Erollisi Marr - The Nameless

Go Back   Erollisi Marr - The Nameless > NON EQ Stuff (Real life, other games, etc.) > Steam Vent


Reply
 
Add/Share Add/Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-02-2004, 01:00 PM   #26
Eglath Astaldo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 530
Send a message via ICQ to Eglath Astaldo
Wow...pls read in the future. I didn't say love shouldn't be taught in schools, I said its not. Love is a human emotion that you have to learn though contact with humans, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TEACH IN A CLASSROOM. Thats my point, shit. The point I was trying to make is that Faith is something you can't teach in a classroom, its a human interaction thing, much like Love. You said that Love gives a big "Fook Science" and I agree, but SO DOES FAITH. And therefore it doesn't belong in science class. Seriously, I love when you put words in my mouth, thats great.
__________________
Defender Eglath Astaldo
Lord Protector of Mithaniel
Defender of the Phoenix Flame
Eglath Astaldo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2004, 01:11 PM   #27
Rheaton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,366
Look man.. We are people first, subjects second, k? Yes I agree that the schools are not the place for teachers to "teach" the hows and whatnots of romance and love... but school IS a place of such things (at the Jr. high and high school levels). Socializing is a fundamental part of being human... to say it doesnt have any place in any form at school... well, I am not sure what your position is on religous symbology at school so I wont judge you. But you can see where I was going. You charged that teaching love and romance at school isnt cool.. but you compaired it concepts of religion.. Well, many feel that there should absolutely no religious whatnots at public schools at all.
__________________
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1st Corinthians 2:14)
:9
Rheaton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2004, 01:16 PM   #28
Eglath Astaldo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 530
Send a message via ICQ to Eglath Astaldo
Here is my stance on religion in public school: Keep it out of the classroom and don't divert public funds to it. I don't want my taxes paying for bibles basically. If kids want to meet at school privatly and hold religious stuff, fine, no problem. But Government shouldn't be involved in religion....thats pretty basically American. Same as romance: By all means, meet the one you love at school, but at least though my schooling making out and having sex in the classroom wasn't exactly considered ok.
As far as my stance on religion and school broadly summed up, since you don't know: Christian Scientist Gradeschool, Catholic High School.
__________________
Defender Eglath Astaldo
Lord Protector of Mithaniel
Defender of the Phoenix Flame
Eglath Astaldo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2004, 01:37 PM   #29
Gauche
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,105
If you want to push for a religion, or love, or philosophy class in high school, I wouldn't object. (Although I might if that religion class only taught one or more forms of Christianity.) That has nothing to do with the religious people wanting their ideas taught as science when their ideas so far at least do not follow the rules of science. Right now they follow the Underpants Gnome method:

1. Steal underpants
2. ?
3. Profit!

I don't have a problem with religion. I do have a problem with Creationism or ID as currently used being passed off as science. If people want to believe that God controls genetic development, or put us all on the Earth 6k years ago, or that he controls the actions of every atom in the universe constantly, I don't care, but none of those people currently provide research that stands up to any outside testing, when they even bother to do any research at all.

(Personally I'm fond of the Giant Pink Rabbit that Pooped out Egg Life hypothesis. And I don't do weed either. )
Gauche is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2004, 05:14 AM   #30
Wildane
Psychopath w/a conscience
 
Wildane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Hospitality State, asshole!
Posts: 10,540
Originally Posted by Gauche
You can still make arguments of scale of complexity, but the implication remains: systems of great complexity do not inherently require a designer.
Well, again we will have to agree to disagree. I prefer to believe that man has a soul and I simply cannot believe that a soul is something that can be produced by chance. Besides, this is silly, arguing over something where neither side can be proven as true (I don't care how much "evidence" there is, there are no facts when it comes to things that happened thousands or millions of years ago).
__________________
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." - Umberto Eco

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Wildane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2004, 05:22 AM   #31
Hormadrune
Sociopathic bully?
 
Hormadrune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: PA
Posts: 11,895
Originally Posted by Wildane
(I don't care how much "evidence" there is, there are no facts when it comes to things that happened thousands or millions of years ago).
And how convenient that notion is for those of you with neither facts nor evidence to support your theory
__________________
WoW-Ghostlands-US: Prae | sp | Prolonix | Horm | Ulfhednar | l
EQ: Hormadrune <Retired> <OFS> <CoI> <Affy> <CE>
Hormadrune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2004, 05:45 AM   #32
Rheaton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,366
Originally Posted by Hormadrune
And how convenient that notion is for those of you with neither facts nor evidence to support your theory

Its equally convenient for both, right? IF the rule applies that Creationism should not be allowed on account of its inability to be disproven, how is it that Evolution gets a free pass? Evidence of mind - theory - means nothing unless you can physically prove it. And exactly how is the imaginational properties of evolution any different then those of creationism? Because we accept one and reject the other..? Is that it?
__________________
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1st Corinthians 2:14)
:9
Rheaton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2004, 05:46 AM   #33
Heretic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,762
Originally Posted by Wildane
I prefer to believe that man has a soul and I simply cannot believe that a soul is something that can be produced by chance
Mankind alone was graciously granted this soul over all other living things?


I don't care how much "evidence" there is, there are no facts when it comes to things that happened thousands or millions of years ago
So the same goes for the Bible, correct?
__________________
bg85 on another forum:
"i always refer to myself as a "missionary agnostic." that is, not only do i not know shit about shit, but i'm going to try and convince you that you don't know shit about shit either and there's no way for you to know shit about shit."

Heretic
Heretic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2004, 05:48 AM   #34
Rheaton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,366
Originally Posted by Heretic
Mankind alone was graciously granted this soul over all other living things?
Thats the prevailing thought.




So the same goes for the Bible, correct?
Actually, there is historical documentation of certain biblical characters noted outside of the bible.
__________________
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1st Corinthians 2:14)
:9
Rheaton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2004, 05:55 AM   #35
Gauche
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,105
Originally Posted by Wildane
Well, again we will have to agree to disagree. I prefer to believe that man has a soul and I simply cannot believe that a soul is something that can be produced by chance. Besides, this is silly, arguing over something where neither side can be proven as true (I don't care how much "evidence" there is, there are no facts when it comes to things that happened thousands or millions of years ago).

I really have no problem with you believing in a soul and a creator. I even like the idea myself. There's just no real science behind it, nor is it likely even possible for there to be. There's science behind the theory of evolution, creation of life, and origin of the universe up to around 14 billion years ago. Some of it is sure to be wrong, but so far the overall ideas remain confirmed. I have no interest in disproving religion except in self-defense from those good-intentioned (I hope) people trying to "save" everyone via the government.

I'm sorry when science seems to conflict with religion, although judging from the many posters I've read on other boards, it doesn't seem like the faithful have much trouble ignoring the consequences of science in favor of their own beliefs. Despite the dozens of different ways scientists have confirmed evolution and the age of the Earth, people will continue to deny the results with one excuse or another. Yes, there will basically never be proof of evolution, but the overwhelming number of confirmations that support the theory of evolution, as well as the useful predictability of the theory, makes it about as valid as such a thing can be.

Even if scientists someday can create conditions that cause new life to arise from the "pond scum" that Brigiid likes so much, that still wouldn't be 100% proof. Not even if we observe dogs evolving into dogmen would that be 100% proof of the theory of evolution as used to describe how life as we know it came about. So if you want to believe in a supernatural force behind the scenes working the controls, there will always be wiggle room for your belief. But if your God is unwilling to work in testable ways, don't try to force him into the laboratory. He clearly doesn't want to go.
Gauche is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2004, 06:02 AM   #36
Gauche
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,105
Originally Posted by Rheaton
Its equally convenient for both, right? IF the rule applies that Creationism should not be allowed on account of its inability to be disproven, how is it that Evolution gets a free pass? Evidence of mind - theory - means nothing unless you can physically prove it. And exactly how is the imaginational properties of evolution any different then those of creationism? Because we accept one and reject the other..? Is that it?

Rheaton, you really don't want to get into that. It's just ridiculous how much evidence supporting the theory of evolution there is, while there doesn't seem to be any valid evidence against it. Unless you want to get into science and prove creationism right or evolution wrong (preferably both), just take your beliefs and be content with your faith.
Gauche is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2004, 06:13 AM   #37
Heretic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,762
Originally Posted by Rheaton
Thats the prevailing thought.
Have you came to that conclusion using any evidence other than the Bible? Also, don't you think this idea is a little selfish claim man is so far above all other life?


Actually, there is historical documentation of certain biblical characters noted outside of the bible.
Please list some of this evidence.
__________________
bg85 on another forum:
"i always refer to myself as a "missionary agnostic." that is, not only do i not know shit about shit, but i'm going to try and convince you that you don't know shit about shit either and there's no way for you to know shit about shit."

Heretic

Last edited by Heretic; 12-03-2004 at 09:02 AM. Reason: I fucked up :P
Heretic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2004, 06:24 AM   #38
Misty
Do Not Disturb
 
Misty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,070
Of course, if you've ever been on a Dairy farm... Well the cow's get milked, the white stuff goes in a vat and everything there gets pasteurised. Before the Dairy truck comes around you can dip a pint out into a mug like you raised the cow yourself (pre-req. subjects under 13), and drink glorious buttermilk. Then the truck comes, the dream is over and Farmer Brown's milk goes off to the Dairy distributor. It might be a Dairy Co-Op run by the local district farmers, I dunno what. Heed what Farmer Brown says about the Dairy Co-op man and get rid of the white mustache if you can't be scarce first.

How close to the milk truck's run is the average corner store? In the Milk Comissar extract that doesn't figure. More than one system is in operation in the digestion of milk. Complexity of market distribution is reducible into different material levels of access to consumer milk. An economic system provides that there is a general distributiveness only to one irreducible scale: an abstract model of consumption. When an economic system fails its product is still a primary asset. The physical consistency of Milk doesn't change, nor is market availability thereof consequently generated from within a narrow nucleus of farmland geography after. Granted milk generally arrives from farmland where dairy cows graze but local production will typically not serve an entire State itself before a new market model is instated. Tons of surrounding farm districts will produce milk for teh starving hordes also.
Misty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2004, 06:26 AM   #39
Hormadrune
Sociopathic bully?
 
Hormadrune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: PA
Posts: 11,895
Evidence of biblical characters having existed is quite common. I certainly believe a man named Jesus walked the earth- I just don't buy that he's the son of a god. That hardly qualifies as a point scored for creationists.

Again- evolution is a widely-held theory based on a massive body of research. Creationism is a widely-held theory based on a fairy tale. This argument gets more absurd daily. I have no problem with your ignorance- that's your right- I have a problem when you seek to expel sound scientific theory from the classroom because it conflicts with your fairy tales.
__________________
WoW-Ghostlands-US: Prae | sp | Prolonix | Horm | Ulfhednar | l
EQ: Hormadrune <Retired> <OFS> <CoI> <Affy> <CE>
Hormadrune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2004, 06:30 AM   #40
Gauche
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,105
Originally Posted by Hormadrune
Evidence of biblical characters having existed is quite common. I certainly believe a man named Jesus walked the earth- I just don't buy that he's the son of a god. That hardly qualifies as a point scored for creationists.

Actually, I was surprised to discover there's not much evidence that Jesus existed. Mostly it was vague quotes from writers well after Jesus' time. Maybe Rheaton has better sources though, I didn't look for proof but rather came across a disproof by chance while reading up on Creationism and evolution.
Gauche is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2004, 06:33 AM   #41
Heretic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,762
Originally Posted by Hormadrune
Evidence of biblical characters having existed is quite common. I certainly believe a man named Jesus walked the earth- I just don't buy that he's the son of a god. That hardly qualifies as a point scored for creationists.
Can anyone list some sources of some biblical characters that have been listed in other sources to have existed. Especially Jesus.

In a way, that is a point scored for creationists, and in another way, it isn't. While having a character to really exist, it gives credibility to the story. However, just because the person existed doesn't mean that the writers of the story didn't just use the real person in their fictional story.
__________________
bg85 on another forum:
"i always refer to myself as a "missionary agnostic." that is, not only do i not know shit about shit, but i'm going to try and convince you that you don't know shit about shit either and there's no way for you to know shit about shit."

Heretic
Heretic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2004, 06:34 AM   #42
Wildane
Psychopath w/a conscience
 
Wildane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Hospitality State, asshole!
Posts: 10,540
Originally Posted by Homodrone
And how convenient that notion is for those of you with neither facts nor evidence to support your theory
That is where faith comes in, blind man. I need neither facts nor evidence to believe what I do. Haven't you been paying attention?
Originally Posted by Heretic
Mankind alone was graciously granted this soul over all other living things?
Yes.
Originally Posted by Heretic
So the same goes for the Bible, correct?
That is what I said. In case you missed it:
Originally Posted by myself
Besides, this is silly, arguing over something where neither side can be proven as true
Originally Posted by Heretic
Also, don't you think this idea is a little selfish claim man is so far above all other life?
What's so selfish about speaking the truth?
Originally Posted by Heretic
Secondly, you missed my point and are contradicting yourself. You stated "I don't care how much "evidence" there is, there are no facts when it comes to things that happened thousands or millions of years ago".
Heretic, just above the different posts, it states who made it. Please tell me where I am contradicting myself when I didn't even say what you think I said.
__________________
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." - Umberto Eco

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
Wildane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2004, 06:43 AM   #43
Gauche
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,105
There's lots of "proof" for evolution, using the layman's definition of proof. As yet another analogy attempt, picture how life came about as a giant connect the dots game. Science has collected a lot of dots, erased a few when it found mistakes, but as a whole agrees on most of the dots currently connected. The picture that is clearly shaping up is an evolutionary one, not the current creationist ones. If you want to deny the evidence, you might as well just not post, and these threads will die or derail.
Gauche is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2004, 06:45 AM   #44
Rheaton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,366
Originally Posted by Gauche
Rheaton, you really don't want to get into that. It's just ridiculous how much evidence supporting the theory of evolution there is, while there doesn't seem to be any valid evidence against it. Unless you want to get into science and prove creationism right or evolution wrong (preferably both), just take your beliefs and be content with your faith.
Dont tell me what I wanna get into and what I dont. I have always been of the mind that if evolution does anything it proves the existence of a Creator.
__________________
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1st Corinthians 2:14)
:9
Rheaton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2004, 06:48 AM   #45
Gauche
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,105
Originally Posted by Rheaton
Dont tell me what I wanna get into and what I dont. I have always been of the mind that if evolution does anything it proves the existence of a Creator.

Fine. So do you believe in evolution, or not, or are you undecided? What's the reasoning behind your beliefs?
Gauche is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2004, 06:54 AM   #46
Hormadrune
Sociopathic bully?
 
Hormadrune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: PA
Posts: 11,895
Originally Posted by Wildane
That is where faith comes in, blind man.
Oh the delicious irony of a boy who ignores the evidence staring him in the face calling others blind.
I need neither facts nor evidence to believe what I do.
This has been abundantly clear for years now and is not limited to your discussion of matters cosmic- who needs logic or truth when you have "faith"?
__________________
WoW-Ghostlands-US: Prae | sp | Prolonix | Horm | Ulfhednar | l
EQ: Hormadrune <Retired> <OFS> <CoI> <Affy> <CE>
Hormadrune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2004, 08:26 AM   #47
Rheaton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,366
Originally Posted by Gauche
Fine. So do you believe in evolution, or not, or are you undecided? What's the reasoning behind your beliefs?
For one, lets get out on the table the old "fabled" beliefs that man magically appeared outta the sand. Those anti-Darwin..eese in the days of Darwin had in their minds something to the effect of a waving of a magic wand. That we should not, nor could not, ever know how God created us exactly. To an extent that may be true. What purpose does it serve us to know? Well, anyway... It does help us better understand ourselves is my thinking.

Understanding our own biology and the biology of all living things around us only stands to serve us. To draw the line at human creation serves what purpose? In the eyes of the religious man it provides at times a crutch of anti-faith. But what of the plants and other animals that help us as humans. ..from where we have obtained useful medicines, nutriants, etc? Surely those are not forbidden... so why human creation? Well, that may greatly depend on what you wish to accomplish by discovering the hand of God and how you use and apply this knowledge. I think this is where so many Creation believers have a problem.

Does what we know influence our actions? Medical science says yes. If we find a way to cure all STDs, thusly giving ourselves a free pass for immoral behavior, has that science helped us? Depends on what you moral convictions are. My point is this.. If we do not act in a fashion that allows STDs to be transmitted, we do not need to have a cure. IF we prevent, by preventing our own actions, the spread of deadly diseases, we do not need to find ways to remedy the fallacies of our own actions. In other words, if I have only one sex partner, who is aids-free, and do nothing that puts myself in risk of getting aids, and everyone else follows suit, then would we really need a cure for aids in 100 years? Yes we want to help those who are sick.. its called mercy. But it is also liken to trying to find a safer and better means of falling out of a tree and landing on your head. Prevention is easy, but damnit.. its just so much fun falling out of trees..

So, we have two prevailing thoughts coming from the religous side of creation vs. evolution. One is that we shouldnt be trying to expose the man behind the curtain. The other is that we dont need to find ways and means to work around the Creator. Indeed, religion is threatened by science not in that it will disprove God, but that it will attempt to minimalize the need for God. But its not so much the minimalization of God that frienghtens the believer, but moreso the wisdom of the believer that understands we are playing with fire...that there is a grander picture that is being missed and or ignored.

So to answer your question.. I believe in "both". I think the theory of evolution is closer to how God created us then the "magical sandman" that appreared out of the clear blue. But I also believe that our search should not be absent of the ideas of a higher purpose.
__________________
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1st Corinthians 2:14)
:9
Rheaton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2004, 09:20 AM   #48
Heretic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,762
Originally Posted by Wildane
Heretic, just above the different posts, it states who made it. Please tell me where I am contradicting myself when I didn't even say what you think I said.
Sorry, confused you with Rheaton because he immediately answered my questions to you after I posted them. I apologize.


Originally Posted by Heretic
Also, don't you think this idea is a little selfish claim man is so far above all other life?
Originally Posted by Wildane
What's so selfish about speaking the truth?
Originally Posted by Heretic
Mankind alone was graciously granted this soul over all other living things?
Originally Posted by Wildane
Yes.
You seem to believe that mankind is far above other lifeforms of this planet spiritually and is the only creature that possesses a soul. Do you agree with the previous statement? If so, did you arrive at that idea from the Bible?
__________________
bg85 on another forum:
"i always refer to myself as a "missionary agnostic." that is, not only do i not know shit about shit, but i'm going to try and convince you that you don't know shit about shit either and there's no way for you to know shit about shit."

Heretic
Heretic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2004, 09:36 AM   #49
Heretic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,762
Originally Posted by Rheaton
In other words, if I have only one sex partner, who is aids-free, and do nothing that puts myself in risk of getting aids, and everyone else follows suit, then would we really need a cure for aids in 100 years?
Interesting idea. In a perfect world....

Seriously though, I don't see how we haven't stopped the spread of AIDS. If everyone who has it was forced to disclose their sexual past and those people were looked up and tested, their partners looked up and tested, etc.

It would take a lot of work, but it seems like the disease could be contained.
__________________
bg85 on another forum:
"i always refer to myself as a "missionary agnostic." that is, not only do i not know shit about shit, but i'm going to try and convince you that you don't know shit about shit either and there's no way for you to know shit about shit."

Heretic
Heretic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2004, 09:41 AM   #50
Rheaton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,366
Unrelated to evolution / creation.. but yes, it would have helped if we had put in place a proactive plan for AIDS when it first became a problem. By not doing so, we have "honored" civil rights... but in doing so we have given people a right to kill.
__________________
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1st Corinthians 2:14)
:9
Rheaton is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:07 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.