Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Thunderfoot vs. RayComfort

sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2009 10:34:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Thunderfoot has presented so many videos debunking creationists, but look at him fumble in his discussion with Ray Comfort. I see what he is doing wrong, I think. Here is the first video, see what you think.

How would you do it differently? Creationism must be addressed in a public format; science is too important to allow pseudoscientists to misrepresent information. Comfort is not as bad as Kent Hovind, but he is running close.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2009 10:55:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I haven't heard of either of these guys before.

NOTE- I am agnostic.

But, this was a very one-sided debate. RayComfort easily won the debate. Thunderfoot's only arguments were "IDK... IDK... and IDK." RayComfort at least put up arguments. Thunderfoot didn't look like he has ever argued in person with an actual human being, he struggled to speak at times and stuggled to make eye contact. RayComfort was a good speaker and presented his points well.

This wasn't a good debate anyway. The debates here on DDO in the Religion or Science forums are better than the YouTube debate.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2009 9:37:28 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I think he may have taken a couple of hits right before the interview. I think he did it in an effort to dumb himself down so that they could be on the same level.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2009 11:18:59 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
"I don't know" is a valid mother f*cking answer.

That is all I have to say.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2009 1:39:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Science & religion just don't mix. It's not that you can't have both, it's just that they cover completely different aspects of humanity.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2009 1:48:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/4/2009 1:39:36 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Science & religion just don't mix.

Actually science is a worldview seeking to explain the universe. It is a religion.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2009 1:51:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Religion- a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe http://dictionary.reference.com...
Science- knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study http://dictionary.reference.com...
So, Science is just a religion concerning what is already deduced.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2009 2:13:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/4/2009 1:51:33 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Religion- a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe http://dictionary.reference.com...
Science- knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study http://dictionary.reference.com...
So, Science is just a religion concerning what is already deduced.

Science: a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.

Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Generally speaking (and word of mouth is what defines words), religion concerns metaphysics, morality, and the supernatural. Science touches none of those areas.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2009 2:53:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Religion is a set of preconceived beliefs and dogmatic guidelines. Science is the study of Universe and compiled knowledge based on experimentation and evidence. (Though I do think that many in the scientific community operate on the basis of preconceived ideas too.)

The major difference here is that one seeks the truth, the other claims to have the truth (which ironically, because of truth seeking, religion has been proven false anyways.)

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2009 3:07:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/4/2009 2:13:21 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Generally speaking (and word of mouth is what defines words), religion concerns metaphysics, morality, and the supernatural. Science touches none of those areas.

NO! I completely disagree with this. Religion is the source of IMMORALITY. Religion is metaphyisically unsound and incorrectly and inaccurately portrays the "supernatural." We need to turn the issue of morality and the supernatural into the hands of philosophy/metaphysics, not religion.

(Let me clarify that, when I say religion, I am only picking on Judeo-Christianity/Islam and it's offshoots. I consider eastern religions to be for the most part, spot on philosophically and aren't as dogmatic.)

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2009 3:16:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/4/2009 1:51:33 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Religion- a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe http://dictionary.reference.com...
Science- knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study http://dictionary.reference.com...
So, Science is just a religion concerning what is already deduced.

Religion is based on only faith: (mw) a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

Science is based on reasoning, observation, and testing: (mw) knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.

Scientific Method: (mw) : principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

They are completely different animals. Unlike religion, science is constantly changing; as better methods & more accurate methods arise, they replace or sometimes complement the old.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2009 3:24:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/4/2009 3:16:49 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
They are completely different animals. Unlike religion, science is constantly changing

I think you might want to reconsider that. See my sig.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2009 3:28:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/4/2009 2:53:14 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Religion is a set of preconceived beliefs and dogmatic guidelines. Science is the study of Universe and compiled knowledge based on experimentation and evidence. (Though I do think that many in the scientific community operate on the basis of preconceived ideas too.)

The major difference here is that one seeks the truth, the other claims to have the truth (which ironically, because of truth seeking, religion has been proven false anyways.)

.

Actually, you can't really prove religion false. Religion is a set of beliefs based on faith and not necessarily logic.

At 8/4/2009 3:07:55 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
NO! I completely disagree with this. Religion is the source of IMMORALITY. Religion is metaphyisically unsound and incorrectly and inaccurately portrays the "supernatural." We need to turn the issue of morality and the supernatural into the hands of philosophy/metaphysics, not religion.

(Let me clarify that, when I say religion, I am only picking on Judeo-Christianity/Islam and it's offshoots. I consider eastern religions to be for the most part, spot on philosophically and aren't as dogmatic.)

Disagree profusely. I think people are the ones to blame and not religion. As far as Eastern religions go, I hope you lump them in there with Judeo-Christianity/Islam as they have been the source of untold human suffering (caste systems, etc.)

As far as philosophy, what has that got to do with religion?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2009 3:49:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/4/2009 3:28:44 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 8/4/2009 2:53:14 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Religion is a set of preconceived beliefs and dogmatic guidelines. Science is the study of Universe and compiled knowledge based on experimentation and evidence. (Though I do think that many in the scientific community operate on the basis of preconceived ideas too.)

The major difference here is that one seeks the truth, the other claims to have the truth (which ironically, because of truth seeking, religion has been proven false anyways.)

.

Actually, you can't really prove religion false. Religion is a set of beliefs based on faith and not necessarily logic.

You wanna bet? Look up the word astro-theology, look up the origins, and it will make every religious institution crumble. I can demonstrate that religion is false historically, philosophically, logically, and scientifically.

At 8/4/2009 3:07:55 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
NO! I completely disagree with this. Religion is the source of IMMORALITY. Religion is metaphyisically unsound and incorrectly and inaccurately portrays the "supernatural." We need to turn the issue of morality and the supernatural into the hands of philosophy/metaphysics, not religion.

(Let me clarify that, when I say religion, I am only picking on Judeo-Christianity/Islam and it's offshoots. I consider eastern religions to be for the most part, spot on philosophically and aren't as dogmatic.)

Disagree profusely. I think people are the ones to blame and not religion.

Absolutely NOT! It is the religious doctrines themself. People always say, don't blame extremism on religion, blame the person. No. The person is only acting how the doctrine instructs. The Bible commands the slaughter of babies, women, disobedient children, the stoning of homosexuals, MASSIVE Global GENOCIDE (Noah's Ark ring a bell?)! You want to tell me that religion is not the source of immorality and that it's the people? NO! If anything, people aren't extreme enough, because if we were to do as commanded by the Bible, we would EXECUTE those who work on the Sabbath.

As far as Eastern religions go, I hope you lump them in there with Judeo-Christianity/Islam as they have been the source of untold human suffering (caste systems, etc.)

That is true, though I was only referring to the philosophic aspects or eastern religion, not the religious authorities / theocracies.

As far as philosophy, what has that got to do with religion?

Ress said that religion deals with metaphysics, morals, and the supernatural, and I disagreed and said that we need to leave that for philosophy to deal with.

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2009 4:40:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/4/2009 3:07:55 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/4/2009 2:13:21 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Generally speaking (and word of mouth is what defines words), religion concerns metaphysics, morality, and the supernatural. Science touches none of those areas.

NO! I completely disagree with this. Religion is the source of IMMORALITY. Religion is metaphyisically unsound and incorrectly and inaccurately portrays the "supernatural." We need to turn the issue of morality and the supernatural into the hands of philosophy/metaphysics, not religion.

I'm not disagreeing with you here Geo. What I said was it CONCERNS those areas - I never argued that they were correct. What I was saying in that comment was science cannot be a religion, as science does not concern itself with morality, metaphysics, or the supernatural - those realms are, yes, for philosophy. If Wjm wants to argue that philosophy is a religion then I can respond to that later, but the point of my comment was to differentiate between science and religion, NOT to argue that religion is good at what it concerns itself with.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2009 4:46:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/4/2009 4:40:34 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/4/2009 3:07:55 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/4/2009 2:13:21 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Generally speaking (and word of mouth is what defines words), religion concerns metaphysics, morality, and the supernatural. Science touches none of those areas.

NO! I completely disagree with this. Religion is the source of IMMORALITY. Religion is metaphyisically unsound and incorrectly and inaccurately portrays the "supernatural." We need to turn the issue of morality and the supernatural into the hands of philosophy/metaphysics, not religion.

I'm not disagreeing with you here Geo. What I said was it CONCERNS those areas - I never argued that they were correct. What I was saying in that comment was science cannot be a religion, as science does not concern itself with morality, metaphysics, or the supernatural - those realms are, yes, for philosophy. If Wjm wants to argue that philosophy is a religion then I can respond to that later, but the point of my comment was to differentiate between science and religion, NOT to argue that religion is good at what it concerns itself with.

Yeah, I understand. It wasn't really an outburst at you, it was just something I felt needed to be clarified for everyone.

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2009 6:20:45 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/4/2009 3:24:34 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/4/2009 3:16:49 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
They are completely different animals. Unlike religion, science is constantly changing

I think you might want to reconsider that. See my sig.

Huh? Care to explain?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2009 7:15:39 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8,

Astro-theology: Oh yeah, astrology just makes all religions crumble...hmmm...let me think about it...No, don't think so. You can demonstrate many things about religion (say Christianity) from a historical, philosophical, logically, and scientific perspective but that won't change anything because it's about faith. Regardless, the Bible is not a history book or a science book, nor is it a discourse on philosophy or logic.

Of course, man is to blame for his sins & immorality, and not religion. From my perspective, I can say Christianity has done more good than bad in the world, that's obvious to anyone that's not biased. However, some people are strong literalists and practically take the whole Bible literally. The Bible is not something that is to be taken literally in it's entirety, though many are under that impression.

On the one hand, you seem to imply that religion is immoral and genocidal and is false and made up, yet the people that supposedly made it up and were immoral and genocidal are not held accountable. That makes no sense. You go further and say that people aren't extreme enough, and that they should be even more literal in their blind following of a religion. So, am I to understand that you take umbrage with the specific set of beliefs but not the extremism? So then you'd like to see it replaced with something to your liking so long as it's followed to it's extremes?

Philosophy/Religion: Religion can deal with many things not just metaphysics, morals, and the supernatural. Philosophy doesn't actual "deal" with these things but rather attempts to study them based on "its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument." (wiki)

Here's a list* of wars/genocides of recent history:
1860-65: American civil war (360,000)
1886-1908: Belgium-Congo Free State (8 million)
1899-02: British-Boer war (100,000)
1899-03: Colombian civil war (120,000)
1899-02: Philippines vs USA (20,000)
1900-01: Boxer rebels against Russia, Britain, France, Japan, USA against rebels (35,000)
1903: Ottomans vs Macedonian rebels (20,000)
1904: Germany vs Namibia (65,000)
1904-05: Japan vs Russia (150,000)
1910-20: Mexican revolution (250,000)
1911: Chinese Revolution (2.4 million)
1911-12: Italian-Ottoman war (20,000)
1912-13: Balkan wars (150,000)
1915: the Ottoman empire slaughters Armenians (1.2 million)
1915-20: the Ottoman empire slaughters 500,000 Assyrians
1916-23: the Ottoman empire slaughters 350,000 Greek Pontians and 480,000 Anatolian Greeks
1914-18: World War I (20 million)
1916: Kyrgyz revolt against Russia (120,000)
1917-21: Soviet revolution (5 million)
1917-19: Greece vs Turkey (45,000)
1919-21: Poland vs Soviet Union (27,000)
1928-37: Chinese civil war (2 million)
1931: Japanese Manchurian War (1.1 million)
1932-33: Soviet Union vs Ukraine (10 million)
1934: Mao's Long March (170,000)
1936: Italy's invasion of Ethiopia (200,000)
1936-37: Stalin's purges (13 million)
1936-39: Spanish civil war (600,000)
1937-45: Japanese invasion of China (500,000)
1939-45: World War II (55 million) including holocaust and Chinese revolution
1946-49: Chinese civil war (1.2 million)
1946-49: Greek civil war (50,000)
1946-54: France-Vietnam war (600,000)
1947: Partition of India and Pakistan (1 million)
1947: Taiwan's uprising against the Kuomintang (30,000)
1948-1958: Colombian civil war (250,000)
1948-1973: Arab-Israeli wars (70,000)
1949-: Indian Muslims vs Hindus (20,000)
1949-50: Mainland China vs Tibet (1,200,000)
1950-53: Korean war (3 million)
1952-59: Kenya's Mau Mau insurrection (20,000)
1954-62: French-Algerian war (368,000)
1958-61: Mao's "Great Leap Forward" (38 million)
1960-90: South Africa vs Africa National Congress (?)
1960-96: Guatemala's civil war (200,000)
1961-98: Indonesia vs West Papua/Irian (100,000)
1961-2003: Kurds vs Iraq (180,000)
1962-75: Mozambique Frelimo vs Portugal (?)
1964-73: USA-Vietnam war (3 million)
1965: second India-Pakistan war over Kashmir
1965-66: Indonesian civil war (250,000)
1966-69: Mao's "Cultural Revolution" (11 million)
1966-: Colombia's civil war (31,000)
1967-70: Nigeria-Biafra civil war (800,000)
1968-80: Rhodesia's civil war (?)
1969-: Philippines vs New People's Army (40,000)
1969-79: Idi Amin, Uganda (300,000)
1969-02: IRA - Northern Ireland's civil war (2,000)
1969-79: Francisco Macias Nguema, Equatorial Guinea (50,000)
1971: Pakistan-Bangladesh civil war (500,000)
1972-: Philippines vs Muslim separatists (Moro Islamic Liberation Front, etc) (120,000)
1972: Burundi's civil war (300,000)
1972-79: Rhodesia/Zimbabwe's civil war (30,000)
1974-91: Ethiopian civil war (1,000,000)
1975-78: Menghitsu, Ethiopia (1.5 million)
1975-79: Khmer Rouge, Cambodia (1.7 million)
1975-89: Boat people, Vietnam (250,000)
1975-90: civil war in Lebanon (40,000)
1975-87: Laos' civil war (184,000)
1975-2002: Angolan civil war (500,000)
1976-83: Argentina's military regime (20,000)
1976-93: Mozambique's civil war (900,000)
1976-98: Indonesia-East Timor civil war (600,000)
1976-2005: Indonesia-Aceh (GAM) civil war (12,000)
1977-92: El Salvador's civil war (75,000)
1979: Vietnam-China war (30,000)
1979-88: the Soviet Union invades Afghanistan (1.3 million)
1980-88: Iraq-Iran war (1 million)
1980-92: Sendero Luminoso - Peru's civil war (69,000)
1980-99: Kurds vs Turkey (35,000)
1981-90: Nicaragua vs Contras (60,000)
1982-90: Hissene Habre, Chad (40,000)
1983-: Sri Lanka's civil war (70,000)
1983-2002: Sudanese civil war (2 million)
1986-: Indian Kashmir's civil war (60,000)
1987-: Palestinian Intifada (4,500)
1988-2001: Afghanistan civil war (400,000)
1988-2004: Somalia's civil war (550,000)
1989-: Liberian civil war (220,000)
1989-: Uganda vs Lord's Resistance Army (30,000)
1991: Gulf War - large coalition against Iraq to liberate Kuwait (85,000)
1991-97: Congo's civil war (800,000)
1991-2000: Sierra Leone's civil war (200,000)
1991-2009: Russia-Chechnya civil war (200,000)
1991-94: Armenia-Azerbaijan war (35,000)
1992-96: Tajikstan's civil war war (50,000)
1992-96: Yugoslavian wars (260,000)
1992-99: Algerian civil war (150,000)
1993-97: Congo Brazzaville's civil war (100,000)
1993-2005: Burundi's civil war (200,000)
1994: Rwanda's civil war (900,000)
1995-: Pakistani Sunnis vs Shiites (1,300)
1995-: Maoist rebellion in Nepal (12,000)
1998-: Congo/Zaire's war - Rwanda and Uganda vs Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia (3.8 million)
1998-2000: Ethiopia-Eritrea war (75,000)
1999: Kosovo's liberation war - NATO vs Serbia (2,000)
2001-: Afghanistan's liberation war - USA & UK vs Taliban (40,000)
2002-: Cote d'Ivoire's civil war (1,000)
2003: Second Iraq-USA war - USA, UK and Australia vs Saddam Hussein (14,000)
2003-: Sudan vs JEM/Darfur (200,000)
2003-: Iraq's civil war (60,000)
2004-: Sudan vs SPLM & Eritrea (?)
2004-: Yemen vs Shiite Muslims (?)
2004-: Thailand vs Muslim separatists (3,700)


See a theme? The ones in Italics were supposedly religious; however, at least 1/2 of those are arguably not really about religion at all.

*(http://www.scaruffi.com...)
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2009 7:23:32 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/4/2009 11:18:59 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
"I don't know" is a valid mother f*cking answer.

That is all I have to say.

One * doesn't excuse this: REPORTED (I hope you get banned)
The Cross.. the Cross.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2009 10:59:20 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/5/2009 7:23:32 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/4/2009 11:18:59 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
"I don't know" is a valid mother f*cking answer.

That is all I have to say.

One * doesn't excuse this: REPORTED (I hope you get banned)

lol.

Advertising or Spam - nope.
Fraud or Phishing -nope.
Harassment or Privacy Invasion -nope.
Harm to Minors - nope.
Hate Content -nope.
Impersonation or Misrepresentation -nope.
Insulting Other Member(s) - nope.
Nudity or Pornography - nope.
Violence or Threats - nope.
Other (please specify) - I'm sorry, I have not broken the ToS anywhere.

If you can show that I'm attacking someone, sure, the mods will give me a warning. But in this instance, I'm not - I am simply showing that I believe very strongly that "I don't know" is a valid answer. The only point at which cussing breaks the ToS (this is to my understanding) is when I start using them to insult other members. I have done this once, but that person thought my usage of it was understandable, and did not report me as such.

The mods here have more time and less things to look over than the mods on youtube. Just because you flag someone doesn't mean they'll get the trouble of going through the mess of reinstating accounts. On the contrary, if the mods don't find that your claim is backed up by the ToS, they'll just see flags made by you in the future as spam.

But even if they see my use of profane words as a breaking of the ToS, they'll still send me a warning or two, or a temp ban, before they permaban me (I am assuming this based off of i-am-a-dragon's case). I have received no such warnings.

Too bad for you~

At 8/5/2009 6:20:45 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 8/4/2009 3:24:34 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/4/2009 3:16:49 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
They are completely different animals. Unlike religion, science is constantly changing

I think you might want to reconsider that. See my sig.

Huh? Care to explain?

They have changed their arguments with time as well. Once upon a time, religion argued that the world was flat and had four corners, God was living in the world, hell was down and heaven was up, and probably a lot of other things I'm forgetting to mention. Religion claimed to know everything.

Nowadays, religion says God lives outside of time and space and does not claim any knowledge in scientific fields (except for the fundamentalist ends).
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2009 11:16:58 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/5/2009 10:59:20 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:

They have changed their arguments with time as well. Once upon a time, religion argued that the world was flat and had four corners, God was living in the world, hell was down and heaven was up, and probably a lot of other things I'm forgetting to mention. Religion claimed to know everything.

Nowadays, religion says God lives outside of time and space and does not claim any knowledge in scientific fields (except for the fundamentalist ends).

Yes of course there are changes in religious canon & dogma, but not at the same pace or in the same way as science. It takes a Herculean effort to change dogma/canon, etc. In science, all it takes is some good evidence and verifiable reproduction of results through experimentation and it's done! Religion, you can forget about it!

However, the things that you mention that have changed in religion are actually religious encroachment into the scientific (or pseudo scientific) and not actually part of canon/dogma. Actually, there were many erroneous beliefs back then, regardless of religion; it's just that religion had a lot more power and so asserted itself into areas which it did not belong.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
MTGandP
Posts: 702
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2009 11:48:05 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Thunderf00t didn't speak very well, but he did a lot better than Ray if you actually think about what Ray said. First, Thunderf00t said way more than Ray and Ray was mostly just asking questions, so the pressure was on him. Second, Tf00t pretty much answered Ray's questions while Ray used a bunch of Bible cop-out answers.
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2009 6:40:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I agree MT, but presentation is so important in these debates and Tfoot should have cornered Comfort on some of the absurdities he has presented.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2009 6:17:04 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I think that he didn't wanna come off as arrogant, so he entertained many of Ray's more ludicrous points. However, that constant stu-stu-stuttering did not help.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2009 11:47:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/5/2009 7:15:39 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
GeoLaureate8,

Astro-theology: Oh yeah, astrology just makes all religions crumble...hmmm...let me think about it...No, don't think so.

Astro-theology is not astrology. Look it up.

You can demonstrate many things about religion (say Christianity) from a historical, philosophical, logically, and scientific perspective but that won't change anything because it's about faith.

If I were to demonstrate that religion is false, that person can have faith all they want, but they will have the knowledge that it's a lie. You can have faith that the earth was created yesterday, but our science can PROVE it's not true. So really, faith is a false position to begin with and holds no merit.

Regardless, the Bible is not a history book or a science book, nor is it a discourse on philosophy or logic.

Of course, man is to blame for his sins & immorality, and not religion. From my perspective, I can say Christianity has done more good than bad in the world, that's obvious to anyone that's not biased. However, some people are strong literalists and practically take the whole Bible literally. The Bible is not something that is to be taken literally in it's entirety, though many are under that impression.

You're missing the point altogether. I'm not saying that man isn't also responsible for immorality. I'm saying that religion is A source of immorality. You see, I don't care if Christianity has made people do good things like charity and all that. I'm not talking about it's effects. I'm talking about the religion itself. When I see the word Christianity, I picture global genocide, stoning, execution, intolerance, and bloodshed. So you saying that Christianity has done more good than bad, that's like saying war has done more good than bad. We can say war helps the economy and whatever else, but war itself is bad. Just like religion.

On the one hand, you seem to imply that religion is immoral and genocidal and is false and made up, yet the people that supposedly made it up and were immoral and genocidal are not held accountable.

I don't see how the authors are relevant. Is Stephen King immoral and genocidal because writes horror novels? The people who wrote the Bible probably knew it was symbolic. And if religion is the product of immoral, dishonest, and genocidal people, how can religion (which also contains genocide, lies, and immorality) ever expect to be true and moral?

That makes no sense. You go further and say that people aren't extreme enough, and that they should be even more literal in their blind following of a religion.

No, my point was is that you aren't even seeing the worst of what comes from religion. If people were to do exactly as the Bible commanded (which is what religious people believe is the right thing to do), people would be killing left and right on a daily basis. So I'm saying that people who call themselves true Christians, aren't being extreme enough to their religion's standards.

Philosophy/Religion: Religion can deal with many things not just metaphysics, morals, and the supernatural. Philosophy doesn't actual "deal" with these things but rather attempts to study them based on "its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument." (wiki)

Religion is anti-philosophy and discourages free thinking and is a set of strict rules and mandatory beliefs.

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 1:05:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8,
"Astro-theology is not astrology. Look it up."
I did, and you're right! It's not the same crap...it's worse crap!
Pseudo-intellectual demagoguery of ignorant conspiracy theorists. If you believe in this garbage then you clearly don't possess strong faculties of logic & reason, or have a healthy sense of skepticism.
(http://www.metacafe.com...)
Watch all the videos as they may help clear things up.

Religion & Science: Religion does not require proof only faith. Can it be faith in something that isn't scientifically true? Sure, but that doesn't change religion. Religion is a social institution that people use. It helps us interact with each other and gives us simple rules of conduct/morality.

War & Religion: You said: "When I see the word Christianity, I picture global genocide, stoning, execution, intolerance, and bloodshed." These things have nothing to do with Christianity. Actually, it's quite the opposite but I guess you're quite intolerant of religion.

Personal responsibility: Your "Stephen King analogy" is so off base and has nothing to do with the argument. Simply put, you should be upset at the perpetrators of wrongdoing not at a religion that opposes such evils. Personal responsibility, it's the key.

People: The truth is, people don't need religion to perpetrate evil; they are quite capable of doing it without religion. If anything, religion has helped to severely limit the amount of evil man creates in this world. Don't believe me? Let's just look at a few wars/genocides of recent history:

1860-65: American civil war (360,000)
1886-1908: Belgium-Congo Free State (8 million)
1899-02: British-Boer war (100,000)
1899-03: Colombian civil war (120,000)
1899-02: Philippines vs USA (20,000)
1900-01: Boxer rebels against Russia, Britain, France, Japan, USA against rebels (35,000)
1903: Ottomans vs Macedonian rebels (20,000)
1904: Germany vs Namibia (65,000)
1904-05: Japan vs Russia (150,000)
1910-20: Mexican revolution (250,000)
1911: Chinese Revolution (2.4 million)
1911-12: Italian-Ottoman war (20,000)
1912-13: Balkan wars (150,000)
1915: the Ottoman empire slaughters Armenians (1.2 million)
1915-20: the Ottoman empire slaughters 500,000 Assyrians
1916-23: the Ottoman empire slaughters 350,000 Greek Pontians and 480,000 Anatolian Greeks
1914-18: World War I (20 million)
1916: Kyrgyz revolt against Russia (120,000)
1917-21: Soviet revolution (5 million)
1917-19: Greece vs Turkey (45,000)
1919-21: Poland vs Soviet Union (27,000)
1928-37: Chinese civil war (2 million)
1931: Japanese Manchurian War (1.1 million)
1932-33: Soviet Union vs Ukraine (10 million)
1934: Mao's Long March (170,000)
1936: Italy's invasion of Ethiopia (200,000)
1936-37: Stalin's purges (13 million)
1936-39: Spanish civil war (600,000)
1937-45: Japanese invasion of China (500,000)
1939-45: World War II (55 million) including holocaust and Chinese revolution
1946-49: Chinese civil war (1.2 million)
1946-49: Greek civil war (50,000)
1946-54: France-Vietnam war (600,000)
1947: Partition of India and Pakistan (1 million)
1947: Taiwan's uprising against the Kuomintang (30,000)
1948-1958: Colombian civil war (250,000)
1948-1973: Arab-Israeli wars (70,000)
1949-: Indian Muslims vs Hindus (20,000)
1949-50: Mainland China vs Tibet (1,200,000)
1950-53: Korean war (3 million)
1952-59: Kenya's Mau Mau insurrection (20,000)
1954-62: French-Algerian war (368,000)
1958-61: Mao's "Great Leap Forward" (38 million)
1960-90: South Africa vs Africa National Congress (?)
1960-96: Guatemala's civil war (200,000)
1961-98: Indonesia vs West Papua/Irian (100,000)
1961-2003: Kurds vs Iraq (180,000)
1962-75: Mozambique Frelimo vs Portugal (?)
1964-73: USA-Vietnam war (3 million)
1965: second India-Pakistan war over Kashmir
1965-66: Indonesian civil war (250,000)
1966-69: Mao's "Cultural Revolution" (11 million)
1966-: Colombia's civil war (31,000)
1967-70: Nigeria-Biafra civil war (800,000)
1968-80: Rhodesia's civil war (?)
1969-: Philippines vs New People's Army (40,000)
1969-79: Idi Amin, Uganda (300,000)
1969-02: IRA - Northern Ireland's civil war (2,000)
1969-79: Francisco Macias Nguema, Equatorial Guinea (50,000)
1971: Pakistan-Bangladesh civil war (500,000)
1972-: Philippines vs Muslim separatists (Moro Islamic Liberation Front, etc) (120,000)
1972: Burundi's civil war (300,000)
1972-79: Rhodesia/Zimbabwe's civil war (30,000)
1974-91: Ethiopian civil war (1,000,000)
1975-78: Menghitsu, Ethiopia (1.5 million)
1975-79: Khmer Rouge, Cambodia (1.7 million)
1975-89: Boat people, Vietnam (250,000)
1975-90: civil war in Lebanon (40,000)
1975-87: Laos' civil war (184,000)
1975-2002: Angolan civil war (500,000)
1976-83: Argentina's military regime (20,000)
1976-93: Mozambique's civil war (900,000)
1976-98: Indonesia-East Timor civil war (600,000)
1976-2005: Indonesia-Aceh (GAM) civil war (12,000)
1977-92: El Salvador's civil war (75,000)
1979: Vietnam-China war (30,000)
1979-88: the Soviet Union invades Afghanistan (1.3 million)
1980-88: Iraq-Iran war (1 million)
1980-92: Sendero Luminoso - Peru's civil war (69,000)
1980-99: Kurds vs Turkey (35,000)
1981-90: Nicaragua vs Contras (60,000)
1982-90: Hissene Habre, Chad (40,000)
1983-: Sri Lanka's civil war (70,000)
1983-2002: Sudanese civil war (2 million)
1986-: Indian Kashmir's civil war (60,000)
1987-: Palestinian Intifada (4,500)
1988-2001: Afghanistan civil war (400,000)
1988-2004: Somalia's civil war (550,000)
1989-: Liberian civil war (220,000)
1989-: Uganda vs Lord's Resistance Army (30,000)
1991: Gulf War - large coalition against Iraq to liberate Kuwait (85,000)
1991-97: Congo's civil war (800,000)
1991-2000: Sierra Leone's civil war (200,000)
1991-2009: Russia-Chechnya civil war (200,000)
1991-94: Armenia-Azerbaijan war (35,000)
1992-96: Tajikstan's civil war war (50,000)
1992-96: Yugoslavian wars (260,000)
1992-99: Algerian civil war (150,000)
1993-97: Congo Brazzaville's civil war (100,000)
1993-2005: Burundi's civil war (200,000)
1994: Rwanda's civil war (900,000)
1995-: Pakistani Sunnis vs Shiites (1,300)
1995-: Maoist rebellion in Nepal (12,000)
1998-: Congo/Zaire's war - Rwanda and Uganda vs Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia (3.8 million)
1998-2000: Ethiopia-Eritrea war (75,000)
1999: Kosovo's liberation war - NATO vs Serbia (2,000)
2001-: Afghanistan's liberation war - USA & UK vs Taliban (40,000)
2002-: Cote d'Ivoire's civil war (1,000)
2003: Second Iraq-USA war - USA, UK and Australia vs Saddam Hussein (14,000)
2003-: Sudan vs JEM/Darfur (200,000)
2003-: Iraq's civil war (60,000)
2004-: Sudan vs SPLM & Eritrea (?)
2004-: Yemen vs Shiite Muslims (?)
2004-: Thailand vs Muslim separatists (3,700)

See a theme? Not much religion there, huh?.

*(http://www.scaruffi.com......)

My advice to you: stop listening to Art Bell & George Nooray, take the aluminum foil off your head, and stay clean for a few weeks (conspiracy clean, I mean.) Then get informed about reality by getting your information from credible sources, but most importantly: stay clear of conspiracies. A person addicted to conspiracies should avoid them at all costs; I know it's hard. Conspiracies are like a shortcut to thinking, man.

But how can you tell if something's conspiracy? Well, a good litmus test to see if something might be a conspiracy is to ask yourself "would this explanation make for an entertaining movie plot?" If the answer is yes, then there's probably a 99% chance that it's a conspiracy, so throw it out and get info elsewhere.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 1:49:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/3/2009 10:55:02 PM, Nags wrote:
I haven't heard of either of these guys before.

NOTE- I am agnostic.

But, this was a very one-sided debate. RayComfort easily won the debate. Thunderfoot's only arguments were "IDK... IDK... and IDK." RayComfort at least put up arguments. Thunderfoot didn't look like he has ever argued in person with an actual human being, he struggled to speak at times and stuggled to make eye contact. RayComfort was a good speaker and presented his points well.

This wasn't a good debate anyway. The debates here on DDO in the Religion or Science forums are better than the YouTube debate.

Off-topic, but just wanted to comment I took public speaking and failed it 4 times in a row in college. It wasn't a requirement for my degree, but it was something I felt weak in -- and obviously was. I may not be the greatest debater on DDO, but in person I'm not even one-tenth the debater I am here. I feel a lot more comfortable typing text than speaking ... I badly fumble through normal conversations thanks to anxiety (I have generalized anxiety disorder diagnosed) and possibly other issues.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 2:55:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 1:05:20 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
GeoLaureate8,
"Astro-theology is not astrology. Look it up."
I did, and you're right! It's not the same crap...it's worse crap!
Pseudo-intellectual demagoguery of ignorant conspiracy theorists. If you believe in this garbage then you clearly don't possess strong faculties of logic & reason, or have a healthy sense of skepticism.

Ad hominem.

Religion & Science: Religion does not require proof only faith. Can it be faith in something that isn't scientifically true? Sure, but that doesn't change religion.

Then it is false. Also, I don't just mean scientifically false, I also mean historically false. You keep repeating that religion is about faith, but if the Bible is proven historically false, and yet you still believe it, it's irrelevant. Religion can still be proven false. Things that are false are false, no matter how much faith you have in it.

Religion is a social institution that people use. It helps us interact with each other and gives us simple rules of conduct/morality.

Absolutely terrible rules of conduct and morality. Stone those who disagree with you. Execute those who work on the Sabbath. Smite those who have different beliefs. If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. You call that morality?

War & Religion: You said: "When I see the word Christianity, I picture global genocide, stoning, execution, intolerance, and bloodshed." These things have nothing to do with Christianity. Actually, it's quite the opposite but I guess you're quite intolerant of religion.

No, you are in denial of this fact and I will prove it. My intolerance of religion is irrelevant when it comes to facts. Christianity IS violent, cruel, and brutal.

"...every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth." Genesis 7:4

"if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire." Leviticus 21:9

"And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death." Leviticus 24:16


In the above verse, the Bible commands you to stone me to death because I blaspheme Yahweh. You call this morality?

Personal responsibility:Simply put, you should be upset at the perpetrators of wrongdoing not at a religion that opposes such evils. Personal responsibility, it's the key.

NO. You don't get it. The effects of religion are irrelevant (causes some good, some bad), and no, religion does not oppose such evils. It promotes such evils. You're right that personal responsibility is key, and if you are responsible, you would reject religion and the immorality of the Bible.

People: The truth is, people don't need religion to perpetrate evil; they are quite capable of doing it without religion.

Besides the point.

If anything, religion has helped to severely limit the amount of evil man creates in this world. Don't believe me? Let's just look at a few wars/genocides of recent history:

I don't care. I don't care if not one war is due to religion. That would simply mean that man has learned not to take the Bible seriously. The Bible advocates war ("The Lord is a man of war" Exodus 15:3) and violence. So lack of religious wars is a sign that man has moved on from the violent passages of religion.

My advice to you: stop listening to Art Bell & George Nooray, take the aluminum foil off your head, and stay clean for a few weeks (conspiracy clean, I mean.) Then get informed about reality by getting your information from credible sources, but most importantly: stay clear of conspiracies. A person addicted to conspiracies should avoid them at all costs; I know it's hard. Conspiracies are like a shortcut to thinking, man.

If you believe in a talking snake, men walking on water, flying space daddies, then you are in no position, whatsoever, to criticize any conspiracy "theory" of being unrealistic. Conspiracies are not a shortcut to thinking (religion certainly is though), they require intensive and tedious research. It's much easier to believe what is spoonfed to you by the mainstream media. Now that is a shortcut to thinking.

But how can you tell if something's conspiracy? Well, a good litmus test to see if something might be a conspiracy is to ask yourself "would this explanation make for an entertaining movie plot?" If the answer is yes, then there's probably a 99% chance that it's a conspiracy, so throw it out and get info elsewhere.

Perhaps you should do the same for your fairy tales.

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat