He's pretty much saying, "BELIEF IN GOD OR HELL COME GET YOU AND I WILL LAUGH".
[QUOTE=Cheesemonkey;19282928]It doesn't stifle science, belief in a deity does not go against any modern scientific evidence. Religion does nothing to stifle science. The science stifling is being done by fundimentalist christians.[/QUOTE]
Why do you separate religion and fundamentalist Christians? A large organized religion provides a place for such fundamentalists to grow, and hide. They get support from having this large cult following, even if not every christian agrees, they sport the same label, and make all of them look stupid. (Which they do anyway from believing in an illogical deity but I digress.) Without religion we wouldn't have fundamentalists, or at the least they wouldn't have nearly as much power.
[QUOTE=Kybalt;19283036]Why do you separate religion and fundamentalist Christians? A large organized religion provides a place for such fundamentalists to grow, and hide. They get support from having this large cult following, even if not every christian agrees, they sport the same label, and make all of them look stupid. (Which they do anyway from believing in an illogical deity but I digress.) Without religion we wouldn't have fundamentalists, or at the least they wouldn't have nearly as much power.[/QUOTE]
Because they are two different things. Fundamentalist Christianity is different from Christianity, and Christianity is different from Religion.
Fundamentalist Christians DO get that kind of support, but they take a book intended for interpretation is literal fact. Not all Christians do this. Christians only have a bad label because people like you assume all christians are fundamentalist nutjobs.
Religion is the simple belief in a deity or set of rules, that deity being a teapot in space, a rock, or the combined laws of the universe. Nothing else. There's no wrong in believing in a deity.
[QUOTE=Cheesemonkey;19283202]Because they are two different things. Fundamentalist Christianity is different from Christianity, and Christianity is different from Religion.
Fundamentalist Christians DO get that kind of support, but they take a book intended for interpretation is literal fact. Not all Christians do this. Christians only have a bad label because people like you assume all christians are fundamentalist nutjobs.
[B]Religion is the simple belief in a deity, that deity being a teapot in space, a rock, or the combined laws of the universe. Nothing else. There's no wrong in believing in a deity.[/B][/QUOTE]
Other then it being illogical right?
What's the point of Christianity if the very belief it's founded on, the belief that there is a god, is a flawed concept? It's an ignorant comfort as far as I can tell.
[QUOTE=Soviet Beef;19277847]i care it goes against all of my christian beliefs[/QUOTE]
[img]http://images.starcraftmazter.net/4chan/for_forums/successful_troll.jpg[/img]
Cheesemonkey why are you making it look like only Christian Fundamentalists are to blame? What the fuck?
Every religion actively opposes rational thinking and science. It's a fact. Don't try to deny it, you won't score any ''points'' by trying to be all neutral.
[QUOTE=Cheesemonkey;19283202]Because they are two different things. Fundamentalist Christianity is different from Christianity, and Christianity is different from Religion.[/QUOTE]
What!? Christianity IS a religion, what else could it be? My mother's photo album?
[QUOTE=Kybalt;19283300]Other then it being illogical right?
What's the point of Christianity if the very belief it's founded on, the belief that there is a god, is a flawed concept? It's an ignorant comfort as far as I can tell.[/QUOTE]
Actually, it's an argument from ignorance
I don't jump to the belief of a deity because i'm an agnostic, but saying the belief of a deity is ignorant is ignorant in itself. There is nothing under the umbrella of human understanding that can prove or disprove the existence of a deity.
I won't say the same towards fundimentalism, but you get the point.
[QUOTE=Cheesemonkey;19283533]Actually, it's an argument from ignorance
[B]
I don't jump to the belief of a deity because i'm an agnostic, but saying the belief of a deity is ignorant is ignorant in itself. There is nothing under the umbrella of human understanding that can prove or disprove the existence of a deity.[/B]
I won't say the same towards fundimentalism, but you get the point.[/QUOTE]
You can't disprove Santa clause either but that doesn't mean I'm going to debate whether or not he exists.
[QUOTE=Reborn9;19283503]Cheesemonkey why are you making it look like only Christian Fundamentalists are to blame? What the fuck?
Every religion actively opposes rational thinking and science. It's a fact. Don't try to deny it, you won't score any ''points'' by trying to be all neutral.[/QUOTE]
The idea of religion doesn't oppose rational though, only some (most) followers of it interpret it as that. I'm using fundamentalism because all you're doing is bringing up Christianity.
[editline]04:11PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kybalt;19283577]You can't disprove Santa clause either but that doesn't mean I'm going to debate whether or not he exists.[/QUOTE]
You can. The laws of physics get in the way.
[QUOTE=Dr.C;19278952]Cloning is evil. Didn't any of you play Hitman: Blood Money?[/QUOTE]
I did, but I don't see how that painted a cloning is bad picture. Sure the hitmen were all clone but the president who was against cloning wasn't exactly a good guy himself. Thinking about it, Hitman is an extremely grey game in morals. No people are really the good guys or badguys. The people you assassinate can range from random innocent politician to complete dick who murdered loads of kids, and 47 while being a emotionless killer really is just doing his job. The blame goes more to those hiring him.
[editline]11:13PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cheesemonkey;19283605]
You can. The laws of physics get in the way.[/QUOTE]
Laws of physics also state that a man standing on water is impossible.
[QUOTE=Cheesemonkey;19283605]The idea of religion doesn't oppose rational though, only some (most) followers of it interpret it as that. I'm using fundamentalism because all you're doing is bringing up Christianity.
[editline]04:11PM[/editline]
[B]You can. The laws of physics get in the way.[/B][/QUOTE]
To be fair, the laws of physics also get in the way of a god, and logic gets in the way too. Could he create a stone he couldn't lift, could he know where an electron is and at the same time know where it is going... etc etc...
[QUOTE=Cheesemonkey;19283605]The idea of religion doesn't oppose rational though, only some (most) followers of it interpret it as that. I'm using fundamentalism because all you're doing is bringing up Christianity.[/QUOTE]
No, [b]you're[/b] the one bringing up christianity. I targeted all of religion.
And yes, Religion does restrain and oppose rational thinking because it is [B]designed to be a tool of control.[/B]
Religion controls people through spreading false crap and promoting magical thinking.
That's disregarding that because there is no evidence for his existence therefore logical position on the issue is that he doesn't exist.
[QUOTE=Reborn9;19283754]No, [b]you're[/b] the one bringing up christianity. I targeted all of religion.
And yes, Religion does restrain and oppose rational thinking because it is [B]designed to be a tool of control.[/B]
Religion controls people through spreading false crap and promoting magical thinking.[/QUOTE]
Organized religion does.
[editline]04:21PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kybalt;19283765]That's disregarding that because there is no evidence for his existence therefore logical position on the issue is that he doesn't exist.[/QUOTE]
Absence of evidence is not proof of absence.
[editline]04:22PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kybalt;19283679]To be fair, the laws of physics also get in the way of a god, and logic gets in the way too. Could he create a stone he couldn't lift, could he know where an electron is and at the same time know where it is going... etc etc...[/QUOTE]
You're implying that a god has to be physical or omniscient.
To sum it up:
Religion is dumb, AND irrelevant. The best thing to do would be to abandon it altogether. I don't give a fuck if it makes people feel better, it's blinding them.
Now let's get back to the topic of cloning.
[QUOTE=Cheesemonkey;19283790]Organized religion does.
[editline]04:21PM[/editline]
Absence of evidence is not proof of absence.
[editline]04:22PM[/editline]
You're implying that a god has to be physical, [B]omniscient, and have the ability of creation.[/B][/QUOTE]
If he isn't those two, then why call him god? And if he isn't physical, then he can't affect the world.
[quote]Absence of evidence is not proof of absence.[/quote]
OBVIOUSLY. However, without any evidence there is a logical position on the topic. There is no evidence for the tooth fairy, santa, leprechauns, unicorns whatever else the fuck, but that doesn't mean that the idea of their existence isn't ridiculous.
I'd clone myself and then wank my clone off to prove whether or not it is Masturbation or Rape.
[QUOTE=Reborn9;19283924]To sum it up:
Religion is dumb, AND irrelevant. The best thing to do would be to abandon it altogether. I don't give a fuck if it makes people feel better, it's blinding them.
Now let's get back to the topic of cloning.[/QUOTE]
To sum up, let's ignore the argument that just happened. Let's also stick to my original view regardless of any points noted against it.
Now let's change the subject!
[editline]04:28PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kybalt;19283971]If he isn't those two, then why call him god? And if he isn't physical, then he can't affect the world.
OBVIOUSLY. However, without any evidence there is a logical position on the topic. There is no evidence for the tooth fairy, santa, leprechauns, unicorns whatever else the fuck, but that doesn't mean that the idea of their existence isn't ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
A god does not have to have omniscience. And i took the other out because i was wrong.
also BACKPEDAL CHAMPION
[editline]04:29PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=radioactive;19283980]I'd clone myself and then wank my clone off to prove whether or not it is Masturbation or Rape.[/QUOTE]
you'd be wanking off someone 15(whatever age you are) years younger than you
If we clone a human being that is superior, doesn't that mean human being outdone God?
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;19284371]If we clone a human being that is superior, doesn't that mean human being outdone God?[/QUOTE]We can't outdo something that doesn't exist.
[QUOTE=faze;19278110]Read the Bible, and you'll understand.
/religious arguments[/QUOTE]
I have read the bible and all it has done is made religion seem more ridiculous and evil in my eyes.
You are an idiot.
(clocks)
[QUOTE=johanz;19284490]We can't outdo something that doesn't exist.[/QUOTE]
At least go out on a limb and assume it does for the purpose of the statement.
Although it would be a better statement if it was "create" not "clone" because cloning is copying another, and if there already was another then that means that god had beaten us to the punch.
But it does kinda make you think.
The concept of cloning is fascinating. It would be amazing to observe how the conscious mind learns/thinks.
[QUOTE=Communist Cake;19278093]I'm ok with cloning as long as it's not with people, that concept just freaks me out.[/QUOTE]
Fuck that, I want a cadre of clones. Together I can argue against every issue in the world, all at once.
[QUOTE=Kybalt;19283971]If he isn't those two, then why call him god? And if he isn't physical, then he can't affect the world.
OBVIOUSLY. However, without any evidence there is a logical position on the topic. There is no evidence for the tooth fairy, santa, leprechauns, unicorns whatever else the fuck, but that doesn't mean that the idea of their existence isn't ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
God is one of the 'true' mysteries. Nobody can prove his existence but the opposite side also finds it equally difficult to disprove his existence. For example, we still have no definite conclusion or proof of how the universe was started in the first place. And no, the big bang theory is not concrete evidence of how the universe was formed. It remains a theory and will forever be one as we have no means to travel back in time to witness the acts. Talking about if we travel back in time is a waste of time as we won't have such technology during our lifetimes.
You can prove the tooth fairy and santa doesn't exist with a simple camera recording the parent performing the 'magical' act. Unicorns originated from a bible text that means "The allusions to the re'em as a wild, un-tamable animal of great strength and agility, with mighty horn or horns." Somehow this was translated over the years into a horse with a horn on its head. Leprechauns were derived from an old Irish tale.
[QUOTE=cathal6606;19278027]I really dont see why people are against cloning.[/QUOTE]
Cloning removes genetic mixing you would normally get in natural reproduction. The result is that you have no ability for those clones to have any chance of an immunity or resistance to a devastating disease. They'd all be equally vulnerable.
Plant propagating is like a form of cloning. You're taking a piece of a plant and making an entirely new plant out of it. Something you can't do with animals but can do with plants. However you can't cut off a finger and expect it to grow into a human. You also can't program a plant to become a killing machine or to become a zombified machine.
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;19288548]The concept of cloning is fascinating. It would be amazing to observe how the conscious mind learns/thinks.[/QUOTE]
Or you could, you know, just make a baby.
this is awesome now try it on human!:buddy:
I sure hope we manage to make viables clones as spare parts in case you get a terminal illness or an accident.
also to add to the god/religion fight : God cannot exist, as if you prove that god exist, it will most likely vanish because a god isnt a god if nobody got faith in it.
[QUOTE=Wolf_Marine;19288790]God is one of the 'true' mysteries. Nobody can prove his existence but the opposite side also finds it equally difficult to disprove his existence. For example, we still have no definite conclusion or proof of how the universe was started in the first place. And no, the big bang theory is not concrete evidence of how the universe was formed. It remains a theory and will forever be one as we have no means to travel back in time to witness the acts. Talking about if we travel back in time is a waste of time as we won't have such technology during our lifetimes.[/quote]
Can't prove a negative and you don't seem to know what a theory is.
[quote]You can prove the tooth fairy and santa doesn't exist with a simple camera recording the parent performing the 'magical' act. [/QUOTE]
That doesn't prove that they don't exist.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
