Stop what you're doing and laugh at the U.S.

[iDante]

What's it with all the signature-bashing? I thought the subject was America and the "fight" between science and religion >_>

This thread has taken so many loops and turns who knows what the subject is anymore. Actually it's a pretty interesting thread as well

If you're so bad at communicating that you have to turn to Yahoo Answers for a more clear wording mayhaps Intellectual Elite is not an accurate descriptor

If you have difficulty using words to communicate concepts it might be time to renounce your Intellectual Elite title

Someone sounds jealous.

[Mangled*]

It occured to me that Veritas would have had to go to Yahoo answers to find that Yahoo answer anyway. Sort of a self-fail really.

Yeah I am picking up a vibe of jealousy also.

But nevermind, lets steer this thread back away from jealousy-enduced insecurity fest.

Let's discuss this:



Some may know this, it's a piece of art called Piss Christ, it was recently irreparably vandalised by Catholics when on display in France.

[Veritas]

If you'd like to interpret mocking as jealousy be my guest

[KYnetiK]

<3 PissChrist

Dont forget Blood and Sperm!

[demoniac93]

I feel sorry for the terribly sick person that considers a stain of bodily fluids, or any other human waste, to be a work of art.

[Mangled*]

I feel sorry for the terribly sick person that considers a stain of bodily fluids, or any other human waste, to be a work of art.

I don't think you understand art then.

You mean to say that a beautiful image formed by shit and blood or piss or vomit is invalidated because of the materials used?

Look around you, shit fertilises the land to grow plants to feed animals who shit on the land to grow the plants. You eat those animals and those plants. Your shit fertilises the land too. Welcome to Earth, it isn't as immaculate as you wish it to be.

Piss Christ is a print of a photograph of a jar of piss with a crucifix in it, and it is a metaphorical representation of how the image of Christ is misused (pissed on) by people in the name of personal profit. As a 'traditional Catholic' you should really be in favour of it as a statement rather than dismissing it as disgusting and blasphemous. There are many Catholics who appreciate what Piss Christ is.

I expect you would have been along with the crazies who slashed it. Failure to recognise the meaning behind something and just taking it for face value.

[demoniac93]

No, as I said, it's called body wastes*.
And yes, make me a Mona Liza using shit, and I still won't consider it to be art. It's undignified.
There's a reason we say things like "shithead", "piss off", and "eat shit and die".

[Mangled*]

No, as I said, it's called body wastes*.
And yes, make me a Mona Liza using s**t, and I still won't consider it to be art. It's undignified.
There's a reason we say things like "s**thead", "piss off", and "eat s**t and die".

You know, I can't thank you enough. You are perfect! You outline perfectly your own naively simplistic view on the world.

Yes there is a reason we say things like "s**thead", "piss off", and "eat s**t and die". But do you understand where these words come from? Why is there a difference between urine and piss? Or excriment and shit?

Have you thought very much about this? Why are offensive words offensive when they mean the same as non offensive words? Let me educate you, you don't deserve it, but I'm just graceful like that:

Offensive words are entirely culteral. In the English language they originate from classism. Slang words that were born out of the impoverished lower classes were deemed 'dirty' or 'low' by the upper class aristocracy. Most 'clean' words come from Latin, and it was the upper classes who were educated in Latin, most of the lower class could not read or write and so they invented slang words.

So what makes these words offensive? You are told they are offensive, it's merely linguistic traditionalism. Words are just words, you either choose to take offense to them or not. It's a lot like religion really. You are told there is a God, it's merely cultural traditionalism.

You choose to take offense to words just as much as you choose to believe in a God.

Also there's a huge difference between an offensive word and an insult. An insult is a personal attack, and offensive words are used to emphasize that, just like they are used to emphasize frustration, annoyance or humour. There is nothing wrong with swearing, it's a beatiful part of expressing your emotions.

[KYnetiK]

<3 Mangled.


Popcorn, anyone?

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

I just wanted to pop in and say that while I'm a Christian and all, these guys are a bunch of idiots, and you have every right to hate them, Mangled.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363837/Doomsday-campers-Project-Caravan-say-world-end-May-21.html

[Horve]

how much will it take to beat christianity out of you?

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

how much will it take to beat christianity out of you?

More than you can dish out.

[Mangled*]

I just wanted to pop in and say that while I'm a Christian and all, these guys are a bunch of idiots, and you have every right to hate them, Mangled.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363837/Doomsday-campers-Project-Caravan-say-world-end-May-21.html

I don't hate religious people, I hate the religions they devote their lives to and the clergy that take every advantage of their followers.

You're right, they are idiots, just like the Westboro Baptist Church are idiots... but they are just different interpretations of the same thing that you believe. Sure, they might be more stupid or more twisted or more absurd. At the end of the day they are just like you, they are just like all religious people, there doesn't have to be any logic behind their beliefs, regardless of what anyone else says they believe what they want to believe.

It's exactly what's wrong with religion. Remember all those people who committed suicide in 1999 because they thought the world would end in 2000? No doubt there are people stupid enough out there who think the world will end on May 21st or in 2012 or any other arbitrary date. Yes people are deluded and will take their lives because they have faith in an absolute truth.

All religious interpretations of all religions are equally incorrect. Yours isn't special or unique or perfect, it's just as crazy as theirs, the only difference is YOU believe it.

[homerofgods]

I just wanted to say (since demoniac93 wanted to know where the universe came from) that Stewen Hawkin sais in his newest book «The Grand Design» that since the law of gravitation exist, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason for the existence of something rather than nothing. There is no reason to call upon God to create the universe.
I have that book on my shelf, just waiting to be read

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

I just wanted to say (since demoniac93 wanted to know where the universe came from) that Stewen Hawkin sais in his newest book «The Grand Design» that since the law of gravitation exist, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing.

Ah yes, Stephen Hawking, the god of atheists.

Nothing against the guy (he's darn smart and pretty much my hero), but people are VERY quick to take his word as gospel truth.

[iDante]

I just wanted to pop in and say that while I'm a Christian and all, these guys are a bunch of idiots, and you have every right to hate them, Mangled.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363837/Doomsday-campers-Project-Caravan-say-world-end-May-21.html

I find that debating the less extreme religious people is much more fun and fulfilling, simply because an actual debate can almost happen. In other words, post more in this thread.

Ah yes, Stephen Hawking, the god of atheists.

Nothing against the guy (he's darn smart and pretty much my hero), but people are VERY quick to take his word as gospel truth.

Well the man is brilliant, and his theories are backed up by science. Although it's often pretty shaky and theoretical, there's still hard physical data behind what he says.
That's not how religion works.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

I find that debating the less extreme religious people is much more fun and fulfilling, simply because an actual debate can almost happen. In other words, post more in this thread.

Problem is, I've come to accept that middle ground doesn't really exist in situations like these.  I say my piece, someone else says their piece, we agree to disagree (while thinking that the other couldn't be more wrong), and nothing is accomplished.  It's just easier to sit back and stay out of it.

[Mangled*]

Problem is, I've come to accept that middle ground doesn't really exist in situations like these.  I say my piece, someone else says their piece, we agree to disagree (while thinking that the other couldn't be more wrong), and nothing is accomplished.  It's just easier to sit back and stay out of it.

With regards to religion and science there isn't any middle ground here because they are polar opposites and are really not compatible at all.

Science is a changable understanding. Religion is a fixed belief.

What I find is people who understand science are willing to engage in open debate and share ideas, religious people percieve it as an attack because they are taught not to question their rigid beliefs and so they either avoid it, ignore it or basically try to clutch at anything they can in some desperate way to validate their beliefs. A good example would be how you, despite completely misunderstanding entropy, used it as an argument against the Big Bang theory, but once you were told what entropy meant you didn't retract your argument against Big Bang theory, you simply didn't mention it anymore. You 'learned to forget'.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Science is a changable understanding. Religion is a fixed belief.

Not at all.  Religion changes, and can change quite drastically.  Yes, the texts of various religions don't change, but religion itself is a very personal thing.  My Christianity today is not what it was five years ago, and that wasn't anything like my Christianity five years before that.  You read, you study, you learn, and you draw your own conclusions with the guidance of others.

A good example would be how you, despite completely misunderstanding entropy, used it as an argument against the Big Bang theory, but once you were told what entropy meant you didn't retract your argument against Big Bang theory, you simply didn't mention it anymore. You 'learned to forget'.

I didn't learn to forget; it's just that I didn't have any other immediate arguments, and I wasn't going to make up something for the sake of being difficult.

[iDante]

A good example would be how you, despite completely misunderstanding entropy, used it as an argument against the Big Bang theory, but once you were told what entropy meant you didn't retract your argument against Big Bang theory, you simply didn't mention it anymore. You 'learned to forget'.

That's a little unfair, I didn't expect him to explicitly state "My argument was wrong." Rather, he admitted his facts were wrong about entropy and hasn't brought it up again.
A fundie I was talking with IRL brought up some bs about how if the Earth was that old the moon would have had to have left it less than a million years ago based on how fast it was moving away. I actually did the calculation in front of him using very liberal figures and showed him why, with numbers, it didn't work. He said "oh." That night he used the same argument against some other people I was with.
When I'm used to that sort of reaction to arguments, Gamer_2k4 seems quite reasonable in his willingness to admit wrongness.

Problem is, I've come to accept that middle ground doesn't really exist in situations like these.  I say my piece, someone else says their piece, we agree to disagree (while thinking that the other couldn't be more wrong), and nothing is accomplished.  It's just easier to sit back and stay out of it.

I find having very well defined arguments makes this impossible. Often people argue two totally separate issues when they debate and then they get nowhere. Good moderation forces them to actually address each other's points and make progress.