The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => The Show => Topic started by: Rodeen on May 30, 2009, 09:52:39 PM
-
No matter how your polish that turd, religion is a boring topic. Furthermore, religion is useless in this day and age as a belief. Example: "the christian anarchist".
Discuss.
-
Ur mom.
-
the shaman has always fleeced and subjugated the sheeple...throughout history...
why should today be any different...sheeple murder for the shamen...
all hail the Gasoline God, Christian Mercenaries International...
sick fucks...
-
No, religion is not horseshit. And the reason why so many anarchists are atheists is because they are impious people who don't want to recognize any authority higher than themselves.
-
No, religion is not horseshit. And the reason why so many anarchists are atheists is because they are impious people who don't want to recognize any authority higher than themselves.
ESPECIALLY not your brand of "higher authority" since it seeks to subjugate and kidnap and murder those you dislike...
disgusting...
-
No, religion is not horseshit. And the reason why so many anarchists are atheists is because they are impious people who don't want to recognize any authority higher than themselves.
This.
-
No matter how your polish that turd, religion is a boring topic. Furthermore, religion is useless in this day and age as a belief. Example: "the christian anarchist".
Discuss.
(http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/videos/120x90/35152.jpg)
Here's the turd Adam Savage polished in Mythbusters, it came out really nice, shiny and round. Religion can also be a nice and shiny, polished turd. But it's more often not.
-
No matter how your polish that turd, religion is a boring topic. Furthermore, religion is useless in this day and age as a belief. Example: "the christian anarchist".
Discuss.
No, it's too boring.
-
No, religion is not horseshit. And the reason why so many anarchists are atheists is because they are impious people who don't want to recognize any authority higher than themselves.
I'll recognise it when I see it. C'mon, show me this authority.
[youtube=425,350]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rIVHNylH1Mk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rIVHNylH1Mk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
-
the reason why so many anarchists are atheists is because they are impious people who don't want to recognize any authority higher than themselves.
The reason I'm an atheist is because I've not seen any evidence that warrants the belief in any religion.
There are religions that DON'T have any higher authority, but do deal in "supernatural" bullshit, i.e. Buddhism, and I reject them for the same reason I reject monotheistic
Of course it would be much more horrible if there was actually a Jehovah or Allah who condoned slavery, and who murdered millions of people and incited the murder of many more millions, who condoned stoning of unruly children and eternal punishment for thieves and homosexuals.
-
It's fairly easy to disprove the existence of a god using logic. Of course, adherents will never admit this, but will always resort to special pleading.
The existence of a god would entail too many mutually contradictory things. For example, there is the familiar problem of evil, which theists attempt to sweep away, but without much success. The deity is supposed to be all-good, and is supposed to have created everything. Yet, we see that much evil exists in the world. If God created everything then He must be responsible for either creating the evil directly or creating the agent of the evil. The simplest solution: there is no god.
For example, the Bible makes many predictions regarding God which can be easily tested. Answered prayer, for example. Jesus says, "Ask, and it will be given." Go ahead--try it. Make a prayer for something and see whether it is fulfilled. In fact, you'll find that the success rate is no greater than random chance.
God, we're informed, cannot be seen, heard, touched, or detected with any of the senses. Now, that which is not perceivable by the senses is the very definition of non-sensical. Saying that something is not in any manner detectable is the same thing as saying that something does not exist.
The Bible itself is so filled with easily verified falsehoods and contradictions that it is impossible for any rational person to take it seriously. (I won't include the contradictions here because vast lists of them are easily found all over the net.) From the Bible we find that the earth is flat, that the sun orbits the earth, that the universe is six thousand years old. The amount of cognitive dissidence needed to accept such things is staggering!
-
in the end, it is actually quite logical to conclude that some type of higher power exists, given the totally bizarre nature of this existence, and how the totality of this existence somehow manages itself in a way that a human can identify with.
You mean, God is a jokester, who sets up a bizarre world? :shock:
But no--the world is not set up in such a manner as to make it easily comprehended. The universe does not give a shit whether humans understand it or not. It just IS.
-
in the end, it is actually quite logical to conclude that some type of higher power exists, given the totally bizarre nature of this existence, and how the totality of this existence somehow manages itself in a way that a human can identify with.
You mean, God is a jokester, who sets up a bizarre world? :shock:
But no--the world is not set up in such a manner as to make it easily comprehended. The universe does not give a shit whether humans understand it or not. It just IS.
the only thing that makes it bizarre are humans...
-
But no--the world is not set up in such a manner as to make it easily comprehended. The universe does not give a shit whether humans understand it or not. It just IS.
Yeah, anyone who thinks the universe was created so that humans could understand it need to take a look at some of the quantum physics, then curl up into a ball and cry when you realize how fucking incomprehensible and counter intuitive the universe is compared to the way humans perceive it.
-"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." Richard Feynman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_feynman)
Also I'd say the problem of evil isn't an effective argument. It doesn't address the core issue of lack of evidence for gods, and it is still equally likely for there to be any type of god, heavily conflicted or not. Sure the problem of evil means that if there is a god he's certainly a dick, but its certainly not a proof against god.
Since the idea of god is completely arbitrary and not based on observation or reality, but mainly solipsism, then the idea that god must somehow be rational or sane is also arbitrary, also, it excludes other bullshit arguments like there are 2 gods, one good and one evil, and they are both perfectly balanced. Whenever anything good happens its good god, whenever something bad happens its evil god etc.
One of the best attacks is of how god explanations effectively have 0 explanatory power.
How did god make matter? He just did.
How did god make life? He just did.
How did god make space-time? He just did.
Where's heaven? Some place we can't get to or measure in any way.
Where's hell? Some place we can't get to or measure in any way.
Where's/what's a soul? Something we can't get to or measure in any way.
Where's god? Some place we can't get to or measure in any way.
this is not explaining anything, its just arbitrary bullshit designed to make humans feel better about the lack of understanding of the universe and a fear of death.
Even if there was a god who did all these things, even though theres no evidence for it, then we would still have to use the scientific method to understand how it happened, so religion is completely useless in terms of explaining the universe.
Of course, the ultimate perversion of this completely arbitrary non answer, is that its used as a more "reasonable" alternative to gaps in our knowledge.
Since "science" can't explain X, god must be responsible for X. How do you know it must be god? Well do you have an explanation? Then god must have done it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)How did god do it? I don't know, he just did.
So even though religions apparently have detailed information on the order in which god made shit, there is absolutely 0 explanation in how it happened, and therefore as a theory of how existence came into being, is completely useless.
Even if one of the "god" theories was actually correct (which would only be correct through sheer luck of a random guess),theres absolutely no concrete evidence in any god ever existing, and nothing to be learned from religion bar vague rhetoric and toddler level morality (i.e. its wrong to hurt people, except if its stoning unruly children or god letting thieves and homosexuals be tortured in hell forever).
-
why does one human being resist the gunpoint religion of another human being...
hmmm....
-
Regardless, in the end, it is actually quite logical to conclude that some type of higher power exists, given the totally bizarre nature of this existence, and how the totality of this existence somehow manages itself in a way that a human can identify with.
This is not an argument. All you have achieved from this is 1. you have made a claim 2. you have stated your opinion about the "totality of existence" and then offered an opinion on it. Nowhere did you sufficiently back up your claim.
As we attempt to manage our lives, the universe manages itself.
You have no proof of this. How does the universe manage itself? Please, explain.
The evidence of management on a gigantic level should excite individuals to study further, instead of abusing logic and language in order to try to make people feel stupid for exploring these matters, which is what you atheists love to do.
You have offered no evidence of a deity. You haven't really even offered a coherent argument. You have accused atheists of trying to make you feel stupid. Congratulations.
-
Regardless, in the end, it is actually quite logical to conclude that some type of higher power exists, given the totally bizarre nature of this existence
How so? And wouldn't the existence of God be an even more bizarre addition to this?
and how the totality of this existence somehow manages itself in a way that a human can identify with.
