|
|
|
| Anybody up for a debate? |
|
Michael Jensen
Member #2,870
October 2002
 |
Ok well I'm asking for help. I'm a christian and I found a website, one of MSN's forums -- Atheists vs GOD -- now I found a post where someone basically claims that there are giant invisible giraffe living on the moon -- people don't seem to understand that arguing aginst the bible doesn't really prove the case for giraffe on the moon -- I suppose I should seriously be questioning the the motives of such people, but if anybody wants to help or check it out here's a link to the last page of the thread... (I'm probably only in the last two pages, my post started at #237)http://groups.msn.com/AtheistVSGod/rockthrowing.msnw?action=get_message&ID_Message=44682 I think I might just give up on this one not sure what I should do....
|
|
Inphernic
Member #1,111
March 2001
|
Quote: there are giant invisible giraffe living on the moon Actually, no. There are duckies (my faithful followers) and Juhan Af Grann (one of my army's commanders), living under a gigantic space/time distortion shield which allows them to be invisible and devise evil plots to conquer the Earth. -- |
|
Michael Jensen
Member #2,870
October 2002
|
Go tell them that
|
|
Johan Halmén
Member #1,550
September 2001
|
Perhaps this discussion should continue on: Game Design & Concepts ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Years of thorough research have revealed that what people find beautiful about the Mandelbrot set is not the set itself, but all the rest. |
|
Inphernic
Member #1,111
March 2001
|
Why? Off-Topic Ordeals - Rant and rave about the weather, politics, your job or anything else. Unless, of course, you think of this as game designing. -- |
|
Zaphos
Member #1,468
August 2001
|
Sirplus said: You sure are dense. ^ the truth ... They're just a bunch of people who are better at english, messing with your head via jokes. Sinbad's really really funny, actually. Calm down, think clearly, you're not in a serious debate so stop attempting to argue back in seriousness. ChatRat is a bit more serious in some comments, like "I'll say whatever I bloody well want to say. God doesn't talk to people, people convince themselves that God has spoken to them so they can justify the otherwise unjustifiable."
|
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
 |
Quote: and there's very little that can happen to him aside from hearing the voice of God or whatever, that will disprove it. heh. That reminds me... My brother "Heard GOD". He told my brother to kill me. (No joke) -- |
|
Plucky
Member #1,346
May 2001
 |
I agree with Zaphos. Quote: people don't seem to understand that arguing aginst the bible doesn't really prove the case for giraffe on the moon Michael, your frustration stems from the fact that you're missing their point. In doing so, you've fallen into their trap. They're not trying to prove the case for giraffes on the moon. Sinbad's piece is a satire. There is a reason why he's asking for "disproof", or otherwise he'll assume the giraffe theory is correct. |
|
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
 |
Disclaimer: I didn't waste my time following the link. Debate on the subject is worthless. If either side could prove either side wrong, there would be no "either side". You are obviously set in your ways; they are set in theirs. Both of you would claim that "if the other guy could prove me wrong, then I'll change." But neither of you really mean it. There's no reason you should feel obligated to prove yourself. An atheist cannot prove himself anymore than you can. If your religion does something good for you without harming others, then no one can think worse of you for it. |
|
Zaphos
Member #1,468
August 2001
|
TF: OUch ... that's creepy. Heh, "hearing god" does have the rep for psychosis ... it can take a somewhat severe amount of delusion, I guess.
|
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
Quote: TF: OUch ... that's creepy. Heh, "hearing god" does have the rep for psychosis ... it can take a somewhat severe amount of delusion, I guess. Ja, He disappeared shortly after (within months), We searched for him for a while, and only got bits and pieces... After a while we got no news, and later his skull was found by a dog in the river valley. (in fact the dog was playing with it in someones yard) Our whole family is messed up, physically and mentally. -- |
|
nowiz
Member #3,099
January 2003
 |
My advice would be to give up on that thread. Use your time to pray for them, instead of arguing. I've been in discussions similar to that, and I don't see anything useful ever coming from it. A thread like that is just made to make fun of christians. _____ |
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
Quote: A thread like that is just made to make fun of christians. Not always. I've seen threads like that where Christians mercilessly torment anyone who doesn't think the same way. -- |
|
nowiz
Member #3,099
January 2003
|
When it is started by a non-christian in that way, it's to make fun of christians. But of course it goes both ways. Christians can start threads that are no good too. I've seen both. Anyway, discussing religion on the net may be interesting if both parts make objective and serious arguments, instead of making fun of each other, or arguing over nonsense. But I haven't seen many people change their mind when loosing a religious debate. _____ |
|
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
 |
-- |
|
Johan Henriksson
Member #11
April 2000
 |
Proof god does not exist: If god existed...
|
|
23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
 |
If you want religious debate, go here Quote: They're not trying to prove the case for giraffes on the moon. Sinbad's piece is a satire. There is a reason why he's asking for "disproof", or otherwise he'll assume the giraffe theory is correct. Well, you can't prove it, no. But you can reasonably believe it's not true since giraffes need oxygen and food, neither of which are up there. I suppose it's possible, but I shall assume the giraffe theory is incorrect based on logic and reason. PS: I didn't read the link either Someone once asked me if I believed in Smurfs, since their existence can't be disproven. Well, we can find out through research that they're the creation of a bunch of TV guys with little proof beyond that, so it's reasonable to assume they're fictional I can't prove God either, but I find the evidences to be more than reasonable personally. But I'm sure everyone here knew that Quote: An atheist cannot prove himself anymore than you can. Quite right, but I know of athiests who would disagree Quote: I've seen threads like that where Christians mercilessly torment anyone who doesn't think the same way. It's not unheard of (gold star for correct use of "it's"), but atheists are legendary for elitism on this topic. If you want to see what real trolls are capable of, go Google for a UseNet discussion called "F*CK CHRISTIANS" (all caps and without the asterisk). Someone crossposted a flame thread to several Christian newsgroups ... and alt.flame.jesus. Yikes. O_o Quote: I think I might just give up on this one not sure what I should do.... Some discussions with reasonably honest debaters can be informative and fun. Some are just trolls who base their rejection of Christianity on one or two hangups which aren't even true. Find out which this guy is before continuing or leaving -- |
|
Inphernic
Member #1,111
March 2001
|
Quote: I don't see anything useful ever coming from it How can a conversation, where both parties adamantly refuse to accept or even consider the other party's opinions, turn out useful anyway? -- |
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
Quote: (gold star for correct use of "it's") Um... I don't see what you are referring too... Inphernic: Kinda like that linux/OSS subtopic you participated in, in the vim/emacs thread? -- |
|
23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
|
Y'know, Inphernic, with that avatar I can't help but think everything you post is intended as a joke Anyway, debating is a challenge and can be a good way to grow in your faith, assuming you have a clue. I actually "beat" someone a while ago who thought the Gospels couldn't possibly have been written in the first century. He had no comebacks for my proofs. Nice feeling Quote: I don't see what you are referring too... Me, same line. -- |
|
Inphernic
Member #1,111
March 2001
|
Y'know, 23yrold3yrold - y'never know. http://edu.kauhajoki.fi/~juipe/Stuff/biggrin2.gif -- |
|
Bruce Perry
Member #270
April 2000
|
-- |
|
Plucky
Member #1,346
May 2001
|
Quote: But you can reasonably believe it's not true since giraffes need oxygen and food, neither of which are up there. I suppose it's possible, but I shall assume the giraffe theory is incorrect based on logic and reason. PS: I didn't read the link either The link, or at least the original "giraffe theory" post, is worth reading to understand Michael's plight. In a nutshell, the hypothesis is that there exist a large number of invisible alien creatures (which resemble giraffes somehow) that live on the far side of the moon whose primary purpose is to make one side of the moon face the earth at all times. In doing so, these "giraffes" are saving humanity from destruction. It's a trap. And Michael, being a newbie to these debates, fell right in. He proceeded to argue that science has a perfectly reasonable theory that explains this phenomenon (tidal lock), and so the existence of these creatures makes no sense. I'm not sure he has realized that he's using the same type of arguments used to "disprove" the existence of God. And so if he has every faith in his line of argument, how can he discount similar arguments about God? Mono/Polytheist and Atheist are all at an impasse because Religion is about faith in god(s) or lack-thereof whose observation or lack of observation cannot be readily predicted or tested. Science requires theories that can be tested by predicting certain positive observations, and then making those observations to see if the theory still stands. Science is about competing, evolving theories that can undergo small tweaks or complete overhauls. Science is about willingness to be wrong. This is one reason why science is so powerful. A more interesting discussion is about intelligent design ("neo-creationism") vs. evolution. In some ways a more complex discussion. |
|
Michael Jensen
Member #2,870
October 2002
|
Thanks for the insight guys -- I appreciate it, I think I'll give up on the giraffe topic for now and maybe look for a serious post by this sinbad person -- I tried making the no water, no oxygen, no food comment too, and a couple of others and explaining why the moon is always facing the earth and I know most of them are joking and not taking it seriously but I really think they should -- I suppose it's my fault for thinking that. Anyways -- Thanks guys.
|
|
23yrold3yrold
Member #1,134
March 2001
|
Quote: I'm not sure he has realized that he's using the same type of arguments used to "disprove" the existence of God. Well, science can't explain a lot of events in Christianity or things about it which are backed by other evidences (archeological for example), which I won't go into great detail here about since Religious Threads Are Evil. Quote: A more interesting discussion is about intelligent design ("neo-creationism") vs. evolution. Yeah, I used to be big on that topic until I realized it didn't matter -- |
|
|
|
they'll acuse you of blashpme! 
man I'm sooo tired of them (why isnt there an exhausted emoticon?)
