Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Yanlin]

Here I'll rerail it.

So... Eh... Evolution. Real nice and shit.

There. Rerailed.

[Andir]

Damn, this thread went from a decent discussion about evolution, to a dumbed down version of theoretic physics, to scientific method, to religion flaming

Sorry, I'm mainly to blame for that... but to be perfectly honest, I think the idea of the thread was to point out that God and Evolution go hand in hand.  Without a proper definition of what was intended by "God" the thread pretty much derailed itself, but we are all in agreement (I hope) that Evolution is not the course of creating a perfect being, but to creating the perfect being for the environment for which it exists.

[Smitehappy]

I wouldn't even say derailed. I think it's just the natural course of conversation!

[LegoLord]

I didn't even touch blue laws or anything that might support them, nor did I say anything about religious people's happiness trumping atheistic people's happiness.  I don't know where you got that, Andir.  Blue laws are pretty damn stupid if you ask me, but hardly anyone enforces any of them in the U.S., and even when they are, it's normally stupid little things like "don't buy this or that on Sunday."  They're just like any other old arbitrary law; no one cares.  Second, the prayer-instead-of-hospital-care was referring to a situation in which someone who isn't hurt, but has custody over a hurt person (mother + badly injured child), not allowing medical treatment on that person, and instead only praying.  Looking at my post I could have worded that better.

While Leafsnail brought up a good point with the British government, I believe that would fall under what I previously mentioned - causing harm (not only physical harm, mind) to others with religion or lack thereof as incentive to do so.

Now, as for derail, Smitehappy is pretty much right.  Anything that tries to prove god/gods exist is going to have some negative feedback from portions of the community, which I saw coming and thought to try to cool down by pointing out the futility of trying to convince the other side to the opposite theological view.  Instead, a post attacking religion by mentioning at one point something that has nothing to do with what I was talking about comes up.  I'm here to neither argue for religion nor against atheism, but to try to tell you that the idea from those two that opposes your own is not there to insult you.  It's just there because someone likes it.  You don't have to like it, but that doesn't mean that badgering people about what they believe is a good idea.

As a side note, I believe the president is sworn in on his religion's respective major document, assuming he has one.  I think we have yet to encounter a situation where the president has no religion, but don't quote me on that part - I'm a little hazy on most presidents; I really only know those with the biggest historical roles - but I would assume they would be sworn in on a copy of the constitution or something like that.

[Fishersalwaysdie]

15 pages...
Did I miss the flamewar?

[Pleeb]

The way I read it LegoLord seriously derailed this towards the flames.

I think I derailed it too... saying it wasn't evolution the OP was on about.

Then there was a lot of nonsense... and a few heated posts....

15 pages...
Did I miss the flamewar?

Didn't miss much at all really.

But to be perfectly honest, I think the idea of the thread was to point out that God and Evolution go hand in hand.

I think the idea of the thread was the result of the OP's desire to disprove those that oppose his religion or exert some sort of oppression towards him on the subject by justifying his means within what he perceives as his opponent's own basis. I think. I think you have seen too many people put God and evolution hand and hand, or at least science and religion on flimsy ground, and now have an automated aggressive response of sorts. I think. I think LegoLord has been in too many religious flamewars and the flavor of his posting here is reminiscent of such. I think. I think the end result regardless is a misguided OP going on about something to do with God and Evolution and I think what he doesn't mean what he says and should say what he means if he broke it down and gave it a little more ambiguous analysis. I think. I think I am very bored. I think.

[Smitehappy]

This thread has no possible conclusion. We are discussing things we can never prove in our lifetimes and as such we'll never come to any sort of agreement. I think the best thing to do is to just acknowledge that we all think differently and enjoy the fact we can appreciate existance, even from our tiny perspective.

[Yanlin]

As a side note, I believe the president is sworn in on his religion's respective major document, assuming he has one.  I think we have yet to encounter a situation where the president has no religion, but don't quote me on that part - I'm a little hazy on most presidents; I really only know those with the biggest historical roles - but I would assume they would be sworn in on a copy of the constitution or something like that.

While that may be correct, I wish extreme good luck for any Non-Christian to be elected.

[Leafsnail]

Barack Obama is almost certainly still an agnostic/ atheist.

But I guess he had to pretend to be Christian at the start of his political career, so that doesn't really count.

Anyway, the House of Lords (the supreme court in Britain, that also passes any laws to elected house passes) is just a shambles in general.  Some are hereditary, some are bishops, some are just randomly appointed by the prime minister.  A few are elected.  While the current government wants to reform it, the party that's going to win the next election doesn't, and will pretty much leave it as it is.

This probably reflects the weirdness of the British constitution more than anything else.

And I agree, I think we're all sick of the accomodationist viewpoint.  Something to do with the way that religion doesn't need any proof, while science needs to be 100% proven to be aknowledged, and, to be honest, having a creator starting the process just doesn't add anything to the theory (certainly nothing testable).  That's probably why threads suggesting such views can often turn into flame wars (although I wouldn't say it was much of a flame war here - Andir raised a good point, basically).

[Yanlin]

Barack Obama is almost certainly still an agnostic/ atheist.

But I guess he had to pretend to be Christian at the start of his political career, so that doesn't really count.

First of all, Agnostic does not mean "Unsure that god exists"

It means "Believes the knowledge of god is unknowable"

Second, that's exactly my point. If you're not Christian, good luck holding ANY significant office of power.

[LegoLord]

The way I read it LegoLord seriously derailed this towards the flames.

Just going to say that this was the exact opposite of my intentions.  I merely wished that we end this quickly before we got to that point.

[Onlyhestands]

Second, that's exactly my point. If you're not Christian, good luck holding ANY significant office of power.

This, I saw some poll where while something like 30% or so(don't quote me on this) of Americans would never vote for a homosexual president, about half would never vote for an Atheist, no matter what.

[Enzo]

The way I read it LegoLord seriously derailed this towards the flames.

Choice between religions or lack thereof is one of our fundamental rights as humans, and one shouldn't attempt to sway others one way or the other on that matter under normal conditions, such as those on this forum.  Now I suggest we move along to topics less inviting of flame wars and just drop this one, before it gets bad.

Yes, clearly LegoLord was out for blood when he started posting in this topic 

[Yanlin]

Second, that's exactly my point. If you're not Christian, good luck holding ANY significant office of power.

This, I saw some poll where while something like 30% or so(don't quote me on this) of Americans would never vote for a homosexual president, about half would never vote for an Atheist, no matter what.

Remember, polls don't cover ALL voters and many people would lie on such polls to not be seen as... You know.

[Ampersand]

Remember, polls don't cover ALL voters and many people would lie on such polls to not be seen as... You know.

You mean the "I am NOT racist!" effect? Or the "I am NOT a homophobe!" effect? Yeah. There's no doubt that it happens. But there's also the "I am a good Christian" effect that will make people say they would not vote for a homosexual when they really would, and the "All my friends are racist" effect where they will say they won't vote for a black person when they really would. It's difficult to say if it balances out on the whole or not.