Non-Christian Interview
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-12-2013, 07:04 PM
RE: Non-Christian Interview
(13-12-2013 07:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(12-12-2013 06:58 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Oh! and you forgot "kill". Yes, I kill too. Atheists kill and eat babies. Hadn't you heard?

What? Shocking You're supposed to kill them first? Sadcryface No one told me. Weeping

How old will you be, when senility strikes?

Don't be like Chas and forget to see a medical professional when gaps in your memory start appearing, visit a doctor soon, rather than - I forgot my lines...

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free Thought's post
13-12-2013, 08:16 PM
RE: Non-Christian Interview
(13-12-2013 07:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(12-12-2013 06:58 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Oh! and you forgot "kill". Yes, I kill too. Atheists kill and eat babies. Hadn't you heard?

What? Shocking You're supposed to kill them first? Sadcryface No one told me. Weeping

Me, neither...


[Image: atheist.jpg]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2013, 08:17 PM
RE: Non-Christian Interview
(13-12-2013 09:19 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  
(13-12-2013 08:20 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  I say that because the follow-up responses clearly indicated that "she" didn't read, or ignored the content of my answers. I pointed out the irrelevance of BBT and evolution to non-belief in fairytales, and the responses were geared toward someone who might have used them as reasons for their non-belief. I rejected the very idea of "objective" morality, and the response assumed that I had asserted it or agreed on it. It's as if a chatbot had scanned my response for keywords and spit out canned responses, none of which were appropriate to my answers.

I met a pastor in person a few months ago, then carried on an email debate with him. He uses the same tactics of ignoring what he doesn't want to talk about and presuming in a way that is rather frustrating.

The pastor I know just really believes what he wants to believe and has difficulty (or refuses to) defending his own position, so he continually directed the conversation to topics that were comfortable to him, or tried to get me to defend myself. They're common tactics. Of course I can't know for sure about Inquisitive... this is the internet, after all.


Oh, I get that. I was *comparing* the responses to something one would see from a chatbot.

At any rate, it's disingenuous as fuck.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2013, 01:40 AM
RE: Non-Christian Interview
Got some further housekeeping to do here, cutting deeper through some of the bullshit presented here.


"Micro-" vs. "Macro-evolution":

http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexp..._macro.htm

Microevolution vs Macroevolution
Is There A Difference Between Microevolution & Macroevolution?

By Austin Cline


There is one particular aspect of evolution that needs to be given specific attention: the somewhat artificial distinction between what is called “microevolution” and “macroevolution”, two terms often used by creationists in their attempts to critique evolution and evolutionary theory.

Microevolution is used to refer to changes in the gene pool of a population over time which result in relatively small changes to the organisms in the population — changes which would not result in the newer organisms being considered as different species. Examples of such microevolutionary changes would include a change in a species’ coloring or size.

Macroevolution, in contrast, is used to refer to changes in organisms which are significant enough that, over time, the newer organisms would be considered an entirely new species. In other words, the new organisms would be unable to mate with their ancestors, assuming we were able to bring them together.

You can frequently hear creationists argue they accept microevolution but not macroevolution — one common way to put it is to say that dogs may change to become bigger or smaller, but they never become cats. Therefore, microevolution may occur within the dog species, but macroevolution never will.

There are a few problems with these terms, especially in the manner that creationists use them. The first is quite simply that when scientists do use the terms microevolution and macroevolution, they don’t use them in the same way as creationists. The terms were first used in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in his book on evolution Variabilität und Variation. However, they remain in relatively limited use today. You can find them in some texts, including biology texts, but in general most biologists simply don’t pay attention to them.

Why? Because for biologists, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate them. When biologists do use different terms, it is simply for descriptive reasons.

When creationists use the terms, however, it is for ontological reasons — this means that they are trying to describe two fundamentally different processes. The essence of what constitutes microevolution is, for creationists, different from the essence of what constitutes macroevolution. Creationists act as if there is some magic line between microevolution and macroevolution, but no such line exists as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.

In other words, creationists are appropriating scientific terminology which has specific and limited meaning, but they are using it in a broader and incorrect manner. This is a serious but unsurprising error — creationists misuse scientific terminology on a regular basis.

A second problem with the creationist use of the terms microevolution and macroevolution is the fact that the definition of what constitutes a species is not consistently defined. This can complicate the boundaries which creationists claim exist between microevolution and macroevolution. After all, if one is going to claim that microevolution can never become macroevolution, it would be necessary to specify where the boundary is which supposedly cannot be crossed.

Conclusion:
Simply put, evolution is the result of changes in genetic code. The genes encode the basic characteristics a life form will have, and there is no known mechanism that would prevent small changes (microevolution) from ultimately resulting in macroevolution. While genes can vary significantly between different life forms, the basic mechanisms of operation and change in all genes are the same. If you find a creationist arguing that microevolution can occur but macroevolution cannot, simply ask them what biological or logical barriers prevent the former from becoming the latter — and listen to the silence.

[This link was posted in its entirety because it is rather short and eminently relevant. Fair use clause, etc...]


I would like to reiterate:
Quote:Oh I agree with you! I would definitely say that morality is objective....

Anyone who has read any of my posts here, including my response to OP's questions, would know that I disagree completely with the idea of an "objective" morality.

Quote:So who decides morality, if not God?


If your mythical sky-daddy were to "decide morality" for good and all, then, according to your "reasoning" (which is really NOT reasoning, but more akin to the "thought" process of a pathological liar -- or an xtian apologist, which is to say, the same thing), your mythical Scary Fairy could and would have "hard-wired our hearts" to "recognize" that morality and never, ever stray from it.



Quote:Is it society? I agree that the moral principles in the Bible were not new-fangled. However, this supplements the point of moral objectivity. Because God created moral law, and He created our hearts to recognize it, people have always been aware that it is wrong to kill people ( that does not mean that that awareness stops them from doing it).

Had your mythical "he" "created our hearts to recognize it", then "he" could have just as easily "created our hearts" 'to avoid transgressing anything "he" would have laid down".


Quote:If it is true that man is just a gene machine that came from a primitive being, shouldn't we advocate genocide? That way we could speed up natural selection and become a master race. Shouldn't only the fittest survive?

Just who is feeding you this bullshit, really? Craig? BananaMan? There should be some kind of Rulez here stating that xtard apologists should declare their "Masters" at the door.

Quote: Also, assuming macro-evolution is true, where did the first primitive organism come from that everything else came from?


Okay, and here is the biggest turd that needs cleaning up. Again, I reiterate that my rejection of superstitious fairytales has nothing to do with evolution or Big bang theory, or any of the usual canards xtards try to present, but the answer to the stupid question is that, whatever it was: IT CAME FROM THE FUCKING SEA.




Quote:I did realize actually. The cosmological argument is indeed only an argument regarding the existence of God, but since you are an atheist, I did not think it to be irrelevant. Actually, the cosmological argument does not fail to account for that! God never came into existence, so He did not have a cause. He is, was, and always will be. However would you say that about the universe? That it is infinite and did not come into existence?
Thanks!
Tori

You know, the Kalaam "cosmological argument" is the absolute Best Shot that x-tard advocates have to offer, dug up from the philoSOPHISTRY grave by your Absolute Best Champion, William Lane Craig. He is your "Goliath" and his Kalaam argument is his absolute best shot, his Crown Jewel. And here I am, little ole dumbass-Nobody-Me, with my little ole slingshot of rationality and insistence upon evidence and calling bullshit when I see some xtard idiot spouting Gish-Gallops of fallacies and unsupported ad hoc assertions, and I easily destroyed the best you have to offer. All I had to do was call "bullshit".

In short, the best your side has to offer consists of SEMANTIC PRESTIDIGITATION. Your whole argument -- which, again, is not EVIDENCE -- hinges on a Special Pleading Fallacy that your proposed deity "never came into existence". But your shell game backfires right in your face, because what "never comes into existence" does not exist.

So here is your argument, corrected in the only possible way that it could be valid:

"God never came into existence, so He did not have a cause."

Therefore, "God" does not exist.

"He is, was, and always will be," a FICTION.

[Image: fixed.gif]


What your "teacher" will never, ever tell you, and what you desperately need to learn, is that EVIDENCE TALKS AND BULLSHIT WALKS.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
16-12-2013, 06:02 PM
RE: Non-Christian Interview
Taquiyah,
I think that your post about me was rather rude. Nobody said you had to debate me; it was completely voluntary, and if you think that I'm a bad debater it's probably because I have not had any practice. I'm sorry if it disgusts you, but I can't help it anymore than I can being bad at basketball until I practice. That's what I'm here for. To practice and get better. One of atheists' favorite criticisms of Christianity is that we're judgemental, but not all of us are like that. I've tried to be nothing but sincere, inquisitive, and nice, but you've met me with considerable mockery and judgement that I don't think my advances have merited. Also what would have satisfied you in our interview? As one of you pointed out, even if I could answer every question that you had about Christianity, would you have become a Christian? Would it have satisfied you if I destroyed you in the debate? What exactly should I have done to escape your scathing remarks? It may relieve you to hear that I will no longer be engaging your responses. I don't need angry heckling.
Robbypants-- yes I'm sorry. It's midterm week and it's been pretty stressful. I will get back to you as soon as I can
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Inquisitive Minds's post
16-12-2013, 06:25 PM
RE: Non-Christian Interview
Inquisitive, Taq can be harsh, he is a good guy otherwise. I promise, he gets that way with most people he debates, not just Christians. Just don't want you to take it too personally Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Smercury44's post
16-12-2013, 07:33 PM
RE: Non-Christian Interview
(16-12-2013 06:02 PM)Inquisitive Minds Wrote:  Robbypants-- yes I'm sorry. It's midterm week and it's been pretty stressful. I will get back to you as soon as I can

Makes sense. Take care. You don't want to do badly at school.

Especially because you've been fraternizing with heathens! Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2013, 06:02 AM
RE: Non-Christian Interview
(16-12-2013 06:02 PM)Inquisitive Minds Wrote:  Taquiyah,
I think that your post about me was rather rude. Nobody said you had to debate me; it was completely voluntary, and if you think that I'm a bad debater it's probably because I have not had any practice. I'm sorry if it disgusts you, but I can't help it anymore than I can being bad at basketball until I practice. That's what I'm here for. To practice and get better. One of atheists' favorite criticisms of Christianity is that we're judgemental, but not all of us are like that. I've tried to be nothing but sincere, inquisitive, and nice, but you've met me with considerable mockery and judgement that I don't think my advances have merited.

He is the mockingbird! Dodgy

I for one appreciate your willingness to engage with the forum community politely.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Colourcraze's post
17-12-2013, 07:41 AM (This post was last modified: 17-12-2013 06:26 PM by Free Thought.)
RE: Non-Christian Interview
(16-12-2013 06:02 PM)Inquisitive Minds Wrote:  Taquiyah,
I think that your post about me was rather rude. Nobody said you had to debate me; it was completely voluntary, and if you think that I'm a bad debater it's probably because I have not had any practice. I'm sorry if it disgusts you, but I can't help it anymore than I can being bad at basketball until I practice. That's what I'm here for. To practice and get better. One of atheists' favorite criticisms of Christianity is that we're judgemental, but not all of us are like that. I've tried to be nothing but sincere, inquisitive, and nice, but you've met me with considerable mockery and judgement that I don't think my advances have merited. Also what would have satisfied you in our interview? As one of you pointed out, even if I could answer every question that you had about Christianity, would you have become a Christian? Would it have satisfied you if I destroyed you in the debate? What exactly should I have done to escape your scathing remarks? It may relieve you to hear that I will no longer be engaging your responses. I don't need angry heckling.
Robbypants-- yes I'm sorry. It's midterm week and it's been pretty stressful. I will get back to you as soon as I can

If you are interested in some slightly more civil discussion, I'll be available for the next three days to answer any questions, and I'm sure many others would be less hostile than Taq... funnily enough, he has the religious trolls matched for arrogant dickery.
I get the feeling that his black, shrivelled heart is in the right place though.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2013, 08:17 AM
RE: Non-Christian Interview
(17-12-2013 07:41 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  If you are interested in some slightly more civil discussion, I'll be available for the next three days to answer and questions, and I'm sure many others would be less hostile than Taq... funnily enough, he has the religious trolls matched for arrogant dickery.
I get the feeling that his black, shrivelled heart is in the right place though.
I still haven't received a response to my latest message from her. Maybe she's been to busy to reply or maybe she's no longer interested. Time will tell.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: