A Priest Ridicules Creationist
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
108 comments displayed.
#2
-
memexicano (10/03/2015) [-] 
>There is some people that still believe that the earth is balanced on the back on an elephant
>That still believe that the earth is flat
>Not balanced on the back of FOUR elephants at the same time balanced on the back of a GIANT turtle called Great A'tuin
Check your fackts or Great Om will smite you with Thuderbolts
Äs in wise words of the Almigthy Om:
(May) Your sexual organs to sprout wings and fly away!
Good day sir!
>That still believe that the earth is flat
>Not balanced on the back of FOUR elephants at the same time balanced on the back of a GIANT turtle called Great A'tuin
Check your fackts or Great Om will smite you with Thuderbolts
Äs in wise words of the Almigthy Om:
(May) Your sexual organs to sprout wings and fly away!
Good day sir!
#5 to #2
-
crazysciencehobo (10/03/2015) [-] **** yea, Discworld picture! All hail the great world turtle A'tuin!
#77 to #2
-
languagexplain (10/04/2015) [-] >Names A'Tuin.
>Doesn't name Berilia, Tubul, Jerakeen and Great T'Phon.
>I shiggle my diggle
Your Discworld game is WEAK.
still luv ya doe
>Doesn't name Berilia, Tubul, Jerakeen and Great T'Phon.
>I shiggle my diggle
Your Discworld game is WEAK.
still luv ya doe
#137 to #77
-
memexicano (10/04/2015) [-] Mon dear amie, i''ve read twice until Nigth Watch, Im going to read the **** out of each again when im done with the whole saga, also
I bet you dont even praise your Goddess
I bet you dont even praise your Goddess
#154 to #92
-
skullington (10/06/2015) [-] If you read strata it teleports after falling off and appears at the bottom of the ocean
#6 to #2
-
captainprincess ONLINE (10/03/2015) [-] I just want a hard boiled egg and a pie with only somewhat suspect meats inside
#138 to #78
-
memexicano (10/04/2015) [-] Depends what countries you go to
>Thousand year eggs
>Fresh Yogurth
>Pie floating pee thingies
>strange colourfoul beer
>Larke's Tongues, Wrens livers, wolf nipple chips...
Wait... i messed my sagas
>Thousand year eggs
>Fresh Yogurth
>Pie floating pee thingies
>strange colourfoul beer
>Larke's Tongues, Wrens livers, wolf nipple chips...
Wait... i messed my sagas
#102 to #56
-
captainprincess ONLINE (10/04/2015) [-] That'd be nice
But at the very least it should be an animal I've heard of
But at the very least it should be an animal I've heard of
#13 to #6
-
memexicano (10/04/2015) [-] also
>meat
What are you posh?
You bit it and swallow it as a madman
>meat
What are you posh?
You bit it and swallow it as a madman
#101 to #13
-
captainprincess ONLINE (10/04/2015) [-] I'd certainly like to eat posh I know that much
#1
-
canichaikait (10/03/2015) [-] Couldn't here most of what he said over the sound of his steel balls. You go based priest.
#9 to #1
-
lastsamurai (10/03/2015) [-]
As a believer of god born in a christian family, but who do not believe in the christian god or much of the bible, I think this is pretty ironic coming from a priest.
#46 to #10
-
plasterboy (10/04/2015) [-] I find it funny that you are using popes as a unit of time.
#54 to #46
-
theruinedsage (10/04/2015) [-] I once attended a college lecture where everything was in units of Belgium.
It was hilarious
It was hilarious
#106 to #69
-
theruinedsage (10/04/2015) [-] Length from furthest points
Total Area
Number of inhabitants
etc
You then combine them to get different kinds of SI units, like how speed is distance over time squared, it would then be Belgium divided by Belgium squared.
Total Area
Number of inhabitants
etc
You then combine them to get different kinds of SI units, like how speed is distance over time squared, it would then be Belgium divided by Belgium squared.
#75 to #69
-
myjunk (10/04/2015) [-]
I presume units like surface can be expressed in multiples of the area of Belgium and maybe you can even derive a unit of length from that.
Or when talking about numbers of people, the no. of inhabitants of Belgium is used
(E.g. "the equivalent of 6 Belgiums were killed in World War 2")
Or when talking about numbers of people, the no. of inhabitants of Belgium is used
(E.g. "the equivalent of 6 Belgiums were killed in World War 2")
#36 to #10
-
trojanmannn (10/04/2015) [-] im not taking the other guy's side, i actually agree with you, but the pope doesnt really speak for all of christianity. He might think he does but the majority of other dominations pay not attention. However I agree evolution and christianity do not have to be mutually exclusive
#81 to #36
-
angelusprimus (10/04/2015) [-] Pope speaks for Catholics, priest saying this is Catholic.
#144 to #81
-
eternalcatechumen (10/04/2015) [-] David Jennings in Anglican, not Roman Catholic. However, he is free to "Swim the Tiber" when he's ready.
#149 to #144
-
angelusprimus (10/05/2015) [-] I wasn't aware that Anglican priest's clothes is identical to catholic ones.
Cool to know. Thanks.
Cool to know. Thanks.
#22 to #10
-
popeflatus (10/04/2015) [-] It still took them over 100 years to acknowledge the science.
#58 to #22
-
angelusprimus (10/04/2015) [-] Because its wrong.
While it took about 90 years for a Papal decree, debates in church didn't stop at the time. Leo XIII all the way in 1879, only 20 years after publishing of the Origin of the species, was a big opponent of the biblical literalism. Leo encouraged the debate, and while at the time conservatives were stronger, Leo made sure that there is no silencing of the debate. It was never forbidden to believe in the evolution, it was never a sin.
And lets not forget that pope Urban VIII stated "When our interpretation of the Gospel conflicts with the undeniable facts of the natural philosophy, we must accept that our interperetation of the gospel is flawed."
That was 17th century.
Church simply takes long time to take an absolute stance, but that doesn't mean its against something.
While it took about 90 years for a Papal decree, debates in church didn't stop at the time. Leo XIII all the way in 1879, only 20 years after publishing of the Origin of the species, was a big opponent of the biblical literalism. Leo encouraged the debate, and while at the time conservatives were stronger, Leo made sure that there is no silencing of the debate. It was never forbidden to believe in the evolution, it was never a sin.
And lets not forget that pope Urban VIII stated "When our interpretation of the Gospel conflicts with the undeniable facts of the natural philosophy, we must accept that our interperetation of the gospel is flawed."
That was 17th century.
Church simply takes long time to take an absolute stance, but that doesn't mean its against something.
#59 to #58
-
popeflatus (10/04/2015) [-] "Church simply takes long time to take an absolute stance, but that doesn't mean its against something. "
And that was all all that my comment really said.
And that was all all that my comment really said.
#61 to #59
-
angelusprimus (10/04/2015) [-] Ah, then you expressed it a bit badly. They acknowledged the science immediately, and started debating the issue before ink was wet on the Origin of the Species.
But it did, indeed, take nearly 100 years to take a firm stance on the issue.
But it did, indeed, take nearly 100 years to take a firm stance on the issue.
#43 to #22
-
popeflatus (10/04/2015) [-] Thumbed down just for stating a fact.
www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/pope-would-you-accept-evolution-and-big-bang-180953166/?no-ist
www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/pope-would-you-accept-evolution-and-big-bang-180953166/?no-ist
#17 to #9
-
alcantara (10/04/2015) [-] Why is there a conflict? He is saying we should not be teaching belief as fact, especially where facts contradict belief; what he says also applies to Christianity, and he claims that within the privacy of religion (implying religious institutions) people should be free to believe what they will - effectively, you shouldn't be taught creationism in school, if anything you should be taught it in Sunday school.
#60 to #17
-
popeflatus (10/04/2015) [-] They still teach where they can that Jesus is the messiah and this is in no way a fact.
#120 to #60
-
alcantara (10/04/2015) [-] They only teach that in a religious institution, they don't teach it in an actual school; at most, there is Religious Education, where they will say "Some people believe Jesus was the son of God, othera believe he was a prophet sent by Allah or Yahweh, and some just think he was a really nice guy".
#151 to #120
-
popeflatus (10/05/2015) [-] Depends on what school you go to. If you go to a Christian school you can bet that they teach he is the son of God.
#85 to #60
-
angelusprimus (10/04/2015) [-] You need a larger trilby, this one is squeezing your head.
#88 to #85
-
popeflatus (10/04/2015) [-] Just stating a fact the rebutted the previous point and you go all ad-hominem already? Matey, do you know of reason?
#93 to #88
-
angelusprimus (10/04/2015) [-] Yeah, your neckbeard is really showing.
First, you should learn full name of "ad hominem" full name is "Ad hominem argument"
For something to be ad hominem ARGUMENT, there has to be an argument. I was not debating you. I was insulting you.
Second, if you want to use bad arguments, you used an "Argument By Dismissal", since you don't know what that is, "Argument by dismissal is an idea rejected without saying why. "
You made with an absolute certainty a claim that Jesus is not a messiah, without any backing to your claim.
So, please, don't try to claim you know reason, since you yourself actually have no idea what bad arguments are.
First, you should learn full name of "ad hominem" full name is "Ad hominem argument"
For something to be ad hominem ARGUMENT, there has to be an argument. I was not debating you. I was insulting you.
Second, if you want to use bad arguments, you used an "Argument By Dismissal", since you don't know what that is, "Argument by dismissal is an idea rejected without saying why. "
You made with an absolute certainty a claim that Jesus is not a messiah, without any backing to your claim.
So, please, don't try to claim you know reason, since you yourself actually have no idea what bad arguments are.
#94 to #93
-
popeflatus (10/04/2015) [-] The positive truth claim is that 'Jesus is the Messiah", and I was correct in stating that they do teach this. So considering that the church is making the claim they are the ones that need to do this. It's called burden of proof and I'm fairly certain that you've heard of it.
Nice to think that in a world where freedom of speech is supposedly held in high regard we have people using baby-tier insults instead of even half formed arguments.
Nice to think that in a world where freedom of speech is supposedly held in high regard we have people using baby-tier insults instead of even half formed arguments.
#136 to #94
-
angelusprimus (10/04/2015) [-] "freedom of speech" oh jesus christ.
Freedom of speech only means government can't stop you from saying what you want to say. Only that. It also means I can say whatever I want too. So if I want to call you a neckbeard idiot, I can. Wonders of freedom of speech.
Also, argument on the burden of proof only works if I claim with certainty that he IS a messiah. Since I don't, since my position is "Maybe he is, maybe he isn't." burden of proof is on the person making definite statement. That is you. And even valid argument with burden of proof on the other person requires support if your statement is an opening statement. Don't you know anything about valid argumentation?
And since your first argument was a non sequitur, (check that one too) considering that argument that was going on was on "teaching in public education vs. teaching in private religious", there was no need for me to make any arguments. You started with a non sequitur bad argument. I didn't want to discuss it with you, I simply judged you on poor understanding of how argumentation works and a, rather sad, attempt to inject controversy into a valid and rational argument.
So why don't you stop using words like "burden of proof" "ad hominem" etc. without actually knowing how they work, and start working on very basics of proper argumentation since you keep doing it wrong.
Freedom of speech only means government can't stop you from saying what you want to say. Only that. It also means I can say whatever I want too. So if I want to call you a neckbeard idiot, I can. Wonders of freedom of speech.
Also, argument on the burden of proof only works if I claim with certainty that he IS a messiah. Since I don't, since my position is "Maybe he is, maybe he isn't." burden of proof is on the person making definite statement. That is you. And even valid argument with burden of proof on the other person requires support if your statement is an opening statement. Don't you know anything about valid argumentation?
And since your first argument was a non sequitur, (check that one too) considering that argument that was going on was on "teaching in public education vs. teaching in private religious", there was no need for me to make any arguments. You started with a non sequitur bad argument. I didn't want to discuss it with you, I simply judged you on poor understanding of how argumentation works and a, rather sad, attempt to inject controversy into a valid and rational argument.
So why don't you stop using words like "burden of proof" "ad hominem" etc. without actually knowing how they work, and start working on very basics of proper argumentation since you keep doing it wrong.
#152 to #136
-
popeflatus (10/05/2015) [-] I never claimed that you said he was the messiah, I said that they (as in Christian schools) teach that Jesus is the messiah. They are the ones claiming this and hence they have the burden of proof.
I initially replied to alcantara when they were referring to the content about not teaching things where fact contradicts belief. All I said was that they do in fact teach things that contradict belief, namely that Jesus is the messiah. This point of mine stands true and is not a non-sequitur at all as I only refuted alcantara's point.
I initially replied to alcantara when they were referring to the content about not teaching things where fact contradicts belief. All I said was that they do in fact teach things that contradict belief, namely that Jesus is the messiah. This point of mine stands true and is not a non-sequitur at all as I only refuted alcantara's point.
#84 to #9
-
angelusprimus (10/04/2015) [-] In what way would it be ironic coming from a priest?
Unlike evangelical protestants catholic church is not in any way opposed to evolution.
Unlike evangelical protestants catholic church is not in any way opposed to evolution.
#27
-
atonial (10/04/2015) [-] Fun Fact: The idea of Genesis being symbolic of scientific processes actually out-dates the creationism we see today.
Not dissing protestants, but the proddies do have probably the most cultural Christians
Not dissing protestants, but the proddies do have probably the most cultural Christians
#79 to #27
-
cannibalvegan (10/04/2015) [-] The same with the young earth creationists, it's a modern phenomenon. The Catholic church has been accepting that the earth is more than 6000 years old for hundreds of years, same with evolution, when Darwin came up the evolution theory no Christians objected, science and religion are two different things, one is materialistic and the other is metaphysical.
#117 to #115
-
cannibalvegan (10/04/2015) [-] Okay, maybe "no Christians" was a little exaggerated, but initially the church didn't specifically call him a heretic or saying that he's the spawn of Satan as many believe. The church at the time was behind many experiments and such so the church didn't officially denounce his theory, of course there were sceptic Christians, but there were just as many sceptic scientists who thought his theory was outrageous.
The whole concept of believing that everything in the Bible literally happened is a rather new phenomenon, the early Christians understood that Genesis for example was likely not literal. It's not like you either believe everything in the Bible or nothing, there's historical parts, poetry, metaphors, psalms and parables in there, only retarded young earth creationists believe everything in the Bible, I don't know any Christians who actually thinks that everything in the Bible actually happened.
The whole concept of believing that everything in the Bible literally happened is a rather new phenomenon, the early Christians understood that Genesis for example was likely not literal. It's not like you either believe everything in the Bible or nothing, there's historical parts, poetry, metaphors, psalms and parables in there, only retarded young earth creationists believe everything in the Bible, I don't know any Christians who actually thinks that everything in the Bible actually happened.
#42
-
bipolarprobe (10/04/2015) [-] "It's a strawman argument," ***** do you even know what that means?
#48 to #44
-
failtolawl ONLINE (10/04/2015) [-] taking an example to make it easy to argue against.
He technically did do a straw man by pulling earth is flat argument. But his list could have kept going on and on.
He technically did do a straw man by pulling earth is flat argument. But his list could have kept going on and on.
#105 to #42
-
heartlessrobot ONLINE (10/04/2015) [-] The worst part is when you've met people so outrageous that you're accused of strawmanning when you describe them.
I could probably word for word describe the KKK, and people would accuse me of using strawman in my arguments.
I could probably word for word describe the KKK, and people would accuse me of using strawman in my arguments.
#98 to #57
-
lolollo (10/04/2015) [-] I'm pretty sure I know what fallacies will be happening at any given moment, considering I'll explicitly explain them in detail.
The problem is that in order for people to acknowledge those fallacies, they'd have to admit they were making them, which no one wants to do. So even if its perfectly explained to them, they have a vested interest to still deny it ever happened in their argument.
The problem is that in order for people to acknowledge those fallacies, they'd have to admit they were making them, which no one wants to do. So even if its perfectly explained to them, they have a vested interest to still deny it ever happened in their argument.
#80 to #57
-
spearpwi (10/04/2015) [-] No, a straw man is arguing against a point which hasn't been made. You can argue against a fallacy that hasn't been made, but it doesn't hold exclusivity.
Now, depending on how badly I read in to your comment, I may have actually gone dun a straw man just then...but I don't think I have...
Now, depending on how badly I read in to your comment, I may have actually gone dun a straw man just then...but I don't think I have...
#130 to #80
-
lordraine ONLINE (10/04/2015) [-]
No. A strawman is when someone exaggerates or alters someone else's statement or argument and then attacks the new, exaggerated position.
I haven't strawmanned anyone. However, lolollo may very well have, what with his hyperbolic statement that 90% of the people on this site don't know what it means and will call you out on it for doing something as "simple" as pointing out a fallacy.
My point was that if someone is not actually guilty of a fallacy, but he believes they are and points it out, then he is, in fact, guilting of strawmanning himself, because he is assigning a fallacy to them they are not guilty of and then attacking their argument from that perspective. That would be a strawman.
The rebuttal he provided, "they don't admit it even if you explain it because they don't want to be wrong," is true, but it proves nothing in regards to his innocence, because he could easily be guilty of it himself right now.
I haven't strawmanned anyone. However, lolollo may very well have, what with his hyperbolic statement that 90% of the people on this site don't know what it means and will call you out on it for doing something as "simple" as pointing out a fallacy.
My point was that if someone is not actually guilty of a fallacy, but he believes they are and points it out, then he is, in fact, guilting of strawmanning himself, because he is assigning a fallacy to them they are not guilty of and then attacking their argument from that perspective. That would be a strawman.
The rebuttal he provided, "they don't admit it even if you explain it because they don't want to be wrong," is true, but it proves nothing in regards to his innocence, because he could easily be guilty of it himself right now.
#148 to #130
-
lolollo (10/04/2015) [-] Do I know you?
Because you seem so prescribed to the idea that I've done something that you just described me doing something with goes against what you just described the fallacy to be.
Or were you one of the many people who I've seen making ridiculously illogical claims and then hiding behind the straw man argument when called out on it?
Because you seem so prescribed to the idea that I've done something that you just described me doing something with goes against what you just described the fallacy to be.
Or were you one of the many people who I've seen making ridiculously illogical claims and then hiding behind the straw man argument when called out on it?
#70
-
improbable (10/04/2015) [-] >sides with priest who ridicules creationism
>thinks people who proclaim a faith then goes against it are idiots
>thinks people who proclaim a faith then goes against it are idiots
#110 to #99
-
xankon (10/04/2015) [-] you´re just being a dick. It´s like teaching kids that if you concentrate enough they can do a kamehameha, it won´t happen as well as those things are not true. Want to belive in something that is beyond proof that is a lie sure go ahead, but just dont teach kids who dont have a the capacity to decide what path to follow
#25
-
blueboysixnine (10/04/2015) [-] man, always bugs me when people start shouting "straw man" and **** like that like it means they automatically win the argument when that happens
#140 to #25
-
cabbagemayhem (10/04/2015) [-] When someone tries to convince the masses with logical fallacies, he should be called out on it, not so others appear right, but so it's known that he is not.
#39
-
tobistrigoivii (10/04/2015) [-] Every group has their winners and losers, atheists being no exception. But this is the first priest I have heard that sounded smart. Most parrot what they have been taught. like the idiot I debated on the street last night, I stumped him repeatedly and he just kept saying, "well, you've hardened your heart and you're wasting my time."
#41 to #40
-
tobistrigoivii (10/04/2015) [-] You misunderstand me. That profile pic is life parodying life. (And it's a really old pic.) It has nothing to do with my personal beliefs save the notion that the only thing that scares some faithful more than an atheist is a devout satanist. And no I am neither beta nor lying about the story. He was proselytizing.
#34
-
aznzeus ONLINE (10/04/2015) [-] Just because you're religious doesn't mean you have to deny science you can think of it as on of gods tools for order, cause if everything was chaos miracles would be pointless no?
#53 to #34
-
anon (10/04/2015) [-]
Just because you believe that the sun is alive doesn't mean you have to deny science
you can think of it as him hiding it for some ******** reason
cause if that reason wasn't there what would be the point for the sun?
God doesn't need to be in the equation
miracles aren't real
you can think of it as him hiding it for some ******** reason
cause if that reason wasn't there what would be the point for the sun?
God doesn't need to be in the equation
miracles aren't real
#145 to #34
-
eternalcatechumen (10/04/2015) [-] Absolutely on point.
When I study physics, that is how I approach it. God created the rules of the universe, and the sciences are able to describe how his creation carries on and the rules it adheres to.
One of my professors once said: "We study physics. Physics tells us what happens and how it happens. If you want why things happen, go see a priest."
When I study physics, that is how I approach it. God created the rules of the universe, and the sciences are able to describe how his creation carries on and the rules it adheres to.
One of my professors once said: "We study physics. Physics tells us what happens and how it happens. If you want why things happen, go see a priest."
#72
-
antigravitycake (10/04/2015) [-] **antigravitycake used "*roll picture*"**
**antigravitycake rolled image** not believing the sky is blue because we live in the eye of a blue eyed giant named magumba
**antigravitycake rolled image** not believing the sky is blue because we live in the eye of a blue eyed giant named magumba
