imperialscum

TV's Frink said:

No, it's just that you aren't funny.

I am sure I would feel the same why if I were the subject of my humour.

darth_ender said:

imperialscum said:

TV's Frink said:

Don't apologize to the village asshole!

JEDIT: Pardon my language

Well you know I hate it when you don't use proper English. I pardon you this time but next time spell it with "s".

 Forgive me for humoring you, and I don't mean to be a bad neighbor, but I think we Americans consider in an honor to spell words words our own way.  It gives us our version of English its own flavor, its own color, and I don't think any amount of complaining is going to change our behavior.

You see, we Americans are of a different caliber than the Brits.  We like our version of English to be front and center in the world stage.  So forgive me my little political maneuver here on this board, but I think I stand with the rest of my American friends when I say, without apologizing, though I mean no offense, that we will continue to proudly maximize our own spelling in our dialog with the rest of the world.  It's best for all you Brits to just get with the program.

;)

Aaaarrrggghhh! I read this with an extreme pain! :p

My reply was a meant as a humour anyway. However many times my humour seem to be too deep or written in a too serious fashion and people don't seem to recognise it. :)

TV's Frink said:

Don't apologize to the village asshole!

JEDIT: Pardon my language

Well you know I hate it when you don't use proper English. I pardon you this time but next time spell it with "s".

Ryan McAvoy said:

Would somebody stating that "Jar-Jar Binks was the most emotionally moving character ever comitted to celluloid" not cause you treat their subsequent statements with suspicion? Can somebody not have poor judgment? Is the word "taste" simply something I imagined?

I don't look down on people just because they have different taste in art. I certainly would discuss films with such person or take recommendations regarding what films to watch.

RicOlie_2 said:

I never know whether to find people like imperialscum funny, or to be sad that half of our society thinks in the way they do.

EDIT: Apologies impscum if that comes across as a low personal attack. It is indeed the way I feel, but I don't want to be mean about it, and it need not really be said.

No need to apologise. It is your opinion.

DuracellEnergizer said:

GlastoEls said:

"Alert my Stardestroyer to prepare for my arrival"

For a moment there, I thought this was a post of imperialscum's. ;-) 

Why? That would actually be my second least favourite quote from ESB, right after the least favourite "BRING MY SHUTTLE!".

RicOlie_2 said:

imperialscum said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

imperialscum said:

Citizen Kane... I don't like it

Obviously this statement calls in to question the validity of your opinions on everything else.

Saying that an opinion can be valid or invalid is pretty much one of the must stupid things one can say. Especially when it comes to an opinion of an art.

 Saying that an opinion can't be invalid is also stupid. If I thought that the earth revolved around the moon, it would not be a valid opinion.

Haha priceless! It is ironic how people ALWAYS come up with this self-embarrassing example when they try to "prove" their theory of "invalidly" of an opinion. Not only it would be a valid opinion, it would be a scientifically correct statement under certain conditions. If you put the reference frame on the Moon, then the Earth revolves around the Moon.

Anyway let me jump on the safe side and slightly correct my previous statement: an opinion of an ART cannot be invalid.

Ryan McAvoy said:

imperialscum said:

Citizen Kane... I don't like it

Obviously this statement calls in to question the validity of your opinions on everything else.

Saying that an opinion can be valid or invalid is pretty much one of the must stupid things one can say. Especially when it comes to an opinion of an art.

RicOlie_2 said:

If you think it's simply bedtime story material, then you display your ignorance of the story. The creation story in Genesis is a carefully crafted narrative that has some clearly symbolic elements woven into it. The order of the things created is definitely deliberate, and not the result of some primitive mind making up crap. The author(s) conveyed theological ideas through the story, and thus it has theological value, if not scientific value.

Well it falls under category of art since it is clearly not a scientific book. Therefore it is completely subjective. It is not to my taste. So now you are trying to tell me that I should like it (or should consider it good) just because it was "carefully crafted" (another completely subjective thing)? Creation process, primitive or sophisticated, has very little affect here.

For example, I am sure Lucas "carefully crafted" the prequels in his own right. I don't like them. And let's take another example of something that is widely acclaimed, Citizen Kane... I don't like it and I couldn't care less how "carefully it was crafted".

The death of the Emperor is brilliant. It is very unique as well. Not the usual stupid showdown battle. It comes unexpectedly and it is crude, simple and swift.

Frank your Majesty said:

I thought you wanted to say the ten commandments are in contrast to survival of the fittest, or something similar.

Yes that is what I was saying.

Frank your Majesty said:

If you don't take the bible literally, you can easily say that God creating earth and life in seven days was a way for people 2500 years ago to imagine how everything started. You can still believe in Heaven and Jesus dying for your sins. That's the essence of not taking something literally.

Of course, evolution is nowhere mentioned in the bible, but neither is electricity and yet, even members of the Westboro Baptist Church use electric light.

Yes I suppose you could twist everything around and fool yourself so that it somehow fits with the modern science. But for what reason would someone then even believe in such nonsense if he accepts science? Why not just take science and forget about the bed-time story level material?

People who strictly believe in creationism at least do not have to fool themselves as they just believe in creationism as it was intended. Of course that makes them unable to accept the modern science. But the two are fundamentally incompatible anyway.

Frank your Majesty said:

You know, not all Christians interpret the bible literally. And if you don't belive in religion you must assume that the biblical principles were invented by humans. Humans who were created through evolution, thus making the biblical principles a product of evolution. Therefore, abiding to biblical principles is not against evolution. Or in other words, evolution can lead to principles that contradict your "laws of evolution".

What are you saying is an absurd. It is true that the bible was written by human (who evolved through evolution), but the content of the bible does not describe the evolution. That is like saying every book is about the principles of evolution just because it was written by a human.

Literally or not, even if you stretch your imagination for a lightyear you cannot reasonably connect content of the bible with evolution by natural selection.

RicOlie_2 said:

imperialscum said:

So I am curious if there is anyone who believes in evolution rather than creationism and still practises religion. If so, how can you and why would you even practise religion at all?

Imperialscum, I consider evolution barely plausible without a God. It's chances of producing an intelligent being, and the chances of the process actually starting at all are so incredibly low that it could almost be deemed impossible. I also do not understand your idea that religion is incompatible with evolution, unless you refer solely to atheistic evolution. In fact, I find it quite humourous that you assume that they do not work together. Could you elaborate on why you think it doesn't jive with Christianity, or religion in general?

The chances of initial (primitive) life being started on Earth are indeed very low. But to say that it was started by a divine intervention it makes the entire thing infinitely less possible.

And the idea that God merely created the process of evolution completely contradicts to with what it is written in the bible. To my humble knowledge there is no mention or description of anything even close to evolution in the bible. Btw by evolution I refer to Darwin's theory of natural selection.

A further argument of complete incompatibility of evolution and religion is that the biblical principles, to which people should abide to, go against the laws of the evolution.

darth_ender said:

darth_endersaid:

In other words, morals are not universal.  There is no supreme law that says that murder is wrong, that human equality is right.  Not unless there is a Supreme Being.  Otherwise, those values are actually just accepted by the majority of society.  Being moral in one society may be immoral in another.

I hope you use the term warfare in a bit of hyperbole.  I do not wish to cause contention, though I debate passionately.  I really had no side point.  I just used a lot of words to convey my point, which I summarized in the above quote.

Well and I did not argue against that simply because I agreed with that part. But further in you post, you gave a huge credit to religion for modern western moral norms, which I argued against.

TV's Frink said:

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

@imperialscum, I haven't interacted with you for some time, so to read this makes me wonder if you always missed the point so completely, or if this is a lone instance.  I don't mean to be rude, but I think you were trying to reply to something between the lines, but didn't read the lines themselves.

Well the most important rule of forum warfare is to state your point in 2-3 sentences. If you write a big reply as you did, with many side-points, it is very likely that your main point will be either lost, not understood or even ignored.

That is just a friendly tip from a veteran. :)

 Username: imperialscum
Join Date: March 7, 2013
Last Online: February 8, 2015, 4:34 PM
Post Count: 1018

Username: darth_ender
Join Date: April 26, 2011
Last Online: February 8, 2015, 3:23 PM
Post Count: 7161

I would expect a little more intelligence. You may not be aware but OT.com is not the only forum on the internet.

So I am curious if there is anyone who believes in evolution rather than creationism and still practises religion. If so, how can you and why would you even practise religion at all?

Possessed said:

imperialscum said:

I mean you may try blame everything on the Church as an institution and say religion has nothing to with it. But I am a very practical person and cannot accept such excuse.

Except that that is not practical thinking at all.  Just because some branches of the church twist things does not make something twisted to begin with.  That's like saying, for example, that a chain of restaurants is overall terrible because the one in your city isn't very good.  Chances are the one in your city is privately ran following guidelines given down, and they just are not following the guidelines well.  Individual churches are NOT united, even the bible warns against individual churches taking orders from another church.  Blaming all churches for the misdeeds of a few is not practical at all, but it is typical, sadly.  I'm afraid your not as much better than everybody else as you may like to think.

Well if you make a comparison/analogy, at least get the scale right. It's more like saying, for example, that a bad chain of restaurants is overall good because there is one in your city that is an exception and is actually good.

darth_ender said:

@imperialscum, I haven't interacted with you for some time, so to read this makes me wonder if you always missed the point so completely, or if this is a lone instance.  I don't mean to be rude, but I think you were trying to reply to something between the lines, but didn't read the lines themselves.

Well the most important rule of forum warfare is to state your point in 2-3 sentences. If you write a big reply as you did, with many side-points, it is very likely that your main point will be either lost, not understood or even ignored.

That is just a friendly tip from a veteran. :)

darth_ender said:

Nope, that's not what I am saying at all.  I am saying that you hold moral values that you consider right.  Do you know where those values came from?  From society.  And that society's values are descended from Judeo-Christian values.  That's all I'm saying here.

And that is exactly what I was trying deny. You make it look like Judeo-Christianity is the foundation of the society itself (I apologise if that is only my impression). Yet it is just a small evolutionary piece. At some point it even completely opposed (indirectly though Church) many of the moral standards of modern western society. And it still continuous to oppose (indirectly though Church) some of moral standards of western society today. I mean you may try blame everything on the Church as an institution and say religion has nothing to with it. But I am a very practical person and cannot accept such excuse.

darth_ender said:

Oh my gosh.  You mean Christianity did all that?  I didn't know.  Gee

I did not say Christianity did that. I quite clearly said Church did that in the name of Christianity. But anyway that was not really relevant to this discussion. I just wanted to point out that religion directly or indirectly was a major amoral factor in Europe for a several centuries. There was a struggle to actually move the society away from that direction.

"You rebel scum!"

darth_ender said:

I am afraid that this is all a bunch of ignorance.  I don't disagree that people who are without religion can still hold high moral standards.  But bear in mind where those standards came from.  Right now you are from the UK if I recall correctly.  Your nation has been tremendously influenced by Judeo-Christian values.  Let's say that the world was taken over by the Islamic State.  Over time, societal norms conform to those accepted by what we now see as an evil group.

First, you are saying that one religion will protect us from the other, which is kind of a paradox in this discussion. So if it is the religion that may harm us in the first place, why don't we just get rid of all religions if they are the problem?

darth_ender said:

In 100 years, a guy very much like you wishes to live a life with morals much like yours.  Do you know what would happen?  This man would be branded a heretic and executed for apostasy.  You know why, because he would be living a life if immorality according to a different society, though his standards may be exactly like yours today.  Lest you use this as an argument against religion due to the extremism of such Muslims, I do wish to point out that even atheistic societies like North Korea and the Soviet Union have adopted truly evil norms.

I hope that this was some kind of joke. You speak like Christianity gave us freedom and stuff. You better learn the history of Europe. The Church (in the name of Christianity) was exploiting people for centuries (it still does to a lesser degree). Funny how you mentioned "branding one a heretic" and executions in the name of religion. In medieval Europe, that was a very common practice of Church ... burning people alive, invention of unimaginably sick torture devices to extract the "confessions" out of "heretics", etc. The Church actively suppressed the freedom and sabotaged the secular progress in Europe for many centuries (Copernicus, Galileo, etc.).

It was only when secular sphere (such as science), led by intellectuals, forced the Church to change and accept new norms that were demanded by the people. So I hope we are now clear on the fact that it is the secular sphere to be credited for the modern western society and NOT the religion.

It is fair to mention that in northern countries the Church wasn't forced but rather reformed itself. But still, the reformation was a result of influence and progress in the secular sphere.

darth_ender said:

Lest you use this as an argument against religion due to the extremism of such Muslims

Some Muslim countries have their "middle age" as we had ours in Europe. A common denominator in both cases is/was a religion.

darth_ender said:

I do wish to point out that even atheistic societies like North Korea and the Soviet Union have adopted truly evil norms.

Of course there are some exceptions. But a vast majority of atheistic societies (EU countries) are doing very well in terms of moral norms.

Btw this sounded like you consider USA a theocracy? It is kinda funny that it actually have some elements of theocracy, such as the use of bible in court. As an atheist, can you refuse to participate in that ritual?

Well I like it as much as the other two.

darth_ender said:

But to say religion is just nonsense is, in fact, nonsense.  Religion is built into humanity.  Even most who do not believe in deity in any form still engage in religious-like behaviors and rituals, whether they realize it or not.  It too is a part of humanity.

The only useful thing about religion are some (emphasis on some) of the moral standards it teaches. Pretty much everything else is a nonsense, such as time-wasting rituals and stupid stories like creationism and life after death.

And in the end you don't really need a religion to abide the high moral standards.

darth_ender said:

Oh, and since you are passionate in defending both everyone's sexual rights as you are my religious rights, I really appreciate all those times you came to my defense when my beliefs were indeed mocked in this very forum with equal vigor.

Oh yeah.  You never did.

Because the two are not equal. Religion is some nonsense that human has created, while sex is essential part of the nature.

Don't get offended by this. As a scientist I still consider a possibility that the science is wrong and your religion is right. But the probability of that is extremely low.

TV's Frink said:

I had no idea you are his wife.

If I were then I would know. Why the hell would I then say that I don't know?

TV's Frink said:

I'm also curious how you are keeping it between you and your wife if you are telling the whole world you guys did it last night.

Is she cool with you posting that?

She doesn't know.