Blasphemous?
- Started
- Last post
- 282 Responses
- ********0
Wow ... the last time I checked this had 5 posts.
...
* Blink. *
- barbtastic0
no matter what you do, some bored asshole will get a sandy vag over it... DO IT!!
- acescence0
LOL @ flagellum. take that show on the road, that's comedy gold!
- barbtastic0
last night at the halloween store, i got the stinkeye from a girl who overheard me tell my friend to dress like "slutty jesus" while i handed her a low-cut boob-baring toga
it made my day
- ********0
my brother feels the characterization of 'jesus' on southpark is blastphemy. He will not watch the show and he was a pro boxer.
?
- flagellum0
BonSeff: We certainly don't have it all figured out. We know less than we think, in fact. What we can logically infer, based on what we currently know, is that information and programming and machinery, come from purposive intellects.
- ********0
mistakes I have made:
http://www.globusz.com/ebooks/12…
- philipdrumman0
The good word says God has chosen the lowly things to shame the wise
- detritus0
but that's what the intellectually inferior do. They don't formulate any substantive beliefs of their own...
flagellum
(Oct 25 07, 05:11)Funny. That's exactly why I've got little to no respect for religionists. For me, the if there is any specific purpose to life, it is to spend it trying to make some sense of it for ourselves. In the meantime - I'll take the sum of the Bible's teachings - "Do unto to others as you would unto yourself"* throw out the rest and spend my years educating myself and trying, as honestly as I can, to 'be one' with my universe.
And flagellum, I do wish you'd stop picking at the limits of science, inferring that the holes we have in our current understanding are somehow supportive of your own claims. That we don't yet understand gravity, or are unable to comprehend the progenitive stages necessary to explain your 'irreducible complexity' (as asinine and hubristic a phrase as I have ever heard) doesn't bother me in the slightest. I appreciate that modern scientific thought is barely a couple of hundred years old and still has centuries, millennia, if not the rest of time to answer all our questions. Compare this with the arrogance of your need to have an absolute framework to explain the world about you NOW, and what's more, demand compliance from opposing views, and I hope you'll begin to see why I've utterly no respect for your beliefs. Do what you will, it's none of my business, but please - stop trying to overwhelm us with your circular arguments, self-completing proofs and theological hot air - it's getting neither you nor us anywhere. In fact, you're probably doing more harm to your cause than you realise. You'd do better to discuss Jesus' teachings and the philosophies contained in the Bible if you want people to respect and respond to your worldview.
I suspect that if God blessed us with a sense of curiosity and wonder, she'd expect us to use it. Fundamentally, that's what science and reason is.
* that way, I can claim to be 'more' than the amoral golems you religionists seem to think us nonbelievers are.
- ********0
There's no room on the jesus bus for moderation. Its all or nothing, baby.
- flagellum0
detritus: Your position has the veneer of intellectual honesty, but upon closer investigation, is hollow and smacks of the very accusation you make against "religionists". Namely, a "God-of-the-Gaps" argument. In this case, it's the "Naturalism-of-the-Gaps" error. It's more lazy than honest. Science teaches us to make positive inferences based on the data we CURRENTLY have. So, when I consider what science DOES know:
- all matter and energy had a beginning
- information was present at the beginning
- all of life is run off of an algorithmic code (DNA)
- etc.. .etc......and then following that evidence and concluding a design inference, then I am in no way throwing up my hands and settling. I'm being logical. I'm being rational. And at the same time, I can acknowledge that there is plenty that pea-brained humans do not know and will never know. And I can acknowledge that there is breathtaking wonder and mystery in the universe, at the same time.
If you endeavor to "make sense of life", then what is wrong with acknowledging the validity of those who claim they have found purpose? Those who have made sense of it? If it is worth pursuing...
As for irreducible complexity and the like, the issue is not about what we DO NOT know, but what we DO know. We know that engineers design machinery. We know, from emprical data, that blind unintelligent forces, do not. So again, a logical inference is made, based on current data. On what paradigm do we say that "we will find some naturalistic mechanism?" You are limiting science. I'm not interested in doing that. Additionally, if irreducible complexity is asinine to you, you don't understand what it is. When you remove any part from a multi-component machine and it breaks as the result, then it is irreducible. Nothing vexing there.
Again, I do not require absolute understanding now. I simply believe in following the evidence where it currently leads. Neither do I demand compliance from those who oppose me; I just enjoy spirited debate about such topics. So it seems that "my beliefs" are not understood very well by you at all. And you have, in part at least, attacked a strawman.
You can claim that my reasoning is circular and self-completing, but you and the others here have utterly failed at providing specific examples of HOW this is true.
My interest is not so much in getting others to respect and respond positively to my worldview as it is to challenge the faulty logic and misnomers so flippantly tossed about by you and others here. That is my interest.
Science and reason (not synonemous) are the product of people who held to a strong theistic worldview. Keep that in mind.
Finally, a religionist I am not. I have no time for codes of conduct which sinful humans can't keep. I'm in need of the grace and mercy that comes from a person, not an institution or organization.
- version30
south park last night had jesus living in imagination land.
caused a good chuckle amongst those watching
- ********0
"the dark riddle of a resemblance" St Augustine.
- mrdobolina0
blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
- detritus0
ONE MORE TIME.
We have not been around for long enough to know all the answers. That's it. That's the single-only point I want to make to you.
In your answer, you're still assuming that contemporary science is wholly right - I don't.
Your assumptions..
- all matter and energy had a beginning
Did they? Whither Quantum foam?
- information was present at the beginning
Was it? We don't even know what the beginning was!
- all of life is run off of an algorithmic code (DNA)
Is it? Ours is, probably.. but beyond that?I'd love for you to point out to me articles that exactly specify the above assertions - given the mess we're getting into with the preliminary poking of the quantum world, it is nothing short of arrogance of you to state anything like the above with any level of certainty. This is why science relies on theoretical frameworks rather than The Word, because the more we know, the less we understand and the more careful we have to be.
With regard to the self-completing circularity of your stance, if it all comes back to The Word, what other term best describes your position? Where does that place the billion or so souls who choose to prefer the The Word of the Vedas?
A religionist you most are - who here more than you espouses the constancy of any given theology? None.
Really though - PLEASE, JUST ONCE - involve yourself in something other than a religious debate, it really is tiresome and dull and you make me hate myself for getting involved in this endless, inconclusive morass.
- Brookoioioi0
Anthropocentric arrogance, Scientific ingorance and obstufication of the highest order. People who really know what they are talking about are capable of communicating those ideas clearly, postmodernists, pious fools and arrogant cunts are the only people who spout such cargo cult psuedo-scientific gibberish to deflect from their lack of genuine understanding.
- Mimio0
Exactly, why not just say that you believe science is an inadequate methodology and that supernatural activity created life?
- BonSeff0
to their credit but far less amusing, it is better than the plop down adam and make eve out of a rib theory
- philipdrumman0
'Man' is responsible for all those big words, theyre not in the bible
Those words make my head hurt.
- Mimio0
The world don't move to the beat of just one drum.