[QUOTE=Rhody;35495]However, BR, I will point out that you jump to some pretty interesting conclusions. I do not consider myself a liberal, because I do not believe in being partisan. I acknowledge that I lean more left then right, but I do not follow any one party line. What I did was point out that Budguy made some errors in naming liberal characteristics and concluding that they are anti-PUA. I would have done the same thing if he made the same errors with respect to conservative characteristics. You jumped to the conclusion that I am a liberal, that have a mental disorder, and now that I am a communist and anti-capitalism. This debate got heated because you bring such a venomous bias to it. I'm trying to stick to the spirit of the debate while you resort to ad hominem attacks. It's not easy.[/QUOTE]
Being a liberal is a philosophy, an ideology not a party affiliation.
As for being venomous, although I may think you're wrong, I also think it fine that you have the perspective that you have. It is a free country...of course only when the government pigs tell us it's ok.
As for the 'attacks,' don't take them personally. If you knew me in person, you would know that, although these are my beliefs, I'm just fucking around. And, even if I weren't, the liberally biased media has slung more than enough mud and spiteful rhetoric towards Conservatives that a few jabs here or there on a private board from the Right to the Left is more than fair ;)
Dallas PUA
The Pickup Artist Playground
Economic and women.
by Guest » Fri Mar 26, 2010 12:07 pm
[QUOTE=Bull Run;35499]Being a liberal is a philosophy, an ideology not a party affiliation.
As for being venomous, although I may think you're wrong, I also think it fine that you have the perspective that you have. It is a free country...of course only when the government pigs tell us it's ok.
As for the 'attacks,' don't take them personally. If you knew me in person, you would know that, although these are my beliefs, I'm just fucking around. And, even if I weren't, the liberally biased media has slung more than enough mud and spiteful rhetoric towards Conservatives that a few jabs here or there on a private board from the Right to the Left is more than fair ;)[/QUOTE]
It's cool. We obviously disagree on the topic of teaching creationism or intelligent design in public schools, but I have enjoyed the debate. I was referring to statements like, "that's the problem with you libs." I don't have a problem or a mental disorder just because I disagree with Bull Run about one specific topic. There have been many other topics I agree with you about, so I'm not taking anything personally. It's all in good fun.
As for being venomous, although I may think you're wrong, I also think it fine that you have the perspective that you have. It is a free country...of course only when the government pigs tell us it's ok.
As for the 'attacks,' don't take them personally. If you knew me in person, you would know that, although these are my beliefs, I'm just fucking around. And, even if I weren't, the liberally biased media has slung more than enough mud and spiteful rhetoric towards Conservatives that a few jabs here or there on a private board from the Right to the Left is more than fair ;)[/QUOTE]
It's cool. We obviously disagree on the topic of teaching creationism or intelligent design in public schools, but I have enjoyed the debate. I was referring to statements like, "that's the problem with you libs." I don't have a problem or a mental disorder just because I disagree with Bull Run about one specific topic. There have been many other topics I agree with you about, so I'm not taking anything personally. It's all in good fun.
- Guest
by Guest » Fri Mar 26, 2010 5:01 pm
[QUOTE=Bull Run;35468]
@ Smirks:
I have a hybrid belief regarding man's origin. I believe that evolution does exist, which explains why the gallbladder is useless, why goose bumps have no biological purpose, and why some people have green, blue, or brown eyes. I think, over time, that humans (and all life forms) have changed and evolved. But, until science can prove that life was started from non-life, I have to hold open the distinct possibility that life was created and then was allowed to mutate and change under it's own free will. In that sense, Creationism and Evolution are both viable options for explaining Man's origin.
[/QUOTE]
How is Creationism a viable option, though? You say it as though it's more plausible than evolving from non-life...but you're a carbon-based life form. You're entire body is made up of mostly oxygen and carbon. Granted, I've never said, "Hey...there goes some carbon walking down the street." But, to me, that's exponentially more plausible than being formed by powers beyond our comprehension. Technically speaking, Creationism is also life started from non-life.
@ Smirks:
I have a hybrid belief regarding man's origin. I believe that evolution does exist, which explains why the gallbladder is useless, why goose bumps have no biological purpose, and why some people have green, blue, or brown eyes. I think, over time, that humans (and all life forms) have changed and evolved. But, until science can prove that life was started from non-life, I have to hold open the distinct possibility that life was created and then was allowed to mutate and change under it's own free will. In that sense, Creationism and Evolution are both viable options for explaining Man's origin.
[/QUOTE]
How is Creationism a viable option, though? You say it as though it's more plausible than evolving from non-life...but you're a carbon-based life form. You're entire body is made up of mostly oxygen and carbon. Granted, I've never said, "Hey...there goes some carbon walking down the street." But, to me, that's exponentially more plausible than being formed by powers beyond our comprehension. Technically speaking, Creationism is also life started from non-life.
- Guest
by Guest » Fri Mar 26, 2010 7:42 pm
[QUOTE=Smirks;35505]How is Creationism a viable option, though? You say it as though it's more plausible than evolving from non-life...but you're a carbon-based life form. You're entire body is made up of mostly oxygen and carbon. Granted, I've never said, "Hey...there goes some carbon walking down the street." But, to me, that's exponentially more plausible than being formed by powers beyond our comprehension. Technically speaking, Creationism is also life started from non-life.[/QUOTE]
Based on laws of thermodynamics and science, our current human knowledge there is no other way we, or the universe rather, could have been created. The law states that in an isolated system energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transferred. Einstiens theory of relativity says that matter and energy are the same and that neither can exist without the other. Thus, "matter" cannot be created or destroyed only transferred and the universe is the isolated system.
