| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Mr ProgFreak 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
 Posted: August 23 2010 at 01:36 |
 Trademark wrote:
Arrrggghh, Dean! You of all people I’d never have thought would fall for this. According to the rules of Mike’s thread I have to disqualify all your statements as being testimonial and lacking any scientific proof. Therefore, according to Mike’s rules I am correct in saying that you, actually are afraid because you have not properly proven otherwise. (Mike chose the “personal attack” method of answering my post which is usually the only way to avoid the trap.)
|
You posted like a dozen or more comments that contain little else than personal attacks against me, and now you're playing the hurt feelings card? How pathetic is that. 
Trademark wrote:
I was just trying to contribute (Its bloody difficult to contribute something relevant to a thread that is totally irrelevant and radiator noodles was already taken) according to the rules of engagement Mike set out from the beginning:
|
I never asked for scientific evidence. I mean, if you have any scientific evidence for your religion then by all means present it, but I've been saying from the very beginning that merely presenting good reasons will do just fine.
EDIT: Just to clarify: You may find some posts where I'm talking about scientific evidence or even ask about it - but I don't expect there to be any. The thing is that there are quite a few Theists out there who claim that there is scientific evidence for their belief, and that they can present it. So why I don't think there is any and I don't expect people to present some, I'm willing to look at whatever they come up with.
Trademark wrote:
Always make sure to remind everyone that the burden of proof falls not on the person making the original outlandish and insulting post, but upon any and all who try to respond to it.
|
"Original"? As an Atheist I'm actually always in the position of responding to claims that were originally made by Theists. All I'm saying is that I won't believe in any god until there is reason to do so. I fail to see how that is outlandish or insulting. I also fail to see what there is to prove in this position.
Trademark wrote:
Amend the rules in any way needed whenever it looks like someone else may be right.
|
By all means show me where I am "amending the rules", and I'll happy comment on that.
Edited by Mr ProgFreak - August 23 2010 at 04:23
|
 |
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: August 23 2010 at 02:00 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Are you telling me that in 1893 every Catholic accepted Evolution? Come on. I'm actually sure that even today many Catholics don't accept Evolution.
|
Mike, don't change my words to make my statement seem absurd, I never said all Catholics believed in evolution in 1893, I said:
|
And neither did I. In my response I moved from one point to another - the piece at the end applies to Ratzinger, not to the Catholic community in 1893.
Iván wrote:
Iván wrote:
You make claims that are false, and that's a fact, for example, you say that only by decree of the 60's we can accept evolution, when as a fact Evolution is at least accepted as a possibility since 1893 (Only 34 years after published). |
Saying all Catholics believed in evolution in 1893 is different that proving with official documents that the Pope admitted in an Encyclical document that evolution is a possibility that must be studied.
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
We've been over this a hundred times (and feel free to go back and count and then accuse me of making another false claim  ). The core principles of Christianity rely on a literal understanding of the Bible. It's because a literal understanding of the Bible is today an absolutely laughable and completely indefensible position that theologians have now modified these principles to such an extent that on one hand they again seem to be compatible with scientific facts, but on the other hand modern Christianity has little to do with the actual thing. And don't you think that Christianity is closely related to Jesus? If so, isn't it relevant what early Christianity taught? If he really was/is God and had such an important role in mankind, how could he/they/it be so incompetent as to allow the supposedly divinely inspired authors of the Bible to get it all wrong, and then watch people basing their live on these wrong ideas for thousand(s) of years?
|
Some Christian beliefs maybe, Catholic beliefs not....But again you want to place us in a no win situation, if we stay with our early beliefs as some fundamentalists do, it's wrong, and if we evolve...We are liars...Please Mike!!!!!
|
All I'm saying is that you're in a position that you cannot defend with honesty - you'll either have to betray your principles or misrepresent your position (which, indeed is "lying"). I fail to see though how this is my fault. Please Iván!!!!!
Iván wrote:
Mr Progreak wrote:
As a Christian you can't know your flaws - you are not capable of making moral decisions that overrule God's decisions. It is not your place to decide that some of his rules are important, and others aren't. Essentially, you're a sinner. Which is the purpose of religion and especially Catholicism ... it's all designed to make you feel guilty even if you're doing "the right thing". |
Yes, I'm a sinner, never said the contrary, we all are sinners in one or another way, but that's an issue between God and me.
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Why is "today" the right time? You have been wrong for thousands of years, what makes you so sure that you have it right today? Maybe you still have it wrong and it will be another 500 years until you have it right.
Atheists have none of these problems because they don't rely on one fixed collection of ancient books. In 500 years atheists will still be around and evaluating observations of the real world, while Christians will probably be still around attempting to make excuses for why their holy book conflicts with these observations. |
Maybe our perception of some dogmas will change....I have to admit this because I don't own the only truth...But we don't make excuses it's an official document of the Pope by the powers invested to him 2,000 years ago. Most surely we will evolve more, and that's a good thing.
|
Well, if you still continue to believe in the infallibility of the pope, there's another position that you simply can't defend with honesty.
Iván wrote:
I defend Catholicism mainly because we are able to accept we are fallible and that the Bible must not be understood literally.
|
That's not how it started. If people had known about the world what they know today, Catholicism would never have gotten that big to begin with.
Iván wrote:
BTW: Most of our beliefs don't come from a literal interpretation of the Bible, for example celibacy of priests and Nuns is not mentioned in the Bible, it's an ecclesial law declared by the Pope and not a doctrine ....BTW: There are exceptions to this rule, actually many Anglican married priests are joining the Catholic Church, and they are allowed to remind married and be priests..
|
And you think that somehow makes it less ridiculous? The pope has no authority at all. In medieval times there were plenty of popes at a time - fighting over land and power. I don't believe for a second that any of them was somehow special.
Iván wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
In a way it's like a mutating virus, and of course that's a "threat" to doctors who attempt to fight it. But on the other hand, your evolution usually means that your position gets weaker (religion retreats as science advances), so it's not so bad after all.
|
I won't commen his quote,. because the comparison so arrogant and absurd, that needs no comment.
|
Of course you're free to ignore the similarities. But then don't complain when I point out this willful ignorance.
Iván wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
That's not what I said - you may want to read it again |
.
Yes you said it
-
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
I would like for humanity to evolve beyond the need for religion. Some of us already have, |
You say you want people to evolve beyond the need of religion, and that you already achieved this goal...Ergo, you are saying you have evolved more than us. |
I'm clearly talking about a cultural evolution here, and not a biological one.
Iván wrote:
-
MrProgFreak wrote:
I simply think that our brains are not functioning completely logical all the time (to put it euphemistically), and while mechanisms like confirmation bias and the various ways of coping with cognitive dissonance certainly were assets in our evolution, they also make us vulnerable to not only acquire false beliefs, but also to having great difficulties to identifying and getting rid of them - the longer we carry them and the more we invest in them, the more difficult it is. |
...If you have already got rid of what you call "false beliefs", it's s sign that your brains hare able to function in a more logical way...Ergo, your brains are more developed.
Maybe you should read what you write.
|
Likewise. As long as you keep drawing these illogical conclusions, we won't be getting anywhere with this. No, I don't think that whenever someone gets rid of a false belief it's a sign of a biologically superior brain. You would have to actually demonstrate that this is true before using it to draw conclusions.
Iván wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Do you think that no Catholic children are being taught the story of Adam and Eve in Sunday school? In fact I think that plenty of them are being taught that story (and that of Noah's arc or Jonas in the belly of the big fish). I don't believe for a second that Catholics have all of a sudden all become scientists. |
Probably they are teaching his to very young children somewhere (Even when I don't know what's a Sunday school, I never went to one, we go to Mass with our parents since we are able to walk and even before), but when reach the age to understand the whole reality, we are taught the official doctrine, as I was taught in first or second grade.
And you are right, not all the Catholics have became scientists, neither all the atheists
|
We're all different, and we all grow up under different circumstances. Some are more prone to indoctrination, some less. Some parents will try to make sure that their children "inherit" their religion, others will be more inclined to let them make that decision themselves. I'm sure though that if you don't expose children to religious indoctrination and then introduce the topic when they're 14 years old and ask them what they want to do, a huge percentage of them would want to be Atheists - simply because they would be skeptical as to which of the religions was true, since they all claim to be true and none can prove it. And before you complain: No, I can't prove this claim, it's simply an opinion.
