I often find myself in a kind of confusion after reading the religio-scientific posts of the above people.
Please help me know if I am lacking in some faculties or I am just one of you all!

Edit: For the sake of real votes, I request the voters to please post a small message too!

I find that if I read only every third word he posts, if makes more sense. It's still meaningless crap, but it makes more sense than reading every word.

Thank you, I never worked on these novel ideas!

Depends on how much crack and jimson weed I have been smoking.

I comprehend them ok, his part of the dialogue seems to be totally unrelated to mine, though.

Hmm. Muscleman has good muscle!
How many times did you register just to poll, whatsupyall?

Can I request all who are Polling to leave a small post please?

I voted for 100% just to be funny.

Well, if his posts are supposed to sound like meaningless drivel then i guess i understand completely.

I stopped reading them after I saw my third caps-lock rant, mostly because they say the same shit over and over again even if it's been shot full of holes.

They do provide comic relief, though, as well as a case against Christians. I'll give them that.

I actually suspect he is a stauch opponent of the Roman Catholic Church. He makes even sensible people hate it by trying to act to impose it!
:rolleyes:

I rarely see any difference in any of his posts!!!

So I don't bother anymore!!!

I understand most of them pretty well. A lot better than I understand posts from people likee Neutrino and Voodoo. I guess we see eye to eye on most things. Not all. It is understandable that atheists will not comprehend the ideas and the arguments. Their minds are hugely narrow I am realising. And I don't think that the pious would understand either. People like muscleman bridge the so-called rift between science and religion. It must be quite annoying to be defined by something which you posit doesn't exist [Atheist]. Hey I'm glad to be defined by my God and Saviour.

Quickly scroll to skip those posts? Do better than that. How can you vote about understanding them or not? Ridiculous people.

Lata all. Open your minds.

I gave up on muscleman long ago. He seems to think that because he typed it, it should be considered fact and you should then accept that. As such he gives new meaning to the word fantic. His dialogue is a one sided debate.

I understand most of them pretty well
Well, you're the minority here :rolleyes:

People like muscleman bridge the so-called rift between science and religion
So what!!! I'm sorry, I can't stop laughing...I have to calm down...ok, and now we're back!!!

Their minds are hugely narrow I am realising
That's a very narrow minded point of view do you not think?

Open your minds
If it was open any wider, I'd need armed guards to stop people like you getting into it!!!

Originally posted by Thor
Well, you're the minority here :rolleyes:


So what!!! I'm sorry, I can't stop laughing...I have to calm down...ok, and now we're back!!!


That's a very narrow minded point of view do you not think?


If it was open any wider, I'd need armed guards to stop people like you getting into it!!!

So what if I'm the minority? I souldn't even have voted on such a one sided and frivolous poll. It shows anyway the profound effect that muscleman and whatsupyall has had on y'all.

About the other crap you typed. You should've kept on laughing. All atheists are narrow minded. Some religious people aren't open minded either. An agnostic is an open minded person. People like Dark Master - a theist I presume. People like muscleman are open minded. I don't know if you are an atheist so I cannot say if you are narrow minded. From your name I would guess you fly around with a hammer and a vikings' helmet to protect your hollow skull from caving in - oh no - that narrow mind showing again - oops. You guys are rubbing off on me. Yuck.:(

An atheist is narrow minded but a theist is not? Eh? :bugeye:

I do reading the religious threads, but I'm a afraid the caps put me off. I find the bits that I do read very interesting and one that contained no caps was well thought out.

Do you know MarcAC, you sound like you're defending muscleman/whatsupyall way more than you should.

I think that you may be another persona!!! You're old one was rumbled so here you are again!!

Anyway, I don't know why I bother :rolleyes:

It shows anyway the profound effect that muscleman and whatsupyall has had on y'all.
Even tho it was an almost negative effect

You should've kept on luaghin
Yeah, that way I could ignore all the crap you throw at me

All athesits are narrow minded
*alarm sound* I'm sorry, that was the wrong answer. You don't win that £10,000. You assume all athiests are narrow minded thus you are yourself being narrow minded. Stop contradicting yourself OR I MAY HAVE TO START WRITING IN CAPITAL LETTERS LIKE MUSCLEMAN AND WHATSUPYALL JUST TO GET THE POINT THRO OR JUST TO ANNOY YOU, EITHER WAY IS GOOD!!

I don't know if you are an atheist so I cannot say if you are narrow minded
I am an athiest who has chosen ones fate thro logic and reason. I see no scientific way that a god can exsist. A fake god, sure, but a being as you all put it, nope. Sorry. Not possible. But I do have a very open mind, just when it comes to religion, I hate it when people say I'm wrong for sticking to my believes when I know deep down that I am right.

I would guess you fly arund with a hammer and theis vikings helmet to protect your hollow skull from caving in
Now you're just getting childish...moreso :rolleyes:

You guys are rubbing off on me
I hope some common sense is rubbing off on you, cos you need a healthy does of that too. You can also borrow a little bit of reality, that'll get rid of that fantasy world you live in.

Well, I'm off to bed.

Twas fun laughing at your overly stupid comments

Marc,

All atheists are narrow minded.

An agnostic is an open minded person.

People like muscleman are open minded.From Webster –

Open-minded - : receptive to arguments or ideas.
Narrow-minded - : lacking in tolerance or breadth of vision : PETTY.

The theist has only one answer – a god did it.

The typical atheist says the theist answer isn’t convincing and there may be alternatives.

The strong atheist says there is no god, there must be other reasons for the universe and life.

The agnostic says that it is not possible to know the nature of a god so no comment is possible.

It is not difficult to see that the theist has the most limited and narrow view of anyone. For the theist there is only the one single view, every other idea has been excluded from their minds.

The typical atheist is the most open-minded since he holds no limitations of what might be possible. While he does not find the theist argument convincing he is quite wiling to accept it if adequate proof is provided. Otherwise the atheist usually focuses on ongoing scientific research in the hope of discovering new ideas and knowledge. I.e. is fully receptive to arguments and ideas.

Whatsupmascleman of course, apart from having only the one single thought (god did it), also shows excessive lack of tolerance for other ideas and much prefers to use profanities and childish name calling. Open-minded? You must be joking, either that or you are blind.

So I suggest you considerably review your quite erroneous perception of what it means to be open-minded or narrow-minded. When you take a theist perspective you have tied yourself entirely to an extremely narrow minded position.

Also, name calling of this nature is somewhat immature if you are serious about a respectful debate. I’ve set the record straight here, but you certainly earn no respect for pointless name-calling.

The heavy condescending sarcasm also makes you look immature as well. Do you have anything useful to say or do you just want to irritate everyone?

Umm, yeah that's what I meant to say. Thanks Cris. :)

Bed wasn't such a good idea :)

Cris, great reply. Even though WhatsupmuscleAC will probably just disregard it and start preaching about God soon, it was worth the read and was what I wanted to say, but didn't have the tolerance to

Thor, fading,

No problem.

Theists accept the possibility that 'God did it'. However he did it. Big bang and whichever theory which an atheist be he typical or not will accept. The atheist does one thing. He excludes God.

An agnositic accepts the possibility of God's existence. But he just says you cannot know if He does or does not. The only thing the agnostic lacks is faith in God.

Atheists - no - that's not proof - no God - just math - just us and our inventions.

And then it all depends on what* is convincing to you. What evidence are you willing to see? You are looking for God to come down like a meteor. That will happen in due time - that's my belief - so don't address it please. If that's what you are looking for I hope you find it. I cannot say it won't happen.

Narrowminded is the best way I can bring my opinion of you across. Too bad if it appears to be childish sarcasm. I don't mind being childish. And I am quite sarcastic. You'll just have to live with that. I will not refer to anyone with any Xpletive. A true scientist is a child at heart. He just want's to discover. I don't want to grow up too fast. Old age is depressing for me.

You cannot understand the way muscleman or whatsupyall argues/argue because you have no faith in God. We do. When you put your faith in God and take it away from ever changing mathematics and science then you'll see evidence. Otherwise you never will.

Chris - you have my respect - even if I don't have yours.

You seems smart - unlike the rest - and I mean it. They seem to live off other peoples posts. They post something childish like mine - but moreso. And then say 'Duuuuuuuuhh yeah, dats what I meant'.

Speak for yourselves people.

Theists accept the possibility that 'God did it'. However he did it.

Stupid. You're saying he did it, but that you're open minded? hahaha!

Big bang and whichever theory which an atheist be he typical or not will accept.

Because there is either proof or evidence or other good reason to accept the theory/theorum.

The atheist does one thing. He excludes God.

Wrong. He excludes anything without proof or evidence or other good reason not to exclude it. (don't give me that "a good reason is the fact that it's true" crap, we've all heard that enough)

An agnositic accepts the possibility of God's existence. But he just says you cannot know if He does or does not.

Uhm... that's a strong Agnostic ("agnositic" sic). A weak Agnostic accepts the possibility of God's existance (as do weak Atheists), but says that they don't know. Not that they can't. But that they don't.

The only thing the agnostic lacks is faith in God.

What about the lack of faith in Thor, and Dievs, and Aten, and Vishnu, or Zeus, Jupiter...? (note I have just named "kings of gods", not random gods) Christians lack that.

Although the Christian and Jewish faiths are in fact compatible with beliefs in other gods.

Atheists - no - that's not proof - no God - just math - just us and our inventions.

What is proof? Hmm? Proof? Where? I don't see any proof! No god without proof. Just math, logic, natural selection. What inventions? Hmm? Where? I don't see "inventions", just ideas and theories. And theorums.

And then it all depends on what* is convincing to you. What evidence are you willing to see? You are looking for God to come down like a meteor. That will happen in due time - that's my belief - so don't address it please. If that's what you are looking for I hope you find it. I cannot say it won't happen.

Stupid, not all Atheists want this sort of proof of god. If god talked to me in a non-drug-induced seance, I would believe in him. If there was scientific proof of the existance of a single god, I would believe it to be true.

Narrowminded is the best way I can bring my opinion of you across. Too bad if it appears to be childish sarcasm. I don't mind being childish. And I am quite sarcastic. You'll just have to live with that. I will not refer to anyone with any Xpletive. A true scientist is a child at heart. He just want's to discover. I don't want to grow up too fast. Old age is depressing for me.

Yes, scientists discover some wonderful things. Fire, electricity, the theory of relativity, evolution, the big bang...

You cannot understand the way muscleman or whatsupyall argues/argue because you have no faith in God. We do. When you put your faith in God and take it away from ever changing mathematics and science then you'll see evidence. Otherwise you never will.

Do you seriously think his posts have any substance whatsoever? He never responds to points made in others' posts, he justs posts crap completely unrelated. To him, "proof" is his ranting about why "chance" can't be true. Is that proof? Of course not.

If I ranted about the illogic of belief in a god, would that be proving it false? Of course not.

Theists accept the possibility that 'God did it'. However he did it
*ahem* Narrowminded statement that. You have no proof to state that god did yet you blatantly put down that he did!!! What gives?

Narrowminded is the best way I can bring my opinion of you across.
Right back at ya ;)

You cannot understand the way muscleman or whatsupyall argues/argue because you have no faith in God
Actually, its because he drones on and on about the same thing over and over again and when you peice it together with what the debate is about, it makes no sense!!!

When you put your faith in God and take it away from ever changing mathematics and science then you'll see evidence. Otherwise you never will
Thats because said evidence does not exsist. How can we see something that's not even there??

Chris - you have my respect - even if I don't have yours
Cris deserves respect. He deserves kudo's indeed

You seems smart - unlike the rest - and I mean it
You saying I'm not smart???

They post something childish like mine - but moreso.
Yeah, stupid comments recieve stupid replies :rolleyes:

Speak for yourselves people.
You just seem to be repeating yourself over and over again...reminds me of another poster I don't really want to mention....

MarcAc:
First the facts:
1) I am not an athiest.
2) This post is not about theism and atheism but about debating styles.
3) I have seen reasonable & intelligent posts from you elsewhere.

Why this poll:
1) Rather to spell out inappropriate ways of debating
2) I requested whatsupyall at least 10 times not to post in caps (apart from a dozen other people doing it) when replying to my posts, the result: IT NEVER HAPPENS
3) In several posts, I requested him for the list of religious texts he has studied in making statements on other faiths. The result was that he asked me to hold on, and I have been holding on for several days now. But the crap continues.
Originally posted by whatsupyall
ultitruth, ill get back with u, yur asking a deep question which requires a deep answer, ill get the answer, just hold on

whatsupyall
It is days that I have been waiting for the list of Religious Texts and scriptures you have researched upon (of religions that you know of).
...without too many pages and the CAPS please
4) I respected RCC always though I am not a christian, but whatupyall makes me rethink by thrusting nonsense.
Originally posted by whatsupyall
... but the COMPLETE TRUTH, the fullness of truth is in the Roman catholic church, unwavering "ROCK".
5) Some of the science-religion bridges he builds amaze me.
I believe that the space is another life form. The moving asteroids are like blood cells...
6) I fully respect that it is inappropriate to call names on a forum: but I have tried enough to explain to the deaf!

You mean he is open-minded and logical? I am afraid you have begun speaking like muscleman himself- did you read one of his posts fully and also try to comprehend that? It shows ;)

Marc,

Chris - you have my respect - even if I don't have yours.No problem. I detect an element of courage and integrity for you to have stated that. I try to always respect the person, but their views are another matter.

Theists accept the possibility that 'God did it'. No – theists say he did it – it is a belief based on the conviction that a god exists

However he did it. Such a claim, I hope you realize, is technically irrational (outside of logical reasoning), unless you can furnish a proof. And that pretty much describes the conflict between theism and atheism.

Big bang and whichever theory which an atheist be he typical or not will accept. There is of course the argument for an infinite universe where there is no need of a creation event and hence no requirement for gods. The big bang need not be the first big bang but just one of an infinite number of them.

The atheist does one thing. He excludes God.Not quite. To exclude something is to admit to the existence of the subject. One cannot exclude something that hasn’t been shown to exist. Atheists simply express a disbelief of the theist claims.

And then it all depends on what* is convincing to you. What evidence are you willing to see? You are looking for God to come down like a meteor.No not really. An atheist is not someone looking for a god and who wants someone to convince him. The atheist position is one of skeptical neutrality. Gods represent just one of a myriad potential possibilities worth considering. The atheist simply doesn’t find the theist claims convincing.

You cannot understand the way muscleman or whatsupyall argues/argue because you have no faith in God. We do.I was a devout Christian once and I have spent a great deal of time with Christians since then. I believe I have a very good idea of faith based thinking.

When you put your faith in God and take it away from ever changing mathematics and science then you'll see evidence. Otherwise you never will.Science is a search for knowledge using significant discipline and intelligence. Faith depends on emotional hopes and desires. There is no comparison. Science has been shown as a proven method for discovery and often displaces antiquated and ignorant beliefs sponsored by religion. I have every confidence that science will continue to erode the remaining vestiges of religious authority.

People - please open your minds - and read carefully before you comment.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GB-GIL Trans-global
[B]Theists accept the possibility that 'God did it'. However he did it.

Stupid. You're saying he did it, but that you're open minded? hahaha!

Big bang and whichever theory which an atheist be he typical or not will accept.

Because there is either proof or evidence or other good reason to accept the theory/theorum.[QUOTE]

Those two statements go together. You should read carefully before you call people stupid.

[QUOTE]The atheist does one thing. He excludes God.

Wrong. He excludes anything without proof or evidence or other good reason not to exclude it. (don't give me that "a good reason is the fact that it's true" crap, we've all heard that enough)[QUOTE]

The atheist assumes that there is no God because there is no proof. Was there proof that galaxies existed say back in the 14th century? And my statement is not wrong. It is smarter to say incomplete. But the point is he still excludes God.

[QUOTE]An agnositic accepts the possibility of God's existence. But he just says you cannot know if He does or does not.

Uhm... that's a strong Agnostic ("agnositic" sic). A weak Agnostic accepts the possibility of God's existance (as do weak Atheists), but says that they don't know. Not that they can't. But that they don't.[QUOTE]

Fine he does not know. Thank you for what I presume is a correction. I'll investigate. But how does that impact my point?

[QUOTE]The only thing the agnostic lacks is faith in God.

What about the lack of faith in Thor, and Dievs, and Aten, and Vishnu, or Zeus, Jupiter...? (note I have just named "kings of gods", not random gods) Christians lack that.

Although the Christian and Jewish faiths are in fact compatible with beliefs in other gods.[QUOTE]

I didn't get this part. What do christians lack? Faith in Thor? Well Thank God for that. I don't think anyone at sciforums.com have much faith in him/her/it.:D . O.k. my childish self showing again. Sorry. Why would christians put there faith in those gods? I would like you tell me of someone who currently believes in Zeus or the huge gas planet Jupiter as gods. And please don't tell me Kevin Sorbo or Lucy Lawless.;)

[QUOTE]Atheists - no - that's not proof - no God - just math - just us and our inventions.

What is proof? Hmm? Proof? Where? I don't see any proof! No god without proof. Just math, logic, natural selection. What inventions? Hmm? Where? I don't see "inventions", just ideas and theories. And theorums.

And then it all depends on what* is convincing to you. What evidence are you willing to see? You are looking for God to come down like a meteor. That will happen in due time - that's my belief - so don't address it please. If that's what you are looking for I hope you find it. I cannot say it won't happen.

Stupid, not all Atheists want this sort of proof of god. If god talked to me in a non-drug-induced seance, I would believe in him. If there was scientific proof of the existance of a single god, I would believe it to be true.[QUOTE]

Ideas and theories and... theorums... are inventions of man to Xplain what he sees around him. Man invented numbers. Man invented language. Man invented science. He sees the stuff happening around him and he wasnts to explain it. I have faith in the one true triune God, Yahweh if you wish. So I see the whole universe that man seeks to explain as proof. When man explains every single aspect of my being then... maybe my faith would waver - naugh - never. We may meet an alien species who Xplains things totally different from us. Man's whole system of explaining things is an invention. I might get trapped here. But I'll leave it anyway. Physicists are now getting religious trying to explain what was before the big bang.:p

Lata

Chris,

There is a huge difference between having faith and having knowledge of faith based thinking. If you were once a devout Christian you should know that. Or have you forgotten?

Lata

MarcAC,
Did you say I am not smart because I complimented someone on a post? Eh, who is not smart?

Why would christians put there faith in those gods?
Why would anyone put their faith in any gods? You do realize that these gods were once dominate religions much like the major religions of today. I can look at my core belief system and it would work regardless of time period or geography. What would you believe if you were born in China 5000 years ago? How do you rationalize your belief system knowing it is dependent upon where and when you were born?

-fc

Marc

When man explains every single aspect of my being then... maybe my faith would waver - naugh - never.

That is certainly your prerogative to cling to blind faith. Not everyone wishes to know how the universe works. However, not everyone wishes to live in a blissful haze of fantasy. The illusion of religion is quickly being reduced to the nonsensical. As people become more educated, they cast off this illusion and embrace that which is based solely on reality, the tangible.

Religious quackery cannot resist the advent of science. The futility of religion to overcome science is well known amongst theists, and it has them running for cover. They are shaking in their baptismal robes as they understand all to well theirs is a world which inevitably will come to an end. Unfortunately, it may not happen in our lifetimes, but it will happen nonetheless.

Originally posted by UltiTruth
MarcAc:
First the facts:
1) I am not an athiest.
2) This post is not about theism and atheism but about debating styles.
3) I have seen reasonable & intelligent posts from you elsewhere.

Why this poll:
1) Rather to spell out inappropriate ways of debating
2) I requested whatsupyall at least 10 times not to post in caps (apart from a dozen other people doing it) when replying to my posts, the result: IT NEVER HAPPENS
3) In several posts, I requested him for the list of religious texts he has studied in making statements on other faiths. The result was that he asked me to hold on, and I have been holding on for several days now. But the crap continues.

4) I respected RCC always though I am not a christian, but whatupyall makes me rethink by thrusting nonsense.

5) Some of the science-religion bridges he builds amaze me.

6) I fully respect that it is inappropriate to call names on a forum: but I have tried enough to explain to the deaf!

You mean he is open-minded and logical? I am afraid you have begun speaking like muscleman himself- did you read one of his posts fully and also try to comprehend that? It shows ;)

I stated and again state in a paraphrase. I understand most of what whatsupyall types. About space being another life form. That is interesting. But it is better you take an 'agnostic' stance there. What is the problem with caps? And you should address ALL the people who have been name calling. I haven't seen an Xpletive in any of his posts yet. Correct me if I am wrong. I still don't take the poll seriously. Especially the first votes - I guess those who voted up there are psychic.

And for the captain - trust me - you and thor are like a twin. [Don't take it as an insult]

You should ask yourself that question on belief systems. Then try to answer it. Everyone is affected by the time period they were born in. If you were born when man first walked upright what would you believe then?

Originally posted by (Q)
Marc

When man explains every single aspect of my being then... maybe my faith would waver - naugh - never.

That is certainly your prerogative to cling to blind faith. Not everyone wishes to know how the universe works. However, not everyone wishes to live in a blissful haze of fantasy. The illusion of religion is quickly being reduced to the nonsensical. As people become more educated, they cast off this illusion and embrace that which is based solely on reality, the tangible.

Religious quackery cannot resist the advent of science. The futility of religion to overcome science is well known amongst theists, and it has them running for cover. They are shaking in their baptismal robes as they understand all to well theirs is a world which inevitably will come to an end. Unfortunately, it may not happen in our lifetimes, but it will happen nonetheless.

In my opinion Science and Christianity work in tandem. Where there are conflicts, there is either misapplication by the religionist [christian] or error on the part of the scientist. And I don't mean all religions. The futility of religion to overcome science? Who wants that to happen? I am a christian - I totally dislike the term religion. Look out into the world bro. Many religions are coming to terms with science.

Q
Religious quackery cannot resist the advent of science. The futility of religion to overcome science is well known amongst theists, and it has them running for cover. They are shaking in their baptismal robes as they understand all to well theirs is a world which inevitably will come to an end. Unfortunately, it may not happen in our lifetimes, but it will happen nonetheless.
Where did all the wonderous things come from for scientists to discover in the first place, and all the things that are just laying there waiting to be discovered?

What about all the subjects that mankind might never discover at all?

How come all these "accidents" of evolution occured so perfectly, and why?

Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, all laws of Science existed before man appeared, so who made these laws? Not man was it?

No one is shaking in any type of robe, and religion is not futile.

Marc

In my opinion Science and Christianity work in tandem... Look out into the world bro. Many religions are coming to terms with science.

Yes, I've heard this argument before. This is one of the many bastions in which theists turn to when no other rational argument is available.

It is so unlikely that Science and Christianity will ever conform to each other on any level simply because the two are so diametrically opposed to one another. It's not possible to collaborate fact with fiction.

Religion has done everything in its power to stifle scientific advances. This is still occurring today. How can you possibly see them working in tandem ?

Science is strong, it has the fortitude to stand on its own by its own merits simply because it explains the reality in which we live. Science makes no attempt to stifle religion... it doesn't need to... it will overcome religion as people overcome their fears and their ignorance.

Woah woah woah woah!!!

We seem to have lost the true meaning to the thread!!! Its not about evolution and this and the other, its about WhatsupmuscleAC!!!

Vienna

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Please try to formulate an argument as opposed to random thoughts followed by baseless statements:

No one is shaking in any type of robe, and religion is not futile.

So what is your argument ?

Why would anyone put their faith in any gods? You do realize that these gods were once dominate religions much like the major religions of today? I can look at my core belief system and it would work regardless of time period or geography. What would you believe if you were born in China 5000 years ago? How do you rationalize your belief system knowing it is dependent upon where and when you were born?

those questions still stand, you never answered them because you're too dumb to answer!

Ha ha Q, you are funny. Your comments are transparent, I can see where your coming from.

If you can't answer the questions I asked you, then just come right out and say it.

And for the captain - trust me - you and thor are like a twin. [Don't take it as an insult]
Hey Thor seems pretty cool to me..thanks! ;)

You should ask yourself that question on belief systems. Then try to answer it. Everyone is affected by the time period they were born in. If you were born when man first walked upright what would you believe then?
I have asked myself that question...that is why I offered it to you. Of course we are affected by the time period we are born in, but some of us can transcend that.
By using a belief system based on logic and rationality, I can posit myself anywhere and anytime...the belief system still fits. Get it?
If I was born when man first walked, I would believe in hunting for food and procreation...there wouldn't be much time to ponder anything else...

those questions still stand, you never answered them because you're too dumb to answer!
You can always tell when someone is avoiding when they say "Why don't YOU answer the question!"

-fc

Vienna

Ha ha Q, you are funny. Your comments are transparent, I can see where your coming from.

If you can't answer the questions I asked you, then just come right out and say it.

Ok, the questions are far too vague and incomprehensible to make any intelligent response, therefore I cannot answer them.

Ok Q, you said "Science makes no attempt to stifle religion... it doesn't need to... it will overcome religion as people overcome their fears and their ignorance."

How do you think science will overcome religion?

What are these fears and ignorance that you say people will overcome?

How do you think science will overcome religion?

Simple edification. We will eventually understand much of how our universe works which in turn will give us a better understanding of ourselves. When we understand our universe and ourselves, we conclude that religion is pure fantasy and holds as much validity as the tooth fairy.

What are these fears and ignorance that you say people will overcome?

Overcome the ignorance in embracing fantasy and refusing to accept reality.

Overcome the fear of God:

"'Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. I am the LORD. Leviticus 19:14

Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. Leviticus 25:43

And now, O Israel, what does the LORD your God ask of you but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, Deuteronomy 10:12

Fear the LORD and the king, my son, and do not join with the rebellious, Proverbs 24:21

Should you not fear me?" declares the LORD. "Should you not tremble in my presence? I made the sand a boundary for the sea, an everlasting barrier it cannot cross. The waves may roll, but they cannot prevail; they may roar, but they cannot cross it. Jeremiah 5:22

But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him. Luke 12:5

Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, Philippians 2:12

Since you call on a Father who judges each man's work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear. 1 Peter 1:17

Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king. 1 Peter 2:17

He said in a loud voice, "Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water." Revelation 14:7

Who will not fear you, O Lord, and bring glory to your name? For you alone are holy. All nations will come and worship before you, for your righteous acts have been revealed." Revelation 15:4

Then a voice came from the throne, saying: "Praise our God, all you his servants, you who fear him, both small and great!" Revelation 19:5

Q,

Hmmm, fearful stuff. ;)

Q, very nice. Use a few Bible statements here and there and wallah! you think you've answered the question. Aha, sorry, wrong answer!!! :) Try again

As a point of interest, the above statements make sense once you understand the Bible properly, but you need to have a certain talent to understand the Bible.

Right, now as was saying....wrong answer. You tried to apply your "reasons" to the Christian faith only. If you remember in your original statement you said science will overcome religion. You are actually using the word that decribes all faiths in the world. So, if you can, explain how science will overcome religion (Islam, Bhuddists, etc) and can you quote the Koran as you have the Bible for examples of fears and ignorance.

Now that we have met again in debate, and you been a science buff. Will you also answer these questions I asked you earlier, you never did answer them, did you??

Where did all the wonderous things come from for scientists to discover in the first place, and all the things that are just laying there waiting to be discovered?

How come all these "accidents" of evolution occured so perfectly, and why? Was it all just luck, just by chance?

Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, all laws of Science existed before man appeared, so who made these laws? Not man was it? Or was that a case of luck as well?

Hows this for a theory:

In the beginning there was void, nothing, just like mathematics.

Then accidentally, a cell appeared! Wow!!!

I don’t know how, but I think the hurricane, lightning, & earthquake just made it all by chance or “physics”.

Then the single cell survived like a barbarian and accidentally or luckily got bigger. But this didn’t happen in one single step, but through random luck or chance.

Luckily, Mr Nucleus was made first, he was very strong and he was waiting until Mr. Cytoplasm appeared. Then later on Mr. Mitochondria accidentally appeared, he said to Mr. Cytoplasm and Mr. Nucleus "Sorry that it took me millions of years to appear, its just that Mr. Earthquake didn’t shake me right at first but it doesn’t matter, I have accidentally appeared now, thanks for waiting”

Then Mr. Ribosome accidentally appeared, then thousands and thousands of other parts just accidentally appeared to join the rest of the crew until it became a fully develop cell.

You wouldn’t believe it but for some weird reason the first parts were mysteriously strong and survived on their own for millions of years without any help until the rest of the parts appeared to become a fully developed cell.

This cell was very strong, strong enough to survive alone and to replicate itself trillions and trillions of times and it just by chance, became fish!!

This fish then became land mammals, then dinosaurs, then here we are today zillions of zillions of years later, and it was all just by accident!

So according to this theory, you can put a raisin outside, and millions of years from now that sun dried grape will turn into dinosaurs, fishes, birds, etc., thanks to the simple laws of physics.

We have only the one intelligent designer. Accept this, or share this pathetic theory.

Vienna,

As a point of interest, the above statements make sense once you understand the Bible properly, but you need to have a certain talent to understand the Bible. So are you saying that people don't and shouldn't fear God?

Since it seems you do claim to have a special understanding of the bible then why does the bible say "fear god" but it means something else, according to you?

So what does the bible mean when it says to fear God?

Hi Chris

Fear=Respect, Love, Adore.

It doesn't mean your scared or frightened by Him. Just respect him for who He is, a Father. Thats what it means to me.

Vienna

Where is that explained in the bible?

Vienna

Q, very nice. Use a few Bible statements here and there and wallah! you think you've answered the question.

That's funny, I thought quoting from the bible was all the rage. :D

Aha, sorry, wrong answer!!!

Why is it the wrong answer ? Because you say so ?

but you need to have a certain talent to understand the Bible

A talent for accepting fantasy for reality ?

Will you also answer these questions I asked you earlier, you never did answer them, did you

I repeat: the questions are far too vague and incomprehensible to make any intelligent response, therefore I cannot answer them.

it's become clear that Vienna is aka muscleman.

Hi Chris,

It isn't exactly explained in the Bible. here is a brief explanation of what I am trying to say:

A man who fears God is a man who takes God seriously; who takes his words and commandments seriously; who listens to what he has to say with seriousness and respect.

He is a man who believes God's commandments are supposed to be kept and that breaking them is dangerous. He is a man who is afraid to go against God, afraid to disobey him, afraid to disregard any of his commandments or take them lightly.

He is a man who is afraid of God in this sense. It is all like a young boy who has a righteous, good father for whom he has the greatest respect.

The father demands obedience and the boy is afraid to disobey. The boy knows that his father expects to be taken seriously. And he is afraid not to do so. So he fears his father in this sense.

However, although he fears his father, he also loves him. He knows that his father is righteous, just, and good and that what his father says is true and for his own benefit.

He knows that although his father requires respect and obedience his father loves him; and, indeed, it is just because his father does love him so much that he requires this respect and obedience.

Vienna

Originally posted by Phrenetic
it's become clear that Vienna is aka muscleman.

:) Thanks for the compliment, my caps lock button is broke. So think yourself lucky :D

Notice how the theist uses fear to raise their children. How very sad.

I wish I could have the faith to be a slave to an idea (after all, aren't humans the ones who invented religion? Or do other animals have faith, too?)...

Originally posted by Vienna
So think yourself lucky :D

I do not think myself lucky, because I'm not your bitch. =]

EDIT: for that matter, I'm not "god's" bitch, either.

Originally posted by (Q)
Notice how the theist uses fear to raise their children. How very sad.

And I bet you were brought up with no respect for anyone, and it shows

And I bet you were brought up with no respect for anyone

And no fear. :D

Oh dear the pathetic idiots have found out there's a Christian trying to have a debate.

Phrenetic says "Doh, lets go and say fings he wont like"

Q says "Dammit, he gone and asked me questions I can't answer, I fink I'll insult him now"


Q and Phenetic in unison "Dohhhhhhhh".


End of debate! Goodnight Chaps and Chapessess! :D :D

Originally posted by Vienna
Oh dear the pathetic idiots have found out there's a Christian trying to have a debate.

... great way to have a debate, muscleman. Call the other side "pathetic idiots".

Phrenetic says "Doh, lets go and say fings he wont like"

Oh, I'm sorry, did I say something you don't like? Hell, let's just throw this debate out, shall we?

Q says "Dammit, he gone and asked me questions I can't answer, I fink I'll insult him now"

Oh dear the pathetic idiots have found out there's a Christian trying to have a debate.

You just insulted him - what does this show about you?


Q and Phenetic in unison "Dohhhhhhhh".


End of debate! Goodnight Chaps and Chapessess! :D :D

That post of yours ends the debate? I think not. I fail to see the point of your last post, other than to flame me and (Q). Flaming us does not prove your point. Far from it, really.

I haven't read all that many, but i voted 100% easily.

The posts i saw were extremely easy to comprehend. You mean you people couldn't understand them?

They may not have any significance, or could be destroyed by someone exhibiting more education, or don't show a lot of reasoning, but they're certainly easy to understand.

Couldn't state what he thinks much more directly.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, i'm new and just happened across this place after visiting another forum.

Since i don't know much about it, i began reading to try and get some understanding of 'atheism'. Seems pretty peculiar to me. :bugeye:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One other little comment. "They are eye openers" has not to do with comprehension, but with ability to alter one's perspective. I did not find them to be eye opening .

I can't stand it... Lurking mode disengaged.

Vienna. DAH-ling. A spanking is in order.


Where did all the wonderous things come from for scientists to discover in the first place, and all the things that are just laying there waiting to be discovered?

You're guilty of a logical fallacy, I'm afraid. Since humans have the ability to recognise patterns in nature, this suddenly is the work of some divine Creator? The fact that there is complexity in nature that humans can codify does NOT lead to the statement "Well God must have done it, since our minds can make sense of it!" Nothing could WORK without some kind organisation, so it seems, but to simply ascribe it all to 'God' without a second thought is both naive and foolish in the extreme.


What about all the subjects that mankind might never discover at all?

Like the fact that there is a God?


How come all these "accidents" of evolution occured so perfectly, and why?

*Sigh*... peruse http://www.talkorigins.org/. I don't have the energy to nail you for your ignorance about evolution.


Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, all laws of Science existed before man appeared, so who made these laws? Not man was it?

You're putting the cart before the horse. These laws are the sum of human observations upon a set of happenstances. We did not 'make' these laws, we simply observed the world/universe in action and then made sense of it.

You mistake science for religion; religion is dogma that is simply said to BE while science is based upon observation. Religion has a vested interested in calling the status quo 'fact', while science exists to uncover FACT, regardless of what it may be.


No one is shaking in any type of robe, and religion is not futile.

Nor did, I think, the dinosaurs quiver in their skins.


Ha ha Q, you are funny. Your comments are transparent, I can see where your coming from.

If you can't answer the questions I asked you, then just come right out and say it.

No, your brain is faulty. You dropped a sound-byte followed by a series of ignorant observations and called it a valid arguement and he called you on it. I suggest taking your own advice, if the shlock I'm reading is the best you can come up with.


Ok Q, you said "Science makes no attempt to stifle religion... it doesn't need to... it will overcome religion as people overcome their fears and their ignorance."

How do you think science will overcome religion?

What are these fears and ignorance that you say people will overcome?

Don't be simple. You just answered your own question while asking it; religion breeds fear because it RELIES on it to keep the flock in lock-step, and its teachings about the world are wholly ignorant to observed and established fact.

How will science overcome religion? You obviously are ignorant of history as well as science. Galileo comes to mind as someone who discovered that science said differently from the religious party line. Galileo was forced by the church to recant his statements about the nature of the solar system (i.e. that it's heliocentric as opposed to terracentric as church doctrine would have it), even though today every man, woman and child with a SCRAP of education takes this observable fact for granted.

Countless times throughout history science and religion have come to a head, and 100% of the time science has emerged the victor, even if it isn't believed by all for centuries after the fact. I challenge you to name ONE instance when religion has irrevocably disproved scientific observation.


Q, very nice. Use a few Bible statements here and there and wallah! you think you've answered the question. Aha, sorry, wrong answer!!! Try again

(sidenote: you demonstrate your ignorance about LANGUAGE by using the term 'wallah', which is a depressingly American bastardisation of 'voila'. Science, logic, history, language... will the list never end?)

Actually, he ILLUSTRATED the answer for anybody with half a brain to see by pulling out of your religion's own holy book the inescapable attitude toward God. Fear him, fear him and his mighty wrath! Love him and he'll love you, but if you don't love him... watch out!

THAT'S the kind of fear he refers to. Obviously, seeing a dozen seperate biblical references to FEARING GOD (pretty cut and dry to me) has gone completely over your head.


As a point of interest, the above statements make sense once you understand the Bible properly, but you need to have a certain talent to understand the Bible.

Perhaps one needs a talent such as this to 'understand' the bible as you do?

http://www.jr-c.com/images/Head%20up%20Ass.jpg


I really wish I hadn't used up my 'don't be simple' insult... it feels so very appropriate for re-use.


Right, now as was saying....wrong answer. You tried to apply your "reasons" to the Christian faith only. If you remember in your original statement you said science will overcome religion. You are actually using the word that decribes all faiths in the world. So, if you can, explain how science will overcome religion (Islam, Bhuddists, etc) and can you quote the Koran as you have the Bible for examples of fears and ignorance.

Huh? What the hell are you babbling about? 'the word that describes all faiths'? Are you daft, or did you take a special course (such as getting into a motorcycle accident without a helmet on)? Buddhism does NOT use fear (which is the main theme in ALL of Q's bible quotes); in fact it actively works against it, since fear is one of the many enemies of intelligence/enlightenment.

You're starting to remind me of someone... I'm not sure who yet. I'm sure it will come to me.


Now that we have met again in debate, and you been a science buff. Will you also answer these questions I asked you earlier, you never did answer them, did you??

He's answered all of your questions. Naturally, since the answers were rational and based in FACT, they went over your brain-damaged head.


Where did all the wonderous things come from for scientists to discover in the first place, and all the things that are just laying there waiting to be discovered?

How come all these "accidents" of evolution occured so perfectly, and why? Was it all just luck, just by chance?

Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, all laws of Science existed before man appeared, so who made these laws? Not man was it? Or was that a case of luck as well?

Hows this for a theory:

In the beginning there was void, nothing, just like mathematics.

Then accidentally, a cell appeared! Wow!!!

I don’t know how, but I think the hurricane, lightning, & earthquake just made it all by chance or “physics”.

Then the single cell survived like a barbarian and accidentally or luckily got bigger. But this didn’t happen in one single step, but through random luck or chance.

Luckily, Mr Nucleus was made first, he was very strong and he was waiting until Mr. Cytoplasm appeared. Then later on Mr. Mitochondria accidentally appeared, he said to Mr. Cytoplasm and Mr. Nucleus "Sorry that it took me millions of years to appear, its just that Mr. Earthquake didn’t shake me right at first but it doesn’t matter, I have accidentally appeared now, thanks for waiting”

Then Mr. Ribosome accidentally appeared, then thousands and thousands of other parts just accidentally appeared to join the rest of the crew until it became a fully develop cell.

You wouldn’t believe it but for some weird reason the first parts were mysteriously strong and survived on their own for millions of years without any help until the rest of the parts appeared to become a fully developed cell.

This cell was very strong, strong enough to survive alone and to replicate itself trillions and trillions of times and it just by chance, became fish!!

This fish then became land mammals, then dinosaurs, then here we are today zillions of zillions of years later, and it was all just by accident!

So according to this theory, you can put a raisin outside, and millions of years from now that sun dried grape will turn into dinosaurs, fishes, birds, etc., thanks to the simple laws of physics.

We have only the one intelligent designer. Accept this, or share this pathetic theory.

Wow... now I know who you are...


Doesnt it make sense that atom mysteriously moved around by itself then CHING CHING! cytoplasm appeared, then it waited 1 million yrs then CHING CHING! another part appeared called "nucleus" then atoms runs around again in the pond then CHING CHING! then another million years CHING CHING! ribosome appeared, each waited millions of yrs because mr. earthquake couldnt design the right shape of ribosome to fit the cell membrane which has been waiting already for 1 million yrs, then mr. earthquake did its job again and gathered atoms together then CHING CHING! it became mitochondria magicly and each waited 1 million years. THEN later on thousands of the cell's parts appeared at once then it mysteriously came to life!! AND WHAT DO U KNOW? They happen to mysteriously have DNA!! WOW!

Then those little cells like runs around fast like speedy gonzales and bumps around over and over, until it became heart, liver, brain, plus the wind and hurricane keeps blowing their way that it sculps the form until all kinds of atoms were glued together and was magicly shaped into a fin, gills, until CHING CHING! it became a fish!!! then that fish became dinosaurs! CHING CHING AGAIN! Then that dinosaur ate grapes(which also magicly appeared) but the dinosaur guy was mean to one grape and spit it out, then the grape thought to itself "One of these days, i will bcome big and will kick your butt", SURELY millions of earthquake, tornado and lightning together, that same grape turned into a raisin, then into dinasaur! then that dinosaur remembered the bad thing that happened to him when he was a grape, so he kicked all the dinosaurs butt, and thats how they got instinct.

Therefore there is no God, and nature is pure chance.

... MUSCLEMAN/whatsupyall, my old friend! Now you're smurfing with at LEAST two other aliases! What new depths will you sink to next?

Want some advice? If you're going to smurf, at least TRY to make new arguements, rather than just cutting and pasting your old ones, then removing the caps and improving the spelling. It's far more convincing than someone spouting IDENTICAL nonsense to yourself.

"You cram these words in mine ears against the stomach of my sense."
William Shakespeare - The Tempest, act II.

Too true...


Fear=Respect, Love, Adore.

It doesn't mean your scared or frightened by Him. Just respect him for who He is, a Father. Thats what it means to me.

You must have had a terrifying childhood. Fear is the opposite of respect. Fear is just that, FEARING somone for what they might do (or have done). Respect is based upon admiration, trust, and mutual decency.

I think Govenor Tarkin said it quite well:

"Fear will now keep the outer systems in line... fear of this battlestation!" Namely, the power that the Deathstar had to destroy an entire planet would be more than sufficient to keep otherwise disgruntled worlds in line.

If Orwell had commented on religion, he might have had this to say...

Fear=Respect
Hate=Love
Ignorance=Wisdom


A man who fears God is a man who takes God seriously; who takes his words and commandments seriously; who listens to what he has to say with seriousness and respect.

He is a man who believes God's commandments are supposed to be kept and that breaking them is dangerous. He is a man who is afraid to go against God, afraid to disobey him, afraid to disregard any of his commandments or take them lightly.

He is a man who is afraid of God in this sense. It is all like a young boy who has a righteous, good father for whom he has the greatest respect.

The father demands obedience and the boy is afraid to disobey. The boy knows that his father expects to be taken seriously. And he is afraid not to do so. So he fears his father in this sense.

However, although he fears his father, he also loves him. He knows that his father is righteous, just, and good and that what his father says is true and for his own benefit.

He knows that although his father requires respect and obedience his father loves him; and, indeed, it is just because his father does love him so much that he requires this respect and obedience.

I am astounded at how blithely you can contradict yourself. A man who fears God listens to what he has to say with seriousness and respect? If a man truely respected God he WOULD NOT FEAR HIM. You simply rehash your grossly inaccurate point that Fear=Respect in far more words.


Thanks for the compliment, my caps lock button is broke. So think yourself lucky

To anybody with sense, that's a base insult because it means that you're head is so far up your ass you're breathing grey-matter. My case that you are muscleman/whatsupyall is strengthened.


And I bet you were brought up with no respect for anyone, and it shows

Typical Christian thinking. One does not 'respect' (READ: fear) God, therefore one respects nobody. Idiot.


Oh dear the pathetic idiots have found out there's a Christian trying to have a debate.

Phrenetic says "Doh, lets go and say fings he wont like"

Q says "Dammit, he gone and asked me questions I can't answer, I fink I'll insult him now"


Q and Phenetic in unison "Dohhhhhhhh".

Note the operative word: TRYING. So far, you've done nothing but demonstrate supreme ignorance and the inability to beat my dingleberries in a rational debate, let alone Q or Phenetic or Thor or GB-GIL or fadingCaptain or Xev or Tiassa or myself or... etc etc ad nauseum ad infinitum.

Are you quite finished? Because there's a WHOLE lot more where that came from. Return to the hole you crawled from, muscleman, I have smacked down far better debators than you could ever hope to be.

"I do desire we be better strangers."
William Shakespeare - As You Like It, act III.

Dear MarcAc,
For a moment, forget whether your views match those of MusclUpAll and try logic. I have seen you can do that.
A logical argument:
---------------------------------
X: I think this way becoz...
Y: I don't agree becoz...
X: Yes, but...
Y: Maybe, but I still don't agree

A MusclUpAll argument (see I haven't added the AC suffix, yet)
-----------------------------------------------------------
X: I think this way becoz...
MusclUpAll : IT ALWAYS IS THIS. AND I KNOW ALL
X: Is it. But why do you think so?
MusclUpAll : THAT ALWAYS IS THIS, FOOLISH CHILD. AND I KNOW ALL
X: I don't agree becoz...
MusclUpAll : ROCKS BREATHE, YOU IDIOT. AND I KNOW ALL AND I HAVE VANQUISHED YOU WITH MY SUPERB DEBATING SKILLS! LOL

What is the problem with caps? Are you sure you don't know or are you feeling MusclUpAlly? Google for net etiquette.
I still don't take the poll seriously. Especially the first votes - I guess those who voted up there are psychic.You are free to have your viewpoint. I am not MusclUpAll to post pages in CAPS for that! But "still" indicates that there an inclination though!
I haven't seen an Xpletive in any of his posts yet. Correct me if I am wrong. I still don't take the poll seriously. You name it...

The content in a discussion is immaterial. I am not an atheist myself but do enjoy and appreciate the view points of Cris, Thor, ThatJerk and all reasonable people who argue with content and style. No body knows it all and we can enrich one another with various perspectives.
For that matter, I should align with MusclUpAll if it about whether God exists! (though I am not a christian!)

One can have one's own viewpoint on anything. I think this is a forum to put up viewpoints and debate, not try to thrust. And I am sure hardly anybody has converted to RCC after all the rant from MusclUpAll (forget those who have been repelled).

And MusclUpAll, where is that promised list of religious texts (of religions you know of) that you have researched upon?

Vienna,

Hi Chris, It’s Cris BTW. Cris is my real name as well. But no big deal.

Thanks for your straightforward explanation.

I see from Webster – fear –

1 a : an unpleasant often strong emotion caused by anticipation or awareness of danger.
2 : anxious concern : SOLICITUDE.
3 : profound reverence and awe especially toward God.
4 : reason for alarm : DANGER.
synonyms FEAR, DREAD, FRIGHT, ALARM, PANIC, TERROR, TREPIDATION

Here we see the conventional meanings but also a special religious definition. So your explanation fits fairly well with this.

There are a couple of points you made that I’d like to highlight and then there is a wider issue that I’d like to explore.

He is a man who believes God's commandments are supposed to be kept and that breaking them is dangerous. He is a man who is afraid to go against God, afraid to disobey him, afraid to disregard any of his commandments or take them lightly.

He is a man who is afraid of God in this sense. It is all like a young boy who has a righteous, good father for whom he has the greatest respect. Fair enough. But the portrayal here is of a strict authoritarian relationship. I am a parent to three children, 16,18 and 20. And my style is very much not authoritarian, however, I know many parents who do take that approach.

The father demands obedience and the boy is afraid to disobey. The boy knows that his father expects to be taken seriously. And he is afraid not to do so. So he fears his father in this sense.

However, although he fears his father, he also loves him. He knows that his father is righteous, just, and good and that what his father says is true and for his own benefit.

He knows that although his father requires respect and obedience his father loves him; and, indeed, it is just because his father does love him so much that he requires this respect and obedience. Ok, so this again emphasizes the authoritarian mechanism, but of course with the overtone of compassion.

Authoritarianism takes the approach of expecting obedience without question, on the basis that the authority figure knows more than the subordinate. The reward for obedience is perhaps love and compassion but really the primary motivation for obedience is less about reward but more about the fear of punishment if one disobeys. And I think this lends support for Qs argument.

Authoritarianism was the typical form of government in ancient times, and fear of authority was the expected and traditional way of life. The bible was written in those times and people would have had difficulty accepting any other approach.

In these more enlightened times where education is given enormous significance compared to those ancient times, we find that an authoritarian approach is far less effective than if “subordinates” are taught what is correct rather than be commanded.

Throughout my parenthood I have never demanded that my children take any particular action. My approach has always been one of discussion, persuasion, cooperation, and education of why certain actions are needed. I have never punished my children since the concept of obedience and reward and punishment is simply alien for us.

My children and I often find it amusing when we see their friends being punished by their Christian style parents. The concept of ‘grounding’ is particularly strange.

However, I digress.

For most of the past 2000 years it has not been the love of God that has been promoted but the fear of God. Take for example the many fire and brimstone preachers that have peppered history. But really the concept of hell, a concept that didn’t exist until Jesus allegedly arrived, is the epitome of the ultimate punishment and fear. There are few other religions that invoke such an extreme. And perhaps that is why Christianity is so widespread, fear of something is a great motivator.

In secular morality one does the right thing because it is the right thing. In Christianity one does the right thing because to do otherwise would mean eternal torment, or if it isn’t the fear of hell then it is because God has issued a command. The Christian then becomes one who does what he or she has been told or takes whatever action is needed to avoid punishment. Control by mindless obedience or control by fear – that seems to be the essential hallmarks of Christianity.

Take for example the 10 commandments. There is no attempt to educate or state why the commands are important, they are simply commands to be obeyed without question. What is not usually stated is that the punishment for every command except one of them, is DEATH. Again the point is clear, do as God says or die.

Why do courts of law make people swear on the bible before giving evidence? It is certainly not a reminder that god is loving, but more a reminder that if you lie you might go to hell. Again the emphasis on fear of punishment.

This archaic and outdated method for controlling the ignorant masses has had its day. It is time we moved forward with rational morality, a system where actions are taken because they are of benefit to the human race. A system where people are educated to understand the benefits of reasoned actions and where they are not told to follow commands as mindless robots.

If you have reached this far in my ramblings then indeed I will be impressed.

Take care
Cris

You had me following you along right nicely for some time there. Agreeably logical and everything in it's place. Then about the point you posted the picture, you started to drift.

Your frustration began to show and you started a definite turn toward name calling arrogance. Then you finished up with a full on blowout.

Are you quite finished? Because there's a WHOLE lot more where that came from. Return to the hole you crawled from, muscleman, I have smacked down far better debators than you could ever hope to be.

Hmm. You speak of your own words like you've just been throwing daggers. I find something of a contradiction when someone seems perfectly capable of making sufficiently strong arguments to dispute points clearly and yet they feel they have to say "so there". Your last sentence... After all the logic. Translates to my ear as "Hah, i won the battle because i'm a better debator than you!" Suddenly declaring yourself the winner as if it's a tennis match.

I'm not saying that the person whose points you were debating was correct. It's just that after essentially having successfully refuted most of his/her statements, you then began drifting to insult, and finally to seemingly reverse yourself as far as confidence and logic, claiming victory (which seems out of place) because you can debate better.

I have indeed read and heard far too many debates where the success of one point of view over the other has rested on ability of the debator to manipulate words prettily rather than on the merits of the argument.

"I do desire we be better strangers."
William Shakespeare - As You Like It, act III.

"You cram these words in mine ears against the stomach of my sense."
William Shakespeare - The Tempest, act II.

These were apro... apropo... (okay so i can't spell it) to what you were saying and assuming you didn't look them up, an impressive feat of memory, but they still read like "see how superior my intellect is?" I've come across a lot of educated people who were...not stupid but.... foolish perhaps, or deluded as to their level of certainty, or the power that their education in a few areas gave them in vastly different ones. A very recent former US president comes to mind. Top of his class and still something of a moron.

Now, why was i writing all this? I guess because i felt like expressing how you came off. I haven't read enough here yet to get a feeling for who's who and who believes what; so i didn't want to actually jump into the God exists/God doesn't exist bit.

Just noted your arguments were knocking over his/her arguments just fine and then you stepped into his/her shoes a few moments and sounded ranting and superior in much the same way.

(If i'm mistaken and you were purposely sounding that way to live up to your screen name then that puts a bit of a twist on things. But personally, i find it difficult and unwise to eagerly align myself with the positions of someone who endangers his own credibility by being an ass. I hope therefore that the tone you finished your post with was unintentional.) :cool:

I wish muscleman would stop trying so <caps>HARD</caps> and let truth speak for itself. He makes a little sense sometimes and then goes off on a fire and brimstone rant that completely alienates any audience that might be trying to take anything he is saying seriously.

There was a point where I thought he was an AI purposely designed to be obnoxious :)

Muscleman/upyall: Try to imagine listening to yourselves, and think whether you would have listened.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ThatJerk
I can't stand it... Lurking mode disengaged.

Vienna. DAH-ling. A spanking is in order.


Ha! Who are you kidding, you jello-headed-simpleton? Have you only recently started to think like a human being? I think not! Your research is atrocious. Your logic is pathetic. Your conclusions are vulgar and your character is only slightly better than a drunkard. Wait, I take that back. You have no character! You reek of banality and idiocy.

Still much too early (my having only read a few posts today) to even think about entering the God/no God debate. Still warming up my brain and my fingers. So here i go again. Just going to say what struck me weird as i read your post.

May have been other things (realized i went pretty easy on ThatJerk when i reread his post) but these are those that i chose.

In these more enlightened times where education is given enormous significance compared to those ancient times, we find that an authoritarian approach is far less effective than if “subordinates” are taught what is correct rather than be commanded.

First part strikes a strange chord; that is, the phrase "more enlightened times". While humankind's amassed knowledge must be thousands or tens of thousands of times what it would have been in biblical times, 'enlightened' could be argued in some ways. Enlightened sounds like wisdom to me and therefore doesn't really fit. With all that we know scientifically, few agree on what's wise. Even the powers of science fail to inspire all scientists to the same conclusions. And on a pretty regular basis, long, long held theories bite the dust.

Something i find interesting is what seems on the surface to be an almost universally accepted theory: the greenhouse effect and consequent global warming; which is not. So many of the scientists who take it for granted as fact have no expertise in the fields which would give them that knowledge. I very recently heard a group of scientists asked if there was a general consensus among those who are knowledgeable on the topic. Most looked oddly at each other. Some burst out laughing. The scientists not only disagreed widely on what future results greenhouse effects and global warming might cause, they disagreed also on the causes of, and beyond that, even whether the effect actually exists.

There i go into the stratusphere. Back to wisdom. Utter chaos. Ethnic groups around the globe are taking up old battles. People are killing doctors for performing abortions and spiking trees: killing one life form to save another. There are fights over land, over resources, over race, over religion [hey, look where we're posting], over freedoms, over political systems, over just about everything from huge issues of human dignity down to what we should be allowed to eat. Personally i don't see 'enlightenment' extending much past the individual. People whose lives have been transformed for the better use the word enlightenment.

(now we see who can ramble ;) )

Second bit of the quote. Greater effectiveness in teaching subordinates what's right over commanding them.... in general, perhaps. It jumped out at me because over the past decade or so as political correctness has spread it's roots, "education" seems to be the buzzword everywhere i look or listen. If something is wrong with social system X, it requires only that those involved are educated better. X can be virtually any part of society which is deemed lacking or any activity that could be dangerous and needs to be monitored more closely.

If education is all that's required then i'm stumped. If i'm not mistaken, people don't necessarily do what they're taught is right or moral or good for them. From the tiniest things to the biggest. Kids are taught Illicit drugs are bad. Hell, in High School i remember being shown the most revolting pictures of diseased organs resulting from them. All still in use. Everybody knows wars are nasty ugly dehumanizing destructive wastes of....just about everything. There are dozens going on now. Gotta teach those school kids about the psychological and physical consequences of sex! Just read a report about 13 year old girls thinking oral sex is no big deal and ending up having difficulty with serious relationships for half their lives after. Everybody knows you've got to keep your cholesterol down to protect yourself from heart disease. I know someone who eats miracle whip sandwiches and just had a triple bypass. Know another who melts an entire pint of Ben&Jerry's (sometimes 2) and drinks it.

No need to put any pressure on or coerce or punish anyone, right? As long as their educated. Somebody forgot to tell inmates on death row murder wasn't kosher, that's all.

Here's a good tidbit:

Throughout my parenthood I have never demanded that my children take any particular action.

Read that and (sorry to say), laughed. I'm as certain that the statement is a lie, as i am that you or i exist (especially with "never" in there). Are you really going to stand behind that bit of nonsense? i.e. You were NEVER in a hurry to go somewhere when your kids dawdled along and you had to demand or compel them, say, to get into the car, or hurry and put their toys away? You "never" required that one go to the dentist or doctor or any other activity they found frightening? They didn't find drills and syringes daunting at all, i guess. And you just let your teens come and go at any time of day or night and do exactly as they pleased because you'd never demand they be home at a certain time, or that they not participate in some dangerous activity. And you wouldn't have to because...

My approach has always been one of discussion, persuasion, cooperation, and education of why certain actions are needed. I have never punished my children since the concept of obedience and reward and punishment is simply alien for us.

Another whopper! You "never" punished them at any age for arriving home hours late, for going behind your back and doing something you'd told them not to? None ever once listened to all that gentle persuasion, and education and defied you because people are individuals and don't necessarily do what makes sense? Nothing of any sort? I guess i can believe that if you can believe i once levitated myself by holding my hand tight over my mouth during a big sneeze. (gimme a break) :rolleyes:

The last part of that quote just cracks me up. :D Obedience, reward, and punishment is simply alien? First the easy cheap shot: If they were truly alien, you wouldn't know what they are. But let's get real. Break it down, given that you really don't mean alien in the absolutely literal sense as of never having encountered it.

A) Obedience - They've never been compelled to do something simply because someone in authority told them to do it. :rolleyes: So you must be the most efficient person in the universe. You obviously have time to pause and discuss every little thing and explain why it's good and important to undertake at that moment or why it's bad and shouldn't be, and perhaps even go along with them as they do it, or do some alternate. (you did say cooperation) Child is some distance away from you and encounters something potentially dangerous, e.g. a shallow waterway which you know is contaminated, or has a sharply rocky bottom. You look up and child is about to hop in and wade around. That child is never expected to simply be obedient without further reason. So how's that work? Seems to me you'd have to charge over there and explain about the danger and persuade this child not to enter the water in the split second it would take her to step off the bank.

B) Reward - Whoo-boy. I don't even know a good place to start. All i can think is that whether the reward or gratification for doing something is delayed or immediate, it is the reason human beings do 99% of what they do. But apparently, selfless or not, no matter how unpleasant, or how tedious or time consuming some activity is, your kids would do it simply because they were taught why it was a good thing to do and maybe had been persuaded to help do it in the past?

Woops. There goes the contradiction alarm. It's so obvious i don't know why i had to sit here and ponder. Duh! You said 1- concept of rewards is alien and 2 -you only teach through discussion, persuasion, and cooperation and education. Thing is, when you teach them why activity X is desireable, by definition you are teaching them what the reward(s), whether immediate or delayed or abstract, are to taking on that activity. It's a reward for a behavior.

My children and I often find it amusing when we see their friends being punished by their Christian style parents. The concept of ‘grounding’ is particularly strange.

Tee-hee. As if all Christians belong to the same style of parenting. :D

Um... anyway; meaning while your kids run wild doing whatever they want whenever they want however they want, to whomever they want, because you never stopped them or disincentived them other than saying "thats a bad thing to do because...". I don't know you so i don't have any idea what your kids are like. I'm just commenting on some claims you may have made hastily and now sound highly improbable if not impossible.

I'm just adding the silliness you claimed in the other quote to the silliness of the above quote. Punishment is a perfectly reasonable response when that 'discussion, persuasion, cooperation, and education' of yours is followed by the "subordinate" then going out and being pressured or just getting caught up, or being a bit young to take it in, or getting thrown off by hormones, and forgetting about the discussion. You aren't there to continue the persuasion, or to cooperate with, and the education seems abstract in the face of a real live intense situation. Makes sense to give them another dose of all those after but if that's the only result of their actions, they're likely to have a similar lapse in judgement on another occasion of similar or greater pressure, especially because their doing the "wrong" thing cannot be guaranteed to result in the "bad consequence" you fortold with all that info.

On grounding. Nothing so odd about that unless you're talking about trying to enforce it with somebody who's a late teen. Giving responsibility and freedom for desired behavior, and taking those away for undesirable behavior makes plain sense until they're old enough to control what they take on for themselves and/or beyond your influence. It's reinforcement.

And furthermore, i will now shut the hell up. But if you still insist on maintaining that what i quoted and refuted is truth, please feel free to explain how you manufactured these wonder kids. Reading those statements, it occurred to me that God(s) do exist in the form of you and your family.

Chromatose:

When I look back upon my post and read it through this morning (after I've had a good 10 hours of sleep :D), I find that I agree with your assessment of it.


Your frustration began to show and you started a definite turn toward name calling arrogance. Then you finished up with a full on blowout.

True enough. I'd had my wisdom teeth pulled that morning and I was a little foggy; I'm amazed that I managed to stay logical and rational for as long as I did! :)


Hmm. You speak of your own words like you've just been throwing daggers. I find something of a contradiction when someone seems perfectly capable of making sufficiently strong arguments to dispute points clearly and yet they feel they have to say "so there". Your last sentence... After all the logic. Translates to my ear as "Hah, i won the battle because i'm a better debator than you!" Suddenly declaring yourself the winner as if it's a tennis match.

I usually don't feel the need to be so derisive, but I feel that musclewhatsupvienna's case is a special one. Logic and insults have the same result on him: nil. There comes a time when logic becomes tiresome (ESPECIALLY when it's falling on deaf ears) and insults are just more fun. Why should I waste perfectly good brain-power on someone who'll just ignore it?

I'm aware of how my last sentence could translate as such, and in this case that's almost how I meant it (though with anybody else I'd dare not be so arrogant, mostly because they might actually try to contradict some of my points). I've seen ALL of this person's arguements before, and I've smacked them down before, and he STILL keeps coming back for more. Hell, even his fellow Christians/theists don't take him seriously and they're supposedly on the same side! The battle has been over for a long time, and he still insists on trying to rally his dead and defeated troops for one more charge. I don't need to declare myself winner; he's declared himself loser by trying to whip a thrice-dead horse.


These were apro... apropo... (okay so i can't spell it) to what you were saying and assuming you didn't look them up, an impressive feat of memory, but they still read like "see how superior my intellect is?" I've come across a lot of educated people who were...not stupid but.... foolish perhaps, or deluded as to their level of certainty, or the power that their education in a few areas gave them in vastly different ones. A very recent former US president comes to mind. Top of his class and still something of a moron.

*sigh* Yes, again I can see how it may come off that way, but that's about as far from the truth as can be. I am, by no stretch of the meaning, trying to show off how edumacated or well-read I am by quoting the Bard; rather, I am in awe of his command of language and am quoting him where I think it could lend some humour to my post AS WELL as insult musclewhatsupvienna. And no, I didn't pull those out of my ass, I actually have a list of Shakespeare's best insults on a poster. :)

Of course, you're welcome to make your own judgements about my foolishness or stupidity, but I sincerely hope that my posts speak for themselves in that regard, slippage into insults and drowsy thrashing about aside. ;)


Just noted your arguments were knocking over his/her arguments just fine and then you stepped into his/her shoes a few moments and sounded ranting and superior in much the same way.

Yes, I agree completely. Let this be a lesson to all of us... NEVER try to debate when you're in a tylenol-3 induced haze. It's hard to stay focused.


(If i'm mistaken and you were purposely sounding that way to live up to your screen name then that puts a bit of a twist on things. But personally, i find it difficult and unwise to eagerly align myself with the positions of someone who endangers his own credibility by being an ass. I hope therefore that the tone you finished your post with was unintentional.)

Well... you are somewhat right with that, though I hardly have to TRY to live up to my screen name, since I have a hard time suffering fools. :D

But you're right. In this case, I was trying to take the debating high-ground by laying out all of his fallacies and shooting them down one-by-one, and I ALMOST succeeded in staying focused, drugs and all. Next time I'll do better.

Vienna/muscleman/whatsupyall... *shaking head*


Ha! Who are you kidding, you jello-headed-simpleton? Have you only recently started to think like a human being? I think not! Your research is atrocious. Your logic is pathetic. Your conclusions are vulgar and your character is only slightly better than a drunkard. Wait, I take that back. You have no character! You reek of banality and idiocy.

I may have sunk to your level for a good portion of my post, but you STILL fail to address even a singular ONE of my points. Does this mean that you concede defeat and are merely trying to insult me to salvage your pride? Perhaps I wasn't premature in declaring myself the victor right off the bat if this is what you call a rebuttal, since it really isn't so much a rebuttal as a desperate ad hominem attack.

Again I ask: are you quite done? I grow tired of wasting my time on you and want to DEBATE with intelligent people, rather than exchange childish insults with an immature mind.

If you try to respond, have the good grace NOT to cut-and-past one of your previous arguements... reusing the term 'mr. earthquake' was a dead giveaway, one among many.

Hi Chromatose,
U Verbose
I Comatose
;)

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
Hey Thor seems pretty cool to me..thanks! ;)


I have asked myself that question...that is why I offered it to you. Of course we are affected by the time period we are born in, but some of us can transcend that.
By using a belief system based on logic and rationality, I can posit myself anywhere and anytime...the belief system still fits. Get it?
If I was born when man first walked, I would believe in hunting for food and procreation...there wouldn't be much time to ponder anything else...

-fc

I'm not really avoiding any questions bro or sis or thing. I merely asked you to answer it to see if you could. Wasn't it supposed to be a rhetorical question?

The corollary.

It all depends on what you concieve as logic my brother or sister or fellow inhabitant of earth.

Logic led Greek mathematicians to state the existence of irrational numbers example... 1.5749383434087340658 as absurd. Logic is totally dependent on knowledge my 'brother or the rest'. That same absurd logic now sates that square root 7 is 2.645751311. The Greek mathematicians back then would have called us 'logical ones' up here now religious.:p

The only people who can transcend that logic my, 'brother etc.', are people who are brave enough to believe things which lie outside of that limited logic. You can't use logic to transcend any time period. Usually you reason logically and you end up with what you call paradoxes. Those can be solved as shown above.

Noone can transcend the time period they live in by using the knowledge which is available at that time. If anyone could do that 'bro sis or thing' it would surely prove an outside influence caused that. Just like us religious folks now. We 'transcend' the logic of today.

Transcending the time by using the logic of the time... wow... I guess we all think religiously don't we?:rolleyes:

Interesting way to look at it huh?

Lata fellow earthling.

ThatJerk

What is this I hear, you want an INTELLIGENT conversation, huh, I could make a monkey out of you, but why should I take all the credit?

You have blamed your stupidy on analgesia, that excuse is soooo weak. Remember this jerky, there is no vaccine against stupidity, and I'd like to leave you with one thought...but I'm not sure you have anywhere to put it!

ThatJerk, yup, the name sums it all up beautifully, THAT JERK!

Yours

musclewhatsupvienna :D ROFLMAO

Chrome,

You certainly trumped me on the rambling issue.

Enlightened sounds like wisdom to me and therefore doesn't really fit. Outside of a spiritual sense, the term means to have access to more knowledge. Wisdom does not come into this. We seem as intelligent now as we were several thousand years ago. But now we have a greater understanding of our environment because of the knowledge we have accumulated. There is no need to make any more of it than that.

Greater effectiveness in teaching subordinates what's right over commanding them.... in general, perhaps. Yes, I didn’t emphasize what needs to be taught. You seem to have fallen into the trap of assuming the spraying of information constitutes teaching. I am more concerned with teaching how to think so people can solve their own problems.

Throughout my parenthood I have never demanded that my children take any particular action.

Read that and (sorry to say), laughed. I'm as certain that the statement is a lie, as i am that you or i exist (especially with "never" in there). Are you really going to stand behind that bit of nonsense? i.e. You were NEVER in a hurry to go somewhere when your kids dawdled along and you had to demand or compel them, say, to get into the car, or hurry and put their toys away? You "never" required that one go to the dentist or doctor or any other activity they found frightening? They didn't find drills and syringes daunting at all, i guess. And you just let your teens come and go at any time of day or night and do exactly as they pleased because you'd never demand they be home at a certain time, or that they not participate in some dangerous activity. Yup you’ve got it. There is never a need to give blanket commands. Once the consequences of an action are clear then they are able to make their own choice. They didn’t always make the right choice, and they learned a great deal from their errors. My response was never one of punishment but a question of what was learnt. When trained in this method from an early age they soon learnt my tactics.

My personal approach to life is that every event, seemingly pleasant or unpleasant, is an opportunity to learn and to experience. There are very few things that are purely right or wrong just mainly shades of gray. But if you teach someone how to think and to tackle problems, then problems disappear, they simply become learning opportunities.

I am far from a conventional parent, try not to judge me by conventional standards, you simply do not know me well enough. The rest of your post seems to be based on your own standards. Perhaps you should consider that other alternatives are possible.

Another whopper! You "never" punished them at any age for arriving home hours late, for going behind your back and doing something you'd told them not to?You assume I set deadlines, or commanded them not to do things. You appear stuck on the concept that authoritarianism is the only approach to life. None of these things are necessary.

None ever once listened to all that gentle persuasion, and education and defied you because people are individuals and don't necessarily do what makes sense? Nothing of any sort? Sure they made lots of mistakes. And I let them. Perfect opportunities to learn.

Obedience - They've never been compelled to do something simply because someone in authority told them to do it.Oh sure, they soon recognized that others used that archaic system. It irritated them as much as it irritated me. But then the world seems largely backward in this area, as you are demonstrating with your attitude here.

So you must be the most efficient person in the universe. You obviously have time to pause and discuss every little thing and explain why it's good and important to undertake at that moment or why it's bad and shouldn't be, and perhaps even go along with them as they do it, or do some alternate.In the beginning it was time consuming. The results paid off later since they knew how to think and analyze for themselves. That is the advantage to teaching how to think rather than forever spraying information and hope the student absorbs some of it. This is a different paradigm to your conventional view.

Reward - Whoo-boy. I don't even know a good place to start. All i can think is that whether the reward or gratification for doing something is delayed or immediate, it is the reason human beings do 99% of what they do. I think you’ve missed the point. I never give a reward for them doing what I command, because I never command. So the concept of reward isn’t relevant here. If they do something right because they have thought it through, and they gain pleasure from that then fine.

Thing is, when you teach them why activity X is desireable, by definition you are teaching them what the reward(s), whether immediate or delayed or abstract, are to taking on that activity. It's a reward for a behavior.Well of course that’s why anyone does anything, essentially for some form of pleasure, short term or long term. But they take the action not because I told them to but because they can see the reasoning for themselves.

My children and I often find it amusing when we see their friends being punished by their Christian style parents. The concept of ‘grounding’ is particularly strange.

Tee-hee. As if all Christians belong to the same style of parenting. Note I specifically said Christian STYLE, not Christian parents. And here Christian style is biblical authoritarianism.

Um... anyway; meaning while your kids run wild doing whatever they want whenever they want however they want, to whomever they want, because you never stopped them or disincentived them other than saying "thats a bad thing to do because...". You have much to learn about alternatives to authoritarianism. When you teach the consequences to certain actions rather than threaten punishment then you empower them with the information they need to make their own decisions. Teaching them how to think and then showing them trust, works extremely well.

Punishment is a perfectly reasonable response when that 'discussion, persuasion, cooperation, and education' of yours is followed by the "subordinate" then going out and being pressured or just getting caught up, or being a bit young to take it in, or getting thrown off by hormones, and forgetting about the discussion.
You aren't there to continue the persuasion, or to cooperate with, and the education seems abstract in the face of a real live intense situation. If the teaching is sound then they are able to cope with most situations, the rest comes down to experience, and that can’t be taught.

I’m sure you know the story – give a man a fish and he is fed for a day, teach him how to fish and he can feed himself forever.

On grounding. Nothing so odd about that unless you're talking about trying to enforce it with somebody who's a late teen. Giving responsibility and freedom for desired behavior, and taking those away for undesirable behavior makes plain sense until they're old enough to control what they take on for themselves and/or beyond your influence. It's reinforcement.No, no, no. That is the same authoritarian nightmare mechanism that has made the world such a chaotic place.

You should teach that someone does something because of reason not because of an arbitrary rule. Then teach and stress the consequences of taking the wrong action. Then trust the youngster. If the teaching and training has been consistent throughout their life then it works. If you try to impose restrictions just at the time when they demand greater freedom (e.g. late teens) then you have potential and real disaster.

If you have never inflicted authoritarianism on your children and you have taught them how to think then there is no way they will rebel in their late teens, as so many do. But you will have enormous confidence that when they do exercise that greater freedom they so much desire then you know they will be equipped to think for themselves and be able to deal with the dangers and challenges that await them. That is what I mean by education.

Are you a parent, or are you quoting all of this from just theory? Do you have any late teens?

Take care
Cris

Marcac,
Interesting way to look at it huh?
Nice job avoiding the question once again. This time I answered my own question just to have you avoid it further. And why did you keep saying that 'bro, whatever, etc.' nonsense? You have some serious issues with written communication. So are you going to go back to my original question and answer it? If not, I'm done because this discussion is pointless...

Cris,
It was very interesting to learn some about your parenting techniques. I might be needing some advice fairly soon (I have a newborn)...

-fc

Originally posted by Cris
Sure they made lots of mistakes. And I let them. Perfect opportunities to learn.
Like you never tried to stop your four year kid from running on a busy road.

When you teach the consequences to certain actions rather than threaten punishment then you empower them with the information they need to make their own decisions.

So you say to him "Please don't run on the busy road, it is full of cars which can kill you, but it's your choice son", your four year old just looks at you in bewilderment.

This is one of thousands of examples I could give. I don't understand your principles and I agree with Chrome.

Um, back to the poll, I voted the smallest percent. (Can't remember what it was now, that was PAGES ago now, LOL)

I picked that choice because I DO understand the words he uses. I just don't understand what the hell he's trying to say when he strings them all together like he just picked them randomly off the floor, capped off with juvenile insults. Any glimmer of understanding I get is, I think, purely coincidental.

As to where the rest of this thread has gone, I have a scattering of comments...

For MarkAC; I don't think anyone at sciforums.com have much faith in him/her/it. . O.k. my childish self showing again. Sorry. Why would christians put there faith in those gods? I would like you tell me of someone who currently believes in Zeus or the huge gas planet Jupiter as gods. And please don't tell me Kevin Sorbo or Lucy Lawless.

*raises a hand* I have faith in Zeus, Jupiter, Thor, Ganesh, and many others. (Not the Thor that posts here, though I do like him too). The planet Jupiter is not a god itself, of course, merely named after one. Ditto for the rest of the planets. (Though I suppose it may have its own indeginous spirit, I dunno, haven't been there)

Do I think these are conscious beings, sitting on golden thrones on mountaintops? No. (I'd be a Christian if I believed in such things, LOL) I have faith in them as great symbols for the archetypes human beings tend to sort and see everything as belonging to. Each one is a symbol of many things, a convenient and easily accessible container for a variety of concepts.

(And for the record, I harbor a severe dislike for both Kevin Sorbo AND Lucy Lawless)

Cris,

Boy, I sure wish I had YOU as a parent!

Actually, my Dad was always very much as you describe yourself. He never hollered at me, insulted me, or punished me. I was safe in discussing ANY topic with him, and he always treated me as a PERSON, not a pet. As a result, the "lessons" he gave me (discussions we had) are still with me, whereas I've disregarded just about everything my punishing mother has ever said to me. Her "lessons" were based on humiliation, fear and guilt.

So, to the naysayers, I can say that I've had close to both styles of parenting, and I can say the personal approach is much more effective than the punishing and domineering approach. At least with me it was.

Of course, when your child is an infant and actually incapable of logical thought, you must do things to ensure they don't kill themselves. Obviously - Cris' children wouldn't be in their late teens & twenties if he did.

Theist, Atheist, Agnostic...

What's the word for someone who believes there IS a god, but it's not a thinking being? Scientheist? ROFLMAO!

Vienna,

Now you are being silly.

Sure they made lots of mistakes. And I let them. Perfect opportunities to learn.
Like you never tried to stop your four year kid from running on a busy road.Use your common sense. If they are incapable of understanding reason then you introduce alternatives e.g. avoid the danger in the first place. But if they can understand a command then they can equally understand a simple reason behind the command. My point is that you can always use a tactic where you never give a command.

If you’ve done your job right then any suggestion that they shouldn’t do something is inevitably followed by the question why? If they’ve been conditioned to follow commands without question then they learn even less. The whole process is interactive and with colossal feedback loops.

So you say to him "Please don't run on the busy road, it is full of cars which can kill you, but it's your choice son", your four year old just looks at you in bewilderment.And the authoritarian approach is – don’t run on the busy road kid or I’ll take away your teddy. So this way he has not been given any chance to understand the problem but is now being controlled by fear. Yeah very healthy.

If the child is unable to understand either a simple explanation or a command then the child should not be placed in the position of danger. So your example is invalid and I don’t think you have grasped the concept yet.

There are degrees of mistake you allow them to make. The key is to make sure they can’t make mistakes that are fatal. The explanation of consequences and dangers takes considerable effort; in the end there is an element of risk.

Cupric,

Boy, I sure wish I had YOU as a parent!

Actually, my Dad was always very much as you describe yourself. He never hollered at me, insulted me, or punished me. I was safe in discussing ANY topic with him, and he always treated me as a PERSON, not a pet. As a result, the "lessons" he gave me (discussions we had) are still with me, whereas I've disregarded just about everything my punishing mother has ever said to me. Her "lessons" were based on humiliation, fear and guilt. Awright, good for you.

Originally posted by UltiTruth
Hi Chromatose,
U Verbose
I Comatose
;)

!!! beautiful =] reminds me of the "confucious says" jokes

Originally posted by Cris
Vienna,

Now you are being silly.



Not really, I kinda think your way of bringing up kids is really weird. How do you apply your tactics to a toddler who is having a tantrum, you know the kind, won't reason with anything.

And the authoritarian approach is – don’t run on the busy road kid or I’ll take away your teddy. So this way he has not been given any chance to understand the problem but is now being controlled by fear. Yeah very healthy.

No, this is not the way to do it. And you will be able to do what you want with the teddy, cos it wont matter will it?

Did you have anything to do with bringing up toddlers, did you help with all the jobs that come with them. There's a lot more to bringing up kids properly than talking about reason. Do you really have any experience at all. Or are you the type who goes to work all day, comes home, slumps in front of the computer for hours on end typing to forums, oblivious to what the kids are up to, but they'll be fine cos you've taught them through your tactics. Sorry , it stinks, I bet you don't know half of it. Can you imagine how they probably speak of you to their buddies. "Yeah, my Dad/ Mum is a real soft touch, lets us do anything".

Ah well, if your happy with the way you do things, so what.

Vienna,

Be careful.

I was a single parent for many years with three young children. I worked permamently at home and cared for the children, the house, and everything else that that entails.

Back off you are becoming too personal and are out of line. You don't know me at all and you definitely do not know enough to criticize my life.

This chain of reasoning ends here. If you are not open to new ideas then I really don't care.

Yo Cris,
I know only too well what it's like to bring up three kids by yourself. I respect you for what you have done for your kids, that is no picnic I know. Sorry for getting personal, I didn't intend to do that and I didn't mean upset you. I'll shut up now.

Vienna. OK thanks.

What is this I hear, you want an INTELLIGENT conversation, huh, I could make a monkey out of you, but why should I take all the credit?

Well, so far it seems that you still haven't addressed any of my points. All I hear is hot air.


You have blamed your stupidy on analgesia, that excuse is soooo weak. Remember this jerky, there is no vaccine against stupidity, and I'd like to leave you with one thought...but I'm not sure you have anywhere to put it!

Like, you're sooooo TOTALLY stupid, it's like not even funny? See previous post; Ad hominem attacks do nothing in a debate, and (again) I'm sorry I sunk to your level. It's only fueled your idiocy.


ThatJerk, yup, the name sums it all up beautifully, THAT JERK!

And that's supposed to be an insult? I outright admitted that my name is appropriate. Twit. :p


Yours

musclewhatsupvienna ROFLMAO

The evidence is clear... unless you're really so braindamaged as to CUT AND PASTE muscleman's arguements and call them your own.

FINAL CALL: address my points or you concede by default. Blanket statements mean nothing.

Originally posted by UltiTruth
Hi Chromatose,
U Verbose
I Comatose
;)

:D I really am, aren't i. And if you can believe it, when i write something i usually proofread it several times and reorganize and often cut things out.

Going to have to work on brevity while still making my point.

:eek:
Oh, crap! That's what i get for rambling on with my hypotheticals and all.

A fat reply.

Gonna have to answer when i have m