Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 1/27/08 02:57 AM, poxpower wrote:

Religions are not allowed to be wrong.
That's they whole fucking point, that you trust them. If they go and admit they were wrong, that completely shatters any sort of credence to their organization.

Exactly.

And i'm saying that everyone is guilty of it.

Of course, religions being based on nothing, are wrong all the time about tons of shit, so this happens a lot.

Of course.

But I like to base it on historical fact first. Texts, writings, artifacts; archeology. I always thought that these things needed to be re-examined periodically to ensure their authenticity. The problem is, we don't do that, or we don't do that hardly enough.

The problem with the religious is that they never take into account this science. And they never ultimately study and research their own religion or others as well.

The problem with the atheist evolutionist is that they never take into the account the historical significance come about by archeological discoveries such as writings and artifacts that would give evidence to said religion.

Science, on the other hand, is allowed to be wrong as many times as it wants.

Now you're getting to understand why i'm not going to take their current "best" theory and run with it.

lol, what did I do now?
And clearly you care about my modship for some reason. Or else, why bring it up?
I didn't.

I'm telling you that sometimes you can get so full of yourself, that you give me a laugh almost every week.

You brighten my days when you do it.

I just find it funny that Newgrounds has rules about being too insultive, or hateful. How it's this "shining beacon" of Freedom of Speech on the Internet, yet they disallow racial slurs that would be too offensive to a minority population of the website.

And yet... somehow, someone's own personal belief system isn't protected, now isn't it? Threads created specifically to incite a flame war between religious and the non religious, and they're typically let go to allow everyone to bicker, fight, and insult each other based on their own beliefs, despite no one actually being 100% correct.

And that's where you come in. A mod who frequently comes on to these boards and actively participates in the religious insults of other people, specifically to incite frustration and anger in them. It would be sickening if it weren't so humerous.

---

At 1/23/08 01:41 PM, Grammer wrote:

No, if I want to say abortion is wrong because God says so, there's nothing wrong with that.

You can say that and think that all you want, but it is in no way a reasonable basis for the banning for the banning of Abortions.

---

At 1/27/08 03:35 AM, Memorize wrote:

Now you're getting to understand why i'm not going to take their current "best" theory and run with it.

You don't have a choice, unless you're also a scientist and you've doing some research in a field to prove other scientists wrong about something.

Religion? Why would you follow one when it's proven that they were wrong about one thing? The entire deal is based on you having total and complete faith in the fact that it's the word of God, hence always right.

It shouldn't be allowed a single mistake, yet they constantly change it around and apologize etc. and run their religion more like a club house -_-
Just shows that even the believers don't believe.

I'm telling you that sometimes you can get so full of yourself, that you give me a laugh almost every week.

If I could liquify myself, I would inject myself in my veins.

And that's where you come in. A mod who frequently comes on to these boards and actively participates in the religious insults of other people, specifically to incite frustration and anger in them. It would be sickening if it weren't so humerous.

If would be if I banned people for "flaming" but I don't.
I'm the most lenient mod, seriously, I let everything slide.

---

At 1/27/08 01:53 AM, Memorize wrote: Many religious people have been wrong many times. Scientists have also been wrong many times.

I'd actually say that scientists have been wrong MORE times than religious people, since the religious people don't come up with new theories when they're proven wrong. They stick to their guns, even when they're wrong.

---

At 1/27/08 04:31 AM, poxpower wrote:

You don't have a choice, unless you're also a scientist and you've doing some research in a field to prove other scientists wrong about something.

Wait... you're saying I don't have a choice to fully believe in something when someone on this very thread told me they could be wrong as many times as they wanted?

Religion? Why would you follow one when it's proven that they were wrong about one thing? The entire deal is based on you having total and complete faith in the fact that it's the word of God, hence always right.

And so far, I have no reason to deny either or believe everything in either.

Hence the: Playing it safe.

That's why i'm going to wait to see what happens.

It shouldn't be allowed a single mistake, yet they constantly change it around and apologize etc. and run their religion more like a club house -_-

You do realize that there are many religions under the name Christianity, right?

Some, down through the years, have changed certain meanings from the old Greek language to fit their needs. Some have not.

Just shows that even the believers don't believe.

Heh, you're giving me one of those happy moments.

If I could liquify myself, I would inject myself in my veins.

Then go ahead and do it.

Or at least, try to.

If would be if I banned people for "flaming" but I don't.
I'm the most lenient mod, seriously, I let everything slide.

Well aren't you just peachy, eh?

Such a pleasure to have around. But just like so many people, you're just another part of the ignorant masses.

Meaning: That all you do is sit back in your chair with a very general idea of what religion is and what evolution is. And you pick evolution very plainly, probly because you either distaste religion (and who could blame you?) or evolution has been label'd as "science".

Not to be insulting people of differing religious beliefs on this forum, but do you think i'm going to believe in the pope when he is never mentioned in the Bible? Heh, it even has an order to it, telling the requirements for being a Teacher and Elder, but no mention of anything remotely near a Pope or Cardinal or arch-bishop.

I could go on about the shortcomings of many religions; mostly those all claiming the name of Christianity. And do you know what their ultimate problem is? They make it much more complicated than it has to be.

---

At 1/27/08 10:59 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote:
They stick to their guns, even when they're wrong.

That's because their "guns" are based on conjectures rooted in lack of understanding, and lack of desire to understand.

lol run on sentence

---

I dont believe in religion nor god. Thats because im smart, theres no problem with believers but emm gonna be disappointed when they die.
Its fine if you are religious , unless its going to disgraceful levels like Islam, which i hate more than anything in the world

---

At 1/27/08 11:15 AM, Memorize wrote:

Wait... you're saying I don't have a choice to fully believe in something when someone on this very thread told me they could be wrong as many times as they wanted?

Until you have proof that they're wrong, or good reason to suspect, you have to go with what they say, even if it turns out to be wrong later. If you support science, you support the most likely and popular theories, unless you are also a scientist who is working in a field that opposes it and you have suspicious based on evidence or calculations.

But you and I don't, so I'm sorry, you have to stick with evolution here.
Science is NOT a belief. You cannot choose to believe something or something else based on faith or vague "gut feelings".

And so far, I have no reason to deny either or believe everything in either.

How can you have faith in one religion when they've all been proven wrong on numerous points and when they've all changedand divided to adapt to their new people and eras?
That's crazy. If a God wrote the bible, there would NEVER be ANY reason to change your interpretation of it, EVER, or else that directly says God is a dumbass who can't write properly or foresee any social or technological changes.

fortunately for us, every religion is created with the basic premise that they are right about everything from the get go, so we can pretty much wave all of them aside by now and all be vaguely deists at best, though there isn't a sane person on earth who doesn't realise that beinh an agnostic is the only true thing you can get away with, cept for those "gut feeling" and "universe is so magical" folks who are "spiritual" because being agnostic sounds too boring.

You do realize that there are many religions under the name Christianity, right?

Of course.
And that's religiously impossible lol. But there you are, people being so stupid about their faith that they make some up themselves without a second thought, all convinced they are 100% right.

If I could liquify myself, I would inject myself in my veins.

Then go ahead and do it.

I can't liquify myself and be alive after though : (

Well aren't you just peachy, eh?

Yeah stop accusing me of being a douchy hypocrite mod then. You can call me a douche, but not a douche mod.

Such a pleasure to have around. But just like so many people, you're just another part of the ignorant masses.

I'm pretty sure that when it comes to logic and religion, I've been around the block more than enough times by now to know what I'm talking about.

Not to be insulting people of differing religious beliefs on this forum, but do you think i'm going to believe in the pope when he is never mentioned in the Bible?

Oh so you believe in Genesis?
Cause that's mentioned in the bible. Is this the part where I post quotes of things in the bible that you should do?
Because if you use "cause it's in/not in the bible" even A SINGLE TIME as an argument, then you have to run with either choice all the way through. The bible isn't a suggestion, it is THE DIVINE WORD OF THE SUPREME BEING WHO IS SO WISE AND POWERFUL THAT HE COULD NEVER BE WRONG ABOUT ANYTHING EVER.

So basically by not doing something in there, you're saying you're better than God and that he can keep some of his "commands". DAMN.

They make it much more complicated than it has to be.

In their eyes, you make it far too simple. And there is no way that either of you can prove the other one wrong, but at least they have a logic to adhering to their religious code strictly and to the point, while you practically blaspheme if you're saying you're Christian and yet don't do anything based on what is in the bible or based on what religious "officials" tell you to do.

You're basically a deist who just stuck with what he was raised with, while still claiming to make your own choices.

And you think I know nothing about evolution? So try me. Ask all the questions you want, even if I didn't know the answer now, I could learn it in instants with the internet. You don't need a library of books to know about a subject anymore, we're not in the crazy zany primitive 20th century anymore.

==============
anyways, here's a fun one for all your christians:

Straight from the mouth of Jesus, who every Christian believe is archaologically proven to have existed and who is a personification of the Trinity:

"Turn the other cheek".

Every last Christian should do that. There shouldn't be Christian boxers and Christians in the military or Christians in jail. And yet, there you are.

FUCKING
IDIOTS

haha.

---

At 1/27/08 01:28 PM, poxpower wrote:

Until you have proof that they're wrong, or good reason to suspect, you have to go with what they say, even if it turns out to be wrong later. If you support science, you support the most likely and popular theories, unless you are also a scientist who is working in a field that opposes it and you have suspicious based on evidence or calculations.

I reserve my beliefs for concrete evidence.

Considering that they have problems with fossil records and have been wrong on numerous fossils before, why is it such a big deal to you if I hold my beliefs for when real evidence comes my way?

No wrong in that is there?

But you and I don't, so I'm sorry, you have to stick with evolution here.

Like I said.

Just because it's the best they have, doesn't mean that it's "good" (though that's all a matter of opinion anyway).

Because they've been wrong on major findings before, i'm going to reserve myself.

Science is NOT a belief. You cannot choose to believe something or something else based on faith or vague "gut feelings".

Belief-Synonyms:
-View
-Tenent
-Conclusion
-Persuasion.

Everyone has a belief. They're just different. Do you not believe in evolution? Or do you not believe in evolution.

Even still, both religion and evolution require some amount of "belief" to them.

How can you have faith in one religion when they've all been proven wrong on numerous points and when they've all changedand divided to adapt to their new people and eras?

Because not all religions are like that.

You would know if you actually looked into it rather than group everyone into the same category.

That's crazy. If a God wrote the bible, there would NEVER be ANY reason to change your interpretation of it, EVER, or else that directly says God is a dumbass who can't write properly or foresee any social or technological changes.

And i'm telling you: That's why we MUST look at the original writings and translate from that. We should know the meanings.

The earliest record of a Bible that we have has been dated to be around 100 AD. There are also letters and other writings that have been written and recorded that we have that we can use.

That's why I said not to lump everyone into the same category. Because the fact is, there are many religions all claiming to be under the name of "Christianity". Truth is, the main problem with Christians today are Christians.

fortunately for us, every religion is created with the basic premise that they are right about everything from the get go, so we can pretty much wave all of them aside by now and all be vaguely deists at best, though there isn't a sane person on earth who doesn't realise that beinh an agnostic is the only true thing you can get away with, cept for those "gut feeling" and "universe is so magical" folks who are "spiritual" because being agnostic sounds too boring.

There you go again. Filling me with enjoyment!

You never ceace to amaze me.

The real reason why people are so put off by religion is exactly what you're talking about. The only difference is that you generalize them.

Are you actually criticizing me for being skeptical and objectionable about religion and science? I thought that was what science was all about, isn't it?

Haha, no one can ever deal with anyone else expressing their disbelief.

And that's religiously impossible lol. But there you are, people being so stupid about their faith that they make some up themselves without a second thought, all convinced they are 100% right.

And that makes it easy (at least for me) to pick out the fakes.

All you have to do is compare the oldest record we have to the changes people have made to it in History.

Yeah stop accusing me of being a douchy hypocrite mod then. You can call me a douche, but not a douche mod.

But if it were alright to call you a douche, then taking into consideration that you are a mod; that would make you a douche mod.

But i'm not calling you a hypocrite, nor a douche. I just find it entertaining that this site is all about "Free Speech" (as Tom has made mention of this on several occassions). You can't use racial slurs though, and there's even a word explicitly banned from these boards altogether, and yet... we can offend anyone of any belief we want to, regardless of how civil we are.

Truely fascinating.

I'm pretty sure that when it comes to logic and religion, I've been around the block more than enough times by now to know what I'm talking about.

And yet, here you are arguing with me even though i've been agreeing with you on almost every point about religion.

Because if you use "cause it's in/not in the bible" even A SINGLE TIME as an argument, then you have to run with either choice all the way through. The bible isn't a suggestion, it is THE DIVINE WORD OF THE SUPREME BEING WHO IS SO WISE AND POWERFUL THAT HE COULD NEVER BE WRONG ABOUT ANYTHING EVER.

Yep.

But as I said: I'm not going to deny either of them.

I'm playing the safe route. The real reason why I take the Bible over these so-called scientists is because, as you said, "they can be wrong as many times as they want". And considering they've been wrong multiple times before concerning their theory, and that they've lost their objectivity and responsible skepticism, i'm not going to hold my breath. That's why I place more trust in some of the older scientist/evolutionists because they acknowledged their own shortcomings.

If you think i'm excluding religious people from this too, then you'd wrong. There are many religions, as well as many under Christianity, that have been proven wrong on multiple occassions, but they'll never admit it.

That's why i'm going to sit back and watch the feather's fly.

So basically by not doing something in there, you're saying you're better than God and that he can keep some of his "commands".

Oh?

Funny. Here I am doing the "scientific" thing by waiting and even researching my own religion, and you're taking shots at me? Haha.

In their eyes, you make it far too simple

Do you really want to know what the Bible says concerning how to worship?

There were no Arch-Bishops.
There was no Pope.
There were no Cardinals who voted for the Pope.

Church is a word meaning the Community (or rather, the people who gather together and worship). It isn't a building, and there was no such thing as a "religious headquarters".

Each church dealt independantly, but still kept in contact. Think of it as the early Founding Fathers idea of what the US should be. Each state acting independantly, but all connected by the head government (or in this case, the "Bible", "word" or whatever you want to call it).

There was no code on how to dress, or what to wear. They were common people who would read out of their Old Testament about Jesus' and take Communion 1 day of the week. You do realize that they did not have the New Testament writings at this time, yes?

You're basically a deist who just stuck with what he was raised with

Haha, if you say so.

And you think I know nothing about evolution? So try me.

When did I ever say you knew absolutely nothing?

All i'm saying is that you and others are placing too much faith in it after its own shortcomings.

FUCKING
IDIOTS

Haha!

That's it. And that's why you really are douche mod. And you'll never be anything different.

Truth is, you're pathetic. A mod, I can't believe you ever became one. I might be a plague on NewGrounds, but at least i'm not going insult people based on their own beliefs or belief system.

Besides, you know exactly what "turn the other cheek" means, don't you Poxy? You just decided to play the "douche mod" role and act like a little retarded child who lacks basic understanding.

Do you know what's so funny about this? I could get banned for upsetting or insulting a mod. And yet, here you are, insulting a whole slew of people simpley because they don't believe the same thing they do. Ha! Tollerance? My Ass.

---

At 1/27/08 02:43 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 1/27/08 01:28 PM, poxpower wrote:

Until you have proof that they're wrong, or good reason to suspect, you have to go with what they say, even if it turns out to be wrong later. If you support science, you support the most likely and popular theories, unless you are also a scientist who is working in a field that opposes it and you have suspicious based on evidence or calculations.

I reserve my beliefs for concrete evidence.

Just a question, not bashing or anything like that.

If it's true like you say, that you simply feel that science doesn't have enough evidence to convince you completely. Then, what convinced you about the things you believe of currently instead? Did they have the overwhelming evidence that science lacked?

---

At 1/27/08 02:52 PM, Drakim wrote:

Just a question, not bashing or anything like that.

If it's true like you say, that you simply feel that science doesn't have enough evidence to convince you completely. Then, what convinced you about the things you believe of currently instead? Did they have the overwhelming evidence that science lacked?

It's mainly because of this:

With science, though it mainly does not go against religion in general, the idea of how evolution played out, does. Also, these things may change only minorly or radically in the upcoming years (hence the: It can be wrong as many times as it likes). And because we've made major mistakes in our findings before, i'm not going to fully trust it as it is now.

That's why I prefer our historical writings and documents. They're more conclusive, so to speak (to me anyway). The historical references can be "more" accurate.

That's it. That's all i'm saying and that's all i've ever said.

---

At 1/27/08 02:43 PM, Memorize wrote:
I reserve my beliefs for concrete evidence.

like fossils records? Unless you mean DNA or radiometric dating.
Or perhaps you're talking about speciation and observed mutations and the crushing logic behing "survival of the fittest".

Considering that they have problems with fossil records and have been wrong on numerous fossils before
No wrong in that is there?

Yes, because you're not an expert, so you can't make your own conclusions about what you choose to believe or not. I can't prove or disprove the big bang or the string theory. That's way out of my league, so I have to take their word for it.

Because they've been wrong on major findings before, i'm going to reserve myself.

ok but then you can't believe in anything. Or else you'd have to set a percentage of probability for when you do start believing things are true. Good luck with that.

Belief-Synonyms:
-View
-Tenent
-Conclusion
-Persuasion.

None of those are actual replacements for the word "belief" or "faith" in a religious sense. People "believe" science simply out of logic. If you don't believe in science, you don't believe in reality. Also good luck with that.

Even still, both religion and evolution require some amount of "belief" to them.

But not the same. Evolution is 99% certain, and any specific religion is probably about 0.0000000000000000001% certain.

Because not all religions are like that.

Which ones?

And i'm telling you: That's why we MUST look at the original writings and translate from that. We should know the meanings.

