I cannot really think of any except maybe social networking.

I imagine the greatest responses to be Pascal's Wager in nature, if so, please research this wager a bit, before posting something like "So you don't go to hell". Be sure to gloss over the scathing critique of Pascal's Wager as well, and be prepared to defend against this...it should save some time.

Also, if you are going to answer anything involving self empowerment "God lifts you up" or "Believing in a higher power gives you strength" be prepared to answer how these things are different and or superior to secular self-help exercises and empowerment techniques.

One more thing, before suggesting atheism or science are religions, be sure to look up the definitions of these words, so I won't have to post them to easily prove you wrong.

Looking for some good resons to be religious, would like to foster some discussion here, so I will keep my assholery in check as much as possible.

Gives your life direction.

And most people are too lazy and simple to find their own way in life :rolleyes:

Gives your life direction.

And most people are too lazy and simple to find their own way in life :rolleyes:

How is this different and or superior to secular self-help exercises and empowerment techniques?

You can get the same direction, from self-help books, which have less riddles and translation problems, so if you were lazy this seems to be the better route.

I'm not defending religion lol.

But having read a variety of religious texts, maybe you should read into Buddhism, it made the most sense to me and is the simplest to understand.

That or Satanism, which teaches eye for an eye, and make yourself your own God, worship yourself.

Guess what I am saying is that reading self-help books empowers you, without that nagging doubt and concern of the supernatural.

I got nothing.

Religion is the opiate of the masses...Have you ever heard of that??

There are millions of reasons. I'm a complete Atheist and hate religion but acting like there isn't one reason to follow a religion (if one was religious) shows either your inability to think outside your own views or you're just trolling. Either way this thread is dumb.

I had this exact same discussion just 2 days ago. :eek: Yes there are positive aspects about religion, but one of the main ones that I found was that it gives your life a sense of purpose (personally, that is). If you can distill off the bullshit and the tithes and the irrationalities and take the sense of (non-cosmic) purpose out of it, then you can get far more excited and find far more meaning than you likely could from a secular self-help book. At least that's what I've felt in my experience with religion.

Like a drunk, it makes many people happy. Who wouldn't want a big, white, powerful friend looking over you and awaiting your wonderful presence in eternal bliss?? Nonetheless, you actually have to wholeheartedly believe it first...hmm, tough one.

but acting like there isn't one reason to follow a religion (if one was religious) shows either your inability to think outside your own views or you're just trolling. Either way this thread is dumb.

I have not suggested that there is not one reason to be religious.....I suggest no good reason (with the possible exception of social networking).

Stop twisting my words, shitting in your diaper, and posting it on my thread, please.

profound diligents,which is brought on by faith.
resulting in deep intelegence.
or it could possibly be brought on by probally alot of
psychological impressions.
i'm free minded therefore it was only brought on
by two things.

all the cool kids do it

I got nothing.



that is a very intelegent way of thinking.
well depending on what it is that you don't have.
and if it is something that you want
it could cause you to a fall into a negative mood.
:):p:):

You awaken silently in your mothers arms
You see the sign of the cross dangling from her neck.
As you move your lips over her nipple.

Sitting at the dinner table, your family silent.
The food is steaming in front of you
As you bath in the wondrous smell.
Thanks, you decree, to the highest aspect of what you can be.

Lying in bed as your mind races
blissful sleep seems to be miles away.
Thinking of all you have done and all you will do,
"Why stop there?"
An arrow you shoot, through the the confusing fog,
pass the feeble whims and desires and rise high.
Closer to God.

Sitting in your rocking chair
Cold gray eyes reflect the fire as you gaze.
Your once proud body now shrivels
Wrinkly creveses cover you like a
complex irrigation system.
Puff, Puff, on your pipe as you contemplate.
This constant changing will never last.
But a dream in the eternal no-thing.

By "religious," I assume OP means attending church and accepting a specific set of religious dogma. If so, I can think of no way that this would serve my interests, or the intersts of anyone interested in spiritual growth or personal empowerment.

I am all about spirituality, and religion is generally opposed to that--this has been discussed in other threads, no need to rehash the issue here.

Besides the social thing, religion is a useful tool for politicians. Aside from that , what I see (at least regarding the Abrahamic religions) is that they foster hatred , fear, and separation.

I have not suggested that there is not one reason to be religious.....I suggest no good reason (with the possible exception of social networking).

Stop twisting my words, shitting in your diaper, and posting it on my thread, please.

How about direction? Personal satisfaction? Moral value? HAPPINESS!

How are any of those not good reasons? I'm not saying those are guarenteed results but many people gain one if not all 3 of those things. The only reaon people reject religion is because its wrong. However, if truth means nothing to you than there are endless reasons to be religious.


So stop twisting my words, when I gave you a GOOD reason to begin with and just gave you another 3.

How the hell is happiness not a good reason?

How about direction? Personal satisfaction? Moral value? HAPPINESS! How the hell is happiness not a good reason?

Religion does not make a person happy, happiness comes from within.

Moral value is most certainly not a good reason. Moral value in the bible is a fickle thing.

Personal satisfaction. To much shame in most religion for this to be anything other than fleeting.

Direction......You can get the same direction, from self-help books, which have less riddles and translation problems. Less chance you will murder a fag in the name of God and such.

(ps - I am also talking about spirituality, not just religion.)

The monkey washes the sand from the banana in the flowing stream.
Does it really matter what stream he uses? Or where in the stream it is washed?
Is there any good reason for the monkey to wash the sand from the banana in the first place? Is there a reason for using this stream rather than the other stream? Convenience?

As said by Albert Einstein, there are three reasons:

The first is motivated by fear and poor understanding of causality, and hence invents supernatural beings.

The second is social and moral, motivated by desire for love and support. Einstein noted that both have an anthropomorphic concept of God.

The third style, which Einstein deemed most mature, is motivated by a deep sense of awe and mystery. He said, "The individual feels … the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves in nature … and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole.

I just love it when atheists think every religious person follows group one, it makes me see the perspective that they are laughing at people in a box while they (atheists) are in a box viewed by people in a bigger box.

I have a good reason to be in the big box. In a box in a box in a box in a box. No one gets out of the boxes.

Don't be in the smallest box, is what I mean. The box of arrogance.

^Irony. That post has it.

^Irony. That post has it.

universe.

humorous, it is.

The monkey washes the sand from the banana in the flowing stream.
Does it really matter what stream he uses? Or where in the stream it is washed?
Is there any good reason for the monkey to wash the sand from the banana in the first place? Is there a reason for using this stream rather than the other stream? Convenience?

If he just saw a fellow simian piss/shit/or die in a particular streams, yes it fucking matters. If he can wash it upstream of said foulness, yes it matters where.

If he doesn't like the taste of sand then yes there is good reason to wash it. If the sand will get in his teet, has bacteria in it, is sand from a litter box, etc.

As you can see there are any number of variables to your re-fucking-tarded little post here.

Try not to waste anyone else's time with your bullshit riddles, you lack the brain power to effectively think of anything mind boggling that I have ever read.

Please stop embarassing yourself.

I find it interesting, the diverse range of messages that can be found in a single paragraph given ones intent.

It is hard to tell from your post - you didn't actually say anything - but what is your intent Mr. Prophet?

You answered the question, but you didn't expand from the thought.

Can you think of what the monkey, banana, and river might represent?

You thought of a reason to wash the banana, you thought of a reason to move to a specific part of the stream, but you seem to not be able to grasp what this has to do with your original question.

^Irony. That post has it.

You are in the box of lack of comprehension and analysis.

^ You're in the box of baseless assumptions.

You're all a bunch of boxes.

^ You're in the box of baseless assumptions.

The Democrat box?

Wait that could be the conservative box too.

The Democrat box?

Wait that could be the conservative box too.

Democrat box is a box of no ideas. Like the kind you see in storage places.

The Republican box is a box of bad ideas, like the one of free kittens.

Yo I'm out the box! You can't box me in!

You thought of a reason to wash the banana, you thought of a reason to move to a specific part of the stream, but you seem to not be able to grasp what this has to do with your original question.

It has nothing to do with the original question.

You are talking about streams monkies and bannanas. You may wish for those things to symbolize something that could be translated into some type of point...but it failed.

If you wish to make a point, don't speak in riddles.

Unimaginative Boeotian

^ I'm willing to bet that's the reason you gave a riddle/story to begin with: because you assumed he wouldn't answer and you would get to attack him with self-anointed superiority.

Even though you can pull any "answer" out of your ass and claim my take on the "riddle"/story is wrong - given how vague it is - here's me take:

The rivers are the possible alternatives in the question of religion (i.e. no religion, religion A, religion B, etc.). If the monkey can clean the banana in any of the rivers (i.e. get some value from one of these religions) then that's what matters.

If that's the point you're trying to make, then its an awful one.

If that's the point you're trying to make, then its an awful one.

You're not going to expand on this?

You're not going to expand on this?

Basically all his riddle says is "People have reasons for doing things"

Which is pretty fucking self evident. Basically what he did was take a piece of common knowledge, wrap it in a creative wrapper, and tried to pass it off as more meaningful. That is the TRUE secret of his riddle.

I asked for a GOOD reason to be religious.

Of course REASONS exist to be religious.

Everything has a reason. A person who rapes a child has a reason. Someone has a reason to steal from their employer. Just b/c it is a reason does not mean it is a good one.

Just as a monkey may find A reason to wash his bannana in a particular stream, it does not mean it is a good reason. What I illustrated by suggesting some monkies might not prefer to wash their bannana downstream of a steaming pile of monkey shit, is that some reasons are better than others.

But what do I know I am just an unimaginative Boeotian.

You're not going to expand on this?

I will once he answers if that is indeed what he meant.

Can anyone think of some good reasons to be religious[?]


You awaken silently in your mothers arms
You see the sign of the cross dangling from her neck.
As you move your lips over her nipple.

What is it that makes a reason good or bad?

If the people who raise and care for you have a religious faith, couldn't that be a "good" reason to be religious, in the time that you live with them?


Also, if you are going to answer anything involving self empowerment "God lifts you up" or "Believing in a higher power gives you strength" be prepared to answer how these things are different and or superior to secular self-help exercises and empowerment techniques.


(one way to interpret it)
The monkey washes the sand from the banana in the flowing stream.
[Man seeking liberation]
Does it really matter what stream he uses?
[Christianity, Hinduism, Islam]
Or where in the stream it is washed?
[Meister Eckhart, Avaita Vedanta, Ibn Arabi]
Is there any good reason for the monkey to wash the sand from the banana in the first place?
[why purify the core of your being, which will affect your actions and thoughts throughout your life?]
Is there a reason for using this stream rather than the other stream?
[Self help books, new age techniques, self hypnosis, etc. . .]
Convenience?
[Considering infinite amount of diversity of the human species, how can one say any river is "superior" to any other river? What is truth to you may not be truth to another. Every culture has their own methods.]

If he just saw a fellow simian piss/shit/or die in a particular streams, yes it fucking matters. If he can wash it upstream of said foulness, yes it matters where.


So is there a "good" reason to avoid Evangelicals, extremists, and intolerance?

Try not to waste anyone else's time with your bullshit riddles, you lack the brain power to effectively think of anything mind boggling that I have ever read.
f.


How fortunate for all concerned that you didn't hang with Jesus. He used parables all the time--some forty of them, as recorded in the four "official" gospels.

because i'd rather put faith into a supernatural ideal that is found in christ, then put faith in scientists and material struggle.

christ was the best, the greatest man; and regardless of whether or not he is fiction, that image still exists, and is deserving of worship. if i did not believe christ was real, i would worship his fiction.

I cannot really think of any except maybe social networking.

I imagine the greatest responses to be Pascal's Wager in nature, if so, please research this wager a bit, before posting something like "So you don't go to hell". Be sure to gloss over the scathing critique of Pascal's Wager as well, and be prepared to defend against this...it should save some time.

Also, if you are going to answer anything involving self empowerment "God lifts you up" or "Believing in a higher power gives you strength" be prepared to answer how these things are different and or superior to secular self-help exercises and empowerment techniques.

One more thing, before suggesting atheism or science are religions, be sure to look up the definitions of these words, so I won't have to post them to easily prove you wrong.

Looking for some good resons to be religious, would like to foster some discussion here, so I will keep my assholery in check as much as possible.

The good reason to be religious IS social networking. To be spiritual, however, helps one to achieve a simplified lifestyle where peace of mind and a clear conscience are constant fruits of spiritual labor.

As to why secular self-help/empowerment is 'inferior' (not the right word...different, for sure) as spiritual reliance upon higher powers: The human will and rational thinking is unable to overcome much of what one encounters in life: Deep rooted fears, resentments, complex ruined relationships, and so on. These problems cannot be willed away or medicated away. They cannot be thought away either. It is only by a trust in something other than humanity, the source of these problems, that a solution to them is found.

For example, your ending statement is telling: You use YOUR willpower and rationale to control yourself being an asshole. For my self, my willpower was insufficient to remove the problem altogether. I could stop being an asshole for a few days, but it was my default state of being. Through prayer, meditation, and a submission to strict honesty, withheld judgment, and performance of misunderstood actions, the problem is removed. Of course though, as I do possess volition, I can turn my back on this new life anytime I wish to have my suffering returned to me. :)

Define "good" pl0x.

If the people who raise and care for you have a religious faith, couldn't that be a "good" reason to be religious, in the time that you live with them?

By that logic....

You awaken silently in your mothers arms
You see no objects of a religions nature on her person
As you move your lips over her nipple.

If the people who raise and care for you are secular....

-----

The alternative to raising your child under thumb of religion, is to raise your child in an environment that is condusive to free thought, and expression, which I feel for a great number of reasons is superior to the dogma of a religion.

(one way to interpret it)
The monkey washes the sand from the banana in the flowing stream.
[Man seeking liberation]
Does it really matter what stream he uses?
[Christianity, Hinduism, Islam]

If a man seeks liberation, joining a dogmatic practice designed to encapsulate the universe into one simple illogical explanation, seems counterproductive.

Yes, the stream matters. Lets say he chooses to wash his bannana in the People's Temple kool aid stream.

Also, it is not as if your monkey washes his bannana and is then done. No, no, he has to tell all other monkies where they should wash their bannana's and until very recently, the prick did it with the weapons of excommunication, as well as real actual weapons.

(What is truth to you may not be truth to another. Every culture has their own methods.

Truth is static.

Every culture does have their own methods of determining the truth, and they all fail in comparison to science, which is the best method of determining truth PROVIDED an OBJECTIVE truth can be found.

Some religions have more creative ways of inventing the truth, some are more harmful than others, but ultimately they all have failed in finding the actual truth that science has.

Finding truth is NOT a good reason to be religious.

Because as humans, we are flawed. Religion (in different ways) gives us ways to overcome these flaws and be "better" people. Yes, self help books could do the same thing, but its a matter of personal preference, as well as upbringing. If you are born into a religious family, you are programmed from the start to be religious.

Because as humans, we are flawed. Religion (in different ways) gives us ways to overcome these flaws and be "better" people. Yes, self help books could do the same thing, but its a matter of personal preference, as well as upbringing. If you are born into a religious family, you are programmed from the start to be religious.

That's like saying kids adopted (or artificially inseminated) into a gay family are programmed to be gay from the start.

^ Not really (not that I agree with his conclusion that those reasons he gave are valid and "good reasons to be religious" to begin with).

Homosexuality can be genetic, for example....

Or it can involve behaviours are are more difficult to pass on through upbringing....

Or parents are less willing to pass on those behaviours....

Define "good" pl0x.

"Positive".

Religion (in different ways) gives us ways to overcome these flaws and be "better" people.

Religion does not give you anything you did not already possess. Religion also decided which parts of your character are flawed, and then tries to guilt you into changing.

Hardly better, or a good reason by any stretch of the imagination.

...If you are born into a religious family, you are programmed from the start to be religious.

The preacher's daughter in my town was rumored to be able to suck the chrome off of a trailer hitch.

Indoctrinating a child into a belief structure is bad, and wrong. It is unfair, and in my opinion borderlines child abuse.

--------

So to some it up...........there appear to be no good reasons to be religious.

Sorry, I misread the title as asking why people are religious.


And if religion gives you comfort, is that not a good reason? Good is a subjective term anyway.

17th century



Instilled in the minds of young puritan children by their parents and institution was a fear for the worthiness of their soul, and the purity of their being before the judgment of God.


The Puritan law decreed, “The Eye that mocketh his Father, and despiseth the Instruction of his Mother, let the Ravens of the Valley pluck it out, and the young Eagles eat it.” Children of a disobedient and unruly nature would be put to death for their ungoodly ways.


Puritan parents must correct whatever it may be that the child has faulted in, for children be not fit to govern themselves. Wise governance should be had whilst restraining your children from sin, disappointment should be conveyed when they fault, and in accordance to Divine doctrine, on occasion punishment should be incurred. Neglect in these duties you must not, for you dishonor God and your children will suffer.


God hath commanded saying, Honour thy Father and Mother, and whoso curseth Father or Mother, let him die the Death. Mat. 15,4.
Children obey your Parents in the Lord, for this is right.
2. Honour thy Father and Mother.
3. That it may be well with thee, and that thou mayst live long on the Earth.
Children obey your Parents in all Things, for that is well pleasing unto the Lord. Col. 3, 20.
The Eye that mocketh his Father, and despiseth the Instruction of his Mother, let the Ravens of the Valley pluck it out, and the young Eagles eat it.
Father, I have sinned against Heaven, and before thee. Luke 15, 10.
I am no more worthy to be called thy Son.
No man ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it. Ephes. 5, 19.
I pray thee let my Father and Mother come and abide with you, till I know what God will do for me. I Sam. 22, 3.
My Son, help thy Father in his Age, and grieve him not as long as he liveth.
And if his Understanding fail, have patience with him, and despise him not when thou art in thy full Strength.
Whoso curseth his Father or his Mother, his Lamp shall be put out in obscure Darkness. Prov. 20, 20.

Deemed bumpworthy; duly bumped.

Some 5 second reasons to be religious:

To have faith based initiatives to feed homeless people.
To have Networking/socialization.
To obtain a pattern.
To have Community.
To have alternative perspective into the afterlife.
To have belief in a power that doesn't fuck up like humans.

You obviously can get these somewhere else, but you can also get them form religion, which is in no way ridiculous so there's the answer to your question.

Define unsubstantiated. \/ \/ \/

^ I haven't heard a stronger indictment of religion in quite some time:

"Join this club - which believes in these ridiculous and unsubstantiated beliefs - in order to get things you can easily get elsewhere."


Amazing.

One word: Superpowers.

^ I haven't heard a stronger indictment of religion in quite some time:

"Join this club - which believes in these ridiculous and unsubstantiated beliefs - in order to get things you can easily get elsewhere."


Amazing.

You get all those things at once with a religion. You have to go searching piece by piece otherwise.

You can get Spanish classes with repetitive work from online or you can go to Mexico to learn Spanish. And Tequila. In Christianity's case, Jesus Juice.

Your choice.

You get all those things at once with a religion. You have to go searching piece by piece otherwise.


You're talking straight out of your ass. You have no fucking clue what a particular person gets from what.

At best, you can talk about yourself: you get all those from religion and piece by piece otherwise.

One word: Superpowers.

From what I understand, Scientologists are taught that as they can gain 'super powers' as they approach the high OT levels.


A lot of things about church are good. On the other hand the actual religious institution usually isn't a positive thing.

Some people really need institutions in order to have a form of spirituality, while others do not.

You're talking straight out of your ass. You have no fucking clue what a particular person gets from what.

At best, you can talk about yourself: you get all those from religion and piece by piece otherwise.

Well then they are good reasons for me to be religious, and if anyone cared to take their heads out of their own asses and try to put their feet in an others shoes, they might be so inclined to attempt to comprehend what the aforementioned reasons can do for them.

Or not. We can just go on insulting each other instead of discussing things.

What insults? I told the truth: What you said was bullshit. If that's insulting to you... then don't give me bullshit!

I'm fine in taking your 5 reasons as plausible benefits of being religious but when you go ahead and claim to know what other people will necessarily get from it and, worse of all, what they will not get from everything else, then you've crossed the line of bullshit. Moreover, this has little to do with "what those reasons can do for them". I've already accepted the five reasons as potential benefits (i.e. "good")


P.S. I love how you decided to edit your first post to include little comments like "which is in no way ridiculous"... five hours after I had made my reply.

P.S. I love how you decided to edit your first post to include little comments like "which is in no way ridiculous"... five hours after I had made my reply.

Well, some of us have actual things to do out in the real world and don't get to spend all our time scanning threads in obsessive indignation of peoples replies.

Can anyone think of a good reason to believe there is no God?

Can anyone think of a good reason to believe there is no God?

I smell a new thread.

Well, some of us have actual things to do out in the real world and don't get to spend all our time scanning threads in obsessive indignation of peoples replies.

Huh? What the fuck are you babbling about? That has nothing to do with what you did.

Editing a post 5 hours later after it has already received a reply and without warning the person the edit affects is sleazy. Pure an simple. It has nothing to do with "spending all your time scanning threads"; it has everything to do with you making it seem as if I didn't respond to your points when I replied.

I'm guessing you know this and that's yet another sleazy act of yours: escape criticism while attacking the other poster.

Can anyone think of a good reason to believe there is no God?

Can anyone think of a good reason to believe there is no Tooth Fairy?

Can anyone think of a good reason to believe there is no Tooth Fairy?

Nope.

How is this different and or superior to secular self-help exercises and empowerment techniques?
You can get the same direction, from self-help books, which have less riddles and translation problems, so if you were lazy this seems to be the better route.


Does it really matter if it's superior to another method?

Wouldn't the better question be: is it at least just as good as another method?

There are plently of things that aren't superior to one another that people still don't all agree on. Example: food. Mexican, Asian, Italian. Which is superior? Matter of opinion...They're just as good as one another, most likely, no matter your preference.

Religion is the opiate of the masses...Have you ever heard of that??




Yes.


Shouldn't it be:

Ignorance is the opiate of the masses. ???

Being 100% confident that there is no God, with no proof whatsoever, is just as ignorant as being 100% confident that there is a God, with no proof whatsoever.

Being 100% confident that there is no God, with no proof whatsoever, is just as ignorant as being 100% confident that there is a God, with no proof whatsoever.

Are you suggesting....

that a person who asserts that since God has no evidence whatsoever for actually existing, it does not..........is the same as a person who asserts that God (who still has no evidence whatsoever for actually existing, does?

One of these things is not like the other. These are not equal. One makes perfect sense.

Example: I don't believe a monster lives under my bed, b/c there is absolutely zero evidence for that monster living under my bed.

This is not ignorant. This is what most people assume about most every fanciful being, you may have believed in when you were a child. This is not ignorance. This is simply called common sense.

NOW....could there be an actual monster who lives under my bed? Sure. Could Elvis still be alive? Sure. Could I be a time traveled alien from another dimension and have had my mind implanted into a monkey man here on Earth, and am myself completely unaware that this has happened? Sure.

BUT....believing in shit like this, without ANY evidence, is ignorant, stupid, and a throwback in brain evolution.

I will say one more time, believing in shit that has zero evidence is not the same as not believing in something that has zero evidence.

Shouldn't it be:

Ignorance is the opiate of the masses. ???

Ignorance is just another word for religion, but religion is considered the opiate, because religion tells you:

Those who fuck you over will get theirs after death...
You will see your dead grandparents again...
You will live forever...
Fear not, you have an all powerful being on your side who loves you...

All of these things tend to have a calming effect on sheeple, much like opiates.

"Positive".

No, I don't think that's what the OP was going for.

^^ BrokeProphet, I think you missed the entire point of that portion of my post. The key part of that post is the being 100% confident, either way. That is what I have a problem with. Being 100% sure of anything is ignorance, wouldn't you agree?

100%[/B] sure of anything is ignorance, wouldn't you agree?

No. I would not.

Huh? What the fuck are you babbling about? That has nothing to do with what you did.

Editing a post 5 hours later after it has already received a reply and without warning the person the edit affects is sleazy. Pure an simple. It has nothing to do with "spending all your time scanning threads"; it has everything to do with you making it seem as if I didn't respond to your points when I replied.

I'm guessing you know this and that's yet another sleazy act of yours: escape criticism while attacking the other poster.

Are you John McCain?!

Yes! Calling attention to your dishonesty is exactly what you needed to do there. Thanks.

Yes! Calling attention to your dishonesty is exactly what you needed to do there. Thanks.

