Recent posts by Yreval on Kongregate

Topic: Serious Discussion / No God of Mine (faith)

If you want a comparison, it would be like being a Gold digging whore.

Oh, you flatter me.

Topic: Serious Discussion / No God of Mine (faith)

I have trouble understanding how threatening eternal damnation isn’t forcing “love,” though.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Purpose of life - why are we here?

Obviously, we are supposed to live for Christ.

I feel you’re being a bit presumptuous.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is God Real... Is Heaven And Hell Real? If Not, Then What Happens When We Die?

He wants faith.

Why?

Topic: Serious Discussion / I really need some help...

Now, I’m no expert, but I’m pretty sure that nuclear bombs are a bit more complicated than “get plutonium, add explosives.”

Topic: Serious Discussion / No God of Mine (faith)

Do you believe with strong conviction that a black hole created by the LHC will not swallow up the Earth and any surrounding entities? You’ve already stated you have. So, then you have proven my point that science does indeed include a bit of faith, especially as defined above, #3 (remember to understand when a semi colon and a word like “especially” are used that it’s not narrowing down the definition to only religion but that this meaning is especially useful in the case of religion).

I point you to my earlier reply:

The problem here is that you’re conflating two very distinct meanings of the word “faith.” There’s a huge disparity to be noted between having “faith” that the Bible is truthful, with no evidence from any other source or any intimation that the explanations of the Bible are accurate (let alone the only accurate explanation) and the “faith” that the physics equations you learned and experimentally verified in high school are still going to prove accurate no matter how many times you try them or how many situations you try them on.

That’s fine and dandy, but the problem arises when you conflate the definition that you’re using with the definition being used by everyone else in the discussion. You need to draw the distinction; the sense of “faith” that’s being used as a distinguishing factor between the religion and reason is not the same as the meaning of “faith” that you’re trying to assert as a part of science. Hell, you just said yourself which definition you were choosing, and it’s not what the people you’re arguing against are talking about.

You’re confusing the meaning of “faith” that you’re arguing with the one that everyone else is arguing. Yeah, there’s strong beliefs and convictions in science—hell, I believe with strong conviction that my chair isn’t going to vanish from beneath my ass right now, but it’s not the same. You’ve said it yourself, “especially as defined above, #3.” The problem arises in that although you are right, people do have strong beliefs in science, and you can call that “faith,” it’s a very different “faith” than what we’re talking about. You’re arguing by a different definition. Because I have “faith” that my chair is not going to vanish out from under me (that is, the belief with strong conviction that my ass will remain squarely planted in my seat) does not make the “faith” that God exists and that the Bible is an accurate historical account any more valid. The concepts are distinct. It’s irrelevant whether or not your point is proven, you still can’t take the point and use it to argue something completely different.

Topic: Serious Discussion / No God of Mine (faith)

Based on what? Our previous experiences with creating black holes? Laughable.

Based on the (experimentally verified and reliable) mathematical equations and models that suggest the risk of black holes in the first place. You can’t draw conclusions based on the information from a source and then plug your ears and pretend the rest of what said source doesn’t matter. It’d be like if I decided to go to an action movie just because I read a review that in one line said that “the special effects are good,” while ignoring the next line of the same review that says “but they don’t make up for the bad acting and storyline.”

Upper atmosphere: High-energy particles collide LHC: High-energy particles collide …what’s the difference, again?

The difference is that although the collisions in our atmosphere happen with significantly greater energies, any resultant black holes would fly past or through our Earth at near light speed, whereas any resultant black holes from the LHC experiments would be stationary, and could then hypothetically accrete mass while staying in our vicinity, then posing a threat. As a disclaimer, I’m not very worried.

Those things we “know” are disproved all the time. The basic definition of a scientific theory is something that has yet to be disproved.

In fact, that definition’s a bit too “basic” to be correct. Hell, that’s a little bit too cavalier to even define “hypothesis” (that is, you don’t hear people hypothesizing that there’s a celestial tea pot or a flying spaghetti monster just because it hasn’t been disproved, much less calling said ideas scientific theories.) Hypotheses have to be supported by loads of reliable, verifiable experimentation and data and peer-reviewed research before they can even begin to be considered a “theory,” and even then they have a long way to go before they’re widely accepted and taught.

Ok, one more time for Jabor. If you yourself didn’t go out and perform the experiment you are taking the results as truth based on your faith in one or many categories. These can include but aren’t limited to your belief in the accuracy of the numbers or the character of the scientist.

The problem here is that you’re conflating two very distinct meanings of the word “faith.” There’s a huge disparity to be noted between having “faith” that the Bible is truthful, with no evidence from any other source or any intimation that the explanations of the Bible are accurate (let alone the only accurate explanation) and the “faith” that the physics equations you learned and experimentally verified in high school are still going to prove accurate no matter how many times you try them or how many situations you try them on. Furthermore, scientists have an ethos that religious teachings lack; scientific theories have countless books supporting and explaining their claims, countless highly-qualified supporters and founders (who should be trusted on the basis of those ideas that you have yourself observed and verified), countless constituent laws and ideas that you can understand and verify. Religious teachings don’t; they’re an assertion—an explanation—with no evidence aside of the assertion itself (ie. “You have to believe the Bible! It says so right here!”) By contrast, scientific theories not only give the assertion, but the how and the why that assertion makes sense and you should believe it (whether one personally can understand this and verify it or not.) The idea that I should have “faith” that the Bible is telling the truth and the idea that I should have “faith” in the teachings of my 11th grade physics class are very different.

So you claim. But, you can’t prove that he doesn’t.

That’s not the way science (and, at that rate, logic) works. It’d be pretty absurd to hold a theory that “the universe is made of pixies and the forces of nature are those pixies casting spells at each other” in the same regard as the standard model, wouldn’t it? The Celestial Teapot and Flying Spaghetti Monster illustrate the same concept. That said, your retort hardly stands up anyway. Being that Jabor was talking about there being no verifiable effects on the universe, unless you can verify for us an effect of God on the universe, you’re full of shit.

Also, if you’re working in base 2 not base 10, 1 + 1 = 11 and not 2.

Though this is hardly relevant, I’d like to point out that in a base 2 number system, 1+1=10, not 11.

Yes, I can pick and choose which definition I want to use to, I’ll choose #3.

That’s fine and dandy, but the problem arises when you conflate the definition that you’re using with the definition being used by everyone else in the discussion. You need to draw the distinction; the sense of “faith” that’s being used as a distinguishing factor between the religion and reason is not the same as the meaning of “faith” that you’re trying to assert as a part of science. Hell, you just said yourself which definition you were choosing, and it’s not what the people you’re arguing against are talking about.

Scientists have created an event horizon NOT a black hole. Learn to read.

For all intents and purposes, an event horizon is a black hole. If you have an iris, it means you’ve got a pupil.

Topic: Serious Discussion / The "Tolerance" Movement

You see, I believe it is a sin. S-I-N. SIN. Thus, I believe it is wrong. I don’t want my kids to think it’s okay.

That’s dandy; you’re free to believe whatever you want and teach whatever you want to your kids. However, seeing as that belief, however vehemently you hold it, is based subjectively in religious doctrine, you cannot ask it to be taught in schools (excepting religious schools or religious classes.) Public schools don’t teach the ten commandments, they don’t teach the Jewish covenant, they don’t teach the tenets of Satanism, and they damn sure shouldn’t be teaching that homosexuality is a sin.

You protest the teaching of harmful concepts in school, but you ignore my objections toward the teaching of what I believe to be harmful.

For the aforementioned reasons. You have no basis outside of Christian doctrine that homosexuality (much less the acceptance thereof) is harmful to man or society, and given that research points to the conclusion that homosexuality has no adverse effects on children raised in gay homes and that accepting and treating homosexuals as equals does not harm society, asking that schools teach otherwise is absolutely absurd.

I was referring to homosexuals themselves, not their sins. Homosexuality is a Biblical sin, and since I believe in the Bible wholeheartedly, I consider it a sin.

That’s cool and all, but I’ve twice now discussed why that doesn’t matter.

I have been civil the entire discussion. I have not called names or thrown insults. Is it a violation of the conduct guidelines to voice my beliefs because they are “intolerant”? That’s the entire point of this thread.

I don’t think you understood. He didn’t suggest that you are being uncivil or are going to be banned for your thread, he was just clarifying that so long as you remain civil (as you have been) you will not be banned. It seems the only person vilifying you here is yourself.

Reason?

Because it’s arbitrarily denying a group of people rights that the rest of us enjoy.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Military Recruiters In Schools(& Anarchy)

and why are you so desperate to defend the military?

Why are you so desperate to attack it?

Topic: Serious Discussion / 8yr old kills father and renter

I don’t support the death penalty to begin with, but that’s a whole different discussion.

The fact of the matter is that the brain of an 8 year old child is not fully developed, and their understanding of morality, law, death, and other abstract concepts simply isn’t there yet. In fact, an 8 year will only recently have come to understand that other people have thoughts and emotions too. Morally speaking, the vast majority of 8 year olds still function on a “preconventional” level, where decisions are made based on personal impact. Most importantly, the frontal lobe (specifically the prefrontal cortex) doesn’t fully develop until early adulthood, (18-early twenties) leaving a child’s/adolescent’s concrete, logical reasoning impaired.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Death at Kongregate

Aye, I acknowledge it’s possible—but it’s really not typical. Even the article you linked calls the event in question “unsettling and bizarre.”

Topic: Serious Discussion / Religion Poll

Atheist.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Death at Kongregate

While I certainly can’t speak for everybody, seeking attention on the internet is hardly the behavior of any suicidal or terminally ill person that I’ve ever met or heard of.

Topic: Serious Discussion / how come theres so many chinese people?

As I understand, it’s not uncommon to either not report or abandon baby girls, because many Chinese parents want to continue their family name with a son.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Proposition 8 in California, 2008

you’re all a bunch of homos aren’t you. OMFG

Does it matter if we are?

Topic: Serious Discussion / Proposition 8 in California, 2008

What the hell does the Bible have anything to do with this?

Ideally? Nothing. Unfortunately, many Prop 8 supporters feel it justifies their actions.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Proposition 8 in California, 2008

actually Romans 1:26-27. 28-32 is talking about murder and such. Anyway I think this is a bad example since this is both a particular case (normally heterosexual people are forced to change sexuality under vaguely defined circumstances) and the “punishment” you allude to is not present in any version I can find (it simply says what they were forced into was shameful).

Romans 1:28-32 certainly includes more sins than homosexuality, but it most definitely does not exclude the homosexuality. Quoting from the KJV bible I’ve been pulling my examples from:

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them

Where it is certain that this passage is not referring to “murder and such” in mentioning “fornication,” “covetousness,” “full of envy,” “debate,” “whisperers,” and “disobedient to parents.” I’m not taking this list of sins “worthy of death” to include homosexuality just because listing it right after discussing homosexuality would imply it, but because I (and others) take infer that the line “without natural affection” refers to the same “vile affections” and “that which is against nature” discussed in Romans 1:26.

Anyway if you take that passage literally word for word, we would have to accept that all atheists, pantheists, and other non-monotheistic traditions count among their followers exclusively homosexuals. According to Adherents 54% of the population fits into the monotheistic traditions, meaning 46% of the world must be homosexual, driven to murder, etc. Obviously someone is wrong here.

Luckily, I don’t put too much faith in the Bible.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Shocking survey... (Teen sex)

This says more about people who watch the Tyra Banks show then it does about America.

Exactly. You can’t generalize results from a sample of people who respond to an online poll for the Tyra Banks show to the entire country. It just doesn’t work that way.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Are most Guys Sexist And Perverted

So, do you have any evidence or reasoning to support your numbers, or did you just make them up?

I’m going to echo milskidasith on this one. It’s hard to define sexism, and even harder to define perversion. I’d imagine both terms are defined in drastically different ways by different cultures and age groups as well. For instance, homosexuality is generally more accepted by younger generations than older generations and polygamy is generally more accepted in African and Arabian nations than in Western nations.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Save the Yellowstone Wolf! Their going to remove the protection on them!

I gave more info.

Heh. I hardly consider stuttering platitudes about the maniacal “wolf-killing” plans of the “Bush Administration” valuable information. You’ve still yet to say anything. Who’s your “reliable source” and why should I trust him/her?

It’s cute to try and add some validity to your advertisement by playing off of the public dislike of Bush, but we’re not talking about Dr. Evil here. As much as I am displeased with the past eight years of American presidency, I understand the man doesn’t have any hidden, evil desires to try and kill off all the animals he can before his term ends; that’s just stupid. It’s unclear whether you’re trying to hide a political agenda in environmental hysteria, or trying to hide environmental hysteria in a political agenda, but either way I’m unimpressed.

Furthermore, no one criticized you for not supplying information—they criticized your for not being able to present that information in a readable fashion (i.e. using paragraphs.)

Seriously, quit the fear-mongering and the straw man attacks. I don’t want the Yellowstone Wolf on the endangered species list. I don’t want anything on the endangered species list. I don’t want an endangered species list. But I have no plans to “slaughter wolves en masse” or any load of bull like that.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Shocking survey... (Teen sex)

For some reason, I have difficulty taking an internet survey on the website for the Tyra Banks show seriously.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Proposition 8 in California, 2008

Over-written when Jesus came? I think Jesus disagrees.

Matthew 5:18-19 Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.

Assuming that such a viewpoint has any validity, it becomes curious that any Christian would follow such outdated moral teachings as the Ten Commandments with all their Old Testament antiquity.

But have it your way.

If we must follow the New Testament’s moral code, then we should also make it illegal for men to have long hair (Corinthians 11:14—makes you wonder what that Jesus guy was up to) and recognize that calling another man a “fool” is a crime equal to murder (Matthew 5:22.) Indeed, it should be considered adultery to look at any woman aside of one’s wife and find her attractive, and if you cannot avoid committing this sin, then you should cut your eyes out. It should be considered adultery (and thusly illegal, if we form laws on Biblical moral teachings) to divorce one’s wife for any reason aside of her having sex with another man, and it is adultery to marry a woman who is divorced. (Matthew 5:28-32.) If a child ever talks back to/swears at/curses his or her parents, then he or she should be put to death (Mark 7:9-10 and Matthew 15:4.) Furthermore, it’s absurd that we legally allow anyone to not follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, for that would make one inherently guilty of evil and sin! (1Tim 6:3-4.)

Hell, if you’re going to take the Bible’s word on the morality of homosexuality, banning gay marriage isn’t nearly going far enough. Romans 1:26-32 dictate that both homosexuals (and sinners of other sorts) and those who like or support them are “worthy of death.”

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is this a good reasons to start a fight?

give him some weed and a funny movie.

Because nothing solves depression and confusion like drug use.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Proposition 8 in California, 2008

Christianity is the largest belief in the US, and there are multiple verses in the bible which some of just flat-out say homosexuality is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9).

The Bible also suggests that it’s okay to sell one’s daughter into slavery (Exo 21:7) and that anyone working on sundays should be put to death (Exo 35:2), but last I checked, neither of those ideas were being put into law.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Is this a good reasons to start a fight?

I hate to be a jerk about this, but if you’re friend does have problems with cutting himself and threatening suicide, he probably does need to seek psychiatric attention. Even if he’s being pressured into it by some asshole, it’s not the kind of activity any sane person partakes in—bullying or otherwise.