The enemies of reason

rhyae · Post by **rhyae** » August 23, 2007, 4:57 pm

I spelled Grammar wrong
/pharm
I broke 500

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 23, 2007, 5:01 pm

Somali wrote:Or I could be offbase and he could have been just "fuckin with you"

Well, you were right in what the reference I made was, but I was only being about 7% serious.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » August 23, 2007, 6:07 pm

7%? That's quite a number. How did you come to that figure?

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 23, 2007, 6:57 pm

7 Just sounded good. I like 7.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 23, 2007, 8:55 pm

miir wrote:I just got finished watching Screw Loose Jesus.
You guys need to just shut the fuck up and watch that.
It explains everything.

Oh fuck up Miir, at least Screw Loose Change doesn't state that 9/11 was an OMG conspiracy.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 23, 2007, 10:10 pm

Nick wrote:
miir wrote:I just got finished watching Screw Loose Jesus.
You guys need to just shut the fuck up and watch that.
It explains everything.

Oh fuck up Miir, at least Screw Loose Change doesn't state that 9/11 was an OMG conspiracy.

No, it's a WTF conspiracy...with an aluminium hat!

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » August 24, 2007, 12:35 am

Funkmasterr wrote:This somali/zaelath arguing thing is starting to look like it's going to keep going and going until they don't remember what they were originally fighting about, not too unlike nick's countrymen.

Nah, I like to argue, but I need there to be some kind of relationship between point and counterpoint. Even arguing with yourself and Midnyte is more satisfying, because while your opinion comes from the gut a lot of the time, you both look like english professors next to somali when it comes to comprehension.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » August 24, 2007, 11:09 am

Ah yes. Again I understand you intellect is greater than mine. That is why you can skim what I read and make assumptions about my personal beliefs and the rigidity with which I argue them. You have stated that I did not respond to any of your arguments but you have yet to be able to point out the arguments you refer to. Perhaps it is that you just randomly pick words out of what I say, and then imagine what I may have said on either side of the words you select. That certainly seems the most logical way to justify your lack of comprehension when it comes to my posts.
I'll say it again. If you feel there are any points I have not addressed please state them here and I will address each and every one.
I'll restate that again so that you have some potential to read what I've said.

If you feel there are any points I have not addressed please state them here and I will address each and every one.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » August 24, 2007, 11:24 am

It's frustrating reading your unnecessarily verbose posts... the whole first paragraph is the throwaway, the last sentence is the keeper.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » August 24, 2007, 11:28 am

I'll work on my one liners then.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » August 24, 2007, 11:29 am

How about.
"Learn 2 read Zae. kthxbye"

Fash · Post by **Fash** » August 24, 2007, 11:30 am

Much better, thx.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » August 24, 2007, 11:34 am

NP. I thought I was adding context to the statements so that they could be understood. Now I understand that we don't care about context and the one liners are far more important. It may take a while to revise my tactics to properly take advantage of the rules. I need one of those "Please excuse our progress" signs to put on my posts.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » August 24, 2007, 11:51 am

Somali wrote:Ah yes. Again I understand you intellect is greater than mine. That is why you can skim what I read and make assumptions about my personal beliefs and the rigidity with which I argue them.

You just keep proving my point. I didn't "skim" anything until I stopped bothering to debate you because you can't process basic logic. When I did "skim" your post was far after assumptions were made, assumptions that I would repeat were observations of similarities of style rather than beliefs. Do you need me to quote you the definition of a similie, or can you look it up yourself?

Also, as in this case, I'm just quoting back the bit I read because honestly, if you're that off course in the first sentence, I doubt the rest of the paragraph is chock full o' redemption.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » August 24, 2007, 12:06 pm

If you weren't skimming the statements all along then I have no clue how you can come to the conclusions you have about the statements I made. I was attempting to give you credit by saying you were to lazy to read them. If you read them and could not comprehend my stance on the subject, then that must indicate that you have a natural talent with words, but no actual skill at logic and reasoning. It seems I have again made an error in judgment.

If you are unable to respond with any arguments you feel I have not countered. I will also assume that you cannot find them, or you made up the statement in order to dilute the discussion to meaningless ramblings. If the latter (not ladder

) was your effort, then you have succeeded.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » August 24, 2007, 12:29 pm

Somali wrote:If you weren't skimming the statements all along then I have no clue how you can come to the conclusions you have about the statements I made. I was attempting to give you credit by saying you were to lazy to read them. If you read them and could not comprehend my stance on the subject, then that must indicate that you have a natural talent with words, but no actual skill at logic and reasoning. It seems I have again made an error in judgment.

If you are unable to respond with any arguments you feel I have not countered. I will also assume that you cannot find them, or you made up the statement in order to dilute the discussion to meaningless ramblings. If the latter (not ladder ) was your effort, then you have succeeded.

Do you mean all 287 posts in your history, or just the ones I've responded to. Otherwise, you have some serious fucking reading to do, then get back to me.

I haven't contended that you didn't "counter" anything, I contended that what you countered with was prefaced by restating the argument into something else entirely, then countering that. A'la Billy, Sean, and the rest of the Faux News team.

The only thing more insane than watching those people and agreeing, would be agreeing to debate said people. And I'm just not that stupid. So yeah, I'll respond.. somewhat... to direct questions. But I'm not going to debate you. It's like getting into a discussion of business ethics with a room full of chimps; you just get drowned out by screeching and covered in shit.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » August 24, 2007, 12:46 pm

Fine a direct question:
What issues specific to this post have you posed that I have not properly addressed?

Maybe we can start with a single issue. Name one issue that you feel I haven't properly addressed.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » August 24, 2007, 12:57 pm

Somali wrote:Fine a direct question:
What issues specific to this post have you posed that I have not properly addressed?

Maybe we can start with a single issue. Name one issue that you feel I haven't properly addressed.

I'd just be repeating myself. And that's not what I meant about direct questions either, nevermind.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 24, 2007, 1:09 pm

Zaelath wrote:
Somali wrote:Fine a direct question:
What issues specific to this post have you posed that I have not properly addressed?

Maybe we can start with a single issue. Name one issue that you feel I haven't properly addressed.
I'd just be repeating myself. And that's not what I meant about direct questions either, nevermind.

Take that ball and go home!

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » August 24, 2007, 1:18 pm

Boogahz wrote:
Zaelath wrote:
Somali wrote:Fine a direct question:
What issues specific to this post have you posed that I have not properly addressed?

Maybe we can start with a single issue. Name one issue that you feel I haven't properly addressed.
I'd just be repeating myself. And that's not what I meant about direct questions either, nevermind.
Take that ball and go home!

You betcha sweetheart. And with good cause. What some people here fail to realise is the winner of a debate is not decided by the participants (hi Hammer!), but by the audience. However, I'm fairly certain I can decide for myself when I'm pissing into the wind.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » August 24, 2007, 1:24 pm

Wonderful. So you want a simple yes/no question? I reiterate that you can't come up with an example because they don't exist.

There are no yes/no questions in a debate such as this.

I could ask them but they would be asinine.

Do you believe there is a potential for god to exist? (You stated you would not dismiss the possibility)
Do you feel that people who believe in a God are incapable of understanding why you do not believe in God?
Do you believe that people who believe in a God are intellectually inferior to yourself or other parties you who not believe in a God?
Do you believe that _I_ am incapable of understanding why you do not believe in a God?
Do you believe that the belief in a God is destructive to humankind? (I've been asking to talk about this for a while now. Perhaps I will get the answer when posed in a yes/no question.
Do you understand why I have accused you of being a religious fundamentalist?
Do you understand why I am not?
Do you understand the gaps that Abiogenesis leaves?
Do you understand how these gaps could be perceived as "faith" in the hypothesis set forth by "scientific community?"
Do you understand that believing in some form of creation or guided evolution does not cancel the theory of evolution?
Do you understand that science is not perfect? (I'm pretty sure you have said you understood this fact)
Do you understand how asking directed questions rather than open ended ones is moronic when talking about a topic of this nature?
Can you agree that open ended statements which allow you to phrase your response with additional content and reasoning to justify you statement is more reasonable in this case.
Do you understand that a directed question is more than one which can be answered with a single word?
Can you agree that my question from the previous quote was a directed question, 'What issues specific to this post have you posed that I have not properly addressed?"
Do you think that I am talking down to you now?