Actually, I'm pointing out your obvious need to argue instead of discuss. This is not a marathon or a damn campaign for Totse president. I'm sorry to disappoint you by giving you this startling news Iron oxide. On the other hand, you might want to run for president when you get p in that age bracket because you might have good advertising ideas on how to try to dis your opponent's character without staying on topic.

And its not sleazy to edit a reply. Editing is for the sake of people like you who need clarification on what something means implicitly and explicitly.

The point is that there are valid reasons to be religious and there is not a damn thing you can do to make those reasons dissipate.

The defense rests. For now.

Spare me your bullshit.

I mentioned your dishonesty in an aside because I wanted to make sure people understood that those edits came afterward and thus that I didn't purposely ignore your points in my reply as you were making it look like. It was literally one sentence; a sentence I wouldn't have had to write had you not been a dishonest piece of shit.

Then instead of acknowledging your petty behavior and moving on to answer all my other points which were on-topic, you decided to provided insults ("Well, some of us have actual things to do out in the real world and don't get to spend all our time scanning threads in obsessive indignation of peoples replies." - which was the whole content of your reply: an insult and the complete avoidance of my valid points. Made all the more ironic given that you dare criticize me for "dissing my opponent's character").

So please before you open your mouth again to lecture me about this being a discussion, why don't you shut the fuck up instead? It will spare you from having to look like a complete hypocrite on top of a sleazy piece of shit.


---

Now to your point:

The point is that there are valid reasons to be religious and there is not a damn thing you can do to make those reasons dissipate.Your "reasons" are just as a characterized them (and just as you've ignored now for a like a third time):

"Join this club - which believes in these ridiculous and unsubstantiated beliefs - in order to get things you can easily get elsewhere."

My point never had anything to do with you thinking there are valid reasons (note how it has now changed to "valid" instead of "good"). That's subjective. If you want to think X is a "valid reason" then you can go ahead and believe it, no matter how silly it is to me. My point was that the fact that you can get all those without religion while at the same time avoiding all the ridiculous crap that often accompanies religions, is not a strong case for religion.

P.S. Editing something is not a problem. I edit things all the time. I just edited this post. The problem is you doing it fiver hours after I replied, making it seem as if I ignored your points and then not mentioning it to me so that I can reply and make it known that I wasn't ignoring your points.

Spare me your bullshit.

I mentioned your dishonesty in an aside because I wanted to make sure people understood that those edits came afterward and thus that I didn't purposely ignore your points in my reply as you were making it look like. It was literally one sentence; a sentence I wouldn't have had to write had you not been a dishonest piece of shit.

Then instead of acknowledging your petty behavior and moving on to answer all my other points which were on-topic, you decided to provided insults ("Well, some of us have actual things to do out in the real world and don't get to spend all our time scanning threads in obsessive indignation of peoples replies." - which was the whole content of your reply: an insult and the complete avoidance of my valid points. Made all the more ironic given that you dare criticize me for "dissing my opponent's character").

So please before you open your mouth again to lecture me about this being a discussion, why don't you shut the fuck up instead? It will spare you from having to look like a complete hypocrite on top of a sleazy piece of shit.


---


Now to your point:

Your "reasons" are just as a characterized them (and just as you've ignored now for a like a third time):

"Join this club - which believes in these ridiculous and unsubstantiated beliefs - in order to get things you can easily get elsewhere."

My point never had anything to do with you thinking there are valid reasons (note how it has now changed to "valid" instead of "good"). That's subjective. If you want to think X is a "valid reason" then you can go ahead and believe it, no matter how silly it is to me. My point was that the fact that you can get all those without religion while at the same time avoiding all the ridiculous crap that often accompanies religions, is not a strong case for religion.

P.S. Editing something is not a problem. I edit things all the time. I just edited this post. The problem is you doing it fiver hours after I replied, making it seem as if I ignored your points and then not mentioning it to me so that I can reply and make it known that I wasn't ignoring your points.

"Valid" and "good" I decided to interchange. Oh dear lord was that verboten in your little Totse etiquette book?

Ok, to reply to your reply on my reply to your reply on replying about editing, I think you need to stop disregarding my arrows. And quit having a hissy fit over clarification.

Now stop me if this gives you deja vu, but your little quote you keep using may be true for you, but I see it as quite silly that you somehow believe that there isn't ridiculous crap everywhere. As if saying Join this club - which believes in these ridiculous and unsubstantiated beliefs - in order to get things you can easily get elsewhere
somehow makes you right.


Validate why the American government has a standing military. Or why they use the unconstitutional PATRIOT act. Because its ridiculous and yet has nothing to do with religion, while having plenty of individuals involved.

Substantiate the existence every single species that went from the first single cell to where we are now. You can't. Therefore evolution isn't proven. Yet everyone is so sure its 100% crackerjack stuff. Wait until they uncover something completely contradictory. It wouldn't be the first time.

You want to know what is really ridiculous? The fact that modern science claims to use a multiple hypothesis method and encourages diverse discussion, yet only uses single mindsets, eliminating the possibility of the supernatural, eliminating the possibility of not being able to conceive multiple dimensions unfathomable to humans, in turn killing very omnibus they want. They begin with a bias and say they have no bias. Ridiculous. And don't go to some dictionary website and put what scientific method means in italics, because that won't change anything.


And yet all those ridiculous things don't take away the potential usefulness of the subjects. Why? Because ridiculousness is everywhere, and just because there is some in the religion sector does not mean that there is no reason to be religious.


You know what your problem is? You think that you know you are right. Your diction is arrogant. That's not the way. No one is actually right. And no one actually knows anything. But in my belief at least I can accept that. The more you think you know, the less you actually get to learn, so I hope you don't fall too far off that high horse.

"Valid" and "good" I decided to interchange. Oh dear lord was that verboten in your little Totse etiquette book?

It should be forbidden in anyone's book since the two are not the same.

I'm glad that you, instead of acknowledging this simple fact, continue to expose yourself as a hypocrite by attacking my character right after you criticize me for doing that. Thank you.



Ok, to reply to your reply on my reply to your reply on replying about editing, I think you need to stop disregarding my arrows. And quit having a hissy fit over clarification.

Again, there was no hissy fit. I made one sentence. One. If you think one sentence is a "hissy fit" then you're a moron.

It only became a bigger issue once you decided to ignore all my on-topic points. Had you actually bothered continuing the discussion and admitted what you did was wrong, this would have never gotten to this place.

Now stop me if this gives you deja vu, but your little quote you keep using may be true for you, but I see it as quite silly that you somehow believe that there isn't ridiculous crap everywhere. As if saying somehow makes you right.


"These other things are also ridiculous" isn't a defense for anything: it's actually an admitance of it being ridiculous.

For example:

"Your honor, I find it quite silly that you somehow believe that there isn't crime comitted everywhere" isn't a defense for a crime; it's an admittance that a crime was comitted.

What I said stands just fine - even if we ignore all the idiotic things you said.

Substantiate the existence every single species that went from the first single cell to where we are now. You can't. Therefore evolution isn't proven. Yet everyone is so sure its 100% crackerjack stuff. Wait until they uncover something completely contradictory. It wouldn't be the first time.

What the fuck are you babbling about?

I don't need to "substantiate the existence every single species that went from the first single cell to where we are now". Not being able to fullfill that idiotic request of yours doesn't make evolution on equal ground in terms of "ridiculity" with inane beliefs like biblical creationism.

Evolution mountains of evidence from countless different scientific fields (genetics, anatomy, chemistry, biology, computer science...). Creationism does not.

Evolution does not violate the laws of physics. Literal Creationism does.


To say that evolution is just as ridiculous as creationism is just plain stupid.


You want to know what is really ridiculous? The fact that modern science claims to use a multiple hypothesis method and encourages diverse discussion, yet only uses single mindsets, eliminating the possibility of the supernatural, eliminating the possibility of not being able to conceive multiple dimensions unfathomable to humans, in turn killing very omnibus they want. They begin with a bias and say they have no bias. Ridiculous. And don't go to some dictionary website and put what scientific method means in italics, because that won't change anything.

Where does Science do any of that? In the part where Science deliberatly goes out of it way not to mention the supernatural, and therefore not make a claim either way regarding whether it exists or not?

Science is naturalist in the sense that it will try it bests to find natural explanations. It does not claim to know whether something supernatural exists or not; hence why you don't find a "Theory of the non-existence of supernatural things" in any Science book.



So again, to summarize:

The fact - which you already conceded - that we can get all the so-called "beneffits" of religion without being religious and thus without falling for the ridiculous things that often plague religions, is not a convincing argument in favor of being religious.

"Religions have stupid beliefs but so do these other things I'm mentioning in a desperate attempt to save face" isn't a good argument either.

It should be forbidden in anyone's book since the two are not the same.

I'm glad that you, instead of acknowledging this simple fact, continue to expose yourself as a hypocrite by attacking my character right after you criticize me for doing that. Thank you.




Again, there was no hissy fit. I made one sentence. One. If you think one sentence is a "hissy fit" then you're a moron.

It only became a bigger issue once you decided to ignore all my on-topic points. Had you actually bothered continuing the discussion and admitted what you did was wrong, this would have never gotten to this place.




"These other things are also ridiculous" isn't a defense for anything: it's actually an admitance of it being ridiculous.

For example:

"Your honor, I find it quite silly that you somehow believe that there isn't crime comitted everywhere" isn't a defense for a crime; it's an admittance that a crime was comitted.

What I said stands just fine - even if we ignore all the idiotic things you said.



What the fuck are you babbling about?

I don't need to "substantiate the existence every single species that went from the first single cell to where we are now". Not being able to fullfill that idiotic request of yours doesn't make evolution on equal ground in terms of "ridiculity" with inane beliefs like biblical creationism.

Evolution mountains of evidence from countless different scientific fields (genetics, anatomy, chemistry, biology, computer science...). Creationism does not.

Evolution does not violate the laws of physics. Literal Creationism does.


To say that evolution is just as ridiculous as creationism is just plain stupid.



Where does Science do any of that? In the part where Science deliberatly goes out of it way not to mention the supernatural, and therefore not make a claim either way regarding whether it exists or not?

Science is naturalist in the sense that it will try it bests to find natural explanations. It does not claim to know whether something supernatural exists or not; hence why you don't find a "Theory of the non-existence of supernatural things" in any Science book.



So again, to summarize:

The fact - which you already conceded - that we can get all the so-called "beneffits" of religion without being religious and thus without falling for the ridiculous things that often plague religions, is not a convincing argument in favor of being religious.

"Religions have stupid beliefs but so do these other things I'm mentioning in a desperate attempt to save face" isn't a good argument either.

You want to summarize? You are a pissed off moron who can't stand the fact that people won't agree with you and the only way you can get gratification is to type more than the person you quote. Everything I said was perfectly reasonable, but you just can't accept it so there is really no way, short of drowning the horse in the water, to make you see it outside the box.

If what you said was perfectly reasonable then it should be extremely easy for you tu support it, instead of - yet again - insulting me while you ignore what I've said.... just a few hours after you criticized me for not following the discussion.


Go ahead: Either support what you've said or kindly shut the fuck up.

If what you said was perfectly reasonable then it should be extremely easy for you tu support it, instead of - yet again - insulting me while you ignore what I've said.... just a few hours after you criticized me for not following the discussion.


Go ahead: Either support what you've said or kindly shut the fuck up.

Hello? The post before the post I just wrote supported what the post before that one was. Are you kidding me? And how exactly is it ok for you to say whatever you want about a poster but stating the personality traits of yours are not allowed? Can you dish it out but not take it?

Hello? The post before the post I just wrote supported what the post before that one was. Are you kidding me?

And I already dealt with the points in that post. (i.e. your "support" didn't actually end up supporting anything).

1. "X is also wrong" isn't a defense. It's an admittance that you are wrong. Thus, the things you mentioned in your inane rambling (e.g. the Patriot Act, the standing U.S. military, etc.) being "ridiculous" does not refute a single thing I've said.

2. I do not have to "substantiate the existence every single species that went from the first single cell to where we are now" because the fact that I can't doesn't mean that evolution is just as ridiculous as creationism, which is what you would need to make your point (though it would still suffer from the flaw in point 1).


3. I didn't throw a hissy fit, it was one post that would have ended right there had you actually bothered to admit what you did was wrong.

Pretty much all of the points you made there were refuted. Either reply to my refutations of your "support" or kindly shut the fuck up.



And how exactly is it ok for you to say whatever you want about a poster but stating the personality traits of yours are not allowed? Can you dish it out but not take it?Please try reading what I say. I honestly don't give a shit what you say about me. Your insults are meaningless to me, and moreover they are pretty lame. I'm not "unable to take it". I can take your insults just fine. I'm simply pointing out the blatant hypocrisy ( establishing a pattern of sleaze if you will) of you attacking my character by saying "Well, some of us have actual things to do out in the real world and don't get to spend all our time scanning threads in obsessive indignation of peoples replies." and then complaining about attacks of character by saying "On the other hand, you might want to run for president when you get p in that age bracket because you might have good advertising ideas on how to try to dis your opponent's character without staying on topic." (among other things), or the blatant hypocrisy of you accusing me of not following the discussion while it's you who keep ignoring my points just as you did right there.


So I care about you being a dishonest piece of shit, not about your shitty insults.

And I already dealt with the points in that post. (i.e. your "support" didn't actually end up supporting anything).



Please try reading what I say. I honestly don't give a shit what you say about me. You insults are meaningless to me, and moreover pretty lame. I'm not "unable to take it". I can take your insults just fine. I'm simply pointing out the blatant hypocrisy ( establishing a pattern of sleaze if you will) of you attacking my character by saying "Well, some of us have actual things to do out in the real world and don't get to spend all our time scanning threads in obsessive indignation of peoples replies." and then complaining about attacks of character by saying "On the other hand, you might want to run for president when you get p in that age bracket because you might have good advertising ideas on how to try to dis your opponent's character without staying on topic." (among other things).


I care about you being a dishonest piece of shit, not about your shitty insults.

You like the word "shit" don't you? And as much fun as it is to say the word sleaze, I'm not sure if you know what it means. But regardless I'll play your little quote game one more time and then I am going to sleep. Honestly as you wouldn't say.


1. "X is also wrong" isn't a defense. It's an admittance that you are wrong. Thus, the things you mentioned in your inane rambling (e.g. the Patriot Act, the standing U.S. military, etc.) being "ridiculous" does not refute a single thing I've said.

That's not admittance of anything. This thread is about reasons to be religious, I said mine, you used the same quote twice, I refuted it, you said the same thing again, ect. ect. There is no reason not to be religious on the basis of "it is ridiculous" That is the refute.



2. I do not have to "substantiate the existence every single species that went from the first single cell to where we are now" because the fact that I can't doesn't mean that evolution is just as ridiculous as creationism, which is what you would need to make your point (though it would still suffer from the flaw in point 1). Well if you do not support strict evolution then no you do not have to prove it, but if you wanted to prove that strict evolutionism was not ridiculous to believe in 100% (as you say with general religion), then you would have to prove it. Otherwise, there is no difference between blindly following religion or naturalistic evolution.




3. I didn't throw a hissy fit, it was one post that would have ended right there had you actually bothered to admit what you did was wrong. I'm almost entirely sure that it would not have ended, judging from your history of hitting the "reply" button. And I didn't do anything wrong; I merely clarified my post for you because you were unable to take the implicit. You are welcome.

That's not admittance of anything. This thread is about reasons to be religious, I said mine, you used the same quote twice, I refuted it, you said the same thing again, ect. ect. There is no reason not to be religious on the basis of "it is ridiculous" That is the refute.

It is an admittance since your argument amounted to "X is ridiculous and people still support it, therefore there can still be good reasons for religion even though it has ridiculous beliefs." (Hence why you asked me to "Validate why the American government has a standing military. Or why they use the unconstitutional PATRIOT act. Because its ridiculous and yet has nothing to do with religion, while having plenty of individuals involved." - Unless you were asking me to validate irrelevant bullshit...)


Like I said, the fact that you can cite other things that are ridiculous doesn't refute a single thing I've said.

There is plenty of reason not to be religious on the basis of "it often has ridiculous beliefs" since, as you already admitted, you can have the benefits without having to suffer the stupid shit that often accompanies it.

"You can have all these benefits without the ridiculous beliefs that often accompany religion" - something you already conceded - is an argument against being religious.



