Wirehead Studios

Mr. Ignoramus
Characters:
   Host: Host of a morning talk radio show.
   Mr. Ignoramus: Represents the general scientific community.

Host: In proverbs 24:21 the Bible clearly tells us that we?re not to meddle, with anything that are given to change, yet that is all we see going on around us, is change here, change there, well, everywhere a change change. Today I got with me, Dr Ph.D Ignoramus. Hello Dr. Ignoramus.

Mr. Ignoramus: Hello there!

Host: How you going today

Mr. Ignoramus: I?m great today!

Host: That?s wonderful. You know what amazes me is the fact, Dr. Ignoramus, is scientists can?t even tell us what happened yesterday, let alone 30 million years ago. You know you used to tell us that the earth was a flat disk, but all along the Bible has said the earth is a sphere, it?s round, according to Isaiah 40:22. What does science now say?

Mr. Ignoramus: Well science now states that the earth is a sphere.

Host: Okay so you made some mistakes, some ignorant mistakes perhaps.

Mr. Ignoramus: Yes, we have made many ignorant mistakes, because we were ignorant to the fact that the Bible was always correct, heh.

Host: Science then said we only has 1,100 stars, ah, now Mr. Ignoramus, how in the heck, did you come up the fact that we had 1,100 stars, when the Bible has always said that there is an infinite amount of stars, according to Jeremiah 33:22.

Mr. Ignoramus: Well again, we just didn?t really want to believe the bible, and we thought we knew everything, and just tried to count them all, and we just kept losing our spot.

Host: Now according to you, you defiantly lost your spot on this next subject, science said that the earth, sat on a large animal. (snickers) Well, I?m not trying to be disrespectful Mr. Ignoramus but where in the heck did you come up with the fact that the earth sat on a large animal? Again the bible clearly says free float of the earth in space and hangs over nothing according to Job 26:7.

Mr. Ignoramus: Well, it?s like this, we just thought that everybody---

Host: Whoa, excuse me sir, you kind of ?thought? alot didn?t you?

Mr. Ignoramus: We thought a whole lot actually, we thought, is that everybody has got to get around on something, so, you know, thought the earth got around on an animal.

Host: Wow.

Mr. Ignoramus: Yeah

Host: Must have been a big one. Now you are aware of the fact that George Washington was actually bled to death because you said if they bled him, that the sickness would actually leave his body. You know science then told us sick people must be bled, yet the Bible has always declared that blood is the source of life and health, according to Leviticus 17:11, Dr. Ignoramus, what do you think about that?

Mr. Ignoramus: Well you know again---

Host: I don?t know if I should ask you what you think, but what are your findings today?

Mr. Ignoramus: Well our findings state that someone needs their blood to survive, and you know back then we just thought that the illness was in the blood, so we just took it all out, and that was what we did, and found out that people kept dying and we thought it was because of disease instead of the blood draining thing.

Host: Now Dr. Ignoramus why do you guys continuously change, because again the Bible says we?re not to meddle with those that are given to change, where do you guys stop the point of changing things that are already declared in the word of God?

Mr. Ignoramus: Well, the thing is that we just, you know---

Host: Could you get that stupid look off your face when you talk to me please?

Mr. Ignoramus: Well, it?s hard because my name?s Ignoramus, but ahh, we just you know try to prove the Bible wrong as much as possible so we didn?t have to give into any account to anybody.

Host: Now, why is that?

Mr. Ignoramus
Well, ah, if we can prove there isn?t a god we don?t have to be accountable to nobody, and we?re the center of the universe an ah---

Host: So that?s idolatry.

Mr. Ignoramus: That?s exactly right, but again you know---

Host: Oh?I get you. I got a couple more that I wanna ask you. You said that science back then, that the floor of the ocean was flat, yet the Bible has always declared again that the ocean contains deep valleys and mountains according to 2nd Samuel 22:16 and Jonah 2:6.

Mr. Ignoramus: Well we just had to be consistent in our theories, we said that the world was flat, so---

Host: What do you think that the world will just fall for this stuff hook line and sinker Mr. Ignoramus?

Mr. Ignoramus: They absolutely did for hundreds of years.

Host: Isn?t that something?

Mr. Ignoramus: Yeah.

Host: They just don?t do their homework do they?

Mr. Ignoramus: No, heh.

Host: You know, now that I think about that, I was talking to the social security administrator guy last week, and when I was talking to him I said to him
?Sir, how long have you been working here?? and he said,
?20 Years.?
I said,
?Did you know that it is not mandatory that we have a social security number??
And he was totally taken back. He said,
?I have been working here for 20 years; I have been doing that of what I?m being told. I have never at one time seen the law. Wow.? I said,
?Thank you very much for being honest sir, I hope you learned something from this.? and Mr. Ignoramus the things you?ve been telling us, about changing things constantly, they?re contrary to the word of God.

Mr. Ignoramus: Well the thing is---

Host:  And the fact is, people call you Mr. Ignoramus, is because you don?t get it, we?re not to be given to those that are given to change, yet you continuously want to change things. And you expect the people to believe your fibbish, fabbish, fibbishing lies.

Mr. Ignoramus: Well the thing, and the fact of the matter is, if people would read the law of God like that gentleman who didn?t that you talked to at the social security office, would find that, we?ve been wrong for a loooong time.

Host: Yeah as a matter of fact?. you almost sounded like a horse there Mr. Ignoramus. Did you know that you also told us science then that oceans were only feed by rivers and rain? Yet the bible says that oceans contain springs according to Job 38:16. Oh and also you told us that, science then of course again, hands washed in still water, yet the Bible tells us when dealing with disease hand should be washed under running water, Leviticus 15:13.

Mr. Ignoramus: Well like I said before---

Host: I think there comes a point sir, when you just gotta say, ?You need to shut your mouth.?

Mr. Ignoramus: Well you know ahhh ehhmm????..

Host: Bye bye now Mr. Ignoramus

Mr. Ignoramus: *babble

[Exit Mr. Ignoramus]

Host: Bye bye now. Did you know when the FBI does actually does find counterfeit bills, they can spot them a mile away because they study the real ones. And so it is with us. We might sit back and look at Mr. Ignoramus but guess what? Mr. Ignoramus is the one we?ve been listening to for a long time. We need to get back into the Word, and see what the Word says, so we can find the counterfeits and so that we can expose the Mr. Ignoramuses in this world.

Truth from Experience not from Opinion
Truth from experience, many teens feel that their parents and the older generation can?t relate and don?t understand them. Well, rightfully so. How can I tell you what it?s like to jump out of an airplane if I?ve never jumped? I can have all the mathematical statistics and formulas, but if I haven?t experience from my stomach and my throat from the fall, it doesn?t have the same effect. The truth is related to you from experience, not from opinion. The Apostle Paul only preached from experience with demonstrations of the sprit, so that people faith would be found in the power of God and not in the wisdom of man.

Your Beliefs doesn?t Change Reality
We are all apart of the ultimate statistic that 10 out of 10 people will die. There are many things in the world that you probably don?t believe in. Well do you believe in trucks, guns and even the wind? You are probably thinking to yourself, ?Well of course I do.? Well that would be an insult to say that you don?t. Psalms 14:1 says that ?The fool said in their heart that ?there is no god?? You may say, ?Well, I?ve never seen god. You?ve never seen the wind either but you?ve seen the effects of the wind. Read Romans 1:18-20. It?s like this, if you put a gun to my head and say, ?I?m gonna blow your brains out.? And I reply, ?Well go ahead I don?t believe in the bullets.? If you pull the trigger, people are going to be able to read my mind literally. Just because I don?t believe in bullets, doesn?t change reality. Just because you don?t believe God, doesn?t mean he doesn?t exist. Romans 1:18-20 says ?The wraith of God abides by you and you are without excuse.?

Do You have to See Him to Believe him?
One day a 11 year old girl was sitting in the classroom. The teacher was going to explain evolution on this day. Asked the little boy,
?Tommy, do you see the tree outside??
Tommy replied,
?Well, yes.?
The teacher asked the question,
?Tommy, do you see the grass outside??
Tommy replied again,
?Yes.?
The teacher told Tommy,
?Go outside and see if you can see the sky.?
Tommy said,
?Okay.?
He returned a few minutes later,
?Yes, I saw the sky teacher.?
Teacher then asked another question,
?Did you see God??
Tommy said,
?No I didn?t see God.?
The teacher then said,
?That?s my point, we can?t see God, because he isn?t there, because he doesn?t exist. The little girl then spoke up and wanted to ask the boy some questions. The teacher agreed and the little girl asked the question,
?Tommy, do you see the tree??
Tommy said,
?Yes.?
The little girl asked the question,
?Tommy, do you see the grass outside??
Tommy said,
?Yes.? Getting tired of answering the same questions.
The little girl asked,
?Did you see the sky.?
Tommy again said,
?yeeeesss!?
The little girl said,
?Tommy do you see the teacher??
Tommy said,
?Yes.?
The little girl said,
?Do you see her brain??
Tommy said,
?No.?
The little girl said,
?Then according to what we were taught today in school, she must not have one.?
The Bible says in John 20:29, ?Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed.?



Day of Salvation

Satan stood amidst all his cohorts, demons, imps and the such asking the question, ?What can I do to deceive the people further?? Just then Satan had the idea to reward the one that can come up with the new deception by giving him all that he would desire. Soon a demon glided up to Satan and said,
?I know what I can do to deceive the people further.?
?What!?? said Satan with a loud groaning anticipation.
?I can tell the people that there is no god.?
?No,? said Satan with a loud voice, ?you fool, man knows within himself that there is a creator, for creation itself testifies of this very truth.?
Soon, another approached Satan and said,
?I can deceive the people by telling them that they evolved from monkeys.?
Satan with a loud voice, reprimanded this one by saying,
?There is none so foolish amongst God?s creation that believes such foolishness. Are there none here that are better at deceiving the people then those that have approached me? I thought to myself that I have taught you better then that.?
One more glided up from the back with a smile on his face, confidently approaching his Father of Lies saying,
?I will tell these created beings of the most high that there is more time.?
And this is the rewarded demon that went forth to deceive mankind by telling them,
?You still have tomorrow.?
Guys, girls: today is the day of salvation, because you are not promised tomorrow.

Atheists

What about the atheist? To them they call themselves atheists, ?The fool said in their heart ?there is no god?? they are corrupt, they have done abominable works, ?There is none that doeth good.? In Psalm 14:1. One doesn?t have to believe in semi trucks, but if you stand in front of one, it going to run right over you. So it is with God?s judgment for those who don?t repent.

What about those who say, ?You know, what, I believe in evolution.? Well, to those who believe in the theory of evolution, Dr. Kent Hovind, http://www.drdino.com (http://www.drdino.com) , has a standing offer for those who can prove this willful ignorance; he will give that person $250,000 that can prove the theory of evolution. Now, again, feel free to go to drdino.com, if you want to give it a whirl, the offer is still standing, it will ever stand, evolution is the oldest form of idolatry known to mankind, if anyone thinks that willful ignorance is going to win them into a state of bliss with God, they can forget it. So then ?every one of us shall give an account to God of themselves? Romans 14:12. Atheism and evolution are two topics not worth refuting to me, every man knows within himself that there is a god in heaven, God will teach these on that final day, and if that is the case, it will be too late. Now, just to prove my point, on how ridiculous it is, every theory that man has brought about, first of all evolution is brought about by those that claimed or laid the foundation of evolution, which is nothing new under the sun, but the fact is those who came up with evolution said ?It didn?t fit their sexual lifestyle.? Well let?s go though with that of which is being taught in public schools, another thing to keep in mind before I get going here is the fact that evolution and communism go hand in hand. See, if you?re taught there is no god, then, guess who becomes God? That?s right, the acting government. Let?s go to what they are teaching in high school books today on evolution.

Now the Heddlebird man, built from a jawbone that was conceded by many to be quite human, now Nebraska man, scientifically built up from one tooth, was later found out to be the tooth of an extinct pig. Tapiltro man, that the jawbone turned out to belong to a modern ape, Peking man 5,000 years old, all evidence has disappeared, (how convenient) Nathandro man, at the international conference of zoology, 1958 Dr. A. J. Ekaine said examinations showed that the famous Nathandro skeleton found in France over 50 years ago, is of an old man who suffered from arthritis. Hmm. Kaomagma man one of the earliest and best established fossils is equal in physic and brain capacity to modern man. So what?s the difference? Modern man, this genius thinks we came from monkey, in Romans 1:22 it says:
?Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.?

That was long.

Quite long, and certainly very opinionated.  I'll reserve comment for now so that others may discuss if they so choose.

No offense but, wow, that's a bit too long to read at 4 am. I'll have to finish it later.

Words.

They can be made to prove anything.

Washu:
This is exactly what I expected it to be. Sure, sure, they are the fools, not the ones who stop questioning the selective content and childish presentation in such texts.
Everyone creates their own understanding of 'truth' - (some of us are aware of our own  possible and probable fallibility in this) - yours is scary to me, and if this kind of text fits in with it, I begin to understand your statements in earlier postings. I will not comment on it further, because a) I don't intend to insult (even if I have in the past) and b) pretty much anything I type will be ignored by the active part of your brain anyway. ( - or selectively filtered)

In the face of a 'blunt instrument' such as this, I'll just sit back and try to let go - which, strangely,  is hard for me. It would explain why I kept typing these last few weeks. Part of me desires to find at least the smallest base of agreement with everyone (at least on the WH boards), I expect; the natural way for anyone who wants to seriously discuss something, and start from somewhere that can be explored with a shared understanding. I have never in my life talked to anyone where this couldn't eventually be worked out according to my general conception of 'agreement' - so this is a first, and perhaps a shock, although in retrospect it's rather odd I didn't run into something like it earlier. Anyway, it's been interesting and good material to take with me when I get my study of philosophy started next year.

While I said it before, now I say it again with a better understanding of my own motives: I'm signing off. I will no longer be provoked by your often rude wording and single-mindedness. I'll stop trying to work something out that I know will not give me what I'm looking for and what you don't want to look for.

Which leaves me curious for other responses in this thread..

:offtopic:
I'm dumb and have not figured out how to change my title yet.

Please, someone tell me how to sort this. I AM dumb as I can't see the button.  (actually I'm a real dyslexic, and to me words don't even look like words until I conscentrate on them to decode. They just look like patterns and often get over looked.)

So I spend 5 hours yesterday just to get insulted. Freaking sad. What do you want? That hurt Tab, alot.  :(

That was not an intended unsult, it was an observation. The fact alone that you select that sentence from my post, disregard the rest and consider it an insult just enhances the point I was trying to make.. :]

Oh, you've edited it: Again, I'm sorry to see it hurt, but I still don't understand why. There is a very single-minded theme in this kind of post, I'm sure that doesn't come as a shock to you? Also it seems obvious that the way you describe people who disagree with you is often rude and sometimes crude. Maybe mine has been too, for a while - but I have merely been trying to mirror the way you make your points.
But I digress. I'm did not merely try to insult, and if that's the message you filter out of it, that is insulting in return.

your a christian arent you washu ?

Grrr.....
 What point does it enhance? That I have a selective brain? I freaking don't ignore everything. I read the whole thing, but when I write, esp. when I am called single-minded, I get overrun with feeling, and I can't stop it. And I just write. I'll try harder next time. But really I can't help it sometimes.

http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?scr...matchtype=exact (http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=single-mindedness&matchtype=exact)

By the way, games keeper, your insight and brilliant post once again truly aids the readers of this thread.

Realize that I take everything into consideration, but I observe the same thing from the scientific community. It fails to fully explore the options they have at hand, and if you read, you'll find out why. My single mindedness and rudeness is exactly what I expected to receive so I don't know what came over me. I'd replace that phrase entirely. I'm not single minded and rude, I am a realist. I call it on how I see. I see the general scientific community still stuck on evolution, when it had been proven time and time again to be false. And they still teach it in public schools as fact. I'm saying we need to explore more options, (even if it involves creation) and that scientists have been wrong on many things (which the Bible backed them up with some facts later on) Now if you read of the examples I give (which in fact you need to read the whole thing to fully understand my point) some are quite ridiculous. This entire thing is based on fact. I'll post the sources if you want, but it is a long list.

Unlike the Catholics (which I disagree with alot of their philosophy) I'm not anti-science, I just think that the general scientific community has lost its focus. They need to explore ALL possibilities, not just shun something because it has traces to scripture. I tried to grasp evolution, but un-like some people Mr.Ingoramus says don't do their homework, I do. I found out that evolution shouldn't even be taught in classrooms, not because it's bias, because it's a false theory that has been disproved time and time again.

So what's that mean? That I'm single minded because I'm Chirstian. So don't listen to what the febal christian has to say, because he is autoamatically anti-EveryThingElseAnyoneElseBelievesIn. BEWARE READERS I AM CHIRISTIAN!!

I just couldn't resist: :)

(http://img69.echo.cx/img69/5250/beware0kh.th.png)

Sigh, my response to games keeper was obviously (or apparantly not so obviously) a sarcastic one. Meaning he doesn't add anything with such a post.



That's not what I read in your posts at all. I see one option. One truth, One solution. That's why it's single-minded. You have no doubts, you call yourself a realist, which is what everyone could call themselves if they face what they consider is the only option.
For you, evolution theory (apparantly even the enhanced and improved versions of it, if you really did your homework ;)), is false, that is evident truth for you. For you it is disproved time and time again. Many of the (other?) experts disagree with you, they are realists too.

As am I. I say: I do not know what the answer is in this, and I do not know if it can be known by Man. Even if exact proof or evidence were presented, I could never know myself unless I lived long enough to test and reason my way through all the evidence and theory. And even then if I could make the connection between a universal truth and the thought about it in my brain. That is our difference: you are single-minded in this respect, I have to keep the options open.

If I misunderstood everything you've posted here, and your thoughts are more like that previous paragraph, than I stand corrected, and I would not call you single-minded at all.

I have doubts at times, that is what struggling between faith and the worldly ways is all about. You can't fully rely on the wisdom of man to dictate the way you think.
I wanna let you in on a little secret, I was a full blood atheist back in the day, and I believed in evolution, until I found evidence (even up to date evolution versions :) ) that it was false. And I doubted the scientific community. Now I'm not going into full details, (unless you want me to post the entire thing, I will if your interested) but I can say it was a long battle.


Opinionated yes, but it is all based on fact. I did my research on non-Christian websites, just so I can be sure that the content I was reading was not bias.


Let me make myself quite clear. The truth is not relevant. You can go around saying to people, "Well that is your truth."
Things that are relevant are things like for example.
I hate the rocket launcher; it's just a cannon fodding gun that looks intimidating.

Things like the origin of mankind, is not relevant.

So there is not multiple solutions, because with things like this, it is impossible to occur.
So when we find irrefutable evidence  of a truth, we got to stick to that, because then everything else goes out the window.
The western cultural idea that one should have their own beliefs regardless if it is contrary to the truth, destroys the people. Instead of having one truth there are thousands. Let me define truth for you:

truth (tr?th)
n., pl. truths (tr?THz, tr?ths).
Conformity to fact or actuality.
A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
Sincerity; integrity.
Fidelity to an original or standard.

Reality; actuality.
often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.


Let go to what we really need to talk about. If you are an evolutionary enthusiast, go make $250,000, you do that then I will believe in evolution, but instead of arguing over crap that will get us no where, when did we actually talk about the content of my first post?


The catholic church was founded in Man's name not under God's, the Bible encourages us to discover natures wonders, (so God is pro-science) and that God has given us this gift, but He expects us not to abuse it, just like anything else. Galileo and friends were inspired by the Bible. Personally, the Catholics are nuts. They worship Mary, and that is a direct violation of the first commandment.


This is true, but fool's gold has resemblance to real gold right? I've also heard on the Science Channel that there is only a 2% difference in DNA. But they fail to mention the 2 percent. It's like a steak, 98% is fat and bone and 2% is meat, the 2% is all that matters, so that 2% difference in DNA could be all the difference. I did some looking into the subject and found the 2% is major things like chromosomes (which is the thing that tells a human apart from a carrot) and the rest of the 98% are things like cell structure, sugar phosphates, carbon proteins ect. Things that all living things have. So I guess we evolved from carrots too, along with fish, sea cucumbers, and bees.

Very fascinating discussion, but very hostile in some respects.  Tab, are you sure you know Washu inside out?  For as long as I've worked with you, I know almost nothing about you, I know you know little about me beyond my rants and mod work, so how much do we know about Washu beyond what little he's posted here?  I count him at 190 posts total.  I'm at over 5,000, and I can guarantee nobody here knows squat about me except what I've said so far.  Assumptions - those are what we all hold over each other.  You expressed curiosity about his work, and he posted it.  What did Washu do to deserve any verbal punishment if he behaved according to your expectations?  He holds an opinion.  Don't we all?  I think in this case you got exactly what you expected.  Why then did you react with hostility if he only did what you asked him to?

Washu:  A large part of the problem with truths is the nature of understanding.  Billions of people on this world all live as the same species, pretty much the same sort of existence to some degree (at least in the human sense), yet how many "truths" are there?  Go to Tibet, you'll learn one truth.  Go to Mecca, you'll learn another.  Go to the Vatican, still another.  Go to Jerusalem, and you'll find some very ugly ones.  Reality and perception are quite different things.  This is why humans rarely agree on anything, and even within specific systems of belief, there is still further disagreement.  I too am Christian, so in a sense I share much of the truth you do, but I'm sure we'll disagree on many things if we were to discuss this in depth.  What you understand, and what you know inside can't be translated onto others, no matter how much you'd like it to be.  I know this because I've met with this barrier many times.  I know some things I'll never be able to make others know, and even if I could, most I would not.  Part of growing is learning that your experiences are entirely unique, and that all you can do is offer to share them if people are willing to listen.  Nobody can take them from you, but others also have to walk their own path.  You can't force understanding or acceptence on people.  Not everyone will reach the same conclusions you have, no matter what facts are presented, and some people who hold strong beliefs in opposition to yours will react strongly as a result.  If someone has decided "this is true" or "that is true", it's difficult to change their minds.  Some people don't want their minds changed, and sometimes people think any expression of an opinion is an attempt to change someone's mind.  I'm not saying that's what Tabun is doing here, but a lot of time that is the perception because it's just so common that it is the case.  (Actually I think Tab's seen the sort of back-and-forth confrontation scenario so many times that he's a bit wasted on it, for which I can't blame him, so am I!)

This is the risk taken when holding any strong belief.  You will have people who react negatively towards expression of them, sometimes with reason, sometimes without.  I've had my share of debates and arguments on these forums with people who have disagreed with me, and some who have outright hated me simply because of my faith or the fact that I refuse to abandon it simply because they don't like it.  Some have pulled out every dirty trick in the book to try to make me look like a fool, undermine my character, or have even accused me of being hypocritical.  Some have discussed things with me logically and disagreed, and went on peacefully believing differently.  You'll run into all sorts, and you just have to be respectful, understand the individual and their differences, and keep going forward despite criticism.  You can understand differences without abandoning your convictions.

To me, everyone here is acting predictably, which actually is fairly sad, but not unexpected.  I expected Tab would be offended by Washu's work, and would be annoyed, and yet compelled to respond despite his professed desire to "let it go".  I also knew Washu would respond to Tab's response.  Why?  This is human nature.  I wonder how many of us already have definite opinions formed about each other based on the limited contact we've had on this web forum.  Games Keeper's rather ignorant remark speaks volumes about how we should not react toward one another, regardless of our opinions, positions, or arguments.  Are we conscious of our own motives, faults, and temperments as much as we think we are of others?  Nosce te ipsum.  It's something we all can do better.

Then... we should get on Team Speak and actually speak to each other. Wouldn't be a bad idea. Seriously.

But really my faith forbids me to sit back and watch people go on the "wide path of darkness". I must do something, even if it means my dignaty and pride.

Oh I never said not to do anything, but remember the parable of the sower in Mark chapter 4.  As for Team Speak, I'm afraid verbal communication is out, however I am in #wirehead on irc often, and we can always speak privately on the irc network through text if you like.

How come? ;) *plots
Just wondering

I do what i can  :ownage:

Broken input for starters, that and I really just don't like verbal communication.  I find the keyboard easier.  I'm also much less likely to miss someone's text as I am to miss someone's spoken words, as I often have to leave the computer and return to it many times during a chat session, or I'm trying to do other things at the same time, which I'm seldom good at anyway.

That's true, but there is a special feeling when you are actually talking to someone.
*thinks special thoughts

Phoenix: I still do not have the feeling I was being hostile.
I don't pretend to know Washu. At all, in fact - yet I do know what his posts portray, and since I haven't anything else to go on, that is what I'm going on. You'll note I always accept the possibility of being wrong. Part of my 'quest' was to find out if others admit to that possibility, or that they truly believe their ideas to be 100% rock-solidly correct. If that is the case, then my description, which continues to be misread as an insult, is quite accurate and should be considered a compliment. (comparable to: "you have an unshakeable faith in God" - "Why yes I do, thanks")

Although my posts probably won't show it, I respect Washu's beliefs and ideas, as much as the next - again, if I understand them correctly. What probably sets me off and makes it all sound hostile may be the fact that his lines in many posts (even some who have no relation to this kind of subject at all) sound quite disrespectful of practically any other belief. This is part of the strong-believer vs. the infidels syndrome. It just sounds like a kick in the teeth, albeit probably unintended. Even now, the arrogance of the Missions of old (intended or not, good-willed or not) is unsettling. Almost as much as the Jihad (in any of the more reasonable explanations, that is, otherwise it is a bit more than 'unsettling')

One thing that surprises me, is how often something has to be dragged into discussions when it is obvious that it will either have to be ignored, or result in disruption of the discussion. We are all prophets by nature, but we also have to deal with the fact that our answer will not satisfy others, and where our answer leads the thread away from what is desired for the community. (Arguably, this is exactly where any self-respecting thread in CC wants to be)

I'll not deny that I am in this probably more of a hypocrite than I want to be (which is, at all ;)) - but so be it. I'm sorry for that, and I'll be more mindful of it in the future - this has been part of something I wished to try, but I'm afraid it's hard to explain. Even if I'd understand clearly enough to find the right words to describe it, I'm sure none of you could be bothered, so let's leave it at that.

It is obvious that at least my own reactions were predictable - that's the very reason I fight them - or let go of the subject, which is sometimes the same thing. I guarantee you that it will have been the last time though, human nature or no. I saw it as a continued exploration, but it apparantly ended up being an attack - that too is reason for me to take my distance in some cases, like I used to do before the summer of 2004. I have at least learned part of what I set out to learn, and I believe I haven't hurt anyone too badly in the process.

No-one has a need for hostility, whether intended or not - warn me if I do something similar later on. But be wary not to explain things as attacks, when they are neutral observations.

I was raised as a Catholic, and although I don't pay very much heed to it now the whole Mary-worshipping thing is always the easy target (that and the Inquisition but I digress).

I don't see myself or anyone else as infallible (judge not lest ye be judged), but Washu, your views seem a little fire-and-brimstone to me. My reply to your first post can be summed up in one word:

DINOSAURS.

I rest my case.

What?

since i'm neither Christian or Catholic, i'm not sure of what to say about this.

Faith is a lot like many things, those that belief and those that don't.  i don't thing the non believers or the devout should have a go at each other. sure they have differences of opinion, but that's all it should be an opinion.

I have said many times that i believe in the scientific method of evolution, however i will not knock anybody that believes in a higher power, faith in many ways no matter what you have faith in is a good thing.  it's comforting, it helps you maintain a balance and it at the end of the day it gives people hope

if washu wishes to try to convert people here, well that's his choice and i won't try to stop him.  however as for talking to other people i have no qualms about that i have a microphone and don't mind listening to the problems of others as long as at the end of the day, they respect the fact i may not agree with everything they hold dear or believe in.

however, i do think and bare in mind this is only an opinion it is in no way trying to influence anybody here, but surely we all have a common intrest, should we really be at each others throats?. I just find it sad when a group of people with so much in common tries to push each other apart than embrace the similarities

I have spoken

please think about what i have said, as it would be sad indeed for us to come to blows about this.

Convert is a word I wouldn't use.

Tab:  I detected an edge of anger, or at least annoyance in your original response.  Perhaps I was misreading you, but my intent was only to offer up my observations and let people go with them, as well as offer a little advice to Washu from past experience.  I don't think anyone is out for blood here, and I don't see any reason why you should silence any more than Washu should.  Everyone has a right to talk, your thoughts are as valuable as anyone elses.  Why repress them?

Scalliano:  What do dinosaurs have to do with this, or are we expected to just "know" somehow what you're talking about?

I wouldn't do myself so short as to consider my thoughts not valuable or less valuable than others, that's not why I would stop posting them. I just know there are cases when there is nothing to be achieved in addressing some people within a given context, regarding a given subject. Annoyance would build up while comments are selectively ignored, and opinions clash or are misunderstood.
A good sign of some kind of limit being reached is when posts contain messages like 'if you think about it, you will come to such and such conclusion' or 'think about it for a minute' etc. If somehow people assume others to not be thinking, or will not acknowledge that it is actually the thinking they are doing that brings them to different conclusions, that is pretty much a sure sign of an irresolvable clash. At least irresolvable on an Internet Messageboard?.

If I think there is something valuable I can contribute, I certainly won't be stopped by the fear of appearing inconsiderate. If there's nothing to gain for anyone, then it is wasted energy and effort, and I have plenty of things to do which make my time and energy too precious to throw out the window. I'm sure others will feel the same about it.

(I do not consider this post to be a waste of any kind :))

Well, typically phrases like "stop and think" or "if you think" are just part of normal speech.  At least, that's how I'm used to hearing them.  It's the same as saying "Consider this" or "here's food for thought".  I prefer to see it as an invitation for further reflection, not a slap in the face or an accusation of lack of thought.  Grammatical difference, perhaps?

I knew this was a loaded topic.

It certainly has connotations that indicate that the other is not 'doing the thinking', to my eyes/ears.
Let me give you an example of what I mean:

X has an explanation A of a particular situation
Y has an explanation B of the same situation

X presents A, after which Y presents B in the following way: "If you think about it, you will see that it is B, not A."

I cannot help but read that as an almost insulting way of arguing. No evidence to support claims is given, other than the dubious idea that if you use your brain, you will see it my way. I think wording like 'here's food for thought' followed by actual food for thought is by no means the same thing.

It's your last example I was referring to.  I understand what you mean about the other mode of discussion, if you can call it that.  It's far to adversarial for my tastes.

The dinosaur thing is about evolution.

why does the bible not mention dinosaurs? (or does it?)

I tried looking for that round-earth thing in the bible, but couldn't find it. I also tried looking to see if the bible said how many planets there were. no luck. If anybody knows if the bible mentions this I'd be plased to know.

I'm not anti-christ by the way. The universe is nearly infinite, and has room for far more than one idea of truth. Its just when people start hurting each other over God that it pisses me off.


 :offtopic:  its an intresting thing that we can predict about each other when we know so little about each other. Its BECAUSE we know so little that we can do it. Theres not a host of other things like speach and body language etc getting in the way, I believe.

 :offtopic: Someone please tell me how to change my title from the dumb thing.

Note, maybe we can predict each other so well as we have no free will. theres no test for free will that I know.  :thumb:

shambler:

I've sent you a PM about that member-title a while ago, shambler - I didn't want to respond about it in a thread like this one, but I guess I have to ;]

P.S.
If the deterministic view would be correct (mind you, not nescessarily a fatalistic one), and there is thus no free will, everything you do - including 'going against your will' - is set. If there is free will, you can never rule out determinism - we cannot go back and prove that we can make a different decision. I don't know of any test either. We can only theorize about it (esp. about the problem of the first cause), which ofcourse doesn't mean the latter is not enjoyable, and there's always quantum mechanics for those who dislike pure philosophy :]

That's a subject all of it's own, but I think a good place to start is the book of Job, chapter 40, verse 15.  If you don't have a bible handy, here's a quick link: http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Job/Job040.html (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Job/Job040.html)  Read it and decide for yourself what it's referring to, just mind the description and the context that God is showing Job something to humble and strike awe into him, a creation Job has obviously never seen before.  Hell, read the whole book of Job if you really want proper context of what's going on.  I offer this only as food for thought, take what you will from it.

As for dinosaurs having anything to do with evolution, they neither prove nor disprove any of man's theories, either from the evolutionist point of view or the creationist point of view.  They just lived their lives, and departed from this world at the appointed time.  Frankly I'm getting tired of them being used as ammunition in highly opinionated debates that do them absolutely no justice at all.

I agree. there are dinosaurs in the bible. When I hav time I will read Job.

I don't believe in free will at the moment. but I may next week.

Thanks, Sham. You got there first. :thumb:

My reason for mentioning dinosaurs is that I for one am not about to renounce everything I personally believe just because of a few quotes from the Bible. I am a Darwinist. I am a believer in science and accept that in order for science to develop it has to make a few mistakes along the way, by the same token that both Testaments should be open to interpretation. The theory of evolution stretches to dinosaurs in that it is believed by the scientific community that birds are directly descended from these creatures. My one-word retort was in response to the first post which essentially stated that science doesn't have a leg to stand on when faced by the overwhelming truths contained in the Bible. I am compelled to disagree, hence my somewhat ambiguous post.

Oh I personally have no problem with the concept of life adapting and changing to better survive its environments.  Genetically speaking, life must change, and it's impossible for it not to owing simply to the mechanics of DNA.  However, man is so drastically different from every naturally occuring animal species that I'm not about to accept for one second that humans evolved from apes.  Similarities may exist, but man's capacity to do evil to himself and everything else on this planet really sets him apart from all other forms of life as far as I'm concerned.

I totally agree with your last sentence, and there is the possibility that the theories of Man's evolution currently championed in schools could be incorrect. It wouldn't be the first time it happened (just look at Hippocrates' theory of the Elements, that was used for hundreds of years before it was discovered to be completely groundless), but that's how mankind learns. I am willing to accept that we came from apes, simply because I personally can't come up with a better explanantion and I have never heard anyone else doing likewise.

You mean other than man getting punted out of paradise?

Wether I believe in a god is not important, but if he existed, wouldn't evolution be a good way for him to make humans?

Any other way would destroy faith, as we would have proof of his existance. This way gives us free will on the matter.

If it is incorrect, no matter, that's why science still exists : to discover new things.

BTW Finally shambler you changed the member title  ^_^

Like I said before. Science is God. God wants us to explore the beauty of His creations, it is His gift to us. Science and God are one in the same, and that is something people fail to reconize on both sides of the issue.

I disagree that science is somehow God.  Science is a process of discovery.  Science is a structured tool for understanding the physical universe.  It exists to better understand Creation.  One may argue that in understanding Creation we better understand God, and that's fine, but science is not the Creator.  I don't think one should call science "God" anymore than one should call religion "God".

To me the problem is this dissention between religion and science.  Science has been completely secularized to the point of denying even the possibility of God, and religion in some cases has removed logic and reason so far from itself as to demonize science.  Both should compliment each other.  Instead, the human tendency toward adversarialism has unbalanced the equation and created strife once again where none should exist.

Nature then. :P

Nature too is part of this universe though.  Nature is the universe.  God is not the universe, God sustains the universe.

*me commits suicide

This topic really disappoints me. I wanted to talk about what I posted in my first post. Not people's rude single-mindedness, and ethnic of how people reply to posts or whatever, I'm confused. BTW I refer to a few pages back. I was on vacation so that's why I was gone. But really Tab, I don't think you were trying to be hostile, there is no intent shown. Let me ask you something though, did you read though the entire thing? Because so far, no one has analyzed it in detail, just said it was single minded. And my focus was not on evolution entirely, there are different topics. Why we still speak of evolution?

You know something too. Being an atheist has not set me free. People become these atheists because they want to "break free from the bonds of religion" well I say that atheism is a religion, as is the secular humanist pop culture.
God was the one that set me free from the evil deeds I was committing, He convicted me, and I have repented, and my life turned upside down. You know, sometimes, in order for someone to believe and accept the truth, their life has to really be flushed down the toilet a few times over in order to get it though their skull, denial will only tighten the bonds. What is more beautiful, God or evolution? What would you rather have? Death and cease to have an existence, or feel the power of the resurrection of the body in eternal happiness? I know that I'm not just a pile of bio-waste with no soul that makes my life meaningless. God gave me talents. And I think Pho knows the story of the master and his three servants that were given talents to invest in, I don't want to be the third servant. My talents such as art, music and writing, I use for God. Why would someone just have these talents? You know, there was a story in the news of this little 10 year old girl, who paints masterpieces that looks so real, and sell for millions of dollars. She paints biblical scenes. And what is even more interesting is that her family wasn't Christian at all, she herself brought them to God.

I want to get to know everyone here. I want to see the person, past their avatar, past their signature. Since I want this I will tell you my story. My father used to be a taxi driver in St. Paul Minnesota. Driving taxi was his passion. Until he received a passenger that gave him a tip, except it was cocaine. My dad became a crack addict that day, meanwhile my mother was making plans to snatch me and take me to Michigan with various family members from my mother?s side of the family. She abducted me on Halloween night, the night my dad was going to take me out. I was only 4 years old. As my father slipped deeper and deeper into crack cocaine, he was depressed out of his mind that he lost me. He blamed a lot of things but himself! The only thing that stimulated contact between my dad and I was the fact my mother wanted child support money. My dad busted his ass for me, but in vein. For my mother was not using these child support checks for me, she was using them to fund various frat parties on school nights. She would drink all night, drink drink drink and snort LSD, on my dad?s dime. Back at home my father was having suicidal thoughts. He ended up eating ketchup sandwiches and living at the Union Gospel Mission. The pastor talked to him, and talked him into joining this program there called the Discipleship Program. Things got worse however. My father developed this disease that spread infections throughout the body. His body literally swelled up like a balloon. He had to take steroids. The doctors didn?t know what he had, for this was an extremely rare and incurable disease. He went to various kinds of doctors, specialists, and they couldn?t identify the disease he had. He had it for many more years until the brothers of the Discipleship prayed for him, and literally 3 days later, the disease went away and never came back. The doctors were stunned. Back in Michigan, my mother?s boyfriend moved in. Now my dad told me about god and I believed, but here is the part where it all fell apart. The boyfriend would tell me about evolution and all this crap. He beat me for disagreeing with him. Eventually it became routine. So I eventually believed the deception. I was only 7. Things got so bad, I was sleeping in filth, had no food in the house. I was 30 pounds. Until one day a lightning storm came and knocked an old apple tree in our yard, onto the house and caused extensive damage. My mother?s welfare wouldn?t pay for it, so she had to move. My dad took the opportunity, and moved my mother into his apartment. In the mist of this prove that lied in front of my own two eyes; I still was an atheist at 12 years old. Then me any my buddies were messing around a lot. Then I started smoking pot. Instead of God freeing me I thought, pot could do a better job. I smoked it to relieve depression; I smoked it to relieve all of my problems instead of praying. I started to receive a heavily hit of depression. I was smoking a bag of pot, by myself, I cried, and for a second I said, ?Jesus help me.? I thought for a second, then my addiction disappeared. I haven?t smoked since. Prayer saved my life, God saved my life. Now I have to pay it forward, my faith demands it. And now at 18 years old, I went from crackhouse, to real house, atheist to beleiver. Coincidence? No way in hell.

You said in the past that I can't see from another person's perspective, well I've been there believe it or not. I know the other side, and believe me, it is a battle every day sticking with the true side. (and I say true to the definition, not some multilateral crap of multiple truths) And trust me further that to me, the wrong side is more appetizing and appealing. My natural attraction to that side effects me everyday. If there was no God, I would not have the power to believe the truth. God is the only one sustaining me.

My view of god is well different from most other peoples, but I believe we should respect each others views and not argue.

I read it in its entirety. Admittedly, that was hard to do, since the urge to respond to details in it just kept on building - since responding to the whole selection would not be helpful, as I described (which is the heart of the matter for me, so try not to be too upset about the thread not taking the exact shape you'd liked to see), responding to details would be worse.

Your last paragraph again shows heavy signs of preaching. So, without commenting on it futher, and knowing that you mean it well, do you understand the counterproductivity of your message and the form you bring it in? You will probably never really know 'Forum-People' - or at least not all of them. You will be even less likely to convert them with the kind of arguments and in the way you do here.
Your struggle is yours. Mine is mine - here, we've probably all been through rough spots, known addiction and have lost loved ones (for instance) - we all deal with it in our own way, and my ethics are true. I won't be hurt when you try to deny other persons concepts of what is right, wrong and true, but I will be offended, and I will deliberately take it as an insult.


As a side note: Atheism is indeed a religious conviction (religion has connotations of structure and hierarchy for me, so I'll avoid using that term here). It assumes there is no god, and takes that assumption on faith - very much in the same way any world religion assumes its base claims. Atheists 'feel' an absence of something higher, believers 'feel' a presence. I feel neither, or am not ready to decide how my experience should be explained - and I don't want others second guessing me on this either, tyvm - (empirical) agnosticism makes the most sense in that case, which is what I would consider myself part of, if pressed to 'pick a side'.

I also think we should argue about it, while respecting other views, as long as it's constructive. If neither constructive nor respectful - then I agree shamb, it should end there.

Washu, I understand completely what's going on inside you.  I certainly understand the passion to share your own experiences and bring them forward.  Of course that means you're going to want others to understand what you understand.  I see nothing wrong with that.  I would like to talk with you on IRC sometime.  I was hoping you'd drop by after last night's game but sadly you did not.

Tab:  I do have a question, one of curiosity more than anything else.  This isn't an accusation, so please don't misinterpret it as one.  Do you remember all my rants with individuals like dev/null and Devlar?  If you remember they were putting forth some very pointed assertions of truth and nontruth.  What I am curious about is whether atheistic dogmatic singlemindedness is as offensive to you as religious dogmatic singlemindedness.  I'm assuming you stayed out of these discussions from a general disgust of the whole conflict itself, but I'm curious none the less.

As for Washu, I don't think a little preachiness in his topic is out of line.  It's part of who he is, must he change that to have our permission to post here?  I don't use the forums as a bully pulpit myself because I'm a Lord of the Arena which means I have to respect everyone who comes here;  You know damned well I'd love to do just that.  We've had our share of anti-Christian rhetoric posted on this board, and it seems it always goes unchallenged unless I'm the one doing the challenging, and even when people know most of what's being put forward is untrue or questionable at best, nobody ever, ever went out of their way to at least make sure the facts were straight.  I'm always left to stand alone to do it myself.  Why is it that whenever a Christian says something dogmatic the whole world goes nuts over it, blasts it, denounces it, etc, but when someone attacks a Christian just for having a flocking opinion everyone sits in silence and lets it happen?  If someone finds our beliefs offensive, well I find humanity offensive but I still have to deal with mankind don't I?  That's what this part of the boards is for, controversial hot topics that might ruffle some feathers.  As long as it's discussed in a respectful manner and doesn't result in personal attacks I say rant on.

Washu:  Regarding Mr. Ignoramus, it does sound to me like a very preachy peace that seeks to belittle and ridicule the current scientific view.  I see it as the flipside of what science often does to religion.  I won't do a point by point commentary, but I can say that the presentation isn't really going to convince anyone to change their mind.  Those who believe in evolution will see it as an obvious attack piece and react with hostility toward it, those who believe evolution is false will nod in agreement with you.  People who are fence-sitters or don't care either way won't get much from it and will probably ignore it.

I think if you want to refine this piece into something more convincing you need to employ some literary techniques.  First, start small, and let the opposition do most of the talking, presenting their views, making their case.  Then you use your side's character to unhinge that argument little by little.  You shift the focus from the opposition to your own character and give him more speaking time toward the end.  The last thing said in the article is what people will remember, you have to make them want to get to that point.  Also, you have to watch that you don't do any of it in a condescending manner, and you must present the opposition's case as they see it themselves otherwise you're doomed.  Attack the points, never attack the person.  Use cold logic and a presentation of details to cast doubt on the other side's argument, and save your big guns for the killing blow.  This is how the pros do it.  If you really want to write a convincing piece, you need to study literature and especially political and journalistic writing styles.  What you have to watch, as a Christian, is that you never engage in their tactics of half-truths, distortions, and spin.  Stick to the facts and do your homework, then work on your presentation.  Remember your goal is to make what you think more appealing to people than what the other guy thinks if you're out to sway opinions.

Pho: I don't consider that an accusation, so it's all good. I am always annoyed by any kind of hard-set conviction that rules out any other possibility, rules out any variations or flaws in it. Especially if it's brought in a way that clearly indicates that what others think is both inconsequential as well as the result of lesser reasoning or understanding, experience, weakness or simply 'being unworthy' in one way or another. An 'Atheist claim' stating all believers are weak and must bow to reason, is just as offensive to me as a 'Christian claim' that the lost and restless sheep must find their shepherd and repent.

During the conflicts with dev/null, I saw only trolling and insults for the sake of making an
insult. He also once admitted to not showing his true ideas and simply kicking shins for the sake of it. (which I did respond to, if you recall, since I figured it to be an important and explanatory message)
I also missed out on quite a few 'discussions', because I never really read along at times. I can remember only two such conflicts, and couldn't take either seriously enough to fully read and respond to, at the time. If I know someone trolls to get their kicks, I will not bite.

Another thing that often plays a role (perhaps less on these forums, mind) is that most atheist statements I've seen do not prescribe a way of life for others. While they still claim to have an exact knowledge of a universal truth, they do not usually wax poetically about the story of their lives and how everyone should follow in their lavender-scented footsteps. This is just my personal experience, and explains why I might be less easily offended by atheist claims. I'm sure you've seen more dev/null's than I have, for instance.

I would also like to add to Phoenix's last paragraph that you not only should try to avoid making it sound condescening, but to keep it from being condescening in nature. That way, you not only show that you take the other's point of view seriously, but automatically avoid most of the offending qualities of your texts. At the point where you are actually attacking the points and not the person, as Phoenix aptly says it, you will actually be parttaking in discussion that can lead somewhere.


Washu: Just a side note.
I still can't understand why single-mindedness is now suddenly used as a derogative statement, and associated with rudeness. Single-mindedness is nothing but the effect of having a mind strongly set on something. (next time, follow the link to the common dictionary ;))
Whether it is on belief, disbelief, truth or untruth, single-mindedness is nothing but not being in two minds about something. The latter is equally not inherently a good or a bad thing. I am 'in two minds' about the metafysical, the spiritual and to what 'the truth' is. You are clearly not, and have a strong conviction of having filtered out the untruth, and found (the) truth. That is single-mindedness, and it is only a bad thing if you consider it to be for your own reasons.

Aye, it's what finally got him banned because it was an outright admission to trolling, I was just waiting for him to hang himself and he finally did.

I am single-minded to the truth, but I can't ignore the un-truth. I can't pretend it is not there. I presented the facts in Mr. Ignoramus, these are all true. My point being, is why should we keep trusting the general scientific community, when they have made some very stupid mistakes? I can't say that for the entire community, but my question is why isn't more of the scientific community exploring the other side? Intelligent Design has everything to do with science, not with religion. Inspired by it? Yes! Look at its arguments; it doesn't violate any scientific laws, unlike evolution. Evolution claims that everything came from nothing, that statement itself is scientifically inaccurate. Look at the law of causality; it contradicts evolution's basic principles. So why do we promote it? Why do we teach it? It should be thrown in the garbage. It was a good attempt by Darwin, it was a good speculation, but it?s time to move on, even if it is to ID. So why are we not? I get suspicious. And as I do more research my suspicions become fact.

I think you already know the answer to this question.