I have to go to work ... maybe I'll respond to the remaining points later. 
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: August 23 2010 at 04:11 |
Trademark wrote:
Arrrggghh, Dean! You of all people I’d never have thought would fall for this. According to the rules of Mike’s thread I have to disqualify all your statements as being testimonial and lacking any scientific proof. Therefore, according to Mike’s rules I am correct in saying that you, actually are afraid because you have not properly proven otherwise. (Mike chose the “personal attack” method of answering my post which is usually the only way to avoid the trap.)
I was just trying to contribute (Its bloody difficult to contribute something relevant to a thread that is totally irrelevant and radiator noodles was already taken) according to the rules of engagement Mike set out from the beginning:
1. 1. Make an outlandish and (hopefully) insulting broad statement misrepresenting the beliefs of a large group of people who never did anything to you and whom you know next to nothing about.
2. 2. Post dozens of pointless internet videos to prove… well I don’t know what that’s supposed to prove. (I realize I did not follow through on this part)
3. 3. Disqualify any and all responses due to lack of scientific proof (it helps if can work some extra ridicule into your disqualification by saying something like, “It even features a talking snake.” o “none of that is objective, let alone evidence”, or something along those lines). Extra points are given for the use of the words ”fairy tale” or “delusion”
4. 4. Always make sure to remind everyone that the burden of proof falls not on the person making the original outlandish and insulting post, but upon any and all who try to respond to it.
5. 5. Amend the rules in any way needed whenever it looks like someone else may be right.
AnsAnd anyway, Kate Bush had a hit?? Not in this country pal.
An |
Good for you - you've found the worlds only gulible atheist, perhaps I'm still a chrispyone after all.
Well, no, the probablilty that I would take the bait tends to one as soon as you quote examples of bad science, though I have to admit that you chose two pretty poor examples and perhaps I should have smelt a rat, but the compulsion to show how smart I am overides any possibility of revealing how dumb I really am. No, cite a psuedoscience as though it were real science and I will bite, misuse or misrepresent science and I will respond - that's not falling for a trap, that's me doing what I always do. That's a big neon sign saying "Dean, post here" since it will illicit a response from no one on this board except me (as we have just demonstrated).
That Mike passed the test and Stonie and I failed because we all responded in the manner we always respond in (and not the way you perhaps expected) is an indication that the trap was poorly set, but I don't think it was, I think you "caught" exactly who you wanted to "catch" - as long as someone responded in the way you wanted so you could issue this reply then your trap has fulfilled its purpose.
Isn't it ironic that sarcastic people like me can't take a joke.
|
|
What?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: August 23 2010 at 04:14 |
The T wrote:
Kate Bush had a hit/She didn't... is it settled? |
In 1978 Wuthering Heights was No.1 in 7 countries, and top forty in 14. It failed to get in the top 100 in the USA.
So yes, it's settled - it was never a hit.
|
|
What?
|
|
Finnforest
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 17231
|
Posted: August 23 2010 at 06:00 |
Dean wrote:
The T wrote:
Kate Bush had a hit/She didn't... is it settled? |
In 1978 Wuthering Heights was No.1 in 7 countries, and top forty in 14. It failed to get in the top 100 in the USA.
So yes, it's settled - it was never a hit. |
We were too busy with Boston in 1978.
|
|
...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell"
|
|
Trademark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
Posted: August 23 2010 at 08:10 |
Dean wrote:
Trademark wrote:
Arrrggghh, Dean! You of all people I’d never have thought would fall for this. According to the rules of Mike’s thread I have to disqualify all your statements as being testimonial and lacking any scientific proof. Therefore, according to Mike’s rules I am correct in saying that you, actually are afraid because you have not properly proven otherwise. (Mike chose the “personal attack” method of answering my post which is usually the only way to avoid the trap.)