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » August 24, 2007, 1:35 pm

Somali wrote:Wonderful. So you want a simple yes/no question? I reiterate that you can't come up with an example because they don't exist.

Nope, that's not what I meant either.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » August 24, 2007, 1:40 pm

Great then. Perhaps you would like to explain what you view as a directed question. An example would be wonderful as well. I'm fairly confident what I posed previous to the yes/no crap was directed by definition, but please bring me into your world so I can understand what makes sense to you. Perhaps they have completely different terminology for questioning there in Australia.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » August 24, 2007, 1:42 pm

Also, I'd point out that after I started typing the yes/no "crap" questions I began to think some of them are pertinent, but you would likely prefer to answer with some contextual replies rather than simple yes/answers.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » August 24, 2007, 1:53 pm

Somali wrote:Great then. Perhaps you would like to explain what you view as a directed question. An example would be wonderful as well. I'm fairly confident what I posed previous to the yes/no crap was directed by definition, but please bring me into your world so I can understand what makes sense to you. Perhaps they have completely different terminology for questioning there in Australia.

The word was "direct", and actually, no. I'm having far more fun watching you guess. The meaning seems pretty clear in context though.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » August 24, 2007, 2:12 pm

You sir like to talk in circles without ever saying anything. Allow me an example:

Zaelath wrote: I haven't contended that you didn't "counter" anything, I contended that what you countered with was prefaced by restating the argument into something else entirely, then countering that. A'la Billy, Sean, and the rest of the Faux News team.

However, for now, since you just keep a) repeating yourself without responding to any of the counterpoint offered, and b) misrepresenting my view, just do me a favour and stop quoting me at all so I don't have to come back, hold your hand, and read it back to you explaining where you went wrong this time. It's tiring.

Let me break out the pertinent section of the statement you made.

repeating yourself without responding to any of the counterpoint offered

Now then. If you would like to explain your most recent request for a direct question, I will accommodate you given the rules you put forth.

I still contend that you have all the attributes that you describe me with. Likewise, the reason you refuse to bring up points you feel I did not adequately address are because they don't exist. I believe you state that they are there to confuse the casual onlooker from the fact that you have transitioned the original argument of whether or not science is impacted adversely by religion into one you feel you could more readily argue. Even within the argument you find yourself incapable of arguing the point on its merits and are forced to use named calling and popularized derogatory words in an attempt to lessen the stature of your opponent.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » August 24, 2007, 2:26 pm

If this keeps up, my ignore list might get it's first 2 users. Neither of you have actually said anything! Stop wasting my fucking time!

Somali · Post by **Somali** » August 24, 2007, 2:35 pm

I've said that:
Zaeleth is being close minded in his view of people who believe in God.
I've tried to get to a point where I can argue that we can talk about why people feel religion is/has been bad for science, but I keep getting derailed into a "Somali is a stupid fundy retard that can't read" argument.

But you're right, most of my time has been attempting to debate with Zaeleth despite his continued avoidance behavior.

Besides. Everyone post pharms occasionally don't they?

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » August 24, 2007, 2:35 pm

Somali wrote:You sir like to talk in circles without ever saying anything. Allow me an example:

Zaelath wrote: I haven't contended that you didn't "counter" anything, I contended that what you countered with was prefaced by restating the argument into something else entirely, then countering that. A'la Billy, Sean, and the rest of the Faux News team.

However, for now, since you just keep a) repeating yourself without responding to any of the counterpoint offered, and b) misrepresenting my view, just do me a favour and stop quoting me at all so I don't have to come back, hold your hand, and read it back to you explaining where you went wrong this time. It's tiring.
Let me break out the pertinent section of the statement you made.
repeating yourself without responding to any of the counterpoint offered
Now then. If you would like to explain your most recent request for a direct question, I will accommodate you given the rules you put forth.

I still contend that you have all the attributes that you describe me with. Likewise, the reason you refuse to bring up points you feel I did not adequately address are because they don't exist. I believe you state that they are there to confuse the casual onlooker from the fact that you have transitioned the original argument of whether or not science is impacted adversely by religion into one you feel you could more readily argue. Even within the argument you find yourself incapable of arguing the point on its merits and are forced to use named calling and popularized derogatory words in an attempt to lessen the stature of your opponent.

Did you just eat a thesaurus?

Look sport, if you call misinterpretting something someone has said, then rambling on for 3 paragraphs about why what they didn't say was wrong is "adequately addressing" their point, then sure.

As for "forced to use name calling and swearing", that's the clarion cry of the other whiny bastards on here that argue passion instead of reason then claim intellectual superiority when they're usually far more insulting without the swearing.

If you'd like I could suggest you're the inevitable end product of inbreeding between southern baptists and howler monkies. No swearing, no labels, happy now?

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » August 24, 2007, 2:37 pm

Fash wrote:If this keeps up, my ignore list might get it's first 2 users. Neither of you have actually said anything! Stop wasting my fucking time!

I conceeded the futility of this argument at least a page ago, talk to the stalker.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » August 24, 2007, 2:48 pm

Zaelath wrote: As for "forced to use name calling and swearing", that's the clarion cry of the other whiny bastards on here that argue passion instead of reason then claim intellectual superiority when they're usually far more insulting without the swearing.

If you'd like I could suggest you're the inevitable end product of inbreeding between southern baptists and howler monkies. No swearing, no labels, happy now?

Actually I think that may still fall under the topic of name calling. I would however be very interested for you to pick out some statement I made concerning yourself that was not further justified by the context. Your statement lacks context. Once upon a time I would have identified with the Episcopal church btw. If you want to attempt an insult at an organization now you can do so with some relative accuracy. Never been to a Baptist church, it's possible we share some common beliefs, who knows.

PS: You've still avoided the question. How hard is it really? Clearly you "know" that I've dodged your questions and counterarguments. How difficult is it to restate the ones you feel are in question? Do you contend that I haven't responded to any of them?

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 24, 2007, 2:50 pm

I'm with fash. For some reason I can't stop reading the thread but it is really getting annoying.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » August 24, 2007, 2:58 pm

Somali wrote: PS: You've still avoided the question. How hard is it really? Clearly you "know" that I've dodged your questions and counterarguments. How difficult is it to restate the ones you feel are in question? Do you contend that I haven't responded to any of them?

Just go back to the start if you like, and I'm sure everyone else will be delighted too, once they know it's my last post in this topic

Somali wrote: You believe religious texts are all 100% fiction. Every single word is a bunch of gibberish. Nothing is true.
Given that we are comparing my statement of saying they are not 100% fact, vs your statement that they are 100% fiction. I would say that I win. You sir, are attempting to deal in absolutes. There are no absolutes when we refer to history (religious text or not) aside from perhaps death, but that has also been exaggerated on many occasions to fit the authors need.

Right away you restated what I said into something I didn't, then proceeded to bash me for something I didn't say. This is not an argument, this is a waste of time, and at least a couple of people have started to get as bored with it as I.

Since you're incapable of taking a forfeit as a win, I'll just let you explain again how you know what I meant and I don't, and in deference to the other people on the board let you have the last, rambling, incoherent, word.

Post by **Sylvus** » August 24, 2007, 3:17 pm

I think you guys should keep going, though tbh I've only been skimming this thread.

It's okay to skim, isn't it?

Somali · Post by **Somali** » August 24, 2007, 4:07 pm

Ooh. Good position. Take the statement out of context, then imply you are the bigger man by saying you won't comment anymore, thus saving the rest of VV from the painful diatribes of he who is Somali.

You've allowed me closing arguments, so I'll take the opportunity. I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't.

FFS. You quote one statement I made rather than the question you posed? How does that in anyway meet the parameters of my request.

You made the retort to my suggestion that the bible wasn't 100% accurate. The terms you used implied that you felt it was in fact entirely made of fiction. You then made the argument about the semantics of your hypothesis, which I still feel was an attempt to backpedal out of your statement. You may not have intended to come across as aggressive as it was made to sound, but you used an absolute value (100%) when talking about you're "educated guess" and implied greater belief in the topic you supported. You reinforced the argument with the statement about the entire text being unreliable. I said perhaps I was putting words in your mouth, you said you agreed, then said I never responded to your counterpoint. (Paraphrased of course)

Skimming, this is really the only question I found that you posed, that I did not address. I did not address it because I thought it was rhetorical.
Perhaps you wanted me to answer:

Why does he need to "preserve" humanity and the miriad animals when he could could just create them from nothing? Do you really find the "gather two of every animal" directive at *all* plausible?

