You do not need to be religious to possess a moral framework

First topic message reminder :

Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
 

snowyflake wrote:As a Christian I think you would find reality very difficult, polyglide.

You do know what 'truth' and 'reality' are don't you?

stu, everyone is 'brainless' next to polyglide who is a nobel prize winner in every scientific discipline known to man.

polyglide's ignorance is more important than anyone else's knowledge. (Unfortunately)

I desperately hope for his sake he is trolling, as the other explanation is too scary to contemplate.

Shirina wrote:
My assessment of others might be lacking in common sense and originality .... but it's also lacking a rebuttal. Therefore what I said still stands. You can't win a debate with character assassination.

Even when Polly is assassinating his own character with his asinine posts?  

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

Shirina wrote:
My assessment of others might be lacking in common sense and originality .... but it's also lacking a rebuttal. Therefore what I said still stands. You can't win a debate with character assassination.

Even when Polly is assassinating his own character with his asinine posts?  

I suppose that would fall under the category of: "I got into a debate with myself ... and lost."

Shirina wrote:I suppose that would fall under the category of: "I got into a debate with myself ... and lost."

If I only ever lost arguments to myself I'd be quite happy........ in LaLa land but happy.

Heretic

I find it laughable when the only answer to my reasoned ideas are rebutted on grounds worthy of being classed as idiotic.

Not once is there a reasoned reply, only sarcastic comments which proves the aurgument is lost.

If only you had reasoned ideas pollyfilla.

polyglide wrote:I find it laughable when the only answer to my reasoned  ideas are rebutted on grounds worthy of being classed as idiotic.

Not once is there a reasoned reply, only sarcastic comments which proves the aurgument is lost.

Hilarious, you posted that my "mother must have taken my dolly away" in response to one refutation of your idiocy. There are many reasoned replies, despite the fact that your posts are largely idiotic, and they are certainly more than you deserve given the pejorative nonsense you dish out every time your asinine claims are dismantled. Now as stu says, start debating like an adult and quit being crybaby.

[quote="polyglide"]I find it laughable when the only answer to my reasoned  ideas are rebutted on grounds worthy of being classed as idiotic. Not once is there a reasoned reply, only sarcastic comments which proves the aurgument is lost.[/quote]

Excuse me, polyglide, but your 'ideas' are not 'reasoned'. When presented with the evidence for evolution you discount it ONLY because it doesn't mesh with your religious beliefs. That's not reasoned, that's stupid and uneducated. Your religious arrogance is that you think your knowledge is better than a qualified scientist or doctor. It's clear you have a low education and your grasp of science (and many other disciplines) is flimsy at best. If you get sick do you call in an expert, like a doctor or a pharmacist, or do you call your mechanic? Now I've asked you this several times and you never answer, instead resorting to name-calling. If you want reasoned debate you need to actually read what we say and take it on board and come back with a coherent response. Otherwise, you're just wasting everyone's time.

I desperately hope for his sake he is trolling, as the other explanation is too scary to contemplate.

When I first encountered polyglide I was convinced he was a troll, some teenage kid winding up atheists with crazy creationism, now I think the chap is the real deal, a less sophisticated version of Texas.

A secular mind underestimates the emotion behind an indoctrinated mind, a mind set in its ways. Texas left here because we considered his explanations and conversation dishonest and disingenuous, I think we were only partly right, he was like polyglide convinced his way of thinking was honest and genuine, and reacted emotionally to our critical analysis.

Creationists know they cannot win a game of logical chess, what they try to do is employ absolutism to obtain a stalemate, a draw is a good result when you are white without a queen.

Polyglide's emotion is out of frustration, he is on here to defend his beliefs against insurmountable odds, he sticks to his programming and will not deviate into open ended debate.
Texas avoided expansion like the plague, he knew it weakened his argument, polyglide wants to shrink the parameters down to a tiny microcosm of logic, where it is safer.

I discussed the small world of personal relationships as the model for " why " everything happened, and creationist are hell bent on keeping the world of logic as small and as personal as they can, it is indeed a very primitive mindset.

Tosh wrote:...creationist are hell bent on keeping the world of logic as small and as personal as they can, it is indeed a very primitive mindset.

That seems to me very perceptive. I suspect that the general populace (tribes) in shamanic times must have viewed the world in a similar fashion to creationists. It is at least an honest, if ignorant, world view. Those who try and hide behind Intelligent Design I have less sympathy for as their whole stance is thoroughly dishonest. Rather than denying science, which is fair enough if you take a wholly scriptural view, they feel they can cherry pick in order to produce a spurious pseudo scientific explanation. To put it simply, creationists have faith, somewhat misplaced in my view but they do have faith. IDists lack faith and resort to obfuscation and, in some cases, outright fraud.

Do they not realise that all we're really asking from them is a self-consistent position, even if it's wrong.

Heretic

Tosh wrote:

I desperately hope for his sake he is trolling, as the other explanation is too scary to contemplate.

When I first encountered polyglide I was convinced he was a troll, some teenage kid winding up atheists with crazy creationism, now I think the chap is the real deal, a less sophisticated version of Texas.

A secular mind underestimates the emotion behind an indoctrinated mind, a mind set in its ways. Texas left here because we considered his explanations and conversation dishonest and disingenuous, I think we were only partly right, he was like polyglide convinced his way of thinking was honest and genuine, and reacted emotionally to our critical analysis.

Creationists know they cannot win a game of logical chess, what they try to do is employ absolutism to obtain a stalemate, a draw is a good result when you are white without a queen.

Polyglide's emotion is out of frustration, he is on here to defend his beliefs against insurmountable odds, he sticks to his programming and will not deviate into open ended debate.
Texas avoided expansion like the plague, he knew it weakened his argument, polyglide wants to shrink the parameters down to a tiny microcosm of logic, where it is safer.

I discussed the small world of personal relationships as the model for " why " everything happened, and creationist are hell bent on keeping the world of logic as small and as personal as they can, it is indeed a very primitive mindset.

What I find odd is that a theist like Polyglide comes to a place like this, what in his mind does he think is to be gained? I realise that proselytism is part of the deal, but after a very short while he must become aware that all he'll get is frustrated when the majority are not going to be swayed by faith, and are obviously only open to logic, reason, and evidence. Then again he does seem to genuinely believe he has evidence, even though it's fallacious. He's not shy about lashing out with insults and mudslinging, even of a personal nature either. That hardly seems conducive to proselytism, quite the opposite. There must be any number of theist sites he could go to and have his faith validated subjectively by other believers after all.

polyglide is a soldier for the Lord, Sheldon. He comes here and does battle with atheists and thinks he is scoring points for god and jesus. When he dies, he hopes god will remember his faith and his fighting in god's name and give him a detached house in the upscale end of heaven maybe with the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene for neighbours and John the Baptist mowing his lawn.

It doesn't matter that he doesn't know what he's talking about or that his vast ignorance is no match for most people on the forum. He's fighting the good fight.

The psychological inanity of belief is obvious. The fear of death and the end of everything is crippling to some people's egos.

I could only hazard a guess why polyglide is on here, maybe his arguments are successful in his tiny social circle and assumes the same arguments hold water universally.

Fundamentalist are extremely needy people, continually repeating their beliefs reinforces their self righteousness, making them feel more secure and worthy in a world full of evil spirits, demons and devils.
Fundamentalist ignore the evidence of a more moral society for a very good reason, the more immoral the society the more significant they and their purpose becomes.

Most things are relative, and our status is a relationship with the outside world.

It's a big maybe Tosh.  

Indeed stu, but in the Bible Belt polyglide would be just part of mainstream thinking, more than two thirds are creationists, in Britain it is less than 20%, most of whom are elderly people unlikely to adopt new explanations at their stage in life. In twenty years time there will be more supporters of David Icke than Creationists in our country.

Tosh wrote:Indeed stu, but in the Bible Belt polyglide would be just part of mainstream thinking, more than two thirds are creationists, in Britain it is less than 20%, most of whom are elderly people unlikely to adopt new explanations at their stage in life. In twenty years time there will be more supporters of David Icke than Creationists in our country.

Do we find that prospect more or less scary?

Tosh wrote:In twenty years time there will be more supporters of David Icke than Creationists in our country.

That is scarey.

Heretic

 more scary I do believe Sheldon.  

polyglide wrote:Not once is there a reasoned reply, only sarcastic comments which proves the aurgument is lost.

I've made hundreds of reasoned replies to your posts - far too many, in my estimation. Yet I know what you want, and many of my posts explained why you can't have it.

You expect the supporters of evolution to sit here, right now, and explain the entire theory of evolution to you in a forum post - AND ... we have to do it without using anyone else's ideas, conclusions, speculations, or findings. It's sort of like asking a doctor to explain in detail how to perform neurosurgery without mentioning any part of the human body.

It's a well-worn tactic: The idea is to make the standard of evidence so difficult to present that no one wants to be bothered, then you take the silence as a victory. Of course, that's a steaming pile of utter bullshit and we've called you on it dozens and dozens of times. Evolution isn't disproven simply because a non-scientist cannot or will not write a small disertation on evolution just so you can say, "Nuh uh!" and demand even more evidence. We've even provided you with links to websites that do a pretty good job of explaining the basics of evolution yet you won't even look at them. Oh no. The explanation has to come from US and in our own words or somehow the explanation isn't valid. It's complete nonsense, a very transparent way of ensuring that the debate goes 'round and 'round.

____________________________________________

Tosh wrote:Indeed stu, but in the Bible Belt polyglide would be just part of mainstream thinking

It's not just in the Bible Belt. More accurately, anywhere outside of urban centers and college campuses you'll find that a majority of people are fundamentalists, evangelicals, and batshit crazy (or heavily indoctrinated) religious zealots. I now live well outside of the Bible Belt in a northeastern state, an area that is fairly entrenched as liberal and secular. Yet the moment you leave the sanity of the city or college campus, you descend into a world of stupidity, ignorance, hatred, misogyny, fear, superstition, and vapid religious self-indulgence.

Even though I wrote my original post on leaving the USA just over a year ago, I haven't given up the possibility that I might still leave. I often feel like I'm drowning in religious bullshit. It's not even "good" religion or "enlightened" religion. It's the "fire and brimstone" kind. It's the "let's go scapegoating whenever a disaster happens" kind. It's the "I hate anyone different than myself" kind.

It seems with every presidential election, the god-tards creep ever closer to actually winning. In the 2012 election, just about every Republican candidate was a religious nutjob. You had Santorum who was a Dominionist who believed the US Constitution needs to be re-written to be in line with the Old Testament Bible. You had Rick Perry who tried to solve Texas's wildfire problem by calling for a state-wide prayer gathering. You had Gingrich who declared that Obama was waging a war on Christianity and vowed to overturn every law Obama passed that interfered with religion. You had Bachmann whose family was in the business of "praying the gay away" in order to be "right with God."

It may be even worse in 2016 and without a charismatic Obama to provide a solid opponent for the theocratic fascism of the Republican party.

Thus I still may end up leaving because I'm just tired of being downed in a sea of idiocy and religious/superstitious garbage, none of which is true or has any basis in fact. It is essentially people making shit up, and I worry that America, sitting on the most powerful military in all of human history, is going to make even worse decisions in the future - decisions based on ignorance and fear. If I lived anywhere but Europe and Israel, I might be a little nervous.

Shirina wrote:Even though I wrote my original post on leaving the USA just over a year ago, I haven't given up the possibility that I might still leave. I often feel like I'm drowning in religious bullshit. It's not even "good" religion or "enlightened" religion. It's the "fire and brimstone" kind. It's the "let's go scapegoating whenever a disaster happens" kind. It's the "I hate anyone different than myself" kind.

Sharina I think England might be a good place for you to have an extended holiday. Most of us are pretty sane and while we still have a lot of the problems that you experience in the US of A I think you will find them less prevalent and far less extreme. I think you would see us for the most part just like the states but without as many guns. We do have our own fair share of lunatics but they are pretty safe to ignore. The dangerous lunatics hold elections at least once every five years so we can pick the best out of a bad lot but c'est la vie.

Heretic

Act like a child and you will be treated as such.

polyglide wrote:Act like a child and you will be treated as such.
 

It's the naughty step for you, then.

Heretic wrote:Sharina I think England might be a good place for you to have an extended holiday.

Indeed. If I do leave the US, England will likely be my destination as I still have citizenship there (my biological father is British and lives in Milton-Keynes). Speaking of guns, heh, hunting season is starting up in a week or so and already this place sounds like Fallujah or Palestine. With hundreds of people sighting in their rifles, the valley echoes with the sound of gunfire.

Supposing you were to move over here, I wouldn't necessarily go for Milton Keynes

Shirina, a true Christian will only attempt to convince you of the existance of God in the manner he/she feels applicable to the person involved.

Unfortunately, in your case with your outlook on life, a very different approach has to be taken and this may seem to you a little extreem but the end result, if those attempting to convince you of the existance of God are successful, would be a great joy to both you and the one who brought you to your senses, as thousands of others would testify who have convinced other doubters.

Of course there are false religions, many of them, the Bible tells you so.

Changing countries changes nothing if your heart is in the wrong place.

polyglide wrote:Shirina, a true Christian will only attempt to convince you of the existance of God in the manner he/she feels applicable to the person involved.

Unfortunately, in your case with your outlook on life, a very different approach has to be taken and this may seem to you a little extreem but the end result, if those attempting to convince you of the existance of God are  successful, would be a great joy to both you and the one who brought you to your senses, as thousands of others would testify who have convinced other doubters.

Of course there are false religions, many of them, the Bible tells you so.

Changing countries changes nothing if your heart is in the wrong place.

The bible endorses Christianity over other religions? Well that's that then, how could any objective person resist such an endorsement.  

Now which dustbin did I put mine in, I remember it was those old metal ones when I was about 6 or 7 years old, on bonfire night if I remember rightly.  

polyglide wrote:The more you go into the antics of the human race the more it becomes obvious that they are a species apart

Spectacularly wrong, we're a separate species, but the other animals that our closest evolutionary relatives share more than just genes with us, they share things like social structures and moral structures to their behaviours. Physical attributes as well of course.

A duck billed platypus has at least as much claim to uniqueness.

"Chimpanzees, our closest living animal cousins share 98% of our human genes, meaning that for 98% of our genes, there is a similar gene in the chimpanzee genome. Even mammals that look quite different from us share a large percentage of our genes; small and furry mice share 92% our genes.

Non-mammals share a smaller, but still appreciable, percentage of our genes.  Fruit flies, for instance, have their own version of approximately 44% our human genes. Many of these genes influence growth and structure in both mammals and insects. More distantly related is yeast, the one-celled organism much loved by bakers and brewers alike. Yeast share about a quarter of our genes, many of which are necessary for basic cell functions.  Plants, too, share many genes with humans; one type of weed was estimated to share 18% of our genes.  

DNA is what makes us unique as individuals and as the human species, and yet DNA also illustrates how connected we are to all other living organisms."

Dr, Sheldon,
As I have sated previously, it would be more of a problem if all living things were not created by the same means and genes being a major part in explaining the means by which living beiongs were created.

As for genes being close to one another regarding the different species, if some were not very close to each other it would be more of a suprise.

No other animals actually share our genes, they have their own which in some instances are the same as ours.

It matters not how close they are to ours they might just as well be a million miles away.

That's the biggest collection of imbecilic drivel I've ever read. Good god almighty that's garbage. Are you being serious?

Polyglide wrote:No other animals actually share our genes

Jesus wept, we share genes with every living thing, including plants. We share 98% of our genes with chimpanzees.  

You are utterly delusional.

Dr, Sheldon,
Animals have some of the same genes as ours, as explained, they do not have our genes, they have their own mixture that just happens to include some that humans have.

You're making no sense, but it is a scientific fact that all living things share common genes. Which is precisely why genetic science has supported shared ancestry and species evolution. No amount of creationist BS will change this fact.

Dr, Shedlon,
No genes are common.

Just as you can use flour to make many things none of them are the same.

" by polyglide Today at 3:00 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
No other animals actually share our genes,"


" by polyglide Today at 3:40 pm

[size=48]Dr, Sheldon,
Animals have some of the same genes as ours"


Dear oh dear....you're really excelling yourself here.[/size]

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedlon,
                No genes are common.

Yes they are. This is a scientific fact.

Polyglide wrote:Just as you can use flour to make many things none of them are the same.

WTF has that got to do with shared genes?  You really haven't even the tiniest remotest grasp of what you're talking about. This display is as hilarious as it is tragic.

One more time then. Though I'm sure a chimpanzee could've grasped this by now.

Chimpanzees, our closest living animal cousins share 98% of our human genes, meaning that for 98% of our genes, there is a similar gene in the chimpanzee genome. Even mammals that look quite different from us share a large percentage of our genes; small and furry mice share 92% our genes. 

Non-mammals share a smaller, but still appreciable, percentage of our genes.  Fruit flies, for instance, have their own version of approximately 44% our human genes. Many of these genes influence growth and structure in both mammals and insects. More distantly related is yeast, the one-celled organism much loved by bakers and brewers alike. Yeast share about a quarter of our genes, many of which are necessary for basic cell functions.  Plants, too, share many genes with humans; one type of weed was estimated to share 18% of our genes.  

DNA is what makes us unique as individuals and as the human species, and yet DNA also illustrates how connected we are to all other living organisms."

Dr, Shedlon,
You have a gene pool, many different combinations, not one the same, this makes everyone different, it does not matter how close the combinations are, just as making a dough nut with flour is nothing like a pancake made with the same thing along with other combinations.

All are entirely different.

God created all things using the same method, it would be more of a problem if some genes were not close in combinations to others.

Dr, Shedlon,
Of course all animals will have some of the genes of others it is the different combinations that determine the outcome and God made a very good job of donig so.

Humans use many different combinations of that which is available to them but no one would consider them to be the same as or near to etc;

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedlon,
                You have a gene pool, many different combinations, not one the same, this makes everyone   different, it does not matter how close the combinations are, just as making a dough nut with flour is nothing like a pancake made with the same thing along with other combinations. All are entirely different. God created all things using the same method, it would be more of a problem if some genes were not close in combinations to others.    

That's complete rubbish, you really haven't even the remotest grasp of what you're talking about I'm afraid. All living things share common genes that perform similar functions. The species that are most closely related, that is it say they have a common ancestor in their recent evolutionary past, have a far higher percentage of shared genes. Humans are part of the group of great apes, and we our closest relative are chimpanzees with whom we share 98% of our genes, this is a scientific fact that evidenced beyond any reasonable refutation.

Please leave the baking and cooking analogies alone, you're trying to dumb down a subject here when it's you who is utterly ignorant of it.

All things are not entirely different again I'm not sure how anyone can be so delusional as to deny an entire scientific field like genetics, but it won't change the facts. There is no evidence that anything was created, what's more the biblical and Koranic myths of creation are entirely refuted by evolution, and despite your risible denials species evolution is a scientific fact as well evidenced as any we have.

One more time then:

"Chimpanzees, our closest living animal cousins share 98% of our human genes, meaning that for 98% of our genes, there is a similar gene in the chimpanzee genome. Even mammals that look quite different from us share a large percentage of our genes; small and furry mice share 92% our genes.

Non-mammals share a smaller, but still appreciable, percentage of our genes. Fruit flies, for instance, have their own version of approximately 44% our human genes. Many of these genes influence growth and structure in both mammals and insects. More distantly related is yeast, the one-celled organism much loved by bakers and brewers alike. Yeast share about a quarter of our genes, many of which are necessary for basic cell functions. Plants, too, share many genes with humans; one type of weed was estimated to share 18% of our genes.

DNA is what makes us unique as individuals and as the human species, and yet DNA also illustrates how connected we are to all other living organisms."