Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

shut up, your ignorance surpasses the most stupid of people, do not talk if you do not know the entire story

---

last 2 posts were to the first couple of people

---

At 3/10/07 01:29 PM, muchcoolerthanu wrote: last 2 posts were to the first couple of people

You are the eptiome of everything that is wrong with the politics forum.

---

I have a question for those who claim to either know god doesn't exist or that the lack of evidence of god's existence makes it reasonable to assume that god doesn't exist. What is god. I figure, in order to know something doesn't exist, you have to know what it is to know that you haven't seen any evidence of its existence, right? so can any of you tell me exactly what God is?

---

even if u believe in evolution we obviously came from some super being (God)... things just dont go bang all of a sudden on there own, and if so im sure it would have happened or begain to happen again especially now that there is more elements in space then before this "big bang".. plus theres so much proff these days of stuff from the bible.. like how they just found noahs ark... like is what would actually be it.. a friend of mine actually worked on an expidition on it the pictures and mineral research they recovered changed my out look on religion.. like i was never a big follower but what he showed was definately powerful. info . but meh soon enough will find out the truth are world is obviously coming to an end soon and most likely from our own doing.. probably war..

---

and another thing u claim "the big bang" to be science.. its not science its fiction has nothing to do with science.. theres no scientific proof, and it goes against the own laws of science in particular Newton’s law that nothing is created nor destroyed only transformed into something equall.... and ur say a spec of dust can magically turn into some endless universe brought on by no logic....

---

At 3/10/07 03:37 PM, CinergyStudios wrote: and another thing u claim "the big bang" to be science.. its not science its fiction has nothing to do with science.. theres no scientific proof, and it goes against the own laws of science in particular Newton’s law that nothing is created nor destroyed only transformed into something equall.... and ur say a spec of dust can magically turn into some endless universe brought on by no logic....

Hahahahaa. There is plenty of evidence for the big bang, like the current expansion of the universe. Since Gravity is an attractive force, how do you suppose that happened? Also the background radiation, distribution of elements, the uniform distribution of matter, etc, etc, etc.

And it's not Newton's law that says matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. It was put forth by Lomonosov and Lovoisierin the 1700s. Anyway, current physics knows this to be only a general guideline, and that matter and energy are created and destroyed all the time.

---

At 1/18/07 10:37 AM, DJ-Jerakai wrote:

And secondly, how long will it be before Science completely disproves the theory of how god made earth and validates the big bang theory?

I would doubt so much validate the big bang, when the time comes i believe it will be something much more than the big bang that started it all.

Thirdly, once that happends, would faithfuls continue to blindly ignore scientific facts and follow disproven religious texts?

If everyone was educated about these scientific facts and shown clear evidence instead of speculation then most likely. But it would only be a matter of time before one of humanity's most common reasons to kill people in fighting and war (religion) is outdone by something completely different created from this empowered and informed society that understand the meaning of life and the creation of everything.

---

Well, I've got time to kill.

At 3/10/07 03:30 PM, CinergyStudios wrote: even if u believe in evolution we obviously came from some super being (God)...

It's that obvious? I had no idea man could even begin to comprehend the pre-universe, let alone say what "obviously" caused it! Good god, I'm enlightened. Please tell me more, O great CinergyStudios, clearly you alone have come to a breakthrough in modern science, theology and philosophy. Shame about your lack of capacity in spelling though...even the most intelligent of men would have difficulty navigating their way through your poorly veiled streaming of consciousness....

things just dont go bang all of a sudden on there own, and if so im sure it would have happened or begain to happen again especially now that there is more elements in space then before this "big bang"..

Christ, you don't even know what a singularity is, do you? And yet you insist on knowing more than today's top cosmologists. Damn.

plus theres so much proff these days of stuff from the bible..

Oh my, this is going to be fun.

like how they just found noahs ark... like is what would actually be it.. a friend of mine actually worked on an expidition on it the pictures and mineral research they recovered changed my out look on religion.. like i was never a big follower but what he showed was definately powerful. info .

They found a boat. A boat, on a different Mount Ararat than the one mentioned in Genesis. Yeah man, I'm totally converted! By the way, since the flood allegedly destroyed all the species on earth, what evidence is there that all life today originated from Turkey? Oh, that's right...none. Or perhaps you'd like to inform us how such a gigantic boat could have floated rather than just remaining at the bottom of the desert when the rain started? Or maybe you'd like to elaborate on why the implications of a global flood that obviously would have gone as high as Mount Everest (since there's fossil forms on Everest) can't be seen today? Or how one man could have built a boat single-handedly? Well, I suppose I'm forgetting that people lived longer back then; after all, Noah was 600 years old when he built his giant boat in the desert.

So, there's evidence for an Old Testament myth you say? So have you converted to Judaism?

but meh soon enough will find out the truth are world is obviously coming to an end soon and most likely from our own doing.. probably war..

Yes, indeed "will" find out the truth. What's the point you're making here? That the world's going to end "soon", even though people have been predicting that for centuries, even millennia? And I suppose that proves the prophecies made in Revelations or some shit? Jesus motherfucking Christ, you're the worst kind of theist; the complete moron.

---

At 3/10/07 07:27 PM, Peter-II wrote: Or how one man could have built a boat single-handedly?

