Debate?
Printed From: ProfessorPaddle.com
Category: General
Forum Name: Chit Chat
Forum Discription: Non Boating Related Discussions
URL: http://www.professorpaddle.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11265
Printed Date: 01 Jun 2025 at 10:08pm
Topic: Debate?
Posted By: franzhorner
Subject: Debate?
Date Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 3:37pm
|
This is really in response to James' challenge on the Miracle at Sunset post. I'm hoping to lure him into some fun (for me, maybe not you) debate. This is nonboating related..... WARNING: If you do not like to hear challenges to your beliefs: don't read further. If you don't like people making silly jokes about a serious topic: don't read further. If you think that online debate is inherently bad and wrong and unproductive: don't read on. If you think this doesn't belong on PP, realize you are in the general chit chat forum and you are wrong. I think it is silly that religious folks constantly praise God when lucky things happen to them like in that post about the miracle at Sunset. I know I have said "thank God" in my life. At one point I used to say "thank Gods" instead. I think I'm silly when I do it. For non-believers it is absurd to think that God saved this kids life while he lets innocents all over the world die everyday. I think someone already pointed out that "its all in God's plan" is just not a good enough explanation for deeper thinkers. I mean surely if he has the power to save the kids life here wouldn't he have the power to save other innocents? This reminds me of a discussion I had with a very religious Christian. I asked him why God didn't want Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge. I mean did he have a reason or was it just because he said so. This particular guy told me it was just cause God said so and he had no reason to even question why in this story God wouldn't want humans to have knowledge..... Here's one that gets me in trouble all the time, more with Atheists than religious folks... It takes just as much faith to be an Atheist as it does to be a Christian. One believes there is no God and the other believes there is a God. Neither one has proof. The only realistic bunch are Agnostics. ------------- MORE RAIN PLEASE |
Replies:
Posted By: justin
Date Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 4:12pm
|
|
Posted By: franzhorner
Date Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 4:29pm
|
A discussion on the finer points of NYC hardcore punk may be more fun!!!! ------------- MORE RAIN PLEASE |
Posted By: JoesKayak
Date Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 6:11pm
|
Originally posted by justin |
Posted By: franzhorner
Date Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 6:12pm
A discussion on the finer points of NYC hardcore punk may be more fun!!!!  ------------- MORE RAIN PLEASE |
Posted By: franzhorner
Date Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 6:15pm
|
How about Sick of it All?? I got my ass beat in one of their pits once. Lost a sneaker and got surfed to the front where I stayed for Helmet!!! It was scary! Class 5 pit! ------------- MORE RAIN PLEASE |
Posted By: Travisimo
Date Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 7:29pm
Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 11:33pm
|
I feel like a fish following a lure. I've got plenty to say and feel that I could debate either side very effectively. So, do I bite making for a long drawn out fight that won't change the way anyone thinks in the end, or let this one go. You will know by the length of this post before you even started reading it that I am letting this one go. But I would be be happy to debate anyone in person anytime.
James, I would love to go fishing with you anytime. Got a freezer full of Pinks and would love to add some Hos (CoHo).
|
Posted By: FLUID
Date Posted: 21 Sep 2011 at 11:44pm
|
Horner you have to watch this.....
http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&errmsg=INVALID_STATE_ERR%3A%20DOM%20Exception%2011&gl=US&rdm=4nyrj9zde&reload=5#/watch?v=8Eam-z1bwrk |
Posted By: Travisimo
Date Posted: 22 Sep 2011 at 12:14am
Posted By: franzhorner
Date Posted: 22 Sep 2011 at 8:51am
|
Nice people....
I like the discussion.... Nobody gets hurt... ------------- MORE RAIN PLEASE |
Posted By: justin
Date Posted: 22 Sep 2011 at 9:48am
Posted By: Scott_H
Date Posted: 22 Sep 2011 at 10:06am
|
anarchism....or maybe nihilism (there is no meaning). I only made it through...barely.... Philosophy 101 in school though....zzzz
But hey, good opportunity for a quote:
"We believe in nothing Lebowski. Nothing. And tomorrow we come back and we cut off your chonson."
------------- “The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues.” |
Posted By: PowWrangler
Date Posted: 22 Sep 2011 at 10:37am
|
Originally posted by justin ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. One does not need organized religion or the threat of eternal damnation to be a good and moral person. How about just treating others how you would like to be treated? Using our sympathetic and empathetic abilities? It works for a lot of us. And then some people need the constant reminder of a hot miserable eternal hell to keep them on the straight and narrow. I realize there are some cold, callous , anti-social people in this world...maybe religion can keep some of them in line....but for many, well there's prison. Organized religion has it's merits and I'm not going to knock them, but as Justin pointed out, it's not a be all end all for a healthy, happy and socially responsible life. |
Posted By: James
Date Posted: 22 Sep 2011 at 11:55am
Posted By: franzhorner
Date Posted: 22 Sep 2011 at 12:26pm
|
http://news.yahoo.com/belief-god-boils-down-gut-feeling-104403461.html Why is it that you need a God to answer to in order to have morals? I answer to myself and I have morals. Ralph Waldo Emerson was kicked out of Harvard for suggesting that people drop their religions and look to themselves for forgiveness and salvation. ------------- MORE RAIN PLEASE |
Posted By: James
Date Posted: 22 Sep 2011 at 2:15pm
Posted By: PowWrangler
Date Posted: 22 Sep 2011 at 2:16pm
|
Originally posted by James I am going to disagree with POW and Justin, God and Morality are Exclusive. Without a higher deity directing what the moral code is that code will change and cease to be a constant which is then a better question of Why should Morality not change, or can Morals be Morals if they are ok to constantly change? css_styles/default_style.css - That code will change to make rape, murder, theft, etc. ok? Without organized religion? Really? A worthy quote: Good people do good because they want to do good - not because they will personally benefit from it or because someone has forced them to do it. People who do good solely for personal gain or to avoid personal harm are not good people. Someone who saves a drowning child, for example, only because he was offered a reward or was physically threatened does not deserve our praise. Thus, if your only reason for performing good actions is your desire to go to heaven or your fear of going to hell - if all your other-regarding actions are motivated purely by self-interest - then you should go to hell because you are not a good person. An obsessive concern with either heaven or hell should actually lessen one's chances for salvation rather than increase them. |
Posted By: James
Date Posted: 22 Sep 2011 at 2:52pm
|
In http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/weird/German-City-Unveils-Prostitute-Meter-128804868.html - Germany Prostitution is not just Legal, it is a viable economy. When our country decides that is now within our Moral Code does that mean that going to the prostitute is doing good? Well of course not if your married at first right? When will that change? What if your spouse is holding out on you, or if your going through a divorce? What if your spouse is incapable ie in a car accident for life? Oh the circumstances. That code will change and it does. Where did Slavery go, where did Homosexuality go, now am I arguing that they are good or bad? Just that our code does change and at one time you would have gotten a response to that change much like you are responding to me. People would say: (Circa 1400-1600) Why is Slavery is bad? (Circa Then to 1950s) How could Homosexuality be ok? What is next? Perhaps Prostitution and easy stuff like Drugs. I am not going to argue what core will remain just that when Man makes his own Morality it is open to change because it is not based on Ultimate Truth but rather popular opinion. Popular Opinion is not Truth therefore it is nor Morality in my view. |
Posted By: justin
Date Posted: 22 Sep 2011 at 3:09pm
|
|
Posted By: franzhorner
Date Posted: 22 Sep 2011 at 5:03pm
|
moralsplural of mor·al (Noun)
1. A lesson, esp. one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience. 2. A person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do. Merriam-Webster The Free Dictionary ------------- MORE RAIN PLEASE |
Posted By: FLUID
Date Posted: 22 Sep 2011 at 8:32pm
|
MORALITY : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7xt5LtgsxQ - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7xt5LtgsxQ
This is a good one !!!! all good points boys... Although someone is still missing the point. I choose to be good without god. and it feels better to be good and good to people without expecting something back like a ticket to heaven or someone wanting me to be a good person for praise. What if you found out you there was no god tomorrow how then would you find your "strength" and "wisdom". you would have to look into the void and yourself. MORALITY This video is good and the british guy sounds better explaining it then me..... |
Posted By: FLUID
Date Posted: 22 Sep 2011 at 9:39pm
|
also I think this video explains James stance very well on morality....
|
Posted By: jP
Date Posted: 23 Sep 2011 at 12:05am
|
Well said James. And moral codes must inherrently change as we learn new things (hopefully) as a society. When did the terms "leave no trace" and "pack it in pack it out" surface? Arguably these aren't classified as morals but rather as principles of conservation, but still if we include the planet and its many non human inhabitants in our considerations of how we interact with our world,it seems to bear mention.
(What I'm saying here is that while we all drag our boats from time to time, and seal launch quite a bit, don't drag your boat when you can carry it just cuz you're too lazy. And while seal launching is easy and fun its not always necessary- watch the plastic shavings in the wildernes, folks)---just to tie it into boat'n a bit. And some morals need to change. Stoning peeps just ain't cool. Getting peeps stoned? Well that may be a good deed for the right peeps, legalities not withstanding. Many of history's "morals" were obviously skewed and distorted by those in power, namely. Patriarchal system designed to keep men in power, and to keep property over generations within bloodlines,ect. And we can't even have this discussion without at least breifly mentioning how both the Bible and the Koran has been and is used as a means of socio-political control. How moral is that? That's not to say though that these ancient texts should be invalidated because of the power hungry assholes that manipulate whole cultures with them. Regardless, using religion to uphold or defend moral codes is a double edged sword. Too many differing cultures on this planet to possibly hope we can have a single uniform moral code. So why do religious fundementalists fight so hard for a uniformity of (their own brand of) religion? I won't single out Christianity, but the other Abrahamic religions (Islam and Judaism) are just as bad with this sort of "my way or the highway" approach. There is some sort of African fable I heard once- maybe I read some Joeseph Campbell or something, can't remember but the essence of it goes like this: Two peoples live on the opposite sides of a long lake. The people see their god paddle by to the north end of the lake, and the peeps on the east shore notice he is wearing a blue hat. Of course the peeps on the west shore, they observe their god paddling northbound wearing a red hat. So now they gotta argue and fight about it. Later the next day, the next week, or whatever, their god comes paddling southbound. Once again: peeps on the east shore insist he was wearing a blue hat, peeps on the west shore say it was a red hat. First of all, what difference does it make? What no one realized was that their collective god was simply flipping his hat around just to fu*k with all them dumb asses- the hat was blue on one side and red on the other. Now I know that there are a lot more complex differences between belief systems- some nuanced and many more stark. But this is why I'd have to put myself in the Agnostic camp- hell, I never even seen the hat, let alone the god wearing it. Peeps say thats a cop out, but I say I have way too little info to make an informed decision. ------------- 🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋 |
Posted By: Travisimo
Date Posted: 23 Sep 2011 at 12:45am
Posted By: jP
Date Posted: 23 Sep 2011 at 12:45am
|
But straight up what really gets me about religious people are these next few points:
1) sorry to rip on christianity here, and those christians I know among the paddling community are exceptions to this, but the tendency for Christians to evangelize an proselytize is a real bummer. Half the time all these foljs do is suceed in turning me off from their message. 2) it is a bummer that most religious people can't take a step towards common ground after you've clearly taken a step towards them. Sorry, but I find "God" in and on the river. Yet since most christians don't know the river, and since I don't go sit in their churches, they usually find a way to act all offended or uppity if I make any connection. But as cheesy as the whole "praise jesus" thing was in that freaky Blair-Witch-Project-style Sunset Falls video, in a way, I can see "God" in the works. But just as the notion of "God" being a "he" and essentially being a giant wearing a robe with a white beard is an absurd one, so is the idea that "he" needs to consciously intervene in order for "his" "miracle" to be felt, experienced, or known of. All such notions and words and imagery cheapens the whole Idea of "God" with a capital G. The whole pronoun thing is as absurd to me as Santa Clause or Cap'n Crunch. The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao, and neither is Tao Berman, though he is definitely one of the best paddlers who has ever lived and a very dedicated and disciplined human. But I digress... 3) can't get into this discussion without picking on the Jews who defend the Jews in power who persecute another people much the same way they were themselves persecuted by the Germans. WTF? what good is their own religion if they overlook the badic fact that they are doing the same thing to the palestinians that Hitler did to them? The bottom line is this: if yiur dogma is getting in the way of finding common ground and peace with other humans, something is obviously wrong. i will say though that I've been inspired by people of all sorts of religious stripes who are very spirited, conscious people. Some of them frequent this site. Usually these folks tend to be of more modest means, and they are a bit more connected to the human condition as a result. Money and power skew all sorts of peeps' morals, and then, well, those are often the folks who give organized religion a bad rap. Getting back to the Agnostic thing, yeah it may be a bit vaguely defined as far as a moral tether goes, but I guess I see a universality to different peeps' beliefs, and respect their right to make up their own minds. I just wish that was reciprocated more. Afterall, there's too many of us and we're gonna see different colored hats. Might as well coexist as peacefully as we can. ------------- 🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋 |
Posted By: jP
Date Posted: 23 Sep 2011 at 12:52am
|
Oh yeah- last post. Past my bed time now...
Science. Its sad to me that so many ignorant and/or power hungry peeps gotta cling so tight to scripture when scientific method has a pretty good track record for learning new sh*t. I don't see why religious folks gotta be so threatened by science. The world is round and it is waayyy older than 6 thousand years. But that doesn't in my opinion devalidate a religious belief system, or at least it shouldn't. I dunno- most of this is just common sense. ------------- 🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋🐋 |
Posted By: Travisimo
Date Posted: 23 Sep 2011 at 1:20am
|
------------- H2O please |
Posted By: Travisimo
Date Posted: 23 Sep 2011 at 1:40am
Posted By: justin
Date Posted: 23 Sep 2011 at 8:28am
|
|
Posted By: franzhorner
Date Posted: 23 Sep 2011 at 11:11am
|
I would also like to say that I have many a friend and family who are Christians all the way. I was raised going to church every Sunday until I went to college. Just because I don't put all my stock in one religion anymore and I don't like what Christians do sometimes, it doesn't mean I don't respect the religion and the most of the people into it... but... My biggest problem is the legislation of Christian moral codes on the whole of society. The example that disturbs me the most is the gay marriage debate. Its as if Christian folks want the government to confirm what their god already supposedly tells them. Why do Christians need the government to categorize their straight marriages as more moral than a homosexual union? They get so hung up on the word! No one is saying you have to have gay folks be allowed to marry in your church. You can still tell gay folks that they aren't welcome in your church. You can still have a church that doesn't recognize gay marriages. Its as if its not enough that homosexuals should burn in the fires of hell for evermore...no...people of the church are doing God's judgment here in his name. What's it to you if Sam and Joe have a union that is recogonized by the state? What the right doesn't understand is if you call a straight union one thing and a homosexual union something different there are all kinds of ways to make the state's treatment of that union different. Some folks on the right believe that their union should be held in a higher light by both God AND the government, yet these folks are usually the ones crying about getting the government out of their lives. In this case they want the government to protect their belief that they are MORE MORAL in their straight unions. I contend that the government should not recognize ANY marriages, just unions. ------------- MORE RAIN PLEASE |
Posted By: franzhorner
Date Posted: 23 Sep 2011 at 11:12am
|
Way to go everybody. A civil and decent discussion. The links are great and I like other people's perspectives!!
------------- MORE RAIN PLEASE |
Posted By: James
Date Posted: 23 Sep 2011 at 11:42am
Posted By: James
Date Posted: 23 Sep 2011 at 11:44am
|
|
Posted By: Tobin
Date Posted: 25 Sep 2011 at 2:08pm
|
RELIGION IS LIKE A PENIS!
It is fine to have one. It is fine to be proud of it. Please do not whip it out in public and start waving it around. And PLEASE do do not try to shove it down my throat. ------------- Sure? |
Posted By: Travisimo
Date Posted: 25 Sep 2011 at 5:12pm
Posted By: PowWrangler
Date Posted: 25 Sep 2011 at 5:48pm
|
Originally posted by Travisimo Who exactly did that on a thread labeled "debate" that prompted you to post that? I feel that a lot of people that label themselves at "tolerant" are anything but... I haven't seen a lot of tolerance to Christians in this discussion either. The only reason I entered this discussion was because Christians were being singled out and put down. Where is the intolerance to Christians in this thread, for that matter where is it being put down in this thread?...please be specific. If it's being singled out in a discussion on religion, it might be because it's by far the most practiced religion in this country. I'd be commenting on that crazy ass religion that worships allah if we were unfortunate enough to live in one of those countries where it is dominant. Anyhoo, I sure wish I could believe in a god, I've spent plenty of time in a church, but I've found I'm way too logical and evidence based to believe in such things. css_styles/default_style.css - |
Posted By: Travisimo
Date Posted: 25 Sep 2011 at 9:59pm
Posted By: Travisimo
Date Posted: 25 Sep 2011 at 10:07pm
Posted By: Travisimo
Date Posted: 26 Sep 2011 at 12:08am
Posted By: justin
Date Posted: 26 Sep 2011 at 9:09am
Posted By: James
Date Posted: 26 Sep 2011 at 1:55pm
Posted By: franzhorner
Date Posted: 26 Sep 2011 at 2:20pm
|
Travismo: an intolerant example: "I think it is silly that religious folks constantly praise God when lucky things happen" So if I think a group is silly for doing something AND I admit that I too do it now and again...that makes me intolerant of that group? Whoa!!!?? I think you are being a bit sensitive here..... Intolerant would be if I said something like people who do that should be shot or put in prison or have their foreheads branded.... ------------- MORE RAIN PLEASE |
Posted By: franzhorner
Date Posted: 26 Sep 2011 at 2:39pm
|
Main Entry: in·tol·er·ant
Pronunciation: \-rənt\ Function: adjective Date: circa 1735 1 : unable or unwilling to endure 2 a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : bigoted 3 : exhibiting physiological intolerance <lactose intolerant> ------------- MORE RAIN PLEASE |
Posted By: Travisimo
Date Posted: 26 Sep 2011 at 2:40pm
Posted By: franzhorner
Date Posted: 26 Sep 2011 at 2:41pm
|
I don't think intolerance is the right word. If anything the existence of this thread is in complete conflict with the word "intolerance".
------------- MORE RAIN PLEASE |
Posted By: Travisimo
Date Posted: 26 Sep 2011 at 2:44pm
Posted By: franzhorner
Date Posted: 26 Sep 2011 at 2:59pm
|
I'm a liberal long haired hippie. If you think I haven't endured people or myself calling me silly you're out of your mind.
Intolerance is not finding something silly... ------------- MORE RAIN PLEASE |
Posted By: franzhorner
Date Posted: 26 Sep 2011 at 3:05pm
|
So where did I say I don't have respect for Christianity?? I think I've gone out of my way to say the opposite. If I find an aspect or two of a religion silly, that makes me intolerant?!! So to be tolerant in your eyes, I would have to be totally piously accepting of every single tenet and aspect of the entire religion? ------------- MORE RAIN PLEASE |
Posted By: Travisimo
Date Posted: 26 Sep 2011 at 3:07pm
Posted By: franzhorner
Date Posted: 26 Sep 2011 at 3:07pm
|
By your definition I could say you are intolerant of atheists. Is this true? ------------- MORE RAIN PLEASE |
Posted By: James
Date Posted: 26 Sep 2011 at 3:12pm
|
Does anyone not believe Jesus ever existed around here? |
Posted By: justin
Date Posted: 26 Sep 2011 at 3:23pm
|
|
Posted By: Travisimo
Date Posted: 26 Sep 2011 at 3:24pm
Posted By: franzhorner
Date Posted: 26 Sep 2011 at 3:27pm
|
"Jesus: I like him very much, but, he no help with curveball"
-Pedro Cerrano ------------- MORE RAIN PLEASE |
Posted By: franzhorner
Date Posted: 26 Sep 2011 at 3:33pm
|
Yes Jesus was a real person. The new testament was assembled years after his death. Most of what we know of him comes from the Bible, King James version of the Bible. I don't trust a governments editing of a holy book.
As much as I like Jesus, I think the story of Enoch is much more fun.. ------------- MORE RAIN PLEASE |
Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 26 Sep 2011 at 5:04pm
|
I was not going to get drawn into this, But.... I believe I have read every post, I may have missed something, but I only found one statement that was odviously ment to offend anyone who might believe in a higher being. And I even felt he had a good point til he through this in.
Powwrangler wrote in refrence to God, " but I've found I'm way too logical and evidence based to believe in such things"
It is way more "logical" to believe there is something or someone out there much more knowledgable and powerful then ourselves. You confuse logic for arrogance.
There is much more evidence that there is a higher being then that there is not (because there is no evidence that there is not one). Some just choose to ignore it.
To many, religion and science go hand in hand. Some try to use science to explain Gods' miracles, I say why couldn't God use science to perform his miracles.
There are many valid points on all sides in this "debate", but don't go trying to say one is more "logical" or "evidence based" then the other without expecting a rebuttal.
We can all agree that there is no Proof either way. Some day we will all know, until then there is no harm in believing.
Lets say there is a God, I think God is brought into a-lot more things then he/she/it would ever be a part of. Why would God care what sport team wins, who believes in him, or even when we die (if there is a plan, death would have to be part of it).
I'm sure many things are done in Gods name that God wants nothing to do with, wars, persecution, or anything that harms another person.
Some one brought up Marriage, which has nothing to do with this debate, but as long as it was mentioned.... If marriage is of God, then government should have nothing to do with it and should recognize everything as nothing more than a union. Then each religion should be able to choose whom they Marry based on their beliefs or interpretation. So the real debate there, is Marriage a religious institution or not. But that is another debate.
Sorry, I was not going to get into this but I was drawn in like the hole in Paranoia (Top Tye) after what I thought was a perfect boof.
|