[Genryu]

Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Liberator
11. Love thy neighbor as yourself, and treat him honorably.

Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Liberator
Plus, it gives the gay couple something to looketh forward to, instead of more of the same.

Or a case of hypocrisy at work.
As much as I find Kazan a blockhead, he, at least, try to make his argumentation with a little thought behind them, instead of always bashing us up the head with the same argument. Your argumentation, Liberator, remind me of something I read not so long ago : tell something as often and as long as you can, and maybe people will believe you, even if you only have the flimsiest of proof (last known exemple of this method : there's WMD in Irak )
Plus you're always going on in your arguments on how you're right in believing in God and we're wrong for not believing in the Old Guy. Pride goesth before the fall and all that, I dareth say:) .
I could go on a little while on why I don't like you, butI'm too lazy to do it

[Tiara]

Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Ferret
Oh I absolutly love these topics.
*Shakes Kazan's and Tiara's hand*

Did I sayeth you could touch me, f00!?

*TWACKETH*

[Kazan]

hehe.. ty ferret

[Styxx]

What is funny is the whole "too many coincidences" argument. Really. People just don't get that, had all these "coincidences" not happened, they simply wouldn't be here to observe them. Does it look like it's too convenient? Sure, but the fact that it all happened just the way it did is the only reason you're here to see it (and to think it's all impossible). There weren't all these coincidences on, say, Mars. Interestigly enough, you don't see any Martians *****ing about it.

[Kazan]

"the too many coincidences" argument rests of a faulty understanding a probability as well.

[Kazan]

Rebuttal originating from the lack of wisdom of Liberator
Kazan, what it comes down to is faith.

Yes, and faith by definition is irrational, illogical

DEVOID OF REASON

We all haveth faith that an atom, any atom is composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons.  We can't actually prove it, no matter how good the microscope, but we believe and haveth faith in it noughtthe less, because science has lent evidence suggesting that we art correct.

actually we don't have faith we can observe that with an various particle microscopes.  

What was the date on your elementry school science textbooks? 1954?

Thou haveth faith that the theory that the Universe began "X" billion years ago and that all the millions of different species on Earth developed from some suped up bacteria.

Once again, you try accusing me of _FAITH_

You don't need FAITH to know this

Unverse age? Function of expansion rate/outer glactic distance, Function of positions of Quasars, etc.

EVOLUTION:
Microevolution: happens obviously, undeniably - every time someone sets out to disprove it they end up finding even more evidence to prove it

Macroevolution: logical extension of microevolution, OBSERVED TO OCCUR

That is all too much of a stretch for me, it's too many coincidences.  I prefer to haveth faith in the idea that all of this, everything around us, wast created by an intelligent being beyond our comprehension and science.  That he, or it if you prefer, takes and active interest in our existence and at times in the past and today, sends down rules of behavior that if followed by everyone, make for a very peaceful existence.

"coincidences" argument lies on a faulty knowledge of the probabilities.

You PREFER - because it's emotionally appealing.  You ADMIT to bias, you just ADMITTED TO INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY

IF you have children _NEVER_ teach them about the nature of the universe, you are not qualified - until you cast off bias an honestly look at it, and when your understanding fails you don't make baseless extraordinary claims

Your faith in the Big Bang and Evoloution is just as tenuous as my faith in God.  With one minor caveat, Science has not, as yet, provided a method of coexisting with everyone else that is peaceful, God has.

I don't need _FAITH_ for either, because there is EVIDENCE for both - for evolution that evidence is irrefutable.


"Science has not, as yet, provided a method of coexisting with everyone else that is peaceful, God has" - this isn't science's job.  FURTHERMORE Religion DOES NOT PROMOTE PEACEFUL COEXISTANCE - Religion promotes bigotry, hatred and war every day - prime example is this lattest round of bigotry trying to invade the government against homosexuals - oh and the arguments being used now are the same arguments that were used by racists against blacks, and misogynists against women.

Your "precious bible" DIRECTLY Promotes: Bigotry (against homosexuals, minorities, etc), Misogyny, killing people, genocide, etc


(If you don't know what misogyny is: hatred against women/sexism)

[Bobboau]

wait, if he just admited to intelectual dishonesty, isn't that intelectualy honest?

[Tiara]

Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Bobboau
wait, if he just admited to intelectual dishonesty, isn't that intelectualy honest?

No, admitting to dishonesty is moronic honesty.

[Bobboau]

and I think Isreal/Palistine is a better example of how well religons let people live together,
oh, wait it's that devil religon Islam that's all to blame, that's right, yeah.

[Rictor]

Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Liberator
Sociology, my understanding of it anyway, is the study of social groups at gross levels at best, I haveth yet to descry a theory put forth by man that wilt work regardless of man's nature.

That's the fly in thy ointment, as it were.

All the Academics in the world can proscribe a theory that they think wilt produce a working, relative peaceful society, but they always leave out the most important part, the Nature of the Beast they seek to tame.

Man is greedy, self-centered, and agressive on a species level.  To try and debate this is fallacy as that statement has o'er 7000 years of recorded history to back it up.

Only one group of commands that I knowest of can put order to the chaos:

1. Thou shalt not worship any other god but YHWH.
2. Thou shalt not make a graven image.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH in vain.
4. Thou shalt not break the Sabbath.
5. Thou shalt not dishonor thy parents.
6. Thou shalt not murder.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery(this extends to pre-marriage also)
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not commit perjury(knowingly lie)
10. Thou shalt not covet(fervently desire something somebody else has).

Ah, but here I must disagree. Firstly, any such law that be madeth by society that carry with it the same intent, is, plain as day, to be of the same effectiveness. The quantification of that law can only helpeth it be more just, not less, for every transgresion hath degrees of fault, degrees of harm, degrees of , in a word, sin. If I commiteth murder upon only one man, be that the same as if I killed a thousand? Would it be just for the same punishment to be exacted?

I must also disagree with thy implication that these laws originated from Christianity. That be not the case. Well before the arrival of Christ and the writing of the Bible, ancient Babylon hath laws that were similar to these. I know not the specifics, but I am fairly certain that most civilizations predating Christianity had something along the lines of these basic laws. The most plausible explaination as to how pretty much every society develops the exact same set of laws, is that these are laws that are part of the human mind. Every man, save few, knows right from wrong. Independently, every society develops what amounts to the same legal code. Explain this to me.

And lastly, though I have no evidence, I believeth that humans are not, as you you, greedy, self-centered and agressive. A few are, and by a wonderful flaw in logic, they are those who gain power. They influence the rest of the species negatively, though the species is not itself negative. The more a society develops, the less they agressive, self-centred and greedy. These emotions exist in all humans, but the more "enlightened" and individual becomes, the less effect these emotion have on them. Usually, the individual becometh "enlightened" as a result of his society becoming "enlightened", but that is not always the case.

[Stunaep]

Yeah, well, Kazan, unless you haven't noticed, humans are irrational beings. If we weren't, we'd be called Vulcans. Or Robots.

among other things, God is a very wide term. Hell, some forms of christian churches define god as the cause that started the universe (don't take it too literally, I'm not good in estonian-english translation). As such, it is as good a reason as any. Also see Leibniz' definition of God (yes, it ain't the christian god, but still, it's a very good definition of God as they come)

Also, as such the theory of evolution is perfectly well supported by most of the more reformed forms of christianity. Not to mention, that there's a lot more to religion than the explanation of the world around us.

You wanna be intellectually honest, fine, be intellectually honest. Me, I wanna be human.

[Stunaep]

Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Rictor


I must also disagree with thy implication that these laws originated from Christianity. That be not the case. Well before the arrival of Christ and the writing of the Bible, ancient Babylon hath laws that were similar to these. I knowest not the specifics, but I am fairly certain that most civilizations predating Christianity had something along the lines of these basic laws. The most plausible explaination as to how pretty much every society develops the exact same set of laws, is that these art laws that art part of the human mind. Every man, save few, knoweth right from wrong. Independently, every society develops what amounts to the same legal code. Explain this to me.
 

Simple. It ain't so. There have been civilisations, in which incest has been legal, those in which female children were allowed to be killed, if they weren't tough enough to survive, hell, we had slavery and female discrimation up until 100 years ago (and I'm speaking only of the western countries, and I remind again, that Islam allows killing, if it's the killing of non-believers in a Jihad. ). As someone mentioned in the religion thread, even though most earth religions may seem similar on the outside, they are rather different on the inside.

[Rictor]

Christianty allows the killing on non-believers. Or were the Jesuits not Christians then? And since when does Christianity ban the keeping of slaves. More than half of America kept slaves, and the slaveowners were devout Christians. If the issue had been left to religion, there would still be slavery. Same goes for female discrimination, as early as a hundred years ago, women were not allowed to vote. Again, Christian people living in a (mostly) Christian nation.

All of these things, which are today considered obviously wrong, were all allowed in the days when the Bible was law. Only due to people ingoring the Bible were we able to progress beyond slavery, injustice and religious wars.

[Kazan]

Stunaep: Vulcans have no emotion - humans can have emotion, they just need to keep them out of where they don't belong.

[Stunaep]

I've never said that the bible should be taken as a law. A voluntary guide, sure, you've got to admit, when it's not contradictory, it's really humane. Plus, christianity can, as was already mentioned, be summarized in the two immortal sentences "Don't do to others what you don't want to be done to yourself", and "Love your neighbor as you love yourself" (to the nitpicky axemistress, this doesn't mean the person who lives next door).

Not to mention, whose to say that the bible is the correct word of God anyways. It's not like the wordings, the interpretation and **** hasn't changed since the life of Jesus. Hell, even the four apostles contradict themselves when it comes to regarding the life of Jesus. Those two sentences, they however, do agree on.

[Kazan]

humane?! ROTFL you haven't read the entire thing - it has god ORDERING GENOCIDE

[Stunaep]

It also has Jesus ordering peace, charity, and compassion against your neighbors. What's your point?

Please, show me, point out to me the quote, when I have said, that everything in the bible should be taken, word for word, and followed. That'd be stupid. The bible is one of the most contradictous works of literature I've ever read.

[Rictor]

Ah, so you claim that only if we follow the "good" stuff, and disregard all the bad, then the Bible is indeed the pillar of order in a depraved society. Yes, if we disregard all the contradictions, the intolerance and soo forth, than it does preach peace. But...you know....

[karajorma]

Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Liberator
Your faith in the Big Bang and Evoloution is just as tenuous as my faith in God.  With one minor caveat, Science has not, as yet, provided a method of coexisting with everyone else that is peaceful, God has.

Wrong

Read up on game theory. Axelrod's prisoners dilema experiments proved conclusively that the best way to coexist with other people also in the same situation is to play cooperative tit-for-tat with them (i.e you act nice and friendly until someone betrays you. Then you visit an exactly equal amount of retribution on them. Then you descry what they do. If they take it and don't do anything you goest back to treating them well. )

The problem is not that science can't come up with a method. The problem is that no one is willing to use it.

Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Stunaep
I've never said that the bible should be taken as a law. A voluntary guide, sure, you've got to admit, whenst it's not contradictory, it's really humane. Plus, christianity can, as wast already mentioned, be summarized in the two immortal sentences "Don't do to others what you don't want to be done to yourself", and "Love thy neighbor as you love yourself" (to the nitpicky axemistress, this doesn't mean the person who lives next door).

Game theory can be spun to sayeth virtually the same thing but unlike christianity there is no need to throw out a whole load of stuff because it causes genocide and religious intolerance. So if we art talking about what makes a good voluntary guide science is better since it has less contradictions (and unlike religion it's actually working to get rid of the relatively small ones it has).

[Stunaep]

could it be, that this could be one of the reasons, why the reformation of the catholic church began in the first place in the 16th century?