Damn my typos!

That's meant to say "such a boat".

---

Cinergy's obviously a troll, I wouldn't really pay attention to him.

---

it didnt mean everything was wipped out by the flood there have been places found around the world where it looks like groups of people held out on a high elevation during the similar time period.... theres actually a mountain in Canada where a native tribe lived during believed to be similar time period.. on this mountain are water marks left at an un-matchable hight with today's water levels

---

Care to share a link? Because there were Glaciers covering most of Canada, making the people inhabiting those places have to live at higher elevations to escape the snow.

---

At 3/10/07 11:43 PM, CinergyStudios wrote: it didnt mean everything was wipped out by the flood there have been places found around the world where it looks like groups of people held out on a high elevation during the similar time period.... theres actually a mountain in Canada where a native tribe lived during believed to be similar time period.. on this mountain are water marks left at an un-matchable hight with today's water levels

Give me a (reliable) source, or just read problems with a global flood.

---

ok thios is a prety athiest topic but mabe in those seven days god created the world did u ever think that the kind of seven days he was talking about was longer than the seven days we would have on earth so in other words it coulda really been over 2000 years and in that time adam and eve coulda decended from monkies so adam and eve were actually the first humans scientist cant ever prove that isnt possible case closed.

---

At 3/11/07 02:43 PM, Grammer wrote: First you have to prove God is an illogical oxymoron and you might have something. But wait, you can't !!

Actually I can. And have, in this thread even. Omnipotence itself is paradoxical, as is omniscience paired with atemporality and free will. Nevermind omnibenevolence and malevolence in the world (accepting free will paradox).

So why can't you just accept people have different beliefs than you, w/o going out of your way to fruitlessly prove them wrong?

When you attack science, I fight back. Especailly when you try and use it to justify religious beliefs.

Now you're just a moron. Science doesn't change it's scope of reality to fit in with the times, science discovers reality, then continually tests that reality to make sure that it is actually real.

But it STARTS where the popular meme is. Like in Mythbusters, they start with a story of how things are/happened, then they rtest it to see if it actually works, and when it doesn't they come up with an alternate explanation... over and over until they get an explanation they can't disprove.

I don't think you've ever taken a science class, because what you're describing isn't science.

y helo thar physics major in college, nevermind the chemistry, anthropology and math to back it all up. Try again.

You're basing what is and isn't reasonable upon what society agrees upon, not what is actually real.

And yet you do the same, by believing in god. Society "agrees" that god exists. Yet there is no proof (or even evidence), and our descriptions of that god are logical impossibilities, which, because they're axiomatic, are actually BETTER at proving nonexistance than observational science.

Right now, it could be unreasonable for us to believe evolution is how we came into being, because we might discover evidence that disproves it. Does that make evolutionists reasonable people? Maybe to society, but if evolution is proven wrong, then not to reality.

It is COMPLETELY reasonable to believe evolution IS real, because every iota of physical evidence backs it up. Even if we found something tomorrow that completely disproved any form of evolution, the scientists and scholars and public that believed it was true were completely reasonable.

Now, believeing evolution is NOT true, when every iota of physical evidence says that it is, is not reasonable. Nor does it become retroactively reasonable if counter-evidence is found. Only once evolution is falsified would believing it's nonexistance be reasonable.

Scapegoating religion makes you hard core. Never mind the fact that people believed the earth was flat well after the enlightenment, and that you can't prove it was any religious leader who declared the earth was flat (you just assume).

Well, considering that before the Dark Ages, the round earth was known, and after the enlightenenment it was also known, and who held power during the Dark Ages, it's not exactly a stretch of logic. And to those who believed in a flat earth even when provided with evidence against it... well they're retarded. And in the vast minority.

Hell, with your blatant, "blame religion" sentiment, you are going against the fundamentals of science itself !!

You're getting ahead of yourself there. I don't blame religion, I blame the fundamentalist religious zealot leaders who ruled the time.

Because you know, science is ever-changing. It never has an absolute answer. You are convinced that God can't be real until there's proof, even thought there's probably proof we have discovered yet!!

So I should believe in him because there MIGHT be evidence of his existence found in the future? Well, then I guess I better believe in unicorns, leprechauns, and that invisible wall of spikes in front of me, because they might be proven to exist in the future!

So you're probably setting yourself up for being wrong. Thanks, but I'd rather stick to the scientific approach.

Uh, that's what science DOES, dude. It falsifies.

No, do you believe in God? Believe what you want, but don't be an ass wipe and tell me what science says I have to believe.

Why not? There's just as much reason to believe in them as in god. And from a scientific standpoint, believing in one thing and not another when they have the same amount of evidence for them is illogical.

A scientist would test your hypothesis and actually look in the trunk of your car.

He's only there when the lid is closed... he's shy. But he's really there!

You cannot equate God with Santa, because we know Santa doesn't exist. We've been to the North Pole, we know we put presents under the tree,

Prove it. I mean if Santa can fisit millions of children in one night, slip down chimneys while having the girth of someone who weighs at least three bills, then he can probably make sure noone finds his hidey-hole. He may not visit YOUR house... but prove he visits NOONES house. We do not KNOW santa doesn't exist. We BELIEVE he doesn't exist because there is no evidence FOR his existance... except some books.

owait...

but that's different from God, because you can't test God. You can, however, put a tooth under your pillow, lock your doors and windows, and see if a dollar bill was left overnight.

The Tooth Fairy's just mad at you because you don't believe.

You're ignorance is just frustrating. Why can't you accept that God is at least a possibility?

I accept that A god is possible... just not the christian, jewish or muslim one. In fact, out of the literally infinite number of possible deities, what makes you SO sure that you have the right one?

orly? explainplz

Proof is only possible when you're working with axioms (1+1=2, opposite angles are equal, etc). Evidence can only strengthen or weaken our confidence in a particular idea, as axiomatic proof of that idea would require having infinite information. We can't prove that the laws that govern our solar system are true universally, because we can't observe the entire universe, but we have evidence that they are consistent as far as is observable, so we assume, SCIENTIFICALLY, that they are.

I don't know how you talk to him, I don't care how you talk to him. I never read that guy's posts, anyways.

Maybe you should.

Your main problem, above many others, is simply that you're trying to put God and religion on the same playing field.

Uhhh... considering god IS religion's playing field, I fail to take your point.

You can't test God, because science is not good enough to test God. That doesn't make him unreal, but like I said, science can only search out the truth as we see it. Science is imperfect like that, but I'm sure you'll believe anything a scientist tells you.

If he has the evidence to back it up, yes I will.

no-proof =/= non-existance

True, but no evidence for existence makes belief in that existence illogical.

God has provided for me before.
God has shown me a great level of honesty and reliability.

The Christian god?

Circumstantial evidence. Just because she's shown up before, doesn't mean she will this time.

True, and if she doesn't show, that new evidence will factor into my view of her. But again, there is no prior evidence to believe she will ditch, thus expecting that is illogical.

The day you can without a doubt prove she'll never be late on a date ever, is the day you can prove God doesn't exist.

It'll also be the day you'll be able to give me evidence that he does.

Not in person, but yeah.

How can you witness a miracle (or anything else for that matter) not in person?

I've prayed for things, and they've occurred before me. But it's not like this is science, where I have to prove it was God.

Do you have any evidence that it was? At all? You sure it wasn't Allah saying "meh, close enough, here ya go"? If so, why?

continued... got character #'d

---

At 3/11/07 02:43 PM, Grammer wrote: No, but I could. There's no contradictory evidence, and you can't disprove the supernatural.

True, but would it be reasonable or logical to believe that they existed? No, it wouldn't. And I or anyone else would think you rather silly for believing in them. The same applies (aside from the majority opinion, obviously) to any deity you can conjure.

Hahahah, you fail. Science would never base it's hypothesis on what people believe, that's a logical fallacy.

No it's not. it happens all the time. Why do you think Gallileo had to experiment that objects with different weights fall at the same speed? Because he started with the common idea that they didn't, and decided to test it. SCIENCE!

Considered reasonable with no solid evidence

Without the possibility of evidence against it (normal eyeball observation from ground level is insufficient to "see" the Earth's curvature), assuming that flat land you're standing on, continues flatly (altered of course by landmarks like hills and valleys, of course, but generally...) to whatever end is perfectly logical. It's only when you decide to test this idea, this hypothesis that the reality becomes apparent. And only when presented with the evidence does that belief become irrational.

Since when does science use logical fallacies? :)

Since the beginning of time. They take these logical fallacies and experiment until they can come up with an answer. Welcome to science.

---

the problem is u evolutionist are believing in some big bang theory.. something u cant prove and that you only believe in by faith, in which u have created your own religion in it... and your saying those who believe in a God they cant prove are fools, where you have merely done the same thing. There is no complete science in that theory there is no proof you just say that to try and give reason... you might say ahh well theres like the radio active places around the world.. u have no proof that there related.. it is the same as us saying well man has also found the tombs of Noah , but yes we cant completely prove this. So dont be so ignorant over your own beliefs cause you have no more proof to disprove any other religion

---

At 3/11/07 07:28 PM, Grammer wrote: That's a misconception on your part. There is a raging debate among liberal and conservative Christians, and if you knew this, you probably wouldn't have jumped to such a silly conclusion as "I disproved God".

Except christians aren't looking to disprove him, only narrow down his attributes. When looked at logically, the god described in the bible cannot exist.

Conservative Christians believe everything we do is predetermined, that God navigates every step, and liberal Christians believe we have free will, that we choose to go to Hell or not.
Obviously, you can't have both, but if you think people are trying to have both, then I can see why you came to the misguided conclusion that God is somehow "paradoxical".

Either way, there is a gaping logical hole in the description of your god. If god DOES navigate everyone's steps, then malevolence is directly his fault, which is counter to his "holiness", a basic tenet of the faith.

But if god did give us free will, then he must not be omniscient, because to be so would determine our choices beforehand, through his atemporality.

Nevermind the burrito paradox.

When did I ever say science proved religion right? I just said it didn't prove it wrong. Where's the conflict? If anything, you're trying to create conflict by telling me the two cannot exist together, and any scientist would tell you different.

You're trying to prove that a belief in god is scientifically JUSTIFIED, not proven... quit using that word, it doesn't mean what you think it means, and "proof" is impossible.

Never. Science tests popular belief, but it never starts on the conclusion that the popular view is correct, and we must believe it until it has been proven wrong, as if to set yourself up for being wrong (just like the Earth being flat, you consider it "scientific" to mistakenly believe the Earth was flat until proven otherwise, even though only popular opinion backed it up. Science never bases conclusions on popular belief).

Normal observation (herro eyeballs, how r u?) would indicate a flat earth, especially without the knowledge of how gravity works compared to mass. Testing the idea that the earth is flat, while believing it is, is perfectly scientifically reasonable. As is believing in Newtonian Gravity (even though our more careful measurements have proven it to be innacurate) and yet testing it further when better observational equipment comes along.

If I applied your logic to the Mythbusters, I would have to first believe the myth, then test it's validity. What's the point of testing something if you believe it's true?

To double-check... to see if you really have the answer... to further refine your understanding... otherwise it'd be religion.

That may warrent an "oh, snap" but I'm not sure.

But you can't test God, so why bother? Why not just say you can believe w/e you want to believe, since like I made very clear, the two do not conflict?

They don't, but when looked at from a scientific standpoint, belief in a deity, just like belief in unicorns and leprechauns, is illogical.

How would you know if you can't disprove it? Science doesn't take anything for granted, it never says "Oh, we simply can't disprove it, so we shouldn't test it".

Technological and observational limits, mostly. I should have worded that better. Obviously we never stop testing, but when evidence after evidence after evidence appears confirming your theory (i.e. evolution), you can be reasonably certain that you have the idea. Once we find more evidence, we'll throw it against our theory and see if it sticks... if it doesn't, we refine the theory.

Hey, I'm a psychology major with a class in sociology, and I still can't figure out what social factors influence your stubborned attitude. Until you have a degree in something, shaddap. You're not an expert on jack-diddly squat.

Never said I was expert... but I'm certainly more qualified than a psychology major in the realms of the physical sciences.

You're basing what is and isn't reasonable upon what society agrees upon, not what is actually real.

And yet you do the same, by believing in god. Society "agrees" that god exists.

So I guess if other people believe in it, I can't?

What? Now you're just off the fucking map. You bash me and science for basing our assumptions on consensus (be it scientific or communal), then DEFEND your own belief... which is based SOLEY on consensus?

You're fucking retarded.

No, that's retarded

For once we agree

my problem with you is you think it would be okay for science to assume the Earth was flat, because that's what popular belief states, despite no real evidence for that claim. That's a logical fallacy, science doesn't assume anything until it has the answers for a solution.

Without the first assumption, there is nothing to test. Science MUST assume something, that's part of the hypothesis. Only after it asks the question "Is the earth flat?" can it test to find the answer.

I don't base my religion on science, I base it on faith.

Which is irrational and illogical.

Like I said (but you totally ignored my point), you have faith that your girlfriend will make it to the movies on time. How can you prove she will? You don't, you just have faith she'll make it. It doesn't matter if she's made it on time before, that's circumstancial evidence, and you can't assume she will this time because of that.

But again, every piece of evidence I have points to her timeliness (i.e. evidence for evolution), so faith in that timeliness is justified, just as my "faith" in evolution is justified. Were it our first date, I would have no assumptions at all, other than to hope she wasn't so careless as to be very late. And with a deity whose very definition requires his absence most of the time, you're forever on your first date with him.

C'mon, I'll give you another shot, because your first attempt was miserably weak. Prove God wrong.

If god is omniscient (which he must be by your bible), then free will is illusory, which means he is also not holy, because of the existence of evil, which would be his direct doing.

He also can't do something impossible, by the very definition of the word, which is wherein the omnipotence is self-paradoxical.

Right now, but who's to say evidence isn't found that will disprove it? Like I said, science can't find absolute truth, it only finds the truth as we see it.

Which is why, before we could (or chose to) observe the roundness of the earth, the belief that it was flat was perfectly reasonable AND scientific as normal observation seems to confirm a flat earth.

Only the evidence we're available to. And many scientists admit there are grey spots in evolution.

So? When we find something conclusively counter to evolution, we'll talk... till then, assuming it's false is ridiculous.

No they weren't. They were wrong. Hence, unreasonable. Oh sure, they may have seemed reasonable because you believed it, but if every scientist concluded 1 + 1 = 3, would that make them reasonable? No, because they're wrong.

It's only unreasonable after the fact. I believe in the No Boundary Proposal. I believe in Relativity. Thos ebeliefs NOW are reasonable, because the evidence supports them... and even in the future if evidence contradicts them, my belief NOW is still reasonable.

---

At 3/11/07 07:31 PM, Grammer wrote: Everyone believed the Earth was flat. It didn't just happen when religious leaders were in charge. Pretty much anyone pre-Columbus thought the Earth was flat.

No they fucking didn't. get your damn facts straight.

You also need to prove to me that religious leaders taught the Earth was flat because of their religion. I'm sure they also taught medical treatments that actually hurt a patient, but does that mean religion is to blame?

For hurting patients? Yes, the religious leaders are to blame. And if those same religious leaders taught that the earth was flat, then yet, they are to blame for that as well... QED.

Hey, atheists are in the vast minority too!! :D

Not really, we're the third-largest belief structure behind Christianity and Islam. Link.

