because i think that old earth creationists are trying to bend the words of the bible to meet trends in the scientific community. I'm not particularly torn one way or the other.

quote:
The rejection of the validity of fossils and of dating by religious fundamentalists creates a problem for them:

Religious fundamentalists are forced to claim that all the fossils are of the same age, somehow buried in the rocks by some extraordinary catastrophe, perhaps Noah’s flood. How exactly they believe that all the dinosaurs, mammoths, early humans, heavily-armored fishes, trilobites, ammonites, and the rest could all live together has never been explained. Nor indeed why the marine creatures were somehow ‘drowned’ by the flood.

I don't know much about that. but i personally doubt that the arguement "marine animals drowned in the flood" is too widely accepted.. At any rate, there are endangered species that we can observe pretty frequently in modern times. I don't see why those marine creatures necessarily died in the flood. Maybe they've died out since? I'm only speculating here.

And why couldn't those creatures have lived together? The Bible says that before sin entered the world, the lion laid down with the lamb, right? So perhaps things were simply more harmonious back then. What i'm saying is, I don't understand why this is a "problem".

quote:
Rejecting fossil data cannot be supported by proof.

Here's the link to the paper i read. http://orgs.usd.edu/esci/age/c...iocarbon_dating.html

quote:
The rejection of dating by religious fundamentalists is easier for them to make, but harder for them to demonstrate. The fossils occur in regular sequences time after time; radioactive decay happens, and repeated cross testing of radiometric dates confirms their validity.

???????

What are the methods? What are the intentions of the people dating them? Quote: "There are even some clocks that have been used to support both a young and an old earth depending upon the assumptions and biases of the people using them."

How many times have the fossils occured out of order? If that's irrelevant, so is their appearance in succession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:
Originally posted by good > perfect:

sorry, what? when has the ability to kill benefited humanity? we originated as hunters and gatherers. as in, you know, hunting. which is killing. people still hunt. it is a way to survive. and if we can kill for food, we can use the same ability in different ways.

So humans can wonder about their origins, but can't tell a fellow human from a bear? Sounds like mating must have been a colorful experience back in the day...

My point wasn't that people should be incapable of attacking anything, but i feel that, while evolution was busy carving out the impulse to hunt, it would have lessened humanity's population. Unless we evolved with the distinction between animals v.s. humans, as well as the impulse to kill, simultaneously.

More likely one came first. Let's assume mating is more important than hunting. So we've been distinguishing people from animals for a while before hunting came along. Why haven't we become capable of mainaining that distinction?

quote:
hmmm...it seems you have restated the theory of evolution in question form. so...yes?

Some premise. You have to make assumptions until you're proven wrong. Then, rather than regrouping and adjusting the entire method, you fix the one aspect that's been explicitly proven wrong, while still holding the other connections (which were gathered in the same manner) to be true.

Quote:

"The key issue is the ability correctly to infer a genetic relationship between two species on the basis of a similarity in appearance, at gross and detailed levels of anatomy. Sometimes this approach....can be deceptive, partly because similarity does not necessarily imply an identical genetic heritage: a shark (which is a fish) and a porpoise (which is a mammal) look similar..."

We can see that this approach is inferrior, but it's still the basis of a scientific "theory." This is silly.

I think that if, on some occasions, things randomly started floating away, we'd need to take a second look at gravity. We wouldn't just stand there awkwardly and state, "well, clearly, gravity doesn't hold this thing down because it weighs precisely 5.2 pounds", while hoping that a 7-pound object doesn't go floating away, too. The problem is with gravity, not the particular case of the object that we're observing floating away. (Sorry if this came out rather jumbled)

quote:
you are saying that carbon dating is not scientifically sound? and this is supported by actual scientists? please provide a link! because as far as i know, its pretty much simple math...

I've provided a link to the paper i was refrencing in my response to Brady Smiler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:
Originally posted by Be like the water, people.:

My point wasn't that people should be incapable of attacking anything, but i feel that, while evolution was busy carving out the impulse to hunt, it would have lessened humanity's population. Unless we evolved with the distinction between animals v.s. humans, as well as the impulse to kill, simultaneously.

i am confused by this. i couldn't figure out why i was confused as to how to respond until i realized this- you are referring to evolution as if it is a god. some all knowing power that made us. evolution didn't do anything. we did. and in the process of life, over millions of years, we evolved into what we are today. of course we can distinguish humans from other animals, in the same way a dog can distinguish itself from a cat. we are ALL animals. just different species.

so, to wrap it up- we are animals, that survive in part by hunting. this is for the survival of the species. we can also kill each other. this may not further the species, but there is (and always has been) free will involved. and there are obviously other influences on every decision we make.

quote:

The RATE team has applied an inverse system of logic to the standard. They begin with the same assumption that they are trying to prove. Broken down, the logic holds that the Bible says that the earth is very young; therefore the earth is very young. Without such a beginning claim, the logic would be extremely bizarre...the entire idea is based on an arbitrary, unproven assumption.

that is from your own article. just saying. it seems that this does not support you as much as you think it does?

on a slight tangent, i just wanted to share a bit of an essay i wrote a while ago on creationism. i think it applies to this "young earth" debate.

"You don’t have to be an atheist to oppose Creationism, contrary to popular belief. There are some Christians who oppose it vehemently. Biblical non-literalists acknowledge the fact that the creation debate is not new, but in fact a reintroduction of a view that was long discarded by the Christian faith. Eighteen hundred years ago, Bishop Oregin taught that the account of creation could not be literal, because there could be no literal meaning of a “day” before the creation of the Sun and the Earth. Also, Saint Augustine rejected the literal interpretation of the term “day” in Genesis to mean 24 hours sixteen hundred years ago. Creationism largely made a come back around the time Darwin published his theories, because they seemed to directly oppose the Christian belief. The Bible, on the other hand, commands Christians not to be dogmatic on any issue not central to salvation. Saint Augustine famously said (speaking of cosmological debates) “Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:
Originally posted by Be like the water, people.:

Then why bother with it? It's all stories. You need to have faith in them, or they fall apart.

Stories! Faith! This is the point exactly! There is, as you have said, just as much blind faith in adhering to the authoritative scientific consensus as there is in adhering to the authoritative religious doctrine. But there you have it! It’s the same thing, just a different perspective. And yes, it's just as easy to point to bible phrases and say they can be made to support every single scientific finding that humanity has ever observed as it is to say that science is inflawable, but when it comes down to it you’re both worshiping a god (Yaweh or the Scientfic consensus) in the same closed-minded manner, it’s just that your diverse philosophies destructively interfere. Having said this, I generally trust science over religion, and not because I blindly accept the scientific doctrine, but because it seems logically sound, even logically inherent to me that real world observations should be trusted over thousand-year old manuscripts. (In my opinion, the bible is no different than Greek Mythology, which has characters divinely intervening in mortal affairs, [i.e. the battle of Troy] in the same way that the Christian god divinely interferes with historical figures in the old testament like Noah and Abraham.) You can point to as many reasons as you want why science might be wrong, but you can never point to one piece of evidence that God exists. And believe me, I know the power of faith, how binding structure makes you feel safe and secure, and I greatly value this superstition. In fact, in my subjective opinion being raised catholic was one of the most beautiful things that ever happened to me; it taught me how to imagine intangible things, how to create worlds that exist only in my head and pursue them passionately and lovingly, loving towards the infinite uncertainty. But now, having somewhat 'evolved' if you will Wink into an even more deeply passionate agnostic, I can tell you almost for certain that you do not need blind faith to hold your world together. You definitely do need faith, faith in god, faith in science, faith in yourself, faith in something, but never so much faith that you cannot empathize with a different perspective. There are infinite perspectives, don’t you see it! This is what makes everyone beautiful. So know this, I have as much deep respect for your perspective as I do for Brady’s perspective, my own, and every conceivable perspective, even the inconceivable perspectives that I cannot comprehend because I know that the only thing in the universe I can be sure of is my own existence. You’re right, you know. Science accounts for an infinitely small percentage of reality, but that’s because reality is infinitely complex, and infinitely simple. Maybe I’m getting a bit too esoteric. Smiler But the point is, how can you possibly assume that your own perspective is so infallible? You’ve been asking Brady the same question.

P.S. Sorry I decided to pick on you instead of Brady, I was more passionate about arguing with you because, from what I can tell, my perspective tends to be more similar to his. Smiler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i quote my ex: everyone can do better.

my version is we all always gotta evolve.

when a friends kid has stopped doing drugs

and completely ruining his life and behaving

like a freaking ape, i always say, he's evolving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this