I assumed that was pretty well covered with:

At the same time, I would not be able to say that every word of any "religious text" was 100% dead on. What percentage is 100% dead on? Who the hell knows...

In other words. I don't know. Maybe it never happened. Maybe it did. Who am I to speak for God's purpose? Maybe he wanted to prove a point. /shrug.

Sorry to here you don't want to [whatever the fuck you would call the drivel that was spilled on the board] anymore. Maybe Sylvus will step up. What side of the debate do you want Sylvus?

Post by **Sylvus** » August 24, 2007, 4:47 pm

I think the Bible contains some good moral guidelines to live by. I'm a big Tool fan, and I think their music also contains some good ideas that I also embrace. As mentioned by someone else earlier in this thread, I think that Aesop's Fables also contain a lot of good lessons. I would equate the three of them, as well as other texts, pieces of literature, and other forms of art as being about equally inspired by the divine. If that sounds like I'm saying A = B = 0, that's not the case at all. All of them were touched by something. I just don't think that any of them is a literal transcription of His word, if He does exist.

My faith lies is in that which is most closely observable by me. I tend to side with science, and the mountains of evidence they have supporting their theories, over a text that comes from a time when people believed that the smell of a roasting animal was pleasing to their maker, that women were created from a man's rib, or that God smote entire cities because homosexuals practiced there or turned people into salt for not listening to him. There are too many parallels with too many mythologies (e.g. flood narrative in virtually every culture) that are otherwise immediately discounted for me to believe that Norse, Greek, Egytpian, Babylonian (which one is Gilgamesh, I'm drawing a blank here) can be looked at as fairytales while one is the Truth. Too many "cooks" have had their hand in the bible, it's been translated and retranslated countless times, often at the request of a mighty political figure or organization who had their own agendas. Plus some of the stuff that's in there seems way too micromanage-y for me to believe that the penultimate manager in all of existence would find it worth his while to care what sort of animal you eat on what day of the week, or which way you wear your hair, or any number of other ridiculous things. Not only that, how come He hasn't weighed in in a couple thousand years? Why hasn't He released a Second Edition? I think the world is significantly different than it was back then, does he have no opinions on the printing press? Electricity? The Internet?

I believe in evolution. I believe in the big bang. I'm not sure if I Believe (capital B) that God is the architect of those things, but I kind of hope that some sort of higher power had a hand in it. I'm not saying I have a better explanation for the catalyst that started any of those things, but regardless of what put them in motion, to say that any of those things didn't or aren't happening seems ignorant to me. I've experienced things that my rational, scientific brain absolutely cannot explain, and I do believe there is more out there than what science can explain. I just don't think It has written any books of any sort.

That's my side of the debate. But from what I've found, arguing about religious beliefs is like trying to convince a Linux zealot that Microsoft isn't evil, or a gay man that pussy is delicious. It serves as much purpose as trying to kick water uphill.

Somali · Post by **Somali** » August 27, 2007, 10:51 am

You picked a solid middle ground on the issue and one I tend to agree with. I can't think of a good position to use for Devil's advocate in this regard at this time. Perhaps sometime later.

Btw. Gilgamesh was Babylonian I think.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » August 27, 2007, 6:23 pm

Fash wrote:What you don't seem to understand is the source of all this 'god' nonsense is man himself. We know man gets smarter over time, so why on earth would you lend any credibility to bullshit man pondered about 2000+ years ago?... They were uneducated morons and thought the world was flat... Of course they pondered where they came from and what their purpose is, but the only answer they could come up with is Magic, or God, whatever you want to call it, because they didn't know about science, reason, or rationality. Why would God only tell his story to a bunch of inbred swine, and trust that they would continue it successfully?..

Permission to memorize this quote and freely use it, please. It will break the backs of a few stragglers I know.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » August 27, 2007, 6:39 pm

Permission granted.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » August 27, 2007, 6:43 pm

This thread prompted me to add my PSN ID to the area underneath my avatar. Jesus H Spaghetti this was the best religion thread ever.