Excellent, I’m glad that you’ve decided to fight ignorance with more ignorance. It really is the most effective way.
Ah yes, Bill Maher, the famous theologian and academic…oh wait, you mean the comedian? Never mind.
Good question, that’s why I am not a practicing Christian. Doesn’t mean that I don’t understand the Bible though.
You know, you keep coming back to the pork thing and I keep coming back with Mark 7:19. You have yet to come up with a reason why I should not be eating pork/shellfish/etc. when I have shown you why I can.
Congratulations…would you like a cookie? How does this have anything to do with what we are talking about?
I’d join you in debate on this topic, but your inability to argue the pork point with anything except “you can’t do it” leads me to believe your intellect isn’t quite up to it.
I don’t have to…you’ve demonstrated that you don’t know what you are talking about quite sufficiently by yourself.
Lolo, deliberately trying to offend people and taking great glee in doing so–particuarly when you make it clear that you could easily choose to post more reasonably but prefer to offend–is not considered proper behavior in this forum; it is considered being a jerk and a troll. (Our Lady knows we have more than enough people who are offensive without even trying; we don’t need people who actually work at it.) And you did agree to abide by the rules of this message board, the main one here being “don’t be a jerk.” So I’d strongly advise you to avoid the path you appear to be heading down. Got it?
Sort of like Christianity… but you’re not a Christian, so never mind.
what, you don’t like humor?
What’s to understand? It’s useless. I use solely to provoke people. I see you’re not a Christian. Case closed.
Now I’m just teasing you about the pork thing. I really don’t care.
You accused me of using a quote generator. I wanted to assure you I was not. That’s all.
My intellect is up to it. try me.
well, shall we discuss? I promise I’ll drop the pork thing.
I suppose I should’ve clarified my position before using elementary tactics, but hey, I’m bored. But this is a more intelligent group of posters so for my remarks, I apologize. I’ve just gotten away with that same line of confusion so many times with Christians before it sort of just comes out. I definitely did myself a disservice by acting in such away and I’ll try to avoid it in the future. Cyrin simply annoyed me and being the person I am I got carried away. If nothing else, I believe in honesty.
Again, I see the error of my way. Most of you folks aren’t silly campus crusaders who went out of their way to bother me.
argh, I guess I should take my friends advice and not get so easily provoked.
Let’s start over. I was having such a nice time here, and i’d like to continue.
In a debate:
Giving offense through ignorance is bad.
Giving offense through deliberation worse.
In the PIT:
Giving offense through deliberation is the whole idea.
Giving offense through ignorance is tactically unsound but often amusing.
Know your forums, people. This thread had already been well graced with some of the worst elements facets of Christianity. Now it has been graced with some of the worst facets of atheis.
My apologies for being unclear and assuming that when you stated how did things came out of random, that you were simply expecting organisms to come out of nowhere. Some aspects of evolution are random just like weather patterns are random. Whether or not a given mutation will appear is rather random, just like whether or a not it will rain on a given day. I would suggest looking here for a better understanding of evolution than I can articulate. Try doing a search for chance or random.
Ok, my question is then, where did your instinct, creativity/ability to problem solve (logical thinking) come from?
I used the term Random because it has been used to describe the process of evolution and our method of coming into being. Therefore if we came into being as a result of randomness, how can we possibly have a purpose? **
[/QUOTE]
The problem I’m having with this line of thought is the use of purpose. Does my existence have an exterior purpose? No. Do my legs have an exterior purpose. Yes, they grant me mobility and thus increase my chances for survival and hence reproduction. They are not random in that sense.
I only read pages 1,2 i just dont have 5 hours to read this whole post. I am sure it was all interesting.
I am an athiest and if i was going to convince a theist that there is no god how would i do it without going into tangling logical arguments. I mean a theist faith is not based on logic its based on emotions. Should i then use emotional arguments when trying to disprove existance of god? Her is a lame one i came up with “if god exist why does he let inocent (sinless) people get killed in wars, earthquakes ect.” ?
I am a technical person and i like logic but most my friends are not. So what do you think is the best strategy?
What are you talking about? OK, physicists explain the **existence **of gravity by mass distorting space-time. Gravity is still not an illusion - it’s a scientifically proven fact!
Yes, of course. Find evidence, construct a hypothesis and test it. if contradictory evidence appears, revise the theory.
So the Sun will rise tomorrow, and there will be a gravitional pull between you and the Earth. These are good theories, which provide plenty of predictions for testing.
(Unlike religion, where no simple predictions are ever made, let alone fulfilled.)
Shall we call it Nature? Or perhaps just ‘a set of laws’.
Already your hypothesis has a simpler rival. If there is ‘a set of laws’, then by definition there would be ‘a set of laws’.
Also we haven’t tested physics at Alpha Centauri (unless you know something the rest of the planet doesn’t).
According to many Christians, God wants us to use faith, so conceals himself.
Every culture would sense what exactly? That we are curious about our origin and maybe there was a Creator involved?
Sure, that’s true.
Every culture also has people who believe in magic, astrology, flat earth, ghosts, aliens, nature spirits, life after death, reincarnation, dragons and pyramid schemes.
Do you believe in those things as well?
OK, I was joking about you knowing what goes on at Alpha Centauri. But now you know something about the religious beliefs of Neanderthal Man?
Could you tell me how you know that?
Particularly in their treatment of women (especially women priests), homosexuals, racism, other religions :rolleyes:
Do you know how many branches of Christianity there are?
Can you say which of them is the true Christian faith?
Do you agree that Judaism and Christianity are incompatible?
Do you think Islam recognises Jesus as the Son of God?
Do you think Buddism is compatible with Heaven?
Was Halie Selassie a God?
Was Joseph Smith a true prophet?
And this incredible ‘uniformity’ is supposed to prove God exists? I think not.
Either my find button has failed me or everyone here is a strag (noun–non-hitchhiker).
To paraphrase:
"…the upshot of which being if you put a Babel Fish in your ear, you can understand anything said to you in any language. Unfortunately, by removing all barriers to communication, the Babel fish has been the cause of more and bloodier wars than ever in the history of the universe.
The Babel fish has also been seen as final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:
God says to man ‘I refuse to proof that I exist because proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing.’
‘But,’ man says, ‘the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn’t it? Something so mindbogglingly useful could not possibly have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, so by your own arguments therefore you dont, QED.’
‘Oh dear,’ said God. ‘I hadn’t thought of that.’ And God promptly vanished in a puff of logic.
Oolon Collophid (author of the philosophical blockbusters Where God Went Wrong, Some More Of God’s Greatest Mistakes, and Who Is This God Person Anyway?) made this the subject of his fourth book Well, That About Wraps It Up For God.
As I’ve said, I’m talking actual God, these are the metaphors of God created by individual faiths. Light can’t be both a wave and a particle either. My religion is Judiaism and I like the story where Abraham asks to see God’s face. He is told that no one may see God’s face and live, but he can see what is left in His path as He goes by. So Abraham is placed behind a rock to watch the “ruach” (means both wind and spirit) of God as He passes. I’ve always felt that this story hits it on the head. We cannot hope to comprehend God, we are too limited in our ability to percieve. The best we can do is to study that which God has left in his/her/its wake, and by studying it, hope to gain some appeciation, some small understanding, of God. As to the Torah, it is a hodgepodge of history and mythology that illustrate the great truths and tries to approach God in a way that we can comprehend. As all religions do. Science to me is a spiritual excercise, for the way the universe works IS God’s wake.
BTW, thanks Glee, for responding at a higher level than lots on this thread. I respect the atheist position, and certainly the hypothesis that “it just is” is teneble. I wonder though how many militant atheists are just reacting against specific religious literal interpretations of God. IMHO there is no conclusive evidence for one hypothesis over the other. I went through religious school as the class atheist. I became agnostic as an adult. And I became a believer as I matured into an acceptance that I don’t need to have a picture in mind for God, as I accepted the limits of my ability to percieve. I choose to believe in God because I choose to believe in Right and Wrong with the capital universal letters, but I only choose for me.
I must be really polite, since I am expressing incredulity at some of your postings!
Still good manners usually help the discussion along…
This is a reference to share prices, not a destruction of the scientific method.
I repeat: Gravity is still not an illusion - it’s a scientifically proven fact! You are confused between an explanation of something and its existence.
‘a perception of force’
From a dictionary…
Force:
Definition 7 (Physics) an influence tending to change the motion of a body…
Gravity is a force!!!
:rolleyes: Good grief, man. Whatever happens in the Universe is what makes up our experiences. You might be surprised when something happens, but scientists who study it soon make up a theory.
Name something that is indescribable. (Now there’s a trick request!)
“Light is a particle.”
Richard Feynman, ‘QED, the strange theory of light and matter’.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by glee *
(Unlike religion, where no simple predictions are ever made, let alone fulfilled.)
So religion has nothing to do with God? (suspiciously) Have you been reading Lewis Carroll?
Is your God hypothesis this ‘the fact that all cultures show an interest in where they came from, and invent Creator myths means that God is proven to exist’?
Please give me a prediction arising from this that I can test, like science does.
Why call it God?
Have you heard of Occam’s razor?
You really have different thought processes from me.
I say there are ‘laws’ of physics, because scientists have observed them.
You say, from the same observations, that there must be an single Omnipotent Undetectable Being, who created the Universe. (You don’t say who created Him). This Being can only be detected by saying that different cultures of human beings have wildly different and contradictory stories of how the Universe began. This Being is universal, despite the above differences. In fact, the Being is so difficult to comprehend that our limited minds cannot handle it. And belief in this Being ‘makes sense of it all’.
I could add some more stuff, but I see that this hypothesis is described by you as ‘simple’. :eek:
There is no physical evidence for any God, just as there is no evidence for fire-breathing dragons, or Santa Claus. All are part of the myths of our culture. Why do you believe in one of them, and not the other two?
(P.S. If you can lay your hands on a dragon, I could give my roleplayers a real surprise ).
Once you have come to the conclusion that God exists, how do you decide which God to believe in?
Let’s say you and your folks are thinking about your sick uncle whom you haven’t heard from in a while and - whaddya know - he rings up on the phone! For whatever reasons, you decide this couldn’t be a coincidence, but must have resulted from divine intervention. How do you come to the conclusion that the intervening divinity is the Christian God? What if it is really a powerful (to flaunt my ignorance of comparative religions) Hindu deity who heard your misdirected prayers, and decided to respond even tho you had - in effect - misdialed? Or if the same thing happened in a different culture or in a different time, would that be proof of whatever God that culture believes in - even if their deity requires the nonexistence of yours?
Are you required to commit a search to narrow down the nature of the true divinity? Doesn’t it matter if your prayers and praises are properly addressed? To paraphrase a great thinker - Homer Simpson - what if it turns out you are going to the wrong church each Sunday, and in doing so you are just making God madder and madder?
Assuming you believe in the Christian God, do you consider folk who believe in other deities mistaken? (No, I am not asking if you think they will go to hell.) They performed the same test as you, tho admittedly they read a different infallible book and were subject to other cultural influences. But they had some life changing experience and came up with a different interpretation than you! And based upon your standard of proof, they are exactly as correct as you.
So what does this mean? Are there many individual Gods? That would seem to be inconsistent with the type of God most judeo-christians seem to believe in.
Dinsdale’s post was full of good points, but this is an especially good point that I think most theists don’t think about nearly hard enough. I’d like to see some Christians actually respond to this point.
Or you have a very immature and arrogant mindset of human capability.
