any creationists about?

[Jan Ardena]

the concept of a God was hardly unfamiliar to those who wrote the bible. i have yet to hear of an ancient race which did not believe that there was something out there which was "above" themselves...so i'm not quite understanding that point to be honest....

So where do you stand on the issue of God, do you think His characater is made up, and as such the bible is flawed. Or do you think the bible is flawed regardless of God??

that's what i would have thought....any truth or not, it's undeniably a guide book on How To Live Life. ten commandments etc, and rather a lot of Exodus as i remember.

If I'm not mistaken, Sarkus means self-help without God, that man wrote the book to satisfy the curiousity of ignorant people. Do you see it like this?

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

If I'm not mistaken, Sarkus means self-help without God, that man wrote the book to satisfy the curiousity of ignorant people. Do you see it like this?

Jan.

No - I meant that the book is a self-help guide for those that NEED to believe in something greater than themselves.
So the book creates this something, this thing that is greater than the reader (God), and the reader (who has a need to believe) begins to believe in this God. This God then generally spouts nothing but common sense (don't kill, don't give in to anger, jealousy etc).
But because it is this GOD telling them, these people who now believe start behaving in the way this GOD tells them - to them it is not because it is common sense but because they are religious, and their religion tells them to.

So you now have 2 kinds of people - those that live their lives through common sense, and those that live their lives behaving as their religion dictates - which is more or less common sense (but the common sense of the time in which the books were written).

The differences between the 2 kinds of people are that those following Common Sense change with the times - keep up to date.
Those following the Bible tend to be stuck with the Common Sense of 2,000 years ago, and continually struggle to adapt the writings to the modern world.

The Bible offers guidance to the people who do not have the strength of mind to realise that they do not need to believe in something greater than themselves - so creates that something and uses that to give them broadly the same moral compass as everyone else - but again a moral compass that does not adapt/change with the times - and is thus often seen as outdated.

Most stories in the Bible are allegorical - in that they give a certain situation and show how God treats one side or the other. People who "believe" can then use these stories and match them to their own situations, giving them guidance on how to behave etc.
This is even what the priests etc do each mass when they give a sermon - taking the readings / "lesson" from the bible and trying to interpret it to today's world.

So, as I said, it is basically a self-help book for those that need to believe, and, taking it further, provides the crutch on which to live your lives - a crutch that those that don't believe do not need.

 

[longlostlady]

So where do you stand on the issue of God, do you think His characater is made up, and as such the bible is flawed. Or do you think the bible is flawed regardless of God??

my view on God is not what i wanted to discuss in this thread...since you ask i'm agnostic, i think realistically most people who aren't raised with a faith aren't sure and being agnostic is the next logical step.....however, that aside, i think the bible is flawed regardless of the properties posessed by "god" (including existence....). i believe that you can believe in a christian God without believeing the absolute truth of the bible.

do you think that the world was really created in 6 days?

 

[Jan Ardena]

longlostlady,

do you think that the world was really created in 6 days?

Not in 6 twenty four hour days.
Before we carry, on should tell you that I am neither a christian or creationist.

however, that aside, i think the bible is flawed regardless of the properties posessed by "god" (including existence....). i believe that you can believe in a christian God without believeing the absolute truth of the bible.

What part of the bible do you regard as flawed and why?
(I'm not saying you're right or wrong, I just want to get some dialouge going)
And what would be the basis of a belief in a christian God, without believing truth of the bible?

Here are some of your earlier points;

i mean, taking the literal word of a flawed, translated document as actual truth? huh?

Is truth to be found in documents?
If it somehow turned out that the bible wasn't flawed, would you be able to recognise the truth?
If yes, then would it be safe to say you already knew the truth beforehand?
Just a thought.

what i'm asking is how that defense of detail can be justified when it may very well be flawed.

It is justified by those who believe it, they believe that the scientific evidence, support their belief. Ultimately, as charles cure said, it is all down to interpretation.

as i understand it, the world is 10,000 years old according to the bible -

Is this your understanding of the bible, or are you stating the opinions of creationists?

So how do you explain the longevity, respect and reverance of the bible?

because [The bible] it was used to suppress, repress and control people's behaviour for hundreds of years?

My question still hasn't been answered; How do you explain the longevity, respect and reverance of the bible? I totally agree that it has been used as weapon, but that cannot explain genuine respect and reverence for said document. Unless you think the respect and reverence is not genuine, but out of fear of reprisal.

just a thought. a tool that powerful isn't lightly tossed away.

So far you have expressed a negative, untrusting attitude toward the bible. Do you have any positive attitudes toward it, and if so, what are they?

It just seems a long arse way of going about things, knowing that an entity like God had never been heard of before.

the concept of a God was hardly unfamiliar to those who wrote the bible. i have yet to hear of an ancient race which did not believe that there was something out there which was "above" themselves...so i'm not quite understanding that point to be honest....

Maybe you are right, but would you agree that the "concept of a god" is not the "concept of God".

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

No - I meant that the book is a self-help guide for those that NEED to believe in something greater than themselves.
So the book creates this something, this thing that is greater than the reader (God), and the reader (who has a need to believe) begins to believe in this God. This God then generally spouts nothing but common sense (don't kill, don't give in to anger, jealousy etc).
But because it is this GOD telling them, these people who now believe start behaving in the way this GOD tells them - to them it is not because it is common sense but because they are religious, and their religion tells them to.

So you now have 2 kinds of people - those that live their lives through common sense, and those that live their lives behaving as their religion dictates - which is more or less common sense (but the common sense of the time in which the books were written).

The differences between the 2 kinds of people are that those following Common Sense change with the times - keep up to date.
Those following the Bible tend to be stuck with the Common Sense of 2,000 years ago, and continually struggle to adapt the writings to the modern world.

The Bible offers guidance to the people who do not have the strength of mind to realise that they do not need to believe in something greater than themselves - so creates that something and uses that to give them broadly the same moral compass as everyone else - but again a moral compass that does not adapt/change with the times - and is thus often seen as outdated.

Most stories in the Bible are allegorical - in that they give a certain situation and show how God treats one side or the other. People who "believe" can then use these stories and match them to their own situations, giving them guidance on how to behave etc.
This is even what the priests etc do each mass when they give a sermon - taking the readings / "lesson" from the bible and trying to interpret it to today's world.

So, as I said, it is basically a self-help book for those that need to believe, and, taking it further, provides the crutch on which to live your lives - a crutch that those that don't believe do not need.

If I'm not mistaken, Sarkus means self-help without God, that man wrote the book to satisfy the curiousity of ignorant people. Do you see it like this?

Apart from the ambiguity of the term .."without God"... my point is really not that different to what you are saying.
Either way, your point too simplistic, and I get the feeling it is purposely done to belittle the content of the bible.

Jan.

 

[longlostlady]

What part of the bible do you regard as flawed and why?

nothing that has been translated that many times by that many people will be exactly the same - i mean, some words don't have literal translations into other languages. and the power of education over the centuries has put the power, literally, of heaven and hell into the hands of those who also held secular power. i would argue that Luther, as an example, though very probably holding a genuine belief in justification by faith, was exploited by the German Princes who recognised the power of a new interpretation of just a few words. the Bible has been a political tool for so long that i find it very hard to believe that it has not been purposefully tampered with - and impossible to believe that what we read today is what was originally written, just through genuine mistakes.

If it somehow turned out that the bible wasn't flawed, would you be able to recognise the truth?

would i be recognising the truth??that's a pretty contentious point really, as i don't believe that the Bible is telling us the actual truth, flawed or not. if it turned out that the Bible was telling the truth (and this is so hypothetical as to be almost redundant.....how could it be proved?.....) then i guess everybody would "recognise the truth", as it were....

It is justified by those who believe it, they believe that the scientific evidence, support their belief.

then that is a pretty terrifying manipulation of science.

Is this your understanding of the bible, or are you stating the opinions of creationists?

not mine, somebody counted them all and that's how it works out. i wouldn't do that. i like to think i have some semblance of a life

Unless you think the respect and reverence is not genuine, but out of fear of reprisal.

if i had my appalling cynical head on, i'd say that yes, fear of damnation is the only thing which actually inspires religious belief. as i don't i'm prepared to say that the majority of people have been given that respect and reverence for the Bible because of the sociological pressure from their parents or from events in their life. it's kinda like a comfort blanket - and i'm not saying that that's a bad thing necessarily....i've often wished i had something like it myself.

So far you have expressed a negative, untrusting attitude toward the bible. Do you have any positive attitudes toward it, and if so, what are they?

as i've said above, it provides a lot of comfort and inspiration for a lot of people. i take issue when people blind themselves to the truths of our world in order to obey its every word. and i'm a budding philosophy student - i don't know what to believe, except that i believe that we should always be asking, not simply accepting the words of a book. sadly i'm also a history type person, and ripping sources apart is what i live for....

would you agree that the "concept of a god" is not the "concept of God".

sure i'd agree, but you did say:

an entity like God

 

[charles cure]

Apart from the ambiguity of the term .."without God"... my point is really not that different to what you are saying.
Either way, your point too simplistic, and I get the feeling it is purposely done to belittle the content of the bible.

Jan.

you know, everyone here really is right about you. you get served and go away for a little while and then you come back with the same exact fallacious hunk of shit of an argument and use it against the only person you can find who isnt so sick of you that they want to put a knife in your throat. dont you get tired of repeating the same exact dogmatic trash over and over again? why dont you just accept that your stance is beyond reasoning (since you consider no counter argument or proof as valid) and call it a day? is it just that you enjoy getting bashed around?

 

[mountainhare]

charles:

you get served and go away for a little while and then you come back with the same exact fallacious hunk of shit of an argument and use it against the only person you can find who isnt so sick of you that they want to put a knife in your throat.

Good, you're learning. The tactic you just described is commonly employed by Creationists. Argumentum ad nauseum is a wonderful way at tiring opponents out.

dont you get tired of repeating the same exact dogmatic trash over and over again?

If you want an answer to that, just look at Jan's previous posts.

 

[Sarkus]

Apart from the ambiguity of the term .."without God"... my point is really not that different to what you are saying.
Either way, your point too simplistic, and I get the feeling it is purposely done to belittle the content of the bible.

Jan.

Aah - I see your point - and the simple answer would have been, and is, "yes".

But as for belittling the content of the Bible - that was purely to emphasize the point being made.
Personally I think the Bible a wonderful book - and as far as guides/self-help books go you could do no better, although I do wonder if it is not too out-dated for modern society to get the most from it.

The only problem I see with it is that people take it literally - although I guess this is a problem with those people and not the book per se.

 

[iam]

No, the problem is it says god says this, do that, kill, kill, kill. berry dangerous

 

[Jan Ardena]

longlostlady,

What part of the bible do you regard as flawed and why?

nothing that has been translated that many times by that many people will be exactly the same –

That’s a fair point, something a bit like Chinese whispers.

…and the power of education over the centuries has put the power, literally, of heaven and hell into the hands of those who also held secular power.

This has nothing to do with the bible being flawed though.

..the Bible has been a political tool for so long that i find it very hard to believe that it has not been purposefully tampered with - and impossible to believe that what we read today is what was originally written, just through genuine mistakes.

I agree with you, up to a point.

d i be recognising the truth??that's a pretty contentious point really, as i don't believe that the Bible is telling us the actual truth, flawed or not.

Ah! Now we’re getting somewhere. Why do you believe like this?

urned out that the Bible was telling the truth (and this is so hypothetical as to be almost redundant.....how could it be proved?.....) then i guess everybody would "recognise the truth", as it were....

The point is only as hypothetical and almost redundant as your belief it is not actual truth. Is it not?

that is a pretty terrifying manipulation of science.

It would appear from your opening post, that you have not discussed this subject matter with a creationist. Don’t you think it would be wise to do so, before condemning them of such deceit?

..not mine, somebody counted them all and that's how it works out. i wouldn't do that. i like to think i have some semblance of a life

And bully for you. :m:

if i had my appalling cynical head on, i'd say that yes, fear of damnation is the only thing which actually inspires religious belief.

Really? So you don’t believe people, when they say they don’t care about their personal fate, as long as they remain in the service of God? Why?
Did Jesus exhibit fear of damnation?
Or Abraham for that matter?
As far as I know, a Christian is a person whose ideal is to follow in the footsteps of Jesus. Wouldn’t you agree? So how is it you you have come to the conclusion that fear is the ONLY thing that inspires religion?

as i don't i'm prepared to say that the majority of people have been given that respect and reverence for the Bible because of the sociological pressure from their parents or from events in their life.

And not the contents?
I find that remarkable, and I’m sure you can explain why you are thus prepared.

it's kinda like a comfort blanket - and i'm not saying that that's a bad thing necessarily....i've often wished i had something like it myself.

So you have no form of future plans set aside. You live purely from day to day.
Amazing.

as i've said above, it provides a lot of comfort and inspiration for a lot of people. i take issue when people blind themselves to the truths of our world in order to obey its every word.

What are the “truths of our world” people blind themselves to?
And what do you mean exactly by “obey its every word”?

and i'm a budding philosophy student - i don't know what to believe, except that i believe that we should always be asking, not simply accepting the words of a book.

So far, what has your philosophical studies taught you?

Why bother to always ask, if you’re never going to come to a conclusion?
And while it stands to reason, that some people are “simply” going to accept the words of the bible, it doesn’t follow that everyone will. And what do you say to those that don’t?

sadly i'm also a history type person, and ripping sources apart is what i live for....

Is this what historians do, rip sources apart?

would you agree that the "concept of a god" is not the "concept of God".

sure i'd agree, but you did say:

an entity like God

If you think about it carefully, an entity like God, can only be God.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

you know, everyone here really is right about you. you get served and go away for a little while and then you come back with the same exact fallacious hunk of shit of an argument and use it against the only person you can find who isnt so sick of you that they want to put a knife in your throat. dont you get tired of repeating the same exact dogmatic trash over and over again? why dont you just accept that your stance is beyond reasoning (since you consider no counter argument or proof as valid) and call it a day? is it just that you enjoy getting bashed around?

Charlescure, what is it exactly that I keep on repeating? I apologise if you take offence of my not believing the theory of evolution factual, and dare to say so, but as far as I am concerned this is a discussion site. And more specifically this is a "Religion" forum.
For your information I believe the bible to be both flawed and not flawed, and my only wish is to raise some kind of discussion. I do not believe my points are dogmatic, as I have not revealed whether or not I am religious, nor have I said you are wrong, I am right, and as a result you are going to hell, and I'm going to heaven because it says so in the bible. Or words to that effect.
You have a point and I have a point, what is so wrong with that. Would you like me to agree with your point?
Why is it that in every other forum, the discussion is based on the particular genre, and as such is acceptable, but in the "Religion" forum we must, as a matter of course, have scientific basis for our beliefs and understandings?

I apologise for any offence I may have caused you, but to my defence, it was not intended.

In the hope that we can be resonable toward each in the future.
Thanks
Jan.

 

[charles cure]

You have a point and I have a point, what is so wrong with that. Would you like me to agree with your point?
Jan.

no, you dont have a point at all. you cannot believe the bible to be flawed and unflawed simultaneously. you cant defend a point by saying that you dont except the only kind of proof that is acceptable in this kind of argument. you cant argue that the bible is the absolute truth just because it exists and then demand proof for evolution while denying the validity of the already abundant support for it. that is what i have seen you do on this forum. you alter your belief when your argument fails and then say that thats the point you were making all along. im not offended, im amazed by the depth of your idiocy.

Why is it that in every other forum, the discussion is based on the particular genre, and as such is acceptable, but in the "Religion" forum we must, as a matter of course, have scientific basis for our beliefs and understandings?

because this is called SCIFORUMS, or can you not read? the debates on this forum are about scientific data, proof, information, rational argument, logic...etc. just because this is a religion subforum doesnt mean that its just a ideological free for all where you can have your argument accepted no matter how patently absurd it is. how come you dont understand that yet?

 

[Ophiolite]

It get quite frustrating, doesn't it Charles? What I like to call intransigent ignorance.

There is a smug complacency that is truly quite distasteful. When you blend that with this quote from her profile "God is seated in everyones heart. From Him comes, knowledge and forgetfulness", we see the stuff of which hypocrisy is made.

Jan emerges as a thoroughly bad piece of work, the sort who gives religion a bad name.

 

[Jan Ardena]

charles cure,

no, you dont have a point at all. you cannot believe the bible to be flawed and unflawed simultaneously.

Why?

you cant defend a point by saying that you dont except the only kind of proof that is acceptable in this kind of argument.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

you cant argue that the bible is the absolute truth just because it exists and then demand proof for evolution while denying the validity of the already abundant support for it.

I believe you have misunderstood my points. Firstly I am arguing from the point of view, of belief that God exists. And its safe to assume (I hope) that you are arguing from the opposite viewpoint.
We all know there is no current "scientific evidence" to support this belief, but, that is the basis of religions such as islam and christianity. And the reason there is a "Religion" forum on SciForums.
My contention with Darwins theory is that the scientific evidence does not (AFAICS) give any real detail as to how one species changes into another. Maybe it does and I can't see it, but this is the reason why I cannot understand why that particular aspect of evolution is an unequivocal fact.
You think I'm an idiot, fair enough. But why get uptight.

that is what i have seen you do on this forum. you alter your belief when your argument fails and then say that thats the point you were making all along.

I haven't specified a belief (other than in God).

im not offended, im amazed by the depth of your idiocy.

Fair doos.

because this is called SCIFORUMS, or can you not read? the debates on this forum are about scientific data, proof, information, rational argument, logic...etc.

I believe my arguments are rational, even though the subject matter may not be.

So discussions in the general philosophy, ethics and morality, psuedo-science, etc... Are always furnished with scientific data, proof, and the subjects are always rational and logical?

What do you think religion is?

..just because this is a religion subforum doesnt mean that its just a ideological free for all where you can have your argument accepted no matter how patently absurd it is.

My particular argument with you wasn't absurd, it was within the context of religion, and I did attempt a reasonable discussion with you, you only have to go back and see. And the reason I post is not necessarily to have my argument accepted, but in some, if not most cases, to enter into a deeper discussion based on religion, with a person of science.
The current discussions taking place in the forum, are extemely tired (IMO), and predictable. What is so wrong in trying to be a little different?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It get quite frustrating, doesn't it Charles? What I like to call intransigent ignorance.

There is a smug complacency that is truly quite distasteful. When you blend that with this quote from her profile "God is seated in everyones heart. From Him comes, knowledge and forgetfulness", we see the stuff of which hypocrisy is made.

Jan emerges as a thoroughly bad piece of work, the sort who gives religion a bad name.

Ophiolite, what is your problem, I don't know you, but would thoroughly like to hear what you have to say on these matters. Instead you seem to hold some sort of personal grudge against me.
I apologies also, if I have offended you in the past, but I was only giving back what I recieved.
How does my profile quote render me a hypocrite?

Jan.

 

[Ophiolite]

Jan,
my problem is your entire approach to discussion, which I find dishonest in the extreme. It might be that you are too thick to understand what you are doing, but other aspects of your debating style suggest otherwise.
I have posted and re-posted several times exactly what I find distasteful in your approach. It is not the substance of what you are arguing that I take exception to, it the method you employ.

I shall consider, briefly, one aspect. I consider it the height of bad manners not to make clear ones position on any of the issues under discussion. Yet you continually obfuscate the precise character of your beliefs. You do this even when challenged. You answer questions with more questions, consistently, continually, and to the detriment of the discussion.

In short, even in this one aspect, you are rude on an ongoing basis. And you have the nerve to ask what my problem is?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Ophiolite,

I have posted and re-posted several times exactly what I find distasteful in your approach.

Observe, with interest A Darn Jane's debating style:

1) Refuse to answer any question directly.
2) Refuse to study the evidence, whilst implying the evidence has been studied.
3) Characterise the evidence as opinion.
4) Deny everything.
5) Answer questions with another question.

The technique is effective on two levels.
a) It frustrates those presenting a counter argument, as they are unable to penetrate her obfuscation and misdirection. [Not that they need to.]
b) It allows A Darn Jane to comfortably maintain her own delusions. [Although even the casual observer can see, not the holes in her logic, but the entire absence of logic.

In general though, A Darn Jane's views do provide an interesting illustration of the evolutionary limitations of intelligence.

First of all, look how you address me..A Darn Jane. What's that all about? My character name is Jan Ardena. And then you attack me by using me as an example of the evolutionary limitations of intelligence.
How do you expect me to take this response seriously from the outset?
Come on.

1) Can you point out where I have not answered questions directly in this thread? Yet I can point out where you have not.

2) Regarding the evolution discussion;
I have read the evidence, in case you were too busy picking faults, I explained that it was the presented evidence that promted me to discuss the topic.

3) I didn't imply that the evidence were opinions, but the explanation of the evidence. This, again, is why I asked certain questions.

4) Is not really worth bothering with.

5) My intention when asking questions, is to gain a good understanding of where people are coming from. All too often, debaters assume they know what their opponent (for want of a better word), is all about. I find with atheists especially, religion=christian, therefore if you believe in God then you must be christian, regardless. They then argue from that perspective and subsequently destroy any chance of a reasonable discussion.

a) Is it not possible to have a discussion about the nature of spirituality and religion without having to explain what it is you specifically believe, unless such information is necessary to the point in case?

In short, even in this one aspect, you are rude on an ongoing basis. And you have the nerve to ask what my problem is?

What do you mean by "have the nerve"? Of course I have the nerve, why shouldn't I.
If you wish to cling to this unwarranted mud-slinging attack of a crusade, then that is your business. As I stated before, I don't know you from Adam, and as such, despite your rudeness, I cannot be personally affected by it.
I am MAN enough to apologise for any offense I may have inadvertantly caused you. I had rather hoped you could be also, but it seems you aren't.

That's how it goes.

Jan.

 

[charles cure]

charles cure,

Why?

because if you believe that the bible is flawed, then you dont believe that it is not flawed. if you believe that the bible is not flawed, then having that belief by definition means that you think the bible does not have flaws. if you hold those beliefs simultaneously, they cancel each other out and you wind up believing nothing. this nullification means that you have no official point of view about the bible since you neither believe or disbelieve that it is flawed or not flawed. since you are putting this forward now, that means that all along your argument has had no point, because you have not taken a stance, despite the fact that you did take a stance while attempting to challenge my assertions that the bible is a flawed document.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

what i mean is that you have no standard of acceptable proof. i have offered reasons time and again to prove my points and they are material and valid. however, your convenient counter-argument to that is almost always, "that doesnt disprove my point" or "i dont accept that" so, basically what you are saying is that you, and only you, for no apparent reason, reject a commonly accepted standard for providing evidence to either support or rebutt a particular claim. you make assertions and do not provide evidence, but instead endlessly question the reasoning provided by someone else for rejecting your premise, while deflecting the burden of proof away from yourself.
for example, i have not seen you provide even one miniscule shred of evidence for the existence of god or the perfect nature of the bible, instead you just continuously deny the validity of the response to the question that you originally posited. in asking me to provide reasons why i think the bible is flawed, you engage in the debate on the opposite side of me. however, you do not argue for the position you have taken, or against me, you just assert that the argument i am making is somehow invalid or does not speak to the issue you have raised, yet you provide no reasoning for that position either. why dont you instead come up with some support for your own side of the debate?

We all know there is no current "scientific evidence" to support this belief, but, that is the basis of religions such as islam and christianity. And the reason there is a "Religion" forum on SciForums.

no, what you mean is that there is little or no factual evidence to support your belief, whether gleaned through a scientific process or otherwise. how do you argue for something that has no basis in fact, when even data gained through cursory observation of everyday life seems to contradict it? how do you expect to convince someone of something without any evidence? how do you propose to "win" any debate if your side of the argument lacks any factual support? is it other people's fault for asking you to provide evidence for claims that you make?

My contention with Darwins theory is that the scientific evidence does not (AFAICS) give any real detail as to how one species changes into another. Maybe it does and I can't see it, but this is the reason why I cannot understand why that particular aspect of evolution is an unequivocal fact.
You think I'm an idiot, fair enough. But why get uptight.

first off, darwins theory is no longer the theory of evolution. our understanding of the processes by which evolution occurs have come very very far since darwin, so you can contest his theory all you want, but you will be overlooking about a century and a half of progress.
genetics i think, is where the answer to your question lies. the transition between one species and another is not a hard thing to envision, unless of course you think that a monkey miraculously gave birth to a fully formed human one day out of the blue. its not like that.
and just FYI you can see evolution happening all around you in your lifetime. two kinds of creatures that evolve especially fast are viruses/bacteria, and insects. because they have such short lifespans and high birth rates, you can almost watch them change and mutate right before your eyes. when a new strain of a virus evolves as a response to a medication that is effective in killing it, it is not by accident, it happens by virtue of an immunity to the killer medication on the part of some percentage of the virus population and the fact that this immunity allows for those viruses with that particular set of traits to survive and proliferate until eventually they are the dominant form. have you not heard of this or thought about it? that is evolution on a small scale, observable over the course of decades as opposed to millions of years.

I believe my arguments are rational, even though the subject matter may not be.

So discussions in the general philosophy, ethics and morality, psuedo-science, etc... Are always furnished with scientific data, proof, and the subjects are always rational and logical?

What do you think religion is?

first of all, the discussions in the ethics and morality forum are pretty much always logical, and actually the same goes for philosphy. a standard philosophical argument becomes a fallacy if it violates logic. not to mention that in philosophy there is no such thing as absolute truth, only an abstraction of it under specified conditions. in addition to that, religion differs from philosophy in that it has become a de facto underpinning of morality in many cultures. despite the fact that many things prohibited by or antithetical to religion are morally neutral or even positive when viewed objectively. if religion was a logical philosophy i would have no problem with it, but it is a different thing entirely, an unproven premise around which is built a theoretical framework used to arbitrarily define morality for the purposes of supporting self-serving laws and other social constructs.

My particular argument with you wasn't absurd, it was within the context of religion, and I did attempt a reasonable discussion with you, you only have to go back and see. And the reason I post is not necessarily to have my argument accepted, but in some, if not most cases, to enter into a deeper discussion based on religion, with a person of science.
The current discussions taking place in the forum, are extemely tired (IMO), and predictable. What is so wrong in trying to be a little different?

Jan.

if you engage in discussion about religion with any person, person of science or not, you must provide reasoning for the position you take. as far as i can see you have not done that at all. there can be no deeper discussion on religion if all that results is a stalemate where one side says "here is my assertion and here is its support" and the other side responds: "i dont think you proof is valid and even if it was, it does not refute my point directly, because the subject we are discussing is irrational and somehow beyond the realm of logic".

 

[mountainhare]

Jan Ardena:

I am MAN enough to apologise for any offense I may have inadvertantly caused you. I had rather hoped you could be also, but it seems you aren't.

Oh my, I just love the little dirty tricks Jan uses. A blatant condescending insult dressed up as an apology to Ophiolite. "I'm sorry I offended you Ophiolite, which is why I'm going to hurl another offensive comment at you."