It doesn't manage itself. The is no ecological equilibrium to unbalance. At best there are multiple equilibria.
As we attempt to manage our lives, the universe manages itself.
Does it?
The evidence of management
Such as...?
on a gigantic level should excite individuals to study further,
Oh, the unknown is something scientists and researches relish: They say "I have no explaination for X? How could it possibly be? This requires further study." The Religious person, on the other hand, says "I have no explaination for X? How could it possibly be? It must be God. Explaination found, no further study necessary."
instead of abusing logic and language in order to try to make people feel stupid for exploring these matters, which is what you atheists love to do.
Errrr... I'm not even sure what this is refering to.
-
The evidence of management on a gigantic level should excite individuals to study further, instead of abusing logic and language in order to try to make people feel stupid for exploring these matters, which is what you atheists love to do.
I cannot stop thinking about this sentence. You are claiming that atheists abuse logic and language in order to make people feel stupid? All this after failing to counter or even address opposing arguments? Then you top it all with a bigoted insult?
If God made you in his image, I think God is an incoherent bigot.
-
That is not to say that all Christians or deists are bigots because I know open-minded and intelligent theists.
-
No, religion is not horseshit. And the reason why so many anarchists are atheists is because they are impious people who don't want to recognize any authority higher than themselves.
You, Luke, are horseshit. And there IS no authority higher than myself. You can tell me all about it, but no "god" has ever talked to me, or established the origin of "his" authority. All I've ever heard is a bunch of deluded people prattle on about their specific beliefs, and nothing more. The same goes for your state-worshipping idolatry. You bow and scrape before state issued costume wearers as if their little polyester uniforms and bits of costume jewelry really meant something, when in truth, the only thing they have that has any real power is their gun. All the horseshit you spew wont change the FACT that government power rests solely upon its agent's recourse to violence to back up their claims to "authority."
-
You can tell me all about it, but no "god" has ever talked to me, or established the origin of "his" authority. All I've ever heard is a bunch of deluded people prattle on about their specific beliefs, and nothing more. The same goes for your state-worshipping idolatry. You bow and scrape before a state issued costume wearer as if their little polyester uniforms and bits of costume jewelry really meant something, when in truth, the only thing they have that has any real power is their gun.
I'm quoting you.
-
Also I'd say the problem of evil isn't an effective argument. It doesn't address the core issue of lack of evidence for gods, and it is still equally likely for there to be any type of god, heavily conflicted or not. Sure the problem of evil means that if there is a god he's certainly a dick, but its certainly not a proof against god.
It is not merely evidence but proof against the Christian conception of God as all-powerful and all-good.
Again, since there is no way of perceiving God then there is no reason for assuming the existence of a god over nothingness.
-
Also I'd say the problem of evil isn't an effective argument. It doesn't address the core issue of lack of evidence for gods, and it is still equally likely for there to be any type of god, heavily conflicted or not. Sure the problem of evil means that if there is a god he's certainly a dick, but its certainly not a proof against god.
It is not merely evidence but proof against the Christian conception of God as all-powerful and all-good.
Again, since there is no way of perceiving God then there is no reason for assuming the existence of a god over nothingness.
Against the Christian god, then its more effective, but you still leave yourself open to bullshit arguments that distract from the important stuff.
take "all-powerful", for example, theres the idea of god only being powerful as logically possible, so therefore it can't do impossible things (like make a rock so heavy he can't move it), even though thats the definition of a miricale.
Also bullshit excuses about "free will" and relativistic concepts of good. (i.e if god didn't let people suffer it would be worse overall)
Trying to "disprove" the existence of gods, no matter how compelling the arguments, is a sure way to piss off religious types and make them not listen. There is already so much bullshit about "arrogant" atheists.
You can't disprove there aren't thousands of other universes apart from this one, neither can you prove it. So the default position should be non-belief, not belief or dis-belief, although obviously dis-belief is more reasonable.
The problem with religion is that it involves beliefs that don't meet rational standards of evidence, this is why so many religions negate science, or say religion exists outside the "realm of science" (as if such a thing is possible), and its key to bring the argument back to that point rather than get distracted by the fallacies and innacuracies in the particular god theories different people have.
-
Since there is no definition of "the sublime," then it's no different from saying "the bullshit."
-
I think it is sufficient to observe and conclude that the universe is the manifestation/product of a "higher power", since the universe is without question, much more powerful than anything a human has ever produced.
So you hold the principle that all things which are more powerful than anything a human has ever produced are manifestations of a higher power? Ok, that's interesting. Unfortunately this does not answer any atheist counter-argument which has been presented to you.
Something else that has been proven is the limitations of logic.
Ok, *reads on*
Something else that has been proven is the limitations of logic. The Indian Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna proved the limits of logic in a work known in the west as Fundamentals on The Middle Way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C5%ABlamadhyamakak%C4%81rik%C4%81
The text incorporates all the rules of logic known to him, and then he turns everything upside down and in many directions in order to prove the limits of logic.
When these limits of logic are acknowledged, you then enter into the realm of The Sublime, and you are now in a much better position to form a stronger relationship with this "Higher Power".
Ok...I'm feeling this man I'm feeling this.
The Atheists act like children, concerning these "Higher Power" matters, and I'm pretty much not even joking.
Ok, you had me with liking what you were saying with the mystical Buddha stuff, but then you go ahead and spew your bigotry by lumping all atheists into one collective group. Thus far I don't see any semblances of a coherent argument besides what some other superstitious freak thinks about it.
When children ask stupid questions, they are given a stupid answer, and the atheists are dumb enough to believe that the stupid answer is actually meant to be taken seriously.
This is all bigoted nonsense that does not address any of the counter-arguments levied at you. Can you even comprehend the written word?
Maybe the OP is right in saying that Religion is boring. However, nothing is stopping the OP from developing a system that he finds compelling.
This is irrelevant. All of it.
I advise all you atheist geeks and troublemakers on here to approach these matters of a "higher power" from a fresh perspective, that is, pretend that you have never even heard of the bible or Christianity or whatever theories and concepts you guys love to try to poke holes through.
This is all bigoted nonsense.
No where in any of your responses did you even address the questions asked of you. You seem oblivious to criticism and you respond to opposing viewpoints with bigoted ramblings. I think I am now dumber now for actually trying to thoughtfully respond to your posts.
-
Volcanos are gods! Sacrifice yourselves to appease their anger! Starting with Luke, since he's a virgin, and then Gene, because he's so pious, and finally Richard, since the only way to cure his myriad diseases is to immolate his freaky opera glove wearing ass in a lava pit. Only then will Pelé be satisfied!
-
<----Born to love volcanoes
-
That's gotta burn!
-
Regardless, in the end, it is actually quite logical to conclude that some type of higher power exists, given the totally bizarre nature of this existence, and how the totality of this existence somehow manages itself in a way that a human can identify with.
This is not an argument. All you have achieved from this is 1. you have made a claim 2. you have stated your opinion about the "totality of existence" and then offered an opinion on it. Nowhere did you sufficiently back up your claim.
As we attempt to manage our lives, the universe manages itself.
You have no proof of this. How does the universe manage itself? Please, explain.
The evidence of management on a gigantic level should excite individuals to study further, instead of abusing logic and language in order to try to make people feel stupid for exploring these matters, which is what you atheists love to do.
You have offered no evidence of a deity. You haven't really even offered a coherent argument. You have accused atheists of trying to make you feel stupid. Congratulations.
I do want to make it clear that I do not "identify" as a "creationist". When the science folk say that religionist type folk should be rejected because they can't prove anything, it's also good to remember that scientists are unable to explain the more serious questions in a satisfactory manner. If a religionist says, "God did it", that does not mean that that is the end of the matter --- it is a fact that Issac Newton thought and wrote more about religious matters then he did about science.
I don't know how you want me to present the "proof" to you, but I think it is sufficient to observe and conclude that the universe is the manifestation/product of a "higher power", since the universe is without question, much more powerful than anything a human has ever produced.
But nobody has claimed a human produced it. And what do you mean when you describe the universe as "powerful"?
Something else that has been proven is the limitations of logic. The Indian Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna proved the limits of logic in a work known in the west as Fundamentals on The Middle Way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C5%ABlamadhyamakak%C4%81rik%C4%81
The text incorporates all the rules of logic known to him, and then he turns everything upside down and in many directions in order to prove the limits of logic.
When these limits of logic are acknowledged, you then enter into the realm of The Sublime, and you are now in a much better position to form a stronger relationship with this "Higher Power".
The Atheists act like children, concerning these "Higher Power" matters, and I'm pretty much not even joking. When children ask stupid questions, they are given a stupid answer, and the atheists are dumb enough to believe that the stupid answer is actually meant to be taken seriously.
Do you have some sort of example to back this up?
Maybe the OP is right in saying that Religion is boring. However, nothing is stopping the OP from developing a system that he finds compelling. Spirituality must rely on a more creative approach to knowledge, since logic can no longer be relied on. I advise all you atheist geeks and troublemakers on here to approach these matters of a "higher power" from a fresh perspective, that is, pretend that you have never even heard of the bible or Christianity or whatever theories and concepts you guys love to try to poke holes through.
Fine. And... how does the existence of our universe prove that there is a God?
-
Fine. And... how does the existence of our universe prove that there is a God?
The fact that it exists at all is evidence that there is a prime mover, a first creator, God. Doesn't prove theistic beliefs though, but it does prove that something created it it.
-
The fact that it exists at all is evidence that there is a prime mover, a first creator, God. Doesn't prove theistic beliefs though, but it does prove that something created it it.
Well, your prime mover hypothesis is interesting. Unfortunately I see no evidence to support your hypothesis.
-
The fact that it exists at all is evidence that there is a prime mover, a first creator, God. Doesn't prove theistic beliefs though, but it does prove that something created it it.
Well, your prime mover hypothesis is interesting. Unfortunately I see no evidence to support your hypothesis.
All things have a beginning. Your bread that you had with dinner had a beginning, the flour had a beginning, the earth on which it was grown had a beginning, the planet on which it lies had a beginning, the solar system containing the planet had a beginning, the galaxy containing the solar system had a beginning, and the universe also had a beginning. That thing or force or god or whatever you want to call it, is that beginning. The prime mover. That which need not be created, that existed prior to all else, that is what I refer to as God. Seems like a pretty solid logical proof to me.
-
The fact that it exists at all is evidence that there is a prime mover, a first creator, God. Doesn't prove theistic beliefs though, but it does prove that something created it it.
Well, your prime mover hypothesis is interesting. Unfortunately I see no evidence to support your hypothesis.
All things have a beginning. Your bread that you had with dinner had a beginning, the flour had a beginning, the earth on which it was grown had a beginning, the planet on which it lies had a beginning, the solar system containing the planet had a beginning, the galaxy containing the solar system had a beginning, and the universe also had a beginning. That thing or force or god or whatever you want to call it, is that beginning. The prime mover. That which need not be created, that existed prior to all else, that is what I refer to as God. Seems like a pretty solid logical proof to me.
errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Just because most things in human existence have a beginning, DOES NOT mean that the universe itself has a beginning
In order to prove the universe had a beginning, you would have to show where the beginning is and that theres nothing before that. So whats the beginning of the universe?
As far as human knowledge goes, we don't know what happened before the big bang. We understand very little about space-time, and its entirely possible that the universe is cyclical, and has no beginning or end, or that the cause or origin is not even understandable to humans.
We already know that what we perceive as "time" is effected by the gravitational pull of heavy objects, theres no reason to assume that the way time and causality works on earth is the same way it works on every level of the universe.
Also, calling that beginning of the universe "god" whatever it is, is a totally lame cop out. God already has a well established definition, it just seems like a pathetic attempt to keep hold of the "god" label at any cost.
Why not call the creation of our sun through gravitational compression of molecular gases "god"? Why not call the birth of a child "god"? Why not call the death of a star satan?
Because its fucking stupid, thats why.
That which need not be created, that existed prior to all else, that is what I refer to as God.
Theres no proof such a thing exists or has ever existed.
-
That thing or force or god or whatever you want to call it, is that beginning. The prime mover. That which need not be created, that existed prior to all else, that is what I refer to as God. Seems like a pretty solid logical proof to me.
Indeed, the subject of a prime mover could stand as a very interesting hypothesis to explain the origin of the universe. However, considerable developments in quantum physics and Astrology coupled with the genius of stephen hawking have demonstrated that there is considerably more evidence at this time which points a universe with no prime mover which has been expanding since the big bang.
Your hypothesis is interesting but you must support your claim with evidence. I also feel that your argument does not suffice as a logical proof of the existence of God because everything else I observe in the world around me contradicts your primary mover hypothesis.
-
hey...some folks just need some god somewhere so that they can pass off their global murderfest guilt...
-
all things have a beginning.
Everything I know about does have a beginning. There is much however, that I do not know about. Can you prove that the universe had a beginning? If you cannot, I will view your proof as flawed. What about black holes?
the universe also had a beginning.
Prove it.
-
hey...some folks just need some god somewhere so that they can pass off their global murderfest guilt...
I don't think you can prove the veracity of this claim. I tend to think that belief in a deity stems from ritualistic nonsense from thousands of years ago. It is time for man to take the next step in his evolution. It is time to reject the Neanderthal notion of an omnipotent deity and choose reason over primal superstition!
-
Indeed, the subject of a prime mover could stand as a very interesting hypothesis to explain the origin of the universe. However, considerable developments in quantum physics and Astrology coupled with the genius of stephen hawking have demonstrated that there is considerably more evidence at this time which points a universe with no prime mover which has been expanding since the big bang.
Astrology?!
-
I don't think any serious philosopher has bought the "complex universe" (argument from design) argument for God in some centuries. It's been so completely refuted I'm surprised anyone bothers with it anymore. It is very old, going back at least to the Roman Cicero. Sometimes referred to as the teleological argument, it assumes a number of different forms, all of which follow pretty much the same theme: that the universe is far too complex not to have been carefully planned by some vast intelligence.
The problem is that any such creator must of necessity be even more complex than its creation. But if all complex things require a designer, who designed God? If God existed forever, then we can just cut out the middleman and say that it is the universe that has always been around.
There is a slightly different version of design which states that the world is just such that we can manage to live in it, and if it were only a little bit different life would be impossible. When we look at the world in detail we see that everything works toward the best possible end. Now, inanimate matter cannot direct its own destiny and so must be controlled by God. Bertrand Russell expressed the typical atheist disdain for this approach:
“When you look into this argument from design, it is a most astonishing thing that people can believe that this world, with all its defects, should be the best that omnipotence and omniscience have been able to produce in millions of years. I really cannot believe it. Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists?”
-
[sarcasm]timecube[/sarcasm]
-
Astrology?!
Doh, I met Astronomy. I don't proof-read this stuff! I was specifically talking about the hubble telesclope which I think recently? discovered galaxies as far as the eye can see.
-
Astrology?!
Doh, I met Astronomy. I don't proof-read this stuff! I was specifically talking about the hubble telesclope which I think recently? discovered universes as far as the eye can see.
No, galaxies, not universes.
-
The fact that it exists at all is evidence that there is a prime mover, a first creator, God. Doesn't prove theistic beliefs though, but it does prove that something created it it.
Well, your prime mover hypothesis is interesting. Unfortunately I see no evidence to support your hypothesis.
All things have a beginning. Your bread that you had with dinner had a beginning, the flour had a beginning, the earth on which it was grown had a beginning, the planet on which it lies had a beginning, the solar system containing the planet had a beginning, the galaxy containing the solar system had a beginning, and the universe also had a beginning. That thing or force or god or whatever you want to call it, is that beginning. The prime mover. That which need not be created, that existed prior to all else, that is what I refer to as God. Seems like a pretty solid logical proof to me.
Sounds illogical to moe. If everything has a beginning, then there cannot be such a thing a "That which need not be created," since such a thing would be something that doesn't need a beginning, and so its very existence would contradict the claim that everything had a beginning.
-
Fine. And... how does the existence of our universe prove that there is a God?
The fact that it exists at all is evidence that there is a prime mover, a first creator, God. Doesn't prove theistic beliefs though, but it does prove that something created it it.
The fact that it doesn't exists doesn't prove that anything created it. Unless you are saying that anything that exists must have been created. But that would imply that if God exists, or a "first mover" a "first creator," that must also have been created.
-
The argument from creation is another very old one, and has also been discredited countless times. If EVERYTHING needs a beginning then postulating a god solves nothing, since you only move the question of origins back by one step. Did another god make god? And, another before that one?
It does no good to say "Well, God is an exception." In that case, one might just as well cut out the extra step and make the exception the universe instead of God.
In fact, we have no reason for supposing that any "beginning" is needed. Beginnings and endings are only required for temporal things. A rock has no beginning as such. It is composed of molecules and atoms which have had their order rearranged countless times. Go back far enough, and the atoms themselves arose from supernovas in ancient stars. The universe itself probably arose from the Big Bang (at least, according to the best current evidence; other natural theories are possible). And before that? Perhaps an endless series of cyclic universes. Or, maybe some other phenomena for which we have no current evidence. But, there is simply no need (and certainly no evidence) for postulating magical beings.
-
Indeed, the subject of a prime mover could stand as a very interesting hypothesis to explain the origin of the universe. However, considerable developments in quantum physics and Astrology coupled with the genius of stephen hawking have demonstrated that there is considerably more evidence at this time which points a universe with no prime mover which has been expanding since the big bang.
Astrology?!
Yeah I saw that too and immediately said WTF?
-
I don't think any serious philosopher has bought the "complex universe" (argument from design) argument for God in some centuries. It's been so completely refuted I'm surprised anyone bothers with it anymore. It is very old, going back at least to the Roman Cicero. Sometimes referred to as the teleological argument, it assumes a number of different forms, all of which follow pretty much the same theme: that the universe is far too complex not to have been carefully planned by some vast intelligence.
The problem is that any such creator must of necessity be even more complex than its creation. But if all complex things require a designer, who designed God? If God existed forever, then we can just cut out the middleman and say that it is the universe that has always been around.
There is a slightly different version of design which states that the world is just such that we can manage to live in it, and if it were only a little bit different life would be impossible. When we look at the world in detail we see that everything works toward the best possible end. Now, inanimate matter cannot direct its own destiny and so must be controlled by God. Bertrand Russell expressed the typical atheist disdain for this approach:
“When you look into this argument from design, it is a most astonishing thing that people can believe that this world, with all its defects, should be the best that omnipotence and omniscience have been able to produce in millions of years. I really cannot believe it. Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists?”
I definitely do not approve of the complex universe argument either.
God is that one thing that did not need to be created. Call it what you will, I call it God.
-
I definitely do not approve of the complex universe argument either.
God is that one thing that did not need to be created. Call it what you will, I call it God.
[/quote]
Go ahead. Pantheism, then. But, you cannot rationally ascribe to the unconscious cosmos all of the attributes of the Christian God. Unlike the famed deity, the universe does not care what you think or believe, won't punish you for believing in some other universe, and won't reward you for believing in it.
-
Dear world,
Unlike the famed deity,
the universe does not care what you think or believe,
won't punish you for believing in some other universe,
and won't reward you for believing in it.
Amen.
-
I definitely do not approve of the complex universe argument either.
God is that one thing that did not need to be created. Call it what you will, I call it God.
Go ahead. Pantheism, then. But, you cannot rationally ascribe to the unconscious cosmos all of the attributes of the Christian God. Unlike the famed deity, the universe does not care what you think or believe, won't punish you for believing in some other universe, and won't reward you for believing in it.
[/quote]I never said you could. Then again I'm not Christian either.
-
God is that one thing that did not need to be created. Call it what you will, I call it God.
You said, this morning "All things have a beginning." Are you now denying this? If so, what happens to your argument? It seems to collapse.
Why say that God is the only thing that did not need to be created, and not the universe?
-
God is that one thing that did not need to be created. Call it what you will, I call it God.
You still have no evidence of a God. You still only have a hypothesis.
-
Asserting that "God is the one thing that did not need creating" is simply a blank statement without giving any reason WHY it ought to be accepted over the cosmos having always existed. There is simply no compelling reason for taking this statement to be true.
In fact, the idea that the universe has always existed is preferred, since it is simpler. Following Occam's razor (the simpler explanation is the better explanation), whatever argument requires fewer steps is more likely the correct one.
THEIST POSITION
1) The universe exists.
2) God created the universe.
3) God has always existed.
ATHEIST POSITION
1) The universe exists.
2) The universe has always existed.
The second of these has fewer steps, and therefore is the more preferable.
-
God is that one thing that did not need to be created. Call it what you will, I call it God.
You still have no evidence of a God. You still only have a hypothesis.
Disprove it then.
-
God is that one thing that did not need to be created. Call it what you will, I call it God.
You still have no evidence of a God. You still only have a hypothesis.
Disprove it then.
Not very familiar with how these things work, are you?
-
Sure he is, but then Joel is wildly dishonest, a proven liar, time and again. He's as bad as Gene.
-
Sure he is, but then Joel is wildly dishonest, a proven liar, time and again. He's as bad as Gene.
But he has great taste in music :) :)
-
Disprove it then.
That's the problem, you can't disprove the existence of any deity. Has anyone ever proved that any deity anywhere doesn't exist? That's right...you can't.
Do you have any evidence which supports your hypothesis?
-
Disprove something that is invisible and cannot be observed by any of the five senses...that sounds tough.
-
Zeus is lord of all things in this world.
Disprove that.
-
Do you have any evidence which supports your hypothesis?
Even calling it a hypothesis gives it too much credit - it doesn't make any predictions, and therefore it can never be tested. "Bunch of shit me and my friends made up to explain things we don't understand" fits much better.
-
Even calling it a hypothesis gives it too much credit - it doesn't make any predictions, and therefore it can never be tested.
That's true. I never thought of it like that...
-
Sure he is, but then Joel is wildly dishonest, a proven liar, time and again. He's as bad as Gene.
But he has great taste in music :) :)
Why thank you.
I'm a dishonest proven jew liar time and again, as bad as Gene the Christian Anarchist. :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
I've already disproven the concept of God. See above.
Something which is held to be invisible and immaterial, and that cannot be sensed in any manner whatsoever, and lacks any logical argument for its existence can be considered non-existent.
"There are unicorns on the moon."
"Bullshit!"
"No--really."
"Okay--prove it."
"Well, you can't see them or sense them in any way whatsoever. But, I know they are there."
"?...!"
-
"There are unicorns on the moon."
"Bullshit!"
"No--really."
"Okay--prove it."
"Well, you can't see them or sense them in any way whatsoever. But, I know they are there."
"?...!"
:lol:
-
Richard, go fist yourself in the ass. Your posts are fucking worthless, and so are you. You have failed to prove anything, or you'd be talking to a bunch of your co-religionists. As it is, you're such a goddamned toolbag you have a picture of your pubic hair as your avatar. You have no business talking about anything with anyone. And what defies logic is how you think an "existence that defies logic" can somehow be responsible for a system that adheres so consistently to logic and the fundamental laws of physics that we can make accurate predictions about celestial events like eclipses and the arrival of comets centuries, even millennia out. This is your devastating critique of the atheist position? You don't even understand your own arguments when you make them, you fucking dipshit.
-
Sometimes I wonder if you sleazy atheists even realize that you simply pick and choose the more ridiculous statements attributed to "God", just to try to make your case stronger. I've proven the existence of "God" on here a few times already, both in this thread and others I've made in the past. How many times do I have to tell you boneheads that the foundation for "God" is simply the obvious manifestation of an existence that defies logic? If you guys think you are so smart, then I want to see you develop a functioning solar system that is multi-tasking to the extreme.
If you cannot see such things as evidence of a "higher power", then you guys must have some sort of brain damage. LOL. You guys have no business talking about these things, if you cannot even acknowledge what a "Higher Power" means.
I believe in God, and I don't think you proved his existence.
-
I still dont see any religious argument that stands any ground. And it is impossible for one to do so I believe.
Believe in your blind faith.
-
Sometimes I wonder if you sleazy atheists even realize that you simply pick and choose the more ridiculous statements attributed to "God", just to try to make your case stronger.
It seems that instead of offering logical arguments all you can do is insult atheists? Am I wrong?
I've proven the existence of "God" on here a few times already, both in this thread and others I've made in the past. How many times do I have to tell you boneheads that the foundation for "God" is simply the obvious manifestation of an existence that defies logic?
You have not proven anything of the sort. Your proof does not proof the existence of a God, it merely provides cover for your primate-level superstitions which were ingrained into you since you were a child. I am unimpressed. Maybe that makes me a "bonehead".
If you guys think you are so smart, then I want to see you develop a functioning solar system that is multi-tasking to the extreme.
This is irrelevant
If you cannot see such things as evidence of a "higher power", then you guys must have some sort of brain damage. LOL. You guys have no business talking about these things, if you cannot even acknowledge what a "Higher Power" means.
You have presented no evidence of a higher power's existence. You have only vomited forth bigotry and supposed self-evident truths which are just nonsense dressed up as argument. You have not backed up any of your claims sufficiently.
I have NOTHING against religious people. My parents are religious, I've dated religious people and I do NOT consider myself an atheist. However, I am sad that you have thus far offered no convincing evidence whatsoever to support your deity hypothesis. : (
-
People don't buy into religion based on reason and logic. They do so because they are indoctrinated from birth, and are told that it is a sin to even question what they are told. Later, as an adult, if such questions pop into their mind, their mental blocks come up automatically. "Uh oh--better not even consider that. I don't want to burn in hell!"
-
Sometimes I wonder if you sleazy atheists
Sleazy?
even realize that you simply pick and choose the more ridiculous statements attributed to "God", just to try to make your case stronger. I've proven the existence of "God" on here a few times already, both in this thread and others I've made in the past.
I missed this proof. Do you have a link to it, or could you repeate it?
How many times do I have to tell you boneheads that the foundation for "God" is simply the obvious manifestation of an existence that defies logic?
Does existence defy logic? Why? And even if it did, why would the manifestation of an existence that defies logic prove that God exists?
If you guys think you are so smart, then I want to see you develop a functioning solar system that is multi-tasking to the extreme.
The solar system "multi-tasks"?
If you cannot see such things as evidence of a "higher power", then you guys must have some sort of brain damage. LOL. You guys have no business talking about these things, if you cannot even acknowledge what a "Higher Power" means.
Of course they are not evidence of a higher power. The fact that, for instance, it is highly inprobable that an organ such as an eye, or something like the immune system, could come about randomly, by luck or accident, doesn't prove that God exists, because God is not the only alternative: Gradual evolution explains such things, too. Meanwhile given that it is very improbable that highly, highly complex things can just pop into existence by luck, it is very improbable that something as complex as God could just come to exist. So God is highly improbable.
-
even realize that you simply pick and choose the more ridiculous statements attributed to "God", just to try to make your case stronger. I've proven the existence of "God" on here a few times already, both in this thread and others I've made in the past.
I missed this proof. Do you have a link to it, or could you repeate it?
Richard's position is that God is "the sublime." Therefore, God exists of necessity since the sublime exists.
I could define God as a platter of lasagna and prove its existence the same way.
-
even realize that you simply pick and choose the more ridiculous statements attributed to "God", just to try to make your case stronger. I've proven the existence of "God" on here a few times already, both in this thread and others I've made in the past.
I missed this proof. Do you have a link to it, or could you repeate it?
Richard's position is that God is "the sublime." Therefore, God exists of necessity since the sublime exists.
I could define God as a platter of lasagna and prove its existence the same way.
Good example... except that God's existence would be briefer the closer He was to me, if God were a lasagne!
-
Just because you can accurately predict certain things does not mean that existence does not still defy logic. If existence was completely logical, then you atheist brainiacs would have applied your precious logic, and figured everything out by now.
Richard, I think you have completely neglected to offer a single argument to support your cause. Instead of countering our points you simply insult us. You still have offered no evidence to support your deity hypothesis.
How is it logical that the world appears flat, and yet, it is not flat? This illusion manifested itself so well that it took a very long time for humans to figure out that the world is not flat, even though it looks flat. That is an example of an illogical manifestation. Even though we know that the world is not flat, the brain STILL makes you perceive that it is flat, and that is illogical, too.
.....really?
-
This quote is an example of Mike's insanity.
Loooooots of people switch to a different religion, later in life, without any worries of going to hell, and what not....or just completely give up on religion altogether. Mike, were you raised a Christian? Then how come "indoctrination from birth" did not hold on for you?
I think you're the one who is insane. You believe something you cannot sense from a holy book which has thousands of contradictions in it. It seems you're the loony because you cannot even form a LOGICAL ARGUMENT or even a coherent thought yet you think you're making brilliant points?
This isn't a public school classroom. We're not going to let you get away with bigoted gibberish and simply nod our heads and agree. Now did you have a point to make?
-
Of course they are not evidence of a higher power. The fact that, for instance, it is highly inprobable that an organ such as an eye, or something like the immune system, could come about randomly, by luck or accident, doesn't prove that God exists, because God is not the only alternative: Gradual evolution explains such things, too. Meanwhile given that it is very improbable that highly, highly complex things can just pop into existence by luck, it is very improbable that something as complex as God could just come to exist. So God is highly improbable.
Are you satisfied with the "Gradual Evolution" explanation? Because I'm not. The Evolution theory is limited,
How so?
and scientists admit
Links? Are these peer reviewed, double blind results?
that they really have no idea as to what is truly happening on a more serious level. That's why people think that a "higher power" is somehow involved, and it is perfectly logical to think so, and yet, it is perfectly illogical to think so, too.... therefore....it is The Sublime.
Uh... that doesn't make much sense.
-
that they really have no idea as to what is truly happening on a more serious level. That's why people think that a "higher power" is somehow involved, and it is perfectly logical to think so, and yet, it is perfectly illogical to think so, too.... therefore....it is The Sublime.
Uh... that doesn't make much sense.
That's because it's R3. He doesn't know what logic is.
-
Are you kidding me? Evolution explains shifts in characteristics. It does not properly explain how this universe evolved, in the first place.
Yes, in the same way that a recipe for cherry pie does not tell you how to make moussaka. Cherry pie recipes are so limited!
Hint: No, evolution does not "explain shifts in characteristics." It explains how new species emerge and change in the biosphere, and hence is entirely inapplicable to the question of where the universe came from.
-
"If the universe is created out of chemicals, atoms, molecules and what not, then what created those elements?"
Nothing
-
"If the universe is created out of chemicals, atoms, molecules and what not, then what created those elements?"
Nothing
So...."nothing" makes something?!?!?! So...not only does "nothing" make something, but "nothing" also makes everything?!?!??! Is that what you are trying to tell me?!?!?!
No. You aksed what made the original chemicals. I suggested that nothing made them. Was that claim false? Why?
-
Are you kidding me? Evolution explains shifts in characteristics. It does not properly explain how this universe evolved, in the first place.
Yes, in the same way that a recipe for cherry pie does not tell you how to make moussaka. Cherry pie recipes are so limited!
Hint: No, evolution does not "explain shifts in characteristics." It explains how new species emerge and change in the biosphere, and hence is entirely inapplicable to the question of where the universe came from.
whatever. You are pretty much saying what I am saying....just different wording. But doesn't Evolution Theory go way back to single cell organisms and things like that, and sludge and muck in the water, and so on? Well then, don't you find it interesting that evolution theory quits at the very point where everyone is most interested in, that is, the perpetual unknowable beginning
No, because I know what evolution is, and is not-- it is not a theory about how everything began, as I just explained to you. If you don't expect the theory of gravity to explain everything about the universe, why on earth would you expect that of evolutionary theory?
The word for the origin of life is "abiogenesis." Evolution does not address that, let alone the origin of all of the non-life that came before it. Calling it "limited" for that reason makes as much sense as blaming photosynthesis for not explaining rust formation.
And yet, the Evolutionists lamely declare that their findings makes religion/spirituality and what not, obsolete.
I know of some evolutionists who think that, and some who do not.
I'll ask it again. How do your precious scientists respond to, "If the 'building blocks' of existence makes everything....then what made the 'building blocks'"?
They don't. Because they don't know, and neither do you.
-
"If the universe is created out of chemicals, atoms, molecules and what not, then what created those elements?"
Nothing
So...."nothing" makes something?!?!?! So...not only does "nothing" make something, but "nothing" also makes everything?!?!??! Is that what you are trying to tell me?!?!?!
No. You aksed what made the original chemicals. I suggested that nothing made them. Was that claim false? Why?
I do not know what the official scientific stance on this is. But, I imagine that the scientists don't know, and refuse to make a claim, but I don't know. By saying that "nothing made them" is suggesting that they were always there, which sounds unacceptable since it can't be scientific to say that something has always been there without influence from an evolutionary process of sorts.
Why? That's what you are saying about God.
I misunderstood you, but again, it's also unscientific and illogical to say that something could be made from nothing.
Don't you think nothing made God?
-
(http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/atheist_chart.gif)
-
(http://www.yuwiegraphics.info/anti/anti2.jpg)
Babies dont believe in god.
-
I misunderstood you, but again, it's also unscientific and illogical to say that something could be made from nothing.
If the scientists continue to ignore such a question, then they have no business trying to tell people that science has made religion/spirituality/mysticism, obsolete.
Scientists don't ignore any question-- they just refuse to give answers when they don't have them, unlike religionists.
-
(http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/atheist_chart.gif)
Someone brand this into the palms of every asshole who's ever said "Atheist's are arrogant because they claim to know theres no god"
-
If Evolutionary Theory does not want to deal with what I am saying, then Evolutionary Theory is clearly limited, since what I am saying is directly related to an evolutionary process.
Nope, sorry. You should do some more research on what evolution is.
-
So, the idea that living things have evolved over millions of years following known laws of biology is difficult to believe. As opposed to the magic theory that they just popped into existence out of nothing...
-
So, the idea that living things have evolved over millions of years following known laws of biology is difficult to believe. As opposed to the magic theory that they just popped into existence out of nothing...
Shocking right?
Someone brand this into the palms of every asshole who's ever said "Atheist's are arrogant because they claim to know theres no god"
I find that when stupid people can understand something simple I'm explaining, then a simple image or diagram might suffice. Hence why I support people putting liberty minded images on t-shirts. Cuz people might understand it then.
-
How is it logical that the world appears flat, and yet, it is not flat? This illusion manifested itself so well that it took a very long time for humans to figure out that the world is not flat, even though it looks flat. That is an example of an illogical manifestation. Even though we know that the world is not flat, the brain STILL makes you perceive that it is flat, and that is illogical, too.
.....really?
Yeah, that was pretty funny. Now a simple fact of physics, perspective and relative size is an "illogical manifestation." Putting aside the fact that when you climb high enough up a mountain in say, Wyoming, or any other place with a lot of plains and prairie nearby, you can plainly see the curvature of the earth, the manifestation is entirely consistent with logical expectations about the world when one has even a handful of the relevant facts. Mariners figured it out pretty quickly, too, since their maps and course predictions were made more accurate by assuming a round earth. Roughly since the 3rd century B.C., no educated person believed that the earth was flat, no matter what it looked like.
Logic. R3, I do not think the word means what you think it means.
-
What I am saying is that logical and scientific thinking will always fail to address some of the issues that I am talking about. The solution to the problem is to think on a more dynamic level -- a level which involves a creative and mystical approach. We cannot find a scientific/logical explanation that satisfies the problem of existence, and how it comes about. Regardless, it still exists! There is no denying this bizarre manifestation.[/quote]
I'm confused; to what are you referring when you say "it still exists" and "this bizarre manifestation"? You have yet to provide any reason to believe that God exists or is manifest, so I think you are referring to the universe, but the existence of the universe is not in doubt.
My school likes to entertain the idea that a "mind" plays the major role in the manifestation of things. The "building blocks" may be a physical manifestation of a "Mind". Such a mind can then direct the building blocks on what to do. Mind and matter must be dependent on each other, in order for any communication to take place.
I have no idea how this "mind" was made, or when it was made. A mystic revelation is required, if you would like to explore this "Mind" in better detail.
But why presume that "mind plays the major role in the manifestation of things" in the first place?
-
So, the idea that living things have evolved over millions of years following known laws of biology is difficult to believe. As opposed to the magic theory that they just popped into existence out of nothing...
You are not paying attention, Mike. According to your precious science, it is not known as to how your precious living things originated. If the building blocks of life created your precious evolved beings, then what created the building blocks of life? Where did the building blocks of life come from? If you can't answer this question, then Evolution Theory is just a novelty, and no better than the Magic Theory of dancing unicorns and leprechauns magically blowing the building blocks of life, out of their noses, so that you can have your precious Evolution Theory.
But that is precisely how religion most likely got going, isn't it? We don't know how something works, and so attribute that thing to some god. God was probably a sort of shorthand for explaining things long ago. Where did the earth come from? God did it. Why does life exist? God made it. Why is some tradition in effect? God ordered it.
Science works differently. First, it acknowledges that some things are unknown. You're correct in assuming that we don't know how life started. However, science does postulate a number of theories on the subject--none of which require magic.
-
This is a debate that can go on forever, mainly because everyone has a different definition of religion, spirituality and God.
For me, religion and spirituality are completely different.
Religion is merely a political tool to manipulate groups of people to do the bidding of a person or a group of people.
Religion preys on the deep seeded fear of death that so many of us have. "If you don't do what we say, the boogeyman will curse you to an eternity in the most horrible place imaginable."
Spirituality develops naturally in creatures such as humans who are well aware of the fact that we will die some day.
We all make up our own story as to what will happen on that day, so we can get to sleep at night.
But deep inside we really do not know what will happen, so someone comes along with an air of legitimacy and help quell our fears.
Where does God come into all of this? Who or what is this "god"?
God could easily be all that is not known, that missing fudge factor that explains everything.
There are well over 6 billion definitions of "god" out there, and there is no way everyone will agree.
We're all just chasing our tails here.
There are way too many unknowns, many things will never be known.
all in all, religion/spirituality isn't horseshit.
It's completely natural to seek an explanation of those things beyond understanding.
Of course, using fear & violence to manipulate others into serving you is Horseshit.
History has many, many examples of assholes using religion as an excuse to control others.
-
It's completely natural to seek an explanation of those things beyond understanding.
There's a way to do that, and it doesn't involve making bullshit up off the top of your head, its called the scientific method.
Spirituality develops naturally in creatures such as humans who are well aware of the fact that we will die some day.
We all make up our own story as to what will happen on that day, so we can get to sleep at night.
But deep inside we really do not know what will happen, so someone comes along with an air of legitimacy and help quell our fears.
I know exactly what its like after you die. Exactly what its like before you were born, I.E non existence.
To quote Mark Twain:
I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.