Well if you do not support strict evolution then no you do not have to prove it, but if you wanted to prove that strict evolutionism was not ridiculous to believe in 100% (as you say with general religion), then you would have to prove it. Otherwise, there is no difference between blindly following religion or naturalistic evolution.
Do you even read things before you type them? Not only does that barely make any sense but you avoided the fundamental issue:

Does creationism have the same level of evidence and substantiation as evolution does? NO. Thus to claim they are equally as ridiculous is idiotic, thus your point (i.e. bringing up evolution as if to suggest that evolution has the same pit-falls) is a miserable failure. Evolution doesn't have the same pitfalls because evolution is a theory supported by mountains of evidence while creationism is not.
The two are not comparable.


I'm almost entirely sure that it would not have ended, judging from your history of hitting the "reply" button. And I didn't do anything wrong; I merely clarified my post for you because you were unable to take the implicit. You are welcome.1. You have no clue what I would hafe done; only I do. So your opinion on that is unimportant.

2. Editing a post five hours later after it has already been answered and without warning me does not "clarify" anything. If your intent was to clarify you would have clarified in the posts you made afterward, or would have warned me of the edits you made. You did neither. You made it look as if I had not replied to your points. That's sleazy.

It is an admittance since your argument amounted to "X is ridiculous and people still support it, therefore there can still be good reasons for religion even though it has ridiculous beliefs." (Hence why you asked me to "Validate why the American government has a standing military. Or why they use the unconstitutional PATRIOT act. Because its ridiculous and yet has nothing to do with religion, while having plenty of individuals involved." - Unless you were asking me to validate irrelevant bullshit...) This is not an interrogation. You are not the police, nor are you a justice of the peace. Therefore, there is no "admittance" of anything. My "argument" as you want to put it in that tone is that there are good reasons to be religious. And so far the only thing you have done to refute that is say that they are only good reasons for me and not anyone else. On the whole the majority of posters here don't believe in any religion form the get go and I wouldn't think much of their character (or yours) if one thread involving complete strangers converted them anyway, but that doesn't take away the effect of having religion so I don't even see why we are still discussing the same thing.


Like I said, the fact that you can cite other things that are ridiculous doesn't refute a single thing I've said.

There is plenty of reason not to be religious on the basis of "it often has ridiculous beliefs" since, as you already admitted, you can have the benefits without having to suffer the stupid shit that often accompanies it.

"You can have all these benefits without the ridiculous beliefs that often accompany religion" - something you already conceded - is an argument against being religious. There you go again using those courtroom words. So if I understand you, you don't see the need to be religious because of its cons and that alone is enough. Well then to connect the dots, which I am almost certainly sure will throw you into a temper tantrum, there is no reason to be anything because everything has cons, or as I said before, is ridiculous. It "refutes" as you like to say, what you said because if you aren't religious on that basis, then why do you let yourself be controlled by a governmental body? Why do you go to the Department of Motor vehicles? Why do you get out of bed in the fucking morning for this ridiculous world of ours if your main argument against religion is that it is ridiculous and you therefore won't be a part of it? I'm a part of it becuase I choose not to be taken into the ridiculousness sector, of that or of my government or of anything else, but I am still involved in the extensive good, or pros.


Do you even read things before you type them? Not only does that barely make any sense but you avoided the fundamental issue:

Does creationism have the same level of evidence and substantiation as evolution does? NO. Thus to claim they are equally as ridiculous is idiotic, thus your point (i.e. bringing up evolution as if to suggest that evolution has the same pit-falls) is a miserable failure. Evolution doesn't have the same pitfalls because evolution is a theory supported by mountains of evidence while creationism is not.
The two are not comparable.You keep confusing my point. I think I am not being clear enough for you. The point I try to make is that it is idiocy to FULLY BELIEVE in something without question. Believing in either fully without question is ridiculous. Evolution is believed by many and is assumed to be the only choice. THAT is my main argument against it, but not to just disregard it.

I want to know if you can agree with me that having everyone in a room with the same thoughts and opinions with no opposing discussions is a bad thing. Aside from that, my reasons for not trusting the "mountains" of evidence are as follows:

1-Facts are interpreted. Most leading evolutionists are all of the same mind, which makes me want to see actual opposition. I want alternative interpretation of data and facts and they don't give me that.

2-Interpreting the fossil record in the modern scientific view shows species occurring abruptly and fully formed, with a sprinkle of transitional forms within species. The lack of intermediates is depressing since it has been predicted that the fossil record was supposed to show thousands upon thousands of intermediates.

3- DNA similarities between chimps and humans are exaggerated, and analyzing the differences in the embryos would do alot to raise the fundamental differences. The Chimpanzee Genome Project disputes the ages of splits in the lineages of the two from the alleged link of australopithecines and yet no one really talks about it. Hmm...

4-I don't see how the universe could come into existence without a cause. The Big Bang theory needs a cause and it is not going to be inside of itself. This isn't a snake eating a snake we are talking about.

5-Carbon dating and radiometric dating theories rely on assumptions about the past that have been proven self contradictory in practice. Spend half an hour digging around for information on the processes and samples from Mt. Saint Helens.

6-DNA is encyclopedic. Why would non organic material go into life and spin the most efficient storage retrieval system in existence with no cause? But that is the strict a priori faith of materialism and evolution: that there was no cause. I can't take that. If you believe in the 3rd law of motion then you shouldn't believe in the modern evolutionist view.


Those are just tiny examples. I would be glad to have another discussion on elaborating them and more but lets save that for another thread.
1. You have no clue what I would hafe done; only I do. So your opinion on that is unimportant. This entire thread has been nothing but opinions, and your constant need to nag is the only reason that the thread itself has been regurgitating the same thing for the past page.


2. Editing a post five hours later after it has already been answered and without warning me does not "clarify" anything. If your intent was to clarify you would have clarified in the posts you made afterward, or would have warned me of the edits you made. You did neither. You made it look as if I had not replied to your points. That's sleazy.
Sleazy is a description of a porn store. I would think a more appropriate word would be underhanded, although I still don't see that word or any other negative word apply. Do you want to get a prize or something? Do want to you win the race?

This is not an interrogation. You are not the police, nor are you a justice of the peace. Therefore, there is no "admittance" of anything.

Yes, only people in courtrooms or interrogation rooms can admit things! :rolleyes:

How fucking stupid.


And so far the only thing you have done to refute that is say that they are only good reasons for me and not anyone elseThat's completely wrong. Either you're not reading what I've said or you're misrepresenting my position.

I've said multiple times that the fact that we can get all those "benefits" (i.e. the good reason you think exist for being religious) elsewhere without getting all the ridiculous things that often accompany religion is not a good argument in favor of being religious, it's a good argument in favor of getting those benefits elsewhere.


Well then to connect the dots, which I am almost certainly sure will throw you into a temper tantrum, there is no reason to be anything because everything has cons, or as I said before, is ridiculous.You suck at connecting dots.


I didn't say: "X has cons therefore you shouldn't/cannot believe in it".

I said: "X has cons, you can get the benefits of X elsewhere without participating in X, therefore why participate in X?".

To use your own examples it would be as if there were other places one could get driver's lisences, car insurance, etc.s other than the Department of Motor Vehicles (i.e pther places where you can get the "beneffits" from) that don't have the long lines, poor customer serivece, etc. (i.e. that don't have the same ridiculous bullshit) yet you keep going to the Department of Motor Vehicles anywya.


So no, you haven't refuted a single thing I've said. You apparently don't even understand my very simple argument.


You keep confusing my point. I think I am not being clear enough for you. The point I try to make is that it is idiocy to FULLY BELIEVE in something without question. Believing in either fully without question is ridiculous. Evolution is believed by many and is assumed to be the only choice. THAT is my main argument against it, but not to just disregard it. If that's your point, then your point has jack shit to do with anything I've said. I didn't say we should believe things without question. My point doesn't require that we believe things without question.


1-Facts are interpreted. Most leading evolutionists are all of the same mind, which makes me want to see actual opposition. I want alternative interpretation of data and facts and they don't give me that.
There are alternative interpretation of data - you being ignorant of them is another story- however all "alternative interpretation of data - have to conform to reality.

For example you can't make the fact that light has a certain speed and that we have a certain distance from other astronomical bodies (both facts that prove the age of the universe is not the idiotic figure thrown around by many religions nutjubs) to mean something else. Or you can but you would be acting stupidly.


So there are alternative interpretations and thus there is debate regarding whether the lineage of some dinosaurs, or extinction events in the past, but the fact that evolution occurs is not really up to debate because that's been established beyond reasonable doubt.




2-Interpreting the fossil record in the modern scientific view shows species occurring abruptly and fully formed, with a sprinkle of transitional forms within species. The lack of intermediates is depressing since it has been predicted that the fossil record was supposed to show thousands upon thousands of intermediates.
That's just plain wrong. Your ignorance of the immense number of intermediate species (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html) we've found isn't going to magically make this true.

It's so wrong that Scientists have actually predicted the existence of intermediate species in an area, based on the morphology of other species they knew about, and have digged/investigated the geographical and geological sectors where such an intermeidate spcies would be found... and found it!

Moreover, fossilization of remains is not a given; it happens only when the particular eviornment lends itself for preservation. Thus, we would expect not to find all fossil remains, and thus have certain gaps.


3- DNA similarities between chimps and humans are exaggerated, and analyzing the differences in the embryos would do alot to raise the fundamental differences. The Chimpanzee Genome Project disputes the ages of splits in the lineages of the two from the alleged link of australopithecines and yet no one really talks about it. Hmm...a. Exaggerated? First prove the exageration, and then show how an exageration disproves evolution in any way.

b. Show me where the Chimpanzee Genamoe Projects refutes the idea humans and chimpanzes came from a common ancestor - which is what's relevant here.


4-I don't see how the universe could come into existence without a cause. The Big Bang theory needs a cause and it is not going to be inside of itself. This isn't a snake eating a snake we are talking about.a. Your incredulity - "I don't see how X could happen" - isn't an argument. In fact, it's a logical fallacy: the argument from incredulity.

b. We're not necessarily debating the existence of a god. You can believe in a god and still not participate in the idiotic beliefs many religions deem necessary.



5-Carbon dating and radiometric dating theories rely on assumptions about the past that have been proven self contradictory in practice. Spend half an hour digging around for information on the processes and samples from Mt. Saint Helens.
Wrong again.

Show me where any "assumption" has proven false to the point of making creationist timelines even remotely feasible. Small corrections in assumptions that move the years a few decades or hundreds of years aren't even close to making ridiculous creationist claims true.

Radiometric dating is a tool. You can use it correctly or incorrectly. When used correctly it gives pretty consistent results.


As for Mt. Saint Helens....

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1.html



6-DNA is encyclopedic. Why would non organic material go into life and spin the most efficient storage retrieval system in existence with no cause? But that is the strict a priori faith of materialism and evolution: that there was no cause. I can't take that. If you believe in the 3rd law of motion then you shouldn't believe in the modern evolutionist view. The most efficient storage retrieval system? Tell that to the billions that have suffered at the hands of genetic mistakes.


As for the rest, if are having enough trouble keeping up with the original argument I would recommend you don't bring up more silly shit. For example, not being religions does not mean being materialist - thus making that comment of yours pretty useless.


Sleazy is a description of a porn store. I would think a more appropriate word would be underhanded, although I still don't see that word or any other negative word apply. Do you want to get a prize or something? Do want to you win the race?Sleazy applies just fine. You might want to crack open a dictionary if you disagree.

But, just to be agreeable, you can take a look at these and see which one of them you prefer:

cheating (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/cheating), corrupt (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/corrupt), corruptible (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/corruptible), crooked (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/crooked), deceitful (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/deceitful), deceptive (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/deceptive), devious (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/devious), dishonorable (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/dishonorable), disingenuous (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/disingenuous), duplicitous (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/duplicitous), false (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/false), fraudulent (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/fraudulent), ignominious (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/ignominious), knavish (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/knavish), lying (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/lying), machiavellian (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/machiavellian), mendacious (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/mendacious), misleading (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/misleading), perfidious (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/perfidious), roguish (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/roguish), shady (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/shady), shifty (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/shifty), sinister (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/sinister), sinuate (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/sinuate), sinuous (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/sinuous), surreptitious (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/surreptitious), treacherous (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/treacherous), tricky (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/tricky), underhanded (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/underhanded), unscrupulous (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/unscrupulous), untrustworthy (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/untrustworthy), untruthful (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/untruthful)


http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/dishonest

Pretty much all of them apply to what you did. Now that you have the choice, I'm assuming your continuous whining about "regurgitating the same thing for the past page" since you can end the discussion regarding your [insert the word you picked here] actions, by admitting what you did was wrong.

Yes, only people in courtrooms or interrogation rooms can admit things! :rolleyes:

How fucking stupid.

That's completely wrong. Either you're not reading what I've said or you're misrepresenting my position.

I've said multiple times that the fact that we can get all those "benefits" (i.e. the good reason you think exist for being religious) elsewhere without getting all the ridiculous things that often accompany religion is not a good argument in favor of being religious, it's a good argument in favor of getting those benefits elsewhere.

You suck at connecting dots.


I didn't say: "X has cons therefore you shouldn't/cannot believe in it".

I said: "X has cons, you can get the benefits of X elsewhere without participating in X, therefore why participate in X?".

To use your own examples it would be as if there were other places one could get driver's lisences, car insurance, etc.s other than the Department of Motor Vehicles (i.e pther places where you can get the "beneffits" from) that don't have the long lines, poor customer serivece, etc. (i.e. that don't have the same ridiculous bullshit) yet you keep going to the Department of Motor Vehicles anywya.


So no, you haven't refuted a single thing I've said. You apparently don't even understand my very simple argument.

If that's your point, then your point has jack shit to do with anything I've said. I didn't say we should believe things without question. My point doesn't require that we believe things without question.


There are alternative interpretation of data - you being ignorant of them is another story- however all "alternative interpretation of data - have to conform to reality.

For example you can't make the fact that light has a certain speed and that we have a certain distance from other astronomical bodies (both facts that prove the age of the universe is not the idiotic figure thrown around by many religions nutjubs) to mean something else. Or you can but you would be acting stupidly.


So there are alternative interpretations and thus there is debate regarding whether the lineage of some dinosaurs, or extinction events in the past, but the fact that evolution occurs is not really up to debate because that's been established beyond reasonable doubt.




That's just plain wrong. Your ignorance of the immense number of intermediate species (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html) we've found isn't going to magically make this true.

It's so wrong that Scientists have actually predicted the existence of intermediate species in an area, based on the morphology of other species they knew about, and have digged/investigated the geographical and geological sectors where such an intermeidate spcies would be found... and found it!

Moreover, fossilization of remains is not a given; it happens only when the particular eviornment lends itself for preservation. Thus, we would expect not to find all fossil remains, and thus have certain gaps.

a. Exaggerated? First prove the exageration, and then show how an exageration disproves evolution in any way.

b. Show me where the Chimpanzee Genamoe Projects refutes the idea humans and chimpanzes came from a common ancestor - which is what's relevant here.


a. Your incredulity - "I don't see how X could happen" - isn't an argument. In fact, it's a logical fallacy: the argument from incredulity.

b. We're not necessarily debating the existence of a god. You can believe in a god and still not participate in the idiotic beliefs many religions deem necessary.


Wrong again.

Show me where any "assumption" has proven false to the point of making creationist timelines even remotely feasible. Small corrections in assumptions that move the years a few decades or hundreds of years aren't even close to making ridiculous creationist claims true.

Radiometric dating is a tool. You can use it correctly or incorrectly. When used correctly it gives pretty consistent results.


As for Mt. Saint Helens....

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1.html


The most efficient storage retrieval system? Tell that to the billions that have suffered at the hands of genetic mistakes.


As for the rest, if are having enough trouble keeping up with the original argument I would recommend you don't bring up more silly shit. For example, not being religions does not mean being materialist - thus making that comment of yours pretty useless.

Sleazy applies just fine. You might want to crack open a dictionary if you disagree.

But, just to be agreeable, you can take a look at these and see which one of them you prefer:

cheating (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/cheating), corrupt (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/corrupt), corruptible (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/corruptible), crooked (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/crooked), deceitful (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/deceitful), deceptive (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/deceptive), devious (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/devious), dishonorable (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/dishonorable), disingenuous (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/disingenuous), duplicitous (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/duplicitous), false (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/false), fraudulent (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/fraudulent), ignominious (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/ignominious), knavish (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/knavish), lying (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/lying), machiavellian (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/machiavellian), mendacious (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/mendacious), misleading (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/misleading), perfidious (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/perfidious), roguish (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/roguish), shady (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/shady), shifty (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/shifty), sinister (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/sinister), sinuate (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/sinuate), sinuous (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/sinuous), surreptitious (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/surreptitious), treacherous (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/treacherous), tricky (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/tricky), underhanded (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/underhanded), unscrupulous (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/unscrupulous), untrustworthy (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/untrustworthy), untruthful (http://thesaurus.reference.com//browse/untruthful)


http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/dishonest

Pretty much all of them apply to what you did. Now that you have the choice, I'm assuming your continuous whining about "regurgitating the same thing for the past page" since you can end the discussion regarding your [insert the word you picked here] actions, by admitting what you did was wrong. No. They. Were. Not. The. End.

Your talkorigins.org references help my argument and not yours. "However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism" that is just a change of the definition from one to another to fit the current scientific thought process becuase they all thought transitional fossils would have appeared by now. And there's that word theory again. Oh wait I think everyone has forgotten what that word means...Well Its ok you seem to be good with online dictionaries and thesauruses.

And your mentioning the incorrect use of the carbon dating helps me out as well. Whats with the flip flopping?

And again I believe you had a question about
Does creationism have the same level of evidence and substantiation as evolution does? Well my list of topics goes through what I see as unsubstantiation of evolution. Just a few simple points that you really did nothing yourself to answer. Don't get pissed just becuase I disambiguate a question and show that you have to make sure the question is true in the first place.

Since you don't want to bring up new material, making an entire reply on definitions of creationism, its different interpretations, and science and history that back it up would be meaningless for you, but rest assured I'll definitely make a thread for it so you can get your jollies off.


I'll cap this right here: I said: "X has cons, you can get the benefits of X elsewhere without participating in X, therefore why participate in X?".

Because the cons are everywhere, not necessarily in every Church or religion of it happens to be in one, x can be anything including corrupt scientific establishments, and in the end people will benefit from a religious institution.

Reasons to be religious have been posted, the thread has been answered, and it has been National Novel Writing Month for 4 days now and your Iron Oxided ass has been taking up too much of my time so feel free to make a smug reply with many broken quotations about my valid replies -someone else can read them and if your lucky reply to you instead. I'm going to finish my damn writing.

P.S. in before predictable comments about my leaving is a forfeit or some sorry crap like that. Don't worry I'll make a new thread for you to try and vomit all over.

Your talkorigins.org references help my argument and not yours.

Now you're just lying.

The talk origin links show the numerous transitional fossils that have been found, which you claimed, erroneously, that there were none. They are. They list many of them.

I'll quote the article to make it crystal clear you're lying. Nothing in this article helps you arguments, in fact they refute them. They clearly point out numerous examples of transitional fossils when you claimed there were none:


"The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:



Human ancestry (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html). There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.


The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).


A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).


The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).


Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.


Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).


Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).


Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).


The Eocene primate genus Cantius

(Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).
Scallops of the genus Chesapecten

show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).
Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).


The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:



Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).


Dinosaur-bird transitions. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html)


Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).


The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).


Transitions between mesonychids and whales. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.html)


Transitions between fish and tetrapods. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC212.html)


Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).


Runcaria, a Middle Devonian plant, was a precursor to seed plants. It had all the qualities of seeds except a solid seed coat and a system to guide pollen to the seed (Gerrienne et al. 2004).


A bee, Melittosphex burmensis, from Early Cretaceous amber, has primitive characteristics expected from a transition between crabronid wasps and extant bees (Poinar and Danforth 2006).


The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:



The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway Morris 1998, 185-195).


Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC220.html).


An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004)."



http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html





that is just a change of the definition from one to another to fit the current scientific thought process becuase they all thought transitional fossils would have appeared by now.

What other "definition" was there? You claim that this isa "change of the definition" yet provide absolutely no evidence!

What other definition of "transitional species" would be relevant? If we're talking about fossils that are supposed to show a transition from A to B then what would we expect to see in those fossils? Some features from A and some features from B. That's exactly what we observe.


And there's that word theory again. Oh wait I think everyone has forgotten what that word means...Well Its ok you seem to be good with online dictionaries and thesauruses.

I know what the word means which is precisely why I know how strong that is. It isn't a weak guess or conjecture as you seem to be implying:

"Is Evolution a fact or a theory?

The theory of evolution explains how life on earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world. Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong."

- National Academy of Sciences


Example of other "theories" would be Cell theory and Germ theory, yet I don't see you doubting that cells are the underlying structure of life, or that "germs" are what cause our sickness and not evil spirits (or hey maybe you do actually belong to the - surprise! - group of religious nutjubs that seriously doubt these theories).


And your mentioning the incorrect use of the carbon dating helps me out as well. Whats with the flip flopping?

It doesn't help you in the least. It shows exactly what I said: these dating methods are tools that can be used correctly and incorrectly. The examples you brought up, like those from Mt. Saint Helens where used incorrectly.

That does not mean that the dates obtained through radiometric dating techniques are completely incorrect which is what your argument (i.e. creationism) requires.

The fact that someone using something incorrecty got incorrect results isn't a surprise, nor is it a refutation of the techniques.



And again I believe you had a question about Well my list of topics goes through what I see as unsubstantiation of evolution. Just a few simple points that you really did nothing yourself to answer. Don't get pissed just becuase I disambiguate a question and show that you have to make sure the question is true in the first place.

Your "list of topics" were all refuted. There are transitional fossils, radiometric dating can and has provide useful results, the Chimpanzee Genome Project doesn't refute anything regarding the veracity of evolution. You were wrong in pretty much all of your points.


Because the cons are everywhere, not necessarily in every Church or religion of it happens to be in one, x can be anything including corrupt scientific establishments, and in the end people will benefit from a religious institution.

You can say that there are cons everywhere, but not only is that something you pulled straight out of your ass, but even if we accept it as true it still does not mean that all the cons are all made equal:

I don't see any group of people requiring us to contradict mathematics and science on a regular basis like many religions do. So the fact, as you already conceded, that we can get the supposed benefits from religion elsewhere - be it in a place that has no cons, or a place that has cons that are better than the cons in religion - is an argument against being religious.

P.S. in before predictable comments about my leaving is a forfeit or some sorry crap like that. Don't worry I'll make a new thread for you to try and vomit all over.

Look forward to more of your mental gymnastics, and flawed argumentation.

And your leaving is a forfiet, your ideas along with your ass have been handed back to you.

The question of my OP has still not been answered.

Lurnin is hard!!

I only want to reed won book wich will anser all my questions and soothe my feers. And wen nebodi argus wif me I can just say they misinterpreted it rongly.

New Arrival:

I'd work on cleaning up your written (er, typed) english and perhaps people will be more willing to engage you in some serious discussion.

Also, limiting yourself to just one *book of knowledge* would be a horrible mistake, IMO. Read until your eyes bleed, research like a man possessed and when you think you have all the answers to the mysteries of the Universe ... forget everything you know and start all over from scratch. It's the process of discovery that is so fulfilling, moreso than the actual answers you seek. At least that's been my experience.

Jesus fucking Christ....it is the ghost of AngryFemme.

Where have you been?

Jesus fucking Christ....it is the ghost of AngryFemme.

Where have you been?

My feeble explanation is here. (http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2171537)

I think my sabbatical is about over. :)

religion can help us overcome the barriers humans build up amongst each other.

some would argue that this is the opposite sometimes also, and this is true, that is why i recognize that the religions of the world are diverse and not synonymous.

The example i am using is ISCON, although those who are informed know that ISCON is a science; the science of the soul, rather than a religion, but that is debatable so that is why i am using it.

Basically when one comes to the realization that he is not his material body; that is his temporary body and all of the barriers we build up amongst each other in material nature (world) can be negated through Krishna consciousness, because one who is conscious of Krishna realizes that Krishna is the creater and our spirit soul is qualitatively synonymous with his, and therefore all our delegated souls are qualitatively synonymous.

When this realization is made the sense gratification and consumerism of this material nature that can be so encompassing and addictive is insignificant compared to the joy of our spiritual selves, therefore the material labels will cease to have the value that humans have created through inference.

This part is more debatable.

My point in contrast to your question : when this understanding is reach the unity and peace amongst the people of our world will be a positive outcome and therefore a good reason for religion?