• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anti-Bullying Speaker Curses Christian Teens[W:165; 667]

This is due to the fact that societies version of facts and logic are not the same as a person of faith's. To us, hearing we (humans) developed from monkeys or that the world came to be from meteors running into each other is irrational. Not saying you made those claims. I'm just using them as an example. At least what we believe has a historical document backing it up.

Are you seriously denying the reality of evolution? and NO, the world did not come into existence "from meteors running into each other"

I will not deny that the Bible, whichever version you happen to believe in, is a "historical document". That parts of it were written as far back as 3000 years would sort of make it "historical", that does not however lend any more credence to the 'history' told in it than the history we can read in Sumerian, or Egyptian or Chinese documents of similar age. There are far too many contradictions to be found within the pages of said text for it to be considered a totally reliable source. Archaeology has shown that many of the events that supposedly occurred earlier than approximately the early 8th Century BCE just didn't happen.
 
There you go again, kiddy, what comment of MINE needed "backing"? So far all you have done is to ignore Savage's basic point/message and put words in my mouth.

So if you think there is something I said that I have to "back", just cut and paste in your response.



Oh no . . . you don't have a single thing to back up. :mrgreen: Thanks.
 
This is due to the fact that societies version of facts and logic are not the same as a person of faith's. To us, hearing we (humans) developed from monkeys or that the world came to be from meteors running into each other is irrational. Not saying you made those claims. I'm just using them as an example. At least what we believe has a historical document backing it up.

As I said, it's based on faith - including faith that the bible is an historical document rather than a collection of folk tales written years after the events mentioned took place.
As long as those beliefs based on faith do not interfere with my life or limit my freedoms, I take no issue with them.
 
Are you seriously denying the reality of evolution? and NO, the world did not come into existence "from meteors running into each other"

How does homosexuality play into evolution?
 
As I said, it's based on faith - including faith that the bible is an historical document rather than a collection of folk tales written years after the events mentioned took place.
As long as those beliefs based on faith do not interfere with my life or limit my freedoms, I take no issue with them.

your freedoms are based on something quite similar to faith. I bet you don't mind those folk tales so much...
 
How does homosexuality play into evolution?

Off topic but here's one idea:
Potential Evolutionary Role for Same-Sex Attraction

One possible explanation is what evolutionary psychologists call the "kin selection hypothesis." What that means is that homosexuality may convey an indirect benefit by enhancing the survival prospects of close relatives. Specifically, the theory holds that homosexual men might enhance their own genetic prospects by being "helpers in the nest." By acting altruistically toward nieces and nephews, homosexual men would perpetuate the family genes, including some of their own.

It was MarineTpartier at 9:05PM who posted the following:
To us, hearing we (humans) developed from monkeys or that the world came to be from meteors running into each other is irrational.
 
Are you seriously denying the reality of evolution? and NO, the world did not come into existence "from meteors running into each other"

I will not deny that the Bible, whichever version you happen to believe in, is a "historical document". That parts of it were written as far back as 3000 years would sort of make it "historical", that does not however lend any more credence to the 'history' told in it than the history we can read in Sumerian, or Egyptian or Chinese documents of similar age. There are far too many contradictions to be found within the pages of said text for it to be considered a totally reliable source. Archaeology has shown that many of the events that supposedly occurred earlier than approximately the early 8th Century BCE just didn't happen.

You might want to point out that apes are not monkeys. :mrgreen:
 
Are you seriously denying the reality of evolution? and NO, the world did not come into existence "from meteors running into each other"
Yep, I'm "seriously" doubting the THEORY of macroevolution. I believe in microevolution because it happens in front of us all the time. But I do not believe that all life came from one source. You do? Also, I believe that God granted us and all animals the gift of microevolution. Why? Because if He didn't, we would have ruined this Earth a long time ago. God's wisdom and foresight far exceeds our ability to hypothesize. BTW, thanks for agreeing with me about the Big Bang Theory. We're off to a good start.
I will not deny that the Bible, whichever version you happen to believe in, is a "historical document". That parts of it were written as far back as 3000 years would sort of make it "historical", that does not however lend any more credence to the 'history' told in it than the history we can read in Sumerian, or Egyptian or Chinese documents of similar age. There are far too many contradictions to be found within the pages of said text for it to be considered a totally reliable source. Archaeology has shown that many of the events that supposedly occurred earlier than approximately the early 8th Century BCE just didn't happen.
There are a couple of problems with your statements. 1) I would like some specific contradictions, historically, that you find in the Bible. Not spiritual contradictions, historical ones. 2) What version of archaelogy are we talking about? The one where archaeologists have mislabeled many of the Earth's layers and added years upon years to them? When the measuring unit being used is inaccurate, naturally the results will be off. For instance, it has been said and is taken as fact that Joshua did not conquer Jericho but merely came upon the city after it was deserted. Even after evidence of a wall was found, a portion of it is collapsed, and that portion is burnt. The conclusion was that Joshua had broken the wall down and burnt it to make it look like he conquered the city or he came upon it like that and simply took credit for it. So the question is, why would Joshua do this? It makes no sense. If the town was deserted, then people of that day would know it was deserted. Therefore, the story given would have been a laughingstock because all of the people of the time would have known it to be untrue. The Bible wasn't written just for future readers. People of that day read it as well. In addition, no documents have been found to support the theory that Joshua made it up. The only thing that supports the theory is the faulty dating scale used by archaeologists. After that, its pure speculation.
 
As I said, it's based on faith - including faith that the bible is an historical document rather than a collection of folk tales written years after the events mentioned took place.
I could go into many stories that prove the Bible isn't a collection of folk tales. There is archaeological proof that many of the things written in the Bible happened. Read my reply to Somerville to see one.
As long as those beliefs based on faith do not interfere with my life or limit my freedoms, I take no issue with them.
Fair enough. I agree with you. However, it cannot be denied that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values including the unalienable rights given to us by our Creator. Is that interfering?
 
your freedoms are based on something quite similar to faith. I bet you don't mind those folk tales so much...

My freedoms have nothing to do with faith. They are the product of Man, not some mythical being. Don't try and sell me on the Bible. You believe what you want - I'll continue to believe in science and in reason. The notion that freedom goes hand in hand with religious belief flies in the face of thousands of years of history to the contrary. Religion has been the cause of much of the world's oppression since its appearance.

But as I said earlier, keep your superstitions and your faith from interfering with my life and you can do whatever you want.
 
I could go into many stories that prove the Bible isn't a collection of folk tales. There is archaeological proof that many of the things written in the Bible happened. Read my reply to Somerville to see one.

Fair enough. I agree with you. However, it cannot be denied that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values including the unalienable rights given to us by our Creator. Is that interfering?

Our 'creator' was really late in giving out those 'inalienable rights', wasn't he? Life would have been much easier if he'd bestowed those inalienable rights on mankind at the beginning - and I'm not talking about the Garden of Eden (speaking of folk tales).

I'd suggest to you that the inalienable rights have less to do with a creator and more to do with the age of enlightenment.
 
Last edited:
I'd suggest to you that the inalienable rights have less to do with a creator and more to do with the age of enlightenment.
That's not what the founders said.
 
My freedoms have nothing to do with faith. They are the product of Man, not some mythical being. Don't try and sell me on the Bible. You believe what you want - I'll continue to believe in science and in reason. The notion that freedom goes hand in hand with religious belief flies in the face of thousands of years of history to the contrary. Religion has been the cause of much of the world's oppression since its appearance.

But as I said earlier, keep your superstitions and your faith from interfering with my life and you can do whatever you want.

I'm not trying to sell you on the Bible, but the truth is the idea of freedoms and rights and the resons behind them are not all that much different than faith. You believe that people are deserving of certain rights, there is no proof of that.
 
You believe that people are deserving of certain rights, there is no proof of that.

It's reasonable. It is the law or reciprocity. Treat others as you wish to be treated. And yes, it is provable since respecting other people does, in turn, more often than not, lead them to respect you.

Faith is not provable and it is not reasonable.
 
It's reasonable. It is the law or reciprocity. Treat others as you wish to be treated. And yes, it is provable since respecting other people does, in turn, more often than not, lead them to respect you.

The outcomes are provable...the concepts of "rights" is entirely subjective.

Faith is not provable and it is not reasonable.

To you...the concept of rights is not provable or even reasonable to some.
 
The outcomes are provable...the concepts of "rights" is entirely subjective.

The concept of rights is simply a heuristic of the law of reciprocity.

To you...the concept of rights is not provable or even reasonable to some.

You simply don't understand what a heuristic is.
 
The concept of rights is simply a heuristic of the law of reciprocity.

Which is also a human construct.

You simply don't understand what a heuristic is.

Well, that just defies common sense...



...perhaps you should look into cognitive bias...
 
Last edited:
Which is also a human construct.

Which has nothing to do with the argument you were making. You argued that rights are not provable not that they are not a human construct. I demonstrated that rights are provable and reasonable once you reduce them down to the law of reciprocity. Please do try to keep up mac.

Well, that just defies common sense...

Ah, so you do know how to use wikipedia.
 
Which has nothing to do with the argument you were making. You argued that rights are not provable not that they are not a human construct. I demonstrated that rights are provable and reasonable once you reduce them down to the law of reciprocity. Please do try to keep up mac.

They're not provable, they are assumed based on the perceived benefits to society that they provide.

Ah, so you do know how to use wikipedia.

Right, only you know anything. Didn't we discuss already that my major was sociology? It's always entertaining when young educated people assume they are the only educated person.
 
Last edited:
They're not provable, they are assumed based on the perceived benefits to society that they provide.

Yeah, because you can't establish the truth or validity of rights by the measurable benefits that they have provided to society. :roll:

Right, only you know anything. Didn't we discuss already that my major was sociology? It's always entertaining when young educated people assume they are the only educated person.

You are not a sociology major until you pass your statistics class.
 
Yeah, because you can't establish the truth or validity of rights by the measurable benefits that they have provided to society. :roll:

No, you can assume them based on perceived results.

You are not a sociology major until you pass your statistics class.

Well, first that's not true...second, I passed my statistics class 15 years, or so, ago. I do hate math in nearly every form though.
 
No, you can assume them based on perceived results.

That is the definition of "provable" mac.

Well, first that's not true...second, I passed my statistics class 15 years, or so, ago. I do hate math in nearly every form though.

Interesting.
 
That is the definition of "provable" mac.

No, it isn't. It's the definition of assumable. It can easily be argued that the rule of law, basic human standards, and rights that we have developed over the maturation of our species has had a detrimental affect as well. It's all about perception.
 
Back
Top Bottom