-
Kind of "on topic"
But I read this today and it made me lol...the video is great...”It should be regulated!!!"
http://www.azfamily.com/yahoo_rss/stories/Phoenix-news-060409-billboard-god-atheist-controve.4c473c82.html?ocp=1#slcgm_comments_anchor (http://www.azfamily.com/yahoo_rss/stories/Phoenix-news-060409-billboard-god-atheist-controve.4c473c82.html?ocp=1#slcgm_comments_anchor)
Awesome.
Stupid Christians are getting all pissed off and want it taken down. HA-HA
-
There's a way to do that, and it doesn't involve making bullshit up off the top of your head, its called the scientific method.
And yet so many people will happily go following some guy who makes up bullshit off the top of their head.
many more than the followers of the religion of science.
I know exactly what its like after you die. Exactly what its like before you were born, I.E non existence.
Thats fine for you.
But, how do you know for sure what happened before you we're born?
How does anyone know? We lack the equipment necessary to measure such things.
Science does not know everything, not even close.
As a matter of fact, science generates more questions than answers.
Also scientists using the scientific method can't really be trusted. many times, anomalies are ignored.
Most scientists do work to support the agenda of whoever is funding them, and if they do research that challenges the status quo, they lose their funding if not their job.
Science adheres as rigidly to dogma as Christianity, Judaism, or Islam does.
Heretics of science get shunned just as much as in other religions.
Science is just another religion.
-
Science is NOT a religion. That is the most asinine, deluded, idiotic and willfully ignorant thing you could say about it. It actually demonstrates mendacity on your part, because no one could really be that fucking stupid. That's Gene the Xtian Anarchist territory, and he's NOt known for his intellectual honesty. So, you must be trying, for some unfathomable but obviously nefarious reason, to make a disingenuous conflation of these two vastly different ways of thinking about the world and our individual relationship to it, especially our understanding of reality. pete1061, you are now officially in the Horseshit bin with Luke.
-
Science is constantly changing as new data becomes available.
I recall that when I was a kid, the concept of continental drift was held in great doubt by most geologists. Now, if--as Pete would have it--science rigidly adheres to one notion and never lets go of it, then the idea of fixed continents ought to still be dominate. But it's not. Under the light of newer research, just about every current geologist now accepts the theory.
Almost every single idea now held by science has come from giving up older ideas that were proved incorrect by the evidence. In science, the rule is "put up, or shut up." In religion, it's just "shut up--or the gods will grow angry."
-
Science does not know everything, not even close.
As a matter of fact, science generates more questions than answers.
"Science" doesn't know anything, "Science" is just a method for discerning truth from falsehood.
The closest you can come to "science" as something with a position on anything is the "scientific community", which is far from any sort of dogmatic unified group. Pick up a peer review journal some time and see the amount of studies that are analyzed and criticized by other scientists.
Also claiming that "science does not know everything" really demonstrates your ignorance on the matter. Science is not an answer like religions claim to be, its not a set of beliefs or knowledge, its a set of principles used to improve the veracity of our knowledge. Complaining "science" doesn't know everything, is like complaining that modern medicine hasn't cured all illnesses yet.
Introduction to the Scientific method. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Introduction_to_scientific_method)
I know exactly what its like after you die. Exactly what its like before you were born, I.E non existence.
Thats fine for you.
But, how do you know for sure what happened before you we're born?
How does anyone know? We lack the equipment necessary to measure such things.
You're an idiot.
-
We know what happened before we were born through something called "history," which does not claim exact knowledge, but only reasonable knowledge.
-
This thread is a pointless argument.
An argument which has been going on since the dawn of time.
It will never end.
It's all about our personal beliefs.
For me, my personal belief is that science is an atheistic religion.
For me religion has nothing to do with god or spirituality.
Just a group of people who say that their way is the only way.
This topic = horseshit.
and fatcat, who made you the absolute authority anyhow?
You just come off as a self important jackass.
-
An argument which has been going on since the dawn of time.
Nope.
-
A few centuries ago, when Churches ruled Europe, if you tried to bring up this argument, you were hung.
-
It's all about our personal beliefs.
For me, my personal belief is that science is an atheistic religion.
For me religion has nothing to do with god or spirituality.
Just a group of people who say that their way is the only way.
and fatcat, who made you the absolute authority anyhow?
You just come off as a self important jackass.
Who called me an absolute authority? I certainly didn't.
I just happen to be smart enough to know what science actually is, and its not "Just a group of people who say that their way is the only way".
I already linked you once to a fairly brief overview of what science actually is. It's not a group, its not a knowledge base, its not a set of dictats, its a set of fluid principles for discerning reliable information about the universe.
Science can never be wrong about anything because science isn't a point of view. The only thing that can be wrong is a theory or an opinion, and the only way you can come to the correct or more correct (as science works on working models not absolute certainty), is by using the scientific method. The scientific method itself has been refined over the last thousands of years. Every part of science is centered around getting a better understanding of the universe.
Thats what makes people like you so fucking stupid when you say stuff like "science can't answer everything". If something exists, then it has to be provable by science. People only like saying it can't because A) they don't know what science is and B) if they acknowledge what science really is, it means they can't believe in stupid bullshit like gods and healing crystals, which are believed on feelings and anecdotal evidence, not fact, which means they exist outside of "the realm of science" because they're just made up.
If we come up against something that our current theories can't explain, then we adapt them to fit the new information. There have been many discoveries that have completely changed, such as wave-particle duality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality) or quantum entanglement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement)
You know what happened? Scientists didn't say, well this doesn't fit with what we already know so it can't possibly be right, it was observed, tested, retested and made subject to peer review, and a new working model of physics was born that encompassed this new information.
I pray to science that you're really just a troll, cause your "everything is just a personal belief" attitude is really fucking stupid.
-
I pray to science that you're really just a troll, cause your "everything is just a personal belief" attitude is really fucking stupid.
nod
-
It's all about our personal beliefs.
For me, my personal belief is that science is an atheistic religion.
For me religion has nothing to do with god or spirituality.
Just a group of people who say that their way is the only way.
and fatcat, who made you the absolute authority anyhow?
You just come off as a self important jackass.
Who called me an absolute authority? I certainly didn't.
I just happen to be smart enough to know what science actually is, and its not "Just a group of people who say that their way is the only way".
I already linked you once to a fairly brief overview of what science actually is. It's not a group, its not a knowledge base, its not a set of dictats, its a set of fluid principles for discerning reliable information about the universe.
Science can never be wrong about anything because science isn't a point of view. The only thing that can be wrong is a theory or an opinion, and the only way you can come to the correct or more correct (as science works on working models not absolute certainty), is by using the scientific method. The scientific method itself has been refined over the last thousands of years. Every part of science is centered around getting a better understanding of the universe.
Thats what makes people like you so fucking stupid when you say stuff like "science can't answer everything". If something exists, then it has to be provable by science. People only like saying it can't because A) they don't know what science is and B) if they acknowledge what science really is, it means they can't believe in stupid bullshit like gods and healing crystals, which are believed on feelings and anecdotal evidence, not fact, which means they exist outside of "the realm of science" because they're just made up.
If we come up against something that our current theories can't explain, then we adapt them to fit the new information. There have been many discoveries that have completely changed, such as wave-particle duality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality) or quantum entanglement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement)
You know what happened? Scientists didn't say, well this doesn't fit with what we already know so it can't possibly be right, it was observed, tested, retested and made subject to peer review, and a new working model of physics was born that encompassed this new information.
I pray to science that you're really just a troll, cause your "everything is just a personal belief" attitude is really fucking stupid.
Fuck you asshole.
-
I'll admit that science is much easier for religious folks. If a new fact is found, the first thing they do is check and see if it confirms what's in the Bible. If so, fine. If not, "Dang--must be something wrong with the facts. Better redo them until they come out right."
Real science is about taking reality as it is, rather than bending it to conform to some preexisting judgment.
-
I'm glad that douche deleted his account and left. Now, what the fuck do we have to do to get rid of you, R3? I'll do whatever it takes, I mean, seriously, I like Brasky more than you!
