Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Funny site. realy makes a point. http://www.venganza.org/
runewood wrote on Mon, 17 October 2005 19:15 Funny site. realy makes a point. http://www.venganza.org/ ROFLMAO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution
I really don't mind if people disagree with the Intelligent Design theory or the movement to teach it in public schools. But to dis my God? Now I'm pissed. I'm so sick and tired of this bullshit these people put out. They talk of themselves being wonderful, tolerant, and loving people, but their actions show otherwise. They're tolerant of everyone except those who follow Christ. Everyone's "tolerated" and "accepted" except us. But their lies are transparent. Robert Ingersoll, a non-believer, wrote that the church must ultimately be destroyed. This is their true goal. Don't be fooled by their sugar-coated words. It doesn't surprise me though, Jesus said they are already antichrists in the world (1 John 2:18). We're in a war, but not with guns and tanks and bombs. This is a war for lives, the lives of everyone.
MrBob wrote on Wed, 19 October 2005 22:47 I really don't mind if people disagree with the Intelligent Design theory or the movement to teach it in public schools. But to dis my God? Now I'm pissed. I'm so sick and tired of this bullshit these people put out. They talk of themselves being wonderful, tolerant, and loving people, but their actions show otherwise. They're tolerant of everyone except those who follow Christ. Everyone's "tolerated" and "accepted" except us. But their lies are transparent. Robert Ingersoll, a non-believer, wrote that the church must ultimately be destroyed. This is their true goal. Don't be fooled by their sugar-coated words. It doesn't surprise me though, Jesus said they are already antichrists in the world (1 John 2:18). We're in a war, but not with guns and tanks and bombs. This is a war for lives, the lives of everyone. The idea of tolerance with logic doesn't include the induction-based logic of religion and supernatural "superstition". Don't get me wrong, induction proves to me very concretely that God must exist, but that doesn't mean that say, the Bible or the Koran is any more legitimate then the information you'd find on a marijuana party site. The point is, the tolerance works *half decently* for the realist world of "this is what I see, and it is not any god that was outlined in some book of morality." Now that doesn't negate God's existence by any means, but it sure makes it easier for people to comprehend reality when they toss away the shackles of anthropomorphized dieties and senseless sophisms coming from a "religion authority".
SuperFlyingEngi wrote on Wed, 19 October 2005 21:31 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution your source is laughable.
That wikipedia article is VERY incomplete. I have plenty of OTHER reasons to not believe in "God".
http://abstractfactory.blogspot.com/2005/10/only-debate-on-i ntelligent-design-that.html A lot of pro-athestic links have been popping up on del.icio.us lately... It's nice to know I'm in good company.
Meh, people seem to be so involved with the arguementm they fail to realize that the two are not mutually exculsive of one anther. I personally believe in the combined theory. The world did "evolve" as science claims, however it had a little help in the process. I'll get into what I mean at a later date if people want me to.
Know what you mean warranto. That's pretty much how I see it as well.
The question is not what you personaly beleave, its that ID isnt science and shouldnt be taught in science class. They don't say at church "some people think there is no god", and explain that, and if they do its to say these sinners will go to hell. I like how Christians are suddenly the victum...like 2000 years of relgious persicution by them isnt enough? You affend people and you don't even know it. When i sneeze and you say god bless you i get pissed. How would you like it if you sneezed and i said there is no god? Most christians are tolerable but some just piss me off so much. Tolerant means that i don't persacute you or try to convert you like most relgions do. The extream people who follow Christ have done alot to ruin the name Christian. Why the hell shouldn't we hate those extreamists who do evil things? I am fine with you worshiping god aslong as you dont force it on me, even if you don't know it. And if you do i will call you out on it. Religion conclusions based on faith, science is conclusions based on observations.
Oh, please, you're just one of those idiots that seeks any chance you can get to be "offended", so you can go spouting off at the mouth about how much it "offends" you and why it "offends" you. If I Say "God bless, you" when you sneeze, take it as being sincere not that I'm forcing my beliefs on you. You want to bitch about how we persecute non-believers... go ahead, but I don't see us killing you like the Romans did to us. I don't see your life being ruined by our beliefs. If you want to talk persecution, learn up on your history, and then see who the REAL victims are, and I'll give you a little head start: it sure isn't the non-believers. Also, the Creatonist theory is science, and that's why it should be taught. Tell me it's not science, and you've lost all credability... not that you had any to begin with.
Proves my point, you offend me without even knowing or caring. What abotu "Under god" "In god we trust" and such. Are you saying that that isnt offensive? Would you liek you kid saying everyday one nation, denying god? Your religion does thier persicution under the radar, its slow, mothodical and worse then others. You slowly covert people to your beliefs over time like the Native Americans. The romans may have killed you but can they say they wiped out an entire culture? not even hitler could. You hear about how your church does help with things like relief, nice right? but wait, there is a catch. Look at the name of one of the orginizations, Christian Children's Fund. If you look at it who do they help? Christian children. During the Tsunami Disaster they talked about how lots of people were converting to christianity, why? So they can get the food your handing out. No this is much worse then anything the Romans did. You claim to care, but only if they join your relgion. Right, because i say so is science...well I say FSM is a vaild scientific theory....
No, you're just a little punk who gets offended over the stupidest shit because you don't have the common sense to look past the fact that it contains the words "Jesus", "God", "Christian", and "Christ". Do you even know the history as to WHY we have "Under God" and "In God We Trust"? Of course, not. OH NOES! Christian-based organizations have the word "Christian" in their names, RUN FOR THE HILLS FOLKS, IT'S A MASS INVASION!!! We're not forcing people to convert to Christianity for food. If people feel that they have to convert to get food, then it's their fault for thinking that's what we require. Once again, you look past the OBVIOUS meaning of things and scrounge around to find something offensive about it. Unlike FSM, Intelligent Design and Creation are real scientific theories with scientific studies on them. They're real issues tackled by real science, so why deny children from learning them? Are public schools afraid that the children may find some truth to them? How dare schools just force feed children one major theory without discussing others. Hell, even my Christian school taught me Evolution along with Creation.
Being offended by what Is in the Pledge of Allegiance and what is on our money is stupid, and anyone who is offended by it needs to jump off of the face of the earth. Say the damn pledge of Allegiance for what it is meant for: PLEDGING YOUR ALLEGIANCE TO YOUR COUNTRY. Saying "Under God" does not convert you to Christianity dumbfuck. Your the type of person who bitches just to hear yourself bitch. If you believe in a different religion, then just say Under Shiva or something instead, but the least you can do is show respect to your country.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands: one nation under the Flying Spaghetti Monster, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands: one nation saying god isnt real u dumb fucks, with liberty and justice for all. Better gbull? When you involve god it is no longer science. Plain and simple. We don't have to nor are we supposed to teach all the main theorys. We are here to teach science and nothing else. If your shit isnt scince then we arnt going to teach it. If you cant deal with the fact that you kid is being taught FACTS then take him to a private school. We put in god we trust and under god in to prove we were better then godless communism, im not dumb, despite most of you thinking I am.
runewood wrote on Sun, 23 October 2005 09:37 When you involve god it is no longer science. Plain and simple. We don't have to nor are we supposed to teach all the main theorys. We are here to teach science and nothing else. If your shit isnt scince then we arnt going to teach it. If you cant deal with the fact that you kid is being taught FACTS then take him to a private school. We put in god we trust and under god in to prove we were better then godless communism, im not dumb, despite most of you thinking I am. How the Hell do you figure that? Simply because we add a spiritual being into the mix, that automatically means it's no longer science? It's called a THEORY (and just happens to be a religion). It IS a scientific theory, no matter how much your tiny mind may wish different. We're not supposed to teach all the main theories? I'd love to see where your twisted mind gets all of this. If we don't teach the kids all the main theories, kids are going to be misinformed. Maybe that's one reason why today's world is getting stupider. They're only being taught half of what they need to know because we have your fucked up philosophy. Telling half the story is never any good. It's bias. If there are more than one theories, you should teach them and let the people choose what to believe rather than just making them believe in Evolution since Creationism is banned. That's just more fucked up thinking of today's society. OMG WE KANT TEECH KIDZ STUFF IN TEH BIBEL! THEY MAY AKTULLY BELEEVE IT AN MAKE A DECIZUN ON THERE OWN! I don't give a fuck what their parents want. It's not the parents' decision on what the kid is to believe or not. I'm going to want my children to accept the Christian faith, but I'm not going to force them to. That's just absurd. If you understand its purpose, then what the fuck are you complaining about? They're just words. They're not going to make you melt. Get over your ego, and just say them. If you can't, just skip over them. Nobody's forcing you to say the pledge. If you're smart, you obviously don't show it.
The difference between the scientific theories and the religious claims (which in essense, as far as "religion" go, are considered facts to them), which are actually merely theories, is that scientific theories can be tested for continuity. It's not possible (or easily possible) to do the same when you're trying to affirm something in the Bible. It's easy to say and prove that God exists, but it isn't so easy to prove that the Bible is His truth, and is thus infallible. That's why I think that God absolutely SHOULD be taught in schools as a theory as much as the THEORY of conservation of energy/mass/momentum/etc. I, however, do not think that any type of theoretical morality should be taught outside a philosophy classroom; where the opinion of the matter is stressed, and no objectives are established. This allows people the reason their own morality based on what they know, and not what some pompous Vatican lacky in a big hat says morality is.
Javaxcx wrote on Sun, 23 October 2005 11:08 It's easy to say and prove that God exists... I am honestly interested to see this. Explanation/URL/something please.
Quote: Our heaven is WAY better. We've got a Stripper Factory AND a Beer Volcano. Woot
mrpirate wrote on Sun, 23 October 2005 12:45 Javaxcx wrote on Sun, 23 October 2005 11:08 It's easy to say and prove that God exists... I am honestly interested to see this. Explanation/URL/something please. I would too By your idea we need to teach FSM in school. God is not science. Untill science proves him he isnt science. There is no scientific edv at all the points to a god. We arnt here to teach your damn kid about god, its a fucking science class not church. We have no oblogation, nor should be be allowed to teach god. If my kid was in school, in science, learning about god id sue them. Point to me in one way god has ANY science to him.
We can't prove the theory of Evolution either, idiot. By what you just said, we have absolutely no place to be teaching anything on the creation/beginning of the world as we know it because we can't prove it. Ever think as to maybe that's because it's a THEORY? They wouldn't be teaching kids about God, you fucking twit. They'd be teaching kids about Creation. Sure, God is included in the discussion, but the lessons wouldn't be about God. They'd be about THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE. Is it really that fucking hard to understand? Here's what you're implying. Say you're in a World History class. You're talking about World War II, and you mention Hitler as to what caused World War II. You're claiming that the class is teaching fascist ideals and doctrine simply because you're explaining how Hitler had influence in WWII. Sound ridiculous? It is. You're saying that because we're including God in a theory, we're somehow teaching religion to the kids and it's no longer about science. You're wrong. You're a fucktard. Quit while you're ahead.
Right, stateing god created the universe has nothing to do with the beleif in god... Eveloution can be proven with fossels and such, while god cant be proven. Thats right i am ahead because your shit is just relgious bs. If it metions god its no longer in the relm of science, its faith. We don't teach the diffrent ways people think life came to be, we only teach the scientific ones. I woulld still like to know how you can prove there is a god and what proof there is about god. (a book with words in it doesnt count)
runewood wrote on Sun, 23 October 2005 16:42 Right, stateing god created the universe has nothing to do with the beleif in god... Eveloution can be proven with fossels and such, while god cant be proven. Thats right i am ahead because your shit is just relgious bs. If it metions god its no longer in the relm of science, its faith. We don't teach the diffrent ways people think life came to be, we only teach the scientific ones. I woulld still like to know how you can prove there is a god and what proof there is about god. (a book with words in it doesnt count) It's a THEORY. It's not stating whether it's fact or not, but it does state that it's a POSSIBILITY. Just because it's taught doesn't mean it has to be believed. You have no clue what you're talking about. If Evolution was proven, religion would be proven wrong and I would have no reason to believe what I do. However, it hasn't been disproven, so I'm still religious. You realize that the Theory of Evolution is a theory, therefore you BELIEVE it to be true. It's no different than me believing that God created the universe. What part of "Creation is a scientific theory" don't you understand? You honestly have no clue what faith is about, so I won't even answer you to that respect.
mrpirate wrote on Sun, 23 October 2005 13:45 Javaxcx wrote on Sun, 23 October 2005 11:08 It's easy to say and prove that God exists... I am honestly interested to see this. Explanation/URL/something please. Thomas Aquinas explains it better than I ever could. It deals with the cause and effect relationship between all existence. It insists that at the beginning of the universe there was a prime cause which caused the rest of the universe into happening. That's easy to explain. What is difficult is how to explain that something which is uncaused (God) can cause a cause to happen. It goes by a few names; unmoved mover, first cause, and so on. The Summa Contra Gentiles explains this whole deal in a much more methodical way. Yes, it is a Catholic book, but there is very little Catholicism in it-- at least the first book. The point is, it is a rational explanation for how God must exist. What is important to understand however, is that the nature of this universe and other things suggest that no thing is 100% certain. This includes the existence of God. So while I can say that God must exist, I mean it in the same context that I can say that the sun will rise tomorrow. There is a chance that it will not, but the probability is so unbelievably negliable that we don't even regard it with an answer.
j_ball430 wrote on Sun, 23 October 2005 16:51 runewood wrote on Sun, 23 October 2005 16:42 Right, stateing god created the universe has nothing to do with the beleif in god... Eveloution can be proven with fossels and such, while god cant be proven. Thats right i am ahead because your shit is just relgious bs. If it metions god its no longer in the relm of science, its faith. We don't teach the diffrent ways people think life came to be, we only teach the scientific ones. I woulld still like to know how you can prove there is a god and what proof there is about god. (a book with words in it doesnt count) It's a THEORY. It's not stating whether it's fact or not, but it does state that it's a POSSIBILITY. Just because it's taught doesn't mean it has to be believed. You have no clue what you're talking about. If Evolution was proven, religion would be proven wrong and I would have no reason to believe what I do. However, it hasn't been disproven, so I'm still religious. You realize that the Theory of Evolution is a theory, therefore you BELIEVE it to be true. It's no different than me believing that God created the universe. What part of "Creation is a scientific theory" don't you understand? You honestly have no clue what faith is about, so I won't even answer you to that respect. Thats just the thing, god can't be proven. Unless he shows his will to everyone he cant be proven. Even if we prove eveloution, faith will say oh god guided eveloution. Not matter what science says god cant be disproven because god is all powerful and his will is done. Just the same, god cant be proven, thus the problem. Science can be proven or dis proven even if it is beyond our means currently. God cant be disproven because he is all poweful and if he doesnt want to be found he wont be. Creation isnt science, *poof its here*, isnt science. I dont know what faith is because i dont have it. If you dont have it you cant understand it, Plain and simple. All your arguments hold as much weight as FSM. If we teach evolution we must teach ID and we must teach FSM ID and my thoery of ID which is I am god and I made man evolve...
...The existence of God can be proven within as much certainty as dropping a pencil off a table and predicting it falling. That doesn't mean the Bible and God are one and the same. THAT is a faith choice. God's existence does not call for the necessity of the Bible. If that's the case, then whatever God's will is, it is unknown to us and He is under no obligation to show it to us. But we can still prove He exists.
The definition of "theory" in the scientific world is not opposite of "fact". The evidence of evolution is quite expansive. (emphasis mine) "Mark Thomas" It’s important to remember that the term “theory” in science is not the same as it is in general usage. A scientific theory is a unifying concept that explains a large body of data. It is a hypothesis that has withstood the test of time and the challenge of opposing views. The Theory of Evolution is the basic unifying concept of biology. The CEO of The American Association for the Advancement of Science, Alan Leshner, wrote, “Although scientists may debate details of the mechanisms of evolution, there is no argument among scientists as to whether evolution is taking place.” The National Academy of Sciences, the nation’s most prestigious scientific organization, has declared evolution “one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have,” and notes that evolution is supported by an overwhelming scientific consensus. The Theory of Evolution has as much validity as the theory of gravity, atomic theory, or the germ theory of disease. Look at it this way. Back in ancient Greece, it was believed that Helios pulled the sun across the sky every day. In fact there were "gods" for every action that was unexplained. A god for fertility, one for thunder/lightning, etc. But the more that was learned over the years, the less we needed "gods" to explain them. I find this particularly scary: (emphasis mine) "Mark Thomas" Galileo took the new invention of the telescope, refined it, and used it to look at the night sky. He was astounded. On the moon he could see mountains and valleys. It wasn’t just some strange heavenly object; it was probably made out of the same stuff as Earth. In 1609 Galileo looked at Jupiter, and discovered that it had four moons. If moons orbited Jupiter, then not everything orbited the Earth, as the Catholic Church taught at the time. Astronomy made more sense if the theories of Copernicus were true, and the Earth and planets orbited the sun. After writing a book about this, Galileo was called to Rome in 1633 by the Catholic Church’s Inquisition, and told to recant his heretical ideas. This was no “simple request” by the Church. Just 33 years before, the Inquisition had executed Galileo’s friend Giordano Bruno. Have you heard of him? In 1600, the Christian authorities in Rome took him out of the dungeon he had been in for eight years, drove a nail through his tongue, tied him to a metal post, put wood and some of his books under his feet, and burned him to death. Bruno’s crime was writing ideas that the Catholic leaders didn’t like — there might be other worlds with other intelligent beings on them, Jesus didn’t possess god-like power, and souls can’t go to heaven. For these heretical ideas, the Catholic Church punished this brilliant thinker with a slow, agonizing death. Galileo knew what he was up against. For the crime of heresy the Inquisition could put him in a dungeon, torture or even execute him. So, after a long trial, this proud 70-year-old man obediently got on his knees and recanted. But even after recanting, he was still sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life. The Catholic Church officially condemned heliocentrism 31 years later, when Pope Alexander VII banned all books that affirmed the earth’s motion. But, even as powerful as the Church was, they could not hold back the tidal wave of scientific discovery, and the Church eventually lost its battle over our view of the Universe. It only took them over three hundred years to admit it. In 1992, after 12 years of deliberations, they grudgingly noted that Galileo had been right in supporting the theories of Copernicus. But no such admission has been made for Bruno; his writings are still on the Vatican’s list of forbidden texts, and Pope John Paul II refused to even apologize for the Catholic Church's torture killing of Bruno. 1992!!! This was not ancient history! A mere 13 years ago, the Catholic church finally admitted that the solar system revolves around the sun. So, as science progresses and explains what we previously didn't know, "God"s role in this universe gets smaller and smaller. Losing your ignorance is when you can finally let go of trusting a supernatural cause of something, and instead looking for the scientific cause. "Mark Thomas" The “god of the gaps” is the basic premise behind all the “scientific” arguments for the existence of a god. The logic of “god of the gaps” goes like this (as an argument that Martin Luther could have used): Isn’t lightning amazing! I don’t understand how lightning could be, without something else (that I don’t really understand either) making lightning. This something else must be a god because I can’t come up with a better explanation.
Many people forget that the Bible was written by men, in several different books by probably different men. Men are imperfect, they may have deciphered his will in wrong ways. The important thing is not to let the bible dictate your life, but to follow its teachings. Examples like: be a good person, do not steal, love your parents and neighbors, ect.
runewood wrote on Sun, 23 October 2005 18:08 j_ball430 wrote on Sun, 23 October 2005 16:51 runewood wrote on Sun, 23 October 2005 16:42 Right, stateing god created the universe has nothing to do with the beleif in god... Eveloution can be proven with fossels and such, while god cant be proven. Thats right i am ahead because your shit is just relgious bs. If it metions god its no longer in the relm of science, its faith. We don't teach the diffrent ways people think life came to be, we only teach the scientific ones. I woulld still like to know how you can prove there is a god and what proof there is about god. (a book with words in it doesnt count) It's a THEORY. It's not stating whether it's fact or not, but it does state that it's a POSSIBILITY. Just because it's taught doesn't mean it has to be believed. You have no clue what you're talking about. If Evolution was proven, religion would be proven wrong and I would have no reason to believe what I do. However, it hasn't been disproven, so I'm still religious. You realize that the Theory of Evolution is a theory, therefore you BELIEVE it to be true. It's no different than me believing that God created the universe. What part of "Creation is a scientific theory" don't you understand? You honestly have no clue what faith is about, so I won't even answer you to that respect. Thats just the thing, god can't be proven. Unless he shows his will to everyone he cant be proven. Even if we prove eveloution, faith will say oh god guided eveloution. Not matter what science says god cant be disproven because god is all powerful and his will is done. Just the same, god cant be proven, thus the problem. Science can be proven or dis proven even if it is beyond our means currently. God cant be disproven because he is all poweful and if he doesnt want to be found he wont be. Creation isnt science, *poof its here*, isnt science. I dont know what faith is because i dont have it. If you dont have it you cant understand it, Plain and simple. All your arguments hold as much weight as FSM. If we teach evolution we must teach ID and we must teach FSM ID and my thoery of ID which is I am god and I made man evolve... science - The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Tell me where it states that it HAS to be proven or disproven in order to account as science or a scientific theory? I sure as hell don't see it. Faith is very simple to understand. You have faith right now. You probably have faith that you will be married some day. You don't know this for sure, and you sure as hell can't prove it until it happens, but you still probably have faith that you will marry. At least, I have that faith.
I find it amazing how "God" has stayed so constant over the years. Things have been believed and burried for centuries. Witches and Sacrifices, all the things that have happened since man has written down events. Nothing has stayed constant like this. As time goes on people realise that by killing a goat the rain still didnt come as it did when they didnt. These things have no bases. Why? Because there is no support under it. You can give and give, and nothing is thrown back. Therefore its a lost practice. I kill a goat, the room stays quite, nothing changes. Life is unalterd. The dust remains in the corner. Now take that same logic and apply it to god. I goto church, nothing, nothing has changed. I pray to god for help, do i receive it? No, no one does. "But god helps those who helps themselves." now place that into a common sentence "If you sweep up your mess, god will assist you." Wait....how many times have you been sweeping up the kitchen and that second broom walk out of the broom closet and assist your duties? Its the same message, it has no bases, no support, no facts. It was just written so that people can feel like their life wasnt a waste and after their short life is over, there is something else to exist in. Man bet i pissed alot of people off with these paragraphs. Here comes the churchies! \|/
Javaxcx wrote on Sun, 23 October 2005 18:25 ...The existence of God can be proven within as much certainty as dropping a pencil off a table and predicting it falling. That doesn't mean the Bible and God are one and the same. THAT is a faith choice. God's existence does not call for the necessity of the Bible. If that's the case, then whatever God's will is, it is unknown to us and He is under no obligation to show it to us. But we can still prove He exists. Congratulations on finding the one irrefutable work of philosophy.
^^ thank you. Saying "god did it" isnt science and I dont care wtf you think, real scientists agree with me.
Actually, most scientists that contend that causality is so very affirmed that it can be considered a natural LAW will not agree with you. Whether or not God acts in the world today is another story. But I would hold you to the idea that "God did it" is a very good explanation for this universe. Anthropomorphizing God is something I do by choice. If you want to call Him a prime force then go for it. We're talking about the same thing. Thomas Aquinas proves to me through solid reason that the same thing I would call a prime mover is the same thing as I would call God. Somehow, even if you won't admit it on these forums, I think you'd agree.
Causality is a human concept. You can't use a human concept to prove a supernatural concept.
Of course not. But you can prove to within almost absolute certainty that something is using our empirical constructs and observations. The notion of casuality doesn't necessarily fit into the human sensorial fallacy that you're relating it to. Casuality is the immediate result of having an existence of time. You can't have time without casuality, and you can't have casuality without time (or space). Immanuel Kant did a very good job in outlining the transcendental validity of why this is so. He, like I, would suggest that casuality is no more a human construct then time or space (both of which, are considered very much a priori). This is also the reasoning that Aquinas used in validating the transcendental validity of an unmoved mover. Of course he wasn't able to figure out why, (Kant did) but the information was still there. Keep in mind that proving that something supernatural *exists* doesn't negate the possibility of using contemporary, general logic, as well as via negativa and transcendent applicables to achieve that goal. It would be highly, HIGHLY improbable to use any of the aforementioned to try and describe the supernatural. I believe it is that which you are talking about, and in which case I agree.
So, in 'proving' that nothing else could have possibly "caused" all of this to come into existence, what is the "cause" that brought this "god" figure, or mover, into existence? It seems to me that belief in a "god" is a grown-up and more far-reaching psychosis of an imaginary friend.
It's not reducing it down to simply "it could be nothing BUT God who caused this, therefore it is", but that is a tool that you can use to DEDUCE that conclusion. You've got to take a little bit from each way of thinking, do a vulcan mind meld, and come out with a theory that works (until it is successfully refuted). As for the cause of God... Aquinas suggests that God is NOT caused. Hence "unmoved mover". There is no way (that I'm aware of) that you could explain HOW an unmoved mover can be scientifically explained, but you can most certainly posit that it can merely exist. That's the difference between the transcendental logic and aesthetic and the general logic you're applying when you're looking for a means to an ends. It's not as much just saying how He is as much as just saying THAT He is. That's not to say you can't try and figure out HOW He is, by all means. But it definately supports the argument THAT He is as opposed to that He is not.
It still seems like assumptions are being made of the existence of a "god" rather than where I "assume" that "he" does not exist. Furthermore, your conclusions in fact lead to the possibility that this "mover" could possibly be the FSM.
That's the beauty of it. He COULD be the FSM! If you're calling it an assumption, you're mostly correct. All of our intuitions are assumptions. Some can be said with near absolute certainty (like the sun rising), but none can be absolute. Which is why I try and emphasize that what I'm saying is only extremely probable, but never definate. I say it is probable because all the reasoning and empirical datum I can find suggest to me that above all else, all things are caused. If you can prove/suggest to me otherwise, then I would gladly lend an ear.
People tend to get confused about this: God and the Catholic church are osmething very different. I believe in God but I have many trouble of believing in many things the pope declares. How can you reckon that there is more certainty in a scientific theory than in believing God made the universe. For all you know, the human scientific "brain" (soz, I'm not English) had a mistake programmed in it. Or our maths system maybe is not 100 % correct. You can say I only believe what my eyes see but maybe there is stuff out there that your eyes cannot see... That doesn't mean it isn't there.
Um, of course I know that all religion is not Catholicism... It was an example of how fucking EVIL organized religion is. The fact that organized religion gets away with what they get away with is proof enough to me that there is NO GOD. There is no omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God who would stand by and let these fuckholes do what they do in "his" name.
Crimson wrote on Mon, 24 October 2005 05:54 The fact that organized religion gets away with what they get away with is proof enough to me that there is NO GOD. There is no omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God who would stand by and let these fuckholes do what they do in "his" name. Aha! I rather see it that theer is something out there but 'it' doesn't "monitor" the earth, if so, only passively, but I do find confort in the believe that there is something more after this miserable life.
Goztow wrote on Mon, 24 October 2005 05:58 Crimson wrote on Mon, 24 October 2005 05:54 The fact that organized religion gets away with what they get away with is proof enough to me that there is NO GOD. There is no omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God who would stand by and let these fuckholes do what they do in "his" name. Aha! I rather see it that theer is something out there but 'it' doesn't "monitor" the earth, if so, only passively, but I do find confort in the believe that there is something more after this miserable life. Who wouldn't? I think that's one of a religion's biggest way to convince people and it's pretty logical. I mean no one would seriously want to just die and rot in the earth, when considering the religious alternative is going wherever depending on what religion.
Crimson wrote on Mon, 24 October 2005 05:54 Um, of course I know that all religion is not Catholicism... It was an example of how fucking EVIL organized religion is. The fact that organized religion gets away with what they get away with is proof enough to me that there is NO GOD. There is no omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God who would stand by and let these fuckholes do what they do in "his" name. Organized religion is very dangerous. It's one damn good reason why I'm no longer Catholic. It's very fucked up idealogy. However, just because organized religion is bad, doesn't mean that God is. God allows us to have freewill and do as we please with our lives. We'll soon see the consequences of our actions, but He's not going to prevent anyone from doing what they want.
Why would god even interfear with us if that were ture. Why would he supposededly send his son to talk to us. If god wanted to not be known we wouldnt know about him. And if he is an observer why create the human race with evolution? Alot of this may hold philosophical(cant spell) weight but, its not scientific. In order for god to have an effect in science you must assume he exists before there is any edv. to point out he does. Did you ever think that there is no creater and the universe has just always exsisted? I can't understand how it would work but you never know. How ever we arnt talking about the beggening of the universe. We arnt talking about if there is a god. We are talking about ID, and the fact is you must have faith to believe it, and faith is not science.
runewood wrote on Mon, 24 October 2005 14:40 In order for god to have an effect in science you must assume he exists before there is any edv. to point out he does. Not necessarily true. You can hypothesize that God is with no scientific evidence to support that He does, and work backwards to that goal, OR, you can take the scientific datum that you've accumulated and work back to an inevitable conclusion; that there is a first cause that caused all things into being. It just so happens that is the same thing that many people call God. And no, that does not mean the same God as that described in the Bible.
warranto wrote on Thu, 20 October 2005 11:39 I personally believe in the combined theory. The world did "evolve" as science claims, however it had a little help in the process. I'll get into what I mean at a later date if people want me to. That is the exact belief I have.
A bit out of order, but whatever... Crimson So, in 'proving' that nothing else could have possibly "caused" all of this to come into existence, what is the "cause" that brought this "god" figure, or mover, into existence? Crimson Causality is a human concept. You can't use a human concept to prove a supernatural concept. Likewise, you cannot disprove the existence of God/a supernatural concept using a human concept such as causality if God supposedly created it in the first place. God's nature is not dictated by our science; He created it in the first place, so He is obviously not bound by His own creation's laws. That's why you can't really say, "If God caused all this, then what caused God?" because nothing has to have caused God. Was our physical world and nature suddenly dictated by the virtual laws governing Renegade when it was first created? Of course not. We are independent from the game's laws and mechanics as God is independent of this world.
runewood wrote on Sun, 23 October 2005 16:42 . I woulld still like to know how you can prove there is a god and what proof there is about god. (a book with words in it doesnt count) I would like to know how you can prove there are things called atoms, and what prove there is about atoms. (a book with words in it doesn't count)
warranto wrote on Mon, 24 October 2005 19:41 runewood wrote on Sun, 23 October 2005 16:42 . I woulld still like to know how you can prove there is a god and what proof there is about god. (a book with words in it doesnt count) I would like to know how you can prove there are things called atoms, and what prove there is about atoms. (a book with words in it doesn't count) I agree with Rune, how do i know theres a god? How does anyone? Its just a belief nd sorry, a book from 2000 yrs ago aint exactly the thing thats going to make it concrete in my mind.
That's the beauty of belief. No one CAN know, ever. If it was anything more, it couldn't be a belief. No one CAN know if the next time you ask a friend something, that they are telling the truth... yu must chose whether or not to believe them. No one CAN know whether or not they will die tomorrow, we just have to go on with the belief that everything will be fine.
are you saying you can't disprove beliefs? so... sun gods and water gods can't be disproven?
What sun god do you mean? That the sun is a god? Disproven when we went out and saw that it was a burnin globe of gasses That there is a god attributed to the sun (polytheism)? Not disproven, as we can not know.
The heck do i remember what the egyptians believed or the Greeks i just used it as an example.(if from what i remember the one for the greeks was about some chariot or whatever and that was the sun. Which obviously isn't true. what about if someone believed he could fly to the other end of the universe? beliefs can be disproven mate. or what about the belief that the earth was flat? disproved.
I'm not saying "beleifs" can not be disproven or proven. I'm saying that the purpose of a belief is that you DON'T know, not in your ability to prove it right or wrong. At the time the person had the belief that he could fly, did he know if he could? No, he simply had the belief that he could, he did not know. In regards to God, this does not work as God is not a testable being (ie. testable under our current scientific knowledge). Flying, on the other hand, is testable. You just have to go and jump, and you will find out the answer.
well i don't get the point of you saying "no one can know, ever".
Because once they know, it can no longer BE a belief. It is then knowledge. If you possess a belief about something, it is because you do not, can not, have knolwedge of the answer to that belief. Once you gain that knowledge (and the ONLY way to gain it is through personal experiance), you can no longer possess the belief as you now know.
i think the confusion is about you saying no one can ever know, when they certainly well can know. if you meant to just say how good it is to believe in something because at the moment a person does not know the answer, then i could see that.
The only thing is, is that if you know the answer, you know the answer. You can not choose to believe something or not, because it is not a belief; it is knowledge. You can not choose to believe something that you know the answer to. If it is a belief, then that person CAN'T know. It is physically impossible to say you believe something, and claim to know the truth. A person who simply believes something can never know. Because once they know, it is no longer a belief. Try this: Ask your friend if they think you are good a particular game. (Simple enough) Now, consider how well you think you can trust their responce. Do you know for 100% absolute certainty that what they say is the honest to goodness truth? Or is there even the slightest bit of a possiblity they may be lying, even if it is to be nice? My bet is on the latter. You can not know for 100% absolute certainty that the person is telling the truth, and claim that you "trust/believe them". You can not KNOW, EVER if they are telling the truth. Sure, you can find out, but then you would say that you KNOW that they are telling the truth, you could not say that you BELIEVE them.
Beliefs, as warranto is using them, are precisely akin to opinions. Does that make it any clearer?
that's a bit of an over simplification, but I guess it can work.
Hydra wrote on Mon, 24 October 2005 16:39 A bit out of order, but whatever... Crimson So, in 'proving' that nothing else could have possibly "caused" all of this to come into existence, what is the "cause" that brought this "god" figure, or mover, into existence? Crimson Causality is a human concept. You can't use a human concept to prove a supernatural concept. Likewise, you cannot disprove the existence of God/a supernatural concept using a human concept such as causality if God supposedly created it in the first place. God's nature is not dictated by our science; He created it in the first place, so He is obviously not bound by His own creation's laws. That's why you can't really say, "If God caused all this, then what caused God?" because nothing has to have caused God. Was our physical world and nature suddenly dictated by the virtual laws governing Renegade when it was first created? Of course not. We are independent from the game's laws and mechanics as God is independent of this world. I play both sides of the coin. I like to flirt around with different ideas and arugments.
Crimson wrote on Mon, 24 October 2005 22:38 Hydra wrote on Mon, 24 October 2005 16:39 A bit out of order, but whatever... Crimson So, in 'proving' that nothing else could have possibly "caused" all of this to come into existence, what is the "cause" that brought this "god" figure, or mover, into existence? Crimson Causality is a human concept. You can't use a human concept to prove a supernatural concept. Likewise, you cannot disprove the existence of God/a supernatural concept using a human concept such as causality if God supposedly created it in the first place. God's nature is not dictated by our science; He created it in the first place, so He is obviously not bound by His own creation's laws. That's why you can't really say, "If God caused all this, then what caused God?" because nothing has to have caused God. Was our physical world and nature suddenly dictated by the virtual laws governing Renegade when it was first created? Of course not. We are independent from the game's laws and mechanics as God is independent of this world. I play both sides of the coin. I like to flirt around with different ideas and arugments. Just like a woman, Does whatever she can to win.
Too many people base definitions here on "what I see is what's right". That's all but true, for exemple: a "color blind" person will see red as brown. So who's right? And don't tell me that what the majority sees is the definition of what's right then...
Goztow wrote on Tue, 25 October 2005 08:34 Too many people base definitions here on "what I see is what's right". That's all but true, for exemple: a "color blind" person will see red as brown. So who's right? And don't tell me that what the majority sees is the definition of what's right then... Dont forget that colors maybe something completely different to someone else. My green maybe your blue or even closer to your red. There is no way to see what the other person is seeing. When we are young, people point to a color and say "thats green" so if infact that color is blue to you, you will never know. Yup im aware thios has nothing to do with what you said, i just like to tell people stuff they may have never thought about.
Goztow wrote on Tue, 25 October 2005 08:34 Too many people base definitions here on "what I see is what's right". That's all but true, for exemple: a "color blind" person will see red as brown. So who's right? And don't tell me that what the majority sees is the definition of what's right then... That's why you don't rely on sensorial experience to define objective truths. Rationality is the key to determining that which you see as blue, and I as green. Reason might impose "red" to that colour, thus nullifying both intuitions. The point is, the notion of reason not a sensorial thing, and thus we can call it absolutely objective if used correctly. Of course different conditions result in different applications of reason, and some of the CONCLUSIONS are false, but what is important is that reason itself is never false as its very existence is a priori.
I missed too many posts and this is getting into theory/phalosiphy so im out.
Crimson wrote on Mon, 24 October 2005 22:38 I play both sides of the coin. I like to flirt around with different ideas and arugments. Wouldn't you be contradicting yourself in many instances (such as this one), then?
No, not really. I can prove the non-existence of "God" in my own mind using any approach.
The non-existance of God was proved some years ago by Douglas Adams. And, like a few people around here, I believe in a God (She's a lesbian, if anyone cares), but not in religion. Because no God these so-called religions claim to worship, as Crimson has said, would let them get away with the atrocities that they have committed (Inquisition, anyone?). God is out there. As is religion. And religion is WAAAY fucking out there. *Cha-ching* £0.02
Crimson wrote on Wed, 26 October 2005 05:24 No, not really. I can prove the non-existence of "God" in my own mind using any approach. Even if the approach is contradictory and logically fallacious?
Javaxcx ...it sure makes it easier for people to comprehend reality when they toss away the shackles of anthropomorphized dieties and senseless sophisms coming from a "religion authority". http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html Anyway, one must find the difference between religon and true fellowship with God. There is a difference. Instead of the common conception of who Jesus is, we can see in the Gospels that he abhored "religion." Do a search for "Pharisee" and you'll see what I mean. Also, you might want to take a look at this: http://heaven.net.nz/visions/escape-from-christendom.htm runewood ...a book with words in it doesnt count... As opposed to a book without words in it? Crimson wrote on Wed, 26 October 2005 05:24 No, not really. I can prove the non-existence of "God" in my own mind using any approach. Psalm 53:1 Proverbs 3:5 Proverbs 28:26
Orwell was just jealous because he couldn't understand the higher vernacular of philosophical discussion. You posted that Christiandom thing a while ago. Great article. Well worth the read.
MrBob wrote on Wed, 26 October 2005 17:56 Psalm 53:1 Proverbs 3:5 Proverbs 28:26 Psalm 53:1 = "THE [empty-headed] fool has said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt and evil are they, and doing abominable iniquity; there is none who does good." Proverbs 3:5 = "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths. Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the Lord and depart from evil...." Proverbs 28:26 = "He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered." Wow... seriously? SERIOUSLY?! You are SERIOUSLY using quotes from a book I do not believe is the word of "God" to do... what? Insult me? Call me empty-headed, corrupt, evil, etc? Here's a nice summary of the arguments I have heard here. "300 proofs of God's existence" 13) ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE (1) [arbitrary passage from OT] (2) [arbitrary passage from NT] (3) Therefore, God exists. 53) ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY (1) The Bible is true. (2) Therefore, the Bible is historical fact. (3) Therefore, God exists. 63) ARGUMENT FROM HUMAN NECESSITY (1) Atheists say that they don't need God. (2) Which just goes to show that they need God. (3) Therefore, God exists. 81) ARGUMENT FROM INEVITABILITY (This one is for Javaxcx) (1) I have proof that God exists. (2) I won't bother to tell you what it is because, being Atheists, you would be hostile to the conclusion anyway. (3) Therefore, God exists. 84) ARGUMENT FROM POSTMODERNISM (1) I'm going to prove to you that God exists. (2) [Insert any of the other arguments on this page in here.] (3) [Atheist refutes argument.] (4) I cannot prove there is a God anymore than anyone of us can prove we really exist in a tangible world. (5) Therefore, God exists. 109) ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF (1) You can't prove God doesn't exist! (2) Therefore, God exists. 118) ARGUMENT FROM FOOLISHNESS (1) The Bible says Atheists are fools. (2) I don't want to be a fool. (3) Therefore, God exists. 227) ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE (II) (1) The Bible says the Bible is true. (2) Therefore the Bible is true. (3) The Bible says God exists. (4) Therefore, God exist. 259) ARGUMENT FROM NOT-BELIEVING (1) The New Testament says people like you would question us. (2) You question us. (3) Therefore the Bible is true. (4) Therefore, God exists. Source: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm I can't believe that so many people can't see that this "God" character is the perfect way to control you. It's the biggest and most successful manipulation the world will ever see. This omnipresent, omnibenevolent character is the best thing man has ever invented to control billions of people. It's sheer genius is what it is. I feel like this outside observer watching this manipulation on a grand scale and I sit here shaking my head at how easily people are indoctrinated from birth and just filled with this unprovable and high implausible STORY. You will NEVER convince me to fall for this bullshit EVER. The very idea of this just reminds me of a child with an imaginary friend.
So you accuse me of being brainwashed by quoting something to make an argument, yet you're quoting something to make an argument. Strange... Crimson I can't believe that so many people can't see that this "God" character is the perfect way to control you. He's controlling me? The last time I checked, I still had free will. Yes, God tells us things to do, but it's our choice to listen. Crimson I feel like this outside observer watching this manipulation on a grand scale and I sit here shaking my head at how easily people are indoctrinated from birth and just filled with this unprovable and high implausible STORY. You will NEVER convince me to fall for this bullshit EVER... Because you are so wise...
Crimson wrote on Thu, 27 October 2005 05:20 Here's a nice summary of the arguments I have heard here. "300 proofs of God's existence" 13) ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE (1) [arbitrary passage from OT] (2) [arbitrary passage from NT] (3) Therefore, God exists. 53) ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY (1) The Bible is true. (2) Therefore, the Bible is historical fact. (3) Therefore, God exists. 63) ARGUMENT FROM HUMAN NECESSITY (1) Atheists say that they don't need God. (2) Which just goes to show that they need God. (3) Therefore, God exists. 81) ARGUMENT FROM INEVITABILITY (This one is for Javaxcx) (1) I have proof that God exists. (2) I won't bother to tell you what it is because, being Atheists, you would be hostile to the conclusion anyway. (3) Therefore, God exists. 84) ARGUMENT FROM POSTMODERNISM (1) I'm going to prove to you that God exists. (2) [Insert any of the other arguments on this page in here.] (3) [Atheist refutes argument.] (4) I cannot prove there is a God anymore than anyone of us can prove we really exist in a tangible world. (5) Therefore, God exists. 109) ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF (1) You can't prove God doesn't exist! (2) Therefore, God exists. 118) ARGUMENT FROM FOOLISHNESS (1) The Bible says Atheists are fools. (2) I don't want to be a fool. (3) Therefore, God exists. 227) ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE (II) (1) The Bible says the Bible is true. (2) Therefore the Bible is true. (3) The Bible says God exists. (4) Therefore, God exist. 259) ARGUMENT FROM NOT-BELIEVING (1) The New Testament says people like you would question us. (2) You question us. (3) Therefore the Bible is true. (4) Therefore, God exists. Source: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm I can't believe that so many people can't see that this "God" character is the perfect way to control you. It's the biggest and most successful manipulation the world will ever see. This omnipresent, omnibenevolent character is the best thing man has ever invented to control billions of people. It's sheer genius is what it is. I feel like this outside observer watching this manipulation on a grand scale and I sit here shaking my head at how easily people are indoctrinated from birth and just filled with this unprovable and high implausible STORY. You will NEVER convince me to fall for this bullshit EVER. The very idea of this just reminds me of a child with an imaginary friend. Come on Crimson, I've mentioned this to you before. Stop quoting things that prove how religion got it wrong to "prove" that God doesn't exist. It doesn't work that way. Something can still be truth, despite the idea that no one has the proper understanding of it.
I'm not certain that quoting a passage from the bible which states that atheists are stupid even really qualifies as an argument for god's existence. Java: I think I get now what your argument is, although if there's more to it that hasn't been touched upon in this thread then never mind this. However, as you stated yourself, there is a stretch between saying that there was an initial cause to the universe, and saying that this cause is the god so many religions are so wound up over. Looking back at history, there have been billions of people who have believed in the most bizarre, contrived, and, frankly, silly gods and deities. And they all believed just as earnestly as you do. To me, this is what really marginalizes any belief in god.
mrpirate wrote on Thu, 27 October 2005 11:15 Looking back at history, there have been billions of people who have believed in the most bizarre, contrived, and, frankly, silly gods and deities. And they all believed just as earnestly as you do. To me, this is what really marginalizes any belief in god. Kind of like science, no?
It is kind of like science, I agree. Sometimes I wonder what, out of our science, will by laughed at by future generations. Although, I find it easier to believe in what science tells us, since it is backed up with proof (theoritical and empirical). If science says that there are some forces, and using these forces we can build something that does function x, and so we build it and it does perform function x, then I believe that science has got this right. It's possible, I suppose, that science being right most of the time is a coincidence, but that seems fairly unlikely. That being said, I do not believe that science is absolutely right about everything.
mrpirate wrote on Thu, 27 October 2005 11:15 Java: I think I get now what your argument is, although if there's more to it that hasn't been touched upon in this thread then never mind this. However, as you stated yourself, there is a stretch between saying that there was an initial cause to the universe, and saying that this cause is the god so many religions are so wound up over. The difference, as far as I'm concerned, is that the religions who get so wound up are the same religions that starting defining characteristics of God they, as human beings, could never possibly know. That being said, I don't contend that the God I'm arguing for the sake of is the same God as the Bible, Koran, Buddha, or whatever. He (personified, even though I can't prove yet that He can be called a pronoun accurately) simply is the initiatial force that allowed all things to come into essence. I'm currently writting up a thesis on transcendental causality which would point precisely to everything I haven't explained or have left as a loose thread. Doitle's in on the idea too and we were going to try and work it all out and present a concise, logical necessity for a God who at the very fundamental level exists. It doesn't rely on faith or any sort of abstract, for lack of a better word, bullshit, but rather a coherent and highly plasuable explanation that the existentialists can't refute, or refute easily.
Crimson wrote on Thu, 27 October 2005 05:20 81) ARGUMENT FROM INEVITABILITY (This one is for Javaxcx) (1) I have proof that God exists. (2) I won't bother to tell you what it is because, being Atheists, you would be hostile to the conclusion anyway. (3) Therefore, God exists. What? I've shown THAT God is, simply not HOW He is. The former is what is important for this discussion. The latter I haven't even touched on outside the assumption that I don't think that anyone can know anything supernatural using natural laws.
Javaxcx wrote on Thu, 27 October 2005 14:03 I don't think that anyone can know anything supernatural using natural laws. Would this not be a property of the supernatural? And if so, how can one know it? If you were to successfully lay down evidence suggesting that the universe was begun by something (a "god," for lack of a better word--since it would not need to be a god in the traditional sense at all), would everything else stated about this god not be mere conjecture?
That should be, know ABOUT anything supernatural. I contend that you can know that something supernatural IS, but you may not necessarily (I haven't figured this out yet) know anything ABOUT it save that it is.
mrpirate wrote on Thu, 27 October 2005 11:59 It is kind of like science, I agree. Sometimes I wonder what, out of our science, will by laughed at by future generations. Although, I find it easier to believe in what science tells us, since it is backed up with proof (theoritical and empirical). If science says that there are some forces, and using these forces we can build something that does function x, and so we build it and it does perform function x, then I believe that science has got this right. It's possible, I suppose, that science being right most of the time is a coincidence, but that seems fairly unlikely. That being said, I do not believe that science is absolutely right about everything. The only point I was bringing about this is that despite the inaccuracies expressed through current and past religions, the simply fact that they got something wrong should have no bearing on whether or not the idea of God is wrong.
How did a topic that started with talk on intelligent design and evolution degenerate so fast into "God exists", "No he doesn't", "Yes, He does", "No, he doesn't"... Is it just a way of avoiding the issue? So, back on topic for a sec: Evolution isn't a scientific theory, yet it's taught in schools. Intelligent Design is equally a hypothesis that has little to no testable evidence, so why not teach it as well? At least ID includes information that's more modern, whereas evolution is typically taught with information that is, at best, decades out of date. Honestly, I don't think either should be taught until college, at the earliest. Neither merits being taught to children, since there's no scientific experiments to support them. But people never actually look at that stuff. Debates always seem to turn into one side saying "Evolution is a theory, not a fact", and the other saying "ID is religion, not science" If you use the argument "Evolution is a theory, not a fact", you might as well concede the entire debate right there. A scientific theory is so well tested, it might as well be 'fact'. A real scientific theory is Einstein's General Relativity, evolution is a joke by comparison. Then there's the people who say ID is religion, not science. Intelligent Design is a statistical analysis of scientific evidence that indicates things were designed with intent. It's essentially 'the scientific evidence of God'. It is approaching the whole issue of 'is there a God' from a scientific perspective. Whether you agree with the hypothesis or not you can't just dismiss it as 'religion'.
Doesn't the rabid dismissal of religion equate to religion itself?
Everybody has a religion. That religion doesn't, necessarily, need to include supernatural beings that create and govern. Religion is a set of beliefs and morals on which a person relies for guidance- especially when the rules of society do not or can not apply. Considering the vast number of religions all through history, all of which have claimed to represent the ultimate Truth, I just cannot subscribe to the belief that any one of them is in any way superior. Religions have a tendency to evolve and adapt to societies as they, in turn, grow and adapt. For all the millions of people that have believed in any one of today's major religions, there have been billions more that have not. It simply makes no sense to say ANYONE has the keys to the universe, let alone one faith in particular. That said, it is unthinkable that so many billions of people could ALL be wrong. I propose that no one religion, no one set of beliefs has, or could ever have, all the answers. On a related note, I highly doubt science will ever uncover the deepest mysteries of the universe, either. There's only so far back in history we can look back with our space telescopes and dating systems- and death remains a curtain beyond which we cannot see. The "Unknown" personified would be a Hydra- the more we discover, the smaller the sum total of our knowledge becomes (compared to the Truth, that being all knowledge that could ever be known). I have a hard time believing that there ever was an absolute beginning of time, and I likewise cannot believe that there could ever be an ending. Likewise for life and death- for all its complexity, life cannot possibly end with the destruction of the shell of matter in which it is contained. What lies beyond bodily death, I could not begin to guess. Compared to the infinity that is existence, each person is the tiniest particle, an invisible speck with no influence whatsoever (and yet our power grows with each passing day). We can never know everything, because that "everything" will keep right on getting bigger and bigger, far faster than we will ever be able to learn. When I say that I am an Atheist, I say so because I do not believe that there is one class of beings that is superior to all others- as I have said before, for every creation there is a creator- nothing can be wholly responsible for its own existence, for it could not exist if there was nothing there before it to set events in motion. Therefore, there is no such thing as a god in my mind. Only differing levels of forces that could be viewed as godlike when viewed by those of a vastly lower level. And just to make one thing ABUNDANTLY clear, I have plenty of doubt in myself- I harbor no delusions of being some kind of prophet who can see everything while everyone else is blind. That would be hypocritical to an extreme, not to mention arrogant and stupid. It might very well be that I'm bound for Hell on the 6:00 express and don't even realize it- I just don't believe that to be the case.
NeoSaber wrote on Thu, 27 October 2005 16:10 How did a topic that started with talk on intelligent design and evolution degenerate so fast into "God exists", "No he doesn't", "Yes, He does", "No, he doesn't"... Is it just a way of avoiding the issue? So, back on topic for a sec: Evolution isn't a scientific theory, yet it's taught in schools. Intelligent Design is equally a hypothesis that has little to no testable evidence, so why not teach it as well? At least ID includes information that's more modern, whereas evolution is typically taught with information that is, at best, decades out of date. Honestly, I don't think either should be taught until college, at the earliest. Neither merits being taught to children, since there's no scientific experiments to support them. But people never actually look at that stuff. Debates always seem to turn into one side saying "Evolution is a theory, not a fact", and the other saying "ID is religion, not science" If you use the argument "Evolution is a theory, not a fact", you might as well concede the entire debate right there. A scientific theory is so well tested, it might as well be 'fact'. A real scientific theory is Einstein's General Relativity, evolution is a joke by comparison. Then there's the people who say ID is religion, not science. Intelligent Design is a statistical analysis of scientific evidence that indicates things were designed with intent. It's essentially 'the scientific evidence of God'. It is approaching the whole issue of 'is there a God' from a scientific perspective. Whether you agree with the hypothesis or not you can't just dismiss it as 'religion'. Hahahahaha
That's about what I expected... I was hoping someone would try to prove me wrong, expanding everyone's knowledge on the subject in the process. I should of known better...
MrBob wrote on Thu, 27 October 2005 05:59 So you accuse me of being brainwashed by quoting something to make an argument, yet you're quoting something to make an argument. Strange... That's where you're wrong. Knowing how I feel about the Bible and its origins makes it the single worst way to approach me on this subject. This is a summary of what you thought would happen: Me: The bible is a book written by corrupt men and passed off as the word of some imaginary deity. You: But the bible says there would be people like you who don't believe and are consequently EVIL. Me: Oh, well, if the bible says that, it must be true. I believe in God now so you and the rest of the believers won't think I am evil! Did you really expect quoting Bible passages would make me a believer?! Quote: Crimson I can't believe that so many people can't see that this "God" character is the perfect way to control you. He's controlling me? The last time I checked, I still had free will. Yes, God tells us things to do, but it's our choice to listen. That's NOT what I said, AGAIN you got it wrong. The concept of "God" is what controls you. Yes, you have free will. But if you decide you want to kill someone, there are consequences. However, if you kill someone and you're not caught (which I imagine was a lot more likely back in the days before forensic science and DNA testing) then you are essentially able to kill someone without any punishment whatsoever! Even a fool can see that this is NO way to run a society! Not 2000 years ago when detective skills and sciences were primative at BEST! So... what's the solution? Ah, yes, the "God" who can see everything. Just like a grown-up version of Santa Claus who sees you when you're sleeping and knows when you're awake. Sure, now if you kill someone and no one sees it or proves it, you get away scot free in this life, but NOW there's a greater punishment. Eternity in the flames of hell! But oh no! No one will believe this story! Sure they will... they can't prove it's wrong because no one knows what happens when you die. So now we have this imaginary character we dreamed up and we'll make sure that "he" told some guy how we humans are supposed to behave and act so that we will be forever fearful of eternal punishment. Quote: Crimson I feel like this outside observer watching this manipulation on a grand scale and I sit here shaking my head at how easily people are indoctrinated from birth and just filled with this unprovable and high implausible STORY. You will NEVER convince me to fall for this bullshit EVER... Because you are so wise... Well, all I can say is that I was given the advantage of growing up without going to church. Many/most people are brought to church or at least raised with the "existence" of "God" from birth. If you are taught from birth that this deity exists and what he wants you to do, etc, then you are controlled. You live in fear of eternal punishment and you're more likely to behave even when no one is watching. Like I said, the biggest manipulation the world has ever known.
If you want to think of it on a smaller scale, look at shows like Cops, CSI, etc. Every time you watch them you get it drilled into your head that if you fuck up, the cops will find you and bring you down. Sometimes they even SAY it directly. No one ever gets away with anything on TV. This is exactly the same type of influence that this "God" concept is supposed to have on you.
Crimson wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 08:57 If you want to think of it on a smaller scale, look at shows like Cops, CSI, etc. Every time you watch them you get it drilled into your head that if you fuck up, the cops will find you and bring you down. Sometimes they even SAY it directly. No one ever gets away with anything on TV. This is exactly the same type of influence that this "God" concept is supposed to have on you. Somehow, i think you're afraid of things you don't understand. I see on TV that cops always get the bandits but I know damn well that hardly ever happens in real life. Never go into a discussion like this with women though... you can't win... Nothing personal.
Aircraftkiller wrote on Thu, 27 October 2005 16:53 Doesn't the rabid dismissal of religion equate to religion itself? No. The dismissal of all religion doesnt equal religion. Thats like saying "Taking away all the apples equals apples."
Even if the dismissal of religion is done in such a way that the ideas and beliefs used to dismiss it are just like the religion(s) being dismissed; or if the dismissal is so fanatic and rabid that it's just as religious as the religion being dismissed?