Last?? Haven't seen him round here for ages
-
Where is ...
-
IIRC he was the guy that said everything real bluntly and in the most politically incorrect way?lol sometimes i loved the stuff he said, he was very entertaining he seemed to just disagree with the majority no matter what the case was hope he's still here somewhere?
-
he seemed to just disagree with the majority no matter what the case wasHe has a bit of an issue with religion, especially the fundamentalist Christian variety. Speaking of which, F22Fighter also left. He's busy counseling the gayness out of guys at his Christian college.
-
hmm.. just noticed there was less .. erm.. angry postings everywhere, mainly just from unforgetto, and wondered where they'd all gone
-
It's too bad though, I enjoyed debating with him. For the most part, he really knew what he was talking about. His stance on homosexuality was a little strange in how he thinks it's an awful sin yet he constantly said he didn't have a big problem with it. Personally I think that was one of his major offensive points though. As far as Last goes, he existed to get things going. It's funny how'd he'd constantly say blunt, unsupported, and almost completely random remarks that ticked people off.
-
Personally I think that was one of his [F22Fighter's] major offensive points though.It was also his major obsession. I led him to the idea that there's good and growing evidence that homosexuality is not a learned or chosen behavior, which he accepted as a possibility. But as far as I know, he's still counseling gays to be straight, at his college.For someone his age, he certainly had a good knowledge of the scriptures. I miss him. Debating with non-fundamentalists is like trying to nail jello to a wall.
-
Last was a blast. After a while, it was easy to see when he was serious and when he just felt like walking into the shit with a big stir-stick. I can relate to that. I also think that after our first few scraps, he bagan to secretly fall in love with me.
In reply to:
Debating with non-fundamentalists is like trying to nail jello to a wall.
omg that's so true *hugs*
-
Why are non-fundamentalists so hard to debate with?
-
**we all secretly fall in love with you and are hurt when you don't PM us.............LOL and yeah i miss Last too.......... ** :grin:
-
yes, I have been remiss in my PMing.I guess I must be as lovable as a teady bear... a sort of large, menacing teady bear... but a teady bear, nontheless.
-
Why are non-fundamentalists so hard to debate with?A fundamentalist will generally have a well-known, specific set of beliefs. With someone who's religious, but not fundamentalist, you have to spend time establishing what they believe. Then it can drift around, so you wind up debating a moving target.In any case, aside from scriptural arguments, it always boils down to:A: Why do you believe in God/Gods/the mysterious force?B: Look around you. (the design argument)A: That doesn't prove anything.[Continue down that fruitless path for a while.]B: But wouldn't it be horrible if God didn't exist? Wouldn't you want to kill yourself?A: So you live for the pleasure of some type of "being"? I think life is great, etc. (Now introduce the secular humanist argument).B: But if I'm wrong, nothing is lost. If you're wrong, you're screwed for eternity.A: Nothing lost? How about your integrity? And what kind of God would damn you for not believing in something seemingly so ridiculous, and for His own glorification?And on and on it goes, always along the same path.The fundamentalists you are likely debate, however, will usually have a good knowledge of the scriptures, and if you're really lucky, a knowledge of philosophy. Missionaries are usually drilled, and their questions and replies are usually scripted and memorized. If you can get them to deviate from their script, they can be interesting.But the fundamental question, "Why do people believe that stuff?", won't be answered by debating with a religious people. They don't know why they believe that stuff. Rather, the answer lies in understanding the physical brain. Already, fMRI studies have shown that certain areas of the brain become active when a person experiences certain "transcendental" religious feelings. Over time, I think we'll be able to fully understand how religious belief evolved. But even if we understood the role of every neuron in religious belief, it wouldn't stop people from believing.
-
By the way, Paul Bloom (professor of psychology and linguistics at Yale) will have an article in the December issue of Atlantic magazine, where he "argues that the belief in God might be the accidental by-product of biological evolution".