I was just trying to contribute (Its bloody difficult to contribute something relevant to a thread that is totally irrelevant and radiator noodles was already taken) according to the rules of engagement Mike set out from the beginning:
1. 1. Make an outlandish and (hopefully) insulting broad statement misrepresenting the beliefs of a large group of people who never did anything to you and whom you know next to nothing about.
2. 2. Post dozens of pointless internet videos to prove… well I don’t know what that’s supposed to prove. (I realize I did not follow through on this part)
3. 3. Disqualify any and all responses due to lack of scientific proof (it helps if can work some extra ridicule into your disqualification by saying something like, “It even features a talking snake.” o “none of that is objective, let alone evidence”, or something along those lines). Extra points are given for the use of the words ”fairy tale” or “delusion”
4. 4. Always make sure to remind everyone that the burden of proof falls not on the person making the original outlandish and insulting post, but upon any and all who try to respond to it.
5. 5. Amend the rules in any way needed whenever it looks like someone else may be right.
AnsAnd anyway, Kate Bush had a hit?? Not in this country pal.
An |
Good for you - you've found the worlds only gulible atheist, perhaps I'm still a chrispyone after all.
Well, no, the probablilty that I would take the bait tends to one as soon as you quote examples of bad science, though I have to admit that you chose two pretty poor examples and perhaps I should have smelt a rat, but the compulsion to show how smart I am overides any possibility of revealing how dumb I really am. No, cite a psuedoscience as though it were real science and I will bite, misuse or misrepresent science and I will respond - that's not falling for a trap, that's me doing what I always do. That's a big neon sign saying "Dean, post here" since it will illicit a response from no one on this board except me (as we have just demonstrated).
That Mike passed the test and Stonie and I failed because we all responded in the manner we always respond in (and not the way you perhaps expected) is an indication that the trap was poorly set, but I don't think it was, I think you "caught" exactly who you wanted to "catch" - as long as someone responded in the way you wanted so you could issue this reply then your trap has fulfilled its purpose.
Isn't it ironic that sarcastic people like me can't take a joke.
|
You can get me back in the next Dream Theater is the Most Awesomest Band In the Wolrd thread. You know that's where my "sign" is. And besides, I am a Pseudo-Scientist by trade. All my background and training is in music. Sit in on a music theory class (20th Century era) and you'll see pseudo-science in all its glory.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: August 23 2010 at 08:16 |
|
^ damn, I thought I was the only one who'd spotted that retrograde/inversion transformations were only pretending to be mathematical.
|
|
What?
|
|
Trademark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
Posted: August 23 2010 at 08:17 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
You posted like a dozen or more comments that contain little else than personal attacks against me, and now you're playing the hurt feelings card? How pathetic is that.
|
Hurt feelings? Not at all. I was just pointing out to Dean how to avoid the trap. You instinctively used the correct technique because you recognized the trap. That's not surprising since it was YOUR trap. People we care about, people who are important in our lives, and in some cases people who have power over us in our lives, those are the people to whom we grant the power to hurt our feelings. Teutonic bullies on an internet forum that I wouldn't even know if they passed me on the strasse don't make the list.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: August 23 2010 at 08:22 |
Ok, what's with the racism? For the lack of a better word ... maybe I could also describe you as a "Germanophobe".
Be that as it may: It's plainly obvious who's the hateful bigot here.
|
|
Trademark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
Posted: August 23 2010 at 08:27 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
What if you're wrong? What if Hinduism is right - or Buddhism? How can you even sleep at night?
|
I can't believe i missed this gem of a set up. the answer is of course: "On top of a large pile of money with many beautiful ladies." - Rainier Wolfcastle
|
|
Trademark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
Posted: August 23 2010 at 08:32 |
|
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: August 23 2010 at 08:56 |
You don't see a difference between racism/bigotry and criticism?
If you want to make fun of me because I'm from Germany, knock yourself out. If you think that it's the same as I am doing with regards to Christianity, I disagree. I am criticising the religions and the people who are taking actions based on those beliefs that have a possibly harmful impact on themselves and others, while they have no good reason to believe that they're true. However, I'm always making distinctions. Not all Christians are alike. They all have in common that their belief is irrational, but they believe in it to various degrees, and they greatly vary in which actions they take based on their beliefs. Apply the same to Germany (I guess you mean Nazi-Germany) and Germans today and you'll see a big difference: We completely reject this ideology. Modern Germans don't relate to Nazis as Modern Christians relate to the original Christians. We outlawed Hitler's book, while you proudly protected your Bible, with all the raping, pillaging and slave-keeping that it endorses. Now, remember that I'm only defending my position here ... you were the first and only one in this thread to ever draw a connection between the Third Reich and Christianity. Seriously, how desperate must one get in order to go that far.
To hell with respect, and to hell with bigotry. And with half-baked generalizations.
Edited by Mr ProgFreak - August 23 2010 at 08:59
|
|
Trademark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
Posted: August 23 2010 at 09:01 |
|
Ahh, so now you're qualifying who gets respect and who doesn't, and in this case it is only those you believe deserve it (A bit bigoted in itself, that). Changing the rules yet again. You did ask me to point it out to you when you do it.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: August 23 2010 at 09:09 |
Trademark wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
What if you're wrong? What if Hinduism is right - or Buddhism? How can you even sleep at night?
|
I can't believe i missed this gem of a set up. the answer is of course:
"On top of a large pile of money with many beautiful ladies." - Rainier Wolfcastle
|
Ignorance is bliss - I guess that applies to religious people more than to those of us who actually care about whether their beliefs are justified.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: August 23 2010 at 09:10 |
Trademark wrote:
Ahh, so now you're qualifying who gets respect and who doesn't, and in this case it is only those you believe deserve it (A bit bigoted in itself, that). Changing the rules yet again. You did ask me to point it out to you when you do it.
|
Welcome to a world where there are differences between things.
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
|
Posted: August 23 2010 at 09:15 |
|
Maybe this thread should be done.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: August 23 2010 at 09:18 |
This is getting tiresome now.
Bigotry is bad. Respect is good.
Attacking someone for the Religion they choose to follow is bad.
Attacking someone for where they were born is incredibly bad.
Criticising a belief system without attacking the believers is acceptable.
Criticising a country without attacking the people born in that country is acceptable.
Please. Let's keep this civilised..
|
|
What?
|
|
Trademark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
Posted: August 23 2010 at 09:20 |
|
Ok, got it. My mistake. Differences between two things. Right.
Thing 1. Mike is not required to respect anyone.
Thing 2. Everyone is required to respect Mike.
See, I understand the difference between things perfectly
Edited by Trademark - August 23 2010 at 09:23
|
|
Trademark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
Posted: August 23 2010 at 09:27 |
Dean wrote:
This is getting tiresome now.
Bigotry is bad. Respect is good.
Attacking someone for the Religion they choose to follow is bad.
Attacking someone for where they were born is incredibly bad.
Criticising a belief system without attacking the believers is acceptable.
Criticising a country without attacking the people born in that country is acceptable.
Please. Let's keep this civilised.. |
I'm a Libertarian, you can't take away my freedom. Oh wait. wrong thread. Or I could take Mike's approach ans simply say I haven't done any of those things.
Edited by Trademark - August 23 2010 at 09:37
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: August 23 2010 at 09:42 |
Trademark wrote:
Dean wrote:
This is getting tiresome now.
Bigotry is bad. Respect is good.
Attacking someone for the Religion they choose to follow is bad.
Attacking someone for where they were born is incredibly bad.
Criticising a belief system without attacking the believers is acceptable.
Criticising a country without attacking the people born in that country is acceptable.
Please. Let's keep this civilised.. |
I'm a Libertarian, you can't take away my freedom. Oh wait. wrong thread.
Or I could take Mike's approach ans simply say I haven't done any of those things.
|
Okay - I'll try and simplify things.
When I post in black I'm Dean the jovial post-theist and defender of science.
When I post in red I'm Dean the miserable Moderator and defender of this forums rules and guidelines.
Hopefully, if we all agree to this simple rule then I can continue to post my irreverent and irrelevant comments in this thread while trying to maintain a decent level of decorum and behaviour within it.
|
|
What?
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?