No, you're blaming religion. You said at the beginning of the post I'm responding to, that religion is "attacking" science, in order to prove itself right. That's retarded.

No, I said that YOU are attacking science by trying to use it to justify a belief in religion. Quit twisting the issue, Dre.

No, I'm saying believe w/e the Hell you want, because there's no proof either way. Now doesn't that sound prettier than trying to force me to believe God is illogical? :)

Except belief in anything with no evidence is the definition of illogical.

If you wanna believe in that shit, yeah, knock yourself out. Except I wouldn't put them on the same level as God, because we at least know Jesus existed, as opposed to invisible spikes which has no basis for belief whatsoever.

Jesus's existance only proves a man with a good message existed. Ghandi's existance isn't proof of buddhism's truth. It is EXACTLY the same thing to believe in faeries and to believe in God. Both have zero evidence, both cannot be disproven... it just so happens that one is more popular, and for some reason you think that makes it more reasonable. What was that about argumentum ad populum, again?

Why not? There's just as much reason to believe in them as in god.

Why not be an ass wipe?

No, why not believe in unicorns?

Then if that's the case, you can believe that. Oh sure, society may say that's weird, but there's no reason not to believe that. I just wouldn't put that on the same level as God.

Why isn't it the same as god? Both have exactly the same amount of evidence for and against.

Prove Santa doesn't exist? Hm, well I guess I can't do that, but I can prove he doesn't deliver presents to Christmas trees every night.

Maybe not to YOUR house...

If you've seen or helped your parents stock Christmas presents under the tree, then you know Santa hasn't done it.

Hey, as a kid, I went to sleep with X amount of presents under the tree... when I woke, there were X + Y presents under the tree. Who am I to assume it wasn't Santa that did it? And who are you to assume he doesn't exist just because he doesn't visit YOU?

No, actually what you said made a lot of sense? Why say "owait"? There was nothing wrong with that statement. We don't know Santa doesn't exist, we just don't believe in him. Can you please explain how that doesn't make sense?

That was the point. It DOES make sense... and is a direct metaphor for god.

You liar!! You just said God was a logical impossibility!! God is defined as an omnipotent being, but you said that can't happen!

Small g not big G, god. Your god is impossible. A god that is powerful enough to make everything yet not omnipotent is far more likely... an impersonal creative force is the most likely.

How? Prove gravity exists. Prove the love of baby Jesus isn't holding us to the ground. Oops, ya can't prove that, so I guess gravity doesn't exist.

Again proof and evidence are different things...

Only the mechanism by which gravity functions is unknown, not its existance.

I don't need to, religion is based on faith, much like everything you have ever hoped for. You can't prove you'll will the lottery, but you can have faith you will. There's wrong or illogical for having hope you'll win the lottery, much like there's wrong with having faith in God.

There's a difference between believing you'll win the lottery and starting to buy a house before you even buy a ticket, which is basically what the religious are doing.

Well, I didn't see God come down to Earth!!

You're right, you didn't. So you didn't witness any miracle.

At 3/11/07 07:35 PM, Grammer wrote:

True, but would it be reasonable or logical to believe that they existed?

We would call it unreasonable, but only due to society's norms, not science.

And yet in your previous post you say that you can't assume something DOESN'T exist via science UNTIL you test it... which fucking is it? If we have NO assumptions, we can ask no questions, which is exactly what science does. Make up your damn mind, assclown.

Good thing he decided to test it and not fall prey to what society believed !!

Except he STARTED from what society though and tested it... that's how science works!

---

Hey, I'm a psychology major with a class in sociology, and I still can't figure out what social factors influence your stubborned attitude. Until you have a degree in something, shaddap. You're not an expert on jack-diddly squat.

I'm a Classics Major, CultAnthro minor with 3 years experience in psychology and a class in sociology. None of which proves I have the slightest knowledge of anything.

Furthermore, there's a difference between a Psych major and one who has a BS/BA in Psych.......

---

Ok kiddies, story time.

A long time ago there was a sea traveling people known as the Phoenicians. One day a boat of these people where traveling farther than ever before and found a rich island, on the way to this island they passed ruff water that looked like a waterfall from a distance. When they came back they told everyone that they found the edge of the world so no one would go looking for this island and take some of its wealth that the sailors wanted. The Greeks herd this and went to see for them selves, they saw the ruff water and pissed themselves "Holy Crap its the edge of the world!" they went home and told ever one they had found it, every one believed them and never went back there.

And so the Phoenicians played the greatest Joke in human history.
(its still funny)

But that only “proved” what people had bean thinking for a long time, here is the logic for thinking the world was flat:

The Earth can’t be endless, so it has to end.
If the world was round, it doesn’t matter because you would still fall off, like if you walk off a ball, you’d still fall on your face.

But what keeps us from floating away?
They would say back that the earth is heavier than you, so you cant move it, but air is nothing so it cant lift you up, small things like rocks are less heavier than you so you can lift it but not air so it falls to the ground.

It was good logic back then.

---

If any body knows anything about History, they would know that the crusades, backwards scientific thought, the dark/middle ages, is not the religions fault.

If anybody dissagrees, say something and I will explain.

---

At 3/12/07 10:20 AM, Zoraxe7 wrote: If any body knows anything about History, they would know that the crusades, backwards scientific thought, the dark/middle ages, is not the religions fault.

If anybody dissagrees, say something and I will explain.

I know nothing about History I guess....since I don't know any of that.....

Explain!

---

science is best every 1 shut up all religious people are just wacked out on drugs

---

At 3/12/07 10:36 AM, Imperator wrote:

I know nothing about History I guess....since I don't know any of that.....

Explain!

OK, lets see...

It starts with the roman empire, it became christian, it was under pressure by barbarians on one side and persians on the other so it split into east and west empires. The western roman empire falls apart and is ruled by warlords, communitys band together under lords for safty. Every body becomes christian. The eastern roman empire is now called Byzantium. The east becomes greek othodox christian, and the west catholic.

All the people in the ex-western empire is connected by the church, that donated money, helped the poor, and established medical treetment for the ill. Every one had to work hard, the monks donnated themselvs to learning, and were educated.

One day, a Frank, Charlemaighn the great, united a large amount of europe and was crowned empiror by the pope, in return, he gave the pope a larg amount of land in italia, making the pope a king (absolute power currops absolutly). Well after the empirors death his empire broke up into France and the holy roman empire (germany) but all the lands of europe was know under the influence of the pope. To be taxed.

So it is not christianity that was curropted but the church that held real power, the Pope owned armies, taxed the church, bullied kings to do his bidding. Also it so happened that the monks where the educated class and were teachers, scientists, and preachers in a time when everyone depended on the church to live. That is why many people found it hard to believe the world was not flat, most educated people was under cotrole of the currupted control of the kingdom of rome and the Paple States.

Ill say more later.

---

At 3/12/07 11:48 AM, Grammer wrote: Prove to me gravity is holding us to the Earth and not magical, invisible pink unicorns. You can't!! So therefore, gravity does not exist.

Or, you can believe gravity exists, even though the magical unicorns theory could be just as plausible (despite social norms telling us how rediculous that is).

So according to your logic, the only difference in plausibility between the theory of gravity and the theory of magical unicorns is social norms? But that would be erronous thinking, according to the logical fallacy you named. So am I forced to conclude that according to you there's no real difference whatsoever between the theory of gravity and the theory of magical unicorns?

If I applied your logic to the Mythbusters, I would have to first believe the myth, then test it's validity. What's the point of testing something if you believe it's true?

To double-check... to see if you really have the answer... to further refine your understanding... otherwise it'd be religion.

A.) Scientists (should) always go testing any theory with a bit of skepticism, even the laws of physics. Blindly accepting anything is not only un-scientific, but stupid.

Falsification, anyone? Scientists ARE always testing theories, ESPECIALLY the laws of physics. A new discovery is fine and dandy, but proving that a fundamental law of physics is wrong gives the scientist a name in history. For example, Einstein relativity theory as opposed to the long held Newtonian absolute time.

B.) Religious people to "further refine their understanding" all the time. I used to believe gay marriage was okay, now after reading The Bible and understanding (most of) it, I see that's it's wrong. Some people break away from Christianity, and form other religions such as Mormonism, I bet they consider themselves to be "further refining their understanding".

Pffff. Good for you, congratulations on your well-founded opinion on gay marriage.:

How would you know if you can't disprove it? Science doesn't take anything for granted, it never says "Oh, we simply can't disprove it, so we shouldn't test it".

Technological and observational limits, mostly. I should have worded that better. Obviously we never stop testing, but when evidence after evidence after evidence appears confirming your theory (i.e. evolution)

I think you meant the laws of physics, I've seen even evolutionist proponents admit there's soem grey spots in evolution, so your example is a bit stale.

There's a difference between "some grey spots" and the theory being fundamentally flawed.

Never said I was expert...

Then don't flaunt your "anthropology major", as if it mattered.

but I'm certainly more qualified than a psychology major in the realms of the physical sciences.

Could've fooled me. Maybe I just naturally know more about this than you? I am Christian, and I have taken science classes, I'm pretty sure I have a general idea (at least) that science and religion don't conflict.

Hahaha. Yeah, you know more about this than Ravariel. Hahahaha. Taken science classes? WOW!

At 3/12/07 11:49 AM, Grammer wrote:

Without the first assumption, there is nothing to test. Science MUST assume something,

that's part of the hypothesis.

Hypothesii don't "assume", they pose a question, and they test it. Science doesn't say: Okay, this beaker is obviously filled with water, and not a clear poison, but let's test it anyways".

A hypothesis is not a question... That what's in your beaker is a fluid is also an assumption. There's no way to know what tests you can do without making an initial "guess".

I don't base my religion on science, I base it on faith.

Which is irrational and illogical.

Then I guess you're illogical every time you hope for something. No having faith you'll win the lottery, no having faith your father will make it home safely, no having faith your mother will cook dinner, no having faith your girlfriend will let you get to third base tonight, because faith (and by extension, hope), is irrational and illogical.

lol@u

There's a difference between having hope, and considering something true on the basis of faith. You're not going to buy a couple of villas because "you have faith" you'll win the lottery.

But again, every piece of evidence I have points to her timeliness

Oaky, I guess you didn't read it right the first time, so I'll type is more boldly.

THAT'S. CIRCUMSTANCIAL. EVIDENCE.

Getting their the first time, doesn't mean you'll make it the second time, and so forth.

What other kind of evidence is there then? The fact that the sun has risen before every single day doesn't mean that it'll rise again tomorrow. But I think we can agree there's a PRETTY good chance of it happening. It's inductive reasoning, not valid for mathematical proof, but for example statistics deals with almost nothing else.

Were it our first date, I would have no assumptions at all, other than to hope she wasn't so careless as to be very late.

Ah, but to have hope is to have faith, which is totally illogical.

hope =/= faith.

C'mon, I'll give you another shot, because your first attempt was miserably weak. Prove God wrong.

If god is omniscient (which he must be by your bible), then free will is illusory,

Elaborate. Why can't an all-powerful god let me be who I want to be?

That was even worse the second time around.

If God knows everything, he knows your next action , which means it's already decided before you act, which means you don't have free will.

which means he is also not holy, because of the existence of evil, which would be his direct doing.

Why couldn't God put evil on this Earth to test me? What if he wanted to see how I'd react if my life wasn't perfect?

Because being omniscient, he already knows how you'd react. He CREATED you for crying out loud.

He also can't do something impossible, by the very definition of the word, which is wherein the omnipotence is self-paradoxical.

But that will never happen, but I'm sure if God wanted to, he could bend the laws of nature.

No it will never happen, because it's impossible. That was a hard one. God can't bend all rules. It's like asking someone to run 5 kilometers in 1 minute. Using an airplane to achieve that speed is no art, but that wasn't the challenge.

But you're assuming it's right. Why are there grey spots? Shouldn't all the holes be filled in? Don't I have a reason to doubt if it can't explain everything?

Science doesn't give be-all end-all answers, I thought you at least understood that much. We don't have 100% certain knowledge about ANYTHING. So no, all holes shouldn't be filled in. Science isn't religion.

It's only unreasonable after the fact.

It's unreasonable, period. I don't care if you could bring me the greatest mathmetician in the world, if he think 1 +1 = 3, he's wrong, he's unreasonable, period.

That's because artithmetics is based on (an infinite amount of) axioms. Natural science isn't.

---

Ravariel, first, your situation concerning waiting for your girlfriend only gives credence to the idea of religion being a logical way of thinking. You say its reasonable for a person to believe his girlfriend if she has given him reason to believe she will show up (like showing up before or a friend saying that she doesn't break dates) or if she hasn't given you reason to believe that she won't. There is a huge body of circumstantial evidence attesting to God's existence (the many abrahamic scriptures, at least a hundred thousand people who claim to have seen or heard God or felt His presence, possible personal experiences of encountering God or His heralds), so according to your example, it would be reasonable to have faith in God's existence.

Second, your idea that omniscience cannot coexist with free will takes a very narrow view of time. Free will is incompatible with the idea of linear time, which your post assumed would have to be true in order for there to be omniscience. There are multiple ways to look at things; Assuming God knows everything, he would have all knowledge of every thing in existence. If the future doesn't exist yet, then god would have no knowledge of it until it happened, yet he would still have all knowledge in existence. Another way you could look at the situation is that time has as many branches as there are multiple outcomes for a given situation, and God knows them all. In that case, you would have the free will to act in whatever fashion you pleased, and god would know the outcome without hindering your ability to make decisions independently of His will.

From your posts, I still don't see how the idea of God is impossible or how believing in God is irrational, and I definitely don't see how belief in religion is inherently opposed to science.

---

why does sience have to prove everything. it is quite annoying how they just cant let us stay with our religion trying to prove us wrong. beliveing is about faith not using some scientific studies to find out.

---

At 3/12/07 11:46 AM, Grammer wrote: So then you acknowledge that Christians don't believe we have free will, and a pre-determined future? Because that's impossible. You made the mistake of thinking we want both, because that would make God illogical, but that's not really how it is.

Since when did I assume you wanted both? Quit twisting my arguments into some straw-man for you to defeat with your "logic". Either way, with or without free will, Christianity cannot be correct as it is written. With free will god's omniscience cannot exist, without it, it negates his holiness. Either way it's paradoxical.

1.) That's why I believe in free will.
2.) That wouldn't make it "his fault", because God is sinless, he does what he pleases. What happens to you, happens to you. If you were destined to go to Heaven, then you're going there.

So you DO believe in free will AND predestination? Wtf are you smoking!?

You have yet to debunk what I actually believe in, which is freewill. You can only attack the weaker of the two, and with pretty weak logic, I might add.

Actually the logic is rock-solid. Free will and omniscience CANNOT COEXIST.

Umm... no duh? God gives us choices, we make decisions. That's free will. How we end up is our own doing.

How is this debunking God again?

Because if we have free will he is not omniscient.

It's called a paradox because it can't happen. The only thing God can't do is create a boulder he can't lift. that doesn't mean he's not omniscient, because he can lift every boulder, and there is no such thing as "a boulder he can't lift", because it doesn't exist.

Thus if he can't create something, he is not omnipotent. I'm cool with that. Are you?

You're trying to prove that a belief in god is scientifically JUSTIFIED,

Which is totally fine. How is that attacking science? Where does science prove God wrong? I would like to hear, because your previous attempts were utterly pathetic.

