There Is No God

[death_by_fire]

How could there be? How would he have created himself? The only god I see is real is Buddha because he was actually a real person waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back from what I have learned in social studies class. Like in 4 thousand some BC (why was Jesus Christ so important? I exist, I should be in a gold mine of cash) Bible=BlahBlahBlah Snooze. That's why I don't go to church.

Yeah, so I want to know do you believe in god? Answer my poll. I am forcing you to. You cant deny it. You will answer my poll.

[Cheese0089]

God is real the Steelers are in the Super bowl :)

[bmd3287]

it is a little narrow-minded to tell everyone else that god is not real just because you believe so. and supposedly god didnt create himself, he just "always was". It makes more sense than "BOOM! everything is created". And Jesus Christ was an important historical figure as well, they just dont teach about it in school as much because of the seperation of church and state. Buddha was just some prince, he didn't perform miracles, so how can he be god?

[Shawn]

lol ^

[MAX]

it is a little narrow-minded to tell everyone else that god is not real just because you believe so. and supposedly god didnt create himself, he just "always was". It makes more sense than "BOOM! everything is created". And Jesus Christ was an important historical figure as well, they just dont teach about it in school as much because of the seperation of church and state. Buddha was just some prince, he didn't perform miracles, so how can he be god?

God isn't real, there's no evidence supporting his existance. Period. I'm sorry, but God always being there making more sense than the universe always just having been there? RE - TAR - DED. Where did God come from? At least we know the universe exists.

[bountyhunter]

Dude, this stupid argument has ran it's course time and time again.

You guys are all soooooo gaaaaayyyy

[bmd3287]

You guys are all soooooo gaaaaayyyy

annnnnnyyyyybbbbboooodddddy thhhhhhhaaaaaattttt tallllllkkkkksss liiiiiiikkkkkeee thhhhhhiiiiiiisssss isssss soooooo gaaaaayyyyyy

[kurst]

there is no god....:/

but barely anyone is willing to believe it..

[blue rogue]

It's all a matter of faith. That being said I do believe in God.

[bmd3287]

there is no god....:/

but barely anyone is willing to believe it..

you just dont know though. you dont. you cant be completely positive. you cant say that and completely know. how do you know? you might as well believe because its not gonna hurt, but it could hurt not believing thats all Im saying. theres no proof god doesnt exist, its just one of those things. you just dont know. it IS a matter of faith and you cant really prove it, you just believe.

BTW, I do believe.

[MAX]

you just dont know though. you dont. you cant be completely positive. you cant say that and completely know. how do you know? you might as well believe because its not gonna hurt, but it could hurt not believing thats all Im saying. theres no proof god doesnt exist, its just one of those things. you just dont know. it IS a matter of faith and you cant really prove it, you just believe.

BTW, I do believe.


I'm getting flashbacks...


One more time people. YOU CAN'T PROVE A NEGATIVE.

Therefore the burden of providing evidence to support his existence, rests on you. The logical principle of parsimony, aka Occam's Razor, demands that you actually provide evidence of god's existence and a testable definition before he can be considered reality. Got one handy?

[bmd3287]

^ its not about evidence. its about faith. there is no need to prove it to nonbelievers because they will not believe through evidence. only faith can do that. I will leave you at that. discussion over :D

[Kiron]

And Jesus Christ was an important historical figure as well, they just dont teach about it in school as much because of the seperation of church and state. Buddha was just some prince, he didn't perform miracles, so how can he be god?

Siddhartha Gautama (1 of the buddahs the most famous one anyway) Gave up everything too be one with his people, while meditating under a bodai tree he found the ultimate balance between life and the universe (enlightenment).

He did'nt have too make up miracles too become famous, he was famous anyway for giving up eternal wealth for his people.
Buddhists do not have a god, nor do they worship one they actully worship spirits as such (gaia etc) the Buddhist like religion with gods is shinto.

there are 28 buddahs

Tanhankara, 2. Medhankara, 3. Saranankara, 4. Dipankara, 5. Kondnna, 6. Managala, 7. Sumana, 8. Revata, 9. Sobhita, 10. Anomadassi, 11. Paduma, 12. Narada, 13. Padumuttara, 14. Sumedha, 15. Sujata, 16. Piyadassi, 17. Atthadassi, 18. Dhammadassi, 19. Siddhatta, 20. Tissa, 21. Phussa, 22. Vipassi, 23. Sikhi, 24. Vessabhu, 25. Kakusandha, 26. Konagamana, 27. Kassapa, 28. Gautama


it is a little narrow-minded to tell everyone else that god is not real just because you believe so. and supposedly god didnt create himself, he just "always was". It makes more sense than "BOOM! everything is created".
So really the universe could of always been there.
Boom everything is created (is a very narrow look on the big bang its String theroy says its caused by 2 "Membranes" crashing into together and the resulting energy created the universe) makes more sense than some super mega being bigger than everything creates stuff then forgets how too talk.

[JValone]

What a dumb argument, seriously, why do we keep insisting on arguing over something when everyone knows neither side will ever give? I personally believe there was a creator of the universe, I don't see any reason why not. It's not a bigger leap to think that something created everything and that he has always existed then it is to say everything has existed throughout eternity without need for a creator. You won't find out till your dead anyway, so place your bets and then go on living life. If someone believes in God, I don't see why atheists would feel incredibly compelled to change their minds. That's just being a jerk. And Christians, if the non-believers aren't buying the message then it's their loss anyway (for that perspective), right?

Also, I find Buddha = God to be much harder to swallow then Jesus = God. They were both historical figures though, it is 100% proof-positive both men existed so that argument should already be settled, whether you believe either was better then your average mortal man is totally different.

And as far as God not communicating with humanity and thus not existing, that's kind of silly. If I was the creator of the universe (with my omniscience) I wouldn't talk to these sorry peons either. Heck, I'm a regular person too and I still have trouble sometimes putting up with people. If I didn't have to, and instead just watch them screw up, you'd better believe that's what I'd be doing.

[MoN]

I'm getting flashbacks...


One more time people. YOU CAN'T PROVE A NEGATIVE.

Therefore the burden of providing evidence to support his existence, rests on you. The logical principle of parsimony, aka Occam's Razor, demands that you actually provide evidence of god's existence and a testable definition before he can be considered reality. Got one handy?I am God.

Ignoring that obviously truthful comment, what if I have spoken to God? Have felt him (in places I shouldn't have)? You wouldn't believe it, right? But that doesn't mean it's not true.

People feel God daily. People have had miracles happen, something that science cannot prove sometimes.

Science doesn't hold all the answers. And just as God couldn't "always be there," neither could whatever created us. So stupid. Religion cannot use "God was always there," but science can use "we're trying to find out what created us." They are exactly the same. Whatever created us had to always be there. Time cannot just begin, can it? Objects cannot just create themselves, can they?

If you answered no, you have to be wrong.

Hilarious.

[Rensa]

^ 'Begin' implies that there's some external change in time during which an object's behaviour or existence changes. Change itself can only happen if there's (external) time to measure it. Thus, time itself cannot 'begin' unless there is some higher sense of time (i.e. outside this universe) that it is being measured against.

[MoN]

That means absolutely nothing and you know it.

[bmd3287]

lol, he's tryin to be smart. :P

[Rensa]

Damnit, you're right! I just copied it off the back of a Kit Kat wrapper :(

[I'mSuperAwesome!]

i've seen His work and its very impressive

[Rensa]

Also, I find Buddha = God to be much harder to swallow then Jesus = God. They were both historical figures though, it is 100% proof-positive both men existed so that argument should already be settled, whether you believe either was better then your average mortal man is totally different.
As Kiron said, Buddha is a term that means 'enlightened one'. There's more than one Buddha, and they're not deities. That is, they're in no way superhuman. They just did a lot of contemplation and worked out the whole enlightenment thingo. Which is why Buddhists are so interested in them. :)

[John35]

Blue Rogue and Bmd3287 have got it right. With God it's about faith, not proof. While I respect everybody's individual opinion, I do feel a bit sorry for those who clicked No.

[Rensa]

Why? Yeah, there's the whole 'don't-live-forever' thing, but that just gives you an appreciation of the value of life, I think. Makes you use the time you've got more efficiently.

A cell only lives for a few minutes, but a person, made up of many cells, lives for decades. In a similar way, a person lives only for decades, but a race can live for millennia. Nothing lasts forever, but perhaps the only to keep a part of yourself alive is to leave something of yourself in the human race. Memory... heh, I've been contemplating this quite a bit lately.

[Kiron]

Also, I find Buddha = God to be much harder to swallow then Jesus = God. They were both historical figures though, it is 100% proof-positive both men existed so that argument should already be settled, whether you believe either was better then your average mortal man is totally different.
Buddahs are not gods, they are just people that have reached nirvana.
what most people don't relize is that the buddhist religion does have a heaven and hell, and you choose too be reincarnated, "Nirvana" is the happiest part of hevean and the rest i guess is just some ghetto place or something.

[andre]

Dude, this stupid argument has ran it's course time and time again.

You guys are all soooooo gaaaaayyyy


hah. well said. :D

[bmd3287]

"Nirvana" is the happiest part of hevean and the rest i guess is just some ghetto place or something.

lol, thats funny.

[MAX]

It's not a bigger leap to think that something created everything and that he has always existed then it is to say everything has existed throughout eternity without need for a creator.

That's rediculous, you're adding an EXTRA piece to the equation that can never be validated or verified. Look up Occam's Razor, genius.

Also, I find Buddha = God to be much harder to swallow then Jesus = God. They were both historical figures though, it is 100% proof-positive both men existed so that argument should already be settled, whether you believe either was better then your average mortal man is totally different.

I find anyone = God to be pretty rediculous. Also, Jesus isn't an historical figure. Sorry to let all you Jesus freaks down about that. The reason he's not taught in History as even existing (super magical powers aside) is because there really isn't enough supporting historical evidence for him.

Ignoring that obviously truthful comment, what if I have spoken to God? Have felt him (in places I shouldn't have)? You wouldn't believe it, right? But that doesn't mean it's not true.

People feel God daily. People have had miracles happen, something that science cannot prove sometimes.

Mind over matter. People that believe strongly enough, will create their own outcomes and 'experiences'.

Acceptance of facts, and the explanations of those facts is belief. That's what belief is. There is no verb for faith, so it steals the same for a rational belief in something.

I believe X based on evidence Y. <This statement is fine and rational.

I believe X based on faith in X. < Not fine nor rational. It's crazytalk.

Faith is the kind of belief that references itself and can be applied to any belief you want to circularly come up with.

In summary, there is no reason why beliefs shouldn't be reasonable, and why they shouldn't be subject to logic. Should someone's belief that black people are inherently stupid and should therefore be slaves to other races be accepted as ok for a belief even though it's not reasonable at all? Of course not.

Blue Rogue and Bmd3287 have got it right. With God it's about faith, not proof. While I respect everybody's individual opinion, I do feel a bit sorry for those who clicked No.

The ones that clicked No, aren't the brainwashed ones.

[MoN]

They're the braindead ones, right?

[MAX]

Technically if one's braindead, they wouldn't have the basic cognitive abilities nor the motor skills to select either option. Let alone be aware of the internet.

[bountyhunter]

Buddahs are not gods, they are just people that have reached nirvana.
what most people don't relize is that the buddhist religion does have a heaven and hell, and you choose too be reincarnated, "Nirvana" is the happiest part of hevean and the rest i guess is just some ghetto place or something.

uh, no. Nirvana is absolute detachment. You can't have happiness in absolute nothing.

[MoN]

Technically if one's braindead, they wouldn't have the basic cognitive abilities nor the motor skills to select either option. Let alone be aware of the internet.Then how the **** are you online? HUH?!

[MAX]

I'm god..duh.

[MoN]

Twins.

[andre]

The reason he's not taught in History as even existing (super magical powers aside) is because there really isn't enough supporting historical evidence for him.

so...um...I suppose that one of the world's largest religions owes it's existence to a person who didn't even exist?

You're not an historian, but it's funny when you try to act like one ;)

[Rorshach]

^why'd you put "an" in front of historian? that's improper grammar

[death_by_fire]

Dude, this stupid argument has ran it's course time and time again.

You guys are all soooooo gaaaaayyyy


:stfu:

[Wicked Clownz]

ok im goeing to get back on da god thing ok......i think ...no i know the only god is insane clown posse !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bountyhunter]

insane clown posse is ****ing queer.

:stfu:

why don't you go choke a trojan or something?

[MAX]

so...um...I suppose that one of the world's largest religions owes it's existence to a person who didn't even exist?

Seeing as there is NO contemporary mention of Jesus in any Roman documents, inscriptions or other works, given his apparent significance and the events at the time of his death, I find it VERY surprising that if he WAS a genuine figure that he wasn't mentioned. ;)

You're not an historian, but it's funny when you try to act like one ;)

;) Historical documents need to be fact-checked. You can't fact-check the Bible; especially since many of the stories in it that have to do with Jesus appeared in other religious texts before Jesus was allegedly born. "The God who sends his son to live among mortals story" is as old as recorded history. ;)

His stories were stolen from earlier religions and applied to him in order to help push Christianity. Since there is no possible way that they were original to Jesus, one has to question his existance. If he did live, he was obviously a false/self-fulfilling prophet.

I wonder if there has ever been proof of his non-existance in early Biblical writings. I'm thinking anything that would show Jesus as having never lived would possibly have been hidden or destroyed by the Church. I'm not a conspiracy theory guy, but that does seem plausable. I would like to see what the radical fundies would do if they were to learn that Jesus was only a manufactured symbol. Of course, most would never believe it despite any evidence. ;)

[Quel'Dorei]

I think Max is the anti-christ.

[BaseballFury117]

There is a God.

[BaseballFury117]

There is a God.

[MAX]

Well..unless you can prove it, there is no God.

The end.

[andre]

Seeing as there is NO contemporary mention of Jesus in any Roman documents, inscriptions or other works, given his apparent significance and the events at the time of his death, I find it VERY surprising that if he WAS a genuine figure that he wasn't mentioned.

ever heard of a fellow by the name of Josephus? (I think his first name was Flavius) He was a secular Jewish historian in the first century. Perhaps you should check up on what he said. your ignorance is surprising on this, MAX. There is plenty of evidence to support the existence of Jesus. Just because you refuse to look at everything doesn't make the proof a liar.

[MAX]

Interesting. I thought that even most Christian scholars doubt the Josephus account, ascribing it to much later creative editing? There is no consensus. Some think the whole thing is a forgery, but all scholars with a brain agree that it is almost certainly part forgery.

Have you studied history? Do you know the difference between a primary and a secondary source? The phrase "primary" historical source means a source contemporary with the events it purports to describe. If an historian described WW2 50 years from now, would you regard HIM as a primary source? Flavius Josephus, who was born four years after the alleged death of Jesus, certainly wasn't a primary source.

[andre]

But he had access to the first hand accounts of his existence from people who saw Jesus. Would you say that say that somebody like Napoleon Bonaparte didn't exist if there were no sources beside the french newspapers to chronicle his existence and only secondhand information was available beside that? It's illogical to dismiss somebody's entire life just because a bunch of egotistical historians cannot agree, and want to rip the Bible to shreds. People have their own motivations for not wanting to believe certain things. It's not right to subscribe to an agenda and jump on a bandwagon just for the sake of it. Seems like you're being a sheep, MAX. tiss tiss.

[MAX]

Obviously, Josephus could never have met the man, and was just going with what the christians were telling him. Unlike Napoleon, there isn't, within Jesus' lifetime, any firsthand accounts at all.

These 'egotistical' historians aren't out to rip the bible apart, so maybe you should get that little bit of paranoia out of your system, you freak. I'm not subscribing to some agenda, that would be you.

[MAX]

I found this interesting... it's from an ex-preacher.

The Fundamentalist Christian Mindset
and the Problem it Presents for America
by Lee Salisbury
www.dissidentvoice.org
March 29, 2005

Send this page to a friend! (click here)






Do you remember Aesop's fable about a thirsty fox? It provides an extraordinary insight into the fundamentalist mind-set. The fox sees a cluster of grapes he knows will quench his desperate thirst. With absolute confidence the fox leaps and leaps. Much to his dismay the delicious-looking grapes remain out of reach of his grasping jaws.

The fox is confronted with cognitive dissonance, a distressing mental state experienced when we find ourselves faced with facts that do not match what we want to believe. Cognitively, the fox is forced to accept that his belief that he could have the prized grapes was false. He senses his prized belief system is in jeopardy. Reality prohibits him from what he desperately wants to believe. To maintain his beliefs he will evade reality without regard to cost.

His new challenge becomes how to overcome this cognitive dissonance. Innocently and perhaps sub-conscientiously he overcomes this challenge by simply lying to himself. He says, “Those grapes are sour, and even if I had some I wouldn't eat them anyway.”

Humans are very clever at avoiding cognitive dissonance and like the fox, we deceive ourselves by inventing reasons why we do not have to accept reality. The more important the issue and the greater the difference between false belief and reality, the greater the determination to avoid the dissonance. SoS So we fabricate whatever line of “sour grapes” reasoning is needed. This develops into a fixed mind-set called “DENIAL”.

This denial of reality has serious side effects. When faced with facts contradictory to what we thought was true, especially teachings that threaten punishment or disapproval for rejection, the mind automatically goes into survival mode. The mind is shut off to objective, rational thought and instead embraces whatever rationale will avoid the imagined punishment and loss of approval.

The fundamentalist religious mind-set, whether Muslim or Christian have no tolerance for alternative or contradictory teaching. Their success is rooted in fear of disapproval and a God's vindictive punishment. The psychological cost for this self-accepted intimidation is the inability to think clearly. Worse, the adherent's sense of courage to change course is neutralized.

Reality is difficult when our identity, self-image, and peer acceptance is jeopardized. The fundamentalist “state of denial” engenders an acceptance of sophistry and prevarication. Thoughtlessly throwing a bible verse or dismissing the offending party as “of the devil,” “bigoted”, “close-minded”, “anti-Christ”, is the usual response. The superficial use of a bible verse, label, or name-calling is more than just a convenient substitute for dealing with reality. This unthinking reactionary religious survival act steals the individual's ability to reason. They become imprisoned in their own state of “denial”.

The State of Denial Reality Test

Following are samples of favorite fundamentalist Christian doctrines. When challenged by fact or reason, the fundamentalist “denial” mentality kicks in using its tools of sophistry and prevarication.

#1 The Bible is infallible. The Bible is far from infallible. The fact is, it is inundated with contradictions, inconsistencies, and errors. Some simple examples are:

“David took from him a thousand and seven hundred horsemen” II Sam 8:4 Compared to “David took from him …seven thousand horsemen” I Chron. 18:4. Both scripture verses describe the identical event. The verses contradict each other. Is it 1,700 or 7,000?

Jesus said Abiathar was high priest when David was hungered and ate the show bread. Mk 2:26. Compared to: “Then came David to…Ahimelech the priest…the priest gave him holy bread, for there was no bread there but the show bread” I Sam 21:1-6. Both verses describe the identical event. Who was high priest? Jesus said Abiathar, Samuel said Ahimelech?

After the wise men worshiped the new born Jesus, Joseph, following the angel’s instruction, immediately flees with Mary and Jesus to Egypt to avoid King Herod's death squad Mt. 2:13-15 Compared to: After Jesus' birth, Mary obediently awaits her 40 days of purification in Bethlehem and then Joseph, Mary, and baby Jesus go to Jerusalem. Herod is indifferent to the celebration in Jerusalem. Jesus is presented to the Lord's prophets Simeon and Anna. Herod's death squad is unknown. Joseph, Mary, and Jesus then return to Nazareth where the child grew and waxed strong…and when Jesus was 12 went up to Jerusalem Lk 2:22-42 Luke and Matthew are contradictory, irreconcilable accounts.

Does God want to save all? YES! “God our Savior will have all men to be saved.” I Tim. 2:3-4 Compared to NO! “He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. John 12:40. So, is the answer YES or NO? Take your choice.

For more contradictions

The “denial” reaction calls for the theological “now you see it-now you don't” mental sleight-of-hand learned through what is aptly called apologetics. A polite term for apologetics is mental gymnastics, but in essence it is sophistry and prevarication. Apologetics is the fabricating of justifications for why God did or did not mean what the scripture said. The apologist tactics will be to accuse the skeptic of being misinformed or taking scripture out of context. The apologist will switch between literal and spiritual interpretations and redefine the meaning of words as needed. Suppose the same thought processes used in apologetics were used in business. Wouldn’t our revered men/women of the cloth be indicted for fraud?

[MAX]

#2 The Bible is the Christian's guidebook for living. Fundamentalist Christians encounter cognitive dissonance rationalizing why many Bible verses are ignored.

* Jesus said "If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out...If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off" Mt 5:29-30. So, where are the one-eyed, one-handed Christians? Or do Christians no longer sin?

* Jesus said, “do not swear (oaths or pledges) at all...but let your ‘Yes be Yes’ and your ‘No be No’” Mt 5:37. Yet, Christians ignore Jesus’ words and pledge allegiance to an earthly nation's flag.

* Jesus said, “when you pray you will not be like the hypocrites...who love to pray in the synagogues and in the streets that they may be seen of men. But when you pray, go into your closet, shut the door and pray to your Father in secret” Mt 6: 5-6. Christian political leaders ignore Jesus' clear words. Could it be the daily prayers read before our U.S. Congress are to be seen of men? The Congress is the most partisan, contentious in U.S. history.

* Jesus encouraged men to make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven Mt 19:12. Eunuchs? Are you kidding? It’s the profits from Viagra, Levitra, and Cialis that pay for the pharmaceutical company lobbyists? When Jerry Falwell offers castration for the real disciples of Jesus, we will know he is serious about Jesus.

* Tithing is an Old Testament principle meaning to give 10% of one's income to God. Jesus gave a New Testament principle for giving by telling the rich young ruler that if he'd be perfect, he should sell what he owned and give it to the poor. Jesus then declared that it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God Mt 19:16-24. Surveys show only 6% of Christians tithe. Where are the New Testament Christians who give 100%?

* Jesus said these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name they will cast out devils and speak with new tongues; they will take up serpents and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them." Mk 16:17-18 Pentecostals like Pat Robertson pray in tongues, a few claim to cast out devils, fewer still handle snakes. Will believers ever drink cyanide?

The list goes on ad nauseam as do the alibis and “state of denial” apologetics used to explain away many such verses. Apologists will claim these verses are fulfilled spiritually (invisibly); that Christians should never test God; that expecting God to honor his word may not be God's will; that Christians they are in a different dispensation and that those verses were just for the early church. In reality, fundamentalist Christians look at the Bible like food at the cafeteria. They pick and choose which looks the best.

#3 God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son Jn3:16. What is the quality of God's love? When someone has truly given, the giver does not take the gift back. Yet, isn't that precisely what God did? The Bible teaches God the Father and Jesus knew before the foundations of the world that Jesus would be slain for the sins of the world and that Jesus would then be resurrected to sit at the right hand of God. The gift was given with advance knowledge that it would be taken back. So, was Jesus a gift? At best, all God did was loan his Son for a brief stint on earth. This conditional watered-down love dictates the quality of most Christian’s love.



In the military, a leader deserting his troops for protected surroundings is called a coward. If Jesus had the courage of his convictions and truly desired to rid the world of sin, he would have stayed on earth until every last sinner was saved rather than escaping to sit in heaven while his followers bungled the job on earth. Do Jesus’ actions qualify as cowardice? Does today's church follow suit? It's escapist mentality dreams of an illusionary rapture to gratify their lust for self-exaltation.



#4 God loves all, male and female. There is no book more responsible for legitimizing blame, inferiority, insult, disrespect, accusation and brutality toward women than the Bible. The sin of the world is Eve's fault. Abraham, the father of the faithful prostitutes his wife Sarah to save his own skin. Righteous Lot offers his daughters to a lust-ravished crowd. God's Tenth Commandment equates women to property. Proverbs warns, its the women who seduce men and suggests finding a good woman is rare, never the opposite. Jesus shows kindness to a few women, but than speaks rudely to his own mother. Paul greets some women helpers, but then orders woman to shut up in church, tells women they are inferior to men, tells women they are to be in submission to man, and that women's salvation comes through bearing children. In the book of Revelation, John speaks of men losing their reward by being defiled by woman. When will Christian men insist that women quit defiling innocent men? In our Judeo-Christian society, when a woman is raped, often she is blamed for tempting the poor helpless guy.



What has been the women believer's “denial” response? Sadly, they've been taught to accept this slander about themselves from childhood. Like good little girls, they submit to this pathetic male chauvinism. Christian women say, “It's easier to just submit than think about it and get mad.”

#5 For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God Rom 3:23. If the glory of God and His behavior is the standard by which we are judged a sinner, than Christianity has a real problem. Read the Bible and you will find this God is a mass murderer, he condones stealing, he lies, he instigates gang rape, he endorses slavery, he incites intolerance and ethnic cleansing. His alleged creative genius has resulted in tsunami floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and innumerable human infirmities and suffering. Humans are sinless compared to this God.

Sin is purely a religious construct. Fundamentalists absorb and project their obsession with sin on others. The only sinners on this earth are those buying into the Bible's attempt to explain human failure. Fundamentalism's constant preaching against sin achieves the same result as telling a child it cannot have candy. Fundamentalism stimulates sin as verified in Christian surveys.

cont..

[MAX]

#6 Morality is only found though religion and the fear of not being accepted into heaven. The Jan. 05 Christianity Today article “The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience” tells another story. Dr. Ronald Sider, Theology Professor at Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary cites survey after survey showing evangelical Christian immorality. “Scandalous behavior is rapidly destroying American Christianity. By their daily activity, most Christians regularly commit treason. With their mouths they claim that Jesus is Lord, but with their actions they demonstrate allegiance to money, sex, and self-fulfillment.” The truth is the morals of Christians are no better than the morals of the secular non-religious. In some areas such as spousal abuse and divorce, Christian behavior is considerably worse.



The “denial” strategy is the tired “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Apologists will say no true Christian commits immoral acts just like no true Christian participated in the Crusades, the Inquisition, or witch burning. How about no true Christian church would “freeload” by expecting others to pay its fair share of real estate taxes for police and fire protection? “Freeloader” is the Christian church’s middle name. Christian morals are conveniently relative.



#7 The historicity of Jesus and all he said and did are historical fact. Why do the surviving documents of some 35 to 40 First Century Jewish, Greek, and Roman theologians, historians, poets, moralists, and scientists make no mention of a Jesus of Nazareth? The one and only exception desperately claimed by apologists is the Jewish historian Josephus' alleged Jesus Testimony. Interestingly, no church father ever once referred to this Jesus testimony until the 4th Century indicating it is a later fraudulent insertion, probably by Eusebius, the so-called Father of Church History. The above mentioned writers wrote many books whose writings have survived until today. Most prominent is the Jewish theologian Philo of Alexandria. He lived contemporaneously with Jesus, 25 BCE to 40 CE and had family in Jerusalem. Philo's Messianic writings closely parallel John's gospel. He wrote of the Messiah who “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God”…”who came unto His own and His own received Him not.” Yet Philo never mentions a Jesus of Nazareth or a Messiah being crucified and resurrected in Jerusalem. The absence of contemporary references to Jesus and the alleged miracles surrounding his life suggests the very strong probability that there was no historical Jesus. The reality is that there is no credible non-Christian evidence for the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth any more credible than the evidence for King Arthur or Robin Hood.


What is the “denial” response? Millions of people cannot be wrong. If that line of reasoning is true, than Allah might be God. Or how about Christianity must be true because it has survived so long? If that reasoning is true, than the Hindu God Vishnu is God. See: History's Troubling Silence About Jesus


#8 Archaeology proves the events of the Bible. Archaeology not only does not support Bible stories, it contradicts them. Israel Finkelstein, Professor of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University in Israel in his book The Bible Unearthed unequivocally states the stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses' Exodus account is myth. Finkelstein states the stories of Israel under David and Solomon are greatly exaggerated in the Bible. Archaeological evidence showing these important personages and events is hardly confirmation for the Bible. The “denial” response? Finkelstein must be incompetent.



#9 Evolution is just a theory, not fact. Scientists give equal credibility to the theories of evolution, heliocentricity, and gravity. Each has graduated from an idea, to a hypothesis, to a scientific theory. A scientific theory is an explanation of related observations or events based on proven hypotheses and verified multiple times over many years by detached groups of researchers. The “just a theory” proponents should then be consistent and reject the sun as the center of our solar system and gravity because heliocentricity and gravity are also “just a theory” Evolution is a fact! The evolution dispute is how a species evolves into another species. “Denial” theology rejects science, not because of science, but because it contradicts the Bible, particularly the “must believe” Adam, Eve, and talking snake story. “Denial” rejected Galileo and must do the same with Darwin.



#10 The fulfillment of Bible prophecy proves the Bible is from God. The Bible has many nonexistent, unfulfilled and false prophecies, some by Jesus himself, whose time is long past. Not one Old Testament verse alleged to prophecy of Jesus states the Messiah shall, for example, be born of a virgin or be born in Bethlehem. The alleged Jesus prophecies are "cut and paste" bits of miscellaneous information super-imposed on the Jesus story by later gospel authors.



Jesus failed at prophecy when he told his disciples that some would not taste death until they saw the Son of man coming in his kingdom Mt 16:27-28. If Jesus prophesied truthfully, some of Jesus' disciples would still be alive today since we're still waiting for his return.



An excellent book covering many of these points is Biblical Nonsense by another ex-Christian, Dr. Jason Long.



“Denial” of reality or at a minimum “denial” of valid counter arguments prevent objective thought. Fundamentalists are determined to accept only their version of truth. They say, “you have to have faith” as if faith is a sacrosanct virtue. Faith is not a virtue. Faith is a way of thinking which circumvents evidence, reason, and common sense. Fundamentalist faith says, “here is a Bible verse proving God's on my side.” This “I'm right, everybody else is wrong” mind-set exposes the divisiveness of fundamentalism and explains why fundamentalists cannot even agree among themselves on many issues.

Religion and faith are everyone's prerogative, but the fundamentalist mind-set has infiltrated our political life and legislative processes with pseudo-Christian legislation so contrary to American precepts that the fundamentalism must be called to task. Fundamentalist Christians whether Falwell, Dobson, Robertson, or Bauer have all made their religion a political issue by seeking to impose their fundamentalist dogma through legislative mandate. The time has come when every dimension of fundamentalist beliefs must be openly questioned as well as the tactics they use to impose them on others. Otherwise, their self-appointed theocratic agenda will overrule all that democracy has contributed to making America great.

Lee Salisbury is a former evangelical preacher, founder of the Critical Thinking Club of Minnesota, and writes for www.axisoflogic.com and www.dissendentvoice.org.

..very interesting read. *ahemandreahem*

[bmd3287]

It also says, the most important thing is belief and that you cant go around doing evil things on purpose, but you dont have to be perfect (as what it sounds like from what your reading). we are all full of sin and there is no getting around that. no matter what we do, at the end of the day, if we ask for forgiveness and are truly sorry, he WILL forgive us. If you believe and follow his word, he will reward you, though, following the bible word for word is not the most important thing. He doesnt want us to be perfect. All he wants is for us to repent for our sins and believe in him. Nuff said.

I am certainly NOT the most religious person and I dont follow "god" on a regular basis, though I do believe and I feel that is all I need.

also, you cant read into it that much. if you do, it WONT make sense. jeez max.

there doesnt have to be any physically evidence to show what millions of people feel on a regular basis.

[MAX]

So...by your logic, anyone who's not a christian (christians are the only ones that believe in Jesus, mind you) is automatically not going to heaven. No matter how good of a person they are.

Interesting. Screwed up and selfish, but interesting none the less.

God sure has some interesting priorities. lawl

I take it you didn't read that article at all... because you clearly fall into the message it's conveying.

[bmd3287]

So...by your logic, anyone who's not a christian (christians are the only ones that believe in Jesus, mind you) is automatically not going to heaven. No matter how good of a person they are.

Interesting. Screwed up and selfish, but interesting none the less.

God sure has some interesting priorities. lawl

I take it you didn't read that article at all... because you clearly fall into the message it's conveying.

actually I read the whole thing, and NO I didnt say anyone was going to hell. I just told you what I believed. I totally respect everyone's individual opinions as well as other's religions. Belief is not a hard thing, that isnt much to ask. If I created the world, I would want people to believe in me rather than walking around thinking they got where they are without my help and can fend for themselves.

[MAX]

actually I read the whole thing, and NO I didnt say anyone was going to hell. I just told you what I believed. I totally respect everyone's individual opinions as well as other's religions. Belief is not a hard thing, that isnt much to ask. If I created the world, I would want people to believe in my rather than walking around thinking they got where they are without my help and can fend for themselves.

Interesting, I never said Hell. Also, you sure would be one egotistical god if you expected everyone to believe in you, especially if you didn't do anything to prove your existance. Sure makes me want to worship you. lol

...and no, the bible isn't proof. Look up circular reasoning if you want to know why it's not.

[bmd3287]

oh...and your wrong. Jews believe in Jesus too. They just dont believe that he was the messiah.

[MAX]

oh...and your wrong. Jews believe in Jesus too. They just dont believe that he was the messiah.

According to christianity, one must believe that Jesus is the Messiah and savior, in order to gain entry into heaven. So don't pull that semantics **** with me, you know damn well what I was referring to.

[bmd3287]

Interesting, I never said Hell. Also, you sure would be one egotistical god if you expected everyone to believe in you, especially if you didn't do anything to prove your existance. Sure makes me want to worship you. lol

seeing isnt believing. he wants you to believe regardless of proof. its called "faith". and NO, I dont need a defintion or scientific breakdown of the word "faith"

According to christianity, one must believe that Jesus is the Messiah and savior, in order to gain entry into heaven. So don't pull that semantics **** with me, you know damn well what I was referring to.

The Jews believed that jesus was a mere man and nothing more. The Christians believe he was the messiah. I was just saying that the Jewish DO acknowledge his existence.

[MAX]

seeing isnt believing. he wants you to believe regardless of proof. its called "faith". and NO, I dont need a defintion or scientific breakdown of the word "faith"

Really...where did he say that? The bible? Oh yea, back to circular reasoing. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v162/rottwylor/FUN/wanker.gif

The Jews believed that jesus was a mere man and nothing more. The Christians believe he was the messiah. I was just saying that the Jewish DO acknowledge his existence.

You obviously did NOT read that article, or else you wouldn't be posting the exact things it's mentioning.

If that line of reasoning is true, than Allah might be God. Or how about Christianity must be true because it has survived so long? If that reasoning is true, than the Hindu God Vishnu is God.

[bountyhunter]

But he had access to the first hand accounts of his existence from people who saw Jesus. Would you say that say that somebody like Napoleon Bonaparte didn't exist if there were no sources beside the french newspapers to chronicle his existence and only secondhand information was available beside that? It's illogical to dismiss somebody's entire life just because a bunch of egotistical historians cannot agree, and want to rip the Bible to shreds. People have their own motivations for not wanting to believe certain things. It's not right to subscribe to an agenda and jump on a bandwagon just for the sake of it. Seems like you're being a sheep, MAX. tiss tiss.


just like how people have certain motivations for wanting to believe certain things?

right? RIGHT?

[bmd3287]

Really...where did he say that? The bible? Oh yea, back to circular reasoing. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v162/rottwylor/FUN/wanker.gif

well, yeah the bible is the book most christians follow. So, they are wrong for following their religion's book? No offense, but your a little close-minded. Your accusing me of doing what your doing. your trying to prove that god isnt real. Im simply telling you what I believe. Im not saying its fact, but rather my beliefs. I respect your opinions and beliefs as well. and I never said you werent going to heaven. I am not the one to make those decisions. I cannot tell you where you will go or even where I will go. Im not forcing my beliefs on you but rather informing you of what I believe. The reason I said the thing about the jews is because it seemed you were overlooking that by commenting that NO ONE other than christians acknowledge the existence of Jesus.

[MAX]

well, yeah the bible is the book most christians follow. So, they are wrong for following their religion's book? No offense, but your a little close-minded. Your accusing me of doing what your doing. your trying to prove that god isnt real. Im simply telling you what I believe. Im not saying its fact, but rather my beliefs. I respect your opinions and beliefs as well. and I never said you werent going to heaven. I am not the one to make those decisions. I cannot tell you where you will go or even where I will go. Im not forcing my beliefs on you but rather informing you of what I believe. The reason I said the thing about the jews is because it seemed you were overlooking that by commenting that NO ONE other than christians acknowledge the existence of Jesus.

Wrong, I never said people are wrong for following their religions book. In fact, there are some lessons and allegorical teachings that would actually benefit some people. However, to say that god is real and is undeniable fact? That's where I call bullshit. I don't have to prove that he doesn't exist, because he doesn't. Show me he does. Show his existence, not his works which look precisely like he disguised them to be autonomous natural processes.

[bmd3287]

Wrong, I never said people are wrong for following their religions book. In fact, there are some lessons and allegorical teachings that would actually benefit some people. However, to say that god is real and is undeniable fact? That's where I call bullshit. I don't have to prove that he doesn't exist, because he doesn't. Show me he does. Show his existence, not his works which look precisely like he disguised them to be autonomous natural processes.

Like I said you DONT have to believe what I believe. We are two different people. you dont think god exist? fine. great. I respect your opinion and I understand your reasons for believing so (some of my best friends share your opinions). Your right, I cant physically prove anything, but nevertheless I still believe what I believe.

[MAX]

That's fine, everyone is entitled to believe what they want =) I'm just saying, don't pass something off as fact when you can't.

[bmd3287]

That's fine, everyone is entitled to believe what they want =) I'm just saying, don't pass something off as fact when you can't.

yeah, I know what you mean. :)

[Rensa]

Maybe it's not important to teach God in History, but it's definitely important to teach religion. Religion is a representation of people's beliefs, and it's those beliefs that shape the world.

[bmd3287]

^ Well said. ;)

[MoN]

Well..unless you can prove it, there is no God.

The end.I AM STANDING RIGHT HERE.

OH. MY. SELF.

[John35]

Max - You're 100% correct about one thing. You cannot prove there is a God period. But that's about it though. Everything else was just personal opinion.

I'm no Jesus freak myself nor am I currently practicing any sort of religion. But if you are going to engage in a theological debate although you don't believe, by all means bring it on. Through experience and common sense, I can answer just about anything you can throw at me. I can't make you believe in God nor can anybody...That's the Bible's job. If you don't want to believe it that's your choice, but you can't enter this type of discussion without expecting to have the book referenced. If not, then were all truly lost here just giving our own opinions.

I apologize if I sound a little offensive, but I took offense at the overall tone of your posts on this subject. The fact you don't believe is fine, but I wonder why? That's what I want to know? Bad experiences with other religions? Someone close to you die and you think it's not fair? Parents force religion down your throat at a young age? You can tell a lot about someone by their reasoning, not their answer.

If you care to respond and debate a bit that's fine, but expect me to reference the Bible somewhat as IMO it's just as valid as my personal experiences and whatever else. If not then there's no point in furthuring this discussion.

There comes a point in a man's life when he asks himself why he's on earth, what his purpose is. Be it science, or Bhudda, or Jesus, or nothing, he must decide on his own what makes most sense. I took a few years myself to answer that question by studying different religions to see what was what. I made my own choices, kept an open mind and was never forced into anything by any other individual. So I'm not brainwashed as you say, I'm just not willing to close my eyes to what I see around me and I'm certainly not arrogant (or stupid) enough to be so sure that I'm right about the purpose of my very existance without doing some searching. Don't want to end up burning eternally just because by my own standards I think I'm a "good person". One person's version of a good person is not someone else's. That's why there is one uniform standard, whether you believe or not. Goodnight.

[Quel'Dorei]

Well..unless you can prove it, there is no God.

The end.

prove to me, that the sun is not just a hologram in the sky.

prove to me that there is air.

prove to me that the roman empire existed

prove anything really exists to me, and that its not just a figment of my imagination

:rolleyes: prove to me that we aren't all plugged into machines that display what we think we see in our brains

prove to me that I don't have a soul

prove to me that when humans die, some don't goto heaven and some don't goto hell but their bodies just rot in the ground and they no longer exist


Point is, no body needs to prove anything to you, and nobody needs to accept your way of thinking because you want them to.

[doylethefirst]

i personally don't believe in god. i classify it as the same as believing in the tooth fairy and the easter rabbit.

[Just Gabriel]

prove to me, that the sun is not just a hologram in the sky.

prove to me that there is air.

prove to me that the roman empire existed

prove anything really exists to me, and that its not just a figment of my imagination

:rolleyes: prove to me that we aren't all plugged into machines that display what we think we see in our brains

prove to me that I don't have a soul

prove to me that when humans die, some don't goto heaven and some don't goto hell but their bodies just rot in the ground and they no longer exist


Point is, no body needs to prove anything to you, and nobody needs to accept your way of thinking because you want them to.

1. The amount of energy coming from the sun is significant evidence that it exists. Also, observed orbital movement of the planets suggests that there is a large amount of gravitational force coming from the Sun's location.

2. I think the fact that we die when we stop breathing is enough for this. Air pressure is another. In fact, if you've ever been in any Physics or Chemistry class (hell, even grade-school science) then you should know it by now to be fact.

3. Can't. However, we can prove that there were people on the planet when they were around, and there is a ton of evidence of their existence in records, structures, family trees, etc. A lot more than, say, a single book. It's safe to say that they existed.

3. Can't, but it's highly improbable given our history. And yeah, I know you were joking.

4. You can't prove something exists by not being able to prove it doesn't exist. That argument is ridiculous.

5. see 4.

[Ollie123]

MAX...STFU! There is a God if there wasnt then who do you think made you? Not Elton John God did!

[andre]

ok, MAX, so I didn't read any of that stuff you posted above.

But, I have a question for you.

What is your opinion on the Stanley Miller experiment?

[MAX]

I'm no Jesus freak myself nor am I currently practicing any sort of religion. But if you are going to engage in a theological debate although you don't believe, by all means bring it on. Through experience and common sense, I can answer just about anything you can throw at me. I can't make you believe in God nor can anybody...That's the Bible's job.

Circular Reasoning. Look it up.

If you don't want to believe it that's your choice, but you can't enter this type of discussion without expecting to have the book referenced. If not, then were all truly lost here just giving our own opinions.

Referencing the bible is, again, circular reasoning. A wizard named Harry Potter must exist, because I can reference the Harry Potter books. Same logic.

I apologize if I sound a little offensive, but I took offense at the overall tone of your posts on this subject.

No offense taken. However, if you plan on having a logical debate about it, you better believe I'll call you on every single logical fallacy you post.

The fact you don't believe is fine, but I wonder why? That's what I want to know? Bad experiences with other religions? Someone close to you die and you think it's not fair? Parents force religion down your throat at a young age? You can tell a lot about someone by their reasoning, not their answer.

Because it's a rediculous myth that I've never subscribed to, maybe? Santa doesn't exist, doesn't mean I had a bad experience with getting gifts. The tooth fairy doesn't exist, doesn't mean I had a bad experience getting jipped money under my pillow.

If you care to respond and debate a bit that's fine, but expect me to reference the Bible somewhat as IMO it's just as valid as my personal experiences and whatever else. If not then there's no point in furthuring this discussion.

Referencing the bible is a fallacy, which I've stated above. Referencing personal experiences is also a fallacy, because the evidence can't be observed by another person.

There's an invisible pink dragon in my garage, no one can see, hear, or smell him. But he exists, because I've had a personal experience with him. Sound familiar? My great great great uncle twice removed left me a journal about his experiences with it, so it must be real. Sound familiar?

There comes a point in a man's life when he asks himself why he's on earth, what his purpose is. Be it science, or Bhudda, or Jesus, or nothing, he must decide on his own what makes most sense. I took a few years myself to answer that question by studying different religions to see what was what. I made my own choices, kept an open mind and was never forced into anything by any other individual. So I'm not brainwashed as you say, I'm just not willing to close my eyes to what I see around me and I'm certainly not arrogant (or stupid) enough to be so sure that I'm right about the purpose of my very existance without doing some searching. Don't want to end up burning eternally just because by my own standards I think I'm a "good person". One person's version of a good person is not someone else's. That's why there is one uniform standard, whether you believe or not. Goodnight.

Totally rediculous. There isn't a purpose to existing, so yes..you're brainwashed. You know very well that you can be a good person and not subscribe to some idiot religion. Going around kicking people is obviously not being a good person. Helping people that can't help themselves is. You don't need a religion to tell you this. If you do, then you need to kill yourself and earn a darwin award because you have no common sense.

prove to me, that the sun is not just a hologram in the sky.

prove to me that there is air.

prove to me that the roman empire existed

prove anything really exists to me, and that its not just a figment of my imagination

:rolleyes: prove to me that we aren't all plugged into machines that display what we think we see in our brains

prove to me that I don't have a soul

prove to me that when humans die, some don't goto heaven and some don't goto hell but their bodies just rot in the ground and they no longer exist


Point is, no body needs to prove anything to you, and nobody needs to accept your way of thinking because you want them to.


Gabriel beat me to it.. can't prove negatives.

It's very clear that a few of you are doing your best to avoid basic logical reasoning.

The point still stands, unless you can provide evidence for something...it doesn't exist. Sorry.

[andre]

The Stanley Miller Experiment, for instance. It excited many people at first, since he managed to produce amino acids in the lab. Ok, bravo for him. But later, when scrutiny and reasoning came into the picture, science acknowledged that the case was weak.

from Scientifc American:“Over the past decade or so, doubts have grown about Urey and Miller’s assumptions regarding the atmosphere. Laboratory experiments and computerized reconstructions of the atmosphere . . . suggest that ultraviolet radiation from the sun, which today is blocked by atmospheric ozone, would have destroyed hydrogen-based molecules in the atmosphere. . . . Such an atmosphere [carbon dioxide and nitrogen] would not have been conducive to the synthesis of amino acids and other precursors of life.” (1991)

And how about this line of reasoning: If the gas mixture represents the atmosphere, the electric spark mimics lightning, and boiling water stands in for the sea, what or who does the scientist arranging and carrying out of the experiment represent?