Ok well the earth is about 6000 thousands years old. Don't see anyone contesting those translations. Also there was a global flood that left only like 5 humans alive. No one's contesting that either. They're contesting the MEANING of it, but not the words. And you can't presume to change the literal meaning of what God supposedly dictated to people. He's GOD. You're saying he doesn't mean what he writes?

Are you actually criticizing me for being skeptical and objectionable about religion and science? I thought that was what science was all about, isn't it?

I'm criticizing you for being as skeptical of science as you are of religion, which is ludicrous.

All you have to do is compare the oldest record we have to the changes people have made to it in History.

So what the hell DO you believe?

But if it were alright to call you a douche, then taking into consideration that you are a mod; that would make you a douche mod.

I'm a mod who is a douche, but not a douchy mod in the sense that my moding in douchy even if I am a douche. YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING BRO

You can't use racial slurs though

The only word that is banned is "ni88er" and I don't agree with that anyways. And this site is about the free speech of people who are not just out to troll and make trouble, like idiots who steal awards and who leave spammy shitty reviews all over the place. This being a private site, we can deal with those morons.
Otherwise, go ahead and insult whoever you want as creatively as you can.

Because if you use "cause it's in/not in the bible" even A SINGLE TIME as an argument, then you have to run with either choice all the way through. The bible isn't a suggestion, it is THE DIVINE WORD OF THE SUPREME BEING WHO IS SO WISE AND POWERFUL THAT HE COULD NEVER BE WRONG ABOUT ANYTHING EVER.

Yep.

And you're Christian how again?

That's why I place more trust in some of the older scientist/evolutionists because they acknowledged their own shortcomings.

??? That's crazy. Modern scientists constantly revising their theory is just more proof of their good faith and objectivity.
And, mind you, never ONCE was evolution actually in question, only many tiny fragments of the "how" and the "when" everything fell into place, as we do more research.
Scientists don't flip-flop on evolution every year, it's been a mainstay and still is.
The only thing that happens as time goes on is we find more proof for it and are able to paint a clearer picture of how everything could/ has happened.

Again, if you have actual reason to doubt their claims, other than the inherent nature of science being allowed mistakes because we don't instantly know everything about everything, then say so.

Funny. Here I am doing the "scientific" thing by waiting and even researching my own religion, and you're taking shots at me? Haha.

Aren't you christian? What does it even mean if you don't follow any of it's tenants? You're just a confused deist.

Do you really want to know what the Bible says concerning how to worship?

I know it contradicts itself and there's one commandment that says you shall not worship false idols.
Popes and Cardinals are not there for you to worship, they are just authorities like a priest.

Church is a word meaning the Community (or rather, the people who gather together and worship). It isn't a building, and there was no such thing as a "religious headquarters".

So how far back do you want to go now? You're almost back to Moses and the burning tree with what you're choosing to abandon about Christianity ( so that makes you sorta like a Jew? ).
Are you going to go as far back as science will uncover texts and shit? You know, neantherdals buried their dead in stone pits, so maybe that's the true first real meaning of Christianity right there, I mean, that's pretty old, way older than Judaism.

Each state acting independantly, but all connected by the head government (or in this case, the "Bible", "word" or whatever you want to call it).

Which one? Because the old testament was created before the romans turned the church into was it became with the new testaments, with it's Pope and cathedrals and shit. So if you believe in the bible, then I guess you have to stick with this new order of the religion, because they came about at the same time.

All i'm saying is that you and others are placing too much faith in it after its own shortcomings.

Such as?
Name the shortcomings of evolution that make you doubt it.

Besides, you know exactly what "turn the other cheek" means, don't you Poxy?

Yes, it means take it up the ass. It means that if Christians really did that, they would have all died out a long time ago as some people would just come and steal all their shit and rape their wives as they stand there with their thumb up their ass.
Yet practically no Christian does this, and I have never heard ONCE any of them say that part of the bible wasn't true or it wasn't litteral or that Jesus didn't say it.

They all know it, they're all ignoring it.

Do you know what's so funny about this? I could get banned for upsetting or insulting a mod. And yet, here you are, insulting a whole slew of peo

Pretty sad that you'd think I'm so petty that I ban people who don't agree with me or insult me.

---

And to keep it comin'

At 1/27/08 04:36 PM, Memorize wrote:

With science, though it mainly does not go against religion in general, the idea of how evolution played out, does.

Science, even if it only had tiny shreds of evidence, would still have more evidence than ancient writings. Surely you're not so stupid that you can't see how that is obvious???
Newsflash: the greeks have a plethora of crazy-ass books filled with "true" stories of unicorns and giants and lizards. Seriously, they had self-proclaimed botanists and zoologists putting unicorns in their bestiaries.

And science hasn't disprove unicorns, so I'm pretty sure I'd have to go with "they're real" by your standards, I mean, ANCIENT WRITINGS, THAT'S SO GREAT!"

Truly, 2000 year old texts are our best source of modern scientific advancements. The atoms bomb is actually mentioned in the Koran and the Aztec Calendar actually has the recipe for mayonnaise hidden in it.

Also, these things may change only minorly or radically in the upcoming years (hence the: It can be wrong as many times as it likes).

And because we've made major mistakes in our findings before, i'm not going to fully trust it as it is now.

Like what? What mistakes have been made by modern science ( 1930s and above ) would even rattle the evolutionary model? Or anything for that matter? I don't remember a single "earth-shaking" discovery in science that would invalidate and demolish any previous well-established theories. The only thing I ever hear come about are modifications of how certain things work, like how old the big bang is and shit like that.

See, you base your entire rejection of evolution on the POSSIBILITY that we'd somehow unhearth a Stargate at some point that would prove aliens came to earth and modified our genes or something insane like that :O
Because that's exactly on the scale of what you'd need at this point to disprove evolution.

That's why I prefer our historical writings and documents. They're more conclusive, so to speak (to me anyway). The historical references can be "more" accurate.

Sadly, there are no historical references to evolution, because we have only begun writing a mere 8-10 thousand years ago. BUMMER.

---

At 1/27/08 04:36 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 1/27/08 02:52 PM, Drakim wrote:

Just a question, not bashing or anything like that.

If it's true like you say, that you simply feel that science doesn't have enough evidence to convince you completely. Then, what convinced you about the things you believe of currently instead? Did they have the overwhelming evidence that science lacked?

It's mainly because of this:

With science, though it mainly does not go against religion in general, the idea of how evolution played out, does. Also, these things may change only minorly or radically in the upcoming years (hence the: It can be wrong as many times as it likes). And because we've made major mistakes in our findings before, i'm not going to fully trust it as it is now.

That's why I prefer our historical writings and documents. They're more conclusive, so to speak (to me anyway). The historical references can be "more" accurate.

That's it. That's all i'm saying and that's all i've ever said.

No, I didn't mean that.

If I'm not completely mistaken, you are Christian, right? What makes you pick Christianity over science in the question of origin when neither offers evidence? That was what I was wondering. You dismiss science due to lack of evidence, then what keeps you to Christianity?

---

At 1/27/08 05:09 PM, Drakim wrote:

If I'm not completely mistaken, you are Christian, right? What makes you pick Christianity over science in the question of origin when neither offers evidence? That was what I was wondering. You dismiss science due to lack of evidence, then what keeps you to Christianity?

Evolution deals with the origin (though some will argue differently) as well as how it progressed.
Christianity deals with the origin, but not to the extent of how evolution does it.

I figure that since there's no evidence for either origin (and a lack of evidence (in my opinion) for evolution as whole to be considered a good theory), all I have left now are historical items, writings, and artifacts. As well as how Christianity as progressed from a minute amount of individuals to the extent it has now (with major flaws in many by the way).

Because the origins for both have virtually no evidence at all, I cancel them out. So then I go with History; the next best thing.

---

At 1/27/08 05:22 PM, Memorize wrote: I figure that since there's no evidence for either origin (and a lack of evidence (in my opinion) for evolution as whole to be considered a good theory), all I have left now are historical items, writings, and artifacts.

Wait, that's not the reason you gave for distrusting evolution. What you said, basically, was that you didn't trust them because of science's tendancy to be proven wrong from time to time.

I'm quite interested exactly which part of the evolution theory you find so flawed as to completely distrust it.

---

At 1/27/08 05:22 PM, Memorize wrote:
Evolution deals with the origin (though some will argue differently) as well as how it progressed.
Christianity deals with the origin, but not to the extent of how evolution does it.

I will argue differently. Evolution deals with exactly the opposite of the origin, it's all about everything in between single-cell organisms and currently existing species. Christianity deals with the origin, but it argues that we are the origin, and yet Christianity deals with a master deity, not focusing at all on the origin.

I figure that since there's no evidence for either origin (and a lack of evidence (in my opinion) for evolution as whole to be considered a good theory),

What part of "fossils" do you not understand?

all I have left now are historical items, writings, and artifacts. As well as how Christianity as progressed from a minute amount of individuals to the extent it has now (with major flaws in many by the way).

Because the origins for both have virtually no evidence at all, I cancel them out. So then I go with History; the next best thing.

For the purpose of this argument, lets assume "History" is anything we have conclusive proof of, such as ruins or artifacts in reasonable numbers.

This "history" falls short of the "origin" by hundreds of millions of years. You seem concerned with the "origin", so "history" has no use to you.

---

At 1/24/08 09:25 AM, poxpower wrote: I love talking about religion, I love the debates that rise from it and I think they're hilarious. Making an official Bush thread was probably a mistake but I didn't say anything back then because I don't give a shit about it and I wasn't there that much.

As someone who WAS around at the time of the advent of the OBT, I can honestly say it was a saving grace for me at a time when I was seriously considering giving up this site entirely. We had large numbers of people coming in who had never posted before, just to make a topic bashing President Bush, then never to be seen again. It was all the same rehashed crap over and over again, cluttering the forum and pushing good topics down to second page oblivion. And for what? Just to sit there and exhort about how much you despise one man? Spare me.

Religion has always been a hot button issue in this forum, and it's been the norm to have one or two topics about it. But as much as some users would have me believe that it is a multifaceted issue that should not be limited to just one topic, I believe that is a fine line of powdered altoids than none of us would actually snort. We all know what these topics usually center around; the topic starter's attempt to discredit the existence of the Christian God and his personal hate for the followers thereof. There is no justification for it, and those who would gripe about their "insightful" posts getting ignored are being selfish hypocrites in my opinion, because their multiple posts about the subject are causing other topics to be forced out and ignored.

But that's just me.

---

At 1/27/08 04:48 PM, poxpower wrote:

like fossils records? Unless you mean DNA or radiometric dating.

Yes.

Did you know that people worried about the moonlanding because they weren't sure how much space dust would've gathered up to cover it over millions of years?

Of course, they have alternate explainations for this as well. But that's my point: They always alternate explainations which may or may not be accurate.

Yes, because you're not an expert, so you can't make your own conclusions about what you choose to believe or not. I can't prove or disprove the big bang or the string theory. That's way out of my league, so I have to take their word for it.

Then that means you're no expert either. So why are you "preaching" to me?

ok but then you can't believe in anything. Or else you'd have to set a percentage of probability for when you do start believing things are true. Good luck with that.

Sure thing.

None of those are actual replacements for the word "belief" or "faith" in a religious sense. People "believe" science simply out of logic. If you don't believe in science, you don't believe in reality. Also good luck with that.

Awe. Poor little PoxPower getting agitated?

*sigh* Some Mod.

But not the same. Evolution is 99% certain, and any specific religion is probably about 0.0000000000000000001% certain.

Speaking of mathematics.

That's another reason why i'm as skeptical as I am.

If 99.9% of all mutations are either harmful or neutral, then according to some mathematicians, our current known rate of evolution would have to take well over 5 billion years. Some say Trillions.

Simpley put: Evolution is a mathematical improbability.

Even my own biology teacher acknowledges this. And he also called up our College Math professor and he did the calculations on the board. Cool stuff actually.

Which ones?

Namely: Me.

Naturally, even among the correct ones, you'll find error in some churches.

The best way to be correct: Is to take the original.

Sad thing is, they'll screw up on the translations when attempting to put it into our language. This happend with the NIV and some other translations as well. But they're typically fixed.

One example: There's a verse that says "The Gates of Hell will not prevail against me".

However, the earlier versions (and according to the text) say: "The Gates of Hades shall not prevail against me".

Ok well the earth is about 6000 thousands years old. Don't see anyone contesting those translations. Also there was a global flood that left only like 5 humans alive. No one's contesting that either. They're contesting the MEANING of it, but not the words.

First of all: It says that God came down to earth and saw that it was formless and void.

Now there are 2 ways to explain it:

1) Those billions of years could've passed well before starting with earth, namely if he created the universe.

2) If God creates a full grown tree in 1 day, at what age will that tree be?

Let's not forget that the earth's age changes every year in the textbooks. 8 billion, down to 5 billion. I once read that it was 3.4 billion and next thing I knew, it went back up. They've screwed up dating fossils on several occassions as well.

Too many unanswered questions.

I'm criticizing you for being as skeptical of science as you are of religion, which is ludicrous.

Why is that?

So what the hell DO you believe?

Religion. But are you saying I shouldn't be open to the alternative?

I'm a mod who is a douche, but not a douchy mod in the sense that my moding in douchy even if I am a douche. YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING BRO

By your standards, you'd probly see that as a contradiction in the Bible.

Otherwise, go ahead and insult whoever you want as creatively as you can.

As well as it comes down to a matter of opinion of what's "creative". It could be "creative" or it could be seen as "childish".

And you're Christian how again?

Heh, if this is how you treat me, I can only imagine of what you think of Agnostics.

??? That's crazy. Modern scientists constantly revising their theory is just more proof of their good faith and objectivity.

That's not what i'm saying.

And, mind you, never ONCE was evolution actually in question, only many tiny fragments of the "how" and the "when" everything fell into place, as we do more research.

And that IS what i'm saying.

We don't think of how old scientists used to anymore.

We don't think "This theory could be wrong", rather we think "The theory is correct, but we need to loosen up the edges". We used to be able to admit to our idea's weaknesses, but not anymore. And it's sad we've fallen that far.

Again, if you have actual reason to doubt their claims, other than the inherent nature of science being allowed mistakes because we don't instantly know everything about everything, then say so.

And as i've said: It's that and the holes it has to fill. Along with the fact that it's a mathematic improbability.

When the odds of such occurances happening are as low as that: It's typically thrown out, but not in this case. Simpley because "it's the best we have".

Aren't you christian? What does it even mean if you don't follow any of it's tenants? You're just a confused deist.

No. I'm Christian. And I believe the Bible.

However; i'm saying i'm open to anything else, so i'm not going to deny it.

You're just as crazy as those fundamentalists who shout at people about going Hell.

Popes and Cardinals are not there for you to worship, they are just authorities like a priest.

According to the New Testament: A person who teaches the word is a priest. And since we all have the power to do that: If we do, we're all priests.

Are you actually defending a religion with that statement? Heh. All for the sake of arguing with little old me?

Why would we need those authorities if the Bible IS the authority and people are capable of reading it?

So how far back do you want to go now? You're almost back to Moses and the burning tree with what you're choosing to abandon about Christianity ( so that makes you sorta like a Jew? ).

What are you blabbering about now?

Are you going to go as far back as science will uncover texts and shit? You know, neantherdals buried their dead in stone pits, so maybe that's the true first real meaning of Christianity right there, I mean, that's pretty old, way older than Judaism.

Neanderthal, eh?How much intelligence would YOU say they had?

Which one? Because the So if you believe in the bible, then I guess you have to stick with this new order of the religion, because they came about at the same time.

You do realize that the Romans persecuted the Christians and killed them before they adopted that religion, correct?

So since you said that I have to follow my "new order", despite its blatant dishonesty, ignorance, and hypocricy, then why can't I do as you despise and change the texts to fit evolution?

Haha!

Name the shortcomings of evolution that make you doubt it.

That's already been discussed.

Yet practically no Christian does this, and I have never heard ONCE any of them say that part of the bible wasn't true or it wasn't litteral or that Jesus didn't say it.

It's a metaphore, Pox. I didn't think you were that ignorant.

The Bible is filled with literal and figurative language.

When he says turn the other cheek: It means you should be able to forgive said person. I think you need a lesson in basic understanding of language.

They all know it, they're all ignoring it.

Do you have any idea what a parable means?

It's a story that relates to a point. You'll find those in the bible and then Jesus will give an explaination for it; its meaning.

Learn. Read. Or, go ask a scholar.

Pretty sad that you'd think I'm so petty that I ban people who don't agree with me or insult me.

So basically, you don't do it simpley because you want to insult other people.

---

i know that not EVERYTHING in the bible is 100% accurate, but i KNOW, have felt, and have spoken to the Divine.

and please dont reply to this with an "did you happen to be high when that happened?"

---

At 1/27/08 06:08 PM, lumpypaint wrote: but i KNOW, have felt, and have spoken to the Divine.

and please dont reply to this with an "did you happen to be high when that happened?"

Well then please don't reply to any thread regarding god simply "knowing" whether or not he exists.

---

At 1/27/08 05:35 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

I'm quite interested exactly which part of the evolution theory you find so flawed as to completely distrust it.

I was talking specifically about the origin. Not general evolution.

At 1/27/08 05:46 PM, The-evil-bucket wrote:

I will argue differently. Evolution deals with exactly the opposite of the origin, it's all about everything in between single-cell organisms and currently existing species.

That's what I was talking about.

I simpley meant that evolution (if you ask about it or read of it), it will deal with the origins of life. Not that our theory of origin WAS the theory of evolution.

What part of "fossils" do you not understand?

This

Basically, if confronted with a problem of their previous claims of (for example): Out of place fossils...

They have a handbag of alternatives of how it could've gotten there. And it's because they have a near infinite amount of explainations (just in case something doesn't add up), that causes me to lose trust in their findings.

If a problem occurs later with their findings, they can then do this:

-Explaination ("This could've happend)
-*sudden problem a rises*
-Explaination ("This could've happend).
-repeat

The problems I have with this though is that no matter how many problems they are faced with: All explainations they make are to be in line with their theory. Meaning that: No other conclusion other than "it fits the theory" is permitted.

This "history" falls short of the "origin" by hundreds of millions of years. You seem concerned with the "origin", so "history" has no use to you.

Are you on drugs? Or do you have a reading problem?

---

At 1/27/08 06:15 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 1/27/08 05:35 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

I'm quite interested exactly which part of the evolution theory you find so flawed as to completely distrust it.

I was talking specifically about the origin. Not general evolution.

So where do you place the origin at?

At 1/27/08 05:46 PM, The-evil-bucket wrote:

I will argue differently. Evolution deals with exactly the opposite of the origin, it's all about everything in between single-cell organisms and currently existing species.

That's what I was talking about.

Fantastic, that gets that out of the way.

I simpley meant that evolution (if you ask about it or read of it), it will deal with the origins of life. Not that our theory of origin WAS the theory of evolution.

And which theory of origin are you talking about? You're talking in circles.

What part of "fossils" do you not understand?

This

Basically, if confronted with a problem of their previous claims of (for example): Out of place fossils...

They have a handbag of alternatives of how it could've gotten there. And it's because they have a near infinite amount of explainations (just in case something doesn't add up), that causes me to lose trust in their findings.

If a problem occurs later with their findings, they can then do this:

-Explaination ("This could've happend)
-*sudden problem a rises*
-Explaination ("This could've happend).
-repeat

Ah, so we should blindly go ahead with one belief, never question it, and keep it forever. Sounds like religion to me.

The problems I have with this though is that no matter how many problems they are faced with: All explainations they make are to be in line with their theory. Meaning that: No other conclusion other than "it fits the theory" is permitted.

Science would be a blinding mess if every time we found a little problem, we abandon a theory. One detail might be wrong, but a theory can still be correct.

This "history" falls short of the "origin" by hundreds of millions of years. You seem concerned with the "origin", so "history" has no use to you.

Are you on drugs? Or do you have a reading problem?

Yes.

---

At 1/27/08 06:00 PM, Memorize wrote: If 99.9% of all mutations are either harmful or neutral, then according to some mathematicians, our current known rate of evolution would have to take well over 5 billion years. Some say Trillions.

Well, that sounds about right, I guess. You're almost right with the 5 billion years thing, scientists believe that life has existed on earth for about 3.7 billion years, and ever since then, life has been evolving and adapting. And even if only 00.1% of mutations are beneficial for the survival of the lifeform, 3.7 billion years is plenty of time. I'm surprized you picked such a relatively large number as 00.1% actually.

---

At 1/27/08 06:23 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

Well, that sounds about right, I guess. You're almost right with the 5 billion years thing, scientists believe that life has existed on earth for about 3.7 billion years, and ever since then, life has been evolving and adapting. And even if only 00.1% of mutations are beneficial for the survival of the lifeform, 3.7 billion years is plenty of time. I'm surprized you picked such a relatively large number as 00.1% actually.

That's the number attributed to either Harmful or Neutral mutations which will die out.

I'm just saying that with a number like 00.1, you can mathematically come to the conclusion that it would have to take well over our current billions of years to reach our current stage.

I've seen it somewhere searching around google, but my Trig professor at my college did this calculation on the white board. If I see him around, i'll ask him to write it down again.

---

Memorize, your whole "I reserve my beliefs for concrete evidence" view is quite commendable, what with not buying into the most current scientific theory just because scientists say so, and because of the flaws of the theories themselves.
It's just that I don't possibly see how you can have such a philosophy and still be a theist. I mean, isn't that the whole point of most religions; believing without evidence?

You even said yourself that you consider Christianity has proof with various artefacts and whatnot, and I'm not necessarily saying these are not legitimate sources of evidence, but I mean, come on, these are barely "concrete", so to say.

From the way you speak when addressing evolution, it seriously sounds as if you were agnostic, if anything.

---

At 1/27/08 05:56 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 1/24/08 09:25 AM, poxpower wrote:

We had large numbers of people coming in who had never posted before, just to make a topic bashing President Bush

Well I was there then too and I remember all the bush topics, I just didn't really follow what led to making a thread just for it and frankly I don't see how warranted it was considering there have always been probably as many threads made about anarchy, religion and communism.
"official" threads just mean more work for mods because now if we allow one of those topics to pass, we have to explain ourselves as to how it's legit or how we missed it or whatever crap and it makes people complain about how topic X was left alive but their topic was deleted.

so bah.
I say that if you have a valid well-written opinion, you can have a topic, even if it has been done time and time again ( though there's obviously a limit, especially for current events ).

There is no justification for it, and those who would gripe about their "insightful" posts getting ignored are being selfish hypocrites in my opinion, because their multiple posts about the subject are causing other topics to be forced out and ignored.

I think the rotation of topics in politics isn't a thing of concern. Things don't fall of the first page that fast and if they do it's because no one's posting in them, so fuck it. I'm not saying all these religious topics are justified, but I say they're better than creating "official" mega-topics for everything all the time.
This forum is meant for entertainment, mostly, and I think that's less entertaining. So yah

---

BUT MY RELIGION IS SPECIAL!

---

At 1/27/08 06:32 PM, poxpower wrote: I don't see how warranted it was considering there have always been probably as many threads made about anarchy, religion and communism.

When have you ever signed on and seen 6 or 7 topics on the front page about anarchy or communism? Honestly.

---

At 1/27/08 06:00 PM, Memorize wrote:

Did you know that people worried about the moonlanding because they weren't sure how much space dust would've gathered up to cover it over millions of years?

That has no bearing on evolution.
What's making you doubt evolution? Seriously?

Then that means you're no expert either. So why are you "preaching" to me?

:Because the experts are all on my side?

*sigh* Some Mod.

Seriously, why do you keep bringing that up? What does it have to do with anything? Are you going to use that to prove me wrong about something later on?

If 99.9% of all mutations are either harmful or neutral, then according to some mathematicians, our current known rate of evolution would have to take well over 5 billion years. Some say Trillions.

Who? I never heard of that. Ever.
What I did hear of was how it's pretty obvious that older fossils are more primitive than new ones. What a coincidence. What's you alternate explanation? What's theirs? Assuming those mathematicians actually DO exist.

Even my own biology teacher acknowledges this. And he also called up our College Math professor and he did the calculations on the board. Cool stuff actually.

Based on what? There's not even any way you could do the math for such a thing just right there in 5 minutes on a blackboard.
And even if it was "improbable", that's no proof for it not happening. But again show me who's done those calculations you speak if, cause I never saw that.

The best way to be correct: Is to take the original.

Which one? What's the original? Is it the first bible story? Or the story that inspired the bible story? Or the religion/cult that those people had before even creating Judaism or whatever? The bible isn't the original anything as far as I can tell.

But they're typically fixed.

I didnt' download the patch that fixes the earth's age yet. Where is that available? Are they working on that Noah bug too?

However, the earlier versions (and according to the text) say: "The Gates of Hades shall not prevail against me".

What's the difference?

First of all: It says that God came down to earth and saw that it was formless and void.

No, you see, the earth is 6000 years old based on the ancestry of people from Adam to now. If you add up their age according to the bible ( where some of them even lived 900+ years ) then the earth is 6000 years old from the point that god made the first humans, like on the 5th day or whenever.

Let's not forget that the earth's age changes every year in the textbooks.

It gets older and older. It doesn't get closer to 6000 years, it gets closer to 15 billion ( and probably far beyond that for all we know ). What in that trend makes you think that at some point they'll announce they were wrong about it all and it's actually 6000? or Even 1 billion?
When scientists are wrong, it's not random, it's for a reason, and they're usually wrong in a pretty small way, not some giant finding that invalidates concepts like continental drift, radiometric dating or evolution.

Why is that?

Because science is based on observable reality while religion prides itself on being based on faith, i.e. 100% grade-a guess work based on nothing.
It's pretty obvious which of the two you should pick when making decisions about reality.

Religion. But are you saying I shouldn't be open to the alternative?

No, I'm saying you shouldn't be religious? How are you even religious anyways, i.e. part of an organized group of worshippers, as opposed to being vaguely deist?

Heh, if this is how you treat me, I can only imagine of what you think of Agnostics.

I'm agnostic. You're not christian by any other Christian's definition of Christianity.
What makes you christian, according to you?

We don't think of how old scientists used to anymore.

Yes we do. We just know more than they did at that point. But for most of the 20th century, we'd just been validating theory after theory. Science has moved in the same direction for 100 years, it doesn't move back and forth like you seem to think it does.

We used to be able to admit to our idea's weaknesses, but not anymore. And it's sad we've fallen that far.

Weaknesses such as? Give me specifics here, it's pretty hard to know what you're refering to. So far you've shown no actual reason to doubt their claims other than what we might uncover in the future.

And as i've said: It's that and the holes it has to fill.

Such as?

When the odds of such occurances happening are as low as that

Odds of what, exactly?

You're just as crazy as those fundamentalists who shout at people about going Hell.

At least I'm right.

According to the New Testament: A person who teaches the word is a priest. And since we all have the power to do that: If we do, we're all priests.

Yeah but if you don't do it, you're not a priest. I'm not a mason because I could in theory build a brick wall. The people who employ their time and energy to actively take care of a church and take confessions are priests. You're not.

Are you actually defending a religion with that statement?

I'm just pointing out once again that you don't believe in the bible or the catholic/ christian institution, and yet you call yourself one.
If you don't act like one, none would call you one and you don't take their book literally, YOU ARE NOT CHRISTIAN.
Sorry.

Why would we need those authorities if the Bible IS the authority and people are capable of reading it?

You don't need them.

Neanderthal, eh?How much intelligence would YOU say they had?

They had a bigger brain than ours and were known to bury their dead, build tools and even sandals and clothes. Seem pretty decently smart compared to a homo sapiens But my point was that you insist on going back to the "original source", well that's the original source: some monkey-man worshipping the moon.

So since you said that I have to follow my "new order", despite its blatant dishonesty, ignorance, and hypocricy, then why can't I do as you despise and change the texts to fit evolution?

Well make up your mind, either it's NOT alright to change the text, and you DON'T believe in the roman-catholic church , or you believe it IS right to change the text and you DO side with today's church, even though they changed the texts around.

It's a metaphore, Pox. I didn't think you were that ignorant.

I didn't see where in the bible Jesus said "oh btw, that "turn the other cheek" line? Well like it's still ok to start wars and beat your wife and fight back when someone takes your shit, I just meant that like, if some guy just randomly slaps you in the street, don't slap him back, cause that's totally homo".
IT'S NOT A METAPHOR. Jesus preached absolute love. Jesus LET HIMSELF GET NAILED TO A FUCKING CROSS. Is that metaphor?? No. Jesus literally preached that you should love your enemies, do onto others as you would wish upon yourself and to turn the other cheek when someone bullies you.

And again, as with the ever-present of turning everything in the bible into a "metaphor", what exactly do you "believe" in the bible, then??? I mean, you can turn any phrase to make it mean anything you want, basically, so what the hell do you really believe in that is in black and white in the bible and without controversy?

It's a story that relates to a point. You'll find those in the bible and then Jesus will give an explaination for it

"Turn the other cheek" wasn't a parabole if I recall. A parabole is when he tells a story, but the MORAL of the story applies LITTERALY.

Pretty sad that you'd think I'm so petty that I ban people who don't agree with me or insult me.

So basically, you don't do it simpley because you want to insult other people.

Ok so If I ban people for not agreeing with me, it's because I'm a dictaring douche, but if I don't ban them, it's because I'm just an asshole and I want to have a flame war with them?

I see, so what do you suggest I do?