-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
The Center Stage
- Thread starter Crimson King
- Start date
Moar lying for Jesus.Fine, I'll admit, I'm a pretty terribleDevil'sJesus's Advocate.
How do I/should I improve?
Aesir
Smash Master
Calling someone annoying in a debate isn't good debating. This isn't the pool room we have standards here.
High unlikely, if they're not mature to handle the possibility a 22 year old gets drunk then they probably lack the maturity to debate.
It's widely accepted because of the evidence. The theory has been peer reviewed many times, writing off the majority of scientists is pretty silly which is a logical fallacy.
Good job at missing the point
Did you look at any of the videos? or was this just a spur of the moment reply?
Also are you talking about the "holes" between the comparison of our DNA and the great apes DNA?
I'll explain it since it seems people are incapable of clicking links.
the great apes all have 48 chromosomes we have 46. So we have 23 pairs, right? of course. Apes have 24 pairs. But a pair is missing, and if it gotten lost there goes the entire theory. Unless a pair got fused resulting in a total of 23 chromosomes. Well Guess what? Chromosome number 2 is that chromosome.
This was all taken from that link I posted earlier. Please go look at it, I'm tired of repeating myself.
Give it time would be "We'll find it eventually" Which isn't what I'm saying, I'm saying the field is still being researched writing off evolution because of this despite all overwhelming evidence is silly of you.Another "give it time" argument.
Look, it's highly likely you'll never find what you're looking for, but when you do, let me know.
So if that's a metaphor does that mean everything else in the bible is a metaphor?
If you're making a claim you need to back it up, if the intelligent design argument requires a designer who's the designer?
But it does, RDK has posted many links about it, so has GoldShadow I suggest you guys look into it. It's not my job to do your research for you.
Did you just look at the first two seconds of the video? Ken Miller is a Christian Evolutionary Biologist. He teaches at brown university and holds his degree in evolutionary biology.
It's sad that it comes down to the simple fact that evolutionary biologists are considered "biased" when they spend their entire work falsifying the theory.
F1ZZ
Smash Lord
Hey it is just me checking in again. I still would love to become a smash debater and I am 100% sure that I would hold my own in the DH. It would respect the pink name and represent it with pride if I am accepted to become a smash debater. Thank you for thanking your time and reading this and hopefully you see me in the DH soon.
Mewter
Smash Master
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,609
Okay then. Just one question.Hey it is just me checking in again. I still would love to become a smash debater and I am 100% sure that I would hold my own in the DH. It would respect the pink name and represent it with pride if I am accepted to become a smash debater. Thank you for thanking your time and reading this and hopefully you see me in the DH soon.
What kind of plant can be used to repel moths? Just name one and give outside proof (link form?). At least two sources, and then you get my vote.
It'll be fun.
F1ZZ
Smash Lord
I don't know if this is a trick question or not but I'll do it.
Edit: FINISHED!
The answer to your question is mint and I got 5 links for you:
http://frugalliving.about.com/od/doityourself/tp/Get_Rid_of_Moths.htm
http://www.ehow.com/how_155777_repel-moths-naturally.html
http://tipnut.com/how-to-get-rid-of-moths-with-natural-repellents
http://www.canadianliving.com/crafts/home_and_garden/12_pest_repelling_herbs.php
http://www.hometips.com/repair/lawn_garden/pest_control/ants_flies_moths.html
Edit: FINISHED!
The answer to your question is mint and I got 5 links for you:
http://frugalliving.about.com/od/doityourself/tp/Get_Rid_of_Moths.htm
http://www.ehow.com/how_155777_repel-moths-naturally.html
http://tipnut.com/how-to-get-rid-of-moths-with-natural-repellents
http://www.canadianliving.com/crafts/home_and_garden/12_pest_repelling_herbs.php
http://www.hometips.com/repair/lawn_garden/pest_control/ants_flies_moths.html
Riddle
Smash Lord
F1ZZ, debate with me. I need a debate and if you do will you will earn my nomination. You pick the topic and the side you wish to argue (make it even) and I will join in after you start.
F1ZZ
Smash Lord
Ya of course I am up for a good debate but later, maybe in 2 days. Tommorrow I am out all day with my family and my mom is wanting on my lap top at the moment. So can I take a rain check?
Riddle
Smash Lord
Yeah, I can debate whenever you want me to. Just think about a good topic.
Unlike you I don't have a life.
hillbillyhick
Smash Cadet
On the satirical piece:
An important argument has been forgotten. What if your neighbour's house caught on fire and there was danger of spreading to yours. You would only be able to call your firefighters and they couldn't do anything instead of prevention, because they can't put out the fire in your neighbour's house.
But this is an extreme situation and the things said in the satirical piece are not necessarily mistaken. An anarcho capitalist or market anarchist could support what's being said in it, just because they put different emphases on values (e.g. freedom>protection)
An important argument has been forgotten. What if your neighbour's house caught on fire and there was danger of spreading to yours. You would only be able to call your firefighters and they couldn't do anything instead of prevention, because they can't put out the fire in your neighbour's house.
But this is an extreme situation and the things said in the satirical piece are not necessarily mistaken. An anarcho capitalist or market anarchist could support what's being said in it, just because they put different emphases on values (e.g. freedom>protection)
So this is gonna be one giant post, but hopefully you guys can work through it with me.
A theory need only explain what it professes to explain. Neo-Darwinism only explains the process of evolution, not the origin of the universe or how evolution will happen in the future. Intelligent design does not need to give a biography of the creator: it is an over-arching term for the collective view that we were designed by a designer, as you said. People who believe in Intelligent design believe in different designers, because the theory does not address that aspect of reality.
Also, reading Dawkins God Delusion, I've read many incidents of atheists being discriminated against because of their beliefs. For this, I am truly sorry. However, I think this has something to do with the fact that atheists try and force their views on other people, especially those atheists who consider themselves intellectuals (which is nearly all, once again, that I know of).
I believe that this prejudice, along with the pressure of being a minority, and the belief that knowledge will better humanity, tends to make these scientists very, very stubborn.
Further inferences at the end of this post.
VErify that I exist. And that reality exists.
"Prove" and "verify" should not be tossed around like this, especially, when it was simply an opinion. Annoying is a matter of taste and preference, just like ugly, fat, tall, etc.
So I looked up the Hebrew word for "day" that is used in Genesis 1:8 and all the other verses during the creation story. The word "yowm" can mean a literal day or it can mean a stretch of time, depending on the context. The words for evening and morning ('ereb and boqer) can be descriptive (as a beginning or end of something) or can represent a fixed time period of any length.
So it is obviously open to interpretation, but I use the evidence I see and believe it's a longer time period. Cause the earth is very old. Saying the bible doesn't support this is true, but the bible also doesn't support good dental hygiene, and I believe that is necessary in life.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&c=1&v=1&t=KJV#conc/8
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/day.html
But I believe he does, yes. Because of miracles and unusual circumstances that have arisen in my life. Christianity is not about proof, it's about faith. I will never know 100% until I die.
I watch 41 minutes of it, but watched the rest later.
The two major pieces of evidence were:
1) Chromosome fusion
http://lukeplant.me.uk/blog.php?id=1107301656
Basically, Miller begs the question and assumes that this fusion (if it occurred, which is probable) proves common descent, when in fact apes and humans were similar already. We know their structures are similar, but that proves nothing besides the already accepted fact that they are very similar.
2) Reptile-like mammals
If this was real, these fossils would be in museums or all over the web by now. As it stands, third-hand hearsay from a paleontologist. These fossils should be published for the world to see.
Also, I could look at a dolphin and call it a reptile-like mammal.
Basically, this has had no publicity. I could look at any creature and say it is a transitional form just because it has attributes of two other animals. I just want to learn more about this, to know if it is actually true, and to see pictures of these fossils. I don't know why I haven't already...
Also, the first half-hour is just a session where he tells his little jokes about people and tries to be funny by making all ID supporters look like lunatics. A theory does not reflect its supporters... if an evolutionist tried to perform ethnic cleansing on a group of people because of evolution, it would not say one thing about the truth of the theory.
If I was a judge I would rule that ID shouldn't be taught in schools because it suggests a God, and I believe that its the parents job to teach a person about God. ID leads to a designer, which, although not necessarily religious, would definitely violate the 1st amendment in my opinion. It is beyond the job description of a federal judge to judge whether something was scientific: he was judging whether it was constitutional. That's what a judge does, and what a judge takes an oath to do.
ID is scientific.
So that's not unfortunate for me at all.
And ID supports all known facts as well. What fact does ID definitely not support?
That belief has nothing to do with my faith. It used to, but not anymore.
I still don't get how the miRNA could have buffered the variation so much.. doesn't seem very legitimate to me. As a general rule, a blog (no matter how illustrious the writer) is not useful as a source of scientific research. I just think that published material is much more reliable, especially for something like this. And his math didn't help at all..
And that's how science works.
Logic is used to prove something is false, as well. So generally you do want to examine everything using the principles of logic and science.
You aren't even debating anymore, just telling me I must be wrong by repeating the same tired or irrelevant logic which you used for the past 100 posts of yours in any creation-related thread.
Generalization, generalization, faulty reasoning, assumption. Seriously, what is your problem?
A theory does not have a mind or will (just as science doesn't). ID is valid because of the evidence I've already listed 50x in this thread, as well as historical records of Jesus. I guess you're gonna say something like, "Omg, the bible isn't real..", but what about the people who weren't in the bible who still wrote about Jesus, and the people who watched them write and transcribed for them? NOt to mention all the records from other sources that speak of the events in Acts.
Ok, good. You don't understand that intelligent design is not analogous with Christianity. That's your problem that leads your logic to a reasonable but false conclusion.
Concluding with this:
This is a quote from a book called Unshakable Foundations.
I'm also in my first weeks of college so be nice and mature. This is a really big post, also.
I don't think those standards are enforced at all. RDK seems to be the poster child of the SWF Neo-Darwinist movements, and he's probably the rudest person I have ever conversed with for any length of time. Just pointing this out.
Maybe I'm an 18 year old who doesn't want to here how multiple guys do one girl at some drunken party, especially when I'm trying to be an honest and open person. It is unhelpful in this discussion, and if you want to tell a story go to the pool room or your frat house.
You can't generalize broadly like this. Writing off an assumed and untested (though probably true) majority is not a logical fallacy. A logical fallacy violates one of the three laws of logic.. the LNC, the LEM, and the LID. So how was that a logical fallacy?
Yes. No.
I watched the video. More on this later.
You're tired of repeating yourself? Every single post I have to repeat myself. And half of my posts aren't even addressed or considered at all.
Overwhelming evidence isn't there. Situational evidence is quite present. For more, look at the end of this post.
Nope. And more on the "metaphor" of this later.
People say different things. Muslims would say Allah, Christians would say God, Deists would say "I don't know exactly."
A theory need only explain what it professes to explain. Neo-Darwinism only explains the process of evolution, not the origin of the universe or how evolution will happen in the future. Intelligent design does not need to give a biography of the creator: it is an over-arching term for the collective view that we were designed by a designer, as you said. People who believe in Intelligent design believe in different designers, because the theory does not address that aspect of reality.
One person says I have to post links here to justify my points. And now you are exempt from this rule? It's not my job to make talkorigins my homepage or to follow every post by a person. Like I said earlier, if you give me link that is relatively short, I will read it.
I did. More on the video later.
No, they're biased when they let their worldviews get in the way of furthering scientific endeavor. As a minority, atheists (all the ones I've met, literally, and most of you guys in here) seem to have a chip on their shoulder to prove that they're right. Part of the atheist belief system (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that evil is cause by human ignorance, and education is the key to becoming "ethical" and "more advanced."
Also, reading Dawkins God Delusion, I've read many incidents of atheists being discriminated against because of their beliefs. For this, I am truly sorry. However, I think this has something to do with the fact that atheists try and force their views on other people, especially those atheists who consider themselves intellectuals (which is nearly all, once again, that I know of).
I believe that this prejudice, along with the pressure of being a minority, and the belief that knowledge will better humanity, tends to make these scientists very, very stubborn.
Further inferences at the end of this post.
The connotation is quite negative. And argument can only be won or lost, where as a debate should be a reasonable exchange of ideas.
I'm saying he's annoying because its my opinion. And he gets under my skin.
VErify that I exist. And that reality exists.
"Prove" and "verify" should not be tossed around like this, especially, when it was simply an opinion. Annoying is a matter of taste and preference, just like ugly, fat, tall, etc.
Once again, I don't want to hear it. I live at college, I have to deal with immature boys enough, thanks.
No idea what this means.
Science is a study, not an entity.
Translations lose original meaning.
So I looked up the Hebrew word for "day" that is used in Genesis 1:8 and all the other verses during the creation story. The word "yowm" can mean a literal day or it can mean a stretch of time, depending on the context. The words for evening and morning ('ereb and boqer) can be descriptive (as a beginning or end of something) or can represent a fixed time period of any length.
So it is obviously open to interpretation, but I use the evidence I see and believe it's a longer time period. Cause the earth is very old. Saying the bible doesn't support this is true, but the bible also doesn't support good dental hygiene, and I believe that is necessary in life.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&c=1&v=1&t=KJV#conc/8
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/day.html
Nope, not a shred. By definition, a metaphysical person or idea cannot be proved or disproved because all ways of proof do not apply to it. That's fairly basic.
But I believe he does, yes. Because of miracles and unusual circumstances that have arisen in my life. Christianity is not about proof, it's about faith. I will never know 100% until I die.
I had trouble with this video.
I watch 41 minutes of it, but watched the rest later.
The two major pieces of evidence were:
1) Chromosome fusion
http://lukeplant.me.uk/blog.php?id=1107301656
Basically, Miller begs the question and assumes that this fusion (if it occurred, which is probable) proves common descent, when in fact apes and humans were similar already. We know their structures are similar, but that proves nothing besides the already accepted fact that they are very similar.
2) Reptile-like mammals
If this was real, these fossils would be in museums or all over the web by now. As it stands, third-hand hearsay from a paleontologist. These fossils should be published for the world to see.
Also, I could look at a dolphin and call it a reptile-like mammal.
Basically, this has had no publicity. I could look at any creature and say it is a transitional form just because it has attributes of two other animals. I just want to learn more about this, to know if it is actually true, and to see pictures of these fossils. I don't know why I haven't already...
Also, the first half-hour is just a session where he tells his little jokes about people and tries to be funny by making all ID supporters look like lunatics. A theory does not reflect its supporters... if an evolutionist tried to perform ethnic cleansing on a group of people because of evolution, it would not say one thing about the truth of the theory.
It doesn't bar religion to be taught: it bars the establishment of a state religion and lets people exercise whatever religion they want (with some guidelines).
If I was a judge I would rule that ID shouldn't be taught in schools because it suggests a God, and I believe that its the parents job to teach a person about God. ID leads to a designer, which, although not necessarily religious, would definitely violate the 1st amendment in my opinion. It is beyond the job description of a federal judge to judge whether something was scientific: he was judging whether it was constitutional. That's what a judge does, and what a judge takes an oath to do.
ID is scientific.
See earlier post. How is this unfortunate? It causes me to have to think harder than I would normally. If ID was the predominant theory, I could just ride in the wake of all the other people who believe it. As it is, I'm forced to read a ton, to think critically, and to answer really challenging questions.
So that's not unfortunate for me at all.
Microevolution is a fact. Macro evolution is not a fact. It has never been confirmed or proven, just guessed as an explanation.
And ID supports all known facts as well. What fact does ID definitely not support?
Of course. I can be a christian and believe in macro evolution, which is exactly why intelligent design is not tied with Christianity. I believe ID because it seems very plausible over all alternatives, and gradualism basically seems like a sham.
That belief has nothing to do with my faith. It used to, but not anymore.
No dude. Similar DNA shows intelligence in the designer who realized that creatures would inhabit the same places and need to survive in the same ways. I'm being completely honest with myself, seriously. And the fossil record does not support macro-evolution. No legitimate transitional fossils have been found.. if they have been, then one of you would have posted a link to some page with transitional fossils and I would be done.
How long can you look and not find anything? I mean, if you find tons of fossils of extinct, still-living, and slightly changed animals, when will you figure out that the transitional ones don't exist (or were actually faked)?
Can you say sketchy science?
I still don't get how the miRNA could have buffered the variation so much.. doesn't seem very legitimate to me. As a general rule, a blog (no matter how illustrious the writer) is not useful as a source of scientific research. I just think that published material is much more reliable, especially for something like this. And his math didn't help at all..
How long can you excuse a theory? Should we excuse intelligent design another 10,000 years to let it gather potential, undiscovered evidence? No, we look for more evidence while dealing with what we have.
And that's how science works.
Logic is used to prove something is false, as well. So generally you do want to examine everything using the principles of logic and science.
You're name-dropping and being irrational.
You aren't even debating anymore, just telling me I must be wrong by repeating the same tired or irrelevant logic which you used for the past 100 posts of yours in any creation-related thread.
Generalization, generalization, faulty reasoning, assumption. Seriously, what is your problem?
A theory does not have a mind or will (just as science doesn't). ID is valid because of the evidence I've already listed 50x in this thread, as well as historical records of Jesus. I guess you're gonna say something like, "Omg, the bible isn't real..", but what about the people who weren't in the bible who still wrote about Jesus, and the people who watched them write and transcribed for them? NOt to mention all the records from other sources that speak of the events in Acts.
Ok, good. You don't understand that intelligent design is not analogous with Christianity. That's your problem that leads your logic to a reasonable but false conclusion.
Allow me to respond:
This is from Mein Kampf. If someone uses a theory and manipulates it to try and accomplish their own agenda, this has no bearing on the truth/validity of the theory.
Concluding with this:
This is a quote from a book called Unshakable Foundations.
I think this is the problem that we face. It's called worldview confusion. Think about this post carefully, and don't reply with some half-thought out answer that just says, "You're silly," please.
I'm also in my first weeks of college so be nice and mature. This is a really big post, also.
thegreatkazoo
Smash Master
GOD, I will say this once more to get the point across:
You will never get into the DH if you intend to argue on scientific matters. In fact, it may get you booted from the PG.
Pick another set of topics to debate, for your sake.
I am saying this with the utmost respect in that I want to see you progress in the PG.
You will never get into the DH if you intend to argue on scientific matters. In fact, it may get you booted from the PG.
Pick another set of topics to debate, for your sake.
I am saying this with the utmost respect in that I want to see you progress in the PG.
You haven't made one single post even attempting to explain your viewpoint in this thread, except for that off-point Wedge document which I addressed in my previous post.
Seriously, if all you guys do is tell me that my logic sucks and I don't understand how to argue when I've completed more logic courses than 99% of the people here, then I might not even post here. It is a time-waster, when I could be learning for myself: I spent an hour and a half on that last post, getting all my thoughts out, and all the people in Debater Nomination can muster is "he's wrong." Cause they can not respond to my logic or even defend their viewpoint.
I think I expected too much out of a video game debate hall. I expected a hire amount of maturity and debate skill. I had no idea people would not even read my posts, respond to my points, and then just do the easiest thing possible: wave away whatever I say without even confronting what I say.
That's wimpy. Anyway, I'll feel better when I go to TO5 and destroy kazoo in melee with pretty much every character in the game. MM?
If I'm making logical fallacies, please point them out. Specifically. Otherwise you are just like the rest of the world, who ignores what they can't deal with.
I might be a bit off-topic here, but... Logic shouldn't be weighted by how many classes you've taken, it's something a person is born with. Some people just know how to work with logic more than others earlier, and spend more time nurturing that "logical sense" than the guys taking logic classes. Here's two links to read up on for some good ol' brain food:
Wikipedia's topics on "Logic"
A "common sense" read
They're not the same thing, by the way. What the most logical option is might not always be in accordance to your common sense, for example.
And it's not that they ahven't read your posts, it might be that... Their sense of logic isn't at your level, and vice-versa. You see your points as a truth in a whole, but they see the truth in a different way... And apparently, the ones you've been arguing to have been seeing the same fallacies in your posts over and over and over... What these fallacies are, I don't know, so I can't help you there.
Exactly right! Giving specific examples and using material besides just my own biased viewpoints is "name-dropping" and "irrational".
Seeing as how you haven't properly responded to any of my posts as of yet, your response here is doubly ironic.
Saying "life is complex, therefore ID is correct" is in no way evidence. At least on this planet. I should probably follow this up by asking you exactly which planet you spend most of your time on, because it's obviously not Earth.
You've refuted none of the links I've given you, except for a paltry offering of "I stopped reading after such and such because it didn't support what you said" or "it's a liberal website", or "it's highly unlikely that evolution is true, therefore ID is true". You know what that's called? Argument from Ignorance, as well as a False Dichotomy.
Once again, a perfect example of you not listing any sources or relevant outside material. I could say that the rain cycle is caused by a crying llama in the sky, and I doubt you would believe it unless I attempted to at least back up my assertion.
Also, I don't suppose you have a personal eyewitness report from every single person who "[sic] watched them write and transcribed for them", do you?
What? Just a moment ago you admitted that ID was one and the same with creationism, an overtly Christian ideology:
Which one is it? You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Either ID is stealth creationism or it's not.
What? What does Mein Kampf have anything to do with what we're discussing? How does Hitler extrapolating eugenics from the theory of evolution have anything to do with The Wedge Document, which was explicitly created to outline the purpose in creating ID?
This is precisely what you're not understanding. You're not well-read in the history of ID, and you have no idea what it is really about and what its original purpose was. Manipulating a theory to accomplish a personal agenda is not what happened in the case of intelligent design; it was in inference (albeit an unnecessary one) created with the intention of undermining science and allowing religion to be taught in the public school classroom. If you had read the document in its entirety or, god forbid, followed the links I gave you, you would know that.
I'm not even going to reply to the last part, because *GASP* it is silly. Perhaps if you followed the advice you quoted from Unshakable Foundations the world would be a better place. But alas.
Right, because you carried out deep statistical analysis of all the logic classes everyone in the Debate Hall has ever taken. Mind if I see your spreadsheet?
Yikes. How unfortunate.
I'll say it again. You've provided no links or evidence whatsoever to back up your claims, besides a quote from Mein Kampf and some other book that deals with worldviews.
Maybe if you actually read our posts instead of skipping right to the reply button, you would have picked up the large list of fallacies we've compiled for you!
thegreatkazoo
Smash Master
My sentiments reflect those of RDK's. No need to mention the same shi! twice.
If you haven't noticed, that would be because you are wrong. Have you not read a single post that RDK has put up. He has many a valid point.
If you think you're above us, you know where the door is.
Appeal to incredulity is one that sticks out in your posts.That's wimpy. Anyway, I'll feel better when I go to TO5 and destroy kazoo in melee with pretty much every character in the game. MM?
If I'm making logical fallacies, please point them out. Specifically. Otherwise you are just like the rest of the world, who ignores what they can't deal with.
Also, I will hold on to your TO5 part real deep. Though I won't be going, that post will be paid in full, sooner or later.
Kewk: Your skills are improving as a PGer. Keep it up.
Firstly, I think you all know where I stand on this particular topic. Just some full-disclosure is all, I don't intend to make arguments on either side here.
Secondly, I see threads like this and cringe at the "quote-reply" method of debating.
A debate should be a conversation. Debates are not won by pointing out little details in the minutia of what someone's said. So quoting and replying to individual sentences tends (in my experience) to only turn a debate into semantic bickering and take it out of proper context.
I think that a thread like this would be bettered if everyone stepped back, took a deep breath, and responded to the other side's arguments as a whole, using complete paragraphs and well worded thoughts.
Arguments of facts can be an exception. If someone claims something factual, they must provide a source. This source can be disputed and countered with other sources. Matters of facts often don't require long explanations, but DO require strong well linked sources.
Thirdly, it's important for you as a debater to frame your argument in the context of your opponent. Imagine yourself as your opponent, and think "What would be a condition under which I would convert to the other side". Remember that one of the purposes of the debate is to be persuasive. This isn't a "war". The objective is not to force your opponent into surrender or cause them shame. The point is to persuade through logic.
So if you happen to know someone who... say just for argument... hates hip hop. And you were trying to convince them that there should be a class for hip hop your school. An effective argument would likely not involve how cool hip hop is. That person doesn't like the genre, and disagrees with the assertion that it is cool.
An effective argument to this person would involve demonstrating the educational depth of hip hop. The history, the cultural implications, etc... You put aside what you know they disagree with, and tailor an argument for them.
I'm trying to come up with a way to tell you how to apply this to the religious debate without directly telling you... Ehh, you get the point, I think.
Secondly, I see threads like this and cringe at the "quote-reply" method of debating.
A debate should be a conversation. Debates are not won by pointing out little details in the minutia of what someone's said. So quoting and replying to individual sentences tends (in my experience) to only turn a debate into semantic bickering and take it out of proper context.
I think that a thread like this would be bettered if everyone stepped back, took a deep breath, and responded to the other side's arguments as a whole, using complete paragraphs and well worded thoughts.
Arguments of facts can be an exception. If someone claims something factual, they must provide a source. This source can be disputed and countered with other sources. Matters of facts often don't require long explanations, but DO require strong well linked sources.
Thirdly, it's important for you as a debater to frame your argument in the context of your opponent. Imagine yourself as your opponent, and think "What would be a condition under which I would convert to the other side". Remember that one of the purposes of the debate is to be persuasive. This isn't a "war". The objective is not to force your opponent into surrender or cause them shame. The point is to persuade through logic.
So if you happen to know someone who... say just for argument... hates hip hop. And you were trying to convince them that there should be a class for hip hop your school. An effective argument would likely not involve how cool hip hop is. That person doesn't like the genre, and disagrees with the assertion that it is cool.
An effective argument to this person would involve demonstrating the educational depth of hip hop. The history, the cultural implications, etc... You put aside what you know they disagree with, and tailor an argument for them.
I'm trying to come up with a way to tell you how to apply this to the religious debate without directly telling you... Ehh, you get the point, I think.
Aesir
Smash Master
That's simply your opinion on the matter, if you wish to discuss this further I will but I'd rather keep this on the topic at hand.
No a logical fallacy is an argument which relies on poor reasoning to support it's conclusions.
What are you saying here?
Very tired of it, but I'm glad you finally looked at my links. =)
It's not there? What? Evolution is testable, we have the facts and we've observed it.
Transitional fossils, DNA, Testable lab experiments.. The list goes on.
If Christians spoke Arabic they would say Allah as well. Honestly what you just said and excuse my language but it would be like saying Americans say **** and greeks say Skata they're both the same exact thing.
Theorys are not rigid they're every changing and never remain the same. That's the difference between a law and a theory.
I'll address your first point in a moment but first why must it be relatively short? (I'm being anal right now)
I'm not saying I'm exempt, but quick google searches answer the questions your proposing.
You could say that about the new Atheists like Dawkins, Harris, Dennet, and Hitchens. (Dawkins i'm neutral on, I loath harris with a unending passion, Dennet is alright in my book and Hitchens is only okay when he's making jokes.)
The problem with many of these guys is the simple fact that they think ethics can be achieved through science as if there's some objective morals or ethics in the world that science is waiting to uncover. This is simply idealistic. Their line of thinking is dangerous and they scare me almost as much as the religious right.
You cannot say this about Atheists like myself who seem to understand that evil isn't something that can ever be removed from reality. No matter how intelligent and open minded a society is there will always be ones who will attempt to bring it down. Progress is fitful and it can be lost just as easily if not more so then it was obtained.
I find this flimsy at best, it assumes all scientists are skeptics or non-believers, which in fact is not true.
Not necessarily the definition provided is pretty open ended. But in all reality this point is mearly a distraction and we're both being kind of stubborn here.
I should probably turn off the hard lined approach because it was mostly for satirical purposes.
Fair enough, it was meant as a joke but I don't really care to defend it at this point, it only serves as a distraction now.
I do, it was an argument out of majority, that because somethings popular it makes it true.
When someone says "Science is still trying to find an answer" It isn't calling science a person, it's just grouping scientists together and in reality saying; "Scientists are still trying to find that answer." If you'd like I'll be more specific for now on?
Well the bible makes no claims on dental hygiene so I don't think that's a real valid comparison.
The problem with the bible is you can make it say anything you want it to say, which was the point of my post. Which I feel was purposely done but I don't exactly have proof for that.
Proof of Miracles and unusual circumstances then, or if you rather just keep this debate on the Evolution vs ID then you one of us should make another thread about it.
No it proves the common ancestry because of that inactive and fused Chromosome. How else can you explain the very same chromosome that is active in Apes is inactive and fused in us? It wasn't an attempt to show how similar we are, it was an attempt to show that we share a common ancestry
http://genesispanthesis.tripod.com/fossils/rept_mam.html
They are very real.
Even though you hate Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsid their sources are cited.
Exactly what Reptilian like features do Dolphins have? Refresh my memory on Dolphin anatomy.
Would you say that's a sign of evolution then? The fact that we all share a common ancestry? or did the designer just make it that way?
Because the ID movement is a bunch of lunatics trying to get Religion into the class room.
Well we're both right, since public schools are state institutions they have to adhere to the laws which say religion and science are separate.
Well I can't say I disagree with this.
About as scientific as Alchemy is.
The thing about ID is it isn't a natural explanation of the facts, because it uses super natural explanations to describe how we got here.
It's unfortunate for you because it's not a theory it's a hypothesis, with no evidence and relies on the existence of the super natural.
Macro and mirco are part of the same process of evolution, creating the distinction that they're some how different is a creationist ploy to some how create an inconsistency that isn't there.
for the evidence here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Our common ancestry it has no explanation other then "that's the way the designer made it."
So you agree it's not an atheist thing then?
But there are transitional fossils, saying there are none is a misunderstanding of what transitional fossils are.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
You might want to go into your critique of his math more.
Furthermore I'm pretty sure you've used blogs as well.
The thing is, it has no evidence only a designer made the things the way they are.
Fuelbi
Banned via Warnings
Sorry Koarin I just logged on my dads computer but after this argument its likely I wont be able to debate much since my internet is shut off for some time... mostly like a week or so. If you want to end the argument here I dont blame you just consider if you want to nominate me ok?
But if we dont assassinate a dictator it is likely that he will start a conflict anyways. Imagine being Hitler. If he wouldve been alive for any longer he wouldve started participating in more wars trying to take over countries. If we dont take out a potentially dangerous dictator then it is possible that he might try to take over other countries. Or he might be more prone to atleast having disputes over some matters. If another country wasnt ok with Hitler's killing of the Jews they mightve started a war over that. Or maybe Hitler wouldve wanted to conquer more countries. Itll save more lives if we kill the dictator in the process. All the young men who still have something to offer in society will be killed in wars started by the dictator. And there have been some people who have suicided as well over the fact that they have lost their lost ones. And imagine that if because of the war a lot of money was lost and the country would fall into a Great Depression esque kind of state. A state where there would be so little money because of the war that bussinesses would have to shut down and make people want to suicide over the state the country is
Riddle
Smash Lord
New font, size, and color. I'm expirimenting.
I'm completely open for any and all debates from PG'ers I want to improve the debate hall/PG and so I will be happy to help out any way I can and that includes helping out PG'ers. Pick a topic and a side and I will debate with you no matter what.
I'm completely open for any and all debates from PG'ers I want to improve the debate hall/PG and so I will be happy to help out any way I can and that includes helping out PG'ers. Pick a topic and a side and I will debate with you no matter what.
has anyone noticed how useless RDK is when posting?
I know I have.
RDK:
None of your points refuted my evidence.
All of your posts don't use reason.
All of my links are right and yours are all wrong.
That is what you are saying to me. So meanwhile, you can go and have fun in your mom's basement, cause I responded to everything you said for the past 5 pages or so.
Aesir: Please respond to the whole post I made. While you did respond to some of it, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the entire thing before I make another reply.
Kazoo: $20 MM? Anything from $5-100 is good with me.
Kewkky:
Interesting thoughts. I wasn't saying, "I've taken classes so I must know more about logic than you." I was just proving that I know what I'm talking about somewhat, and that people here who are attacking me (and probably learned everything they know about logic from some website) should probably think before they say something dumb.
Also, truth is not relative, because it violates the laws of logic. Seeing a situation a different way and then coming up with different reasonable conclusions (which we have been doing here) is caused by mistaken first principles.
I know I have.
RDK:
None of your points refuted my evidence.
All of your posts don't use reason.
All of my links are right and yours are all wrong.
That is what you are saying to me. So meanwhile, you can go and have fun in your mom's basement, cause I responded to everything you said for the past 5 pages or so.
Aesir: Please respond to the whole post I made. While you did respond to some of it, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the entire thing before I make another reply.
Kazoo: $20 MM? Anything from $5-100 is good with me.
Kewkky:
Interesting thoughts. I wasn't saying, "I've taken classes so I must know more about logic than you." I was just proving that I know what I'm talking about somewhat, and that people here who are attacking me (and probably learned everything they know about logic from some website) should probably think before they say something dumb.
Also, truth is not relative, because it violates the laws of logic. Seeing a situation a different way and then coming up with different reasonable conclusions (which we have been doing here) is caused by mistaken first principles.
Hooblah2u2
Smash Apprentice
Bahaha. You people are so funny! =D
I think I am going to have to quote you on my blog some time. =D You worded that nicely.
Back on topic...
I think GOD! and I would both make good editions to the DH (if you are really looking for some action), but you probably don't want us. Oh well, we don't do it for the game.
thegreatkazoo
Smash Master
Are you f%cking serious?!?!
You and GOD! in the DH? Gtfo!
I want you to know something: A lot of people in the DMT are looking for that one theist to let in, to break the monotony of nothing but liberal/libertarians atheists that (mostly) make up the DH as of now. The only problem is that there are no theists who can debate well.
GOD! has dug his own hole in terms of progressing to the DH. Your biggest weakness is a tendency to bring up God (no pun intended) into every single debate, even in those in which he is not even brought up!
Tl;dr: You and GOD! are not going to be put in the DH anytime soon. If anything, you may find your way out of the DH due to your poor debating skills and inability to take constructive criticism of said skills.
Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises
Smash Hero
...
You seem to be able to ignore the other debaters' attempts at giving you constructive critisizm. You seem to be unable to deal with any of this constructive critisizm.
Also...
Please use the proper word...
Hooblah:
When you quote someone, make sure that it says who you're quoting. Sometimes it's hard to tell who you're talking to.
When you quote someone, make sure that it says who you're quoting. Sometimes it's hard to tell who you're talking to.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
PM me specific posts. If this is the case, he will be punished.
And being condescending is so 1998. Nothing you quoted is incorrect, whereas ID lacks everything on that list.
I completely disagree. You, moreso than GOD!, refuse to stay on topic, refuse to give you arguments any back-up, or provide any unbias, credible citations. On your macro-evolution topic, you were quite naive, but came out claiming you could debunk it very easily (and never did), and then when provided with evidence and work, you simply said it was too complicated for anyone to ever read and was written that way on purpose.
I don't really care about people's opinions. I disagree with A LOT of people in here on something. Example: Alt. While my stance on DRM isn't as vehement as I used to be, I completely disagree with his glorification and justification of piracy. We, along with Buzz and M3D, argue about it a lot, but I still think he is a credible debater.
Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean you won't be accepted to the DH. I used to be a very devout Christian (I think my early posts even have me not believing in evolution), so I get the mindset. If you cannot argue your point well, and refuse to grow, I am not really interested in adding you to the DH. Take TheGreatKazoo. He was added, and if you read some of his first few threads in the DH, they aren't amazing, but he shows a willingness to learn that I feel is the best quality.
How stunningly mature, especially when both of you were hoping I
How many standards exist here?would be able to restrain from insults and the likes.
I'm disappointed.
How ironic..
Cause I could have sworn I made it clear I didn't care about your sex life.
So yeah. Respond to my points. I alwasy do that simply as a courtesy to let the person know I'm reading them. Also if you don't address a post in a debate, it usually means you can't answer it.
But it seems like here, ignoring something means that you nullify it completely.
If you're disappointed, then post a response to my points, don't troll on me with 3 other guys.
I have to admit, it was kind of destruction too. Especially when I was using samus and I won..
So the point of the debate hall is to discuss Ideas, right? Or is it to win?
So if I post an idea, then just reply.
And if my logic is bad.. if my reason is bad.. quote me, and say why it is bad. Not why you disagree with the evidence or why you don't like me.
Because when you don't do this, I don't learn anything. And you look foolish cause you can't support your claim that I can't support claims.
Also, look up the difference between operational and origin science. We are not dealing with operational science here, which is a problem in most of the posters' reasoning in this thread.
Also realize that science is based on philosophy and its first principles. So if I bring up a philosophical argument and you ignore it, you are ignoring a valid point.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
You know you have a small say in who gets in, right?
Aesir
Smash Master
Okay you're quoting me out of context while I did say he was my new favorite poster after he said that it wasn't because of his insult toward you it was form a DJnintendo reference. Because I'm from the east coast and "quit life" is a big smash fad over here.
I chose not to respond to it because I didn't want to waste time arguing something that had no relevance on the topic. I honestly didn't feel like discussing something that was a joke to begin with. It's not my fault your sense of humor is dry.
I'm not ignoring it because I can't counter it I'm ignoring it because it's a stupid point, one that has no place in the current discussion and only serves as a distraction and makes our discussion look more like a flame war then a debate. Pardon me for trying to save the integrity of the debate to somehow give you a chance of getting into the DH.
Why are you so obsessed with those points I chose not to discuss? when they had no real place in the discussion to begin with.
thegreatkazoo
Smash Master
I make one joke based on a consensus opinion by the current posters of the DMT and you think I'm insulting you? Not so much...
It's not that no one wants to respond to you, it's that a lot of the claims you make (especially in the realm of ID) have been thoroughly debunked before. If you were to follow the golden rule in the boards (viz Use the search button before posting) you would see this. Also, the purpose of the DH is to debate well, not to win. There are times when you can win by debating well, but it doesn't happen all the time.
Yes, I do. I don't think I was overstepping my bounds in telling them some reasons why they probably aren't going to be admitted in the DH. If I was, my apologies: I will remove the post immediately.
So if I call you a huge ****ing n00b and then I tell you that it is a joke somewhere else, I am excused?
That's not out of context. You encouraged an insult, whether it was a joke or not.
IT was definitely not a joke. I typed out like a quarter page from a book that you didn't respond to, a point that I thought would bring an end to some of the more pointless discussion. It was extremely relevant. And the fact that you still avoid it when you are in a debate hall shows your own weakness in debate.
Getting into the debate hall is not my point. I want to debate. I couldn't care less what you biased atheists think of my debating skills, I just want to discuss ideas with you.
Please forgive me for trying to debate ideas.
I'm not obsessed: I think you need to concede some ground in order to answer my post, quite honestly, and maybe we can see things eye to eye if you acyually think about the passage from the book I quoted (among other things).
It's not funny to me though. It's also against DH rules. And it was an insult... do you disagree with that??
----
Science can't be used to prove anything at all. The scientific method is used to gather data and test repeatable events, and then to draw conclusions from those events, right?
So you can't just "debunk" something with science, you can come to a different conclusion based on data. If everything was "debunked," then this would not be a hot topic in the scientific community and it would not be a debate we are having right now as educated people. Would you agree to this? If this were debunked so thoroughly, you would have been able to counter my posts with sound data, and not with personal attacks and (RDK) extraordinary claims that my reasoning some how sucks.
K good.
EDIT: @ Debater Nomination topic:
Sorry manhunter, I didn't realize you couldn't post in here, that was my fault.
And if I'm such a sub-standard debater, show me where my logic and principles fall short for the love of God...
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
What? This is completely and emphatically false.
The reason evolution is debated, despite plenty evidence confirming it, is because of religious held beliefs based on inaccuracies. Essentially, creationism/young Earth christianity is based off the principle that a few theologians dated the Earth based on the time calculated off of days in the bible. They take the bible as LITERAL as possible, while ignoring the stuff that blatantly contradicts the timeline. Like the supposed Global flood, whereas evidence is largely against that and the Exodus, where historical records and evidence never even have the Jews in Africa, and those that were were paid seasonal workers who left every year. Those inconsistencies, along with the fact that Jesus' birth gospels contradict his birthdate, are usually ignored when debating creationism.
Science cannot debunk creationism anymore than it has because beyond the historical inaccuracy, the proving of the Earth as old, the rest of the bible is based on faith and immeasurable data. God cannot be proven or disproven (though there was an experiment that showed prayer has no help whatsoever), so he cannot be considered anymore than a hypothesis. With faith, THAT is where you get your debate. People who are purely religious see science as something created by man, and therefore it has to have a flaw. They don't know or understand the flaw, but they know it exists so evolution, as the origin of life, cannot be true to them.
Debunking Exodus:
- http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2002/03/did-israels-exodus-from-egypt-actually.php
Will post more as I have time.
Aesir
Smash Master
I didn't call you an insult, I mearly approved because he used the term quit life. I approve of everyone who uses it, it's just a funny term to me.
Get over it, you're making it sound like I have this personal vendetta against you which is simply not the case. I simply liked the fact he used the term "quit life" and it reminded me of all those NY tourneys I use to go to which were fun and I merely approved of it.
I fail to see how me joking about gang bangs at college parties is relevant toward a evolution/ID Debate. Furthermore the point was a joke it always remained a joke because you just took it seriously.
Calling me biased doesn't validate your points any more, you're not really debating if you're getting hung up on points that were clearly jokes and not part of the discussion at hand. I made an effort to reply to everything that pertained to debatable topics. (God and evolution vs ID) The only thing I glossed over was the joke I made when I first posted, I glossed over it because it wasn't relevant. I thought you would have realized it was joke, after all people in the DH should be mature enough to understand comedy of the situation. (A theists arguing ID with a bunch of atheists, it is like a college dorm room party. That's comic gold right there.)
I did I said your reasoning was flimsy, atheists being persecuted against had nothing to do with the fact that they're aggressive with their beliefs it's because they're in the minority. Any minority group in the US gets treated like second hand citizens. It's not because some are fundamentalists (which has is a recent development.) It's because we simply deny something many poeple hold to be true.
Christians don't all believe the same thing.
The young earth model is not claimed by the bible. The bible doesn't specify the age of the earth.
When you take the conclusions of a few Christians that turn out to be wrong and say that all Christians believe them, you are making a hasty generalization. I (and a lot of Christians I know) believe the earth is billions of years old. We also believe in the big bang (and the first cause of it, God).
Also I'm about to read a book called the Genesis Flood. After I'm done, I can answer the more historically-minded questions about the Bible.
But also, the Israelites lived in Canaan before they moved to Egypt (they moved with Joseph). I'll look at this more later.
ID is looking at the same facts and interpreting them differently. Really, looking from a different worldview, they see the same facts and see a different explanation.
Why did you not tell this to kazoo when he told me to quit life? It was an insult no matter how you write it off or frame it. Don't put lipstick on a pig.
You don't agree with my reasoning cause it doesn't support what you say. Also, you can't be "persecuted against."
Hindus are in a minority but they aren't persecuted here. Men are a minority and they aren't persecuted against. Generalizations don't work over a broad group with nothing to back it up. You can say your opinion, but my reasoning was still sound.
And if I made a fallacy, please do tell....
For the fourth time: respond to the quote from Unshakable Foundations.
Where, where, where, where, where?
Point and associated fallacy, if you claim to be able to so much.
Where? Where? Where?
This is getting ridiculous. Just point them out.. specifically. Now.
Actually you did, but that's not even relevant. The point is the links you gave didn't state my fallacies: they offered opposing evidence, maybe, and sometimes not even that.
I quoted Hitler because he was twisting a theory to work for him, much like some Christians insisted on using intelligent design for their own ends. Maybe you didn't understand that or something? I thought it was a stunning parellel. A theory is not validated by what group tries to manipulate it. (That's my point) (The quote was my evidence.) That's how you debate.
Also, I want to debate you on something else. Seriously. If you think you're so hot.
Aesir
Smash Master
Oh no, you're taking it way to seriously, if you have a problem with the way Kazoo posts bring it up with him. I myself have a problem with the way he posts and throwing around insults. The only reason I approved of it because of the smash reference.
Yes you can, but please explain how you cannot.
Hindu intolerance in the US:
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/12/n...protest-violence.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1233630820070712
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/18725/people-unclear-on-the-concept
Men may be a minority but they also have the most power in America because of the past. White males were primarily the only people who held real power. They're not going to be persecuted against because they didn't start out as a minority, because they were the majority.
I find it funny how you're denying how all minorities in the US were treated unfairly ever. When all you ahve to do is look back in history. It's only 200 years it's not that long.
I've told you many times, you just chose to ignore them.
Link it again I can't find it.
thegreatkazoo
Smash Master
I made one sardonic comment towards some weaknesses you have as a debater an you think I am insulting you? I am telling you now: I am not insulting you.
RDK pointed out two to you here. And no, you did not address them in your follow up.
This:
Point--> reasoning flaw or fallacy made. Then correct logic. Nope, you haven't done that.
So you quoted two incidents: one was from 1987. The other you quoted twice and was extremely unconstitutional (imo) in the first place. Three extremist protesters doesn't mean there is discrimination against the race. There is no pattern. Plus it wasn't even discrimination, they weren't denied any rights by authorities. You could say the Christians were discriminated against because they were escorted from the building in order for the other religion's speaker to talk.
The 1987 one was against Indians, not Hindus... did you really just make that mistake?
I was just conjecturing about atheists in science. Using a very good line of reasoning, I thought. And you didn't attack my reasoning process, just my conclusion. It doesn't matter, I was just thinking creatively.
Also, every group has been discriminated against in some way at some time. As a white male in Atlanta public school, I know this, even when I was a majority in one school (then moved to a 1/4 white school). To say a group in America has been historically discriminated against, you need some sort of pattern, or a group that grows and professes that view.
It was an insult. The problem was that I was being accused of being a bad debater with no real refutation. There are two sides to an argument: besides just stating your side (which you people have done countless times and as I have done), you have to say, point-by-point, where the other side fails. I did this already cause it is standard in an actual high school and college debate.
Using logic, which is the only real and reliable test for truth.
That post was really big. And most of it was just sarcasm and flaming.
Point and fallacy... please. If I'm screwing up, let me know. Because no one has given me a point of mine and then told me (logically) why it was faulty. At all. If someone has, then find it and quote it.
This is like my fifth post asking for this.
And this is like the fifth time we've given you links to said posts. Kazoo just posted another one above you, proof that you read none of the criticism we give you.
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
Here's even more tomfoolery from the ID camp:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing-link-cd.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People
Once again, if you knew anything about the history of intelligent design you would know that it was made by Christians for the explicit purpose of forcing religion into the public school classroom. I've linked you to the Wedge Document a number of times, but I'll do it again just for laughs.
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
Here's even more tomfoolery from the ID camp:
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing-link-cd.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People
Aesir
Smash Master
First I wanna say thank you for reposting that, I had very little faith you would.
No wonder I never answered it, I thought that was in response to RDK and not myself, I don't really read y our full response only thing things you have directed at me, whatever else I just skim over. I think that whole bias world view thing is kinda silly, what kind of person maintains a world view when new evidence is present?
I would say that his argument isn't very sound though, as theists scientists who have every single reason to believe ID to be true don't because of the evidence. Or is this just a bias world view?
But once again you missed the point, it was unconstitutional but those protesters didn't care about the constitution, it was their religion that made them speak out about the hindu prayer.
Nationally? not as much. You as a white Christian Male can enter politics become President and do basically anything you want. So that little piece of discrimination you felt in public schools really isn't much sorry to say.
Me on the other hand, a White Atheist Male I cannot enter politics and become President the most I can hope for is a congressmen of a small district. (awesome) Topple with the fact that I get grouped with people like Sam Harris (did I mention how much I loath this man?) Which just isn't fair at all. Comparing someone like me to Sam Harris is like comparing Stalin to Ghandi.
This is what I mean by Discrimination. While on personal levels anyone can be discriminated against.
Please go look back at my responses I have called out on logic fallacies quite a bit, now to answer the quote.
No wonder I never answered it, I thought that was in response to RDK and not myself, I don't really read y our full response only thing things you have directed at me, whatever else I just skim over. I think that whole bias world view thing is kinda silly, what kind of person maintains a world view when new evidence is present?
I would say that his argument isn't very sound though, as theists scientists who have every single reason to believe ID to be true don't because of the evidence. Or is this just a bias world view?
Is this more of your bias world view?
But once again you missed the point, it was unconstitutional but those protesters didn't care about the constitution, it was their religion that made them speak out about the hindu prayer.
Indians come from India, which is a hindu state.
Your reasoning doesn't match the conclusion. I've said countless times Atheists were persecuted against long before they became aggressive. The persecution as fed the aggression, Atheist use to try and kill you guys with kindness so to speak.
You're looking at this all wrong. On a personal level yes every group has been discriminated against at some point even majorities.
Nationally? not as much. You as a white Christian Male can enter politics become President and do basically anything you want. So that little piece of discrimination you felt in public schools really isn't much sorry to say.
Me on the other hand, a White Atheist Male I cannot enter politics and become President the most I can hope for is a congressmen of a small district. (awesome) Topple with the fact that I get grouped with people like Sam Harris (did I mention how much I loath this man?) Which just isn't fair at all. Comparing someone like me to Sam Harris is like comparing Stalin to Ghandi.
This is what I mean by Discrimination. While on personal levels anyone can be discriminated against.