Because a belief in ANYTHING that has zero evidence, is NOT scientific, CANNOT be justified by the ruled of nature, or of the scientific method. Science cannot prove the nonexistance of any deity, yours or anyone else's, but it is the VERY NATURE of religion and it's separation from that science that makes it BY DEFINITION irrational.

Actually, I think the problem is you. You desire to create conflict, to say they cannot co-exist,

Where did I say they cannot or do not co-exist? More straw-man bullshit.

and that billions of people around the world are simply "illogical" because your

EVERYONE, myself and yourself included, has illogical beliefs. Religion is one of those. There is NO evidentiary reason to believe in any deity, none. There are MANY logical reasons to not believe in them (some stated in this very discussion), and yet 84% of the world believes in some form of deity. It's illogical and irrational, and not scientifically justifiable.

You said science believed the earth was flat because of popular belief. Now you mean to say it was because the Earth looked flat. Two completely different reason.

Uh, hello causation... one follows from the other, dumbass. Earth looks flat to the average observer... people believe earth is flat... not a hard logical leap. The someone says "I wonder if the earth really IS flat?" or maybe "I wonder what shape our flat earth is, round or square?", comes up with hypotheses, tests them and finds out the earth is round, presto-chango, SCIENCE!

At 3/12/07 11:48 AM, Grammer wrote: Prove to me gravity is holding us to the Earth and not magical, invisible pink unicorns. You can't!! So therefore, gravity does not exist.

Gravity, defined as the force that attracts objects of mass at a strength proportional to the cube of that mass, does exist, and is proveable in every possible scientific manner. The MECHANISM BY WHICH IT WORKS IS NOT. This is not the same thing as gravity not existing. You're just being a retard troll, now.

So then why can't I believe they co-exist? You just admitted science and religion don't conflict, and you're still argueing religion is illogical? Based off of what? Your skewed perception of what is "logic"?

Logic and illogic can co-exist, too, dumbass. Science is logical, religion is illogical.

I think you meant the laws of physics, I've seen even evolutionist proponents admit there's soem grey spots in evolution, so your example is a bit stale.

There are "grey spots" in every theory. We'd need infinite information in order to eliminate the "grey spots".

Then don't flaunt your "anthropology major", as if it mattered.

Theoretical Physics, but yeah, with a couple more classes, I could be an Anthro minor.

At 3/12/07 11:49 AM, Grammer wrote: You, on the other hand, said science believed the Earth was flat because people believed it.

If there's no evidence against it (like there was before observational equipment more powerful than simple eyesight existed), and observational evidence FOR it, then yes, that is a perfectly scientific stance.

Who says I base my beliefs on consensus?

If the majority of americans were Muslim, so would you most likely be. Religion is based more on social and family factors than actual choice. True converts are rare.

Hypothesii don't "assume", they pose a question, and they test it. Science doesn't say: Okay, this beaker is obviously filled with water, and not a clear poison, but let's test it anyways".

Question: Is the earth flat? blahblahblah no it isn't viola science. Now why did they ask that particular question?

THAT'S. CIRCUMSTANCIAL. EVIDENCE.

Getting their the first time, doesn't mean you'll make it the second time, and so forth.

Togu already said almost word for word exactly what I was going to reply to this point... but I'll do it again, just in case you missed it.

The sun rising every day is also purely anecdotal, circumstantial evidence... will you be amazed and filled with the wonder that is the power of your faith when it rises yet again tomorrow?

Believing something will happen like it has happened in the past is perfectly logical. Logic can exist without hard, axiomatic proof, it can also extend from observational, circumstantial evidence. Belief in a deity does neither.

Ah, but to have hope is to have faith, which is totally illogical.

hope =/= faith.

Elaborate. Why can't an all-powerful god let me be who I want to be?

Please define the following words for me (it's really for you, because I think there's some misunderstanding with you as to what these words mean, but humor me):

1) Omniscient

2) Omnipotent

3) Eternal

3b) Atemporal

4) Holy

4b) Omnibenevolent

But that will never happen, but I'm sure if God wanted to, he could bend the laws of nature.

And I can make a right triangle's angles add up to more than 180 degrees.

But you're assuming it's right. Why are there grey spots? Shouldn't all the holes be filled in? Don't I have a reason to doubt if it can't explain everything?

Welcome to the natural world, all the holes can only be filled in with infinite information. If science explained (or claimed to) everything perfectly with no holes, well then it would be religion, now, wouldn't it?

It's unreasonable, period. I don't care if you could bring me the greatest mathmetician in the world, if he think 1 +1 = 3, he's wrong, he's unreasonable, period.

Thats based on axioms, most science is based on observation and evidence. To believe, scientifically, that Newton was right (when ALL observational evidence supported it) before Einstein came up with relativity, IS COMPLETELY LOGICAL AND REASONABLE!

So tell me, was Newton unreasonable? Was Einstein? Was Neils Bohr? Was Tycho Brahe? Was Gallilieo? Because guess what... with new observational evidence... THEY'RE ALL WRONG! Science works with what it has to ferret out the answers to what it can, nothing more. Considering a person unreasonable for believing in something for which there is mounds of evidence, with none against, is retarded.