-
"Proper?" Ha ha ha ha! :lol:
-
So, the idea that living things have evolved over millions of years following known laws of biology is difficult to believe. As opposed to the magic theory that they just popped into existence out of nothing...
You are not paying attention, Mike. According to your precious science, it is not known as to how your precious living things originated. If the building blocks of life created your precious evolved beings, then what created the building blocks of life? Where did the building blocks of life come from? If you can't answer this question, then Evolution Theory is just a novelty, and no better than the Magic Theory of dancing unicorns and leprechauns magically blowing the building blocks of life, out of their noses, so that you can have your precious Evolution Theory.
But that is precisely how religion most likely got going, isn't it? We don't know how something works, and so attribute that thing to some god. God was probably a sort of shorthand for explaining things long ago. Where did the earth come from? God did it. Why does life exist? God made it. Why is some tradition in effect? God ordered it.
Science works differently. First, it acknowledges that some things are unknown. You're correct in assuming that we don't know how life started. However, science does postulate a number of theories on the subject--none of which require magic.
I believe that the study of science is the study of God because God created the universe and set its laws. The more we understand of science, the more we understand of God.
-
So, the idea that living things have evolved over millions of years following known laws of biology is difficult to believe. As opposed to the magic theory that they just popped into existence out of nothing...
You are not paying attention, Mike. According to your precious science, it is not known as to how your precious living things originated. If the building blocks of life created your precious evolved beings, then what created the building blocks of life? Where did the building blocks of life come from? If you can't answer this question, then Evolution Theory is just a novelty, and no better than the Magic Theory of dancing unicorns and leprechauns magically blowing the building blocks of life, out of their noses, so that you can have your precious Evolution Theory.
But that is precisely how religion most likely got going, isn't it? We don't know how something works, and so attribute that thing to some god. God was probably a sort of shorthand for explaining things long ago. Where did the earth come from? God did it. Why does life exist? God made it. Why is some tradition in effect? God ordered it.
Science works differently. First, it acknowledges that some things are unknown. You're correct in assuming that we don't know how life started. However, science does postulate a number of theories on the subject--none of which require magic.
I believe that the study of science is the study of God because God created the universe and set its laws. The more we understand of science, the more we understand of God.
Really?
Care to point to any peer review journal thats published a study that explains god?
What you're basically saying is that, since god made everything, then the more we learn about everything, the more we learn about god. But thats a fucked up way of going about it because you're assuming god exists to begin with, and then using everything as evidence of god without having to prove the link that god actually made everything.
The way I see it there are two main types of argument for god. Historical and Metaphysical, neither of them tend to use any science.
Historical would be, this book is really old and says theres a god, this miraculous thing happened thousands of years ago and for some reason god can't do any miracles now we have video cameras and electron microscopes.
Metaphysical tends to be bullshit like, the universe has to have a beginning, so god is the beginning, or god is the greatest thing in the universe, there must something in the universe greater than anything else, so that is god.
Most of these either start with an unproven assumption (like the universe has a beginning), or attempt to change the definition of god to something that can already be proven to exists (like god is everything, or love is god, math is god, etc), or both.
Science is a method of explanation. You take observation and evidence, you make a hypothesis, then you test it, then you get it tested over and over to make sure the results are right and that nothing else is responsible for the results you're getting.
So have you got any evidence for god that would actually fly in a peer review journal?
Here's some shit that might work.
Things spontaneously popping into existence.
Amputees suddenly growing arms and legs back.
Basically any kind of magic shit that only god or a god like thing could do.
Or actually seeing or being able to measure god and having a recording of it.
Now none of these in themself are proof of god, but they would be evidence, which would then have to be investigated to find out if there is a god that is causing them.
-
Just as science develops, it is possible for religion/spirituality to develop into something sophisticated.
I'm not trying to pick a fight or anything but WHAT? I mean, how can something you cannot even verify develop into something sophisticated? I mean RLY! :shock:
-
The reader should pay attention to this. Notice how Vincent is abusing language and logic -- that's what the atheists like to do. They think they can get away with twisting and turning everything around, and trying to make it like my statement makes no sense. The reader should not buy into this kind of typical atheist trickery. Such attempts at this kind of trickery are dishonest, and ironically, when the atheists do it, it proves my past statement that "logic is limited".
I'm not an atheist.
-
Trying to have a rational discussion with R3 is like trying trying to cut your hair with a spoon.
Don't bother unless you really want to punish yourself.
-
Trying to have a rational discussion with R3 is like trying trying to cut your hair with a spoon.
Don't bother unless you really want to punish yourself.
Well I don't know about punishing myself with a spoon but I got nothing better to do for like two more months lol. I haven't heard many really cogent arguments from the other side of the table on this here debate. :( Maybe they will come....?
-
Oh?!?! Then what are you? A card carrying member of the Act Like Spock Club?
Lol what are you talking about? lol seriously im laughing. What...o nevermind.
-
Trying to have a rational discussion with R3 is like trying trying to cut your hair with a spoon.
Don't bother unless you really want to punish yourself.
Well I don't know about punishing myself with a spoon but I got nothing better to do for like two more months lol. I haven't heard many really cogent arguments from the other side of the table on this here debate. :( Maybe they will come....?
You won't find them here, as the only people here who bother to argue the theist side are Gene (intellectually dishonest) and Richard (idiot troll). If you want to debate religion, try the About.com forums.
-
It's just that they think arguing with atheists is not worth the trouble, and I don't blame them.
I am not arguing the atheist side because I am not an atheist.
-
Uh...excuse me, but how on earth is being an atheist "conformist," when the population is overwhelmingly theist? I'd say, if anyone is conforming it is the person who accepts the mainstream idea without question.
-
Uh...excuse me, but how on earth is being an atheist "conformist," when the population is overwhelmingly theist? I'd say, if anyone is conforming it is the person who accepts the mainstream idea without question.
Kinda like these conformists: http://www.howtobepunk.com/punks/hottopic/
-
Richard, STFU and make me a pot pie!
-
Richard, STFU and make me a pot pie!
He'd probably put pubic hair in it.
-
I think the Discovery channel os a better source of info than an opera glove wearing psycho in a balaclava who is obsessed with his own pubes. Jesus, Richard... I'm at a loss. You're beyond comment, your every post is self parody.
-
I'm listening to the latest FTL show where Sam makes his return, and noticed Ian AND Mark BOTH identifying as QUAKERS?!??? WTF??? I remember them saying they were pantheists, but since when did they become Quakers? And I guess Ian is a christian, now?
Since Quakers are Christians (at least, according to their own definition), I guess so.
-
HA
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
-
I guess it's "Ian, the Atheist Quaker."
-
In my personal experience Quakers are way less douchey than pantheists.
Its also possible to be an atheist and a quaker. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheist_Friend)
-
In my personal experience Quakers are way less douchey than pantheists.
Its also possible to be an atheist and a quaker. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheist_Friend)
Thanks for that bit of information.
-
Case in point, at Quaker meetings (at least the one i know of), people just sit quietly together, if someone has something they want to say, they get up, talk about it, and sit back down, at the end of the meeting people shake hands and discuss pleasantries.
I hear they also have discussions evenings of which i know less about.
The main thing with the quakers is that they're not well known, and they dont really advertise, so you tend to get people who actually seek out the quakers, and not just people who are going with what they're raised with, or going with whatevers popular.
It sounds a bit culty, but far better than having some asshole preacher stand up for however long and waste peoples time reading irrelevant shit and meaningless platitudes from a thousand year old book.
disclaimer: this knowledge is second hand and may or may not actually be accurate.
-
lol
-
Unicure fail!
(http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss278/DrederickTatum007/unicure.gif)
-
Unicure fail!
(http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss278/DrederickTatum007/unicure.gif)
Nah ya gotta leave the Superman Curl in there..
Nice work there Rev. Richard :)
-
lol great picture haha :shock:
-
Haha nice one!