Evolution is an alternative but based on our current laws regarding science, energy, matter, etc.. there is just no way to create energy out of thin air. I believe this is one of the only things, if not the only thing, keeping science from proving God doesn't exist.
Thus the main reason behind "life from non-life". There has to be something behind it. Either god, or something science has yet to prove.
Based on laws of thermodynamics and science, our current human knowledge there is no other way we, or the universe rather, could have been created. The law states that in an isolated system energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only transferred. Einstiens theory of relativity says that matter and energy are the same and that neither can exist without the other. Thus, "matter" cannot be created or destroyed only transferred and the universe is the isolated system.
Evolution is an alternative but based on our current laws regarding science, energy, matter, etc.. there is just no way to create energy out of thin air. I believe this is one of the only things, if not the only thing, keeping science from proving God doesn't exist.
Thus the main reason behind "life from non-life". There has to be something behind it. Either god, or something science has yet to prove.
- Guest
by Guest » Fri Mar 26, 2010 8:40 pm
But by that same logic, it doesn't explain where god came from. He didn't just pop up out of thin air the same way our universe didn't pop up out of thin air did he? Sometimes I wonder if we're wasting our efforts trying to understand where we come from. No matter where our science takes us, we still have a whole universe we'll probably never completely understand. Hell, we don't even know what's at the bottom of our oceans.
- Guest
by Guest » Sat Mar 27, 2010 8:58 am
[QUOTE=Muk;35512]But by that same logic, it doesn't explain where god came from. He didn't just pop up out of thin air the same way our universe didn't pop up out of thin air did he? Sometimes I wonder if we're wasting our efforts trying to understand where we come from. No matter where our science takes us, we still have a whole universe we'll probably never completely understand. Hell, we don't even know what's at the bottom of our oceans.[/QUOTE]
I was thinking the same thing. One answer is that a god created the universe, which leads to the question of who or what created the god. Another answer is that the matter/energy always existed.
I liked Bill Mahr's ideas in Religulous. He mentioned The Church of I Don't Know. I really like that. To me, there's something spiritual about knowing what you know and accepting what you don't know. There's something arrogant, almost blasphemous, about claiming to have all the answers.
I see nothing wrong with saying that we have this theory of evolution and all this evidence that proves the theory, also that there are things we don't know, and we will leave it at that until we discover more evidence that proves or disproves the theory. I don't see any justification for making science fill in the gaps with non-science.
I was thinking the same thing. One answer is that a god created the universe, which leads to the question of who or what created the god. Another answer is that the matter/energy always existed.
I liked Bill Mahr's ideas in Religulous. He mentioned The Church of I Don't Know. I really like that. To me, there's something spiritual about knowing what you know and accepting what you don't know. There's something arrogant, almost blasphemous, about claiming to have all the answers.
I see nothing wrong with saying that we have this theory of evolution and all this evidence that proves the theory, also that there are things we don't know, and we will leave it at that until we discover more evidence that proves or disproves the theory. I don't see any justification for making science fill in the gaps with non-science.
- Guest
by Guest » Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:23 am
That's what I've been saying.. that's why a person would belive in some variation of God. Because neither energy or matter came from nothing.. which hasn't been proven it can yet, or an omnipotent being created everything.
[QUOTE=Revalation 22:13, NIV]
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
[/QUOTE]
Rhody, the fact that you said, "There's something arrogant, almost blasphemous, about claiming to have all the answers." Is at its root blasphemy.
[QUOTE=Websters]
Main Entry: [B]blas·phe·my[/B]
Pronunciation: \ˈblas-fə-mē\
Function: [I]noun[/I]
Inflected Form(s): [I]plural[/I] [B]blas·phe·mies[/B]
Date: 13th century
[B]1 a[/B] [B]:[/B] the [URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy#"]act[/URL] of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God [B]b[/B] [B]:[/B] the act of claiming the attributes of deity
[B]2[/B] [B]:[/B] irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable[/QUOTE]
I would consider religion/faith, or at least some variation of it, sacred since some, it's estimated, 64% of the worlds population belives in a God.
You want to remain skeptical about God? That's fine I understand where you're coming from... but as far as morals and economics go in this country... it was founded with faith and unalienble rights granted by "natures god" in mind.. then it became the greatest country in the world. So until you show me another faith/moral that has done better to bolster up that nation, I'll stick with the before mentioned faith/morals any day of the week.
[QUOTE=Revalation 22:13, NIV]
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
[/QUOTE]
Rhody, the fact that you said, "There's something arrogant, almost blasphemous, about claiming to have all the answers." Is at its root blasphemy.
[QUOTE=Websters]
Main Entry: [B]blas·phe·my[/B]
Pronunciation: \ˈblas-fə-mē\
Function: [I]noun[/I]
Inflected Form(s): [I]plural[/I] [B]blas·phe·mies[/B]
Date: 13th century
[B]1 a[/B] [B]:[/B] the [URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy#"]act[/URL] of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God [B]b[/B] [B]:[/B] the act of claiming the attributes of deity
[B]2[/B] [B]:[/B] irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable[/QUOTE]
I would consider religion/faith, or at least some variation of it, sacred since some, it's estimated, 64% of the worlds population belives in a God.
You want to remain skeptical about God? That's fine I understand where you're coming from... but as far as morals and economics go in this country... it was founded with faith and unalienble rights granted by "natures god" in mind.. then it became the greatest country in the world. So until you show me another faith/moral that has done better to bolster up that nation, I'll stick with the before mentioned faith/morals any day of the week.
- Guest
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests