TheMaker

Man, I hope this is true. I could use a live Wilco fix.

You think the utter lack of cohesion which characterizes the inerrant word of god is a great value? Could you explain that? Because where the deluded faithful see the hand of god informing these books, a rational appraisal reveals only the clumsy hand of man, busily pulling the wool over the eyes of his fellow men. You can find wisdom in folk tales, but good luck finding truth. Fun zinger, but I've illustrated the fabrications and contradictions of religion many times over in the course of this discussion (as well as the other). Rather than continue to cite scripture like a zealot might d

"Hate It Here" in freaking Wal-Mart. Word.

You're really kicking against evolution here. Nothing you say is categorically false, but it's pretty harried and definitely feels like it's radiating suspicion. It also feels like you're playing devil's advocate, so I'm not going to bend over backwards in an effort to steer this conversation into an unflattering (for everybody) debate about the reality of evolution. Bingo. In short, we're spoiled, lazy assholes. I certainly won't disagree with this. Maybe Bog and Jebus will save us...?

Indeed. And the point, actually, is that atheists have no need of the god delusion to get us there. I would much rather die defending a worldview that seems logical on its face than die defending an unprovable delusion. The atheist is less likely to die for his worldview at the hands of a Sunni Muslim than the Shi'a Muslim for his beliefs. Nor is the atheist as prone to kill in the name of any god as those who believe in such things. I'll call it a win for the atheists. Feel free to disagree. The problem is that faith has yielded a very precise number of testable theories and satisfacto

Sayonara' date=' pal. The record will address the fact that you've presented zero evidence of your own and recognized none of mine. I won't call this a win; it simply is one. Next? Well, you're half-right. Given its utter lack of cohesion, its blatantly shifty characterizations, and its largely impenetrable morality, the bible is self-evidently a collaboration, but it's far from amazing. The bible falls well short of being great literature, in my opinion. There are no overarching themes, its hero advertises himself as being perfect rather than flawed, and on and on. Granted, it exp

Holy christ, how is that "evidence?" I really, really, really want you to attempt an explanation. Could you do that for me? Because it's not evidence. First of all, I introduced this statement by clearly stating that it was my opinion, not anything remotely like a deeply held belief. I later clarified my position further, stating that I had no vested interest in my best guess (that you requested, I might add; I sure didn't feel any pressing need to volunteer it), and that I wouldn't feel slighted if it were eventually proven false. But to answer your question, my evidence is Newton. My

It's not more of the "what," and it's hardly an after-the-fact musing to conclude that Darwin's Finches changed several times in body size and in two beak traits over a 30-year period in order to better adapt to their environment. What did they do? They changed several times in body size and in two beak traits over a 30-year period! Why did they do it? To better adapt to their environment! It's practically a union chant, for fuck's sake! What you're after is a philosophical "why," and no clear-headed individual can reasonably expect biology to explain something like that. Neithe

I don't think it'll surprise anybody that I like the way you think' date=' but man, I especially like the way you write. Your zeal certainly wasn't lost on me! First of all, allow me to introduce myself: I'm TheMaker. I tend to say what I mean in a pretty blunt fashion. Some people go out of their way to chime in about what a "real piece of work" I am. If I were attempting to portray an entire religion's subscribers as stunned cunts, believe me, I would have said "most" or "all" without hesitation. Did you not catch the part where I went out of my way to mention that most Christians are

...Suggesting that god created the world on seven particular days spread across millions of years, or that "seven days" is somehow a euphemism for "millions of years?" If it's the former, that's one hell of a stretch, even for folks who might happen to be the biggest fans of poetic license. If it's the latter, it simply seems shifty for no good reason. Why such deliberate obfuscation among so much supposed divinity? Is the bible like a word game, perhaps? I understand what you're saying, but I'm still not entirely sure that I'm grasping your point. If the bible is allegorical, is it alleg

Absolutely nothing at all. I would have others evaluate my positions honestly and straightforwardly, which is precisely how I evaluate theirs. I also said I don't mind being called a dickface, so long as the person calling me one actually has something to add to the conversation. I've been pretty consistent throughout this discussion.

American-style Christianity certainly reminds one of large corporations (and vice versa), so you just might be on to something. Ha! I agree. And I also believe that these teachings can be gleaned from any morally upright individual, regardless of their affiliations (religious, political, etc). I've addressed this myself. I'm a rather brusque fellow, I'm afraid. I afford religion approximately the same amount of respect and condescension it reserves for atheism. I used to take the high road, but one day I was driven into a ditch by the slathering tractor-trailer that is organized rel

I didn't issue anything remotely like an ad hominem insult. (Once again, simply asserting something doesn't make it so.) I told him to pay attention, because my then-most recent post was proof enough that his assertion about me was totally false. Was I all sunshine and roses about it? No, I wasn't. That might have something to do with the fact that I really, really dislike it when people go around deliberately misrepresenting the things I say (or completely ignoring them). Again, please fuck off with the ad hominem insults. I've seen you post some pretty cool shit in other threads, man, but

Can I ask you a totally honest question? If you're a Catholic and you don't take the Bible literally (or at least not "as literally as most"), then why do you bother? "Oh, this bunch of nonsense really makes sense to me! Yeah, it speaks to me!" Is there some sort of psychological workaround that you've devised to get around this rather incredible sticking point, or...? Also, how do you go from the reality of evolution to the "metaphor" of Adam and Eve? I have always been terribly curious about this. Is there an apocryphal text I haven't read, or...? Edit: and that's me done for a while. I'

This charge is absolutely, unequivocally false. In fact, in my most recent post I was careful to differentiate between the more radical elements of evangelical Christianity and what has gradually evolved to become mainstream Christianity. Please don't feel pressured to issue an apology; I'd be more than content if you would simply start paying attention to the things I say, instead of merely how I say them. I really don't know how you could begin to assert such a petty false charge. (Fine, so I'm being disingenuous; it follows from your earlier false charge.) It would be closer to the m

Shit. I somehow double-posted when I meant to slap up something new. Long story short, I agree that evolution isn't something that rules out the existence of a "creator," but it sure plays havoc with organized religion, doesn't it? Many evangelicals still quibble with the reality of evolution, but most Christians accept that it's precisely as legitimate as the scientific theories which explain, say, the complexity of gravity or the laws governing thermodynamics. It remains in religion's best interest to roll with the punches science delivers on a fairly regular basis. This is why Christian

Hardly. Again, hardly. I have never even come close to arguing this line, One Wing. I'm surprised you can still type from your position, having bent over backwards to obfuscate my actual argument with your fuzzy, backwards psychology. My logic is as follows: a creator does not exist because no evidence points to the existence of a creator. Yours is a classic argumentum ad consequentiam. You see matter, and you assume that it must have been created by a being or a thing. You already know you want to introduce the notion of a "creator," and so you begin with your hypothesis rather than

You still haven't said anything substantive, Spawn's dad. What am I ignoring, exactly? Just what do you want me to address, specifically? Tell me, and I'll address it, since it's apparently my sole responsibility to address every single fucking question, anecdote, challenge and rejoinder thrown at me in this thread, in spite of the fact that the faithful (and their advocates) outnumber the secular by a pretty impressive margin. And speaking of the faithful, I've repeatedly asked them to address the LaPlace/Napoleon example, to no avail. I've repeatedly asked the faithful to defend the many

For somebody who has absolutely nothing to say, caliber66 sure posts a lot. I guess that helps explain his 13,000+ posts on these boards. I don't like being the de facto moderator of this discussion any more than you guys like seeing me kick people's legs out from beneath them, so hey, let's maybe step this shit up a bit, okay? No more stupid ad hominem attacks, how's that sound? If you want to kick me in the balls, I'm okay with it. Just make sure you're actually have a fucking point to make when you do it. Okay, the most obvious problem here is that in no way are those competing beliefs

Have you seen some of the shit these people have been writing? Apparently Neon holds my dick for me when I piss. Or maybe he shakes it, I don't quite remember. Either way, I think "opponent" fits pretty nicely given the gradual decline of this discussion.

I certainly can't disagree with this. Five senses aren't nearly enough to even identify the vast majority of matter in the universe, let alone parse it in a way that makes absolute sense to us. This does not invite wild speculation, but rather focused researched and diligent experimentation. Again, I believe I've stated quite definitively that I have no strong "belief" concerning mankind's latent ability to explore anything. The best I, or any of us, can do is speculate. One of my theories is that as our knowledge increases, so too does our ability to make sense of our environment. Unlike, s

It's not a leap of faith at all, actually. And neither did I assert that it was true. Furthermore, I clarified that it was a suspicion, or hypothesis, and not a belief. That's three strikes, bud. Yer outta here. At one time it was beyond our means to explain the relationship of celestial bodies to one another in our solar system. Now we can. Once we thought the earth was flat. Now we've seen enough to know better. Once we were unable to replicate the conditions under which the Big Bang may well have occurred. Now we're on the cusp of doing exactly that. I have a hypothesis, and it is b

Evolution is as much a fact of life as gravity and Newtonian mechanics. It can and has been observed, and it supplies a "how" and a "why" answer to the ways in which life develops on Earth. Please, for the sake of my fucking sanity, DON'T START THIS.

Okay, could you, like... contribute something of substance? Soon? Please? Before I just add you to my ignore list? Because the meter is running at this point. (In more explicit terms, this means that your next post really needs to include something besides an ad hominem attack.) And just for the record, I'll entertain a lot of things, but I WILL NOT dispute the reality of evolution. Even if my opponent were willing to meet me halfway by discussing the relative instability of the theory of gravity, I still couldn't be bothered.

Yeah. You're done, Spawn's dad. Everybody get a load of this guy's mentality? He has absolutely nothing left to say.