I'll put it this way: I have a lot of respect for the one that performs magic, not the one that believes in it.SilverStuddedSquirre said:
Vigormortis said:
THANK YOU!!!!!!!! I'm so glad I finally found SOMEONE who sees the obvious. Go! Spread the good word!Nooners said:
...you just called attention to it. You might not have gotten a warning this time - I think you were past low content. But calling attention to it like that? Yeah, you probably just guaranteed yourself a second warningSilverStuddedSquirre said:
Bleidd Whitefalcon said:...you just called attention to it. You might not have gotten a warning this time - I think you were past low content. But calling attention to it like that? Yeah, you probably just guaranteed yourself a second warningSilverStuddedSquirre said:
I have often wondered why so few firmly devout people have not yet tried the argument "Evolution: It's a Miracle!"Nyaliva said:I like how the Creationist is a scientist of astronomy and physics and is debating a biological concept. A completely trustworthy source there.
THANK YOU!!!!!!!! I'm so glad I finally found SOMEONE who sees the obvious. Go! Spread the good word!Nooners said:
Except you got a warning for it either way, so the point is moot.SilverStuddedSquirre said:
Unfortunately, the Code of Conduct doesn't make this distinction:SilverStuddedSquirre said:
I don't necessarily agree with the rule myself, but it does say that videos must be ACCOMPANIED by an opinion debate or reasoning, they can't BE the opinion debate or reasoning.
This^^Cerebrawl said:Haha, I have been. I haven't seen an episode in a year or two though. But mostly I learned the fallacies by looking them up myself when I was engaging in comment wars on youtube(I could call them debates, but that's giving them too much credit).Vigormortis said:
I still occasionally listen to the Thinking Atheist podcast, or check if AronRa has released another video.
The main reason I stoped watching The Atheist Experience was that I was fed up with the same moronic arguments again and again from christians calling the show, and in the comment sections. I basically can't even listen to them anymore because I ran out of tolerance for stupid, same with every single one of the creationist talking heads, and I'm a very patient guy. I couldn't watch the Ken Ham vs Bill Nye debate because the stupid it burns. Some are worse than others De Souza especially rubs me the wrong way, Kent Hovind is almost tolerable because he's so absurd that he can be unintentionally funny.
I've had two now, one for a post in which I broke the quotes down into chunks to answer seperately; apparently their quote was my whole post. Clearly an error. The other was for the oh so terrible crime of quoting someone, only to have them delete the post days later. So because they deleted their post, I got an infraction.....SilverStuddedSquirre said:Bleidd Whitefalcon said:...you just called attention to it. You might not have gotten a warning this time - I think you were past low content. But calling attention to it like that? Yeah, you probably just guaranteed yourself a second warningSilverStuddedSquirre said:
I know, It's deliberate. I sent a very reasonable request to please actually look at my post, and its context and see that there was no need for me to add commentary. I am pretty sure the warning was issued by a content algorithm and not a person.
I just wanted to bring to attention that more words does not equal more relevant discussion, just more text.
/edit
This rule about low content: I assume it is to reduce posts consisting of just "I agree!" and the Like, which I understand. I also understand that you need 5 warnings or so before a ban? I only hope to highlight that a warning for what I posted is Silly, as there is in fact, about 20 mins of video content in my "low content" post
also I have noticed since becoming active on the forums that more warnings seem to bee issued for format than for actually being offensive. I'm pretty sure I offended somebody in this thread, though I have received no warnings, or even complaints from other Posters.
that'd be like asking a pastor to read Genesis and immediately follow it up with "But modern scientific thinking states...". You're free to believe what you like, you can think the entire universe started when the internet was created and everything before then an illusion, but your viewpoint is not more valid than any other insane one. If you have solid evidence for it, it can be scientific. Creationism (that is, the idea God created the world in 7 days and mankind is special and the earth is 4,000 years old) is demonstrably wrong, it is a theory that doesn't correlate to the evidence.
Well, nothing has passed the threshold to be called a theory yet, in scientific terms, but there's hypothesis' that have made predictions and had those predictions come true, so it's at least come part-way. So we've got a better idea, a theory in colloquial terms, at the very least.CaptainMarvelous said:
I retract my earlier pass to believe God started the universe, that hypothesis looks pretty solid.Cerebrawl said:
You have no idea how great it is to hear people actually discussing this instead of making the same old arguments.SilverStuddedSquirre said:I have often wondered why so few firmly devout people have not yet tried the argument "Evolution: It's a Miracle!"Nyaliva said:I like how the Creationist is a scientist of astronomy and physics and is debating a biological concept. A completely trustworthy source there.
THANK YOU!!!!!!!! I'm so glad I finally found SOMEONE who sees the obvious. Go! Spread the good word!Nooners said:
As a person who doe not believe in any God, I am perfectly open to discovering that this is true. You would have to be able to demonstrate properly that God (which /whatever God it turns out to be in this case) exists. But, Hypothetically speaking if this occurs, I rather think God would have no trouble making the Physical Universe, running on "The Science," then watching with the delight of a Dedicated Miniatures Hobbyist as His Children learn more about Creation and go "Oooo!" And, "Aaah!"
My Issue with religion, (as opposed to the IDEA of a God) is that Human Beings do NOT know ANYTHING about God. All the writings, all the scriptures, were written by the hand of a person. Everything people "know" about God is things that Humans wrote. There is a great line in Babylon 5: "The closer we think we are to defining God, the further we are from Him." I think it nicely sums how I feel about religion and God.
), and I think so many people who agree with Creationism are scared to hold science as fact because it will make God seem somehow less miraculous. 'I mean the universe can make ITSELF in a few billion years but God did it in 7 DAYS! Wow!' Something like that. As much as I've called out some atheists who refuse to discuss religion in any way for claiming religious people are close-minded, this is one aspect where most devout religious people really are. Then you're misunderstanding what miracle means, and you're also moving the goalposts.Nyaliva said:If anyone writes a book on this topic, I'd love it if they called it 'Evolution: It's a Miracle!'.
Cerebrawl said:Then you're misunderstanding what miracle means, and you're also moving the goalposts.Nyaliva said:If anyone writes a book on this topic, I'd love it if they called it 'Evolution: It's a Miracle!'.
Of course it does also contradict the bible, which is hardly surprising since it's a collection of bronze age and early iron age writings.
It made me think of this:
