Religious/Evolutionary Debate Thread
- Thread starter QUALTHWAR
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
Balton said:
Well I got oops (have) you fooled then,but what is really moronic,is people acting like a internet forum is like a damn wrighting class.
or spelling big fricking deal ,yeeehaw.
If people think the way someone punctuates,spells,on chat,forums has got to be the lamest moron around.
I don't give a flying F___ who spells wrong,but I do look at how the responses are,of such awsome wit hahahahah.
I suppose you go fishing and look out over the water and think,hmmm that ripple don't look right,like DUH,your just too cool man,so cool,like stab me with a fork cool.
The people reading it in such a way need help,and I should of put a "an" in front of internet up there too,geez like I don't know? you took a stab at me rather than commenting on what I said wich is relavent to this thread,but oh well I shouldn't exspect so much.
Last edited:
Cat Fuzz
Qualthwar's Minion. Ph34r!
Mister_Prophet said:
Well people are asking (telling) to not believe in God or I mean creation knowledge thereof.
So is it fair to only believe the scientists? when they can't even sit through one convention.
My point is you (or whomever) is allways saying how much religion is responsable for wars and causing problems throughout time.
but look at how they react,not very good response from the scientists ie (people).
ReD_Fist said:
I'm not denying that either side has it's loonies. I'm also not gonna sit here and have you tell me that a bunch of nerds badmouthing religion at a freakin' convention is comparable to stoning people for studying stars instead of the bible
Is that the only example you have to counter argue things like the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Vatican telling people in Africa not to use condoms because it promotes fornication and is a sin...thus helping the spread of AIDS?ReD_Fist said:
So a bunch of science guys saying creationism should not be taught over science is comparable to initiating a war over religious disputes?
I haven't heard about this boycott personally, but on the same note it could be a bunch of religious activists saying not to teach evolution in a school over creationism and I wouldn't really care all to much because it is common knowledge that the modern activist has nothing worth activating against anyway. So whether they are religious retards or scientific retards, they are still retards...and they are both on the same boat.
But don't compare puny activist whine-markets to things like wars and mass murder/enslavement.
Last edited:
I forgot, religion is the only cause of violence in the world. They always get me with that one. As if the verbal drubbing needed an added dose of Appeal to Consequences.
Last edited:
ReD_Fist said:
Bickering at a convention is not the same as killing people on a massive scale.
Bickering at a convention is more or less the same as what is going on here in this thread.
W0RF said:
Who said it was the only cause of violence in the world? Cus It wasn't me.
I'm simply saying that comparing a boycott to mass genocide is not the same thing. And suddenly I'm saying religion is the cause of all violence in the world?
Are we reading the same posts?
If religion is not the cause of all violence in the world, then citing violence for religious reasons is not a valid argument against it, as people can invent all sorts of reasons to serve their own ends. Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hussein, Milosevich, there are plenty of people who slaughtered tons for their own reasons. If religion is not the root cause, then the problem lies elsewhere.
Example: I'm pretty sure the Bible says nothing about burning people at the stake, nor any other religious work. Therefore, that idea must have come from somewhere else, and religion nothing more than an unintended rationalization.
Example: I'm pretty sure the Bible says nothing about burning people at the stake, nor any other religious work. Therefore, that idea must have come from somewhere else, and religion nothing more than an unintended rationalization.
Last edited:
W0RF said:
I wasn't citing violence for religious reasons as an arguement against all violence. I was responding to a statement made by Red Fist where he quoted my reasons for siding with science and then talked about some boycott where some science geeks said mean things about religion. I brought that violence stuff up because he was trying to compare the boycott to the violent acts done by religious fanatics, as if that was something you can compare to one another. He was trying to say, "see you guys do it too", and if you are trying to tell me that a bunch of fools getting into a hissy fit at a convention IS in fact comparable to something like the crusades (as he was suggesting) then do so. Or don't.
But don't bring up a different point...like something I'm not addressing or saying...and try to respond with that
That's like me saying "Tomatoes are fruits, even though they taste like vegetables" and then you say "Yeah like all vegetables that taste like vegetables are fruits (rolleyes)". W0RF said:
The bible does include stoning and crucifiction. But that doesn't mean that I think religion as an idea is to blame for the deaths carried out by stoning or crucifiction. I more than agree with the concept that the blame rests soley on people.
Last edited:
First of all, crucifixion was the Romans idea, so I don't know why you would make that connection in the first place. If anything, it illustrates my point. And if you agree with that point, then there's really no reason to use the Crusades to one-up redfist. Acknowledging that point completely negates the argument of who has the darker history.Mister_Prophet said:
W0RF said:
Clearly I was
. Whether the Romans or the Martians invented crucifixtion is irrelevant. I was saying that I agreed with you, but that you were using that in an arguement I wasn't addressing. W0RF said:
Sure there was. He was trying to compare a convention to the violent acts carried out by religious fanatics. I didn't make that comparison, he did. He did.
If someone tries to tell me that drinking soda is as bad for you as drinking molten lead, I'm going to disagree. And I'll sure as hell tell you that drinking lead is alot more dangerous than drinking soda.
I have no idea why you decided to make an issue out of this.
Because of this:Mister_Prophet said:
I'm not going to sit here and argue that Redfist is the brightest bulb on the tree, but - you who are well-read - know that there are better comparative examples than the one he tried to use. He may not have made his point very well, but I don't think it's particularly fair to suggest that no better arguments exist. I haven't really made it a point to contribute much to the thread, because it would invariably line me up with people making poor arguments which I have no desire to defend (and oh look, it has), I would just hope that Christianity/religion would at least get a fair shake from fair-minded people.
If it's out of place for me to ask that, you won't have to worry, because by the time you've gotten to this point, I'll already be back out of the thread where I belong.
W0RF said:
Obviously there has to be a better arguement out there. I can think of a few good ones. It would just be nice if you guys brought it up though. Why would an opposing side in a debate arm their competition for them?
If I was Red Fist, or any one of you religious defenders, I would think up something a little more than a convention.
But since this debate is more or less a joke (at this point anyway), you coulda argued Nazi science experiements, the dawn of "modern" medicine in Britain in the 1800s (cracking a woman over the head with a mallot and making her permanetly brain damaged because it was believed to cure her insanity of hysterical fits after being traumitized from being raped), or other such things. But even as I say this I really think one side pales in comparison to the other. And you know what, that really...and I mean this truly....doesn't effect my opinion on creationism vs evolution at all.
I'll be honest. If science was the sole cause of ALL violence and the cause of every bit of terrible history that we have, I'd probably still believe it the theories of science over religion. I can admit that and not feel the slightest bit bad about it. Why? Because it still would feel more real to me than religion.
W0RF said:
I guess that depends on who you ask. I don't feel like I've been given a fair-minded shake from the religious wing in here at all. In fact I think I've given you guys alot of free-breaks. But that's me.
Well, by lumping me in with Redfist you've pretty much confirmed why I stayed out of this thread, and probably should have just kept out. Some of "us guys" just don't feel like discussions need to turn into pissing matches. Yes, redfist could have said "well scientists who boycott conventions don't seem open-minded" which is a hell of a lot different from "non-violent" but that doesn't mean I think there's something to be gained from making a laundry list of atheism's historical foibles. I warned Red to back off, I didn't jump to his defense, but I'm getting a little tired of the whole "you guys had the Crusades" argument.
I'll just be over here with all of "us guys" fascinated by small shiny objects. It's too bad, too, because your references to the experiential side of science as rationale would have made an interesting discussion.
I'll just be over here with all of "us guys" fascinated by small shiny objects. It's too bad, too, because your references to the experiential side of science as rationale would have made an interesting discussion.
Last edited: