Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/3/07 02:59 AM, Drakim wrote:

:stuff

Well said, well said. Couldn't agree with you more if I tried.

At 9/3/07 08:24 AM, Togukawa wrote:

At 9/3/07 02:59 AM, Drakim wrote: stuff

Well said, well said. Couldn't agree with you more if I tried.

Thank you. ^^

I was a bit mad when I wrote it, so I was afraid people would miss the point in favor of being mad back. Sorry about that.

At 9/3/07 02:59 AM, Drakim wrote:

Yet, you arrogantly claim that this make-believe is correct. That ALL make-believe is correct. I could just invent a God right now. Would that pop him into existence

And you arrogantly claim that there is no God, with the number of atheists so smaller than the number of theists out there, it looks like you have to prove yourselvs right befor we do, otherwise your beliefs hold no merit, despite being true or not.

So prey tell, prove that there is no God.

Without any justifications. We both know it would be useless for me to ask of anything, just anything, to back up your claim. You are simply believing that which you wish to believe. How can I ever hope to respect that? Or even understand you? I don't see why you have this love for believing in things that we have no reason to believe in, and hating the things that we DO have reason to believe in. Evidence is supposed to be a good thing, and lack of it, a bad.

Ltes get one thing straight, Atheism has no more science behind it than relligion does, simply claiming that atheism is more logical doesnt make it so, or is that just wishful thinking on your part?

Disproving X does not prove Y. As in, saying that science cannot explain something does not make your make-believe correct. Trust me, it does not. You actually need to prove your own theory, not just bash all others, in order to be justified with it. Right now, you are just sounding like those crazy Creationist that think that if they just disprove evolution, the Bible gets proven a 100% true.

But you are the one that neads to prove your own theory, your a minority and bashing what everyone ells thinks, so prove your theory.

And I do believe in evolution, You should know that not everyone that is a theist is a fundamentalist.
And I guess not all atheists are pricks like Richard Dawkins.

And why do you hold science to such a different standard?
"Science can't prove their theory, so I'll stick with this other theory that is equally unproven and claim it is more valid!"

In NO WAY did I ever say I diddnt believe in science, My argument is against atheism, not science.

At least science is trying. Trying like heck, and it is very possible we might get answers in the future. Religion will never provide answers, because religion, this very moment, isn't doing anything. It is making people feel good, but there is no effort put into progress within understanding of our universe. Absolutely none.

Relligion is not a replace ment for science.
Im not a fundamentalist.

So, that atheism is sad, makes it untrue?

Prehaps, but it does make it unworthy for it to have many followers compaired to a relligion.
Atheism as a belife only fits a minority of the people, that is how it always was, and that is how it always shall be.

And it is nothing compared to wasting your only life, only life, just so you could die and find out that there isn't an afterlife. Please, make the best out of this one, and if there is an afterlife, more power to you.

Wo says We wast our lives, as long as that is what we want to do who are you t tell us otherwise?

At 9/3/07 11:24 AM, Zoraxe7 wrote: So prey tell, prove that there is no God.

;
So 'prey' as in find something to kill & eat?

Sorry ,I know you meant 'pray'.
I can no more prove there is a god, than I can prove there isn't a god. While I personally believe there is something that is godlike in a universal way, I have no real idea what it is.

I do know that the various organizations that claim to have the 'answers' & the right way to worship god don't really have any more of an idea than I do. Sure they have lots of rules & ceremonies but not one of them are anything but the idea's of other men. The religious books that are portrayed as being divine or Holy writings , are not only written by men , most have been edited on more than one occassion by other men.
Because of this I find their value to be the same as that of a good Sci Fi book. Interesting to read, but I'm not going to live my life by it.

I was listening to the radio on Saturday , when returning home from the city. There was a program on about the Beatles, one of the interviews they played was with John Lennon & he was expressing his 'views' on Religion & God.
It was his discription of god that really had me pay attention. He said he believed god was "LIKE" electricity. (not that god WAS electricity) In he believed that god was neither good nor was he evil, but like electricity, it can kill a man strapped in a chair, or it can light a city.
God just "is" and we are completely incapable of grasping the concept of that.

While I don't know what god is, my thinking is more in line with this form of reasoning, than the Protestant religion I was raised with.

to prove that god does not exist is not important and may not be possible. frankly in order to prove that god does not exist you would need a clear conception of what god actually is, which would mean that you would have to disprove an individual's or doctrine's notion of god rather than any widespread but indubitably variable belief. however, many conceptions of the traditional god which is perceived in all the abrahamic religions are highly insensible as compared to the tangible scientific or material evidence available. the best example is of course evolution.

essentially, one's conception of god is more or less their business and irrelevant to everything as long as they don't act upon it in a way that affects others.

At 9/3/07 11:24 AM, Zoraxe7 wrote: And you arrogantly claim that there is no God, with the number of atheists so smaller than the number of theists out there, it looks like you have to prove yourselvs right befor we do, otherwise your beliefs hold no merit, despite being true or not.

I do not, and have never claimed to know that there is no God. Not even close. My stance is simply, I've yet to have any good reason to believe there is a God, so the only logical step for me is to not believe there is a God. To believe in something when there is no reason to, is not very smart. Or do you think I should believe in God when my senses and mind says otherwise? Just believe in God out of the blue? And then I should perhaps believe I'm part of a master race, since we seem to be believing in things out of the blue anyway? Or that I am santa clause? You simply need a reason to believe things, and I've yet to have one.

So prey tell, prove that there is no God.

I don't need to prove anything about God. God is a claim, an unproven claim. I do not think this claim holds water, and that's it. It's just like how I shouldn't need to prove myself innocent before somebody proves me guilty.

Ltes get one thing straight, Atheism has no more science behind it than relligion does, simply claiming that atheism is more logical doesnt make it so, or is that just wishful thinking on your part?

Indeed. Atheism isn't the same as science. BUT, atheism does not make any claims that goes against science. That is the point. No walking on water, no rising from the dead. In that way, Christianity is more against science than atheism.

Disproving X does not prove Y. As in, saying that science cannot explain something does not make your make-believe correct. Trust me, it does not. You actually need to prove your own theory, not just bash all others, in order to be justified with it. Right now, you are just sounding like those crazy Creationist that think that if they just disprove evolution, the Bible gets proven a 100% true.

But you are the one that neads to prove your own theory, your a minority and bashing what everyone ells thinks, so prove your theory.

But you see, atheism isn't really a positive claim. Atheism says nothing about how you should live your life, or think your thoughts, or anything like that. A lot of people like you seem to think that atheism is a strong claim against God. Atheism is simply the lack of theism.

It's like saying that anybody who isn't a commie (theist in this metafor), must be a diehard capitalist (atheist). Everything isn't black and white. I'm not a theist, and that's all. People who aren't theist are called atheists.

And I do believe in evolution, You should know that not everyone that is a theist is a fundamentalist.

No, but the count is scary-ish high. And I've rarely seen mild theist argue against fundamentalist theist. They seem to be halfway on the same team, voting for the same things, and generally agreeing on most things that doesn't affect them so much. Even most mild Christians think homosexuality is sinful.

If fundementalist were really such black sheep that is in no way related to the mild believer, then you would think that people would try to clear out their own growing ranks of fundamentalists before they go out and try to convert more people.

And I guess not all atheists are pricks like Richard Dawkins.

Why him of all big atheists? Richard is actualy quite nice complared to other big atheist such as Sam Harris. Just picking at the most famous one?

And why do you hold science to such a different standard?
"Science can't prove their theory, so I'll stick with this other theory that is equally unproven and claim it is more valid!"

In NO WAY did I ever say I diddnt believe in science, My argument is against atheism, not science.

Ah, but the arguments you put fowards could have applied to both. But nevermind, I missunderstood.

At least science is trying. Trying like heck, and it is very possible we might get answers in the future. Religion will never provide answers, because religion, this very moment, isn't doing anything. It is making people feel good, but there is no effort put into progress within understanding of our universe. Absolutely none.

Relligion is not a replace ment for science.
Im not a fundamentalist.

Religion makes claims about reality. It often makes claims that goes directly against what science says. For example, according to science, a man cannot rise from the dead after three days, as his brain wouldn't be functional anymore. Are you saying that doesn't collide with Christianity at all?

So, that atheism is sad, makes it untrue?

Prehaps, but it does make it unworthy for it to have many followers compaired to a relligion.
Atheism as a belife only fits a minority of the people, that is how it always was, and that is how it always shall be.

Perhaps? PERHAPS? You are freaking saying that how sad something is modifies the truth factor? Hilarous. Then I shall invent a religion that offers gifts like nothing else, and it shall be the most true religion ever!

Also, It is possible to be an atheist and belive in an afterlife ;)
(it's true. Atheism is only about God(s).)

i have a question. what exactly makes someone a theist?

i do not believe in god in the abrahamic sense. however, i believe that there is such a thing as god, but it is contained as, outside, and the reason for the window of reality that is the universe. there is nothing omnipotent, omniscient, or reverent about this god; it merely exists and, in the universe existing is the reason for our existence.

thus i believe in a god. does this make me a theist?

i think that the boundaries of what makes a religion need to be loosened somewhat.

At 9/3/07 12:46 PM, Drakim wrote:

I do not, and have never claimed to know that there is no God. Not even close. My stance is simply, I've yet to have any good reason to believe there is a God, so the only logical step for me is to not believe there is a God. To believe in something when there is no reason to, is not very smart. Or do you think I should believe in God when my senses and mind says otherwise? Just believe in God out of the blue? And then I should perhaps believe I'm part of a master race, since we seem to be believing in things out of the blue anyway? Or that I am santa clause? You simply need a reason to believe things, and I've yet to have one.

And I through Logic deterined that there is a God, so is one of us stupid, or non-logical? No, we simple see things differently, I dont just believe in God out of the blue, I have my motivation's.

I don't need to prove anything about God. God is a claim, an unproven claim. I do not think this claim holds water, and that's it. It's just like how I shouldn't need to prove myself innocent before somebody proves me guilty.

But we out number you, so you have to disprove us, it doesnt matter if we disprove you.

No, but the count is scary-ish high. And I've rarely seen mild theist argue against fundamentalist theist. They seem to be halfway on the same team, voting for the same things, and generally agreeing on most things that doesn't affect them so much. Even most mild Christians think homosexuality is sinful.

Most people that I know that are christians tolerate homosexuality.
Im glad I live in a very liberal state, relligion is private and there are very few fundimatalists.

Why him of all big atheists? Richard is actualy quite nice complared to other big atheist such as Sam Harris. Just picking at the most famous one?

To tell you the truth, I diddnt realy know of any others.

Religion makes claims about reality. It often makes claims that goes directly against what science says. For example, according to science, a man cannot rise from the dead after three days, as his brain wouldn't be functional anymore. Are you saying that doesn't collide with Christianity at all?

Meh, the bible isnt realy acurate, but I believe in god and why not follow the teachings of Jesus?

Perhaps? PERHAPS? You are freaking saying that how sad something is modifies the truth factor? Hilarous. Then I shall invent a religion that offers gifts like nothing else, and it shall be the most true religion ever!

Truthines!

Haha, no Im not trying to say that, But what type of relligion would preach exsistance as being Sad and pointless?

And an afterlife without God, how can that happen?

At 9/3/07 03:38 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:

At 9/3/07 12:46 PM, Drakim wrote:

I don't need to prove anything about God. God is a claim, an unproven claim. I do not think this claim holds water, and that's it. It's just like how I shouldn't need to prove myself innocent before somebody proves me guilty.

But we out number you, so you have to disprove us, it doesnt matter if we disprove you.

Sorry; can you explain to me how the fact that theists outnumber atheists on a global and national scale is even slightly relevant? there being more theists doesn't inherently make theism right or make it necessary to disprove the existence of god in order to hold the belief that god doesn't exist.

And an afterlife without God, how can that happen?

theoretically, one could assume that to be possible in the same way that it is possible with god intact. with god, presumably everyone goes to heaven or hell after they die as a result of god's will (this is probably an oversimplification because i am not well versed on christian doctrine; feel free to correct me even about minor mistakes). who is to say that there is not some physical law of the universe that dictates that everybody's spirit (or something similar) inhabits a different plane of reality after their corporeal death? why would a god be inherently necessary for this to occur if not for the same reason that a god is necessary for the existence of the universe in the first place?

yay! 2,000th post for the thread!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

;

At 9/2/07 12:35 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Please I'm almost positive your a leading member of the dumb fuck club.

Then you should have no problem in proving so.

That's your excuse... your not very good at this .

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

A spelling mistake, SORRY , I made a spelling error, I appoligise to all of the members of Newgrounds for being the first poster here to ever spell a word incorrectly.
hopefully I don't start a trend and no one else ever does such a terrible thing.

Perhaps there is hope for you yet.

I'm not prejudiced!

We'll see.

(stay tuned)

BUT I can just tell I wouldn't like you , doesn't matter what color, gender, age , sexual orientation, or religion you are. So hmmm. your right I am prejudicial, I dislike assholes.

I'm not the one who bashes people for their faith.

Really, what if both of those heads haven't got a clue?
Then your in an even worse place 2 dumb fucks instead of one.

Let's see now. You previously stated that you were "not prejudiced!", and here you are now referring to all who hold religious beliefs as "dumb fucks".

Maybe the percentage of renegades or radicals is small, the following they are able to lead (blind following the blind) is something else.

"I'm not prejudiced!"

Were those not your words?

Might I suggest you step down from this little quarrel before embarrasing yourself further? I won't think any less of you.

I cannot find your proof anywhere .... still looking.

Here it is again just to refresh your memory:

Why is it that many of those who consider themselves champions of "freethought" always look down upon those who do not conform to their way of "thinking"?

In other words, you are a hypocritical bigot.

; I don't consider myself a champion of anything. I am unlike yourself unwilling to follow the Herd.

I thought you were "not prejudiced!".

No surprises here your just looking to flame

I couldn't help myself. Sorry.

Actually, I'm not sorry; and you are a bigot.

At least my accusations against you can be validated and proven in a court of law.

At 9/3/07 03:38 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: And an afterlife without God, how can that happen?

if the soul is eternal there is nothing preventing it from continuing without body or creator. and if the soul is eternal, it had no beginning, therefore it could not have had a creator. if the soul was not created, then no god is required for its current existence, and by extension, no god would be required for its countinued existence.

At 9/3/07 10:14 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 9/3/07 03:38 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: And an afterlife without God, how can that happen?

Easy. It's called "Hell".

The choice to be in God's presence: Heaven
The choice not to: Hell

At 9/3/07 10:14 PM, SolInvictus wrote:
if the soul is eternal there is nothing preventing it from continuing without body or creator. and if the soul is eternal, it had no beginning, therefore it could not have had a creator. if the soul was not created, then no god is required for its current existence, and by extension, no god would be required for its countinued existence.

All of which is reliant on the idea that souls exist.

If the soul is eternal and no creator is needed, then will we ever be able to clone humans?

Glad to see the thread slowly sliding back towards intelligence.....

The Bible ain't a Science textbook, yet when scientific facts are called to the fore, it is accurate.

In the bible, it mentions God dwelling above the "circle" of the Earth, the source word often used to describe a sphere.

And yet for centuries they taught contrary to the Bible that the Earth is flat!

It describes the four chambers of the heart, the Earth hanging upon nothing, and so on. I could go on quite a lot about this.

To be honest, Science and the Bible should go hand in hand, not one versus one.

Some people say believing in a Creator would stunt the growth of Science. This is untrue, because people would simply continue researching and stuff to prove the existence of God.

Really, though, you cannot believe in God purely by Scientific proof and/or head knowledge. You need faith that he exists to be able to understand this.

I'm not going to delve into a rant about evoltion vs. creation, but I will say this:

Evolution is only proven by natural selection, which biases the gene pool towards the favorable traits of a species, allowing it to adapt to the ever changing environment. Without such diversity, many species would have a very hard time simply existing. This can be one of many signs that someone created life to be adaptable in this way. Remember, everything in this Universe had a beginning, and the chances of life to evolve out of a primordial soup of equally left and right-handed amino acids being zapped by lightning are so monumentally enormous it simply can not happen. Don't forget that our universe already breaks the rules. The aminos are all left-handed, which isn't supposed to happen mathematically (and experimentally) speaking.

k, if the big bang was true and there was no god as this made all life, how did that big bang occur??? how did that specimin come about?? and if you say it came and grew from a tiny 1 little spec ,how did that come about---GOD IS REAl THERES NO answer to it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At 9/3/07 03:38 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: And I through Logic deterined that there is a God, so is one of us stupid, or non-logical? No, we simple see things differently, I dont just believe in God out of the blue, I have my motivation's.

Notice the "my" I put in there. I'm speaking from my own position. Not humanity in general. For me, it would be unlogical to belive in God, since I have yet to see any reason to belive in God.

But, when I ask others, they can never really give a good reason for their belief. Then they go about saying that they "just know it". I can only assume that they don't really have any logical reasons either.

But we out number you, so you have to disprove us, it doesnt matter if we disprove you.

Still doesn't work that way. Truth, and reason, does not care for numbers. It's as simple as this. You have yet to give me anything to disprove. And now you are asking me to disprove it. I cannot, unless I learn to read your mind.

No, but the count is scary-ish high. And I've rarely seen mild theist argue against fundamentalist theist. They seem to be halfway on the same team, voting for the same things, and generally agreeing on most things that doesn't affect them so much. Even most mild Christians think homosexuality is sinful.

Most people that I know that are christians tolerate homosexuality.

Tolerate is the key word here. They just won't confront them directly. How many of your friends favor gay rights? How many of them would be okay with a gay child?

Im glad I live in a very liberal state, relligion is private and there are very few fundimatalists.

I understand that. Living in a place where religion is public seems like a hell to those that aren't part of the religion. I can imagen it isn't easy being a Muslim in say, Texas.

Why him of all big atheists? Richard is actualy quite nice complared to other big atheist such as Sam Harris. Just picking at the most famous one?

To tell you the truth, I diddnt realy know of any others.

Hmmh. Oh, shit, I mixed up the names Sam Harris is quite nice too. ^^
The name I was talking about was Christopher Hitchens. His book is named: God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

Meh, the bible isnt realy acurate, but I believe in god and why not follow the teachings of Jesus?

Then I really like your version of Christianity. Too bad you are a very very small minority.

Truthines!

Haha, no Im not trying to say that, But what type of relligion would preach exsistance as being Sad and pointless?

What if being Sad and pointless was the truth? Then that religion would be the true one. My point is just that, how nice something is has no relevance to how true it is. Absolutely non.

And an afterlife without God, how can that happen?

I don't belive in the afterlife, so I shouldn't speak. But you could think it was just how the universe worked. Just like gravity, there is a force that takes you to the next life (perhaps that was how we were taken to this life in a similar way?). No God involved.

At 9/4/07 02:09 AM, BlasterMaster555 wrote: The Bible ain't a Science textbook, yet when scientific facts are called to the fore, it is accurate.

No it isn't. Everybody and their mother is accurate to science if you just play with the words.

In the bible, it mentions God dwelling above the "circle" of the Earth, the source word often used to describe a sphere.

And the Bible also says that the earth has four corners. If you have a hundred guesses, it isn't so strange to assume that perhaps one of them is correct. The Bible is a long long text with random claims. Combined with the fact that it is vague and poetic, I would be more suprised if something DIDN'T match.

And yet for centuries they taught contrary to the Bible that the Earth is flat!

Meh, why do I have the feeling somebody will be saying that the Bible taught that the word was banana shaped all along if we just found it out right now?

It describes the four chambers of the heart, the Earth hanging upon nothing, and so on. I could go on quite a lot about this.

Please, present me with one that is highly accurate without some streching? (like you did with the "the word is often used as". A direct fact somewhere?)

To be honest, Science and the Bible should go hand in hand, not one versus one.

No it shouldn't. It wouldn't even matter if the Bible was a 100% true. There is a fundemental diffrece between the two. The Bible claims to have all the answers, and science is a method for getting answers.

You are pairing the guy who thinks he knows everything, with the guy that loves to learn and explore and know more. Not a good team, no matter how you look at it.

Some people say believing in a Creator would stunt the growth of Science. This is untrue, because people would simply continue researching and stuff to prove the existence of God.

What if some reshearch is currently heading towards the conclution that there is no God? This is exactly why science must never mingle with a religion. Science isn't after proving some claim. It is looking for THE truth, no matter what it is. What would you do if a new piece of evidence poped up that went against a Creator?

Also, belief in a Creator has stunned science before. Make no mistake about that. From the shape of the earth, to what is the center of the universe, to evolution today.

Really, though, you cannot believe in God purely by Scientific proof and/or head knowledge. You need faith that he exists to be able to understand this.

Faith and science doesn't work together. Science is about getting to know stuff. Faith is about beliving in stuff without knowing. They go a 100% in the wrong direction.

You have seen that science is powerful. It has changed our lives in pretty much ever aspect possible. You are using the internet as we speak, on a computer, that uses electricity, in a house with AC or some warm system.

To me, it simply seems that you know you cannot ditch science, but you want your faith too, so you try to meld and form them together where they couldn't be futher appart.

I'm not going to delve into a rant about evoltion vs. creation, but I will say this:

Evolution is only proven by natural selection, which biases the gene pool towards the favorable traits of a species, allowing it to adapt to the ever changing environment. Without such diversity, many species would have a very hard time simply existing. This can be one of many signs that someone created life to be adaptable in this way. Remember, everything in this Universe had a beginning, and the chances of life to evolve out of a primordial soup of equally left and right-handed amino acids being zapped by lightning are so monumentally enormous it simply can not happen. Don't forget that our universe already breaks the rules. The aminos are all left-handed, which isn't supposed to happen mathematically (and experimentally) speaking.

You are making a common mistake. Just because theory X can't explain this and that, does NOT MEAN THAT GOD DID IT. God doesn't get dibs as the default explanation. If you want to explain the world by God, you will need to prove it just as much as you will need to prove evolution.

At 9/4/07 02:09 AM, BlasterMaster555 wrote: The Bible ain't a Science textbook, yet when scientific facts are called to the fore, it is accurate.

Um, not it's not. The bible says nothing on science And if you at all, and if you believe it dose, then I'm sorry but your interpretation is very likely in error.

In the bible, it mentions God dwelling above the "circle" of the Earth, the source word often used to describe a sphere.

No it's not. In fact no where else besides the bible has the word for circle been confused with sphere. The word used in the bible is Chuwg which translates as circle, circuit (as in a self connected object), or compass. The word for a sphere or ball is duwr, which comes up several times in the bible when talking about spherical things, see Isaiah 22:18 as an example). The word used for circle has the same meaning it dose in our language, something that is flat and roundish, it is not interchangeable with sphere.

And yet for centuries they taught contrary to the Bible that the Earth is flat!

A circle is flat, a sphere isn't. The word isn't sphere but circle as I have pointed out, so no.

It describes the four chambers of the heart, the Earth hanging upon nothing, and so on. I could go on quite a lot about this.

The Egyptians, Greeks and many other grate societies new allot about our human organs, so the four chambers of the heart isn't impressive. By the way what passage are you getting this information from? As for the earth hangs upon nothing, this passage is also incorrect. First I've seen Job 26:7 written differently so i have to ask which one do you feel is correct:

"He stretcheth out the north over the empty space, and hangs the earth upon nothing"
"He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing."
"He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing."
"Stretching out the north over desolation, Hanging the earth upon nothing,"

You know what, it doesn't matter because there all wrong in someway. The first (which is what I think you going off of) says he stretcheth out the north, this makes zero sense as there is no north in space. The concept of north can only exist on ether a sphere or toroid. Additional it say the earth is suspended, this also dose not fit with the way gravitational interactions at all. You should be able to see the flaws in the other one if you actually look, but I will point them out if you ask. Oh, and by they way if you want to provide any more bible quotes you think are scientifically accurate then go right ahead, i will be happy to show you why they ether aren't or are irrelevant.

To be honest, Science and the Bible should go hand in hand, not one versus one.

No they don't. You think I'm wrong then keep trying to provide evidence, I'll shot it down each time.

Some people say believing in a Creator would stunt the growth of Science. This is untrue, because people would simply continue researching and stuff to prove the existence of God.

And what if there discovery contradict the teachings they believe in? Will they do an AiG and ignore it, because that's not science.

Really, though, you cannot believe in God purely by Scientific proof and/or head knowledge. You need faith that he exists to be able to understand this.

That you can't prove something on physical grounds is sufficient reason to discount it as a physical phenomena. If you do this you effectively place god out side of reality, and therefore separate from it. It can no longer interact with it or modify it in any way shape or form. Since god and reality must therefor be separate there is effectively nothing there.

I'm not going to delve into a rant about evoltion vs. creation, but I will say this:

Evolution is only proven by natural selection, which biases the gene pool towards the favorable traits of a species, allowing it to adapt to the ever changing environment. Without such diversity, many species would have a very hard time simply existing. This can be one of many signs that someone created life to be adaptable in this way. Remember, everything in this Universe had a beginning, and the chances of life to evolve out of a primordial soup of equally left and right-handed amino acids being zapped by lightning are so monumentally enormous it simply can not happen. Don't forget that our universe already breaks the rules. The aminos are all left-handed, which isn't supposed to happen mathematically (and experimentally) speaking.

No just no. You don't understand much about evolution do you? I mean first off your equating abiogensis with it, when the phenomena are two very separate things. Your also saying "evolution is only proven by natural selection", first off that's not proof of evolution, it is evolution. Natural selection is one of the primary driving mechanism behind evolution, It isn't just proof.

Now as for your rant about right and left handed proteins, there are some very minor chemical differences between them, and there appears to be a difference in the way the weak force interacts around left and right handed proteans. This dose tend to cause a preference for ether left or right hand formation. You also have the fact that proteins of a give parity will interact with more often and less chaotically with proteins of the same parity. As such the only way for life to form is for a set of proteins to assume a given parity. Once you have the first replicating protein structures they will catalyze there own formation, leave very little room for the other parity. The mathematics of the system don't suggest anything impossible is or was going on.

At 9/3/07 06:21 PM, Ursine wrote:

At 9/2/07 12:35 PM, morefngdbs wrote: I'm not prejudiced!
So hmmm. your right I am prejudicial, I dislike assholes.

;Look above see I admitted I am prejudicial I dislike asshole, especially assholes who blindly believe 'faith' is some kind of knowledge.

I'm not the one who bashes people for their faith.

Really, what if both of those heads haven't got a clue?
Then your in an even worse place 2 dumb fucks instead of one.

Let's see now. You previously stated that you were "not prejudiced!", and here you are now referring to all who hold religious beliefs as "dumb fucks".

;
You know "if the shoe fits" that isn't my fault.

Actually, I'm not sorry; and you are a bigot.

As the definition goes -intolerant of others beliefs etc. - you are correct.
BUT since you are completely put off by my belief's you are also a BIGOT. but unlike you I don't give a flying fuck ;-)

At least my accusations against you can be validated and proven in a court of law.

;
LOL a court of Law, yeah right. Since when is a point of view on religion an area that the courts would waste their time on.

At 9/4/07 04:36 PM, morefngdbs wrote: random stuff

Aint hypocricy grand?

At 9/4/07 04:41 PM, Memorize wrote: Aint hypocricy grand?

;
In the words of one of the worst fast food places on the planet, "I'm lovin' it"
Science rulez
Religion droolz ( esp. those who live it)

At 9/4/07 04:48 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 9/4/07 04:41 PM, Memorize wrote: Aint hypocricy grand?

;
In the words of one of the worst fast food places on the planet, "I'm lovin' it"
Science rulez
Religion droolz ( esp. those who live it)

NOW KNOCK IT OFF!

At 9/4/07 04:41 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 9/4/07 04:36 PM, morefngdbs wrote: random stuff

Aint hypocricy grand?

Especially when it's done by people who claim to be paragons of "reason" and "rationality", only to neglect both when backed into a corner while debating.

Take this person for example.

Very sad.

But, that's exactly what happened! The earth is merely 6000 years old, evidence to that claim is the grand canyon. Evolution and the big bang are just theories, personal opinions. It's not like there's any basis or evidence to these opinions. It's not like anything about evolution is written in the Bible, literal and unfailing word of God. At least, not until the fundamentalists get it through their thick skull that evolution is actually a fact. Then there will suddenly appear a lot of theistic metaphors that have been supporting evolution all along. No worries, not like that's going to happen in our lifetime.

God created a perfect world, for the purpose of killing off his son for everyone's sins. And he gave us free will so he can look at our silly antics. And every now and then, when we cease to amuse him by doing things like idolizing images or other gods, he organizes a huge gayfest orgy. (Romans 1, my new favourite part in the Bible. And New Testament too!).

Of course, when we fuck up ROYALLY, a gayfest just isn't going to cut it anymore. Then God floods the entire earth, for the purpose of killing everyone and sculpting nice canyons for people to gawk at turkeys.

There is absoluteley NO evidence in God, have you heard of dinosaurs? And all of the evidence that saying the earth is millions of years old? and the chance that a gigantic white bearded man that creates UNIVERSES walks around creating GALAXIES with a flick of his finger? The sad truth is that when we die, we die the Universe was created when a huge amount of compressed particles collided with eachother and blew up sending out galaxies into empty space. We don't go to some invisable heavan and if were naughty, we go to some place deep in the earth where its to hot to survive anyway and suffer for eternity. I know it's nice to believe in god but it's simply not true. Science proves it wrong

My god,You've fucked the thing that comes before panda eternaly,cause i fucked it first. Asshat.

At 9/4/07 04:10 AM, EndGameOmega wrote:

At 9/4/07 02:09 AM, BlasterMaster555 wrote: The Bible ain't a Science textbook, yet when scientific facts are called to the fore, it is accurate.

Um, not it's not. The bible says nothing on science And if you at all, and if you believe it dose, then I'm sorry but your interpretation is very likely in error.

I am sure it is not.

In the bible, it mentions God dwelling above the "circle" of the Earth, the source word often used to describe a sphere.

No it's not. In fact no where else besides the bible has the word for circle been confused with sphere. The word used in the bible is Chuwg which translates as circle, circuit (as in a self connected object), or compass. The word for a sphere or ball is duwr, which comes up several times in the bible when talking about spherical things, see Isaiah 22:18 as an example). The word used for circle has the same meaning it dose in our language, something that is flat and roundish, it is not interchangeable with sphere.

Self-connected object is a sphere, think third-dimensionally. Gimme a bit, I'l come back about the translation bit.

And yet for centuries they taught contrary to the Bible that the Earth is flat!

A circle is flat, a sphere isn't. The word isn't sphere but circle as I have pointed out, so no.

It describes the four chambers of the heart, the Earth hanging upon nothing, and so on. I could go on quite a lot about this.

The Egyptians, Greeks and many other grate societies new allot about our human organs, so the four chambers of the heart isn't impressive. By the way what passage are you getting this information from? As for the earth hangs upon nothing, this passage is also incorrect. First I've seen Job 26:7 written differently so i have to ask which one do you feel is correct:

"He stretcheth out the north over the empty space, and hangs the earth upon nothing"
"He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing."
"He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing."
"Stretching out the north over desolation, Hanging the earth upon nothing,"

You know what, it doesn't matter because there all wrong in someway. The first (which is what I think you going off of) says he stretcheth out the north, this makes zero sense as there is no north in space. The concept of north can only exist on ether a sphere or toroid. Additional it say the earth is suspended, this also dose not fit with the way gravitational interactions at all. You should be able to see the flaws in the other one if you actually look, but I will point them out if you ask. Oh, and by they way if you want to provide any more bible quotes you think are scientifically accurate then go right ahead, i will be happy to show you why they ether aren't or are irrelevant.

Suspended upon nothing is referring to no physical object is holding the Earth in place, as lots of mythologies at that time believed the Earth was perched on the top/head/back/shoulders of some mythical being. Gravatational forces are not physical objects.

To be honest, Science and the Bible should go hand in hand, not one versus one.

No they don't. You think I'm wrong then keep trying to provide evidence, I'll shot it down each time.

Then I have a challenge.

Some people say believing in a Creator would stunt the growth of Science. This is untrue, because people would simply continue researching and stuff to prove the existence of God.

And what if there discovery contradict the teachings they believe in? Will they do an AiG and ignore it, because that's not science.

No, as we learn things we didn't learn before we come to a better understanding of the world around us. Theories can be proven wrong just like the way they can be proven right.

Really, though, you cannot believe in God purely by Scientific proof and/or head knowledge. You need faith that he exists to be able to understand this.

That you can't prove something on physical grounds is sufficient reason to discount it as a physical phenomena. If you do this you effectively place god out side of reality, and therefore separate from it. It can no longer interact with it or modify it in any way shape or form. Since god and reality must therefor be separate there is effectively nothing there.

Rubbish. You can't see or touch gravity, yet it has an effect on you, so you can't deny its existence. Proof of a Creator is all around us. From the simple fact of a solar system that is "just right" in a galaxy of misfit gas giant solar systems to the laws that govern this universe to the design and adaptability of every creature on earth, plus the genetic and mental "phenomenon" known as Man says that something designed all this.

I'm not going to delve into a rant about evoltion vs. creation, but I will say this:

Evolution is only proven by natural selection, which biases the gene pool towards the favorable traits of a species, allowing it to adapt to the ever changing environment. Without such diversity, many species would have a very hard time simply existing. This can be one of many signs that someone created life to be adaptable in this way. Remember, everything in this Universe had a beginning, and the chances of life to evolve out of a primordial soup of equally left and right-handed amino acids being zapped by lightning are so monumentally enormous it simply can not happen. Don't forget that our universe already breaks the rules. The aminos are all left-handed, which isn't supposed to happen mathematically (and experimentally) speaking.

No just no. You don't understand much about evolution do you? I mean first off your equating abiogensis with it, when the phenomena are two very separate things. Your also saying "evolution is only proven by natural selection", first off that's not proof of evolution, it is evolution. Natural selection is one of the primary driving mechanism behind evolution, It isn't just proof.

However, with Natural Selection, the genes for the unfavorable types remain in the gene pool, even at a very low percentage, thereby allowing a "reversion" if the situation changes. The peppered moths that "evolved" to live on the sides of sooty buildings, for example, reverted when the sooty was cleaned from the air. Natural selection can go both ways.

Now as for your rant about right and left handed proteins, there are some very minor chemical differences between them, and there appears to be a difference in the way the weak force interacts around left and right handed proteans. This dose tend to cause a preference for ether left or right hand formation. You also have the fact that proteins of a give parity will interact with more often and less chaotically with proteins of the same parity. As such the only way for life to form is for a set of proteins to assume a given parity. Once you have the first replicating protein structures they will catalyze there own formation, leave very little room for the other parity. The mathematics of the system don't suggest anything impossible is or was going on.

How about the big bang theory and the whole anti-matter vs. matter supposed to cancel each other out and not create a universe bit? By the calculations, the big bang should have pooped (or rather exploded) out an equal amount of matter and antimatter which would have cancelled itself out right there. Currently, the theory is about dark matter having something to do with it. Really, though, if you imagine the big bang as more of a "shaped charge" than just a super lucky random implosion of energy or what have you it makes more sense to believe in a Creator.

You have created a challenge. I like challenges.

At 9/4/07 01:20 AM, Imperator wrote:

At 9/3/07 10:14 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

...

All of which is reliant on the idea that souls exist.

the problem is that its difficult discussing the soul if we simply say "it doesn't exist", so in the spirit (...pun...) of this discussion, let us for the sake of argument, assume the soul exists.

If the soul is eternal and no creator is needed, then will we ever be able to clone humans?

does a body require a sould to live? if not, would there be any qualms in using our clones to harvest organs and as slave labour?

At 9/4/07 06:36 PM, Ragnarocks245 wrote:

But, that's exactly what happened! The earth is merely 6000 years old, evidence to that claim is the grand canyon. Evolution and the big bang are just theories, personal opinions. It's not like there's any basis or evidence to these opinions. It's not like anything about evolution is written in the Bible, literal and unfailing word of God. At least, not until the fundamentalists get it through their thick skull that evolution is actually a fact. Then there will suddenly appear a lot of theistic metaphors that have been supporting evolution all along. No worries, not like that's going to happen in our lifetime.

God created a perfect world, for the purpose of killing off his son for everyone's sins. And he gave us free will so he can look at our silly antics. And every now and then, when we cease to amuse him by doing things like idolizing images or other gods, he organizes a huge gayfest orgy. (Romans 1, my new favourite part in the Bible. And New Testament too!).

Of course, when we fuck up ROYALLY, a gayfest just isn't going to cut it anymore. Then God floods the entire earth, for the purpose of killing everyone and sculpting nice canyons for people to gawk at turkeys.

There is absoluteley NO evidence in God, have you heard of dinosaurs? And all of the evidence that saying the earth is millions of years old? and the chance that a gigantic white bearded man that creates UNIVERSES walks around creating GALAXIES with a flick of his finger? The sad truth is that when we die, we die the Universe was created when a huge amount of compressed particles collided with eachother and blew up sending out galaxies into empty space. We don't go to some invisable heavan and if were naughty, we go to some place deep in the earth where its to hot to survive anyway and suffer for eternity. I know it's nice to believe in god but it's simply not true. Science proves it wrong

MAN has been on the Earth a meager 6,000 or so years, but the Earth itself, our Solar System, and the Universe has been around for a VERY LONG TIME. The Earth was not created in six Earth days (24. hr. periods), but rather understanding that in God time a day to him is a very long time to us.

The Bible doesn't directly say that everyone goes to heaven when they die, nor do they go to hell when they die. Hell is a misunderstanding about the meaning, meant to scare people into tributing money for goodness. No loving person would send someone to eternal torment for doing something bad, especially the loving God that created us. You need to understand the concept of infinity to understand what eternal torment is. Can you imagine burning to death inside your house? The experience alone would make you want to die faster. Imagine experiencing that day after day after day CONSTANTLY with no letup and no end to the suffering, unable to die and unable to ease the pain. ANYONE will break under that kind of torture in a short time. If you wish someone to be tormented so, then you are just as evil as they are. No one deserves that kind of punishment.

The Bible says "The wages sin pays is death." Death is the ultimate punishment. When we die, it means we no longer exist, as in our thought patterns cease to operate with our body! "In that day his thoughts do perish." If something spirit-like survives death (e.g. ghosts) that can not be true. Our soul is mortal. Once someone is dead, they can not do anything to anyone anymore.

At 9/4/07 10:33 PM, BlasterMaster555 wrote:

At 9/4/07 06:36 PM, Ragnarocks245 wrote:

But, that's exactly what happened! The earth is merely 6000 years old, evidence to that claim is the grand canyon. Evolution and the big bang are just theories, personal opinions. It's not like there's any basis or evidence to these opinions. It's not like anything about evolution is written in the Bible, literal and unfailing word of God. At least, not until the fundamentalists get it through their thick skull that evolution is actually a fact. Then there will suddenly appear a lot of theistic metaphors that have been supporting evolution all along. No worries, not like that's going to happen in our lifetime.

God created a perfect world, for the purpose of killing off his son for everyone's sins. And he gave us free will so he can look at our silly antics. And every now and then, when we cease to amuse him by doing things like idolizing images or other gods, he organizes a huge gayfest orgy. (Romans 1, my new favourite part in the Bible. And New Testament too!).

Ugh, now this is getting ridiculous.

Of course, when we fuck up ROYALLY, a gayfest just isn't going to cut it anymore. Then God floods the entire earth, for the purpose of killing everyone and sculpting nice canyons for people to gawk at turkeys.

You did read the part where God concluded that never again would he bring such a calamity to the earth, right? This means he will not deal a deathblow to our little planet to wipe out the existance of everything like what happened on that dark day in our planet's history.

Try reading the Book of Revelation. It has what is in store in our near future, and it doesn't involve giant comets of doom or Nuclear winters.

There is absoluteley NO evidence in God, have you heard of dinosaurs? And all of the evidence that saying the earth is millions of years old? and the chance that a gigantic white bearded man that creates UNIVERSES walks around creating GALAXIES with a flick of his finger? The sad truth is that when we die, we die the Universe was created when a huge amount of compressed particles collided with eachother and blew up sending out galaxies into empty space. We don't go to some invisable heavan and if were naughty, we go to some place deep in the earth where its to hot to survive anyway and suffer for eternity. I know it's nice to believe in god but it's simply not true. Science proves it wrong

See below.

MAN has been on the Earth a meager 6,000 or so years, but the Earth itself, our Solar System, and the Universe has been around for a VERY LONG TIME. The Earth was not created in six Earth days (24. hr. periods), but rather understanding that in God time a day to him is a very long time to us.

See previous post.

At 9/4/07 10:15 PM, BlasterMaster555 wrote:

At 9/4/07 04:10 AM, EndGameOmega wrote:

At 9/4/07 02:09 AM, BlasterMaster555 wrote: The Bible ain't a Science textbook, yet when scientific facts are called to the fore, it is accurate.

Um, not it's not. The bible says nothing on science And if you at all, and if you believe it dose, then I'm sorry but your interpretation is very likely in error.

I am sure it is not.

Would you change your words if you found evidence contrary to your beliefs?

In the bible, it mentions God dwelling above the "circle" of the Earth, the source word often used to describe a sphere.

No it's not. In fact no where else besides the bible has the word for circle been confused with sphere. The word used in the bible is Chuwg which translates as circle, circuit (as in a self connected object), or compass. The word for a sphere or ball is duwr, which comes up several times in the bible when talking about spherical things, see Isaiah 22:18 as an example). The word used for circle has the same meaning it dose in our language, something that is flat and roundish, it is not interchangeable with sphere.

Self-connected object is a sphere, think third-dimensionally. Gimme a bit, I'l come back about the translation bit.

A self-connected object is not in and of it self a sphere, a square could also be a self connected object and that certainly isn't a sphere. As I said the word that is use in the bible is Chuwg, that is not the word for a spherical object, it is the word for a circle. The word for a spherical object is duwr. No place else in any writing has the word chuwg been used to reference a sphere. I have other attacks against this passage if you don't like that one, for instance what dose the word above even mean in a spherical coordinates system? It has no real meaning.

I will give you all the time you need.

And yet for centuries they taught contrary to the Bible that the Earth is flat!

A circle is flat, a sphere isn't. The word isn't sphere but circle as I have pointed out, so no.

It describes the four chambers of the heart, the Earth hanging upon nothing, and so on. I could go on quite a lot about this.

The Egyptians, Greeks and many other grate societies new allot about our human organs, so the four chambers of the heart isn't impressive. By the way what passage are you getting this information from? As for the earth hangs upon nothing, this passage is also incorrect. First I've seen Job 26:7 written differently so i have to ask which one do you feel is correct:

"He stretcheth out the north over the empty space, and hangs the earth upon nothing"
"He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing."
"He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing."
"Stretching out the north over desolation, Hanging the earth upon nothing,"

You know what, it doesn't matter because there all wrong in someway. The first (which is what I think you going off of) says he stretcheth out the north, this makes zero sense as there is no north in space. The concept of north can only exist on ether a sphere or toroid. Additional it say the earth is suspended, this also dose not fit with the way gravitational interactions at all. You should be able to see the flaws in the other one if you actually look, but I will point them out if you ask. Oh, and by they way if you want to provide any more bible quotes you think are scientifically accurate then go right ahead, i will be happy to show you why they ether aren't or are irrelevant.

Suspended upon nothing is referring to no physical object is holding the Earth in place, as lots of mythologies at that time believed the Earth was perched on the top/head/back/shoulders of some mythical being. Gravitational forces are not physical objects.

Um, actually the gravitational force can be thought of as a physical force, just like all the other forces. If you say gravity isn't physical, then nighters is the coulomb force, or Fermi force, and then nothing is physical.

You still have a problem with the rest of the passage as well. There is no north in space, and the empty place is a poor analogy to space it self. This alone makes it blatantly wrong, at lest from a literal meaning.

Lastly, it would help if I knew what version of the bible you believe ex errant, as they are not all compatible from a literal stand point.

To be honest, Science and the Bible should go hand in hand, not one versus one.

No they don't. You think I'm wrong then keep trying to provide evidence, I'll shot it down each time.

Then I have a challenge.

If you want to take it that way then yes you do.

Some people say believing in a Creator would stunt the growth of Science. This is untrue, because people would simply continue researching and stuff to prove the existence of God.

And what if there discovery contradict the teachings they believe in? Will they do an AiG and ignore it, because that's not science.

No, as we learn things we didn't learn before we come to a better understanding of the world around us. Theories can be proven wrong just like the way they can be proven right.

Ok, you've completely side stepped my comment. We have found out more information about the world, things that contradict a literal interpretation of the bible. The people at AiG, literally ignore evidence that contradicts there beliefs. That isn't science, and you can't understand the world around you if you so adamantly believe your right as to throw out evidence. I asked a question above, would you revise your belief system if you found evidence that contradicted it?

Lastly, a theory really can't be proved correct, simply reinforced, and affirmed.