Deconvert me.

Humanzy
Posts: 30
Joined: 2006-07-11
User is offlineOffline
Deconvert me.

I challenge you, good luck.


the_avenging_bucket
the_avenging_bucket's picture
Posts: 184
Joined: 2006-06-17
User is offlineOffline
Deconvert me.

JesusSaves wrote:
but even so ID is growing. I've seen the movie they've even said it themselves that Evolution definately says that the earth was evolved with no cause of it evolving.

If you want to talk about ID or evolution start a topic in EVOLUTION.

Or better yet, read this one and reply to it:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=700


Darl
Posts: 31
Joined: 2006-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Deconvert me.

nono, you're equating 'no purpose' with 'no cause' there's a difference. It may seem like a simple play of words, but it's not. There's a huge difference in meaning. THere are plenty of causes, you just have to know where to look. Eventuallly it boils down to the subatomic which I'm certainly not any authority to discuss. It's like...knowing how a locamotive works. First you get a general idea, steam pumps pistons that move the wheels. Then you get deeper. How is the steam produced? What is Steam? How do you get the correct pressure? etc. etc. all the way down to the tiniest properties of all the parts. It's a HUGE amount of information to take in, but there are plenty of causes. Blind selection though, is without PURPOSE. And I KNOW that there's a growing following of ID. And a major part of the reason for the growing number is the public is being decieved on evolution versus ID. ID is NOT a valid scientific theory. Anyone with any authority on the subject will confirm that little fact. It has never been endorsed by any major scientific organization of note. Organizations funded by religious groups that want to prove their side true do not count. Only totally public institutions that are recognised as unbiased observers(which is what a scientist is anyway) can be used to defend ID as a legit theory. I'm saying that in the SCIENTIFIC community, there is no rift. Those that understand the mechanics, the evidence and facts of both sides invariably come to the conclusion that ID is not a valid theory. And once again, get PURPOSE and CAUSE correct. There's plenty fo cause, no purpose, or at least none that can be determined as of yet. The closest I can come so far is that we exist for the procreation of our DNA, which has a lifespan of approximately 10,000 years. But that leads to more questions like, what's the purpose of the DNA's existance? etc. etc. we don't have all the answers, and we're willing to admit that we don't. And only when we do so can we increase our knowledge and answer those pressing questions. Anyway, i didn't mean to rant, but I hope that I have cleared up that little problem between cause and purpose. And, perhaps the movie actually said 'cause', in which case you may be taking it out of context and accidentally misrepresenting it or the video is incorrect, there are plenty of causes, just no purpose as we have found yet. That is a common misconception, and I hope it allows you to inform your argument more next time.


Atheist_Scathe
Posts: 69
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Deconvert me.

JesusSaves wrote:
Quote:
The cause of life was energy working on complex organic compounds in prebiotic replicators. No need for invisible Mega-Pixies.

Quote:
then would time be eternal?

Fine by me, but remember that time itself is affected/produced/whatever by its reference frames.

Quote:
This is tautological as well as confusing- if I'm to understand you correctly you're saying we're the SAME except that one of us believes in the Mega-Pixy and the other doesn't?! Well, TRUE ENOUGH, but good grief! That's quite a difference! Hope you've been opened to some new ideas, though so far I'm not too convinced.

Quote:
that is why I said the belief is the difference in believing in God or not..

Mm-hm, but I think I remember you saying that we were basically the same... at any rate my basic point stands, that what you said is tautological: Moving-Earth-Believing-Heliocentrist might be another example of a similar tautology.

Quote:
Come in, Houston... No, Darwin definitively did NOT brainwash people with his theory, which you would know if you did even a modicum of research on it and realized the mounds of bullshit that cretin "scientists" have shoveled on gullible and ignorant churchgoers.

Quote:
no one ever pushed me to the extreme. infact I never became a Christian till after my 11th grade year. which was after my biology class. and I never recall anyone telling me to believe in this.. but if your saying they use the if you don't then you'll go to the Lake of Fire for not believing. it is wrong. no one pushed me that far in order to believe in it.

Missing the point here... what I was stating (rather clearly in fact) was that evolution was not promulgated by Darwin through the means of brainwashing, in fact quite the reverse. The topic at hand in this specific instance is evolution and the mounds of evidence for it- not your interpretation of your experiences and your beliefs.

Quote:
Not surprisingly you mis-state atheist "beliefs" as such- atheism is the LACK of a belief in the Mega-Pixy/mega-pixies in general and in my case, an active disaverral of their existance.

Quote:
that is still a belief. you just don't believe in God A - Theist vs. Theist who does believe in a God.

one just chooses to trust that there is no supreme being. while the other does

Yes, it is a belief, but I never said it wasn't- just that you muddied the waters a bit. I'd have to go back and double-check. No, I don't "just" trust that there is no supreme being- I firmly believe that there is not based on the total lack of evidence. It's a semantic difference, yes, but an important one nonetheless.


Atheist_Scathe
Posts: 69
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Deconvert me.

Now that I've perused this thread somewhat and made a few contributions I'd like to revisit the issue: "Humanzy" is asking to be deconverted from his (quasi-agnostic?) acceptance of beliefs that belong on the shelf with Batman, the Odyssey, and Shakespeare (and those latter two at best, as they are great works of literature that stand on their own without gullible and credulous adherents); so far he/she's made a ton of noise about atheist fundamentalism and blowhardiness, but has yet to give a truly compelling argument for entertaining so ludicrous, not to mention obscene, a conception as the supernatural. Humanzy, do us all a favor and get real: wake up and come to reality or don't come harping at us to make you come to it. If you were truly open to our beliefs/lack of beliefs/however you want to put it, you wouldn't have come on here starting this bombastic and pretentious thread. Grow up, dude.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Deconvert me.

Humanzy wrote:
The guys on your radioshow are retarded and close minded, they don't realise they've just jumped boat from one extreme to the other.

I'm willing to bet hard cash you've never even listened to our show.

I'm sure you can manage to insult us without lying to us as well, do endeavor to pick one or the other form of vitriol.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


HeliosOfTheSun
Posts: 42
Joined: 2006-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Deconvert me.

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Humanzy wrote:
The guys on your radioshow are retarded and close minded, they don't realise they've just jumped boat from one extreme to the other.

I'm willing to bet hard cash you've never even listened to our show.

I'm sure you can manage to insult us without lying to us as well, do endeavor to pick one or the other form of vitriol.

Its not even worth your time Yellow to reply to him. He already lied on another thread saying he wasnt Christian. On this one he is, and on another one he's atheist.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Deconvert me.

But didn't Paul say it was OK for Christian's to lie if it helped promote Christianity? Laughing out loud


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Deconvert me.

Shhhh, you twit.

Don't tell them that they can lie to themselves and us in the name of God, or else they'll start doing it all the time.....

Oh wait, they already do that, you bastard, what have you unleashed?!?!

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


GrimJesta
GrimJesta's picture
Posts: 152
Joined: 2006-06-21
User is offlineOffline
Deconvert me.

JesusSaves wrote:
Quote:
The cause of life was energy working on complex organic compounds in prebiotic replicators. No need for invisible Mega-Pixies.

then would time be eternal?

You're saying it isn't? I have never seen time end, nor begin, and no one has. Do you have proof it actually began? Or proof that it can be stopped? As far as I can tell, via empirical evidence, time is continual in both directions. When have you or anyone in recorded history actually seen time begin or have evidence of time beginning (above any wild attempts at speculation on the part of various "big guy/gal/elephant/thing in the sky" things)? And if time can possibly have started at one time, then it's equally possible that it never needed to begin, since we have no evidence surviving from that period of "time". So what we have to work with is what we can tell now, through science. And I have yetto see anything pointing to a definate beginning of Time it self. Those who say it did use a work of fiction written by men only a few millenia ago (I.e. they sure as shit didn't know whether or not it began either).

JesusSaves wrote:
...but even so ID is growing.

ID is growing thanks to aforementioned propaganda campaign. The one with the psuedo-scientists telling everyone there's actually a rift in the scientific community. People also believe in many other irrational things. Growing popularity for an idea doesn't make it correct or even infallible. Neo-Nazi movements are also on the rise. Does that make their belief system more rational?

Don't take any of this as me being hostile JS. I'm just examinging the things you said. I'm actually glad that there's some theists who stick around to debate. So I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking the argument. I just wanted to be clear on that.

-=Grim=-

No Nyarlathotep, Know Peace.
Know Nyarlathotep, No Peace.