75 replies to this topic

[Waser Lave]

Nice. You probably didn't even bother reading anything in any of my last posts right?

Priceless.

Actually I've read every post in this thread, I just chose to be sarcastic.

Priceless.

[Waser Lave]

Thanks for helping out the debate with your sarcasm. Really, it's what we all needed and wanted.

No problem, I could see that sarcasm was sorely lacking in this thread so I felt obliged to help you all out.

[nox]

Thanks for helping out the debate with your sarcasm. Really, it's what we all needed and wanted.

Anyways, I'm done with this debate since no one is taking it seriously anymore. What's funny was just the other day I was talking to Lindsay about debates not being possible on Codex anymore. She went and looked at a few of the debate topics and after only looking at a few posts remembered why she left. Thought that was rather ironic.

it's because we've had the same debates over and over again :\

http://www.neocodex....showtopic=65019

[Sweeney]

Thanks for helping out the debate with your sarcasm. Really, it's what we all needed and wanted.

Oh, the irony of remonstrating sarcasm with yet more sarcasm.

The difference is I have a source for absolute truth from which to derive morality whereas Atheists don't. Simple as that.

Surely your beliefs dictate that atheists do have a source of absolute truth, but we choose to ignore it.

[redlion]

The difference is I have a source for absolute truth from which to derive morality whereas Atheists don't. Simple as that.

Based on faith. Thats the phrase you leave out.

[Tetiel]

Based on faith. Thats the phrase you leave out.

I don't mean to cause a shitstorm... but I figure I'd say that I believe a lot of people hold their own faith in science and their teachers. All they do is they read their textbooks and listen to the lectures on various theories of why things are the way they are, but we don't always see the evidence ourselves. We have faith in science so we choose to believe it when none of us has seen evolution for ourselves. We choose to have faith when barely any of us has seen a real fossil record. Only just heard of a fossil record. We've never seen a molecule but believe they exist because our textbooks tell us they exist. Sure, we may do some chemistry work every so often, but that doesn't always prove they exist.

Of course, I would not be as crazy as to assert that molecules do not exist. I'm merely stating that many people believe in science primarily based on faith. And honestly I don't think there's anything wrong with that. People should try to find out for themselves, yes, but most people aren't planning on doing that. I don't see too many bashing them for only having faith that what their teachers say is true and no proof.

There's probably some logical holes in my statement as I just woke up, but you know what I'm trying to say xD

[Waser Lave]

I don't mean to cause a shitstorm... but I figure I'd say that I believe a lot of people hold their own faith in science and their teachers. All they do is they read their textbooks and listen to the lectures on various theories of why things are the way they are, but we don't always see the evidence ourselves. We have faith in science so we choose to believe it when none of us has seen evolution for ourselves. We choose to have faith when barely any of us has seen a real fossil record. Only just heard of a fossil record. We've never seen a molecule but believe they exist because our textbooks tell us they exist. Sure, we may do some chemistry work every so often, but that doesn't always prove they exist.

Of course, I would not be as crazy as to assert that molecules do not exist. I'm merely stating that many people believe in science primarily based on faith. And honestly I don't think there's anything wrong with that. People should try to find out for themselves, yes, but most people aren't planning on doing that. I don't see too many bashing them for only having faith that what their teachers say is true and no proof.

There's probably some logical holes in my statement as I just woke up, but you know what I'm trying to say xD

There is quite a difference between scientific findings and religious beliefs. Scientific findings have to disclose their methods and data so that they can be scrutinised by other scientists to verify the results by reproducing them (they also have to be objective). That's a key part of the scientific method which is impossible to do with religion because there is no empirical evidence to support any god.

So while people have faith in scientific theories it's not blind faith because they have been verified and scrutinised carefully. If somebody had the will, time and means to do so they could reproduce the experiments themselves but it's not possible for most people. Nobody has verified that any gods exist because it's not possible to do so.

I hope I don't get told off by Josh again.

Edited by Laser Wave, 01 May 2008 - 09:40 AM.

[Frizzle]

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

[Ives]

I understand the reasoning part, but again we do run into a problem. Reason comes from the mind, therefor since everything the mind conceives is not absolutely true reason itself cannot be absolutely true. Not to mention if the mind were developed by evolutionary functions in no way is it perfect; therefor the reason it conceives is not only not absolutely true, but imperfect as well.

I can see that being taken in a bad light, and in no way am I saying that people should not use reason. I'm simply making a point that defining morals from reason is deriving them from an object which itself is not absolute and therefor one can never truly determine what is right and wrong (because it's not absolutely true), there can only be a general 'consensus'.

Again, my only point was that Atheists, according to my current knowledge, do not have an absolute truth which they believe in from which they can derive what is right and wrong. There's nothing `wrong` with this in my mind, and in no way am I trying to offend anyone. I'm simply defending my point (and seeking any valid objections/contradictions).

And thanks for the compliment, something I rarely see and very respectable <3

There isn't any absolute truth, no, but that doesn't mean we need derive our morals from a divine power. The idea of morals in itself is a flawed institution, and although reason is not perfect, reason and empiricism both can create good reasons not to do certain things. Morals aren't nessecarily based on what makes your heart ache. I think morals start off entering ones brain as being logical concepts that keep civilization from falling apart. Then, as they become questioned less is when you begin to feel bad when you do something "immoral" so to speak. Man may not be able to comprehend everything, but we can get damn close and we can come to a pretty good conclusion as to what is and isn't.

[Cataliste]

Exactly, morals do not exist! Maybe we need to define morality, because in my view it's the absolute truth of what is right and wrong. It allows one man to effectively condemn another man for doing something.

I didn't really consider the fact that other people might define it differently, which is a mistake on my part, and I apologize. I just figured it was self-evident that morals had to be something absolutely true because if they were not, then they wouldn't actually exist, as you just described above.

By the way, I absolutely love how you construct your arguments Their detailed, accurate, logical, and most of all not rude

Which is a fine point. Morality can not exist for an Atheist. But I do draw one thing from the Bible. I don;t believe it because God wrote it, but because it seems like a damn thing to go by:
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

I would not much like it if Josh killed me, so I try not to kill him.

[Shadiel]

Trying to debate with a Christian is like trying to teach a tomato the US National Anthem.

[Ives]

Exactly, morals do not exist! Maybe we need to define morality, because in my view it's the absolute truth of what is right and wrong. It allows one man to effectively condemn another man for doing something.

I didn't really consider the fact that other people might define it differently, which is a mistake on my part, and I apologize. I just figured it was self-evident that morals had to be something absolutely true because if they were not, then they wouldn't actually exist, as you just described above.

By the way, I absolutely love how you construct your arguments Their detailed, accurate, logical, and most of all not rude

I see morals in a matter as people might have seen them in the book of Leviticus. Now, I think you can eat shrimp and not worry too much about it, but to me that was a law created that they justified in some manner or another as being productive to society. It can come off as too subjective but it can be even more subjective when you suggest theres an absolute truth to morals, because you tend to add on more morals according to your book (ie Saudi arabia cutting the hands off of those who consume alcohol).

Trying to debate with a Christian is like trying to teach a tomato the US National Anthem.

It's more like dancing about architecture. It may seem funny, but when you see the beauty of Frank Lloyd Wrights fallingwater, you may be inclined to do so and it becomes a norm.

Edited by Athean, 01 May 2008 - 05:11 PM.

[Ives]

Actually a majority of the laws in the Old Testament were meant to train Israelites and make them unique. God wanted to set His people apart from the pagans of the land and therefor created what you see in books like Deuteronomy. For example many of the pagans around had kings whereas God setup Judges.

Really, if taken by a secular view most of the laws in the Old Testament would look very unproductive for a society. They could not embrace outside pagan societies, they had to answer to prophets, etc. etc.

Thats what I mean by their rational justification as to why not eat shrimp. It probably did help their society better in some miniscule way, if only in harmony with everything else.

[Tetiel]

Trying to debate with a Christian is like trying to teach a tomato the US National Anthem.

*sigh* I really love it when people choose to insult me even though I try to be open minded. Way to just insult all of us just for the sake of insulting :\ Please don't say anything like that again. If you have a problem with Christianity - fine. But insulting a large number of people like that is not acceptable especially in a debate.

[Aetas]

Where the hell is Hydro when you need him most?

But anyways, Shadiel, I completely agree with Tetiel (Even if I am Muslim) in that while you may be inclined to impose such prejudicial values, the rest of us most likely wish to not be imposed upon with such things. Therefore, please desist in all of such activities that Tetiel discussed, including insulting comments of any kind.

[Melchoire]

What's with the fucking smiley-faces at the end of clearly sarcastic and frustrated posts. If you're pissed just say let us know, it's so annoying.

[Frizzle]

*sigh* I really love it when people choose to insult me even though I try to be open minded. Way to just insult all of us just for the sake of insulting :\ Please don't say anything like that again. If you have a problem with Christianity - fine. But insulting a large number of people like that is not acceptable especially in a debate.

To be fair, alot of christians are so dogmatic that some mysterious figure in the sky does everything for them, it's practically impossible to get a good debate going without "God works in mysterious ways" or "It's all the lord's work" etc..

Where the hell is Hydro when you need him most?

But anyways, Shadiel, I completely agree with Tetiel (Even if I am Muslim) in that while you may be inclined to impose such prejudicial values, the rest of us most likely wish to not be imposed upon with such things. Therefore, please desist in all of such activities that Tetiel discussed, including insulting comments of any kind.

You call us prejudical yet you follow a religion which is known for violating people's basic human rights?

Edited by Frizzle, 02 May 2008 - 03:45 AM.

[Shadiel]

Wait, when did I insult Christians in a general sense?
Because I made an analogy.

Perhaps you mistook my purpose of that statement, so allow me to fix it slightly.

Trying to debate creationism with a Christian is like trying to teach a tomato the US National Anthem because they take pride in believing what is unbelievable.

Feel a little less insulted or whatever now?

[Tetiel]

No, because you're still comparing me to a tomato essentially saying that I have no intelligence and little ability to learn Frankly the only thing you added was an insult to christians and nothing to the debate which is insulting just to insult. Not acceptable.

Not to mention that not ALL christians are like that.

[Aetas]

To be fair, alot of christians are so dogmatic that some mysterious figure in the sky does everything for them, it's practically impossible to get a good debate going without "God works in mysterious ways" or "It's all the lord's work" etc..




You call us prejudical yet you follow a religion which is known for violating people's basic human rights?

You yet again displayed your own prejudice and ignorance mixed, if you'll excuse my rudeness/bluntness. Islam PROHIBITS some of the things we've recently heard in the news/seen otherwise. Islam is a religion dedicated to a balance of life, and submission. It's not just a religion, it's like.... a manual for life

However, shall we get back to topic? Expelled seems to be quite controversial, eh? Whatever happened to Disney fairies and whatnot? I miss my cartoons

[Tetiel]

You yet again displayed your own prejudice and ignorance mixed, if you'll excuse my rudeness/bluntness. Islam PROHIBITS some of the things we've recently heard in the news/seen otherwise. Islam is a religion dedicated to a balance of life, and submission. It's not just a religion, it's like.... a manual for life

However, shall we get back to topic? Expelled seems to be quite controversial, eh? Whatever happened to Disney fairies and whatnot? I miss my cartoons

Agreed, the majority of muslims I have meet have been very very nice. I was invited by one of my friends to an Eid service and I was actually very nervous because I'm white as can be. No way I'd be seen as a muslim. But they were actually very welcoming to me and it was quite a relief

Anyways what happened to the disney fairies is they were replaced by teen stars which all tend to go astray for some reason. I honestly wish they would go back to more cartoons so that they would have less child stars because I believe the business isn't a healthy place for children :\

[redlion]

You yet again displayed your own prejudice and ignorance mixed, if you'll excuse my rudeness/bluntness. Islam PROHIBITS some of the things we've recently heard in the news/seen otherwise. Islam is a religion dedicated to a balance of life, and submission. It's not just a religion, it's like.... a manual for life

However, shall we get back to topic? Expelled seems to be quite controversial, eh? Whatever happened to Disney fairies and whatnot? I miss my cartoons

I try to defend Islam with the same things you said, citing religion of peace and so forth. The other side always cites this:

[5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

[Tetiel]

Well... umm... I guess my friend Maham from Pakistan is a Jew or Christian for making friends with me?

[Ives]

I'm no fan of Islam. I think it was genius on Mohammeds part and people like Avicenna certainly gave a good name to Islamic society, but I don't think it's a religion of peace, nessecarily. Not until meeting a certain quota will their be peace, a quota I feel is impossible to attain.

[redlion]

I'm no fan of Islam. I think it was genius on Mohammeds part and people like Avicenna certainly gave a good name to Islamic society, but I don't think it's a religion of peace, nessecarily. Not until meeting a certain quota will their be peace, a quota I feel is impossible to attain.

Quota of what?