[B][FONT=Times][SIZE=7][COLOR=green]
All teleological arguments for God- design, from reason, probability and fine-tuning assume what one should first illustrate that matters had to happen as they did, producing us. Had other events happened randomly, neither we nor any other inteligent being arrived as Jerry Coyne notes in " Seeing and Believing"[ Goole his name,please.] and the penultimate issue of Skeptic magazine note.
David Hume's dysteological [ bad teleology] notes that we see imperfections, presenting no omni-max God. I dare theists to present a valid argument without resorting to their failed theodicies and faith. One theist suggests that an omni-max god would have reason to give fluorishes as for the imperfections whilst a limited one would only make a perfect world [ See the thread the problem of Heaven to see why one cannot use theodicy to argue for those imperfections.].
The teleonomic/atelic argument argues that, because the weight of evidence presents no cosmic teleology -no goals or preconceived outcomes, to present God as the Designer would be to contradict non-planning natural selection, the anti-chance agency of Nature as the actual agency for evolutionary changes. And that evokes Malebranche's's ocasssionalism where he asserts that when we hit the eight ball, God hits it himself, in effect.
The argument from pareidolia is that theists see design whilst there are only the patterns in Nature like seeing Yeshua in a tortilla.
And the presumption of naturalism and the igtheistic [ignostic ] -Ockham further supports these two naturalist [ positive atheist] arguments.Please repsond to those two threads.
Anon I 'll reveal how cosmological arguments also beg the question.
Now theists can have ways to revise their arguments without begging any questions, but I am waiting patiently for that.
QUOTE (TheFairy+Apr 29 2009, 11:40 AM)
maybe he's a shemale 
OMG OMG OMG the thought of god being a transvestite! that is WRONG!
Almost as bad as GAY MARRIAGE! you realize that just the thought of that has doomed you to heck, yes? you are going to burn..... burn baby burn....
disco inferno...
off on yet another tangent.
MM
OMG OMG OMG the thought of god being a transvestite! that is WRONG!
Almost as bad as GAY MARRIAGE! you realize that just the thought of that has doomed you to heck, yes? you are going to burn..... burn baby burn....
disco inferno...
off on yet another tangent.
MM
Miracles, as Hume's corollary to the presumption of naturalism explicates, are natural manifestations rather than manifestations of supernatural.
History ignores rightly God as the Saviour of Jewry. And the Shoa confirms that!
Aquinas begs the cosmological question doubly: he assumes that by taking away the First Cause, one thereby takes away all intermediate causes and he assumes the Necessary Being in his contingency argument when one first has to argue for it rather than guess and make a it must be for it as theologians are ever wont to do.
He doth not beg the question as William Lane Craig doth do in the Kalam; he observes that it is ever from day to day whiles the latter begs the question of a starting point.
Science, as Victor Stenger affirms, belies Him!
And since thus these arguments fail to instantiate Him as a being, they affirm ignosticism- no there there!
Yea, there are more claims to consider, and we can further discuss the ones above. As one philosopher states, these claims are so entertaining!
Fallibilism demands scruitny.
History ignores rightly God as the Saviour of Jewry. And the Shoa confirms that!
Aquinas begs the cosmological question doubly: he assumes that by taking away the First Cause, one thereby takes away all intermediate causes and he assumes the Necessary Being in his contingency argument when one first has to argue for it rather than guess and make a it must be for it as theologians are ever wont to do.
He doth not beg the question as William Lane Craig doth do in the Kalam; he observes that it is ever from day to day whiles the latter begs the question of a starting point.
Science, as Victor Stenger affirms, belies Him!
And since thus these arguments fail to instantiate Him as a being, they affirm ignosticism- no there there!
Yea, there are more claims to consider, and we can further discuss the ones above. As one philosopher states, these claims are so entertaining!
Fallibilism demands scruitny.
QUOTE (skepticgriggsy+Aug 9 2009, 02:45 PM)
Miracles, as Hume's corollary to the presumption of naturalism explicates, are natural manifestations rather than manifestations of supernatural.
Maybe. But there's that other possibility too...
Maybe. But there's that other possibility too...
nopEda, please show that rather than beg the question as Alister McGrath tries to keelhaul us naturalists for not following other venues of knowledge when he hasn't and cannot show them. We advocate using reason, so we can use other venues than science but all of them are natural. Again, where's the beef/
Any charlatan can do such miracles as reported about that fanatic Yeshua!
As Existence is all, there can be no transcendent being! There is nothing outside itself then when to come.
Cause, time, event and explanations presuppose previous ones.
Again as Antony Gerard Newton Flew notes in his ' God a Critical Enquiry that Aquinas does not make a temporal order but rather explanation. The temporal form is the Kalam, which [ without naming it ] [b]ecause every event must have a cause, and the precession of causes could not go back forever. This disgraceful argument is outstanding among fallacies: not merely does the conclusion not follow from the premises; it actually contradicts one of them, while they contradict each other."
As noted @ the ignostic-Ockham thread, He is useless as any kind of explanation , including the personal ones that Craig and Swinburne want.
T'is a great shame that Gerald Schroeder mislead him about the biology involved. Flew was not up on his knowledge of scientific developments concerning the origin of life [See Talk Origins for the latest findings.]. He found out that Schroeder had mislead him but nevertheless he became a deist. See Richard Carrier's account about his dementia and belief @ FRDB and also his essay there on
proving a negative,please.]
Under my three monikers , this is my 200th post here.
Any charlatan can do such miracles as reported about that fanatic Yeshua!
As Existence is all, there can be no transcendent being! There is nothing outside itself then when to come.
Cause, time, event and explanations presuppose previous ones.
Again as Antony Gerard Newton Flew notes in his ' God a Critical Enquiry that Aquinas does not make a temporal order but rather explanation. The temporal form is the Kalam, which [ without naming it ] [b]ecause every event must have a cause, and the precession of causes could not go back forever. This disgraceful argument is outstanding among fallacies: not merely does the conclusion not follow from the premises; it actually contradicts one of them, while they contradict each other."
As noted @ the ignostic-Ockham thread, He is useless as any kind of explanation , including the personal ones that Craig and Swinburne want.
T'is a great shame that Gerald Schroeder mislead him about the biology involved. Flew was not up on his knowledge of scientific developments concerning the origin of life [See Talk Origins for the latest findings.]. He found out that Schroeder had mislead him but nevertheless he became a deist. See Richard Carrier's account about his dementia and belief @ FRDB and also his essay there on
proving a negative,please.]
Under my three monikers , this is my 200th post here.
QUOTE (skepticgriggsy+Aug 9 2009, 11:38 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda pointed out+)
there's that other possibility too...
We humanists with our covenant morality for humanity- the presumption of humanism- declare that our rights stem form our level of consciousness, rather than as theists with their argument from God for our rights that either they stem from Him and so are inalienable or else from the state and so are revocable. Our argument is in line with the UN and "my cousin" Morgan's Canon.
The latter I use to support the Great Ape Project to grant to the other great apes more 'rights." And don't forget the lesser ones.
I find then that I can support both abortion and the protection of other animals!
[B]
I have to be honest, I don't understand athiests for one major reason. If you really believe whole-heartedly that there is nothing but wormfood after death... then why the heck aren't you out raising hell.
Good question. I suppose realising and accepting that one will only get one life may well lead some to 'raise hell' (what ever that means). For me and others like me, that same realisation leads to us to try and 'live life to the full' (what ever that means). I appreciate that others only get one life too, and so have no desire to make their short time miserable.
I believe that you could easily answer many of your own questions. ie; I believe you probably put your kids through college so that they get a good education, social and academic skills that hopefully lead them to decent employment right? What would the existence or non-existence of an after life add or detract from this?
In fact, one could say that those who believe there is going to be an afterlife need not try so hard in this life, ie; whats the point of putting your kids through college if all they need do is submit to one of the supposed gods and wait to die?
I believe that you could easily answer many of your own questions. ie; I believe you probably put your kids through college so that they get a good education, social and academic skills that hopefully lead them to decent employment right? What would the existence or non-existence of an after life add or detract from this?
In fact, one could say that those who believe there is going to be an afterlife need not try so hard in this life, ie; whats the point of putting your kids through college if all they need do is submit to one of the supposed gods and wait to die?
I"m serious if I didn't have any faith.. I would be evil, I don't think I would cause physical harm to anyone but I sure as heck would be a financial thug trying to see how many different substances I can abuse at once and how many women from every country I could date.. I'd just hit the road and never stop moving not caring what people thought about me when I left there town or how I left it lol.
Interesting that you would be evil without your faith, it suggests to me that you are by your own admission an evil person. I actually have more respect for you than you appear to have for yourself. I don't believe that you would rob a bank just because there's no hell, when you well know that if caught robbing the bank there are earthly consequences. Also the fact that you would not wish to cause physical harm demonstrates that you at least have some sense of morality without your faith, explain that!
Well there are some pretty bad atheists too. Perhaps your confusion stems from the fallacy that we get our morality from faith. Your own experiences demonstrate that there are atheists that are 'good' and 'bad' without god. I have a sense of personal responsibility, reason, logic that keep me happily on the straight and narrow. The other point is to re-evaluate those things that a religion may impress are 'sins' ie; working on the sabbath is not going to cause me to loose any sleep, neither would the practice of homosexuality. Would you consider either of those as evil? In other words: I rely on my best reasoning abilities (no brainers) and if I cannot find sufficient reason to object to two consenting adults who want to get it on in the privacy of their own home, then I don't object. It's none of my business actually.
Well there are some pretty bad atheists too. Perhaps your confusion stems from the fallacy that we get our morality from faith. Your own experiences demonstrate that there are atheists that are 'good' and 'bad' without god. I have a sense of personal responsibility, reason, logic that keep me happily on the straight and narrow. The other point is to re-evaluate those things that a religion may impress are 'sins' ie; working on the sabbath is not going to cause me to loose any sleep, neither would the practice of homosexuality. Would you consider either of those as evil? In other words: I rely on my best reasoning abilities (no brainers) and if I cannot find sufficient reason to object to two consenting adults who want to get it on in the privacy of their own home, then I don't object. It's none of my business actually.
Your making assumptions based on collective knowledge in science, faith. Your assuming everything we see and all the rules we measure have always been forever the same, also your taking on faith all the constants in physics and science are correct you don't bother to measure them yourself.. so your science is your god. Since you believe everything is already explained in it lol.
I sense this was meant for someone else but nonetheless, faith is belief without evidence, which is the antithesis to science which dumbed down is belief with evidence and even then those beliefs are subject to change as or if more evidence or contrary evidence is discovered etc, etc.
As for science being a god then IMO, there is no point worshiping the lens that allows you to see better. It is that which is illuminated that would be the 'god'. Science to me is that lens, an illuminator. It does need to be polished though and looked after. It needs to be kept crystal clear. But what is it illuminating? I call it the universe, others may call it gods creation etc, etc.
As Irish comedian Dara O'Brien said, "Science knows that it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop!"
Ironically it is the theists that claim not only that there is a creator of the universe that they approve of, but also they will be going to an eternal 'Disneyland' if they for instance avoid eating pork
Maybe but based on what evidence? I suggest based on what you (the religious person) wants to be true more than what is true. You'll learn precious little about cosmology that way I suspect.
Good question. I suppose realising and accepting that one will only get one life may well lead some to 'raise hell' (what ever that means). For me and others like me, that same realisation leads to us to try and 'live life to the full' (what ever that means). I appreciate that others only get one life too, and so have no desire to make their short time miserable.
I believe that you could easily answer many of your own questions. ie; I believe you probably put your kids through college so that they get a good education, social and academic skills that hopefully lead them to decent employment right? What would the existence or non-existence of an after life add or detract from this?
In fact, one could say that those who believe there is going to be an afterlife need not try so hard in this life, ie; whats the point of putting your kids through college if all they need do is submit to one of the supposed gods and wait to die?
Interesting that you would be evil without your faith, it suggests to me that you are by your own admission an evil person. I actually have more respect for you than you appear to have for yourself. I don't believe that you would rob a bank just because there's no hell, when you well know that if caught robbing the bank there are earthly consequences. Also the fact that you would not wish to cause physical harm demonstrates that you at least have some sense of morality without your faith, explain that!
Well there are some pretty bad atheists too. Perhaps your confusion stems from the fallacy that we get our morality from faith. Your own experiences demonstrate that there are atheists that are 'good' and 'bad' without god. I have a sense of personal responsibility, reason, logic that keep me happily on the straight and narrow. The other point is to re-evaluate those things that a religion may impress are 'sins' ie; working on the sabbath is not going to cause me to loose any sleep, neither would the practice of homosexuality. Would you consider either of those as evil? In other words: I rely on my best reasoning abilities (no brainers) and if I cannot find sufficient reason to object to two consenting adults who want to get it on in the privacy of their own home, then I don't object. It's none of my business actually.
I sense this was meant for someone else but nonetheless, faith is belief without evidence, which is the antithesis to science which dumbed down is belief with evidence and even then those beliefs are subject to change as or if more evidence or contrary evidence is discovered etc, etc.
As for science being a god then IMO, there is no point worshiping the lens that allows you to see better. It is that which is illuminated that would be the 'god'. Science to me is that lens, an illuminator. It does need to be polished though and looked after. It needs to be kept crystal clear. But what is it illuminating? I call it the universe, others may call it gods creation etc, etc.
As Irish comedian Dara O'Brien said, "Science knows that it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop!"
Ironically it is the theists that claim not only that there is a creator of the universe that they approve of, but also they will be going to an eternal 'Disneyland' if they for instance avoid eating pork
Maybe but based on what evidence? I suggest based on what you (the religious person) wants to be true more than what is true. You'll learn precious little about cosmology that way I suspect.
I'm not evil, I'm just flawed like the rest of us. I spend too much of my life dedicated to other people and neglect my own ambitions, but on the other hand I do that in a way so that part of me will live on and have a better life than I had. I'll be missed when I'm gone I know that for certain lol.
Oh I would rob a bank and I wouldn't get caught either What we don't pay for in this life we pay for in the next I think. So that is what keeps me from economic retribution and I don't event believe I would be sinning against the bank to do that, I think our banks and government are not doing a proper job with our money and as such karma dictates every now and then a smart guy gets away with it. So if I offend anyone doing that it would be probably God. Though it may not be a good idea every time there is someone that gets away with robbing a bank locally for some reason they come ask me about it lol. Maybe I'm a little to public here I'd have to go out of state hehe.
And I can tell by your use of the word "religion" that you don't find yourself religous, yet you are defining to me a religion. It takes just as much faith or maybe just a little less to decide the unknown isn't there as to believe it is. Either life means something or it doesn't, either there is more to life than flesh or there isn't.. since nobody has come back to tell us what the other side is we have to wonder or have faith one way or the other. Though I admit it may seem more faith is required for belief in God or meaning than no meaning and just chance.
And the need to excell in life is also based on reward or punishment in then ext life... if you want reward you do well and with what you earn you give to others freely. Not like handing out money but as in helping others succeed as well.
I see homosexuality as unproductive sex.. I find that wasteful more than sinful. But I don't think anyone will go to hell for it.
You say you have no faith... do you know your lover loves you? HOW? by faith
How do you know we only have this life? faith
How do you know the universe is expanding? you have to have a little faith in people or a lot of faith in god lol. I have a little for everyone I think there is a God but I don't think if I didn't believe I would be judged any differently by him/her/whatever .
BTW science classifies atheism as a religion. I hope there is a God and i have some faith there is, but I'm not going to sit here and act like I know it.
And who defines what is true?? You? I am cosmology obsessed btw and I can find faith in any universe it describes or any truth it can find.
You seem to think your religion is the only correct one granted I stated some things about athiests I don't understand.. thats the one I missed how you can belittle people when your faith is no better. A real neutral person doesn't say nay or yay on God, or you could say a truely unreligious person. At least I have admitted I could be wrong, thats more scientific than anything i've said so far.
I'm sorry, but how did you come up with that little bit of silliness?
It does not take any faith to believe something isn't there if there is no good reason to suppose it is there.
lol this is getting fun
Its apparent you want this debate to continue in the aspect of arguing about Gods existence as opposed to science explaining there is no need to believe in God. So I'm just going to cut to the chase and play devils advocate and tell you in no uncertain terms point blank from the other side of the coin. Bear with me and don't take any offense please I mean none! This is social sciences excercise... acting
I'm about to go preacher and play from the theologian point of view. If at the end of this you deny you have faith then I give up.
God is creative. This is obvious from the basic physics principles concerning the creation of energy, matter, and order. The thermodynamic laws state that the sum total of matter and energy stays constant. It is impossible to create matter without expending energy or matter; it is similarly impossible to create energy without expending either matter or energy. The second law of thermodynamics states that total entropy is inevitably increasing; the universe must move from order toward disorder.
These principles lead to the conclusion that some uncreated being, particle, entity, or force is responsible for creating all matter and energy and for giving an initial order to the universe. Whether this process occurred through the Big Bang or through a literalist's interpretation of Genesis is irrelevant. What is crucial is that there must exist some uncreated being with the ability to create and give order. A being which defies the natural laws of physics concerning energy, matter, and order is necessitated by the very laws of nature.
Athiests give science ample credit but not much to how the heck did all this get here out of nothing.
Athiests assertion of a self-created starting point with spontaneous order involves the same supernatural assumption as a theist's belief in a creative God. If I were to assert that I had seen a spaceship with five Martians descend into New York City, I would be labeled crazy. If another man were to assert that he had seen a spaceship with ten Martians, no one would declare him to be twice as crazy. What is relevant is that nobody believes in Martians; whether we claim to see five or ten makes no difference.
So Athiesm is a religion, you take the faith you might have in a God or intelligent design and you place it in unfounded basis of random chance where science has failed to prevail or explain much of anything.
I'm just playing devils advocate with you at this point but you asked for it.
Scientists and theists have nothing to fear from each other and should realize they are studying different.aspects of the same reality, one focusing on creation and another on the Creator. Many of the most accomplished scientists, including Francis Bacon, the inventor of the scientific method, Albert Einstein, and Charles Darwin, who first proposed the theory of evolution, were avowed theists.
Evolution cannot explain the development of free will, morality, or conscience. There is no evidence for the gradual development of these human characteristics--there is no partial morality in chimpanzees. Humans are obviously greater than the sum of whatever evolutionary forces and raw materials are said to have combined to create them. Science can explain the how's, but not the why's, of nature's wonders.
Atheists who suggest otherwise place an irrational faith in science, the same type of behavior they condemn in religious individuals, and are ignoring the fundamental laws of physics. Such atheists must specify what evidence would be enough to prove the existence of God; even genuine miracles would not be accepted according to such standards. Indeed, it is not clear how the atheist would prove his own existence without reference to his own claims or the testimony of others.
So now I ask you, you claim you see no miracles. Tell me where did you come from? What gave you life? And don't naively just say your parents, were did they come from and their parents... you can either start at the origin of life or universe either one.
If you cannot explain to me how either inanimate matter turned to life, or how our universe came from nothing then you have no idea where you come from, if you can't even tell me where I come from then who are you to tell me there is no evidence for my creator.
Respect my faith in God and I'll respect your faith in science because you surely do have that faith and its the same exact measure of faith I put in my God. You say science put us here I say God did, there is no evidence for either.
And if I am wrong I will deal with the unwelcome truth gracefully as will you I am sure, maybe I have more faith in my fellow man than you suspect.
God is creative. This is obvious from the basic physics principles concerning the creation of energy, matter, and order. The thermodynamic laws state that the sum total of matter and energy stays constant. It is impossible to create matter without expending energy or matter; it is similarly impossible to create energy without expending either matter or energy. The second law of thermodynamics states that total entropy is inevitably increasing; the universe must move from order toward disorder.
All of this assumes the existence of a being but does not explain where the being comes from or why it is required for the laws of physics to work the way they do.
eg; Thor is thunderous. This is obvious from the way thunder makes such a racket......
Why is Thor required for thunder to be, well thunderous? I'll help you, he isn't required. There happen to be loads of natural explanations as to why thunder is the way it is. But even if there was no explanation, there is no reason to invoke something even more complex than that which you are attempting the explain unless there is evidential reason to do so.
No, the conclusion was assumed before the principles were outlined. You forgot to explain why an uncreated being is necessary in the first instance or indeed why there must be a first instance.
No, the conclusion was assumed before the principles were outlined. You forgot to explain why an uncreated being is necessary in the first instance or indeed why there must be a first instance.
Athiests give science ample credit but not much to how the heck did all this get here out of nothing.
Allow me to address this terrible oversight of those pesky godless atheists.
Firstly it is an assumption to say that something has to come from nothing. However nothing, by definition does not exist and cannot exist. It is the absence of something or in this context the absence of anything. So to get around this you have created an uncreated and necessarily complicated being, more complicated in fact than the universe that you are attempting to explain. It's okay not to know the answer. I just think it's best to admit it.
Okay I admit it, struggling to grasp what your try to say here, however what is the obsession with atheists? Or do you mean the Big bang theorists? I say this because many theists have no problem accepting the big bang theory. It's not an atheist idea.
Okay I admit it, struggling to grasp what your try to say here, however what is the obsession with atheists? Or do you mean the Big bang theorists? I say this because many theists have no problem accepting the big bang theory. It's not an atheist idea.
So Athiesm is a religion, you take the faith you might have in a God or intelligent design and you place it in unfounded basis of random chance where science has failed to prevail or explain much of anything.
Atheism is not a religion.
I'm just playing devils advocate with you at this point but you asked for it.
Scientists and theists have nothing to fear from each other and should realize they are studying different.aspects of the same reality, one focusing on creation and another on the Creator. Many of the most accomplished scientists, including Francis Bacon, the inventor of the scientific method, Albert Einstein, and Charles Darwin, who first proposed the theory of evolution, were avowed theists.
Evolution cannot explain the development of free will, morality, or conscience. There is no evidence for the gradual development of these human characteristics--there is no partial morality in chimpanzees. Humans are obviously greater than the sum of whatever evolutionary forces and raw materials are said to have combined to create them. Science can explain the how's, but not the why's, of nature's wonders.
Atheists who suggest otherwise place an irrational faith in science, the same type of behavior they condemn in religious individuals, and are ignoring the fundamental laws of physics. Such atheists must specify what evidence would be enough to prove the existence of God; even genuine miracles would not be accepted according to such standards. Indeed, it is not clear how the atheist would prove his own existence without reference to his own claims or the testimony of others.
So now I ask you, you claim you see no miracles. Tell me where did you come from? What gave you life? And don't naively just say your parents, were did they come from and their parents... you can either start at the origin of life or universe either one.
If you cannot explain to me how either inanimate matter turned to life, or how our universe came from nothing then you have no idea where you come from, if you can't even tell me where I come from then who are you to tell me there is no evidence for my creator.
Respect my faith in God and I'll respect your faith in science because you surely do have that faith and its the same exact measure of faith I put in my God. You say science put us here I say God did, there is no evidence for either.
And if I am wrong I will deal with the unwelcome truth gracefully as will you I am sure, maybe I have more faith in my fellow man than you suspect.
As for all the above I only have the constitution to absorb so much idiocy in one sitting. When I have recovered (usually achieved by absorbing interesting facts), I'll continue.
(Just playing)
But proposing ideas based on superstition, fear, and control, without knowledge or evidence, is.
But the preacher would just say God is steady state and supernatural, when we get to heave maybe he'll tell us. The preacher says he's not the one expecting explanations since he simply has faith.. thats why I say it takes the same amount of faith either way. One is placing faith science will explain.. other is placing faith God will. Your point scores against science.. not against religion or faith. As said faith doesn't need explanations.
But one is just as good as the other really... still the point is you shouldn't crack on people that believe in God for having faith in unsubstantiated things.. when we ourselves are unsubstantiated things. YOu shouldn't say things like you believe science explains everything and try to use science to show there are no miracles.. when it does nothing of the sort! It just folds right back on you its tick tack toe man. I've had these debates 1,000 times from both angles I know them well. Nobody wins but everybody has a good time contributing lol.
I sometimes agree with this argument that it takes as much thought either way to have faith in science or in god, but the problem with religion, is it is not just about faith. It places a much larger burden on the religous person.
I doubt your belief is the following, but it is the belief of many many many religous folk. If you do not accept the word of god, you are damned to suffer. That places a fer greater pressure on religous folk than non religous folk.
If religous folk do not want to suffer in damnation, then they MUST excercise faith wether they believe something or not (this is biblical dogma). The alternative for religous folk would be too much to bear.
Atheists do not HAVE to believe in science, for any other reason, than they choose to. It takes far less thought not to believe in god, than it does to believe in god.
Atheism is a belief in my opinion (god does not exist is a belief), but atheists do not need to have faith in their beliefs (Atheists don't disbelieve in gods existance because they are compelled by some threat to do so), and that is the difference between the two.
But proposing ideas based on superstition, fear, and control, without knowledge or evidence, is.
Another one line wonder thanks Alex for your insightful input lol. Its good to know you don't feel passionate enough about it to put some effort into opposition *poke* *taunt* lol
Another one line wonder thanks Alex for your insightful input lol. Its good to know you don't feel passionate enough about it to put some effort into opposition *poke* *taunt* lol
I don't get that passionate arguing about works of fiction and mythology.
Then explain why Southern Baptism has over 16 million followers and over 42000 churches.
nopEda, please show that
I guess I can't show that God might exist any more than you can show that he does not. Wow, it looks like there are still two possibilities instead of just the one you want people to put their faith in. Do you have any idea why you want to oppose the fact?
I guess I can't show that God might exist any more than you can show that he does not. Wow, it looks like there are still two possibilities instead of just the one you want people to put their faith in. Do you have any idea why you want to oppose the fact?
skepticgriggsy
What a 'bitchy' style you have. It's like "argue with me if you dare".
This is hardly how to get reasoned thought. But , I'll bite.
God is severally represented by a much greater human experience than 'theists'. It's rather funny to see so much effort goes into rebuffing biblical belief . Probably only because the believers in God are 'locally' believers in the biblical texts. I was also very much impressed by the number of 'big words' you used to present your arguments. WOW, you must really be smart!!..
I was fortunate enough to have been brought up with a reasonable mix of moral teaching, (based on biblical teachings) and hypocrisy,(also as seen via biblical teaching). So I can easily pick bones out of the bible and those who follow it as rote. However, several years ago I began to challenge the direction that the teachings expected us to believe, DESPITE much written telling believers not to do so.
It became apparent (to me) that the church was much caught up in the 'spooky' aspect of the biblical teachings as well as regarding the moral teachings as 'flexible' depending on where you chose to read. Generally, the church was reading Paul, who was much caught up in super spirituality.
When this lead to actions in the church which Jesus specifically warned against, I left the church to it's own devices. You will certainly label me as a theist, stained by ideas of God because of this experience, however, I can see in you a pattern which must have marked who you are today by your style of conversation.
Even though I wasn't content with the church explanation of reality, neither have I been satisfied by sciences version of the same. Funnily enough, science is using similar methodology to the church despite claiming otherwise. There is soo much of science which is taught as fact, which has not been proven. At some stage , someone will prove it false or incorrect, but until it is , it is taught as fact.
If You look at the great change in thinking that surrounds relativity, dna,black holes, You could easily say that everybody who thought before was a crackpot. But you don't because you believe they were searching for the truth. Where is it that you draw the line?. I find you attitude truly offensive. Not because it involves religion, because as I said, I don't think they are any where near right, but because you denigrate a huge part of the thinking evolution that humanity has gone through to further you own bent ideals.
i saw nothing to suggest that you have the least bit of desirable personality that would interest me in further conversation. So this is just me saying what a turd I think you are.
Cheers
Iseason
What a 'bitchy' style you have. It's like "argue with me if you dare".
This is hardly how to get reasoned thought. But , I'll bite.
God is severally represented by a much greater human experience than 'theists'. It's rather funny to see so much effort goes into rebuffing biblical belief . Probably only because the believers in God are 'locally' believers in the biblical texts. I was also very much impressed by the number of 'big words' you used to present your arguments. WOW, you must really be smart!!..
I was fortunate enough to have been brought up with a reasonable mix of moral teaching, (based on biblical teachings) and hypocrisy,(also as seen via biblical teaching). So I can easily pick bones out of the bible and those who follow it as rote. However, several years ago I began to challenge the direction that the teachings expected us to believe, DESPITE much written telling believers not to do so.
It became apparent (to me) that the church was much caught up in the 'spooky' aspect of the biblical teachings as well as regarding the moral teachings as 'flexible' depending on where you chose to read. Generally, the church was reading Paul, who was much caught up in super spirituality.
When this lead to actions in the church which Jesus specifically warned against, I left the church to it's own devices. You will certainly label me as a theist, stained by ideas of God because of this experience, however, I can see in you a pattern which must have marked who you are today by your style of conversation.
Even though I wasn't content with the church explanation of reality, neither have I been satisfied by sciences version of the same. Funnily enough, science is using similar methodology to the church despite claiming otherwise. There is soo much of science which is taught as fact, which has not been proven. At some stage , someone will prove it false or incorrect, but until it is , it is taught as fact.
If You look at the great change in thinking that surrounds relativity, dna,black holes, You could easily say that everybody who thought before was a crackpot. But you don't because you believe they were searching for the truth. Where is it that you draw the line?. I find you attitude truly offensive. Not because it involves religion, because as I said, I don't think they are any where near right, but because you denigrate a huge part of the thinking evolution that humanity has gone through to further you own bent ideals.
i saw nothing to suggest that you have the least bit of desirable personality that would interest me in further conversation. So this is just me saying what a turd I think you are.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+Aug 10 2009, 09:35 AM)
skepticgriggsy
Even though I wasn't content with the church explanation of reality, neither have I been satisfied by sciences version of the same. Funnily enough, science is using similar methodology to the church despite claiming otherwise. There is soo much of science which is taught as fact, which has not been proven. At some stage , someone will prove it false or incorrect, but until it is , it is taught as fact.
Cheers
Iseason
I think how science it taught needs to be looked at.
It needs to be emphasized that people don't have all the answers.
I think that fact needs to be taught and retaught.
Even though I wasn't content with the church explanation of reality, neither have I been satisfied by sciences version of the same. Funnily enough, science is using similar methodology to the church despite claiming otherwise. There is soo much of science which is taught as fact, which has not been proven. At some stage , someone will prove it false or incorrect, but until it is , it is taught as fact.
Cheers
Iseason
I think how science it taught needs to be looked at.
It needs to be emphasized that people don't have all the answers.
I think that fact needs to be taught and retaught.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 10 2009, 09:57 AM)
I think how science it taught needs to be looked at.
Different people learn in different ways, and have different strong and weak points. I do better at understanding things like mathematical equations and different processes, which means I do worse with things like remembering particular names and dates... That spills over into different areas of our lives, and things we learn. Because of that I did better at music theory than at sight singing and ear training. I noticed that the people who were better with names and dates did better in history and English classes than math classes, and also at sight singing and ear training than they did at theory. Most people in general that I discussed it with seemed to do better with English and history than with math, and they did better with singing etc than at theory. In general the drummers I discussed it with did better in math and theory than history and singing, but the wind and string people did better at the other things and there were a lot more of those people than drummers...
If the general population does better with names and dates than with the concepts, that might explain why they teach poor kids in school what the elements are BEFORE they even teach them the structure of an atom. To me that seems like a stupid way to go about it, but that's the way I've been told it is done.
Different people learn in different ways, and have different strong and weak points. I do better at understanding things like mathematical equations and different processes, which means I do worse with things like remembering particular names and dates... That spills over into different areas of our lives, and things we learn. Because of that I did better at music theory than at sight singing and ear training. I noticed that the people who were better with names and dates did better in history and English classes than math classes, and also at sight singing and ear training than they did at theory. Most people in general that I discussed it with seemed to do better with English and history than with math, and they did better with singing etc than at theory. In general the drummers I discussed it with did better in math and theory than history and singing, but the wind and string people did better at the other things and there were a lot more of those people than drummers...
If the general population does better with names and dates than with the concepts, that might explain why they teach poor kids in school what the elements are BEFORE they even teach them the structure of an atom. To me that seems like a stupid way to go about it, but that's the way I've been told it is done.
WHat I meant was they seem to be teaching by saying this is what we believe and then this is why.
That is not how science is done. It's not conclusion first. It's obervations first. But a lot of people think that evidence is sorted to fit the theory but it's done the other way around.
But when it's taught the conclusion has been reached. The students might get the timeline out of order.
That is not how science is done. It's not conclusion first. It's obervations first. But a lot of people think that evidence is sorted to fit the theory but it's done the other way around.
But when it's taught the conclusion has been reached. The students might get the timeline out of order.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 10 2009, 10:57 PM)
I think how science it taught needs to be looked at.
It needs to be emphasized that people don't have all the answers.
I think that fact needs to be taught and retaught.
Hi Buttershug
For once , I have no truck with your statement. This is precisely what I meant. Often , because I refer to the arguments between religion and science, I am expected to prefer religion over science. This could not be more wrong.
There are two areas that get me riled.
1. The need for people who promote science as better than religion and to degrade religion DESPITE the fact that science evolved from this process.
2. The chosen point where current thinking decided that the review of scientific process begins.
I probably need to explain the latter.
Generally science reviews "whole concepts", such as relativity,Quantum, Stella , big bang and so on. However science (as far as I have been able to see) doesn't worry that the measuring sticks they are using are themselves flawed. relativity is a prime example.
Relativity only works when you 'assume' that other concepts occur at the same time.....all the time. If any of these were shown to be incorrect, then relativity falls down.
Certainly using the current measuring process works for relativity. These are time and space and motion.However each of these is entirely reliant on each other to exist.
no space =no time or motion
no time =no space or motion
no motion =no time or space
This means there is only one methodology that can be used to prove relativity....Which is relativity itself. I don't see how a theory can be it's own proof.
Along side this I see that our concept of dimensions is flawed. Since we use this when referring to relativity, it is relevant with a theory proving itself.
There is no such physical thing as one dimension in reality. The theoretical "dot" can only occur in three dimensional space. It must have length, height AND depth to exist at all. In the same way as you cannot have less than three dimensions, you cannot have less than time,space and motion in order to measure relativity.
Although relativity measures time , motion and space, it also assumes them to be separate entities that DON'T require a separate theory to explain them. This makes time "something". It makes motion"a form of energy". And space "a totally independent medium that time and motion live in".
If I am critical of science, it is because this set of concepts falls short of asking the question of what energy is. It simply answers "what energy does". Although this provides us with innumerable utilitarian uses for the energy we measure, it relegates what we cannot measure to the too hard basket. Or in fact places it into the two easy basket. A prime example of this is infinity...Just make the universe infinite...Don't worry that we also said energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
Cheers
Iseason
It needs to be emphasized that people don't have all the answers.
I think that fact needs to be taught and retaught.
Hi Buttershug
For once , I have no truck with your statement. This is precisely what I meant. Often , because I refer to the arguments between religion and science, I am expected to prefer religion over science. This could not be more wrong.
There are two areas that get me riled.
1. The need for people who promote science as better than religion and to degrade religion DESPITE the fact that science evolved from this process.
2. The chosen point where current thinking decided that the review of scientific process begins.
I probably need to explain the latter.
Generally science reviews "whole concepts", such as relativity,Quantum, Stella , big bang and so on. However science (as far as I have been able to see) doesn't worry that the measuring sticks they are using are themselves flawed. relativity is a prime example.
Relativity only works when you 'assume' that other concepts occur at the same time.....all the time. If any of these were shown to be incorrect, then relativity falls down.
Certainly using the current measuring process works for relativity. These are time and space and motion.However each of these is entirely reliant on each other to exist.
no space =no time or motion
no time =no space or motion
no motion =no time or space
This means there is only one methodology that can be used to prove relativity....Which is relativity itself. I don't see how a theory can be it's own proof.
Along side this I see that our concept of dimensions is flawed. Since we use this when referring to relativity, it is relevant with a theory proving itself.
There is no such physical thing as one dimension in reality. The theoretical "dot" can only occur in three dimensional space. It must have length, height AND depth to exist at all. In the same way as you cannot have less than three dimensions, you cannot have less than time,space and motion in order to measure relativity.
Although relativity measures time , motion and space, it also assumes them to be separate entities that DON'T require a separate theory to explain them. This makes time "something". It makes motion"a form of energy". And space "a totally independent medium that time and motion live in".
If I am critical of science, it is because this set of concepts falls short of asking the question of what energy is. It simply answers "what energy does". Although this provides us with innumerable utilitarian uses for the energy we measure, it relegates what we cannot measure to the too hard basket. Or in fact places it into the two easy basket. A prime example of this is infinity...Just make the universe infinite...Don't worry that we also said energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+Aug 11 2009, 08:12 AM)
Hi Buttershug
Generally science reviews "whole concepts", such as relativity,Quantum, Stella , big bang and so on. However science (as far as I have been able to see) doesn't worry that the measuring sticks they are using are themselves flawed. relativity is a prime example.
Relativity only works when you 'assume' that other concepts occur at the same time.....all the time. If any of these were shown to be incorrect, then relativity falls down.
Cheers
Iseason
But science's measuring stick is the only one we have.
The religious one is made up, and made up differently for each person.
What science does is try and make a common measuring stick.
There was someone on here who said that he was studying Geology and that scientists interpret things to match what they believe and he would match things to fit the Great Flood theory.
The problem is that proper science does not work that way it is not conclusion first.
What I'm saying is it can appear that way. Even thesises(sp) have the abstract first. But that is usuallly the last thing written.
What needs to be taught is "We don't know". Science not knowing does not mean that religion does.
Generally science reviews "whole concepts", such as relativity,Quantum, Stella , big bang and so on. However science (as far as I have been able to see) doesn't worry that the measuring sticks they are using are themselves flawed. relativity is a prime example.
Relativity only works when you 'assume' that other concepts occur at the same time.....all the time. If any of these were shown to be incorrect, then relativity falls down.
Cheers
Iseason
But science's measuring stick is the only one we have.
The religious one is made up, and made up differently for each person.
What science does is try and make a common measuring stick.
There was someone on here who said that he was studying Geology and that scientists interpret things to match what they believe and he would match things to fit the Great Flood theory.
The problem is that proper science does not work that way it is not conclusion first.
What I'm saying is it can appear that way. Even thesises(sp) have the abstract first. But that is usuallly the last thing written.
What needs to be taught is "We don't know". Science not knowing does not mean that religion does.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 10 2009, 05:15 PM)
WHat I meant was they seem to be teaching by saying this is what we believe and then this is why.
That is not how science is done. It's not conclusion first. It's obervations first. But a lot of people think that evidence is sorted to fit the theory but it's done the other way around.
But when it's taught the conclusion has been reached. The students might get the timeline out of order.
I feel sure it works both ways. I remember being taught a lot of things about mistakes people had made, and how they were corrected. I thought that was a waste of time, especially when we had to remember names and dates. It's enough to try to remember the correct concepts, without having to remember the incorrect ones and details about them too.
That is not how science is done. It's not conclusion first. It's obervations first. But a lot of people think that evidence is sorted to fit the theory but it's done the other way around.
But when it's taught the conclusion has been reached. The students might get the timeline out of order.
I feel sure it works both ways. I remember being taught a lot of things about mistakes people had made, and how they were corrected. I thought that was a waste of time, especially when we had to remember names and dates. It's enough to try to remember the correct concepts, without having to remember the incorrect ones and details about them too.
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 11 2009, 11:47 PM)
But science's measuring stick is the only one we have.
The religious one is made up, and made up differently for each person.
What science does is try and make a common measuring stick.
There was someone on here who said that he was studying Geology and that scientists interpret things to match what they believe and he would match things to fit the Great Flood theory.
The problem is that proper science does not work that way it is not conclusion first.
What I'm saying is it can appear that way. Even thesises(sp) have the abstract first. But that is usuallly the last thing written.
What needs to be taught is "We don't know". Science not knowing does not mean that religion does.
hi Buttershug
No science does no have a common measuring stick. You are being selective as to what you are referring to as science. your selection relates to an accepted theory which has been proven via a common interpretation.
an example is that everything must conform to relativity. This is because relativity has been shown to "not be incorrect' . But insisting that relativity does not need further proving is folly........Of course everything conforms to relativity, but what must it conform to?
When you use relativity, you lose the greater portion of the ability to prove it because "the smallest" change affects "the largest". This means that relativity is segmented NOT ONLY via two or more objects, but also via every variance that exists or has existed EVER...This is another good argument against infinity.
Time cannot be a thing (in it's own right) if relativity is to be believed. A position can only exist IF it is measuring another position. There is no other way for relativity to be true to itself. If it can only measure itself via another position, then it needs to have surety that it doesn't simply repeat measuring the same position again and again.
Gravity is a good example where relative volume is measured accurately by us in our relative volume WITHOUT us even being aware we are measuring. So somehow EVERYTHING in the universe can create a divisional sum that IS SO ACCURATE that it can never be wrong. The only way to do this is to measure from both ends.
The smallest and the largest. An infinite universe could not get it right because the parameters wouldn't hold true from one second to the next.
Cheers
Iseason
The religious one is made up, and made up differently for each person.
What science does is try and make a common measuring stick.
There was someone on here who said that he was studying Geology and that scientists interpret things to match what they believe and he would match things to fit the Great Flood theory.
The problem is that proper science does not work that way it is not conclusion first.
What I'm saying is it can appear that way. Even thesises(sp) have the abstract first. But that is usuallly the last thing written.
What needs to be taught is "We don't know". Science not knowing does not mean that religion does.
hi Buttershug
No science does no have a common measuring stick. You are being selective as to what you are referring to as science. your selection relates to an accepted theory which has been proven via a common interpretation.
an example is that everything must conform to relativity. This is because relativity has been shown to "not be incorrect' . But insisting that relativity does not need further proving is folly........Of course everything conforms to relativity, but what must it conform to?
When you use relativity, you lose the greater portion of the ability to prove it because "the smallest" change affects "the largest". This means that relativity is segmented NOT ONLY via two or more objects, but also via every variance that exists or has existed EVER...This is another good argument against infinity.
Time cannot be a thing (in it's own right) if relativity is to be believed. A position can only exist IF it is measuring another position. There is no other way for relativity to be true to itself. If it can only measure itself via another position, then it needs to have surety that it doesn't simply repeat measuring the same position again and again.
Gravity is a good example where relative volume is measured accurately by us in our relative volume WITHOUT us even being aware we are measuring. So somehow EVERYTHING in the universe can create a divisional sum that IS SO ACCURATE that it can never be wrong. The only way to do this is to measure from both ends.
The smallest and the largest. An infinite universe could not get it right because the parameters wouldn't hold true from one second to the next.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (iseason+Aug 20 2009, 09:27 AM)
hi Buttershug
But insisting that relativity does not need further proving is folly........Of course everything conforms to relativity, but what must it conform to?
Cheers
Iseason
Reality.
Science must conform to verifiable reality.
Anyone who finds something that does not conform to relativity and can verify that fact will be a great scientist. but it won't be someone like Mirrorman. He can't understand even simple things.
But insisting that relativity does not need further proving is folly........Of course everything conforms to relativity, but what must it conform to?
Cheers
Iseason
Reality.
Science must conform to verifiable reality.
Anyone who finds something that does not conform to relativity and can verify that fact will be a great scientist. but it won't be someone like Mirrorman. He can't understand even simple things.
Like many bad arguments, of course it is based on some grains of truth, and that is worth examining. But small elements of faith do crop into science generally, and physics in particular.
iseason, ah, my dare you's are to provoke discussion.
Then you fathom my points. Yes, I have almost a Mr. William F.. Buckley vocabulary.
I find those begged questions, and there are other inherent fallacies of theism.
As science indeed presents the case that Existence is eternal on the basis of the conservation of energy applied to the quantum fluctuations, and what I note above, then there is no need for a Creator or a Sustainer. God does not explain how matters happen or why; no science explains the true why and how of phenomena.
One ever so errs in invoking that He gives the why of phenomena when all He means is God did it- God wills what he will- a useless tautology.
As we discern patterns rather than designs, there is no need to postulate a Designer. Again, t'is a matter of theists seeing pareidolias- mind behind Nature and patterns as designs when t'is a matter of natural causes and patterns.
So, one needs not invoke a First Cause or Designer.
Slow-read my posts here and @ the on what is your argument for God? and then respond.
Thanks to all. Let me know, please, if you want me to add you as my friend and let me know if you have me thus. Again, t'is a matter of theists pareidolias So, one need not postulate a First Cause or Designer. Existence is eternal God does not explain science explains the true why and how of phenomena
Then you fathom my points. Yes, I have almost a Mr. William F.. Buckley vocabulary.
I find those begged questions, and there are other inherent fallacies of theism.
As science indeed presents the case that Existence is eternal on the basis of the conservation of energy applied to the quantum fluctuations, and what I note above, then there is no need for a Creator or a Sustainer. God does not explain how matters happen or why; no science explains the true why and how of phenomena.
One ever so errs in invoking that He gives the why of phenomena when all He means is God did it- God wills what he will- a useless tautology.
As we discern patterns rather than designs, there is no need to postulate a Designer. Again, t'is a matter of theists seeing pareidolias- mind behind Nature and patterns as designs when t'is a matter of natural causes and patterns.
So, one needs not invoke a First Cause or Designer.
Slow-read my posts here and @ the on what is your argument for God? and then respond.
Thanks to all. Let me know, please, if you want me to add you as my friend and let me know if you have me thus. Again, t'is a matter of theists pareidolias So, one need not postulate a First Cause or Designer. Existence is eternal God does not explain science explains the true why and how of phenomena
QUOTE (skepticgriggsy+Oct 14 2009, 06:56 AM)
iseason, ah, my dare you's are to provoke discussion.
Then you fathom my points. Yes, I have almost a Mr. William F.. Buckley vocabulary.
I find those begged questions, and there are other inherent fallacies of theism.
As science indeed presents the case that Existence is eternal on the basis of the conservation of energy applied to the quantum fluctuations, and what I note above, then there is no need for a Creator or a Sustainer. God does not explain how matters happen or why; no science explains the true why and how of phenomena.
One ever so errs in invoking that He gives the why of phenomena when all He means is God did it- God wills what he will- a useless tautology.
As we discern patterns rather than designs, there is no need to postulate a Designer. Again, t'is a matter of theists seeing pareidolias- mind behind Nature and patterns as designs when t'is a matter of natural causes and patterns.
So, one needs not invoke a First Cause or Designer.
Slow-read my posts here and @ the on what is your argument for God? and then respond.
Thanks to all. Let me know, please, if you want me to add you as my friend and let me know if you have me thus. Again, t'is a matter of theists pareidolias So, one need not postulate a First Cause or Designer. Existence is eternal God does not explain science explains the true why and how of phenomena
WOW
I had a fairly hearty attitude back in august
(haven't been in for a bit)
Of course I can move on from that and clarify my position some more.
I am unable to take a position against ANY particular method for the creation/evolution of the universe as I truly subscribe to "an inevitable result". It's been difficult to get to , let alone defend , however, it is not the same thing as 'randomness', but contains it.
best way of looking at it is ' because it exists, it should always have been part of the matrix'.
this means that your every breath has relevance to the make up of the entire universe.Should you not have taken the one you just did, the fabric of the universe would not just be flawed.It would never have happenned.
for proof, I look at relativity. If relativity is correct, then you cannot pick and choose.EVERYTHING!!!!! Every tiny little photon must be where it is in the correct order EVERY TIME. It matters not at all that you and Venus aren't aware that your position is being measured by every other photon in the universe.
So the relevance for me (as far as science and religion goes) is that you cannot remove it from the mix. To do so has no lessor or greater effect than you not taking that single breath.
So how does that relate to the significance of God?
Man has had a 'God complex' alongside it's 'knowledge complex' as long as history has been recording.In much of the history of learning, the two complexes have driven each other in a forwards direction.(I know there will be many to disagree wth that statement). However , social evolution is not comparable to physical evolution.So without one , the other would cease to exist.....quite literally,you cannot remove history any more than you can take back that breath.
you might argue that you can choose a different path. that might affect some future outcome.That by doing so creates some future event.
What event do you have in mind? you are made up of tiny little events called energy quanta. What did you do but occupy space? Did you, by occupying this space for that span of time actually achieve anything?....If you did, then what?....You were energy in small packets and remain energy in small packets.?the fact that for a moment they gather in one place or time only has significance when considering a completed universe.There is no need for order or form in randomness.
that is why I see it as a review and not a current process that you can change.
Cheers Iseason
Then you fathom my points. Yes, I have almost a Mr. William F.. Buckley vocabulary.
I find those begged questions, and there are other inherent fallacies of theism.
As science indeed presents the case that Existence is eternal on the basis of the conservation of energy applied to the quantum fluctuations, and what I note above, then there is no need for a Creator or a Sustainer. God does not explain how matters happen or why; no science explains the true why and how of phenomena.
One ever so errs in invoking that He gives the why of phenomena when all He means is God did it- God wills what he will- a useless tautology.
As we discern patterns rather than designs, there is no need to postulate a Designer. Again, t'is a matter of theists seeing pareidolias- mind behind Nature and patterns as designs when t'is a matter of natural causes and patterns.
So, one needs not invoke a First Cause or Designer.
Slow-read my posts here and @ the on what is your argument for God? and then respond.
Thanks to all. Let me know, please, if you want me to add you as my friend and let me know if you have me thus. Again, t'is a matter of theists pareidolias So, one need not postulate a First Cause or Designer. Existence is eternal God does not explain science explains the true why and how of phenomena
WOW
I had a fairly hearty attitude back in august
(haven't been in for a bit)
Of course I can move on from that and clarify my position some more.
I am unable to take a position against ANY particular method for the creation/evolution of the universe as I truly subscribe to "an inevitable result". It's been difficult to get to , let alone defend , however, it is not the same thing as 'randomness', but contains it.
best way of looking at it is ' because it exists, it should always have been part of the matrix'.
this means that your every breath has relevance to the make up of the entire universe.Should you not have taken the one you just did, the fabric of the universe would not just be flawed.It would never have happenned.
for proof, I look at relativity. If relativity is correct, then you cannot pick and choose.EVERYTHING!!!!! Every tiny little photon must be where it is in the correct order EVERY TIME. It matters not at all that you and Venus aren't aware that your position is being measured by every other photon in the universe.
So the relevance for me (as far as science and religion goes) is that you cannot remove it from the mix. To do so has no lessor or greater effect than you not taking that single breath.
So how does that relate to the significance of God?
Man has had a 'God complex' alongside it's 'knowledge complex' as long as history has been recording.In much of the history of learning, the two complexes have driven each other in a forwards direction.(I know there will be many to disagree wth that statement). However , social evolution is not comparable to physical evolution.So without one , the other would cease to exist.....quite literally,you cannot remove history any more than you can take back that breath.
you might argue that you can choose a different path. that might affect some future outcome.That by doing so creates some future event.
What event do you have in mind? you are made up of tiny little events called energy quanta. What did you do but occupy space? Did you, by occupying this space for that span of time actually achieve anything?....If you did, then what?....You were energy in small packets and remain energy in small packets.?the fact that for a moment they gather in one place or time only has significance when considering a completed universe.There is no need for order or form in randomness.
that is why I see it as a review and not a current process that you can change.
Cheers Iseason
QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 11 2009, 04:47 PM)
I feel sure it works both ways. I remember being taught a lot of things about mistakes people had made, and how they were corrected. I thought that was a waste of time, especially when we had to remember names and dates. It's enough to try to remember the correct concepts, without having to remember the incorrect ones and details about them too.
But it's not enough to know "what" you have to know why to really understand it.
You get these wannabe's like H2O that think they know better than "conventional" thinking. But they don't understand why certain things are. And why the things they disagree with are the "unconventional" thinking.
But it's not enough to know "what" you have to know why to really understand it.
You get these wannabe's like H2O that think they know better than "conventional" thinking. But they don't understand why certain things are. And why the things they disagree with are the "unconventional" thinking.
[B] iseason, as a writer in Skeptic magazine and Dr.Jerry Coyne, my friend, in "Seeing and Believing" [ Please , Google his name or maybe the name of the article itself.] reveal there was no ineluctuability of our or any other comparable species evolving This affirms that theists, yes, Dr. Kenneth Miller himself, argue in a circle for design. Had the flowering plants had not evolved and there was the cooling-off , we or comparable species would not have evolved.
The probability argument relies on the wrong probabilities whilst are those as those two events and mutations working with natural selection, the non-planning, anti-chance agency of Nature.It ignores the teleonomic causes - non-planned outcomes. So, cosmic teleology would contradict natural selection and other natural causes rather than showing the compatibility of science and religion. To aver the opposite is to affirm the new Omphalos argument that He deceives us with that teleonomy. Nay, natural causes as the presumption of naturalism are the sufficient reason, contrary to Leibniz.
The fine-tuning one assumes that other parameters and other sources of life beside carbon, such as silicon, wouldn't have helped produced some form of life.
And the one from reason ignores the evidence that evolution formed us such that we can on the basis of trial and error trust our faculties rather than postulate God as designing them for trust. So, we naturalist do not use a self-refuting argument, contrary to Dr. Alvin Platinga, Fr. Alfred Cyril Ewing and Mr. Clive Staples Lewis.
So, all four forms of the teleological argument not olly argue in a circle but have their own defeaters.
The probability argument relies on the wrong probabilities whilst are those as those two events and mutations working with natural selection, the non-planning, anti-chance agency of Nature.It ignores the teleonomic causes - non-planned outcomes. So, cosmic teleology would contradict natural selection and other natural causes rather than showing the compatibility of science and religion. To aver the opposite is to affirm the new Omphalos argument that He deceives us with that teleonomy. Nay, natural causes as the presumption of naturalism are the sufficient reason, contrary to Leibniz.
The fine-tuning one assumes that other parameters and other sources of life beside carbon, such as silicon, wouldn't have helped produced some form of life.
And the one from reason ignores the evidence that evolution formed us such that we can on the basis of trial and error trust our faculties rather than postulate God as designing them for trust. So, we naturalist do not use a self-refuting argument, contrary to Dr. Alvin Platinga, Fr. Alfred Cyril Ewing and Mr. Clive Staples Lewis.
So, all four forms of the teleological argument not olly argue in a circle but have their own defeaters.
We humanists with our covenant morality for humanity- the presumption of humanism- declare that our rights stem form our level of consciousness, rather than as theists with their argument from God for our rights that either they stem from Him and so are inalienable or else from the state and so are revocable. Our argument is in line with the UN and "my cousin" Morgan's Canon.
The latter I use to support the Great Ape Project to grant to the other great apes more 'rights." And don't forget the lesser ones.
I find then that I can support both abortion and the protection of other animals!
[B]
[B][FONT=Geneva][SIZE=7][COLOR=blue] What is your conception of God, and what is the evidence for His attributes and His referents such as Grand Designer [ See the ignostic-Ockham thread on its challenge to all this.]
Is He personal or impersonal and why? Is He limited? Are you in a relatinoship with Him?
Why should one worship Him? Does He send people to Hell?
Does your religion lack a supreme God?
Why the suprnatural?
Why do you find yourslef an atheist or agnostic or an apatheist?
This thread needs attention in order to explore more thoughts pertaining to the supernatural!
Carneades Thales Strato of Ga. @ Atheist Bloggers. for the serious inquirer!
Total posts 320
Is He personal or impersonal and why? Is He limited? Are you in a relatinoship with Him?
Why should one worship Him? Does He send people to Hell?
Does your religion lack a supreme God?
Why the suprnatural?
Why do you find yourslef an atheist or agnostic or an apatheist?
This thread needs attention in order to explore more thoughts pertaining to the supernatural!
Carneades Thales Strato of Ga. @ Atheist Bloggers. for the serious inquirer!
Total posts 320
The atelic or teleonomic argument means that as the weight of evidence evinces no teleology-planned outcomes, but rather teleonomy- no planned outcomes, to postulate God as directing in any matter not only violates Ockham's Razor but contradicts natural causation and explanations, and thus religion from the side of science cannot be compatible with science whilst from the side of religion, all is possible!
This argument not only trumps teleological ones but also any involving intent so that it trumps the Grand Miracle Monger and the Primary Cause. As such it takes away all referents for Him, and thus He cannot exist! Thus once again, the ignostic challenge is affirmed.
Oh, I've lively threads going on for four years @ Skeptic Society, but then again some sites do have cut off times, which is fine, but not for a member to prattle about the thread if others will contribute to it.
This argument not only trumps teleological ones but also any involving intent so that it trumps the Grand Miracle Monger and the Primary Cause. As such it takes away all referents for Him, and thus He cannot exist! Thus once again, the ignostic challenge is affirmed.
Oh, I've lively threads going on for four years @ Skeptic Society, but then again some sites do have cut off times, which is fine, but not for a member to prattle about the thread if others will contribute to it.
I have to be honest, I don't understand athiests for one major reason. If you really believe whole-heartedly that there is nothing but wormfood after death... then why the heck aren't you out raising hell.
If I knew there was nothing else.. kaput this is it and all there is.. there is no karma.. no consequence.. no good or evil.. nothing. Then who cares about anything period? Why am I sitting around here working my arse to the dirt to put kids through college and bothering to instill the same morality in them? I could be out behaving like a shark, eating the less fortunate and intelligent.. either by scam.. or by really robbing them lol. Robbing banks and screwing the system, cosmology???? PPFFFT WHO GIVES A CRAP I woudln't want to know what kind of inanimate object i'll become and how this rock is going to die and everything we see is going to also be kaput.
I"m serious if I didn't have any faith.. I would be evil, I don't think I would cause physical harm to anyone but I sure as heck would be a financial thug trying to see how many different substances I can abuse at once and how many women from every country I could date.. I'd just hit the road and never stop moving not caring what people thought about me when I left there town or how I left it lol.
If you are an athiest then why aren't you living consequence free? Most athiests I know are even more well behaved than I am.. maybe less sociable but among their own friends they are gold like altar boys mostly. I don't get that.
Your making assumptions based on collective knowledge in science, faith. Your assuming everything we see and all the rules we measure have always been forever the same, also your taking on faith all the constants in physics and science are correct you don't bother to measure them yourself.. so your science is your god. Since you believe everything is already explained in it lol.
Your problem is you simply dismiss anything other than your interpretation of science, and you can't type worth a hoot, as well as you simply just want to argue and be ignorant of the arguments against you.
The future of religion is in cosmology thus the future of God will be too. I think its about time for a new religion to take shape for the modern society, something like god the immortal inter-dimmensional extra terrestrial that set off the big bang....
If I knew there was nothing else.. kaput this is it and all there is.. there is no karma.. no consequence.. no good or evil.. nothing. Then who cares about anything period? Why am I sitting around here working my arse to the dirt to put kids through college and bothering to instill the same morality in them? I could be out behaving like a shark, eating the less fortunate and intelligent.. either by scam.. or by really robbing them lol. Robbing banks and screwing the system, cosmology???? PPFFFT WHO GIVES A CRAP I woudln't want to know what kind of inanimate object i'll become and how this rock is going to die and everything we see is going to also be kaput.
I"m serious if I didn't have any faith.. I would be evil, I don't think I would cause physical harm to anyone but I sure as heck would be a financial thug trying to see how many different substances I can abuse at once and how many women from every country I could date.. I'd just hit the road and never stop moving not caring what people thought about me when I left there town or how I left it lol.
If you are an athiest then why aren't you living consequence free? Most athiests I know are even more well behaved than I am.. maybe less sociable but among their own friends they are gold like altar boys mostly. I don't get that.
QUOTE
The atelic or teleonomic argument means that as the weight of evidence evinces no teleology-planned outcomes, but rather teleonomy- no planned outcomes, to postulate God as directing in any matter not only violates Ockham's Razor but contradicts natural causation and explanations, and thus religion from the side of science cannot be compatible with science whilst from the side of religion, all is possible!
This argument not only trumps teleological ones but also any involving intent so that it trumps the Grand Miracle Monger and the Primary Cause. As such it takes away all referents for Him, and thus He cannot exist! Thus once again, the ignostic challenge is affirmed.
Oh, I've lively threads going on for four years @ Skeptic Society, but then again some sites do have cut off times, which is fine, but not for a member to prattle about the thread if others will contribute to it.
This argument not only trumps teleological ones but also any involving intent so that it trumps the Grand Miracle Monger and the Primary Cause. As such it takes away all referents for Him, and thus He cannot exist! Thus once again, the ignostic challenge is affirmed.
Oh, I've lively threads going on for four years @ Skeptic Society, but then again some sites do have cut off times, which is fine, but not for a member to prattle about the thread if others will contribute to it.
Your making assumptions based on collective knowledge in science, faith. Your assuming everything we see and all the rules we measure have always been forever the same, also your taking on faith all the constants in physics and science are correct you don't bother to measure them yourself.. so your science is your god. Since you believe everything is already explained in it lol.
Your problem is you simply dismiss anything other than your interpretation of science, and you can't type worth a hoot, as well as you simply just want to argue and be ignorant of the arguments against you.
The future of religion is in cosmology thus the future of God will be too. I think its about time for a new religion to take shape for the modern society, something like god the immortal inter-dimmensional extra terrestrial that set off the big bang....
QUOTE (dhcracker+Aug 27 2010, 05:24 AM)
If I knew there was nothing else.. kaput this is it and all there is.. there is no karma.. no consequence.. no good or evil.. nothing. Then who cares about anything period? Why am I sitting around here working my arse to the dirt to put kids through college and bothering to instill the same morality in them? I could be out behaving like a shark, eating the less fortunate and intelligent.. either by scam.. or by really robbing them lol. Robbing banks and screwing the system, cosmology???? PPFFFT WHO GIVES A CRAP I woudln't want to know what kind of inanimate object i'll become and how this rock is going to die and everything we see is going to also be kaput.
Life itself is enjoyable. I don't need the promise of heaven to be a good person. Being a good person is its own reward.
Life itself is enjoyable. I don't need the promise of heaven to be a good person. Being a good person is its own reward.
QUOTE (dhcracker+Aug 27 2010, 04:24 AM)
I have to be honest, I don't understand athiests for one major reason. If you really believe whole-heartedly that there is nothing but wormfood after death... then why the heck aren't you out raising hell.
If I knew there was nothing else.. kaput this is it and all there is.. there is no karma.. no consequence.. no good or evil.. nothing. Then who cares about anything period? Why am I sitting around here working my arse to the dirt to put kids through college and bothering to instill the same morality in them? I could be out behaving like a shark, eating the less fortunate and intelligent.. either by scam.. or by really robbing them lol. Robbing banks and screwing the system, cosmology???? PPFFFT WHO GIVES A CRAP I woudln't want to know what kind of inanimate object i'll become and how this rock is going to die and everything we see is going to also be kaput.
I"m serious if I didn't have any faith.. I would be evil, I don't think I would cause physical harm to anyone but I sure as heck would be a financial thug trying to see how many different substances I can abuse at once and how many women from every country I could date.. I'd just hit the road and never stop moving not caring what people thought about me when I left there town or how I left it lol.
If you are an athiest then why aren't you living consequence free? Most athiests I know are even more well behaved than I am.. maybe less sociable but among their own friends they are gold like altar boys mostly. I don't get that.
So the threat of hell is the only thing that keeps you from being evil to your fellow humans? That's sad - seriously.
If I knew there was nothing else.. kaput this is it and all there is.. there is no karma.. no consequence.. no good or evil.. nothing. Then who cares about anything period? Why am I sitting around here working my arse to the dirt to put kids through college and bothering to instill the same morality in them? I could be out behaving like a shark, eating the less fortunate and intelligent.. either by scam.. or by really robbing them lol. Robbing banks and screwing the system, cosmology???? PPFFFT WHO GIVES A CRAP I woudln't want to know what kind of inanimate object i'll become and how this rock is going to die and everything we see is going to also be kaput.
I"m serious if I didn't have any faith.. I would be evil, I don't think I would cause physical harm to anyone but I sure as heck would be a financial thug trying to see how many different substances I can abuse at once and how many women from every country I could date.. I'd just hit the road and never stop moving not caring what people thought about me when I left there town or how I left it lol.
If you are an athiest then why aren't you living consequence free? Most athiests I know are even more well behaved than I am.. maybe less sociable but among their own friends they are gold like altar boys mostly. I don't get that.
So the threat of hell is the only thing that keeps you from being evil to your fellow humans? That's sad - seriously.
oh nooo its not that simple at all, and being good in that charitable and letting others take advantage of you isn't a reward for you its a reward for other people. Its good so long as you have more to give, when the well starts running dry it doesn't seem so satisfying to give to charity.
All sets of ethics and most sets of morality instill in us all the sense of sacrificing our own well being for that of others. Here I live in a world thats screwed up by idiots and we let people hundreds of miles away take our wealth then stop us from harvesting it for the sake of the greater good. Actually they have done both and left this area to rott away, I actually ran off a government person last year at gun point lol. I sit on top of a mountain of wealth I can't touch because it might kill a fish.
If morality and ethics are based on a false concept entirely, then I bet everyone on this planet would have a little more money in their pockets and a little more time for self satisfaction.
I don't believe in any hell anyway, I do believe life means more than random chance. However if it was just random chance lets just say I'd be making much larger bets and I wouldn't be "pooling resources".
On one hand we can be tax paying citizens and part of a collective system being responsible and making sacrifices so we spread the good life around (thats what they tell us they do with our money and children and property and everything we busy ourselves doing and leaving behind) on another we can be enjoying every opportunity and taking every single chance without feeling obligated to anyone other than our own experience of this one lifetime and let everyone else worry about their own.
I may have sounded a little dramatic, but I'd sure put life on the front burner.. and that means my life not everyone elses.
All sets of ethics and most sets of morality instill in us all the sense of sacrificing our own well being for that of others. Here I live in a world thats screwed up by idiots and we let people hundreds of miles away take our wealth then stop us from harvesting it for the sake of the greater good. Actually they have done both and left this area to rott away, I actually ran off a government person last year at gun point lol. I sit on top of a mountain of wealth I can't touch because it might kill a fish.
If morality and ethics are based on a false concept entirely, then I bet everyone on this planet would have a little more money in their pockets and a little more time for self satisfaction.
I don't believe in any hell anyway, I do believe life means more than random chance. However if it was just random chance lets just say I'd be making much larger bets and I wouldn't be "pooling resources".
On one hand we can be tax paying citizens and part of a collective system being responsible and making sacrifices so we spread the good life around (thats what they tell us they do with our money and children and property and everything we busy ourselves doing and leaving behind) on another we can be enjoying every opportunity and taking every single chance without feeling obligated to anyone other than our own experience of this one lifetime and let everyone else worry about their own.
I may have sounded a little dramatic, but I'd sure put life on the front burner.. and that means my life not everyone elses.
Empathy is part of our nature and so is curiosity. I’m curious about you, and I can’t quite figure you out, so I’ll just be upfront and ask you. Are you into David Icke, the KY militia, and writing a book on the Nazi Bell?
QUOTE (dhcracker+Aug 27 2010, 10:10 AM)
I actually ran off a government person last year at gun point lol. I sit on top of a mountain of wealth I can't touch because it might kill a fish.
Insanity!
Insanity!
QUOTE (dhcracker+Aug 27 2010, 04:24 AM)
I have to be honest, I don't understand athiests for one major reason. If you really believe whole-heartedly that there is nothing but wormfood after death... then why the heck aren't you out raising hell.
If I knew there was nothing else.. kaput this is it and all there is.. there is no karma.. no consequence.. no good or evil.. nothing. Then who cares about anything period? Why am I sitting around here working my arse to the dirt to put kids through college and bothering to instill the same morality in them? I could be out behaving like a shark, eating the less fortunate and intelligent.. either by scam.. or by really robbing them lol. Robbing banks and screwing the system, cosmology???? PPFFFT WHO GIVES A CRAP I woudln't want to know what kind of inanimate object i'll become and how this rock is going to die and everything we see is going to also be kaput.
I"m serious if I didn't have any faith.. I would be evil, I don't think I would cause physical harm to anyone but I sure as heck would be a financial thug trying to see how many different substances I can abuse at once and how many women from every country I could date.. I'd just hit the road and never stop moving not caring what people thought about me when I left there town or how I left it lol.
If you are an athiest then why aren't you living consequence free? Most athiests I know are even more well behaved than I am.. maybe less sociable but among their own friends they are gold like altar boys mostly. I don't get that.
Your making assumptions based on collective knowledge in science, faith. Your assuming everything we see and all the rules we measure have always been forever the same, also your taking on faith all the constants in physics and science are correct you don't bother to measure them yourself.. so your science is your god. Since you believe everything is already explained in it lol.
Your problem is you simply dismiss anything other than your interpretation of science, and you can't type worth a hoot, as well as you simply just want to argue and be ignorant of the arguments against you.
The future of religion is in cosmology thus the future of God will be too. I think its about time for a new religion to take shape for the modern society, something like god the immortal inter-dimmensional extra terrestrial that set off the big bang....
So people are inherently evil and it's just the fear of retribution in an after-life which makes them behave?
If I knew there was nothing else.. kaput this is it and all there is.. there is no karma.. no consequence.. no good or evil.. nothing. Then who cares about anything period? Why am I sitting around here working my arse to the dirt to put kids through college and bothering to instill the same morality in them? I could be out behaving like a shark, eating the less fortunate and intelligent.. either by scam.. or by really robbing them lol. Robbing banks and screwing the system, cosmology???? PPFFFT WHO GIVES A CRAP I woudln't want to know what kind of inanimate object i'll become and how this rock is going to die and everything we see is going to also be kaput.
I"m serious if I didn't have any faith.. I would be evil, I don't think I would cause physical harm to anyone but I sure as heck would be a financial thug trying to see how many different substances I can abuse at once and how many women from every country I could date.. I'd just hit the road and never stop moving not caring what people thought about me when I left there town or how I left it lol.
If you are an athiest then why aren't you living consequence free? Most athiests I know are even more well behaved than I am.. maybe less sociable but among their own friends they are gold like altar boys mostly. I don't get that.
Your making assumptions based on collective knowledge in science, faith. Your assuming everything we see and all the rules we measure have always been forever the same, also your taking on faith all the constants in physics and science are correct you don't bother to measure them yourself.. so your science is your god. Since you believe everything is already explained in it lol.
Your problem is you simply dismiss anything other than your interpretation of science, and you can't type worth a hoot, as well as you simply just want to argue and be ignorant of the arguments against you.
The future of religion is in cosmology thus the future of God will be too. I think its about time for a new religion to take shape for the modern society, something like god the immortal inter-dimmensional extra terrestrial that set off the big bang....
So people are inherently evil and it's just the fear of retribution in an after-life which makes them behave?
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 27 2010, 06:45 PM)
So people are inherently evil and it's just the fear of retribution in an after-life which makes them behave?
Well maybe I was a little dramatic... excuse me its been a rough week full of sacrifices lol. Sometimes I do feel that way, mostly when I am aggravated with the people that benefit from my existence.
But I do think without reason.. or without even wondering about life's purpose or why we are here that we would all be much more selfish in the least. I know without a little faith I would be a good degree more selfish at least.. maybe not evil, though robbing a bank is always tempting
Well maybe I was a little dramatic... excuse me its been a rough week full of sacrifices lol. Sometimes I do feel that way, mostly when I am aggravated with the people that benefit from my existence.
But I do think without reason.. or without even wondering about life's purpose or why we are here that we would all be much more selfish in the least. I know without a little faith I would be a good degree more selfish at least.. maybe not evil, though robbing a bank is always tempting
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 28 2010, 07:45 AM)
So people are inherently evil and it's just the fear of retribution in an after-life which makes them behave?
umm.
Take away the afterlife bit and this statement stands true.
Without the rule of law,the only ones left standing are those who took out the competition.law and retribution developed as a need to create ordered society and protect the security of the many from being ruled by fear 'of retribution' ,which was on the whim of the most competitive.
I just finished a book on Victorian society. it is interesting how we tend to see English law as having a long base,probably because it is extended throughout the provinces.But the reality is that the nineteenth and early centuries are when anything like justice existed at all. It's only after laws were in place to protect the masses that the English population grew and solidified into the most stable societies.
Although usually the stability is attributed to religion, it seems not to be the case since the rate of attendance in churches was no where as high as we might assume today.the middle to upper classes ,(the lesser populations) attended church,while the lower classes were affected most by changes in Parliament which realized the cities had grown past the abilities of private enterprise to service.
Most of the positive laws which affected the English and particularly government intervention in the supply of basic needs like water ans sewerage,police and building consents,came about in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
So my point is that fear of retribution 'itself' is certainly powerful. Although in the religious context it mirrors something that is a tool of secular society ,and acceptable for what it does achieve.
Cheers
Iseason
umm.
Take away the afterlife bit and this statement stands true.
Without the rule of law,the only ones left standing are those who took out the competition.law and retribution developed as a need to create ordered society and protect the security of the many from being ruled by fear 'of retribution' ,which was on the whim of the most competitive.
I just finished a book on Victorian society. it is interesting how we tend to see English law as having a long base,probably because it is extended throughout the provinces.But the reality is that the nineteenth and early centuries are when anything like justice existed at all. It's only after laws were in place to protect the masses that the English population grew and solidified into the most stable societies.
Although usually the stability is attributed to religion, it seems not to be the case since the rate of attendance in churches was no where as high as we might assume today.the middle to upper classes ,(the lesser populations) attended church,while the lower classes were affected most by changes in Parliament which realized the cities had grown past the abilities of private enterprise to service.
Most of the positive laws which affected the English and particularly government intervention in the supply of basic needs like water ans sewerage,police and building consents,came about in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
So my point is that fear of retribution 'itself' is certainly powerful. Although in the religious context it mirrors something that is a tool of secular society ,and acceptable for what it does achieve.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (dhcracker+Aug 27 2010, 09:24 AM)
I have to be honest, I don't understand athiests for one major reason. If you really believe whole-heartedly that there is nothing but wormfood after death... then why the heck aren't you out raising hell.
Good question. I suppose realising and accepting that one will only get one life may well lead some to 'raise hell' (what ever that means). For me and others like me, that same realisation leads to us to try and 'live life to the full' (what ever that means). I appreciate that others only get one life too, and so have no desire to make their short time miserable.
QUOTE
If I knew there was nothing else.. kaput this is it and all there is.. there is no karma.. no consequence.. no good or evil.. nothing. Then who cares about anything period? Why am I sitting around here working my arse to the dirt to put kids through college and bothering to instill the same morality in them? I could be out behaving like a shark, eating the less fortunate and intelligent.. either by scam.. or by really robbing them lol. Robbing banks and screwing the system, cosmology???? PPFFFT WHO GIVES A CRAP I woudln't want to know what kind of inanimate object i'll become and how this rock is going to die and everything we see is going to also be kaput.
I believe that you could easily answer many of your own questions. ie; I believe you probably put your kids through college so that they get a good education, social and academic skills that hopefully lead them to decent employment right? What would the existence or non-existence of an after life add or detract from this?
In fact, one could say that those who believe there is going to be an afterlife need not try so hard in this life, ie; whats the point of putting your kids through college if all they need do is submit to one of the supposed gods and wait to die?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If I knew there was nothing else.. kaput this is it and all there is.. there is no karma.. no consequence.. no good or evil.. nothing. Then who cares about anything period? Why am I sitting around here working my arse to the dirt to put kids through college and bothering to instill the same morality in them? I could be out behaving like a shark, eating the less fortunate and intelligent.. either by scam.. or by really robbing them lol. Robbing banks and screwing the system, cosmology???? PPFFFT WHO GIVES A CRAP I woudln't want to know what kind of inanimate object i'll become and how this rock is going to die and everything we see is going to also be kaput. |
I believe that you could easily answer many of your own questions. ie; I believe you probably put your kids through college so that they get a good education, social and academic skills that hopefully lead them to decent employment right? What would the existence or non-existence of an after life add or detract from this?
In fact, one could say that those who believe there is going to be an afterlife need not try so hard in this life, ie; whats the point of putting your kids through college if all they need do is submit to one of the supposed gods and wait to die?
I"m serious if I didn't have any faith.. I would be evil, I don't think I would cause physical harm to anyone but I sure as heck would be a financial thug trying to see how many different substances I can abuse at once and how many women from every country I could date.. I'd just hit the road and never stop moving not caring what people thought about me when I left there town or how I left it lol.
Interesting that you would be evil without your faith, it suggests to me that you are by your own admission an evil person. I actually have more respect for you than you appear to have for yourself. I don't believe that you would rob a bank just because there's no hell, when you well know that if caught robbing the bank there are earthly consequences. Also the fact that you would not wish to cause physical harm demonstrates that you at least have some sense of morality without your faith, explain that!
QUOTE
If you are an athiest then why aren't you living consequence free? Most athiests I know are even more well behaved than I am.. maybe less sociable but among their own friends they are gold like altar boys mostly. I don't get that.
Well there are some pretty bad atheists too. Perhaps your confusion stems from the fallacy that we get our morality from faith. Your own experiences demonstrate that there are atheists that are 'good' and 'bad' without god. I have a sense of personal responsibility, reason, logic that keep me happily on the straight and narrow. The other point is to re-evaluate those things that a religion may impress are 'sins' ie; working on the sabbath is not going to cause me to loose any sleep, neither would the practice of homosexuality. Would you consider either of those as evil? In other words: I rely on my best reasoning abilities (no brainers) and if I cannot find sufficient reason to object to two consenting adults who want to get it on in the privacy of their own home, then I don't object. It's none of my business actually.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If you are an athiest then why aren't you living consequence free? Most athiests I know are even more well behaved than I am.. maybe less sociable but among their own friends they are gold like altar boys mostly. I don't get that. |
Well there are some pretty bad atheists too. Perhaps your confusion stems from the fallacy that we get our morality from faith. Your own experiences demonstrate that there are atheists that are 'good' and 'bad' without god. I have a sense of personal responsibility, reason, logic that keep me happily on the straight and narrow. The other point is to re-evaluate those things that a religion may impress are 'sins' ie; working on the sabbath is not going to cause me to loose any sleep, neither would the practice of homosexuality. Would you consider either of those as evil? In other words: I rely on my best reasoning abilities (no brainers) and if I cannot find sufficient reason to object to two consenting adults who want to get it on in the privacy of their own home, then I don't object. It's none of my business actually.
Your making assumptions based on collective knowledge in science, faith. Your assuming everything we see and all the rules we measure have always been forever the same, also your taking on faith all the constants in physics and science are correct you don't bother to measure them yourself.. so your science is your god. Since you believe everything is already explained in it lol.
I sense this was meant for someone else but nonetheless, faith is belief without evidence, which is the antithesis to science which dumbed down is belief with evidence and even then those beliefs are subject to change as or if more evidence or contrary evidence is discovered etc, etc.
As for science being a god then IMO, there is no point worshiping the lens that allows you to see better. It is that which is illuminated that would be the 'god'. Science to me is that lens, an illuminator. It does need to be polished though and looked after. It needs to be kept crystal clear. But what is it illuminating? I call it the universe, others may call it gods creation etc, etc.
As Irish comedian Dara O'Brien said, "Science knows that it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop!"
Ironically it is the theists that claim not only that there is a creator of the universe that they approve of, but also they will be going to an eternal 'Disneyland' if they for instance avoid eating pork
QUOTE
The future of religion is in cosmology thus the future of God will be too. I think its about time for a new religion to take shape for the modern society, something like god the immortal inter-dimmensional extra terrestrial that set off the big bang....
Maybe but based on what evidence? I suggest based on what you (the religious person) wants to be true more than what is true. You'll learn precious little about cosmology that way I suspect.
My pet peeve. Politics drenched in religion. Glenn Beck...do you love him or hate him?
Glenn Beck’s program at the Lincoln Memorial Saturday focused more on God than government.
Glenn Beck’s program at the Lincoln Memorial Saturday focused more on God than government.
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Aug 28 2010, 11:47 PM)
My pet peeve. Politics drenched in religion. Glenn Beck...do you love him or hate him?
I'm hoping that if I ignore him he'll just go away. Just like Sarah Palin!
I'm hoping that if I ignore him he'll just go away. Just like Sarah Palin!
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Aug 28 2010, 12:11 PM)
Good question. I suppose realising and accepting that one will only get one life may well lead some to 'raise hell' (what ever that means). For me and others like me, that same realisation leads to us to try and 'live life to the full' (what ever that means). I appreciate that others only get one life too, and so have no desire to make their short time miserable.
I believe that you could easily answer many of your own questions. ie; I believe you probably put your kids through college so that they get a good education, social and academic skills that hopefully lead them to decent employment right? What would the existence or non-existence of an after life add or detract from this?
In fact, one could say that those who believe there is going to be an afterlife need not try so hard in this life, ie; whats the point of putting your kids through college if all they need do is submit to one of the supposed gods and wait to die?
Interesting that you would be evil without your faith, it suggests to me that you are by your own admission an evil person. I actually have more respect for you than you appear to have for yourself. I don't believe that you would rob a bank just because there's no hell, when you well know that if caught robbing the bank there are earthly consequences. Also the fact that you would not wish to cause physical harm demonstrates that you at least have some sense of morality without your faith, explain that!
Well there are some pretty bad atheists too. Perhaps your confusion stems from the fallacy that we get our morality from faith. Your own experiences demonstrate that there are atheists that are 'good' and 'bad' without god. I have a sense of personal responsibility, reason, logic that keep me happily on the straight and narrow. The other point is to re-evaluate those things that a religion may impress are 'sins' ie; working on the sabbath is not going to cause me to loose any sleep, neither would the practice of homosexuality. Would you consider either of those as evil? In other words: I rely on my best reasoning abilities (no brainers) and if I cannot find sufficient reason to object to two consenting adults who want to get it on in the privacy of their own home, then I don't object. It's none of my business actually.
I sense this was meant for someone else but nonetheless, faith is belief without evidence, which is the antithesis to science which dumbed down is belief with evidence and even then those beliefs are subject to change as or if more evidence or contrary evidence is discovered etc, etc.
As for science being a god then IMO, there is no point worshiping the lens that allows you to see better. It is that which is illuminated that would be the 'god'. Science to me is that lens, an illuminator. It does need to be polished though and looked after. It needs to be kept crystal clear. But what is it illuminating? I call it the universe, others may call it gods creation etc, etc.
As Irish comedian Dara O'Brien said, "Science knows that it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop!"
Ironically it is the theists that claim not only that there is a creator of the universe that they approve of, but also they will be going to an eternal 'Disneyland' if they for instance avoid eating pork
Maybe but based on what evidence? I suggest based on what you (the religious person) wants to be true more than what is true. You'll learn precious little about cosmology that way I suspect.
I'm not evil, I'm just flawed like the rest of us. I spend too much of my life dedicated to other people and neglect my own ambitions, but on the other hand I do that in a way so that part of me will live on and have a better life than I had. I'll be missed when I'm gone I know that for certain lol.
Oh I would rob a bank and I wouldn't get caught either
What we don't pay for in this life we pay for in the next I think. So that is what keeps me from economic retribution and I don't event believe I would be sinning against the bank to do that, I think our banks and government are not doing a proper job with our money and as such karma dictates every now and then a smart guy gets away with it. So if I offend anyone doing that it would be probably God. Though it may not be a good idea every time there is someone that gets away with robbing a bank locally for some reason they come ask me about it lol. Maybe I'm a little to public here I'd have to go out of state hehe.And I can tell by your use of the word "religion" that you don't find yourself religous, yet you are defining to me a religion. It takes just as much faith or maybe just a little less to decide the unknown isn't there as to believe it is. Either life means something or it doesn't, either there is more to life than flesh or there isn't.. since nobody has come back to tell us what the other side is we have to wonder or have faith one way or the other. Though I admit it may seem more faith is required for belief in God or meaning than no meaning and just chance.
And the need to excell in life is also based on reward or punishment in then ext life... if you want reward you do well and with what you earn you give to others freely. Not like handing out money but as in helping others succeed as well.
I see homosexuality as unproductive sex.. I find that wasteful more than sinful. But I don't think anyone will go to hell for it.
You say you have no faith... do you know your lover loves you? HOW? by faith
How do you know we only have this life? faith
How do you know the universe is expanding? you have to have a little faith in people or a lot of faith in god lol. I have a little for everyone I think there is a God but I don't think if I didn't believe I would be judged any differently by him/her/whatever .
BTW science classifies atheism as a religion. I hope there is a God and i have some faith there is, but I'm not going to sit here and act like I know it.
And who defines what is true?? You? I am cosmology obsessed btw and I can find faith in any universe it describes or any truth it can find.
You seem to think your religion is the only correct one granted I stated some things about athiests I don't understand.. thats the one I missed how you can belittle people when your faith is no better. A real neutral person doesn't say nay or yay on God, or you could say a truely unreligious person. At least I have admitted I could be wrong, thats more scientific than anything i've said so far.
QUOTE
BTW science classifies atheism as a religion.
I'm sorry, but how did you come up with that little bit of silliness?
QUOTE (dhcracker+Aug 29 2010, 04:33 AM)
I'm not evil, I'm just flawed like the rest of us. I spend too much of my life dedicated to other people and neglect my own ambitions, but on the other hand I do that in a way so that part of me will live on and have a better life than I had. I'll be missed when I'm gone I know that for certain lol.
Oh I would rob a bank and I wouldn't get caught either What we don't pay for in this life we pay for in the next I think. So that is what keeps me from economic retribution and I don't event believe I would be sinning against the bank to do that, I think our banks and government are not doing a proper job with our money and as such karma dictates every now and then a smart guy gets away with it. So if I offend anyone doing that it would be probably God. Though it may not be a good idea every time there is someone that gets away with robbing a bank locally for some reason they come ask me about it lol. Maybe I'm a little to public here I'd have to go out of state hehe.
And I can tell by your use of the word "religion" that you don't find yourself religious, yet you are defining to me a religion. It takes just as much faith or maybe just a little less to decide the unknown isn't there as to believe it is. Either life means something or it doesn't, either there is more to life than flesh or there isn't.. since nobody has come back to tell us what the other side is we have to wonder or have faith one way or the other. Though I admit it may seem more faith is required for belief in God or meaning than no meaning and just chance.
And the need to excel in life is also based on reward or punishment in then ext life... if you want reward you do well and with what you earn you give to others freely. Not like handing out money but as in helping others succeed as well.
I see homosexuality as unproductive sex.. I find that wasteful more than sinful. But I don't think anyone will go to hell for it.
You say you have no faith... do you know your lover loves you? HOW? by faith
How do you know we only have this life? faith
How do you know the universe is expanding? you have to have a little faith in people or a lot of faith in god lol. I have a little for everyone I think there is a God but I don't think if I didn't believe I would be judged any differently by him/her/whatever .
BTW science classifies atheism as a religion. I hope there is a God and i have some faith there is, but I'm not going to sit here and act like I know it.
And who defines what is true?? You? I am cosmology obsessed btw and I can find faith in any universe it describes or any truth it can find.
You seem to think your religion is the only correct one granted I stated some things about athiests I don't understand.. thats the one I missed how you can belittle people when your faith is no better. A real neutral person doesn't say nay or yay on God, or you could say a truely unreligious person. At least I have admitted I could be wrong, thats more scientific than anything i've said so far.
You claimed that you would be evil without your belief in an afterlife. I submit that you would still care for your children's education and welfare even if you could be convinced that there was no such afterlife. Do you disagree?
You may well rob a bank and not get caught, but why wouldn't you want to cause physical harm? Surely if there is no god or afterlife you would suddenly want to cause harm, no? If not, maybe ask yourself, "Why not?"
And besides, the fact that you would suddenly think it's ok to rob banks if there's no afterlife doesn't mean that there is such a thing. All you've disclosed is that your belief in such a thing is what stops you robbing banks. It reveals more about your individual character than the existence of any afterlife.
It does not take any faith to believe something isn't there if there is no good reason to suppose it is there. It's one thing in mundane everyday things that we know can happen, but when we are discussing super extraordinary things that are in every sense of the word: supernatural, super, extraordinary evidence would be required for me to believe it.
And again faith is belief without evidence. I believe my wife loves me because of the evidence of our relationship. And even that isn't proof! And if new evidence turned up that she has different feelings, then that could change my belief. The evidence would have to be very strong though(from the horses mouth) so to speak
Who told you that specifically science classifies atheism as a religion? Do you believe in Thor or Zeus? If not then you are an atheist (at least in regard to Zeus and Thor). Is that your religion?
I am not saying there is no god. I don't know whether there is or isn't, however I don't believe there are any gods because so far I have not encountered a single piece of evidence in favour of any gods existing. I cannot disprove the existence of fairies either, but I equally see no reason to believe they actually do exist.
There are many that hope there is a god or wish that there was one. Some people believe in an all loving, all merciful, all knowing, being or similar. I can understand that, especially when you consider the beauty and complexity of the universe.
The problem is that if you stand in the sun for too long you'll probably develop skin cancer, stare at it and risk blindness, babies die, we cannot live without consuming other living things etc. I don't feel the love or mercy in that. So even if I thought there was good reason to suspect that a god existed, it would have to be one I didn't like very much.
If you truly want to understand what the cosmos is IMO start with a blank slate and test it, observe it etc. I don't define what is true. I admit I don't know. Which is why I don't say there definitely is or is not a god at its root. If you start with the premise that you already know or believe it has an intentional designer or that there exists a mechanism whereby you continue to live after you physically die, then you could be moving further away from whatever the actual truth is. But how will you ever know unless you are honest with yourself and prepare for things to be true that may well be unwelcome to you?
Oh I would rob a bank and I wouldn't get caught either
What we don't pay for in this life we pay for in the next I think. So that is what keeps me from economic retribution and I don't event believe I would be sinning against the bank to do that, I think our banks and government are not doing a proper job with our money and as such karma dictates every now and then a smart guy gets away with it. So if I offend anyone doing that it would be probably God. Though it may not be a good idea every time there is someone that gets away with robbing a bank locally for some reason they come ask me about it lol. Maybe I'm a little to public here I'd have to go out of state hehe.And I can tell by your use of the word "religion" that you don't find yourself religious, yet you are defining to me a religion. It takes just as much faith or maybe just a little less to decide the unknown isn't there as to believe it is. Either life means something or it doesn't, either there is more to life than flesh or there isn't.. since nobody has come back to tell us what the other side is we have to wonder or have faith one way or the other. Though I admit it may seem more faith is required for belief in God or meaning than no meaning and just chance.
And the need to excel in life is also based on reward or punishment in then ext life... if you want reward you do well and with what you earn you give to others freely. Not like handing out money but as in helping others succeed as well.
I see homosexuality as unproductive sex.. I find that wasteful more than sinful. But I don't think anyone will go to hell for it.
You say you have no faith... do you know your lover loves you? HOW? by faith
How do you know we only have this life? faith
How do you know the universe is expanding? you have to have a little faith in people or a lot of faith in god lol. I have a little for everyone I think there is a God but I don't think if I didn't believe I would be judged any differently by him/her/whatever .
BTW science classifies atheism as a religion. I hope there is a God and i have some faith there is, but I'm not going to sit here and act like I know it.
And who defines what is true?? You? I am cosmology obsessed btw and I can find faith in any universe it describes or any truth it can find.
You seem to think your religion is the only correct one granted I stated some things about athiests I don't understand.. thats the one I missed how you can belittle people when your faith is no better. A real neutral person doesn't say nay or yay on God, or you could say a truely unreligious person. At least I have admitted I could be wrong, thats more scientific than anything i've said so far.
You claimed that you would be evil without your belief in an afterlife. I submit that you would still care for your children's education and welfare even if you could be convinced that there was no such afterlife. Do you disagree?
You may well rob a bank and not get caught, but why wouldn't you want to cause physical harm? Surely if there is no god or afterlife you would suddenly want to cause harm, no? If not, maybe ask yourself, "Why not?"
And besides, the fact that you would suddenly think it's ok to rob banks if there's no afterlife doesn't mean that there is such a thing. All you've disclosed is that your belief in such a thing is what stops you robbing banks. It reveals more about your individual character than the existence of any afterlife.
It does not take any faith to believe something isn't there if there is no good reason to suppose it is there. It's one thing in mundane everyday things that we know can happen, but when we are discussing super extraordinary things that are in every sense of the word: supernatural, super, extraordinary evidence would be required for me to believe it.
And again faith is belief without evidence. I believe my wife loves me because of the evidence of our relationship. And even that isn't proof! And if new evidence turned up that she has different feelings, then that could change my belief. The evidence would have to be very strong though(from the horses mouth) so to speak
Who told you that specifically science classifies atheism as a religion? Do you believe in Thor or Zeus? If not then you are an atheist (at least in regard to Zeus and Thor). Is that your religion?
I am not saying there is no god. I don't know whether there is or isn't, however I don't believe there are any gods because so far I have not encountered a single piece of evidence in favour of any gods existing. I cannot disprove the existence of fairies either, but I equally see no reason to believe they actually do exist.
There are many that hope there is a god or wish that there was one. Some people believe in an all loving, all merciful, all knowing, being or similar. I can understand that, especially when you consider the beauty and complexity of the universe.
The problem is that if you stand in the sun for too long you'll probably develop skin cancer, stare at it and risk blindness, babies die, we cannot live without consuming other living things etc. I don't feel the love or mercy in that. So even if I thought there was good reason to suspect that a god existed, it would have to be one I didn't like very much.
If you truly want to understand what the cosmos is IMO start with a blank slate and test it, observe it etc. I don't define what is true. I admit I don't know. Which is why I don't say there definitely is or is not a god at its root. If you start with the premise that you already know or believe it has an intentional designer or that there exists a mechanism whereby you continue to live after you physically die, then you could be moving further away from whatever the actual truth is. But how will you ever know unless you are honest with yourself and prepare for things to be true that may well be unwelcome to you?
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Aug 29 2010, 03:47 AM)
My pet peeve. Politics drenched in religion. Glenn Beck...do you love him or hate him?
Glenn Beck’s program at the Lincoln Memorial Saturday focused more on God than government.
I think every American should be embarrased that this ***** is even allowed to be on TV. Not only a fool, but someone who incites bigotry openly. It really pushes the freedom of speech issue, but as long as there are liberals on the other side such as John Stewart excercising their freedom of speech, one can only hope for some balance.
To answer the question, I pity him more than enything else. Ignorant fool of a man.
Glenn Beck’s program at the Lincoln Memorial Saturday focused more on God than government.
I think every American should be embarrased that this ***** is even allowed to be on TV. Not only a fool, but someone who incites bigotry openly. It really pushes the freedom of speech issue, but as long as there are liberals on the other side such as John Stewart excercising their freedom of speech, one can only hope for some balance.
To answer the question, I pity him more than enything else. Ignorant fool of a man.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Aug 29 2010, 10:12 AM)
It does not take any faith to believe something isn't there if there is no good reason to suppose it is there.
lol this is getting fun
Its apparent you want this debate to continue in the aspect of arguing about Gods existence as opposed to science explaining there is no need to believe in God. So I'm just going to cut to the chase and play devils advocate and tell you in no uncertain terms point blank from the other side of the coin. Bear with me and don't take any offense please I mean none! This is social sciences excercise... acting
I'm about to go preacher and play from the theologian point of view. If at the end of this you deny you have faith then I give up.
God is creative. This is obvious from the basic physics principles concerning the creation of energy, matter, and order. The thermodynamic laws state that the sum total of matter and energy stays constant. It is impossible to create matter without expending energy or matter; it is similarly impossible to create energy without expending either matter or energy. The second law of thermodynamics states that total entropy is inevitably increasing; the universe must move from order toward disorder.
These principles lead to the conclusion that some uncreated being, particle, entity, or force is responsible for creating all matter and energy and for giving an initial order to the universe. Whether this process occurred through the Big Bang or through a literalist's interpretation of Genesis is irrelevant. What is crucial is that there must exist some uncreated being with the ability to create and give order. A being which defies the natural laws of physics concerning energy, matter, and order is necessitated by the very laws of nature.
Athiests give science ample credit but not much to how the heck did all this get here out of nothing.
Athiests assertion of a self-created starting point with spontaneous order involves the same supernatural assumption as a theist's belief in a creative God. If I were to assert that I had seen a spaceship with five Martians descend into New York City, I would be labeled crazy. If another man were to assert that he had seen a spaceship with ten Martians, no one would declare him to be twice as crazy. What is relevant is that nobody believes in Martians; whether we claim to see five or ten makes no difference.
So Athiesm is a religion, you take the faith you might have in a God or intelligent design and you place it in unfounded basis of random chance where science has failed to prevail or explain much of anything.
I'm just playing devils advocate with you at this point but you asked for it.
Scientists and theists have nothing to fear from each other and should realize they are studying different.aspects of the same reality, one focusing on creation and another on the Creator. Many of the most accomplished scientists, including Francis Bacon, the inventor of the scientific method, Albert Einstein, and Charles Darwin, who first proposed the theory of evolution, were avowed theists.
Evolution cannot explain the development of free will, morality, or conscience. There is no evidence for the gradual development of these human characteristics--there is no partial morality in chimpanzees. Humans are obviously greater than the sum of whatever evolutionary forces and raw materials are said to have combined to create them. Science can explain the how's, but not the why's, of nature's wonders.
Atheists who suggest otherwise place an irrational faith in science, the same type of behavior they condemn in religious individuals, and are ignoring the fundamental laws of physics. Such atheists must specify what evidence would be enough to prove the existence of God; even genuine miracles would not be accepted according to such standards. Indeed, it is not clear how the atheist would prove his own existence without reference to his own claims or the testimony of others.
So now I ask you, you claim you see no miracles. Tell me where did you come from? What gave you life? And don't naively just say your parents, were did they come from and their parents... you can either start at the origin of life or universe either one.
If you cannot explain to me how either inanimate matter turned to life, or how our universe came from nothing then you have no idea where you come from, if you can't even tell me where I come from then who are you to tell me there is no evidence for my creator.
Respect my faith in God and I'll respect your faith in science because you surely do have that faith and its the same exact measure of faith I put in my God. You say science put us here I say God did, there is no evidence for either.
And if I am wrong I will deal with the unwelcome truth gracefully as will you I am sure, maybe I have more faith in my fellow man than you suspect.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 29 2010, 11:47 AM)
I think every American should be embarrased that this ***** is even allowed to be on TV. Not only a fool, but someone who incites bigotry openly. It really pushes the freedom of speech issue, but as long as there are liberals on the other side such as John Stewart excercising their freedom of speech, one can only hope for some balance.
To answer the question, I pity him more than enything else. Ignorant fool of a man.
This is what happens when two groups of people or political groups simply hate each other. There are people on the other side saying the same thing of liberals that inflame them just as badly. Whats stupid is why the heck don't we let our states have their own freedom of law? Thats where all this stems from control of the fed to be able to live the way we want in our area... guns there.. not there.. abortion here.. not there... There is far too much interference in my life from people way off somewhere on the other side of the country (probably up north lol), and I am interfering too much in their lives as well. And all we have to do to make each other angry is vote... its circling the drain I think.
the Fed has made this nation start tearing itself apart and I honestly believe much more of this crap from BOTH SIDES will end up splitting this nation right down the old mason dixon line almost.
2000 election year CNN pundant "Why not let Gore be the president in the Blue states and Bush in the Red states"... if that kind of election ever happens again watch out! If our economy crumbles any worse where our unemployed have time to listen to the reasons for their unemployment by their favorite party.. look out.
To answer the question, I pity him more than enything else. Ignorant fool of a man.
This is what happens when two groups of people or political groups simply hate each other. There are people on the other side saying the same thing of liberals that inflame them just as badly. Whats stupid is why the heck don't we let our states have their own freedom of law? Thats where all this stems from control of the fed to be able to live the way we want in our area... guns there.. not there.. abortion here.. not there... There is far too much interference in my life from people way off somewhere on the other side of the country (probably up north lol), and I am interfering too much in their lives as well. And all we have to do to make each other angry is vote... its circling the drain I think.
the Fed has made this nation start tearing itself apart and I honestly believe much more of this crap from BOTH SIDES will end up splitting this nation right down the old mason dixon line almost.
2000 election year CNN pundant "Why not let Gore be the president in the Blue states and Bush in the Red states"... if that kind of election ever happens again watch out! If our economy crumbles any worse where our unemployed have time to listen to the reasons for their unemployment by their favorite party.. look out.
QUOTE (dhcracker+Aug 29 2010, 07:02 AM)
lol this is getting fun
Its apparent you want this debate to continue in the aspect of arguing about Gods existence as opposed to science explaining there is no need to believe in God. So I'm just going to cut to the chase and play devils advocate and tell you in no uncertain terms point blank from the other side of the coin. Bear with me and don't take any offense please I mean none! This is social sciences excercise... acting
I'm about to go preacher and play from the theologian point of view. If at the end of this you deny you have faith then I give up.
God is creative. This is obvious from the basic physics principles concerning the creation of energy, matter, and order. The thermodynamic laws state that the sum total of matter and energy stays constant. It is impossible to create matter without expending energy or matter; it is similarly impossible to create energy without expending either matter or energy. The second law of thermodynamics states that total entropy is inevitably increasing; the universe must move from order toward disorder.
These principles lead to the conclusion that some uncreated being, particle, entity, or force is responsible for creating all matter and energy and for giving an initial order to the universe. Whether this process occurred through the Big Bang or through a literalist's interpretation of Genesis is irrelevant. What is crucial is that there must exist some uncreated being with the ability to create and give order. A being which defies the natural laws of physics concerning energy, matter, and order is necessitated by the very laws of nature.
Athiests give science ample credit but not much to how the heck did all this get here out of nothing.
Athiests assertion of a self-created starting point with spontaneous order involves the same supernatural assumption as a theist's belief in a creative God. If I were to assert that I had seen a spaceship with five Martians descend into New York City, I would be labeled crazy. If another man were to assert that he had seen a spaceship with ten Martians, no one would declare him to be twice as crazy. What is relevant is that nobody believes in Martians; whether we claim to see five or ten makes no difference.
So Athiesm is a religion, you take the faith you might have in a God or intelligent design and you place it in unfounded basis of random chance where science has failed to prevail or explain much of anything.
I'm just playing devils advocate with you at this point but you asked for it.
Scientists and theists have nothing to fear from each other and should realize they are studying different.aspects of the same reality, one focusing on creation and another on the Creator. Many of the most accomplished scientists, including Francis Bacon, the inventor of the scientific method, Albert Einstein, and Charles Darwin, who first proposed the theory of evolution, were avowed theists.
Evolution cannot explain the development of free will, morality, or conscience. There is no evidence for the gradual development of these human characteristics--there is no partial morality in chimpanzees. Humans are obviously greater than the sum of whatever evolutionary forces and raw materials are said to have combined to create them. Science can explain the how's, but not the why's, of nature's wonders.
Atheists who suggest otherwise place an irrational faith in science, the same type of behavior they condemn in religious individuals, and are ignoring the fundamental laws of physics. Such atheists must specify what evidence would be enough to prove the existence of God; even genuine miracles would not be accepted according to such standards. Indeed, it is not clear how the atheist would prove his own existence without reference to his own claims or the testimony of others.
So now I ask you, you claim you see no miracles. Tell me where did you come from? What gave you life? And don't naively just say your parents, were did they come from and their parents... you can either start at the origin of life or universe either one.
If you cannot explain to me how either inanimate matter turned to life, or how our universe came from nothing then you have no idea where you come from, if you can't even tell me where I come from then who are you to tell me there is no evidence for my creator.
Respect my faith in God and I'll respect your faith in science because you surely do have that faith and its the same exact measure of faith I put in my God. You say science put us here I say God did, there is no evidence for either.
And if I am wrong I will deal with the unwelcome truth gracefully as will you I am sure, maybe I have more faith in my fellow man than you suspect.
So, where'd God come from. If you say he has always been there - why not save a step and say the universe has always been here?
You want people to believe the universe is too complex to have just happened, but yet you are perfectly willing to believe something even more complex just happened.
Its apparent you want this debate to continue in the aspect of arguing about Gods existence as opposed to science explaining there is no need to believe in God. So I'm just going to cut to the chase and play devils advocate and tell you in no uncertain terms point blank from the other side of the coin. Bear with me and don't take any offense please I mean none! This is social sciences excercise... acting
I'm about to go preacher and play from the theologian point of view. If at the end of this you deny you have faith then I give up.
God is creative. This is obvious from the basic physics principles concerning the creation of energy, matter, and order. The thermodynamic laws state that the sum total of matter and energy stays constant. It is impossible to create matter without expending energy or matter; it is similarly impossible to create energy without expending either matter or energy. The second law of thermodynamics states that total entropy is inevitably increasing; the universe must move from order toward disorder.
These principles lead to the conclusion that some uncreated being, particle, entity, or force is responsible for creating all matter and energy and for giving an initial order to the universe. Whether this process occurred through the Big Bang or through a literalist's interpretation of Genesis is irrelevant. What is crucial is that there must exist some uncreated being with the ability to create and give order. A being which defies the natural laws of physics concerning energy, matter, and order is necessitated by the very laws of nature.
Athiests give science ample credit but not much to how the heck did all this get here out of nothing.
Athiests assertion of a self-created starting point with spontaneous order involves the same supernatural assumption as a theist's belief in a creative God. If I were to assert that I had seen a spaceship with five Martians descend into New York City, I would be labeled crazy. If another man were to assert that he had seen a spaceship with ten Martians, no one would declare him to be twice as crazy. What is relevant is that nobody believes in Martians; whether we claim to see five or ten makes no difference.
So Athiesm is a religion, you take the faith you might have in a God or intelligent design and you place it in unfounded basis of random chance where science has failed to prevail or explain much of anything.
I'm just playing devils advocate with you at this point but you asked for it.
Scientists and theists have nothing to fear from each other and should realize they are studying different.aspects of the same reality, one focusing on creation and another on the Creator. Many of the most accomplished scientists, including Francis Bacon, the inventor of the scientific method, Albert Einstein, and Charles Darwin, who first proposed the theory of evolution, were avowed theists.
Evolution cannot explain the development of free will, morality, or conscience. There is no evidence for the gradual development of these human characteristics--there is no partial morality in chimpanzees. Humans are obviously greater than the sum of whatever evolutionary forces and raw materials are said to have combined to create them. Science can explain the how's, but not the why's, of nature's wonders.
Atheists who suggest otherwise place an irrational faith in science, the same type of behavior they condemn in religious individuals, and are ignoring the fundamental laws of physics. Such atheists must specify what evidence would be enough to prove the existence of God; even genuine miracles would not be accepted according to such standards. Indeed, it is not clear how the atheist would prove his own existence without reference to his own claims or the testimony of others.
So now I ask you, you claim you see no miracles. Tell me where did you come from? What gave you life? And don't naively just say your parents, were did they come from and their parents... you can either start at the origin of life or universe either one.
If you cannot explain to me how either inanimate matter turned to life, or how our universe came from nothing then you have no idea where you come from, if you can't even tell me where I come from then who are you to tell me there is no evidence for my creator.
Respect my faith in God and I'll respect your faith in science because you surely do have that faith and its the same exact measure of faith I put in my God. You say science put us here I say God did, there is no evidence for either.
And if I am wrong I will deal with the unwelcome truth gracefully as will you I am sure, maybe I have more faith in my fellow man than you suspect.
So, where'd God come from. If you say he has always been there - why not save a step and say the universe has always been here?
You want people to believe the universe is too complex to have just happened, but yet you are perfectly willing to believe something even more complex just happened.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Aug 29 2010, 01:48 PM)
So, where'd God come from. If you say he has always been there - why not save a step and say the universe has always been here?
You want people to believe the universe is too complex to have just happened, but yet you are perfectly willing to believe something even more complex just happened.
But the preacher would just say God is steady state and supernatural, when we get to heave maybe he'll tell us. The preacher says he's not the one expecting explanations since he simply has faith.. thats why I say it takes the same amount of faith either way. One is placing faith science will explain.. other is placing faith God will. Your point scores against science.. not against religion or faith. As said faith doesn't need explanations.
But one is just as good as the other really... still the point is you shouldn't crack on people that believe in God for having faith in unsubstantiated things.. when we ourselves are unsubstantiated things. YOu shouldn't say things like you believe science explains everything and try to use science to show there are no miracles.. when it does nothing of the sort! It just folds right back on you its tick tack toe man. I've had these debates 1,000 times from both angles I know them well. Nobody wins but everybody has a good time contributing lol.
You want people to believe the universe is too complex to have just happened, but yet you are perfectly willing to believe something even more complex just happened.
But the preacher would just say God is steady state and supernatural, when we get to heave maybe he'll tell us. The preacher says he's not the one expecting explanations since he simply has faith.. thats why I say it takes the same amount of faith either way. One is placing faith science will explain.. other is placing faith God will. Your point scores against science.. not against religion or faith. As said faith doesn't need explanations.
But one is just as good as the other really... still the point is you shouldn't crack on people that believe in God for having faith in unsubstantiated things.. when we ourselves are unsubstantiated things. YOu shouldn't say things like you believe science explains everything and try to use science to show there are no miracles.. when it does nothing of the sort! It just folds right back on you its tick tack toe man. I've had these debates 1,000 times from both angles I know them well. Nobody wins but everybody has a good time contributing lol.
QUOTE (dhcracker+Aug 29 2010, 09:03 AM)
YOu shouldn't say things like you believe science explains everything and try to use science to show there are no miracles.. when it does nothing of the sort! It just folds right back on you its tick tack toe man.
I've never made these claims. However, I actually agree with you here. ALL "religious belief" (and non-belief) should stay out of the science class. Science should be taught in the science class. Religion should be taught at home.
I've never made these claims. However, I actually agree with you here. ALL "religious belief" (and non-belief) should stay out of the science class. Science should be taught in the science class. Religion should be taught at home.
QUOTE (dhcracker+Aug 29 2010, 12:02 PM)
God is creative. This is obvious from the basic physics principles concerning the creation of energy, matter, and order. The thermodynamic laws state that the sum total of matter and energy stays constant. It is impossible to create matter without expending energy or matter; it is similarly impossible to create energy without expending either matter or energy. The second law of thermodynamics states that total entropy is inevitably increasing; the universe must move from order toward disorder.
All of this assumes the existence of a being but does not explain where the being comes from or why it is required for the laws of physics to work the way they do.
eg; Thor is thunderous. This is obvious from the way thunder makes such a racket......
Why is Thor required for thunder to be, well thunderous? I'll help you, he isn't required. There happen to be loads of natural explanations as to why thunder is the way it is. But even if there was no explanation, there is no reason to invoke something even more complex than that which you are attempting the explain unless there is evidential reason to do so.
QUOTE
These principles lead to the conclusion that some uncreated being, particle, entity, or force is responsible for creating all matter and energy and for giving an initial order to the universe. Whether this process occurred through the Big Bang or through a literalist's interpretation of Genesis is irrelevant. What is crucial is that there must exist some uncreated being with the ability to create and give order. A being which defies the natural laws of physics concerning energy, matter, and order is necessitated by the very laws of nature.
No, the conclusion was assumed before the principles were outlined. You forgot to explain why an uncreated being is necessary in the first instance or indeed why there must be a first instance.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| These principles lead to the conclusion that some uncreated being, particle, entity, or force is responsible for creating all matter and energy and for giving an initial order to the universe. Whether this process occurred through the Big Bang or through a literalist's interpretation of Genesis is irrelevant. What is crucial is that there must exist some uncreated being with the ability to create and give order. A being which defies the natural laws of physics concerning energy, matter, and order is necessitated by the very laws of nature. |
No, the conclusion was assumed before the principles were outlined. You forgot to explain why an uncreated being is necessary in the first instance or indeed why there must be a first instance.
Athiests give science ample credit but not much to how the heck did all this get here out of nothing.
Allow me to address this terrible oversight of those pesky godless atheists.
Firstly it is an assumption to say that something has to come from nothing. However nothing, by definition does not exist and cannot exist. It is the absence of something or in this context the absence of anything. So to get around this you have created an uncreated and necessarily complicated being, more complicated in fact than the universe that you are attempting to explain. It's okay not to know the answer. I just think it's best to admit it.
QUOTE
Athiests assertion of a self-created starting point with spontaneous order involves the same supernatural assumption as a theist's belief in a creative God. If I were to assert that I had seen a spaceship with five Martians descend into New York City, I would be labeled crazy. If another man were to assert that he had seen a spaceship with ten Martians, no one would declare him to be twice as crazy. What is relevant is that nobody believes in Martians; whether we claim to see five or ten makes no difference.
Okay I admit it, struggling to grasp what your try to say here, however what is the obsession with atheists? Or do you mean the Big bang theorists? I say this because many theists have no problem accepting the big bang theory. It's not an atheist idea.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Athiests assertion of a self-created starting point with spontaneous order involves the same supernatural assumption as a theist's belief in a creative God. If I were to assert that I had seen a spaceship with five Martians descend into New York City, I would be labeled crazy. If another man were to assert that he had seen a spaceship with ten Martians, no one would declare him to be twice as crazy. What is relevant is that nobody believes in Martians; whether we claim to see five or ten makes no difference. |
Okay I admit it, struggling to grasp what your try to say here, however what is the obsession with atheists? Or do you mean the Big bang theorists? I say this because many theists have no problem accepting the big bang theory. It's not an atheist idea.
So Athiesm is a religion, you take the faith you might have in a God or intelligent design and you place it in unfounded basis of random chance where science has failed to prevail or explain much of anything.
Atheism is not a religion.
QUOTE
I'm just playing devils advocate with you at this point but you asked for it.
Scientists and theists have nothing to fear from each other and should realize they are studying different.aspects of the same reality, one focusing on creation and another on the Creator. Many of the most accomplished scientists, including Francis Bacon, the inventor of the scientific method, Albert Einstein, and Charles Darwin, who first proposed the theory of evolution, were avowed theists.
Evolution cannot explain the development of free will, morality, or conscience. There is no evidence for the gradual development of these human characteristics--there is no partial morality in chimpanzees. Humans are obviously greater than the sum of whatever evolutionary forces and raw materials are said to have combined to create them. Science can explain the how's, but not the why's, of nature's wonders.
Atheists who suggest otherwise place an irrational faith in science, the same type of behavior they condemn in religious individuals, and are ignoring the fundamental laws of physics. Such atheists must specify what evidence would be enough to prove the existence of God; even genuine miracles would not be accepted according to such standards. Indeed, it is not clear how the atheist would prove his own existence without reference to his own claims or the testimony of others.
So now I ask you, you claim you see no miracles. Tell me where did you come from? What gave you life? And don't naively just say your parents, were did they come from and their parents... you can either start at the origin of life or universe either one.
If you cannot explain to me how either inanimate matter turned to life, or how our universe came from nothing then you have no idea where you come from, if you can't even tell me where I come from then who are you to tell me there is no evidence for my creator.
Respect my faith in God and I'll respect your faith in science because you surely do have that faith and its the same exact measure of faith I put in my God. You say science put us here I say God did, there is no evidence for either.
And if I am wrong I will deal with the unwelcome truth gracefully as will you I am sure, maybe I have more faith in my fellow man than you suspect.
As for all the above I only have the constitution to absorb so much idiocy in one sitting. When I have recovered (usually achieved by absorbing interesting facts), I'll continue.
(Just playing)
QUOTE (dhcracker+Aug 29 2010, 07:02 AM)
There is no evidence for the gradual development of these human characteristics--there is no partial morality in chimpanzees.
Hmmm... I believe I just posted this, but I guess you didn't bother watching it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrAfqvIwt9E
Hmmm... I believe I just posted this, but I guess you didn't bother watching it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrAfqvIwt9E
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Aug 29 2010, 01:48 PM)
So, where'd God come from. If you say he has always been there - why not save a step and say the universe has always been here?
You want people to believe the universe is too complex to have just happened, but yet you are perfectly willing to believe something even more complex just happened.
You nailed it!
You want people to believe the universe is too complex to have just happened, but yet you are perfectly willing to believe something even more complex just happened.
You nailed it!
Faith based beliefs is a form of art. I like it when kids narrate the story of the tortoise and the hare as if they were real. The morals learnt was also good. For adult we need something different e.g. Education. If this leads others to perpetuate religion with its hosts of improbable and absurdities, let it be. They bother you less. Just treat it as you would a sport like say, rugby or cricket. Nothing against these sports.
I figured you would duck the question.. slam dunk!
And as I stated above you are applying your athiest logic thinking to a person of faith they are not co-measurable integers lol. In other words your speaking greek to a man of faith, and he is to you. You cancel each other... tic tac toe unless you run across one that isn't very intelligent nobody wins the debate from any real neutral perspective yet both sides walk away feeling they won.
You think since I can't tell you the origins of a supernatural being my faith is flawed. I think sicne you can't tell me the origins of natural things.. your faith is flawed. X X neither is any better.
If what I typed above isn't placing faith in the big bang then you lack an understanding of what the big bang is. Its a singularity, its something we cannot describe in the laws of physics.. it is something from nothing and it lines up perfectly with intelligent design. But that doesn't mean myself being objectionable and eccentric couldn't find a God in an eternal steady state universe anyway.. so its a moot point really.
My point remains if you can't take your science and tell a man of God where he came from with it and why he is here, then you have no right to tell him his God doesn't exist no more than he has the right to tell you God will burn you lol.
The point of this everyone is missing is science can't answer everything period. Its has its role, and religion can have its own role. The two shouldn't be parties that the other isn't invited to, thats shameful. Everyone should just be tolerant as they can be.
And as I stated above you are applying your athiest logic thinking to a person of faith they are not co-measurable integers lol. In other words your speaking greek to a man of faith, and he is to you. You cancel each other... tic tac toe unless you run across one that isn't very intelligent nobody wins the debate from any real neutral perspective yet both sides walk away feeling they won.
You think since I can't tell you the origins of a supernatural being my faith is flawed. I think sicne you can't tell me the origins of natural things.. your faith is flawed. X X neither is any better.
If what I typed above isn't placing faith in the big bang then you lack an understanding of what the big bang is. Its a singularity, its something we cannot describe in the laws of physics.. it is something from nothing and it lines up perfectly with intelligent design. But that doesn't mean myself being objectionable and eccentric couldn't find a God in an eternal steady state universe anyway.. so its a moot point really.
My point remains if you can't take your science and tell a man of God where he came from with it and why he is here, then you have no right to tell him his God doesn't exist no more than he has the right to tell you God will burn you lol.
The point of this everyone is missing is science can't answer everything period. Its has its role, and religion can have its own role. The two shouldn't be parties that the other isn't invited to, thats shameful. Everyone should just be tolerant as they can be.
Some people say, I don't know - that's a good question.
Others say, I don't know - so let's make something up.
Others say, I don't know - so let's make something up.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Aug 29 2010, 07:47 PM)
Some people say, I don't know - that's a good question.
Others say, I don't know - so let's make something up.
Your insinuating that religion is guilty of something science is not? Proposing ideas for unknowns isn't exclusive to religous people.
But I agree that its a good way to respond in I don't know thats a good question in either case.
Others say, I don't know - so let's make something up.
Your insinuating that religion is guilty of something science is not? Proposing ideas for unknowns isn't exclusive to religous people.
But I agree that its a good way to respond in I don't know thats a good question in either case.
QUOTE
Proposing ideas for unknowns isn't exclusive to religous people.
But proposing ideas based on superstition, fear, and control, without knowledge or evidence, is.
QUOTE (dhcracker+Aug 29 2010, 02:03 PM)
But the preacher would just say God is steady state and supernatural, when we get to heave maybe he'll tell us. The preacher says he's not the one expecting explanations since he simply has faith.. thats why I say it takes the same amount of faith either way. One is placing faith science will explain.. other is placing faith God will. Your point scores against science.. not against religion or faith. As said faith doesn't need explanations.
But one is just as good as the other really... still the point is you shouldn't crack on people that believe in God for having faith in unsubstantiated things.. when we ourselves are unsubstantiated things. YOu shouldn't say things like you believe science explains everything and try to use science to show there are no miracles.. when it does nothing of the sort! It just folds right back on you its tick tack toe man. I've had these debates 1,000 times from both angles I know them well. Nobody wins but everybody has a good time contributing lol.
I sometimes agree with this argument that it takes as much thought either way to have faith in science or in god, but the problem with religion, is it is not just about faith. It places a much larger burden on the religous person.
I doubt your belief is the following, but it is the belief of many many many religous folk. If you do not accept the word of god, you are damned to suffer. That places a fer greater pressure on religous folk than non religous folk.
If religous folk do not want to suffer in damnation, then they MUST excercise faith wether they believe something or not (this is biblical dogma). The alternative for religous folk would be too much to bear.
Atheists do not HAVE to believe in science, for any other reason, than they choose to. It takes far less thought not to believe in god, than it does to believe in god.
Atheism is a belief in my opinion (god does not exist is a belief), but atheists do not need to have faith in their beliefs (Atheists don't disbelieve in gods existance because they are compelled by some threat to do so), and that is the difference between the two.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 29 2010, 09:18 PM)
I sometimes agree with this argument that it takes as much thought either way to have faith in science or in god, but the problem with religion, is it is not just about faith. It places a much larger burden on the religous person.
I doubt your belief is the following, but it is the belief of many many many religous folk. If you do not accept the word of god, you are damned to suffer. That places a fer greater pressure on religous folk than non religous folk.
If religous folk do not want to suffer in damnation, then they MUST excercise faith wether they believe something or not (this is biblical dogma). The alternative for religous folk would be too much to bear.
Atheists do not HAVE to believe in science, for any other reason, than they choose to. It takes far less thought not to believe in god, than it does to believe in god.
Atheism is a belief in my opinion (god does not exist is a belief), but atheists do not need to have faith in their beliefs (Atheists don't disbelieve in gods existance because they are compelled by some threat to do so), and that is the difference between the two.
YOu make and EXCELLENT point. Yes religion as it existed 1,000 years ago is DETRIMENTAL to society!!! It served a purpose back then possibly people could argue in our basis in common law today, I believe it can keep those that CAN get away with thing FROM doing so. However in its current ambiguous non-tolerant form its useless to modern society.
We have outgrown conceptions of one race or one race's God being superior to the others. Modern main stream people don't go to churches that preach hell and brimstone and bible literalism (justification of genocide=literalist), however in this nation most people still retain the idea of a God in the notion of intelligent design. We can take enough comfort in that alone, we don't need to persecute others for our God. One mans notion of God should be counted no differenetly than anothers.
I believe I stated this before so I"ll say it again. If your religion justifies harming others, your religion is a farse a phony.
However if you wish to retain the notion of intelligent design and simply adhere that we should treat each other as we wish to be treated (unless your kinky or crazy). The that form of faith is in no contradiction with science and reason and should be treated with some respect.
Thats all I"m getting to, and no I don't believe that way that was simply for the benefit of those that have never heard a good argument for an educated christian or monotheist. I have explored all, I was raised in religion and am very aware of its flaws.. and its benefits, and the human condition, and I also have passion for science. So to hear people assault a God, or more namely insult a person that holds onto a God as unscientific.. that makes those people just as guilty as the "religous fundamentalists".
And I tried to differentiate between groups of athiests Im sorry if I did not make that point clear enough. Frankly some are so zealous about it and their persecution of belief in a God that it takes on a whole other level of Faith in science than a simple agnostic like me. I could be considered an athiest actually so I hear your point and clarify.
I doubt your belief is the following, but it is the belief of many many many religous folk. If you do not accept the word of god, you are damned to suffer. That places a fer greater pressure on religous folk than non religous folk.
If religous folk do not want to suffer in damnation, then they MUST excercise faith wether they believe something or not (this is biblical dogma). The alternative for religous folk would be too much to bear.
Atheists do not HAVE to believe in science, for any other reason, than they choose to. It takes far less thought not to believe in god, than it does to believe in god.
Atheism is a belief in my opinion (god does not exist is a belief), but atheists do not need to have faith in their beliefs (Atheists don't disbelieve in gods existance because they are compelled by some threat to do so), and that is the difference between the two.
YOu make and EXCELLENT point. Yes religion as it existed 1,000 years ago is DETRIMENTAL to society!!! It served a purpose back then possibly people could argue in our basis in common law today, I believe it can keep those that CAN get away with thing FROM doing so. However in its current ambiguous non-tolerant form its useless to modern society.
We have outgrown conceptions of one race or one race's God being superior to the others. Modern main stream people don't go to churches that preach hell and brimstone and bible literalism (justification of genocide=literalist), however in this nation most people still retain the idea of a God in the notion of intelligent design. We can take enough comfort in that alone, we don't need to persecute others for our God. One mans notion of God should be counted no differenetly than anothers.
I believe I stated this before so I"ll say it again. If your religion justifies harming others, your religion is a farse a phony.
However if you wish to retain the notion of intelligent design and simply adhere that we should treat each other as we wish to be treated (unless your kinky or crazy). The that form of faith is in no contradiction with science and reason and should be treated with some respect.
Thats all I"m getting to, and no I don't believe that way that was simply for the benefit of those that have never heard a good argument for an educated christian or monotheist. I have explored all, I was raised in religion and am very aware of its flaws.. and its benefits, and the human condition, and I also have passion for science. So to hear people assault a God, or more namely insult a person that holds onto a God as unscientific.. that makes those people just as guilty as the "religous fundamentalists".
And I tried to differentiate between groups of athiests Im sorry if I did not make that point clear enough. Frankly some are so zealous about it and their persecution of belief in a God that it takes on a whole other level of Faith in science than a simple agnostic like me. I could be considered an athiest actually so I hear your point and clarify.
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 29 2010, 08:44 PM)
But proposing ideas based on superstition, fear, and control, without knowledge or evidence, is.
Another one line wonder thanks Alex for your insightful input lol. Its good to know you don't feel passionate enough about it to put some effort into opposition
*poke* *taunt* lol
QUOTE (dhcracker+Aug 29 2010, 04:55 PM)
Another one line wonder thanks Alex for your insightful input lol. Its good to know you don't feel passionate enough about it to put some effort into opposition
*poke* *taunt* lol I don't get that passionate arguing about works of fiction and mythology.
QUOTE
Modern main stream people don't go to churches that preach hell and brimstone and bible literalism
Then explain why Southern Baptism has over 16 million followers and over 42000 churches.
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 29 2010, 11:14 PM)
Southern Baptism has over 16 million followers and over 42000 churches.
Wow! - that much idiocy, it's a wonder it doesn't collapse via intense stupidity into a dingolarity.
Wow! - that much idiocy, it's a wonder it doesn't collapse via intense stupidity into a dingolarity.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Aug 29 2010, 04:18 PM)
Atheists do not HAVE to believe in science
Exactly, I don't believe every idea that scientists throw out. I think many are ludicrous. (And nobody ever threatens me with Hell because of it.)
Haven't been to Texas lately have you?
Whats wrong with texas? And don't quote some politician or some TV clip I want to know first hand experiences from "southern baptists" or "texans" that demonstrated non tolerance any differently than nuts anywhere else in the nation?
I do have family there and yes I've been to houston many times and I like the people very friendly.
Alex:
"Then explain why Southern Baptism has over 16 million followers and over 42000 churches."
The population of the USA is over 300 million friend... your point? I can't help it if religious people are dedicated voters if thats what your complaining about because thats the only significant portion of population you could figure at that number...
you should have said pentecostal if you want to get to fundamentalists not necessarily baptists.. and what do you base that on what you see on tv or your local church?
The older generation may be lost but have hope for the next.. people under 40 generaly are far less steeped in fundamentalism.
With that I think I've made every possible point any more is just redundancey.
I can't convince you to look at religion with any tolerance, how can you expect the same from them?
Exactly, I don't believe every idea that scientists throw out. I think many are ludicrous. (And nobody ever threatens me with Hell because of it.)
QUOTE (dhcracker+Aug 29 2010, 04:47 PM)
Modern main stream people don't go to churches that preach hell and brimstone and bible literalism
Haven't been to Texas lately have you?
Haven't been to Texas lately have you?
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Aug 29 2010, 11:52 PM)
Haven't been to Texas lately have you?
Whats wrong with texas? And don't quote some politician or some TV clip I want to know first hand experiences from "southern baptists" or "texans" that demonstrated non tolerance any differently than nuts anywhere else in the nation?
I do have family there and yes I've been to houston many times and I like the people very friendly.
Alex:
"Then explain why Southern Baptism has over 16 million followers and over 42000 churches."
The population of the USA is over 300 million friend... your point? I can't help it if religious people are dedicated voters if thats what your complaining about because thats the only significant portion of population you could figure at that number...
you should have said pentecostal if you want to get to fundamentalists not necessarily baptists.. and what do you base that on what you see on tv or your local church?
The older generation may be lost but have hope for the next.. people under 40 generaly are far less steeped in fundamentalism.
With that I think I've made every possible point any more is just redundancey.
I can't convince you to look at religion with any tolerance, how can you expect the same from them?
QUOTE (dhcracker+)
Whats wrong with texas?
Texans are quite friendly... nobody said they weren't. But your assertion that mainstream people don't go to churches that preach hellfire, damnation and Bible literalism is just plain wrong. I see it every day.
Have you seen what some creationists are trying to do to science textbooks? Texas is currently on the frontlines for that battle.
http://ncse.com/news/2009/04/setback-scien...on-texas-004710
Luckily a budget shortage is currently slowing them down.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...n1.49ada5e.html
Texans are quite friendly... nobody said they weren't. But your assertion that mainstream people don't go to churches that preach hellfire, damnation and Bible literalism is just plain wrong. I see it every day.
Have you seen what some creationists are trying to do to science textbooks? Texas is currently on the frontlines for that battle.
http://ncse.com/news/2009/04/setback-scien...on-texas-004710
Luckily a budget shortage is currently slowing them down.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...n1.49ada5e.html
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Aug 30 2010, 01:20 AM)
QUOTE (dhcracker+)
Whats wrong with texas?
Texans are quite friendly... nobody said they weren't. But your assertion that mainstream people don't go to churches that preach hellfire, damnation and Bible literalism is just plain wrong. I see it every day.
Have you seen what some creationists are trying to do to science textbooks? Texas is currently on the frontlines for that battle.
http://ncse.com/news/2009/04/setback-scien...on-texas-004710
Luckily a budget shortage is currently slowing them down.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...n1.49ada5e.html
So you have a problem with pointing out flaws in science because creationalists pushed for them as opposed to me with my modified gravity theory lol???
Have faith in the kids they are smart they will figure out for themselves.. and our standard model in physics should never be taught as fact without questioning the flaws in it. Now if they end up believing in 7 day creation.... thats not a very smart kid unless hes doing some crazy time dilation calculations lol (fun)
I'm curious what churches you know of in texas that preach bigotry and non tolerance? I get the feeling a generalization is going on, I don't think you are the church going type friend am I wrong? And if in fact texas is dominated by fundamental christians maybe they have a right to run their own schools and be as dumb as they want??
Who said anything about bigotry and non-tolerance? You were talking about hellfire, damnation, and bable literalism.
Who said anything about bigotry and non-tolerance? You were talking about hellfire, damnation, and bable literalism.
So you have a problem with pointing out flaws in science because creationalists pushed for them as opposed to me with my modified gravity theory lol???
Pointing out flaws in science? They're trying to get their religious agenda taught on an equal footing with evolution.
And as far as your modified gravity 'theory'...
LOL. So you decided to restate the issue into one you could argue against?
And so you're saying that the literal word of the bible is bigoted and non-tolerant? If it wasn't, why would a literal interpretation imply it was?
LOL. So you decided to restate the issue into one you could argue against?
And so you're saying that the literal word of the bible is bigoted and non-tolerant? If it wasn't, why would a literal interpretation imply it was?
Exactly there are stories that if literally true teach tolerance and love.
LOL. So you decided to restate the issue into one you could argue against?
And so you're saying that the literal word of the bible is bigoted and non-tolerant? If it wasn't, why would a literal interpretation imply it was?
Not arguing against literalism as being non tolerant.. genocide justifying.. bad.. arguing maybe most Texans aren't literalists.. or you probably would be teaching a 7 day creation there.
Your missing the source of the argument, I'm arguing for people not for religion or the bible, actually I've been tearing the bible apart recently as a credible historical document. Its not worthy of much more than using common sense when you read it to know being kind is good.. exterminating philistines is bad. Actually the red words in the bible and the book of Corinthians is full of good advice to live by.. use common sense in Corinthians don't tell your wife she can't speak btw.
Texans are quite friendly... nobody said they weren't. But your assertion that mainstream people don't go to churches that preach hellfire, damnation and Bible literalism is just plain wrong. I see it every day.
Have you seen what some creationists are trying to do to science textbooks? Texas is currently on the frontlines for that battle.
http://ncse.com/news/2009/04/setback-scien...on-texas-004710
Luckily a budget shortage is currently slowing them down.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...n1.49ada5e.html
So you have a problem with pointing out flaws in science because creationalists pushed for them as opposed to me with my modified gravity theory lol???
Have faith in the kids they are smart they will figure out for themselves.. and our standard model in physics should never be taught as fact without questioning the flaws in it. Now if they end up believing in 7 day creation.... thats not a very smart kid unless hes doing some crazy time dilation calculations lol (fun)
I'm curious what churches you know of in texas that preach bigotry and non tolerance? I get the feeling a generalization is going on, I don't think you are the church going type friend am I wrong? And if in fact texas is dominated by fundamental christians maybe they have a right to run their own schools and be as dumb as they want??
QUOTE
I'm curious what churches you know of in texas that preach bigotry and non tolerance
Who said anything about bigotry and non-tolerance? You were talking about hellfire, damnation, and bable literalism.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm curious what churches you know of in texas that preach bigotry and non tolerance |
Who said anything about bigotry and non-tolerance? You were talking about hellfire, damnation, and bable literalism.
So you have a problem with pointing out flaws in science because creationalists pushed for them as opposed to me with my modified gravity theory lol???
Pointing out flaws in science?
They're trying to get their religious agenda taught on an equal footing with evolution. And as far as your modified gravity 'theory'...
QUOTE (dhcracker+Aug 30 2010, 02:00 AM)
So you have a problem with pointing out flaws in science
Science is based on rooting out flaws.
Science is based on rooting out flaws.
Oh jeez you people..
let me rephrase... flaws in our understanding of everything in the cosmos by science... They didn't succeed it sounded like in that though they did get them to point out problems with scientific models of such things. Sounds like the system worked, normally two extremes make a good compromise I dunno what else to say on that.
Well literalism implies bigotry and non tolerance per earlier discussion lol. I'm sure there are a few public and flaunted nutcases.. but I think you have a fear of religion based on public nutcases that I think are a minority.. though in texas it may be a sizable minority I'm not sure lol.
let me rephrase... flaws in our understanding of everything in the cosmos by science... They didn't succeed it sounded like in that though they did get them to point out problems with scientific models of such things. Sounds like the system worked, normally two extremes make a good compromise I dunno what else to say on that.
Well literalism implies bigotry and non tolerance per earlier discussion lol. I'm sure there are a few public and flaunted nutcases.. but I think you have a fear of religion based on public nutcases that I think are a minority.. though in texas it may be a sizable minority I'm not sure lol.
QUOTE
Well literalism implies bigotry and non tolerance per earlier discussion lol.
LOL. So you decided to restate the issue into one you could argue against?
And so you're saying that the literal word of the bible is bigoted and non-tolerant? If it wasn't, why would a literal interpretation imply it was?
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 30 2010, 04:31 AM)
LOL. So you decided to restate the issue into one you could argue against?
And so you're saying that the literal word of the bible is bigoted and non-tolerant? If it wasn't, why would a literal interpretation imply it was?
Exactly there are stories that if literally true teach tolerance and love.
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 30 2010, 04:31 AM)
LOL. So you decided to restate the issue into one you could argue against?
And so you're saying that the literal word of the bible is bigoted and non-tolerant? If it wasn't, why would a literal interpretation imply it was?
Not arguing against literalism as being non tolerant.. genocide justifying.. bad.. arguing maybe most Texans aren't literalists.. or you probably would be teaching a 7 day creation there.
Your missing the source of the argument, I'm arguing for people not for religion or the bible, actually I've been tearing the bible apart recently as a credible historical document. Its not worthy of much more than using common sense when you read it to know being kind is good.. exterminating philistines is bad. Actually the red words in the bible and the book of Corinthians is full of good advice to live by.. use common sense in Corinthians don't tell your wife she can't speak btw.
QUOTE (dhcracker+Aug 29 2010, 09:00 PM)
So you have a problem with pointing out flaws in science because creationalists pushed for them as opposed to me with my modified gravity theory lol???
Have faith in the kids they are smart they will figure out for themselves.. and our standard model in physics should never be taught as fact without questioning the flaws in it. Now if they end up believing in 7 day creation.... thats not a very smart kid unless hes doing some crazy time dilation calculations lol (fun)
I'm curious what churches you know of in texas that preach bigotry and non tolerance? I get the feeling a generalization is going on, I don't think you are the church going type friend am I wrong? And if in fact texas is dominated by fundamental christians maybe they have a right to run their own schools and be as dumb as they want??
Your reading comprehension skills suck.
Have faith in the kids they are smart they will figure out for themselves.. and our standard model in physics should never be taught as fact without questioning the flaws in it. Now if they end up believing in 7 day creation.... thats not a very smart kid unless hes doing some crazy time dilation calculations lol (fun)
I'm curious what churches you know of in texas that preach bigotry and non tolerance? I get the feeling a generalization is going on, I don't think you are the church going type friend am I wrong? And if in fact texas is dominated by fundamental christians maybe they have a right to run their own schools and be as dumb as they want??
Your reading comprehension skills suck.
QUOTE (dhcracker+)
I'm just playing devils advocate with you at this point but you asked for it.
Scientists and theists have nothing to fear from each other and should realize they are studying different.aspects of the same reality, one focusing on creation and another on the Creator. Many of the most accomplished scientists, including Francis Bacon, the inventor of the scientific method, Albert Einstein, and Charles Darwin, who first proposed the theory of evolution, were avowed theists.
I would agree that scientists focus on the 'creation' or the 'universe' as I prefer to call it (simply because calling it a creation before we actually know that it was indeed created would be to put the cart before the horse, which wouldn't be very scientific or honest now would it?)
BTW, Darwin was a theist who later apparently lost his faith, ironically more due to the illness and subsequent death of his beloved daughter than the implications of his theory. Einstein was not a theist though, in fact he more than hinted at this in at least one letter to someone (I forget who).
Atheists who suggest otherwise place an irrational faith in science, the same type of behavior they condemn in religious individuals, and are ignoring the fundamental laws of physics. Such atheists must specify what evidence would be enough to prove the existence of God; even genuine miracles would not be accepted according to such standards. Indeed, it is not clear how the atheist would prove his own existence without reference to his own claims or the testimony of others.
So when you get on an airplane do you have an irrational faith that it will either crash or land safely? Or could you if required at least draw upon all of the successful airplane flights to date? But you can't dismiss the negative data, right? So probably, like most people I guess you'll use a kind of 'natural probability assessment'
ie; Though it is possible the plane could crash, most journeys are safe, so I'm confident everything will be okay but be prepared and take reasonable measures in case of an emergency.
If on the other hand one asserts absolute faith that either the airplane will either crash or land safely and you get it wrong, what would that tell you about the reliability of faith?
So when you get on an airplane do you have an irrational faith that it will either crash or land safely? Or could you if required at least draw upon all of the successful airplane flights to date? But you can't dismiss the negative data, right? So probably, like most people I guess you'll use a kind of 'natural probability assessment'
ie; Though it is possible the plane could crash, most journeys are safe, so I'm confident everything will be okay but be prepared and take reasonable measures in case of an emergency.
If on the other hand one asserts absolute faith that either the airplane will either crash or land safely and you get it wrong, what would that tell you about the reliability of faith?
So now I ask you, you claim you see no miracles. Tell me where did you come from? What gave you life? And don't naively just say your parents, were did they come from and their parents... you can either start at the origin of life or universe either one.
If you cannot explain to me how either inanimate matter turned to life, or how our universe came from nothing then you have no idea where you come from, if you can't even tell me where I come from then who are you to tell me there is no evidence for my creator.
Surely a miracle is a suspension of the natural order and therefore to suggest that our very natural existence is a suspension is non-sensical. And it is a fallacy to suggest that just because science cannot explain something, that religious nonsense can. Your argument is just another 'god of the gaps'. And you have to prove that the universe did come from nothing before expecting me or anyone else to offer an explanation of how that could of happened. Save yourself the worry. For all we know the Universe always exists in some form everywhere. I don't know if that is true but it's easier to believe than invoking an even more complicated being who's origin would require an even more complicated creator etc, etc Que infinite regress!
Respect my faith in God and I'll respect your faith in science because you surely do have that faith and its the same exact measure of faith I put in my God. You say science put us here I say God did, there is no evidence for either.
And if I am wrong I will deal with the unwelcome truth gracefully as will you I am sure, maybe I have more faith in my fellow man than you suspect.
I would fight for your right to believe whatever the hell you like, not that you need my permission. I do not say that science put us here. Science is very human endeavor. Science is the thing we do to test our environment, collect data and hopefully make sense of it, and if we are lucky get some cool applications, like computers and the Internet, so that people can, at the touch of a few buttons, tell others across the globe all about their imaginary best friends in the sky who'll they plan to live with forever and ever amen.
So when you get on an airplane do you have an irrational faith that it will either crash or land safely? Or could you if required at least draw upon all of the successful airplane flights to date? But you can't dismiss the negative data, right? So probably, like most people I guess you'll use a kind of 'natural probability assessment'
ie; Though it is possible the plane could crash, most journeys are safe, so I'm confident everything will be okay but be prepared and take reasonable measures in case of an emergency.
If on the other hand one asserts absolute faith that either the airplane will either crash or land safely and you get it wrong, what would that tell you about the reliability of faith?
And it is a fallacy to suggest that just because science cannot explain something, that religious nonsense can. Your argument is just another 'god of the gaps'. And you have to prove that the universe did come from nothing before expecting me or anyone else to offer an explanation of how that could of happened. Save yourself the worry. For all we know the Universe always exists in some form everywhere. I don't know if that is true but it's easier to believe......
Probabilities of plane crashes have absolutely nothing to do with intelligent design.
And where I stopped your quote is where your argument ceased holding water for anyone but yourself and people that use your logic. Easier for who? Do you speak for mankind? And for someone that talks so much of science you know absolutely nothing about it. "for all we know the universe could be eternal" wrong, protons have a set decay rate the universe is exactly 13.7 billion years old, and its accelerating space and everything you see in the heavens all existed at a singular point infinitely small, infinitely hot... and that came from NOTHING. This is our standard model of the universe and as such is backed by decades of observations and experiments and we can bank everything we see had a beginning. However we may show there is a cycle of creation and destruction.. but that has its own room for intelligent design. As I said earlier science tells us the how not the why.
I am using science much more than you are my friend, but you completely disregard the biggest point. Even if science didn't point to a creation event which it in fact does do, the universe was in fact created (regardless if by a God or by a cosmic fart) that is not up for debate.. what is up for debate is if its OK to patronize people that like to believe we are a part of a grand purpose an all knowing ever present intelligence.. and is this all for us alone? There are LOTS of questions science cannot answer, and lots of places where people can lean on intelligent design and to them its far easier than leaning on random chaos. To say what is easier to do is like saying your favorite color is blue. Now you have answered that for yourself to me though, and I am satisfied with that answer you cant' possibly speak for all atheists as I can't possibly speak for all theists. That said I think you are a fine person anyway lol
Now I'm glad you would fight for my right to believe in intelligent design, will you also not discriminate against me for doing so, not mock me, not think somehow my intelligence is flawed, or believe your belief is better or more scientific or based in less faith... blah blah blah.. thats just saying your way is better in some way or another. And the same applies for atheists suffering from religious people.. ESPECIALLY in the past... it seems now the shoe is going over to the other foot now and some people see a need for vengeance maybe? do you see this?
If you are really willing to admit we have no idea how we got here, then you are a very tolerant and open minded atheist and I wish all atheists adopted your stance as it is more kind to your fellow human beings. I agree with your view on tolerance totally.
I've enjoyed the discussion with you I think at this point we can simply shake hands with respect and agree to disagree with neither one of us taking offense to the other or having any resentment or feeling persecuted or misunderstood.
I will say this, I don't like to persecute atheists and I think its wrong as do most people in my generation. However I feel my generation of believers will suffer some based on what their fathers did... I guess its natural but maybe we will all learn a little "lets all get along" in the end I hope.
I think we have here
very good discussion hats off to you
Scientists and theists have nothing to fear from each other and should realize they are studying different.aspects of the same reality, one focusing on creation and another on the Creator. Many of the most accomplished scientists, including Francis Bacon, the inventor of the scientific method, Albert Einstein, and Charles Darwin, who first proposed the theory of evolution, were avowed theists.
I would agree that scientists focus on the 'creation' or the 'universe' as I prefer to call it (simply because calling it a creation before we actually know that it was indeed created would be to put the cart before the horse, which wouldn't be very scientific or honest now would it?)
BTW, Darwin was a theist who later apparently lost his faith, ironically more due to the illness and subsequent death of his beloved daughter than the implications of his theory. Einstein was not a theist though, in fact he more than hinted at this in at least one letter to someone (I forget who).
QUOTE
Atheists who suggest otherwise place an irrational faith in science, the same type of behavior they condemn in religious individuals, and are ignoring the fundamental laws of physics. Such atheists must specify what evidence would be enough to prove the existence of God; even genuine miracles would not be accepted according to such standards. Indeed, it is not clear how the atheist would prove his own existence without reference to his own claims or the testimony of others.
So when you get on an airplane do you have an irrational faith that it will either crash or land safely? Or could you if required at least draw upon all of the successful airplane flights to date? But you can't dismiss the negative data, right? So probably, like most people I guess you'll use a kind of 'natural probability assessment'
ie; Though it is possible the plane could crash, most journeys are safe, so I'm confident everything will be okay but be prepared and take reasonable measures in case of an emergency.
If on the other hand one asserts absolute faith that either the airplane will either crash or land safely and you get it wrong, what would that tell you about the reliability of faith?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Atheists who suggest otherwise place an irrational faith in science, the same type of behavior they condemn in religious individuals, and are ignoring the fundamental laws of physics. Such atheists must specify what evidence would be enough to prove the existence of God; even genuine miracles would not be accepted according to such standards. Indeed, it is not clear how the atheist would prove his own existence without reference to his own claims or the testimony of others. |
So when you get on an airplane do you have an irrational faith that it will either crash or land safely? Or could you if required at least draw upon all of the successful airplane flights to date? But you can't dismiss the negative data, right? So probably, like most people I guess you'll use a kind of 'natural probability assessment'
ie; Though it is possible the plane could crash, most journeys are safe, so I'm confident everything will be okay but be prepared and take reasonable measures in case of an emergency.
If on the other hand one asserts absolute faith that either the airplane will either crash or land safely and you get it wrong, what would that tell you about the reliability of faith?
So now I ask you, you claim you see no miracles. Tell me where did you come from? What gave you life? And don't naively just say your parents, were did they come from and their parents... you can either start at the origin of life or universe either one.
If you cannot explain to me how either inanimate matter turned to life, or how our universe came from nothing then you have no idea where you come from, if you can't even tell me where I come from then who are you to tell me there is no evidence for my creator.
Surely a miracle is a suspension of the natural order and therefore to suggest that our very natural existence is a suspension is non-sensical. And it is a fallacy to suggest that just because science cannot explain something, that religious nonsense can. Your argument is just another 'god of the gaps'. And you have to prove that the universe did come from nothing before expecting me or anyone else to offer an explanation of how that could of happened. Save yourself the worry. For all we know the Universe always exists in some form everywhere. I don't know if that is true but it's easier to believe than invoking an even more complicated being who's origin would require an even more complicated creator etc, etc Que infinite regress!
QUOTE
Respect my faith in God and I'll respect your faith in science because you surely do have that faith and its the same exact measure of faith I put in my God. You say science put us here I say God did, there is no evidence for either.
And if I am wrong I will deal with the unwelcome truth gracefully as will you I am sure, maybe I have more faith in my fellow man than you suspect.
I would fight for your right to believe whatever the hell you like, not that you need my permission. I do not say that science put us here. Science is very human endeavor. Science is the thing we do to test our environment, collect data and hopefully make sense of it, and if we are lucky get some cool applications, like computers and the Internet, so that people can, at the touch of a few buttons, tell others across the globe all about their imaginary best friends in the sky who'll they plan to live with forever and ever amen.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Aug 30 2010, 09:31 PM)
So when you get on an airplane do you have an irrational faith that it will either crash or land safely? Or could you if required at least draw upon all of the successful airplane flights to date? But you can't dismiss the negative data, right? So probably, like most people I guess you'll use a kind of 'natural probability assessment'
ie; Though it is possible the plane could crash, most journeys are safe, so I'm confident everything will be okay but be prepared and take reasonable measures in case of an emergency.
If on the other hand one asserts absolute faith that either the airplane will either crash or land safely and you get it wrong, what would that tell you about the reliability of faith?
And it is a fallacy to suggest that just because science cannot explain something, that religious nonsense can. Your argument is just another 'god of the gaps'. And you have to prove that the universe did come from nothing before expecting me or anyone else to offer an explanation of how that could of happened. Save yourself the worry. For all we know the Universe always exists in some form everywhere. I don't know if that is true but it's easier to believe......
Probabilities of plane crashes have absolutely nothing to do with intelligent design.
And where I stopped your quote is where your argument ceased holding water for anyone but yourself and people that use your logic. Easier for who? Do you speak for mankind? And for someone that talks so much of science you know absolutely nothing about it. "for all we know the universe could be eternal" wrong, protons have a set decay rate the universe is exactly 13.7 billion years old, and its accelerating space and everything you see in the heavens all existed at a singular point infinitely small, infinitely hot... and that came from NOTHING. This is our standard model of the universe and as such is backed by decades of observations and experiments and we can bank everything we see had a beginning. However we may show there is a cycle of creation and destruction.. but that has its own room for intelligent design. As I said earlier science tells us the how not the why.
I am using science much more than you are my friend, but you completely disregard the biggest point. Even if science didn't point to a creation event which it in fact does do, the universe was in fact created (regardless if by a God or by a cosmic fart) that is not up for debate.. what is up for debate is if its OK to patronize people that like to believe we are a part of a grand purpose an all knowing ever present intelligence.. and is this all for us alone? There are LOTS of questions science cannot answer, and lots of places where people can lean on intelligent design and to them its far easier than leaning on random chaos. To say what is easier to do is like saying your favorite color is blue. Now you have answered that for yourself to me though, and I am satisfied with that answer you cant' possibly speak for all atheists as I can't possibly speak for all theists. That said I think you are a fine person anyway lol
Now I'm glad you would fight for my right to believe in intelligent design, will you also not discriminate against me for doing so, not mock me, not think somehow my intelligence is flawed, or believe your belief is better or more scientific or based in less faith... blah blah blah.. thats just saying your way is better in some way or another. And the same applies for atheists suffering from religious people.. ESPECIALLY in the past... it seems now the shoe is going over to the other foot now and some people see a need for vengeance maybe? do you see this?
If you are really willing to admit we have no idea how we got here, then you are a very tolerant and open minded atheist and I wish all atheists adopted your stance as it is more kind to your fellow human beings. I agree with your view on tolerance totally.
I've enjoyed the discussion with you I think at this point we can simply shake hands with respect and agree to disagree with neither one of us taking offense to the other or having any resentment or feeling persecuted or misunderstood.
I will say this, I don't like to persecute atheists and I think its wrong as do most people in my generation. However I feel my generation of believers will suffer some based on what their fathers did... I guess its natural but maybe we will all learn a little "lets all get along" in the end I hope.
I think we have here
very good discussion hats off to you
QUOTE (dhcracker+Sep 3 2010, 11:10 PM)
As I said earlier science tells us the how not the why.
As I have said many times.
As I have said many times.
QUOTE (dhcracker+)
And the same applies for atheists suffering from religious people.. ESPECIALLY in the past... it seems now the shoe is going over to the other foot now and some people see a need for vengeance maybe? do you see this?
I don’t think this statement would hold under scrutiny, at least not in the United States. Aren’t you in that little area known as the Bible belt? I think that religion still dominates.
I don’t think this statement would hold under scrutiny, at least not in the United States. Aren’t you in that little area known as the Bible belt? I think that religion still dominates.
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Sep 4 2010, 04:40 AM)
QUOTE (dhcracker+)
And the same applies for atheists suffering from religious people.. ESPECIALLY in the past... it seems now the shoe is going over to the other foot now and some people see a need for vengeance maybe? do you see this?
I don’t think this statement would hold under scrutiny, at least not in the United States. Aren’t you in that little area known as the Bible belt? I think that religion still dominates.
The entire continent of Europe is 80% atheist or something like that, our universities and academics are mostly all atheists. The only people that have majority religion are the masses that are either very poor or working very hard, or come from backgrounds like that.
Maybe its a sense of our suffering will be rewarded someday, or maybe its we'll see those rich jerks burn... who knows lol. I know my sacrifices and struggles have had a HUGE impact on my faith. Your god is one person you can always count on in a pinch I can tell you that.
Religion in the academic world and forums like this has fell to the minority and persecuted branch of society even in the USA.. even for catholics lol and I like catholics they seem to be the most tolerant and open minded of the religious groups.
I don’t think this statement would hold under scrutiny, at least not in the United States. Aren’t you in that little area known as the Bible belt? I think that religion still dominates.
The entire continent of Europe is 80% atheist or something like that, our universities and academics are mostly all atheists. The only people that have majority religion are the masses that are either very poor or working very hard, or come from backgrounds like that.
Maybe its a sense of our suffering will be rewarded someday, or maybe its we'll see those rich jerks burn... who knows lol. I know my sacrifices and struggles have had a HUGE impact on my faith. Your god is one person you can always count on in a pinch I can tell you that.
Religion in the academic world and forums like this has fell to the minority and persecuted branch of society even in the USA.. even for catholics lol and I like catholics they seem to be the most tolerant and open minded of the religious groups.
So. If I said god created NOTHING, technically speaking, is that incorrect? To paraphrase, wouldn't i have made an informed statement?
QUOTE (dhcracker+Sep 4 2010, 07:15 AM)
The only people that have majority religion are the masses that are either very poor or working very hard, or come from backgrounds like that.
Current statistics show the figure for Europe's atheists is between 3% and 6%. Far from the 80% you claim.
Religious statistics
Clearly you are stating opinion, but certainly not facts based on evidence.
The entire continent of Europe is 80% atheist or something like that, our universities and academics are mostly all atheists.
I think you mean secular.
People who don't know they are Atheist don't generally get counted as Atheist.
QUOTE
The entire continent of Europe is 80% atheist or something like that, our universities and academics are mostly all atheists.
I think you should clarifiy numbers such as 80% before making such a wild thumb suck.Current statistics show the figure for Europe's atheists is between 3% and 6%. Far from the 80% you claim.
Religious statistics
Clearly you are stating opinion, but certainly not facts based on evidence.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The entire continent of Europe is 80% atheist or something like that, our universities and academics are mostly all atheists. |
I think you should clarifiy numbers such as 80% before making such a wild thumb suck.
Current statistics show the figure for Europe's atheists is between 3% and 6%. Far from the 80% you claim.
Religious statistics
Clearly you are stating opinion, but certainly not facts based on evidence.
I know my sacrifices and struggles have had a HUGE impact on my faith. Your god is one person you can always count on in a pinch I can tell you that.
Current statistics show the figure for Europe's atheists is between 3% and 6%. Far from the 80% you claim.
Religious statistics
Clearly you are stating opinion, but certainly not facts based on evidence.
I know my sacrifices and struggles have had a HUGE impact on my faith. Your god is one person you can always count on in a pinch I can tell you that.
So you are a theist? No judgment, just asking.
QUOTE
Religion in the academic world and forums like this has fell to the minority and persecuted branch of society even in the USA.. even for catholics lol and I like catholics they seem to be the most tolerant and open minded of the religious groups.
Is this a statement of opinion or fact based on evidence?
QUOTE (dhcracker+Aug 30 2010, 06:16 AM)
Its not worthy of much more than using common sense when you read it to know being kind is good.. exterminating philistines is bad. Actually the red words in the bible and the book of Corinthians is full of good advice to live by.. use common sense in Corinthians don't tell your wife she can't speak btw.
Do you know what a Philistine is?
Do you know what a Philistine is?
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Sep 4 2010, 11:05 AM)
I think you should clarifiy numbers such as 80% before making such a wild thumb suck.
Current statistics show the figure for Europe's atheists is between 3% and 6%. Far from the 80% you claim.
Religious statistics
Clearly you are stating opinion, but certainly not facts based on evidence.
So you are a theist? No judgment, just asking.
Is this a statement of opinion or fact based on evidence?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism
YOur numbers ARE WAY OFF so are mine, I had it backwards actually I was looking at the maps and mixed up the theist atheist one.. however most european countries still have like over 25%.. most populous ones and prosperous ones.
you "current statistics" are over 15 years old bud, nice try.
And yes I have a personal God you could say, I think that statement says as much very plainly does it not?
And lastly the theist is being attacked by multiple people in this forum alone.. so yes its based on evidence and its a fact of life you have to deal with if you have a God of your own.
Current statistics show the figure for Europe's atheists is between 3% and 6%. Far from the 80% you claim.
Religious statistics
Clearly you are stating opinion, but certainly not facts based on evidence.
So you are a theist? No judgment, just asking.
Is this a statement of opinion or fact based on evidence?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism
YOur numbers ARE WAY OFF so are mine, I had it backwards actually I was looking at the maps and mixed up the theist atheist one.. however most european countries still have like over 25%.. most populous ones and prosperous ones.
you "current statistics" are over 15 years old bud, nice try.
And yes I have a personal God you could say, I think that statement says as much very plainly does it not?
And lastly the theist is being attacked by multiple people in this forum alone.. so yes its based on evidence and its a fact of life you have to deal with if you have a God of your own.
QUOTE (dhcracker+Sep 4 2010, 04:19 PM)
you "current statistics" are over 15 years old bud, nice try.
What do you mean by nice try. The link I provided clearly showed the dates they were using in their statistics. I am not making any claim that it is currently the statistics.
If I was trying to deceive you I would not have included the link.
What do you mean by nice try. The link I provided clearly showed the dates they were using in their statistics. I am not making any claim that it is currently the statistics.
If I was trying to deceive you I would not have included the link.
QUOTE (dhcracker+Sep 4 2010, 04:19 PM)
And yes I have a personal God you could say, I think that statement says as much very plainly does it not?
And lastly the theist is being attacked by multiple people in this forum alone.. so yes its based on evidence and its a fact of life you have to deal with if you have a God of your own.
I think it is fair to say, that theists and atheists alike are "attacking" each others beliefs on this forum, but clearly there are more atheistic/agnostic individuals on this forum.
Even if you have no god, it is a fact of life.
And lastly the theist is being attacked by multiple people in this forum alone.. so yes its based on evidence and its a fact of life you have to deal with if you have a God of your own.
I think it is fair to say, that theists and atheists alike are "attacking" each others beliefs on this forum, but clearly there are more atheistic/agnostic individuals on this forum.
Even if you have no god, it is a fact of life.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Sep 4 2010, 11:59 AM)
I think it is fair to say, that theists and atheists alike are "attacking" each others beliefs on this forum, but clearly there are more atheistic/agnostic individuals on this forum.
Even if you have no god, it is a fact of life.
Some are here to convert, some are here to understand.
Sometimes it's hard to tell one from the other.
Sometimes the only difference between a probe and a stab is the force behind it.
Even if you have no god, it is a fact of life.
Some are here to convert, some are here to understand.
Sometimes it's hard to tell one from the other.
Sometimes the only difference between a probe and a stab is the force behind it.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Sep 4 2010, 10:08 AM)
Sometimes the only difference between a probe and a stab is the force behind it.
Nice one!
Nice one!
QUOTE
Sometimes the only difference between a probe and a stab is the force behind it
LOL. This gotta be a timeless quote. I second that.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Sep 4 2010, 05:08 PM)
Some are here to convert, some are here to understand.
Sometimes it's hard to tell one from the other.
Sometimes the only difference between a probe and a stab is the force behind it.
Too true, and well written. I think the more passionate the probe, the more it is seen as a stab, but I think we can all identify those who are truly here to learn, and those that are here to convert (from either side).
I hate the word "attack" because it has such a negative connotation. Sometimes, in order to really test my own beliefs, I have to push harder than I normaly would, and a lot of my earlier posts, I know, seem to be stabbing.
Finding that balance, is the challenge.
Sometimes it's hard to tell one from the other.
Sometimes the only difference between a probe and a stab is the force behind it.
Too true, and well written. I think the more passionate the probe, the more it is seen as a stab, but I think we can all identify those who are truly here to learn, and those that are here to convert (from either side).
I hate the word "attack" because it has such a negative connotation. Sometimes, in order to really test my own beliefs, I have to push harder than I normaly would, and a lot of my earlier posts, I know, seem to be stabbing.
Finding that balance, is the challenge.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Sep 4 2010, 11:18 AM)
Do you know what a Philistine is?
If you mean the people the Jews tried to exterminate.. yes. I have cited that as why bible literalism is bad.
My God has never urged me to commit genocide, however I think I should lay out for everyone why people like me insist on God. But I think such a thing deserves its own thread so I'll start one and in it explain my own experience with God and why I have a God that I talk to daily as if I am talking to another part of my conscious or an "imaginary friend" whom I expect to guide me in my decisions and through my struggles.
edit:
I am probably using "attack" a little too strongly, lets just say I have alot of explaining and debating ahead of me in the academic world so long as I keep my faith open and share it.
If you mean the people the Jews tried to exterminate.. yes. I have cited that as why bible literalism is bad.
My God has never urged me to commit genocide, however I think I should lay out for everyone why people like me insist on God. But I think such a thing deserves its own thread so I'll start one and in it explain my own experience with God and why I have a God that I talk to daily as if I am talking to another part of my conscious or an "imaginary friend" whom I expect to guide me in my decisions and through my struggles.
edit:
I am probably using "attack" a little too strongly, lets just say I have alot of explaining and debating ahead of me in the academic world so long as I keep my faith open and share it.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Sep 4 2010, 04:46 PM)
What do you mean by nice try. The link I provided clearly showed the dates they were using in their statistics. I am not making any claim that it is currently the statistics.
If I was trying to deceive you I would not have included the link.
lol I'm sorry I misunderstood what you meant by "current" I guess, I see there are more recent figures but its still a tad higher than 3-6% especially in france, germany, check republic, england.. anywhere there is not much suffering and struggling it seems.
I don't know if it would be a good or bad thing for us to take care of each other so that we no longer need a god.. I often wonder if our God is sometimes the driving force behind our social reforms and what would happen if there was no more poor or wars or any need for a god. Would we then spiral downwards and begin the cycle again???
Ok enough on this I think I should make a topic about God and my need for him/her I think that may help many here understand better.
If I was trying to deceive you I would not have included the link.
lol I'm sorry I misunderstood what you meant by "current" I guess, I see there are more recent figures but its still a tad higher than 3-6% especially in france, germany, check republic, england.. anywhere there is not much suffering and struggling it seems.
I don't know if it would be a good or bad thing for us to take care of each other so that we no longer need a god.. I often wonder if our God is sometimes the driving force behind our social reforms and what would happen if there was no more poor or wars or any need for a god. Would we then spiral downwards and begin the cycle again???
Ok enough on this I think I should make a topic about God and my need for him/her I think that may help many here understand better.
QUOTE (dhcracker+Sep 4 2010, 06:00 PM)
If you mean the people the Jews tried to exterminate.. yes. I have cited that as why bible literalism is bad.
Do you mean by exterminate, "war" or "to eradicate from the face of the earth". I may be wrong, but I do not find evidence of the Jews trying to exterminate the Philistines. They were at war with them, but then most people were at war with the Philistines who seem to have be an aggresive invading "nation", and apparently they were pirates aswell, so not very much liked by any nation.
Maybe I am incorrect, and it is biblically written that the Jews wanted to exterminate the Philistines, but maybe you can quote me where this would have been stated.
There is only one point I am trying to make by asking these questions, and that is that we have to (in order to be taken seriously in our arguments) make sure what we say is fact based (even if taken from the bible) and not opinion.
Do you mean by exterminate, "war" or "to eradicate from the face of the earth". I may be wrong, but I do not find evidence of the Jews trying to exterminate the Philistines. They were at war with them, but then most people were at war with the Philistines who seem to have be an aggresive invading "nation", and apparently they were pirates aswell, so not very much liked by any nation.
Maybe I am incorrect, and it is biblically written that the Jews wanted to exterminate the Philistines, but maybe you can quote me where this would have been stated.
There is only one point I am trying to make by asking these questions, and that is that we have to (in order to be taken seriously in our arguments) make sure what we say is fact based (even if taken from the bible) and not opinion.
QUOTE (dhcracker+Sep 4 2010, 07:15 AM)
The entire continent of Europe is 80% atheist or something like that, our universities and academics are mostly all atheists.
I think you mean secular.
People who don't know they are Atheist don't generally get counted as Atheist.
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Sep 4 2010, 06:40 PM)
Do you mean by exterminate, "war" or "to eradicate from the face of the earth". I may be wrong, but I do not find evidence of the Jews trying to exterminate the Philistines. They were at war with them, but then most people were at war with the Philistines who seem to have be an aggresive invading "nation", and apparently they were pirates aswell, so not very much liked by any nation.
Maybe I am incorrect, and it is biblically written that the Jews wanted to exterminate the Philistines, but maybe you can quote me where this would have been stated.
There is only one point I am trying to make by asking these questions, and that is that we have to (in order to be taken seriously in our arguments) make sure what we say is fact based (even if taken from the bible) and not opinion.
Numbers 33
"Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'When you cross the Jordan into Canaan, 52 drive out all the inhabitants of the land before you. Destroy all their carved images and their cast idols, and demolish all their high places. 53 Take possession of the land and settle in it, for I have given you the land to possess. 54 Distribute the land by lot, according to your clans. To a larger group give a larger inheritance, and to a smaller group a smaller one. Whatever falls to them by lot will be theirs. Distribute it according to your ancestral tribes.
55 " 'But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land, those you allow to remain will become barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides. They will give you trouble in the land where you will live. 56 And then I will do to you what I plan to do to them.' "
deuteronomy 7
1 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you- 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. [a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5
Do not be terrified by them, for the LORD your God, who is among you, is a great and awesome God. 22 The LORD your God will drive out those nations before you, little by little. You will not be allowed to eliminate them all at once, or the wild animals will multiply around you. 23 But the LORD your God will deliver them over to you, throwing them into great confusion until they are destroyed. 24 He will give their kings into your hand, and you will wipe out their names from under heaven. No one will be able to stand up against you; you will destroy them.
then in 8
19 If you ever forget the LORD your God and follow other gods and worship and bow down to them, I testify against you today that you will surely be destroyed. 20 Like the nations the LORD destroyed before you, so you will be destroyed for not obeying the LORD your God.
lol it seems moses was God to those people in the torah
Maybe I am incorrect, and it is biblically written that the Jews wanted to exterminate the Philistines, but maybe you can quote me where this would have been stated.
There is only one point I am trying to make by asking these questions, and that is that we have to (in order to be taken seriously in our arguments) make sure what we say is fact based (even if taken from the bible) and not opinion.
Numbers 33
"Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'When you cross the Jordan into Canaan, 52 drive out all the inhabitants of the land before you. Destroy all their carved images and their cast idols, and demolish all their high places. 53 Take possession of the land and settle in it, for I have given you the land to possess. 54 Distribute the land by lot, according to your clans. To a larger group give a larger inheritance, and to a smaller group a smaller one. Whatever falls to them by lot will be theirs. Distribute it according to your ancestral tribes.
55 " 'But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land, those you allow to remain will become barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides. They will give you trouble in the land where you will live. 56 And then I will do to you what I plan to do to them.' "
deuteronomy 7
1 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you- 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. [a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5
Do not be terrified by them, for the LORD your God, who is among you, is a great and awesome God. 22 The LORD your God will drive out those nations before you, little by little. You will not be allowed to eliminate them all at once, or the wild animals will multiply around you. 23 But the LORD your God will deliver them over to you, throwing them into great confusion until they are destroyed. 24 He will give their kings into your hand, and you will wipe out their names from under heaven. No one will be able to stand up against you; you will destroy them.
then in 8
19 If you ever forget the LORD your God and follow other gods and worship and bow down to them, I testify against you today that you will surely be destroyed. 20 Like the nations the LORD destroyed before you, so you will be destroyed for not obeying the LORD your God.
lol it seems moses was God to those people in the torah
QUOTE (dhcracker+)
Probabilities of plane crashes have absolutely nothing to do with intelligent design.
And where I stopped your quote is where your argument ceased holding water for anyone but yourself and people that use your logic. Easier for who? Do you speak for mankind?
Easier for me to believe, but as I said I don't know if it's true and the odds are that I will never know for sure and neither will you. So we are left with our 'local' universe that observations of reveal that it is expanding at an accelerated rate. If you want to play with words and say that a singularity/creation event doesn't necessarily mean by fiat that an intelligence was behind it then fine, that would at least be honest.
The best you could say here is that I know little about big bang cosmology, but that doesn't mean I know nothing about science or that you know more than I. And besides we are having essentially a philosophical conversation about the universe.
Nothing comes from nothing, nothing can. Absolute nothingness means just that. Asserting an intelligence there is just special pleading, because you want somewhere to go when you die. Well tough, grow some.
The best you could say here is that I know little about big bang cosmology, but that doesn't mean I know nothing about science or that you know more than I. And besides we are having essentially a philosophical conversation about the universe.
Nothing comes from nothing, nothing can. Absolute nothingness means just that. Asserting an intelligence there is just special pleading, because you want somewhere to go when you die. Well tough, grow some.
This is our standard model of the universe and as such is backed by decades of observations and experiments and we can bank everything we see had a beginning. However we may show there is a cycle of creation and destruction.. but that has its own room for intelligent design. As I said earlier science tells us the how not the why.
Science tells you the how whilst others claim they know the why, go figure. I do have sympathy for those born in earlier times when scientific knowledge about the world was significantly less than it is now.
I can see why it appeals to you. I feel that you like the idea of knowing specifically why the universe is here and indeed why you are here. I'm not convinced that the universe was built with us in mind or that there is an honest answer that will satisfy our curiosity. We will not be the first people to have lived and died bereft of answers to these very human questions. I have seen no evidence that the universe knows we are here, other than other living beings who may or may not register our existence. As bleak as that may sound at first, it does at least open the possibility that we as a collective can begin to act like we are actually a part of this universe and not be side tracked by a desire for it to be over and move on to some dreamed up eternal paradise or torture chamber. We could be the first earth species intelligent enough to understand the potential for it's own extinction but was to stupid to avoid it.
How we got here? Study evolutionary biology perhaps? I'm not sure what level of detail an answer you would expect on an Internet forum especially when I cannot claim 'God did it' and stop.
I would fight for your right to believe whatever but also reserve the right to ridicule those beliefs.
Regards
First articulated over 2500 years ago by Parmenides.
We now know that is isn't necessarily true.
If the net energy of the universe is zero, then the universe could indeed arise from nothing.
lol it seems moses was God to those people in the torah
Don't forget Moses may have never existed and been just a piece of fiction.
The best you could say here is that I know little about big bang cosmology, but that doesn't mean I know nothing about science or that you know more than I. And besides we are having essentially a philosophical conversation about the universe.
Nothing comes from nothing, nothing can. Absolute nothingness means just that. Asserting an intelligence there is just special pleading, because you want somewhere to go when you die. Well tough, grow some.
Science tells you the how whilst others claim they know the why, go figure. I do have sympathy for those born in earlier times when scientific knowledge about the world was significantly less than it is now.
I can see why it appeals to you. I feel that you like the idea of knowing specifically why the universe is here and indeed why you are here. I'm not convinced that the universe was built with us in mind or that there is an honest answer that will satisfy our curiosity. We will not be the first people to have lived and died bereft of answers to these very human questions. I have seen no evidence that the universe knows we are here, other than other living beings who may or may not register our existence. As bleak as that may sound at first, it does at least open the possibility that we as a collective can begin to act like we are actually a part of this universe and not be side tracked by a desire for it to be over and move on to some dreamed up eternal paradise or torture chamber. We could be the first earth species intelligent enough to understand the potential for it's own extinction but was to stupid to avoid it.
How we got here? Study evolutionary biology perhaps? I'm not sure what level of detail an answer you would expect on an Internet forum especially when I cannot claim 'God did it' and stop.
I would fight for your right to believe whatever but also reserve the right to ridicule those beliefs.
Regards
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0908/0908.1495v5.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9709/9709059v2.pdf
Yes the universe came from nothing, and something can come from nothing
That is our best current understanding and isn't likely to change for awhile.
I'd challenge you to a science test anyday, but your right I can't just assume I know more. However I can say based on our conversation it seems I have a stronger desire to search for answers in science than you do, but thats natural I guess since I am looking for God and you tend to believe it doesn't really matter how we got here your mind is set.
I have sympathy for those that ridicule other people in ignorance of them. You may be an exception however your statement here shows your ridicule can be flawed "Asserting an intelligence there is just special pleading, because you want somewhere to go when you die. Well tough, grow some" Asserting nothing there is denying your "scientific" basis for your own denial of a God. Either you propose an answer, look for an answer, or you keep your ridicule of mine to yourself for all I care about it as far as the beginning goes. Your not ducking what you don't understand now, your ridiculing someone that has better understanding than you do in this subject.
Where you would have me grow "some" to deal with the unknown, I would have you grow knowledge on the subject to which you have no answer for while you claim my answer is too complicated.
"As bleak as that may sound at first, it does at least open the possibility that we as a collective can begin to act like we are actually a part of this universe and not be side tracked by a desire for it to be over and move on to some dreamed up eternal paradise or torture chamber. We could be the first earth species intelligent enough to understand the potential for it's own extinction but was to stupid to avoid it."
Oh slurs now I see, I don't see many religious people jumping off bridges. And what extinction do you refer to? Have you found an asteroid headed toward earth? Oh let me guess... global warming.... funny, finally your answer to how we got here told me all I need to know, you have a right to speak but when you don't even know that as of yet nobody knows where life came from, nobody can take organics and make life.
You cannot claim "god didn't do it" and not be able to even have a clue about what did do it and stop, then ridicule someone that has a better understanding of the science that says something smart had to do something brilliant. That is more comlicated than saying ... what nothing?? sure its more comlicated than twiddling your thumbs ya but its as likely as what you do not propose in your "ridicule".
Now your just full of catch phrases and slurs now that you can't make a point other than that. Disappointed maybe I was wrong about my assumptions on your character? I expected you would be able to admit one is no better than the other.. but your just as intolerant as those pesky "texans".
First articulated over 2500 years ago by Parmenides.
We now know that is isn't necessarily true.
If the net energy of the universe is zero, then the universe could indeed arise from nothing.
The operative word being IF.
As far as I know, we do not know the IF the nett energy of the universe is zero. To me it seems, that if the nett energy of the universe was zero, the universe would not be in the form we currently see and would certainly not be expanding. To me it seems only logical, that there has to be an imbalance of some sort in order for the universe to exist in its current form and shape.
The quantity of imbalance only need be miniscule in order to have caused the creation of the universe and in all likelihood is immeasurable (even a single quark or its yet undiscovered baby baby baby cousin, could have been enough cause), but to me , it is logical that an imbalance had to occur, and the universe may not have a nett energy of zero.
Having said that, there may be an absolutely illogical explanation that logically explains it all. Thats how ridiculous the universe is.
The other possibility is that the universe has a nett energy of zero, and existed in that form since forever.
Someone will be right and someone will be wrong, and in a great irony, we may all be right and/or all be wrong.
The Goddard space flight centre claims, we can only see between 1% - 5% of the universe at the moment. We are really still so far from really knowing what the universe is.
Goddard Space Flight Centre
And where I stopped your quote is where your argument ceased holding water for anyone but yourself and people that use your logic. Easier for who? Do you speak for mankind?
Easier for me to believe, but as I said I don't know if it's true and the odds are that I will never know for sure and neither will you. So we are left with our 'local' universe that observations of reveal that it is expanding at an accelerated rate. If you want to play with words and say that a singularity/creation event doesn't necessarily mean by fiat that an intelligence was behind it then fine, that would at least be honest.
QUOTE
And for someone that talks so much of science you know absolutely nothing about it. "for all we know the universe could be eternal" wrong, protons have a set decay rate the universe is exactly 13.7 billion years old, and its accelerating space and everything you see in the heavens all existed at a singular point infinitely small, infinitely hot... and that came from NOTHING.
The best you could say here is that I know little about big bang cosmology, but that doesn't mean I know nothing about science or that you know more than I. And besides we are having essentially a philosophical conversation about the universe.
Nothing comes from nothing, nothing can. Absolute nothingness means just that. Asserting an intelligence there is just special pleading, because you want somewhere to go when you die. Well tough, grow some.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And for someone that talks so much of science you know absolutely nothing about it. "for all we know the universe could be eternal" wrong, protons have a set decay rate the universe is exactly 13.7 billion years old, and its accelerating space and everything you see in the heavens all existed at a singular point infinitely small, infinitely hot... and that came from NOTHING. |
The best you could say here is that I know little about big bang cosmology, but that doesn't mean I know nothing about science or that you know more than I. And besides we are having essentially a philosophical conversation about the universe.
Nothing comes from nothing, nothing can. Absolute nothingness means just that. Asserting an intelligence there is just special pleading, because you want somewhere to go when you die. Well tough, grow some.
This is our standard model of the universe and as such is backed by decades of observations and experiments and we can bank everything we see had a beginning. However we may show there is a cycle of creation and destruction.. but that has its own room for intelligent design. As I said earlier science tells us the how not the why.
Science tells you the how whilst others claim they know the why, go figure. I do have sympathy for those born in earlier times when scientific knowledge about the world was significantly less than it is now.
I can see why it appeals to you. I feel that you like the idea of knowing specifically why the universe is here and indeed why you are here. I'm not convinced that the universe was built with us in mind or that there is an honest answer that will satisfy our curiosity. We will not be the first people to have lived and died bereft of answers to these very human questions. I have seen no evidence that the universe knows we are here, other than other living beings who may or may not register our existence. As bleak as that may sound at first, it does at least open the possibility that we as a collective can begin to act like we are actually a part of this universe and not be side tracked by a desire for it to be over and move on to some dreamed up eternal paradise or torture chamber. We could be the first earth species intelligent enough to understand the potential for it's own extinction but was to stupid to avoid it.
QUOTE
I am using science much more than you are my friend, but you completely disregard the biggest point. Even if science didn't point to a creation event which it in fact does do, the universe was in fact created (regardless if by a God or by a cosmic fart) that is not up for debate.. what is up for debate is if its OK to patronize people that like to believe we are a part of a grand purpose an all knowing ever present intelligence.. and is this all for us alone? There are LOTS of questions science cannot answer, and lots of places where people can lean on intelligent design and to them its far easier than leaning on random chaos. To say what is easier to do is like saying your favorite color is blue. Now you have answered that for yourself to me though, and I am satisfied with that answer you cant' possibly speak for all atheists as I can't possibly speak for all theists. That said I think you are a fine person anyway lol
Now I'm glad you would fight for my right to believe in intelligent design, will you also not discriminate against me for doing so, not mock me, not think somehow my intelligence is flawed, or believe your belief is better or more scientific or based in less faith... blah blah blah.. thats just saying your way is better in some way or another. And the same applies for atheists suffering from religious people.. ESPECIALLY in the past... it seems now the shoe is going over to the other foot now and some people see a need for vengeance maybe? do you see this?
If you are really willing to admit we have no idea how we got here, then you are a very tolerant and open minded atheist and I wish all atheists adopted your stance as it is more kind to your fellow human beings. I agree with your view on tolerance totally.
I've enjoyed the discussion with you I think at this point we can simply shake hands with respect and agree to disagree with neither one of us taking offense to the other or having any resentment or feeling persecuted or misunderstood.
I will say this, I don't like to persecute atheists and I think its wrong as do most people in my generation. However I feel my generation of believers will suffer some based on what their fathers did... I guess its natural but maybe we will all learn a little "lets all get along" in the end I hope.
I think we have here
very good discussion hats off to you
Now I'm glad you would fight for my right to believe in intelligent design, will you also not discriminate against me for doing so, not mock me, not think somehow my intelligence is flawed, or believe your belief is better or more scientific or based in less faith... blah blah blah.. thats just saying your way is better in some way or another. And the same applies for atheists suffering from religious people.. ESPECIALLY in the past... it seems now the shoe is going over to the other foot now and some people see a need for vengeance maybe? do you see this?
If you are really willing to admit we have no idea how we got here, then you are a very tolerant and open minded atheist and I wish all atheists adopted your stance as it is more kind to your fellow human beings. I agree with your view on tolerance totally.
I've enjoyed the discussion with you I think at this point we can simply shake hands with respect and agree to disagree with neither one of us taking offense to the other or having any resentment or feeling persecuted or misunderstood.
I will say this, I don't like to persecute atheists and I think its wrong as do most people in my generation. However I feel my generation of believers will suffer some based on what their fathers did... I guess its natural but maybe we will all learn a little "lets all get along" in the end I hope.
I think we have here
very good discussion hats off to you
How we got here? Study evolutionary biology perhaps? I'm not sure what level of detail an answer you would expect on an Internet forum especially when I cannot claim 'God did it' and stop.
I would fight for your right to believe whatever but also reserve the right to ridicule those beliefs.
Regards
QUOTE
Nothing comes from nothing, nothing can
First articulated over 2500 years ago by Parmenides.
We now know that is isn't necessarily true.
If the net energy of the universe is zero, then the universe could indeed arise from nothing.
QUOTE (dhcracker+Sep 4 2010, 07:28 PM)
lol it seems moses was God to those people in the torah
Don't forget Moses may have never existed and been just a piece of fiction.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Sep 5 2010, 01:00 AM)
The best you could say here is that I know little about big bang cosmology, but that doesn't mean I know nothing about science or that you know more than I. And besides we are having essentially a philosophical conversation about the universe.
Nothing comes from nothing, nothing can. Absolute nothingness means just that. Asserting an intelligence there is just special pleading, because you want somewhere to go when you die. Well tough, grow some.
Science tells you the how whilst others claim they know the why, go figure. I do have sympathy for those born in earlier times when scientific knowledge about the world was significantly less than it is now.
I can see why it appeals to you. I feel that you like the idea of knowing specifically why the universe is here and indeed why you are here. I'm not convinced that the universe was built with us in mind or that there is an honest answer that will satisfy our curiosity. We will not be the first people to have lived and died bereft of answers to these very human questions. I have seen no evidence that the universe knows we are here, other than other living beings who may or may not register our existence. As bleak as that may sound at first, it does at least open the possibility that we as a collective can begin to act like we are actually a part of this universe and not be side tracked by a desire for it to be over and move on to some dreamed up eternal paradise or torture chamber. We could be the first earth species intelligent enough to understand the potential for it's own extinction but was to stupid to avoid it.
How we got here? Study evolutionary biology perhaps? I'm not sure what level of detail an answer you would expect on an Internet forum especially when I cannot claim 'God did it' and stop.
I would fight for your right to believe whatever but also reserve the right to ridicule those beliefs.
Regards
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0908/0908.1495v5.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9709/9709059v2.pdf
Yes the universe came from nothing, and something can come from nothing
That is our best current understanding and isn't likely to change for awhile.
I'd challenge you to a science test anyday, but your right I can't just assume I know more. However I can say based on our conversation it seems I have a stronger desire to search for answers in science than you do, but thats natural I guess since I am looking for God and you tend to believe it doesn't really matter how we got here your mind is set.
I have sympathy for those that ridicule other people in ignorance of them. You may be an exception however your statement here shows your ridicule can be flawed "Asserting an intelligence there is just special pleading, because you want somewhere to go when you die. Well tough, grow some" Asserting nothing there is denying your "scientific" basis for your own denial of a God. Either you propose an answer, look for an answer, or you keep your ridicule of mine to yourself for all I care about it as far as the beginning goes. Your not ducking what you don't understand now, your ridiculing someone that has better understanding than you do in this subject.
Where you would have me grow "some" to deal with the unknown, I would have you grow knowledge on the subject to which you have no answer for while you claim my answer is too complicated.
"As bleak as that may sound at first, it does at least open the possibility that we as a collective can begin to act like we are actually a part of this universe and not be side tracked by a desire for it to be over and move on to some dreamed up eternal paradise or torture chamber. We could be the first earth species intelligent enough to understand the potential for it's own extinction but was to stupid to avoid it."
Oh slurs now I see, I don't see many religious people jumping off bridges. And what extinction do you refer to? Have you found an asteroid headed toward earth? Oh let me guess... global warming.... funny, finally your answer to how we got here told me all I need to know, you have a right to speak but when you don't even know that as of yet nobody knows where life came from, nobody can take organics and make life.
You cannot claim "god didn't do it" and not be able to even have a clue about what did do it and stop, then ridicule someone that has a better understanding of the science that says something smart had to do something brilliant. That is more comlicated than saying ... what nothing?? sure its more comlicated than twiddling your thumbs ya but its as likely as what you do not propose in your "ridicule".
Now your just full of catch phrases and slurs now that you can't make a point other than that. Disappointed maybe I was wrong about my assumptions on your character? I expected you would be able to admit one is no better than the other.. but your just as intolerant as those pesky "texans".
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 5 2010, 01:50 AM)
Don't forget Moses may have never existed and been just a piece of fiction.
REally??? shesh next your going to say there is no santa or something like that I can't believe you would doubt MOSES!!!
What does his existence have any relevence for? Are you trying to make a funny that .. since Moses acted like God...OHHH LOL yes I see the humor now I'm sorry for the funny sarcasm good one
REally??? shesh next your going to say there is no santa or something like that I can't believe you would doubt MOSES!!!
What does his existence have any relevence for? Are you trying to make a funny that .. since Moses acted like God...OHHH LOL yes I see the humor now I'm sorry for the funny sarcasm
good one QUOTE (dhcracker+Sep 4 2010, 08:36 PM)
Disappointed maybe I was wrong about my assumptions on your character? I expected you would be able to admit one is no better than the other.. but your just as intolerant as those pesky "texans".
I don't know if it's true that all Texans are intolerant but I know of one who is.
I'm not judging......I'm just saying!
I don't know if it's true that all Texans are intolerant but I know of one who is.
I'm not judging...
...I'm just saying!
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Sep 5 2010, 04:06 AM)
I don't know if it's true that all Texans are intolerant but I know of one who is.
I'm not judging......I'm just saying!
lol I hope you remember the "texans" portion of the debates earlier.. it was meant with humor of course
I think your refering to W??
I'm not judging...
...I'm just saying! lol I hope you remember the "texans" portion of the debates earlier.. it was meant with humor of course
I think your refering to W??
No. Sorry about that.
I just had to get one wise crack in on a pesky feedback lurker.
I just had to get one wise crack in on a pesky feedback lurker.
QUOTE (NymphaeaAlba+Sep 5 2010, 04:26 AM)
No. Sorry about that.
I just had to get one wise crack in on a pesky feedback lurker.
LOL that was pretty good... that was the first time I read my feedback... SHEESH I don't think I wanna go back there lol. Not much in the line of "constructive" criticism from this crowd for sure!
But hey at least I know some people are having fun! I should probably return all the favors I in there lol.
I just had to get one wise crack in on a pesky feedback lurker.
LOL that was pretty good... that was the first time I read my feedback... SHEESH I don't think I wanna go back there lol. Not much in the line of "constructive" criticism from this crowd for sure!
But hey at least I know some people are having fun! I should probably return all the favors I in there lol.
QUOTE (AlexG+Sep 5 2010, 01:11 AM)
First articulated over 2500 years ago by Parmenides.
We now know that is isn't necessarily true.
If the net energy of the universe is zero, then the universe could indeed arise from nothing.
The operative word being IF.
As far as I know, we do not know the IF the nett energy of the universe is zero. To me it seems, that if the nett energy of the universe was zero, the universe would not be in the form we currently see and would certainly not be expanding. To me it seems only logical, that there has to be an imbalance of some sort in order for the universe to exist in its current form and shape.
The quantity of imbalance only need be miniscule in order to have caused the creation of the universe and in all likelihood is immeasurable (even a single quark or its yet undiscovered baby baby baby cousin, could have been enough cause), but to me , it is logical that an imbalance had to occur, and the universe may not have a nett energy of zero.
Having said that, there may be an absolutely illogical explanation that logically explains it all. Thats how ridiculous the universe is.
The other possibility is that the universe has a nett energy of zero, and existed in that form since forever.
Someone will be right and someone will be wrong, and in a great irony, we may all be right and/or all be wrong.
The Goddard space flight centre claims, we can only see between 1% - 5% of the universe at the moment. We are really still so far from really knowing what the universe is.
Goddard Space Flight Centre
QUOTE (fredinjeddah+Sep 5 2010, 10:35 AM)
The operative word being IF.
As far as I know, we do not know the IF the nett energy of the universe is zero. To me it seems, that if the nett energy of the universe was zero, the universe would not be in the form we currently see and would certainly not be expanding. To me it seems only logical, that there has to be an imbalance of some sort in order for the universe to exist in its current form and shape.
The quantity of imbalance only need be miniscule in order to have caused the creation of the universe and in all likelihood is immeasurable (even a single quark or its yet undiscovered baby baby baby cousin, could have been enough cause), but to me , it is logical that an imbalance had to occur, and the universe may not have a nett energy of zero.
Having said that, there may be an absolutely illogical explanation that logically explains it all. Thats how ridiculous the universe is.
The other possibility is that the universe has a nett energy of zero, and existed in that form since forever.
Someone will be right and someone will be wrong, and in a great irony, we may all be right and/or all be wrong.
The Goddard space flight centre claims, we can only see between 1% - 5% of the universe at the moment. We are really still so far from really knowing what the universe is.
Goddard Space Flight Centre
Thats the first time I have seen Alex wander off our Standard Model, however he is correct. Even though our standard model kind of says.. once upon a time an infinitesimal point all of a sudden got infinitely hot and we have a singularity, but there are ways to explain it without a singularity that are not currently a part of the standard model, and they use net zero energy by having fluctuations between positive and negative energy fields basically.
Hes just saying actually, it can mathematically be shown to come from nothing, but there are some problems with it just like all theories... its interesting though its one of my research areas.
As far as I know, we do not know the IF the nett energy of the universe is zero. To me it seems, that if the nett energy of the universe was zero, the universe would not be in the form we currently see and would certainly not be expanding. To me it seems only logical, that there has to be an imbalance of some sort in order for the universe to exist in its current form and shape.
The quantity of imbalance only need be miniscule in order to have caused the creation of the universe and in all likelihood is immeasurable (even a single quark or its yet undiscovered baby baby baby cousin, could have been enough cause), but to me , it is logical that an imbalance had to occur, and the universe may not have a nett energy of zero.
Having said that, there may be an absolutely illogical explanation that logically explains it all. Thats how ridiculous the universe is.
The other possibility is that the universe has a nett energy of zero, and existed in that form since forever.
Someone will be right and someone will be wrong, and in a great irony, we may all be right and/or all be wrong.
The Goddard space flight centre claims, we can only see between 1% - 5% of the universe at the moment. We are really still so far from really knowing what the universe is.
Goddard Space Flight Centre
Thats the first time I have seen Alex wander off our Standard Model, however he is correct. Even though our standard model kind of says.. once upon a time an infinitesimal point all of a sudden got infinitely hot and we have a singularity, but there are ways to explain it without a singularity that are not currently a part of the standard model, and they use net zero energy by having fluctuations between positive and negative energy fields basically.
Hes just saying actually, it can mathematically be shown to come from nothing, but there are some problems with it just like all theories... its interesting though its one of my research areas.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.