| 08 Mar 2008 04:05 am |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 10  Joined: 07 Mar 2008 Posts: 1,404 OFFLINE | Itachi Uchiha wrote:
Killing others is natural selection... So by this point you accept killing for survive...???
No. Nature weeds out the weak and unfit to survive, I don’t kill anyone. | |
|
| 08 Mar 2008 04:10 am |
The Mangekyou Sharingan Rep: 50 Joined: 01 Oct 2007 Posts: 10,508 OFFLINE | You say nature selection which mean killing is allowed... look at lions and wild boar... natural selection right... ---
 
“Great new ideas usually come from very small teams... don’t give up so easily." — John Kaster — | |
| 08 Mar 2008 04:11 am |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 10Joined: 07 Mar 2008 Posts: 1,404 OFFLINE | Itachi Uchiha wrote:
You say nature selection which mean killing is allowed... look at lions and wild boar... natural selection right...
That is a part of nature Itachi. It doesn’t mean humans can go and kill other humans. At least not in this period of history. | |
| 08 Mar 2008 05:14 am |
The Mangekyou Sharingan Rep: 50Joined: 01 Oct 2007 Posts: 10,508 OFFLINE | Yes they can... only the strong will survive... and only the strong can rulez this world... ---
“Great new ideas usually come from very small teams... don’t give up so easily." — John Kaster — | |
| 08 Mar 2008 12:47 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 10Joined: 07 Mar 2008 Posts: 1,404 OFFLINE | Itachi Uchiha wrote:
Yes they can... only the strong will survive... and only the strong can rulez this world...
You do relize even your hero who wrote the Atlas of Creation believes in Natural selection right? | |
| 08 Mar 2008 02:41 pm |
Banned Rep: 51 Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 14,805 OFFLINE | Weasel 16 wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Weasel 16 wrote:
1. When have I ever supported killing because of over population?
when have you not?
2. A “Darwinist Anarchy”... what exactly does that mean? That evolution is anarchy? I’m not completely sure what your trying to say but I don’t see a “Darwinist Anarchy” as any different from a “Gravity Anarchy” or an “Atom Anarchy”
Clearly no imagination, typical really.
3. There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. I can tolerate religion and criticize, even bash it at the same time.
would I be tolerant by continuing to do this to you? or would i be anoyoing?
4. A “completely peaceful” world will never exist so long as we have our differences and weapons.
Just what every dulled down bumble would say
5. I could care less what people believe just as long as they don’t subvert science, try to influence the government/politics/freedoms/laws, try to impose their beliefs on me such as putting their god in my country’s pledge of allegiance or trying to teach a part of their religion in public schools as a scientific curriculum, among other things that organized religion, especially Christianity, has done that they really have no right in this country to do.
so as long as they are not as out spoken as you they’re fine?
There’s a reason for me doing this, can’t wait till you find it.
1. Never. If you think otherwise then find a quote and link to prove it.
2. Well then would you be so kind as to explain it yourself?
3. Both
4. Dulled down bumble? This is reality. There will never be world peace if we continue to have so many differences.
5. So long as they don’t push their relgion on me is basically what I’m saying
1. Go thing you went back and edited you posts no doubt
2. Anything mixes with dictatorship
3. Both? So I can continue with this totally irreverent live of questioning with you at every turn and I’m still being tolerant?
4. Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it can’t be done!
5. But you can push yours all you want.
1. If I edited any posts it will say the time and date so you would know. Like I said... PROVE IT
2. Science is not a dictatorship nor does it have any part in a dictatorship
3. No. Because I’m just going to ignore you after this post because its clear that your only motive for doing this is trying to make me look bad, not to debate facts.
4. My reasoning was no where close to what you just said. Can you say “straw man”?
5. No I can’t because atheism is not a religion, nor am I involved in anything political
this conversation is over.
Zeitgeist: Addendum
Join “The Zeitgeist Movement” | |
| 08 Mar 2008 02:43 pm |
Banned Rep: 51Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 14,805 OFFLINE | Itachi Uchiha wrote:
You say nature selection which mean killing is allowed... look at lions and wild boar... natural selection right...
Those are different animals you dumbass. Natural selection doesn’t occur with same species. Go to a library and learn what evolution REALLY is instead of being dumb enough to have a religious preacher telling you what something is that they don’t even know.
Zeitgeist: Addendum
Join “The Zeitgeist Movement” | |
| 08 Mar 2008 03:22 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 6 Joined: 01 Oct 2005 Posts: 3,602 OFFLINE | ramunematt wrote:
Weasel 16 wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Weasel 16 wrote:
1. When have I ever supported killing because of over population?
when have you not?
2. A “Darwinist Anarchy”... what exactly does that mean? That evolution is anarchy? I’m not completely sure what your trying to say but I don’t see a “Darwinist Anarchy” as any different from a “Gravity Anarchy” or an “Atom Anarchy”
Clearly no imagination, typical really.
3. There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. I can tolerate religion and criticize, even bash it at the same time.
would I be tolerant by continuing to do this to you? or would i be anoyoing?
4. A “completely peaceful” world will never exist so long as we have our differences and weapons.
Just what every dulled down bumble would say
5. I could care less what people believe just as long as they don’t subvert science, try to influence the government/politics/freedoms/laws, try to impose their beliefs on me such as putting their god in my country’s pledge of allegiance or trying to teach a part of their religion in public schools as a scientific curriculum, among other things that organized religion, especially Christianity, has done that they really have no right in this country to do.
so as long as they are not as out spoken as you they’re fine?
There’s a reason for me doing this, can’t wait till you find it.
1. Never. If you think otherwise then find a quote and link to prove it.
2. Well then would you be so kind as to explain it yourself?
3. Both
4. Dulled down bumble? This is reality. There will never be world peace if we continue to have so many differences.
5. So long as they don’t push their relgion on me is basically what I’m saying
1. Go thing you went back and edited you posts no doubt
2. Anything mixes with dictatorship
3. Both? So I can continue with this totally irreverent live of questioning with you at every turn and I’m still being tolerant?
4. Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it can’t be done!
5. But you can push yours all you want.
1. If I edited any posts it will say the time and date so you would know. Like I said... PROVE IT
2. Science is not a dictatorship nor does it have any part in a dictatorship
3. No. Because I’m just going to ignore you after this post because its clear that your only motive for doing this is trying to make me look bad, not to debate facts.
4. My reasoning was no where close to what you just said. Can you say “straw man”?
5. No I can’t because atheism is not a religion, nor am I involved in anything political
this conversation is over.
why are you running away?
Dogbert said the deepest thing ever.
“It is all a part of the big illusion we perpetuate upon ourselves and which is in turn perpetuated upon us. When we believe we engage the illusion, when we stop believing we shatter the illusion and ourselves in the process because we are part of it." | |
| 08 Mar 2008 04:20 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 10Joined: 07 Mar 2008 Posts: 1,404 OFFLINE | Weasel 16 wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Weasel 16 wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Weasel 16 wrote:
1. When have I ever supported killing because of over population?
when have you not?
2. A “Darwinist Anarchy”... what exactly does that mean? That evolution is anarchy? I’m not completely sure what your trying to say but I don’t see a “Darwinist Anarchy” as any different from a “Gravity Anarchy” or an “Atom Anarchy”
Clearly no imagination, typical really.
3. There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. I can tolerate religion and criticize, even bash it at the same time.
would I be tolerant by continuing to do this to you? or would i be anoyoing?
4. A “completely peaceful” world will never exist so long as we have our differences and weapons.
Just what every dulled down bumble would say
5. I could care less what people believe just as long as they don’t subvert science, try to influence the government/politics/freedoms/laws, try to impose their beliefs on me such as putting their god in my country’s pledge of allegiance or trying to teach a part of their religion in public schools as a scientific curriculum, among other things that organized religion, especially Christianity, has done that they really have no right in this country to do.
so as long as they are not as out spoken as you they’re fine?
There’s a reason for me doing this, can’t wait till you find it.
1. Never. If you think otherwise then find a quote and link to prove it.
2. Well then would you be so kind as to explain it yourself?
3. Both
4. Dulled down bumble? This is reality. There will never be world peace if we continue to have so many differences.
5. So long as they don’t push their relgion on me is basically what I’m saying
1. Go thing you went back and edited you posts no doubt
2. Anything mixes with dictatorship
3. Both? So I can continue with this totally irreverent live of questioning with you at every turn and I’m still being tolerant?
4. Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it can’t be done!
5. But you can push yours all you want.
1. If I edited any posts it will say the time and date so you would know. Like I said... PROVE IT
2. Science is not a dictatorship nor does it have any part in a dictatorship
3. No. Because I’m just going to ignore you after this post because its clear that your only motive for doing this is trying to make me look bad, not to debate facts.
4. My reasoning was no where close to what you just said. Can you say “straw man”?
5. No I can’t because atheism is not a religion, nor am I involved in anything political
this conversation is over.
why are you running away?
He doesn’t need to waste his time on ignorant people. | |
| 08 Mar 2008 06:11 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 25 Joined: 26 Dec 2007 Posts: 2,026 ONLINE | RebornChibiDiscoDhaos wrote:
Weasel 16 wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Weasel 16 wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Weasel 16 wrote:
1. When have I ever supported killing because of over population?
when have you not?
2. A “Darwinist Anarchy”... what exactly does that mean? That evolution is anarchy? I’m not completely sure what your trying to say but I don’t see a “Darwinist Anarchy” as any different from a “Gravity Anarchy” or an “Atom Anarchy”
Clearly no imagination, typical really.
3. There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. I can tolerate religion and criticize, even bash it at the same time.
would I be tolerant by continuing to do this to you? or would i be anoyoing?
4. A “completely peaceful” world will never exist so long as we have our differences and weapons.
Just what every dulled down bumble would say
5. I could care less what people believe just as long as they don’t subvert science, try to influence the government/politics/freedoms/laws, try to impose their beliefs on me such as putting their god in my country’s pledge of allegiance or trying to teach a part of their religion in public schools as a scientific curriculum, among other things that organized religion, especially Christianity, has done that they really have no right in this country to do.
so as long as they are not as out spoken as you they’re fine?
There’s a reason for me doing this, can’t wait till you find it.
1. Never. If you think otherwise then find a quote and link to prove it.
2. Well then would you be so kind as to explain it yourself?
3. Both
4. Dulled down bumble? This is reality. There will never be world peace if we continue to have so many differences.
5. So long as they don’t push their relgion on me is basically what I’m saying
1. Go thing you went back and edited you posts no doubt
2. Anything mixes with dictatorship
3. Both? So I can continue with this totally irreverent live of questioning with you at every turn and I’m still being tolerant?
4. Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it can’t be done!
5. But you can push yours all you want.
1. If I edited any posts it will say the time and date so you would know. Like I said... PROVE IT
2. Science is not a dictatorship nor does it have any part in a dictatorship
3. No. Because I’m just going to ignore you after this post because its clear that your only motive for doing this is trying to make me look bad, not to debate facts.
4. My reasoning was no where close to what you just said. Can you say “straw man”?
5. No I can’t because atheism is not a religion, nor am I involved in anything political
this conversation is over.
why are you running away?
He doesn’t need to waste his time on ignorant people.
Most people who argue in these debates are ignorant. Matt is no exception, and neither are you or Infinite or Gplex. Though personally I consider Matt to be the most intelligent, Infinite doesn’t debate really, just voices his opinion, you don’t argue as much but you’re a lot nicer, and Gplex... well, he’s Gplex.
Anyway, back on topic, it’s not impossible for Atheists to have their own reasonable morals, though I doubt the world could become completely secular the ways things are at present, or even in the moderately aged future. If the human race does become completely secular it will probably take a long time and by then the morals and standards will probably seem unreasonable and absurd to us, making it hard to judge whether the new morals would be due to secularism or simply the passing of time.
 Last edited 08 Mar 2008 06:17 pm by Sean of the Living | |
| 08 Mar 2008 06:17 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 10Joined: 07 Mar 2008 Posts: 1,404 OFFLINE | Sean of the Living wrote:
RebornChibiDiscoDhaos wrote:
Weasel 16 wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Weasel 16 wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Weasel 16 wrote:
1. When have I ever supported killing because of over population?
when have you not?
2. A “Darwinist Anarchy”... what exactly does that mean? That evolution is anarchy? I’m not completely sure what your trying to say but I don’t see a “Darwinist Anarchy” as any different from a “Gravity Anarchy” or an “Atom Anarchy”
Clearly no imagination, typical really.
3. There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. I can tolerate religion and criticize, even bash it at the same time.
would I be tolerant by continuing to do this to you? or would i be anoyoing?
4. A “completely peaceful” world will never exist so long as we have our differences and weapons.
Just what every dulled down bumble would say
5. I could care less what people believe just as long as they don’t subvert science, try to influence the government/politics/freedoms/laws, try to impose their beliefs on me such as putting their god in my country’s pledge of allegiance or trying to teach a part of their religion in public schools as a scientific curriculum, among other things that organized religion, especially Christianity, has done that they really have no right in this country to do.
so as long as they are not as out spoken as you they’re fine?
There’s a reason for me doing this, can’t wait till you find it.
1. Never. If you think otherwise then find a quote and link to prove it.
2. Well then would you be so kind as to explain it yourself?
3. Both
4. Dulled down bumble? This is reality. There will never be world peace if we continue to have so many differences.
5. So long as they don’t push their relgion on me is basically what I’m saying
1. Go thing you went back and edited you posts no doubt
2. Anything mixes with dictatorship
3. Both? So I can continue with this totally irreverent live of questioning with you at every turn and I’m still being tolerant?
4. Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it can’t be done!
5. But you can push yours all you want.
1. If I edited any posts it will say the time and date so you would know. Like I said... PROVE IT
2. Science is not a dictatorship nor does it have any part in a dictatorship
3. No. Because I’m just going to ignore you after this post because its clear that your only motive for doing this is trying to make me look bad, not to debate facts.
4. My reasoning was no where close to what you just said. Can you say “straw man”?
5. No I can’t because atheism is not a religion, nor am I involved in anything political
this conversation is over.
why are you running away?
He doesn’t need to waste his time on ignorant people.
Most people who argue in these debates are ignorant. Matt is no exception, and neither are you or Infinite or Gplex. Though personally I consider Matt to be the most intelligent, Infinite doesn’t debate really, just voices his opinion, you don’t argue as much but you’re a lot nicer, and Gplex... well, he’s Gplex.
Anyway, back on topic, it’s not impossible for Atheists to have their own reasonable morals, though I doubt the world could become completely secular the ways things are at present, or even in the moderately aged future.
I should have phrased what I said better. But anyway yeah, your point I can agree with. Morals were not made up by religion. Your also right about how the world will not be secular, at least not in the foreseeable future. | |
| 08 Mar 2008 06:19 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 25Joined: 26 Dec 2007 Posts: 2,026 ONLINE | RebornChibiDiscoDhaos wrote:
Sean of the Living wrote:
RebornChibiDiscoDhaos wrote:
Weasel 16 wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Weasel 16 wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Weasel 16 wrote:
1. When have I ever supported killing because of over population?
when have you not?
2. A “Darwinist Anarchy”... what exactly does that mean? That evolution is anarchy? I’m not completely sure what your trying to say but I don’t see a “Darwinist Anarchy” as any different from a “Gravity Anarchy” or an “Atom Anarchy”
Clearly no imagination, typical really.
3. There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. I can tolerate religion and criticize, even bash it at the same time.
would I be tolerant by continuing to do this to you? or would i be anoyoing?
4. A “completely peaceful” world will never exist so long as we have our differences and weapons.
Just what every dulled down bumble would say
5. I could care less what people believe just as long as they don’t subvert science, try to influence the government/politics/freedoms/laws, try to impose their beliefs on me such as putting their god in my country’s pledge of allegiance or trying to teach a part of their religion in public schools as a scientific curriculum, among other things that organized religion, especially Christianity, has done that they really have no right in this country to do.
so as long as they are not as out spoken as you they’re fine?
There’s a reason for me doing this, can’t wait till you find it.
1. Never. If you think otherwise then find a quote and link to prove it.
2. Well then would you be so kind as to explain it yourself?
3. Both
4. Dulled down bumble? This is reality. There will never be world peace if we continue to have so many differences.
5. So long as they don’t push their relgion on me is basically what I’m saying
1. Go thing you went back and edited you posts no doubt
2. Anything mixes with dictatorship
3. Both? So I can continue with this totally irreverent live of questioning with you at every turn and I’m still being tolerant?
4. Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it can’t be done!
5. But you can push yours all you want.
1. If I edited any posts it will say the time and date so you would know. Like I said... PROVE IT
2. Science is not a dictatorship nor does it have any part in a dictatorship
3. No. Because I’m just going to ignore you after this post because its clear that your only motive for doing this is trying to make me look bad, not to debate facts.
4. My reasoning was no where close to what you just said. Can you say “straw man”?
5. No I can’t because atheism is not a religion, nor am I involved in anything political
this conversation is over.
why are you running away?
He doesn’t need to waste his time on ignorant people.
Most people who argue in these debates are ignorant. Matt is no exception, and neither are you or Infinite or Gplex. Though personally I consider Matt to be the most intelligent, Infinite doesn’t debate really, just voices his opinion, you don’t argue as much but you’re a lot nicer, and Gplex... well, he’s Gplex.
Anyway, back on topic, it’s not impossible for Atheists to have their own reasonable morals, though I doubt the world could become completely secular the ways things are at present, or even in the moderately aged future.
I should have phrased what I said better. But anyway yeah, your point I can agree with. Morals were not made up by religion. Your also right about how the world will not be secular, at least not in the foreseeable future.
If the human race does become completely secular it will probably take a long time and by then the morals and standards will probably seem unreasonable and absurd to us, making it hard to judge whether the new morals would be due to secularism or simply the passing of time. Imagine if an upper class person from Victorian times popped up on the beaches of Rio or France, for example. They’d be disgusted. But if a rights lobbyist from a Western country now went back to colonial days of North America when they had black slaves they’d also be disgusted.
Last edited 08 Mar 2008 06:24 pm by Sean of the Living | |
| 09 Mar 2008 06:53 am |
In the infinite Rep: 40 Joined: 11 Feb 2008 Posts: 10,811 OFFLINE | penus ---
Don’t FUCK with my insanity I’ll warp your REALiTY | |
| 09 Mar 2008 07:20 am |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 6Joined: 01 Oct 2005 Posts: 3,602 OFFLINE | I personaly see no point in being serious on these fourms any more. ---
Dogbert said the deepest thing ever.
“It is all a part of the big illusion we perpetuate upon ourselves and which is in turn perpetuated upon us. When we believe we engage the illusion, when we stop believing we shatter the illusion and ourselves in the process because we are part of it."Last edited 09 Mar 2008 07:26 am by Weasel 16 | |
| 09 Mar 2008 07:29 am |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 6Joined: 01 Oct 2005 Posts: 3,602 OFFLINE | ramunematt wrote:
Itachi Uchiha wrote:
You say nature selection which mean killing is allowed... look at lions and wild boar... natural selection right...
Those are different animals you dumbass. Natural selection doesn’t occur with same species. Go to a library and learn what evolution REALLY is instead of being dumb enough to have a religious preacher telling you what something is that they don’t even know.
like your any diffrent, instead of doing the reacurch your self you let what meger info you find on the web be the basis for all your arguments.
Dogbert said the deepest thing ever.
“It is all a part of the big illusion we perpetuate upon ourselves and which is in turn perpetuated upon us. When we believe we engage the illusion, when we stop believing we shatter the illusion and ourselves in the process because we are part of it." | |
| 10 Mar 2008 03:16 am |
The Mangekyou Sharingan Rep: 50Joined: 01 Oct 2007 Posts: 10,508 OFFLINE | Those are different animals you dumbass. Natural selection doesn’t occur with same species. Go to a library and learn what evolution REALLY is instead of being dumb enough to have a religious preacher telling you what something is that they don’t even know.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
You DUMBASS... Never learn about Natural selection... Damn you boy... You never learn about evolution and natural selection... slaying other races is allowed in evolution and atheism dont have rules for that... religion have it and atheism copied it... never get that do you matt...???
Is that your reptile brain stop you to think humanity...???
Or your fish eyes dont see anything about evolution...??? ---
“Great new ideas usually come from very small teams... don’t give up so easily." — John Kaster — | |
| 11 Mar 2008 12:09 am |
In the infinite Rep: 40Joined: 11 Feb 2008 Posts: 10,811 OFFLINE | Itachi Uchiha wrote:
Those are different animals you dumbass. Natural selection doesn’t occur with same species. Go to a library and learn what evolution REALLY is instead of being dumb enough to have a religious preacher telling you what something is that they don’t even know.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
You DUMBASS... Never learn about Natural selection... Damn you boy... You never learn about evolution and natural selection... slaying other races is allowed in evolution and atheism dont have rules for that... religion have it and atheism copied it... never get that do you matt...???
Is that your reptile brain stop you to think humanity...???
Or your fish eyes dont see anything about evolution...???
What you need is a cock in your mouth and I’m not talking about a rooster.
Don’t FUCK with my insanity I’ll warp your REALiTYLast edited 11 Mar 2008 12:09 am by 1indainfinite | |
| 11 Mar 2008 01:39 am |
The Mangekyou Sharingan Rep: 50Joined: 01 Oct 2007 Posts: 10,508 OFFLINE | Hey I’m taling with reptile brain of matt not you... ---
“Great new ideas usually come from very small teams... don’t give up so easily." — John Kaster — | |
| 12 Mar 2008 01:23 pm |
Banned Rep: 51Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 14,805 OFFLINE | Itachi Uchiha wrote:
Those are different animals you dumbass. Natural selection doesn’t occur with same species. Go to a library and learn what evolution REALLY is instead of being dumb enough to have a religious preacher telling you what something is that they don’t even know.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
You DUMBASS... Never learn about Natural selection... Damn you boy... You never learn about evolution and natural selection... slaying other races is allowed in evolution and atheism dont have rules for that... religion have it and atheism copied it... never get that do you matt...???
Is that your reptile brain stop you to think humanity...???
Or your fish eyes dont see anything about evolution...???
Show me one credible evolutionist who says slaying other races is a part of evolution. The only people I have ever heard make that claim are fundamentalists like you.
Zeitgeist: Addendum
Join “The Zeitgeist Movement” | |
| 12 Mar 2008 04:47 pm |
I have earned my disillusionment. Rep: 53 Joined: 03 May 2006 Posts: 7,423 | ramunematt - natural selection does occur within the same species. Classic example: sometimes if a wolf that doesn’t belong to the pack approaches, the entire pack will set upon it and kill it.
The reason for this is no wolf leaves a pack unless it is seeking to be the alpha wolf of another pack. A wolf that leaves its pack is often the weakest member.
I don’t agree with Itachi’s interpretation of this, however.
Animals don’t have the same concept of “race” that we do though...and they don’t engage in genocide. ---
 Last edited 12 Mar 2008 04:54 pm by Etain | |
|
|
Previous Page - Post Reply - Next Page |
»
Religion
» in a completely secular world
