Sex, for reasonable people. Challenge for the Thinking Atheist Community
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-11-2011, 12:31 AM
RE: Sex, for reasonable people. Challenge for the Thinking Atheist Community
(11-11-2011 11:36 PM)kineo Wrote:  Personally, as someone who came from a heavy Pentecostal religious background, I think that the tone is appropriate. Take the Noah's Ark video. That video is spot-on. It makes light of the claims of the bible while at the same time pointing out the ridiculousness of the story. Do you think an absurdly false claim such as a worldwide flood should be treated with dignity and respect?

Do you realize that people like the Answers in Genesis crew use these stories as a hold to fit the facts to? Then they teach children lies so that they have answers to any questions about the accuracy of the bible. Those children won't learn critical thinking, they will learn lies and it will be difficult for them to be free of those lies for the rest of their lives. People can be more easily controlled- whipped into an emotional frenzy, manipulated into donating to the church more than they can afford, and made to feel extreme guilt for mundane things like masturbation or sexual preference. That guilt then feeds the cycle all the more. And who would question it when all the "facts" they've been taught about reality have been forged to fit their world view?

I agree totally. The mind-washing children and also vulnerable adults go through is because of these authoritative figures. They don't promote any truth. These people think that they know everything and so everyone they come in contact with should believe them, and some people do. This is the exact sort of attitude that upset me when i watched the video. It does prompt for the viewer to question the bible, but it also submits them an answer, one and only one other alternative: that the creationists are retarded.

In my opinion the bible is so corrupt and controlling because it was designed to be. When it first began there was at least two dozen versions. Only the one which was most relatable and rewarding invited the support of the people.(thus dominated) When that wasn't enough(because it began very racist), it was modified towards the general population, then it was modified to symbolize other religious figures from other beliefs. blah blah blah blah blah.... bottom line is the bible does not represent Jesus, we all know its wrong. So attacking creationists is not the same as attacking the bible. God may exist. God may not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2011, 12:56 AM
RE: Sex, for reasonable people. Challenge for the Thinking Atheist Community
(11-11-2011 11:08 PM)PeterK Wrote:  
(11-11-2011 10:25 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(11-11-2011 09:54 PM)PeterK Wrote:  My Answer:
Absolute Logic. Such logic like the argumentum ad hominem which i try to avoid but so many people on this thread alone have made the mistake of using.

If you want to be an apostle of logic, there's a shitload more than ad hominem you better be prepared for. ad hominem is trivial to dismiss. ... Oh wait, that might've been an ad hominem.

your right, but im not going to go into all that. i dont claim to be such asshole about logic. Im just stating that many people are dismissing my logic because they believe it is the quality of a creationist and i am not.


Unlike you or I thought some people aren't as logical. I think we can both agree that there are people out there that just doesn't represent us. Some colleges require a foundations of logic requirement, but then again some colleges don't.
(11-11-2011 11:03 PM)kineo Wrote:  
(11-11-2011 09:54 PM)PeterK Wrote:  
(11-11-2011 12:48 PM)kineo Wrote:  Also, you've referenced 2.5 hours worth of videos in the playlist and claimed the entirety to be false.

Well no, i don't think they are false. I think the creationists are quite wrong on the bible. I think that the videos are bias, exaggerative, and hateful. The information is quite good.

You contradict yourself when you say that they exaggerate but the information is good. Yes, the information is good.

well, what i meant is that the tone of voice when giving the information is exaggerated. Do you think so or do you disagree

Peter, please try to improve your English and your grammar. I sense everyone is trying to understand you, but poor English makes you even harder to understand. Ok?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
12-11-2011, 01:06 AM
RE: Sex, for reasonable people. Challenge for the Thinking Atheist Community
I understand his English just fine. I don't think he's made a genuine point yet but be patient mark he's getting there I think.
Plus he's being pleasant enough.

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like lucradis's post
12-11-2011, 01:17 AM (This post was last modified: 12-11-2011 01:21 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Sex, for reasonable people. Challenge for the Thinking Atheist Community
(12-11-2011 12:56 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Peter, please try to improve your English and your grammar. I sense everyone is trying to understand you, but poor English makes you even harder to understand. Ok?

I grok him just fine. Think I might even be able to like him if he'd just give up something on "Sex, for reasonable people". ... I mean he did bring it up.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2011, 01:22 AM
RE: Sex, for reasonable people. Challenge for the Thinking Atheist Community
(12-11-2011 01:06 AM)lucradis Wrote:  I understand his English just fine. I don't think he's made a genuine point yet but be patient mark he's getting there I think.
Plus he's being pleasant enough.

I agree he is pleasant and I'm sure has some good points to make, and I'm not trying to make fun of him....but....I can't make sense of this, for example;

"your right, but im not going to go into all that. i dont claim to be such asshole about logic. Im just stating that many people are dismissing my logic because they believe it is the quality of a creationist and i am not.


Unlike you or I thought some people aren't as logical. I think we can both agree that there are people out there that just doesn't represent us. Some colleges require a foundations of logic requirement, but then again some colleges don't."

What on earth is he talking about?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2011, 01:30 AM (This post was last modified: 12-11-2011 01:41 AM by PeterK.)
RE: Sex, for reasonable people. Challenge for the Thinking Atheist Community
(12-11-2011 12:56 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Peter, please try to improve your English and your grammar. I sense everyone is trying to understand you, but poor English makes you even harder to understand. Ok?

Lol, sorry. Im trying my best. The problem is that im trying to cover as much as i can so that i dont leave gaps for question.(i don't think im doing a very good job) Everything is related to everything else and if one were to be crystal clear he/she would have to write a book that never finishes. But without it all others can say that the topic is not complete. If you don't mind i will try my best but my answers will become extremely long. lol... I will try to prove this one point that simple things are not simple at all. This is maybe why my language may seem confusing.

You are right, i may seem to be answer in pieces but the pieces each contribute to the puzzle. To answer ANY question about almost anything, you will have to go into all of chemistry, physics, biology, psychology, philosophy, religion, ethics, blah blah blah.

For example: If i were to ask you to tell me the time. The short unsatisfactory answer is simply, "I don't know". The real answer could be a nobel prize candidate. This is because this simple question depends on a variety of factors.

1. Location: Time depends on where you are. One second lasts longer in California than it does in Boston. Also, do you mean eastern? pacific? Honolulu?

2. Elevation: The further one is from sea level, the slower time moves. Astronauts who go into space actually experience a sort of time travel. The closer you are to the center of gravity the faster time moves. Space satellites must continually adjust their time. Time they spend in space is equivalent to less time on earth.

3. Speed: How can you tell the person what the time is, if by the time you say it it is not the time which you first read?

4. Quantum Physics: Space = Time, Time = Space. So will you say that the time is five square meter?

5. Accuracy: Time is either based on the rotation of earth, or the atomic clock. If you are not reading off either of these, nothing you say is actually right. and etc.


people who answer like this are probably a pain in the ass. But the question of what the time is doesn't really affect my lifestyle so i dont care, but this does. But if i do not cover all these topics and say that time is simply 5:00pm there will always be a skeptic to overturn the argument.
As for this thread, it is about the presentation of a series of videos on topdocumentaryfilms.com which was produced by this group and how it represents our beliefs. In short, my statement is that it disturbing. But im quite captivated by the other topics that has since surfaced.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2011, 01:42 AM
RE: Sex, for reasonable people. Challenge for the Thinking Atheist Community
(12-11-2011 01:30 AM)PeterK Wrote:  Lol, sorry. Im trying my best. The problem is that im trying to cover as much as i can so that i dont leave gaps for question.(i don't think im doing a very good job) ...

What does any of that have to do with "Sex, for reasonable people"?

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2011, 01:55 AM
RE: Sex, for reasonable people. Challenge for the Thinking Atheist Community
(12-11-2011 01:22 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  ....I can't make sense of this, for example;

"your right, but im not going to go into all that. i dont claim to be such asshole about logic. Im just stating that many people are dismissing my logic because they believe it is the quality of a creationist and i am not. ... Some colleges require a foundations of logic requirement, but then again some colleges don't."

What on earth is he talking about?

This part does have some hidden meaning. Im talking about arguments and fallacies which are taught in many colleges in beginning level philosophy classes. These classes are required as part of the general education barrage. When i say "people are dismissing my logic because they believe it is the quality of a creationist", i am saying they are making the mistake that my reason is flimsy because i am a creationist.[which i am not] ... This type of fallacy is called "Argumentum ad hominem".

I just believe that my points are strong, but they will come off as weak because some people are bias even if they don't know it(because of this fallacy). It makes my arguments weaker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2011, 02:05 AM
RE: Sex, for reasonable people. Challenge for the Thinking Atheist Community
(12-11-2011 01:55 AM)PeterK Wrote:  
(12-11-2011 01:22 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  ....I can't make sense of this, for example;

"your right, but im not going to go into all that. i dont claim to be such asshole about logic. Im just stating that many people are dismissing my logic because they believe it is the quality of a creationist and i am not. ... Some colleges require a foundations of logic requirement, but then again some colleges don't."

What on earth is he talking about?

This part does have some hidden meaning. Im talking about arguments and fallacies which are taught in many colleges in beginning level philosophy classes. These classes are required as part of the general education barrage. When i say "people are dismissing my logic because they believe it is the quality of a creationist", i am saying they are making the mistake that my reason is flimsy because i am a creationist.[which i am not] ... This type of fallacy is called "Argumentum ad hominem".

I just believe that my points are strong, but they will come off as weak because some people are bias even if they don't know it(because of this fallacy). It makes my arguments weaker.

Okay, now I'm thinking that you have no idea what "Sex, for reasonable people" even might mean. ... And yes, that was an ad hominem.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
12-11-2011, 02:07 AM
RE: Sex, for reasonable people. Challenge for the Thinking Atheist Community
(12-11-2011 01:30 AM)PeterK Wrote:  
(12-11-2011 12:56 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Peter, please try to improve your English and your grammar. I sense everyone is trying to understand you, but poor English makes you even harder to understand. Ok?

Lol, sorry. Im trying my best. The problem is that im trying to cover as much as i can so that i dont leave gaps for question.(i don't think im doing a very good job) Everything is related to everything else and if one were to be crystal clear he/she would have to write a book that never finishes. But without it all others can say that the topic is not complete. If you don't mind i will try my best but my answers will become extremely long. lol... I will try to prove this one point that simple things are not simple at all. This is maybe why my language may seem confusing.

You are right, i may seem to be answer in pieces but the pieces each contribute to the puzzle. To answer ANY question about almost anything, you will have to go into all of chemistry, physics, biology, psychology, philosophy, religion, ethics, blah blah blah.

For example: If i were to ask you to tell me the time. The short unsatisfactory answer is simply, "I don't know". The real answer could be a nobel prize candidate. This is because this simple question depends on a variety of factors.

1. Location: Time depends on where you are. One second lasts longer in California than it does in Boston. Also, do you mean eastern? pacific? Honolulu?

2. Elevation: The further one is from sea level, the slower time moves. Astronauts who go into space actually experience a sort of time travel. The closer you are to the center of gravity the faster time moves. Space satellites must continually adjust their time. Time they spend in space is equivalent to less time on earth.

3. Speed: How can you tell the person what the time is, if by the time you say it it is not the time which you first read?

4. Quantum Physics: Space = Time, Time = Space. So will you say that the time is five square meter?

5. Accuracy: Time is either based on the rotation of earth, or the atomic clock. If you are not reading off either of these, nothing you say is actually right. and etc.


people who answer like this are probably a pain in the ass. But the question of what the time is doesn't really affect my lifestyle so i dont care, but this does. But if i do not cover all these topics and say that time is simply 5:00pm there will always be a skeptic to overturn the argument.
As for this thread, it is about the presentation of a series of videos on topdocumentaryfilms.com which was produced by this group and how it represents our beliefs. In short, my statement is that it disturbing. But im quite captivated by the other topics that has since surfaced.

Hi Peter. I think you may have misunderstood me. I am not asking you to be pedantic. I'm just asking you to be a little more careful with your English. For example;

"As for this thread, it is about the presentation of a series of videos on topdocumentaryfilms.com which was produced by this group and how it represents our beliefs. In short, my statement is that it disturbing. But im quite captivated by the other topics that has since surfaced."

You should have written "they are disturbing", yet I'm only guessing that is what you meant, which means I may have misunderstood you.

You should have written "that have since surfaced."

I'm not an English "Nazi," and I too make mistakes, but the point is people can't or won't be bothered trying to understand you if you keep making multiple mistakes. Please keep writing, but check what you have written before you post it.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: