The fact that you quoted "the heavens and the earth were as a single point and we drove them asunder", and did not think that it was a watery, meaningless scripture, shows that you either did not read the previous sections, or you really are convinced that it predicts the Big Bang! How can you honestly derive that conclusion from such a scripture? Are you intentionally intellectually dishonest? 

You also didn't read the link which is utterly refutes your argument that atheist ideology is like religion, which is why you are still repeating that argument like a broken record. I also disrespect the fact that you have not directly admitted your religious afiliation, which looks more and more like a muslim every post.

I refuse to respond to points that I have refuted repeatedly, and that goes for the rest of your post too. I ask you please to go back and read my responses; then I will be pleased to continue the debate.

Once again Serpicus you are claiming that "science" has found something (big bang) that religion has known all along, yet ironically without this scientific knowledge, any  and all of these passages you love to quote can be intrepreted in a miriade of ways and in fact have been throughout the millennia (or hundreds/dozens/several years...depending on the dogma). Furthermore a lot of these phrases have been ignored until recently... and as you are keen on pointing out, are often the result of mistranslations, or people purposely twisiting their particular relgious text to somehow parralel a bit of scientific knowledge.

To rebut the "accelerated evolution" concept was unneeded, as Lazarus already covered it. Why be more redundant than I already am?

By the way, I never quoted Dawkins Zeitgeist... horrors that be, I have never read it! Thus, I would not choose to say anything on the matter, because unlike you, I choose not to speak on matters I do not have at least some knowledge about.

 "I have not once discounted atheism, and in fact even considered it. But after evaluating what atheists say, what they accuse my religion of, and what my religion actually says, the choice for me was quite clear."
Do you read what you write Serpicus? You continually state that atheism is bad or wrong or false (yes I know, you use other words); is this not discounting? Are you saying then that you are defending your religion by writing in this forum? If this is so, why would your deity need defending... he/she/it (s) needs not explain themselves, as you have so often stated, so why even post here unless you are trying to discredit something?

"Conceding to the fact that you are victim to your own Hubris. Touche"
Even though I think this speaks for itself... and this statement here, your statement, is NOT an example of hubris?

"...which are only now accepted by your science, " (the whole statement)
And here in lies the irony of all that religion is and represents. You are typing on a frigin' computer, you are eating food prepared by technological apparati that are beyond your comprehension, and you flick on the switch to the lights that bring you heat and light and you honestly think you owe nothing to scientific reasoning. Sure you may say, "but it was better a millenia ago, before all this"... but that is not enough. Live without technology and then come back to the forum after you die a short, painful, ignorant life, and tell me that it is "my" science. To use your same personification method: religion uses science to prove itself, but only uses the parts it deems useful. Then it says go screw yourself to science, and collapses into a dark age.

"If yes - religion does not allow the killing of civilians regardless of the reason"
Don't be rash. Relgion ALWAYS makes allowances for the killing of civilians. Every religious text that describes a law similar to "thou shall not kill" makes a statement later on that allowances one to bend this. Whether it is... you can kill your neighbor if he is an unbeliever... or you can kill your neighbor if he is a criminal... or you can kill your neighbor if he does not follow the code I gave you as strictly as he should.

well, that proves it.
Do you actually have anything to day in order to, with reasonable citations, prove your points. Since your return with your amusing flag, all you have done is respond more like a kindergarten student - "hubris, I not you are.... wahhh"... wtf.
Please don't waste our time Laz.
You have now demonstrated that your new found support for atheism is based more on an abstract thought process, and when you get down to it, arguments that are infantile and devoid of any tangible riposte.
If this is what it means to be an atheist .... well....lol 

I have figured you both out. Both you beavers will prevent you from reaching a conclusions. You both my wont to reflect on why. Good and bad are constructs of language and they should not be used in my opinion. We do things for resins ask your self why you need to prove your point. A clue its not to help the other.

The best advise I have seen so far.

Laz, you seem to like soliloquise when unable to actually rebut individual points down to the specifics listed.
I would certainly expect that from Ewm, and I would not begrudge him his inability to actually "get" what I was saying.
But you are rather amusing.

With that I guess my job in this thread is done.

"Uncomfortable truth" as propounded by Laz debunked and the author left spinning in cyclical arguments that miss, deliberately or as a result of insufficient acumen,  the rebuttals already given.

I leave you guys to your now overtly meaningless posts.

Laz - my condolences 

"The fact that you quoted "the heavens and the earth were as a single point and we drove them asunder", and did not think that it was a watery, meaningless scripture, shows that you either did not read the previous sections, or you really are convinced that it predicts the Big Bang! How can you honestly derive that conclusion from such a scripture? Are you intentionally intellectually dishonest?  rolleyes

You also didn't read the link which is utterly refutes your argument that atheist ideology is like religion, which is why you are still repeating that argument like a broken record. I also disrespect the fact that you have not directly admitted your religious afiliation, which looks more and more like a muslim every post."

Well, if you read the verse, you will find that what it says before and after the verse, indicate the same - and do not go out on a limb to another context.
Ironically, if you claim your atheism is an informed decision as opposed to a tantrum, you wouldn't need to ask me what stands there.
I did go through the link, you mention. However, like many other sites that atheists post, trying to distance themselves from religion, you will find that in the end it is an ideology.
And as amply demonstrated here, a BELIEF.
If you would rather not call it a religion, we could settle with "Cult".
As regards my religious "affiliation", I am a muslim. What of it?

Posted on: January 14, 2008, 05:07:51 pm

---

"While you're at it explaining your cosmic leap of illogic with the scripture, you might also want to explain a few other things that you never bothered to, such as why your god has more probability of existing than santa, and why the magisteria of religion and science do not overlap, and all the other arguments I have presented over the course of this debate. Every time I presented these arguments, you ignored them, sticking your fingers in your ears singing la la la. So stop playing games and actually write something concrete; otherwise don't bother."

Well, firstly when speaking of the probability of God existing, there is a framework of "religion" that has been passed down to you and me. What caused or brought it forward, is not explainable by your science.
So, a more apt question would be, since you choose to leave "religion", can you logically demonstrate the non-existence of the God I mention. If you cannot, then your choice is more whimsical than logical. a rather interesting contradiction to the rhetoric of your entire series of posts.
Secondly, I have amply demonstrated the overlap of religion and science. The fact that Gentilised Christianity stands as an exception to the rule, simply because of Middle and Dark Age European tinkering, is hardly premise for your argument. Guess you have been singing lala with your fingers in your ears, much like you accuse me of doing. Seems this reverse accusation of doing something and then accusing the other guy of it seems to be a recurring focal point of your arguments.

Unfortunately, it appears that you are the one playing games, and rather poorly I might add.
Posted on: January 14, 2008, 05:16:28 pm

---

""""Once again Serpicus you are claiming that "science" has found something (big bang) that religion has known all along, yet ironically without this scientific knowledge, any  and all of these passages you love to quote can be intrepreted in a miriade of ways and in fact have been throughout the millennia (or hundreds/dozens/several years...depending on the dogma). Furthermore a lot of these phrases have been ignored until recently... and as you are keen on pointing out, are often the result of mistranslations, or people purposely twisiting their particular relgious text to somehow parralel a bit of scientific knowledge."""
------Interesting that you would find that it would have been interpreted in a myriad of ways.
Exactly how would you interpret "the heavens and the earth were as a single point, and we drove them asunder".
It is easy to hide behind "interpretation" when caught in one's claims of sciecne and religion being incompatible. It appears that you find things to be incompatible more on a whim that on actual honest evaluation.

""""To rebut the "accelerated evolution" concept was unneeded, as Lazarus already covered it. Why be more redundant than I already am?"""
------Sure he has. Now we are all going to say that each race is another species. Sieg Hail! yikes!

"""By the way, I never quoted Dawkins Zeitgeist... horrors that be, I have never read it! Thus, I would not choose to say anything on the matter, because unlike you, I choose not to speak on matters I do not have at least some knowledge about."""""
-------Ironic that you are unfamiliar with this concept. This is the central concept used by Dawkins to justify atheism when posed by the question of actual "moral values". If you are unfamiliar with this concept, what exactly are you basing atheism's compatibility with moral values and ethics on? What your schools and colleges have taught you? so much for self-rationalization and free thought.
Welcome to the age of automatons.


""" "I have not once discounted atheism, and in fact even considered it. But after evaluating what atheists say, what they accuse my religion of, and what my religion actually says, the choice for me was quite clear."""""
------So eager to understand the other person's point of view. Yet one would certainly ask why you never considered to evaluate what the theists say about atheists. You seem to claim that you do not discount that easily, yet your only exposure seems to be Christianity vs Atheism, and have readily discounted all other statements that stand in unison with science as "interpretation". Convenient. especially when wanting to keep one's life simple - no evaluation there, just a prejudice against something "foreign".

""""Do you read what you write Serpicus? You continually state that atheism is bad or wrong or false (yes I know, you use other words); is this not discounting? Are you saying then that you are defending your religion by writing in this forum? If this is so, why would your deity need defending... he/she/it (s) needs not explain themselves, as you have so often stated, so why even post here unless you are trying to discredit something?""""""
-------I am not trying to defend anything in this forum. But I did find your initial posts to be aggravating enough to have to respond.
however, your eagerness to repetitively espouse atheism in forums, says much about your need to start a thread and how insecure atheists truly are.


"If yes - religion does not allow the killing of civilians regardless of the reason"
Don't be rash. Relgion ALWAYS makes allowances for the killing of civilians. Every religious text that describes a law similar to "thou shall not kill" makes a statement later on that allowances one to bend this. Whether it is... you can kill your neighbor if he is an unbeliever... or you can kill your neighbor if he is a criminal... or you can kill your neighbor if he does not follow the code I gave you as strictly as he should."""
----- don't know which religion you follow--- YIKES!
""""
"...which are only now accepted by your science, " (the whole statement)
And here in lies the irony of all that religion is and represents. You are typing on a frigin' computer, you are eating food prepared by technological apparati that are beyond your comprehension, and you flick on the switch to the lights that bring you heat and light and you honestly think you owe nothing to scientific reasoning. Sure you may say, "but it was better a millenia ago, before all this"... but that is not enough. Live without technology and then come back to the forum after you die a short, painful, ignorant life, and tell me that it is "my" science. To use your same personification method: religion uses science to prove itself, but only uses the parts it deems useful. Then it says go screw yourself to science, and collapses into a dark age.""""
-------Nice when people take things out of context. Again a true mark of the misinterpretation of texts that spawns atheism. When I was referring to "your science", I was referring to your implacable allegiance to it, as opposed to it simply being a means to an end. "Your science" is the alternative to religion. "My science" is the tool I use to live a comfortable life.
I assure you, I would call it "your money" and "my money" if you were to assign money the Hindu divinification. Does not mean that I do not use money, nor need it.
But, this is a fine example of atheists misreading things, and finding fault when the intent of the statement was quite the contrary. If this is figured in the logical evaluation atheists claim to have used to become atheists, well logic is only as good as the facts that are presented. and unfortunately, when the facts are misread, well we see the result...

cool. no worries. I just was sifting through the old threads and found that this one had some new posts. Posts I never got to. 

So you had a good laugh at us both did you? How nice for you.

Your idea that our arguments were right, but "we" were wrong, is ridiculous, and meaningless. In addition, to set yourself up as some arbiter that has risen high above us both, now that's prideful. How dare you then proceed to acuse us of pride.

It seems you truly do get off on watching people slug it out from afar, like the kid in school that munches food while two guys punch each others guts out. That is also why you have tried to resume this thread even though Serpicus and I ended on good terms, with no hard feelings. It does not surprise me in the least that you inserted a comment at the end waiting gleefully for further unpleasant comments. It's what you wanted. That was the whole point.

I suspect that Serpicus will agree with me on this one. Get down off your self-imposed high horse. You are not our mediator, and we did not exert ourselves for your small amusement. It was never particular enjoyable, but was about seeking the truth about reality. Frankly, I'd rather stand on a plug in my barefeet than continue the debate, and my worthy opponent is now my friend. DO NOT try to alter that.