We percieve a Newtonian world but the universe does not really behave in a Newtonian fashion at scale much bigger or smaller than us. Is this news to you? Our brains are adapted to percieve a Newtonian world and are hard wired to think in those terms. Three spatial dimensions, one of time. No human can really picture an object of greater dimensions than that even though we can mathematically describe such objects and can become convinced that they exist. Even Einstein thought in metaphors. And take down your basic physics text about on light’s particle/wave duality. It behaves like a particle, waves can’t do that! It behaves like a wave, particles can’t do that! Quantum physics and String physics still trying to come up with the best way to say what it “really” is. Jeesh! It is the simplist example of how we have to understand things outside of our experience by way of metaphors to that which is within our experience.
I haven’t said anything about Laws of Nature PROVING God, merely that the test of a hypothesis is how consistent it is with the observable, and the nature of the universe and the consistent pattern of cultures to develop God concepts is cw such a hypothesis.
What about Occum’s razor?! All that posits is that the preferred explanation evokes one cause rather than multiple explanations. Nothing is more cw Occums razor than a God hypothesis.
As to the different descriptions of God and individual religions, we are all as to the blind men describing the elephant. We cannot percieve all that is God, so we all describe that which we can. The fact that one blind man percieved a rope, and another a wall, and another a snake, didn’t mean that the elephant wasn’t real, or that any of them were describing their perceptions incorrectly. If they fought over who was right that only proved their hubris in not recognizing that the truth might be beyond their ability to individually percieve.
I am not trying to prove God exists. But theism and atheism are both cw all available evidence. I respect your right to have faith in atheism.
The atheist who distorts the scientific method to justify their faith misunderstands the means of the scientific method. A hypothesis is extant. Human cultures start out with a belief in God in some form or another. The onus of proof is on a new hypothesis to prove that it explains observable evidence better. So far atheism doesn’t do any better than theism.
Or you have a very immature and arrogant mindset of human capability.
We percieve a Newtonian world but the universe does not really behave in a Newtonian fashion at scale much bigger or smaller than us. Is this news to you? Our brains are adapted to percieve a Newtonian world and are hard wired to think in those terms. Three spatial dimensions, one of time. No human can really picture an object of greater dimensions than that even though we can mathematically describe such objects and can become convinced that they exist. Even Einstein thought in metaphors. And take down your basic physics text about on light’s particle/wave duality. It behaves like a particle, waves can’t do that! It behaves like a wave, particles can’t do that! Quantum physics and String physics still trying to come up with the best way to say what it “really” is. Jeesh! It is the simplist example of how we have to understand things outside of our experience by way of metaphors to that which is within our experience.
I haven’t said anything about Laws of Nature PROVING God, merely that the test of a hypothesis is how consistent it is with the observable, and the nature of the universe and the consistent pattern of cultures to develop God concepts is cw such a hypothesis.
What about Occum’s razor?! All that posits is that the preferred explanation evokes one cause rather than multiple explanations. Nothing is more cw Occums razor than a God hypothesis.
As to the different descriptions of God and individual religions, we are all as to the blind men describing the elephant. We cannot percieve all that is God, so we all describe that which we can. The fact that one blind man percieved a rope, and another a wall, and another a snake, didn’t mean that the elephant wasn’t real, or that any of them were describing their perceptions incorrectly. If they fought over who was right that only proved their hubris in not recognizing that the truth might be beyond their ability to individually percieve.
I am not trying to prove God exists. But theism and atheism are both cw all available evidence. I respect your right to have faith in atheism.
The atheist who distorts the scientific method to justify their faith misunderstands the means of the scientific method. A hypothesis is extant. Human cultures start out with a belief in God in some form or another. The onus of proof is on a new hypothesis to prove that it explains observable evidence better. So far atheism doesn’t do any better than theism.
As long as we’re fighting ignorance, let’s straighten this one out, too:
“Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatum.” — William of Ockham
“Do not multiply entities beyond necessity.” Beyond necessity. Beyond … necessity. Ignoring one’s own experience is a violation of Ockham’s Razor. I cannot deny God’s existence.
).