You, in fact, are avoiding basic, logical reasoning, because it is illogical to write off what you cannot see.

[MAX]

I never said that. Something you can't touch, see, smell, hear, or interact with, logically, doesn't exist..until you can provide evidence for it.

You shouldn't be talking about logic anyway, since you've failed to grasp the principles of it time after time.

[John35]

The point still stands, unless you can provide evidence for something...it doesn't exist. Sorry.

As I first mentioned at the beggining of my post, there is no way for me or anybody to prove that God exists. And since proof seems to be your bottom line, there's no way to further out discussion as we'll keep coming back to that point. I do appreciate your response to my post though.

[MAX]

Therefore, logically, he doesn't.

Like I said before you posted, people have the right to believe or have faith in whatever they want. Go team. Just don't try to pass it off as fact and truth unless you're willing to provide some observable evidence.

[andre]

I never said that. Something you can't touch, see, smell, hear, or interact with, logically, doesn't exist..until you can provide evidence for it.

You shouldn't be talking about logic anyway, since you've failed to grasp the principles of it time after time.

So, we now have proof that aliens are on earth. We seem to have a Vulcan logic master in our midst! Where's the National Enquirer when you need them?!?

MAX, I would 100% believe you if you can give a scientific reason, completely infallible, why humans exist on earth today. Why the laws of science were bent to give humans life. Why. Just answer me that. Like MoN was saying, science will never prove all of that. What gets me is that you refuse to acknowledge all of the possibilities. That is illogical. No bullshit involved. That is just purely illogical. Don't lecture me on logic.

[MAX]

So, we now have proof that aliens are on earth. We seem to have a Vulcan logic master in our midst! Where's the National Enquirer when you need them?!?

That made no sense whatsoever. Not that I'm surprised, fundi logic never does.

MAX, I would 100% believe you if you can give a scientific reason, completely infallible, why humans exist on earth today. Why the laws of science were bent to give humans life. Why. Just answer me that. Like MoN was saying, science will never prove all of that. What gets me is that you refuse to acknowledge all of the possibilities. That is illogical. No bullshit involved. That is just purely illogical. Don't lecture me on logic.

So...exactly how are the 'laws of science bent'? Do you have some working knowledge of how they should work? You should publish that information, you could be famous.

Thanks for the red herring (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html), btw. I see your critical thinking skills are still sub-par.

[Monkeylord]

Of course God exists... and he eats scrambled egg, from a shoe with a COMB!







2000 pts and a shiny new donkey for whosoever guesses to whom I refer.

[MoN]

God exists. I was having a talk with Him earlier.

[bmd3287]

hmm. IMO, I dont think either side has reasonable proof. We cant prove he exists, though no one can prove he doesnt (even though its against scientific logic). I mean, what about santa. Theres no proof he exists but theres also no proof he doesnt (though it isnt logical). Also, I dont think either side will EVER give, so there is really no point in arguing. :D

[MoN]

Santa doesn't exist because he was created as a character off Kris Kringle.

Anyway, I can prove God exists. To myself. However, I don't need to prove he exists to you or anyone else. I'm not shoving my opinion down your throat. I'd rather shove something else there.

[MAX]

hmm. IMO, I dont think either side has reasonable proof. We cant prove he exists, therefore he doesnt (its called critical thinking). I mean, what about santa. Theres no proof he exists, therefore he doesnt (logical). :D

Edited to help you in the future.

[MAX]

MAX, I would 100% believe you if you can give a scientific reason, completely infallible, why humans exist on earth today. Why the laws of science were bent to give humans life. Why. Just answer me that. Like MoN was saying, science will never prove all of that. What gets me is that you refuse to acknowledge all of the possibilities. That is illogical. No bullshit involved. That is just purely illogical. Don't lecture me on logic.

I would lecture you on logic..if you used it.

I'm still laughing over how science is 'bent' for human life. Do you know what extremophiles are? They're primitive organisms which live in highly unpleasant conditions, such as in cracks in deeply buried rock, blocks of ice, volcanic hot-springs and hydrothermal vents, and highly acidic/basic environments (all of which would prove instantly fatal to forms of life not adapted to them.) There are even some places on the planet that are unlivable to humans without technological aid.

The "you refuse to acknowledge all the possibilities" argument is weak. It is a rhetorical trick designed to take advantage of the fact that if you take an extreme philosophical view, anything is possible. But science has achieved so much because it rejects such extremist (not to mention thoroughly useless) thinking and sticks to what can be demonstrated.

If science did not have this policy, it would never have gotten anywhere. We'd still be arguing about whether every action really has an equal and opposite reaction, and whether the Sun is really Apollo's chariot because we have to "acknowledge the possibility", no matter how little evidence or how little logic there is behind it.

The fact that you're asking for a "completely infallible" explanation alone is enough to show everyone that you're spewing bullshit. You've used this tactic before, where you declare that if there's the slightest bit of room for doubt in one's explanation, then that explanation cannot possibly be legitimate, and then declare victory since your god is 'infallible.' No scientific explanation is infallible, but we don't see you rejecting other scientific laws and theories. Like light, gravity, and electricity.

The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "an unreasonable doubt." Saying that the evidence has "holes" in it is like saying that the police in a murder trial were only able to recover part of the body from the lake, so you can't be sure the victim died.

[bmd3287]

Edited to help you in the future.

I was just using that as an example. anyways, most people dont really feel they need to provide proof I guess. ;)

also, I dont think humans are as complex and complicated as they are by accident. thats a pretty big ass coincidence.

[MAX]

In other words, "I don't know how vision, blood clotting, etc. could possibly evolve, so I'll make a bullshit claim that they're irreducibly complex." Newsflash, dumbass, nothing biological is "just right." It's just what works for the job, and it's not always what works best. Vision is especially inefficient, what the eyes of all vertebrates being wired backwards and all.

[bmd3287]

humans were pretty F*cking complex at the beginning of time too. it has nothing to do with evolution or monkeys. all the things we are made up of, all the things we feel, our senses, everything just happened to come BY CHANCE? I dunno, man. that doesnt seem too LOGICAL.

[bmd3287]

why do think atheists are so cruel? they pick people apart and rip them to shreds because we dont believe what they believe. your a cold individual, maybe thats a sign that you need some guidance from a higher power. believe me, you'll live a much better life that way. put aside your logical views, man.

[MAX]

Why do you people insist that it being by chance is somehow impossible? Do you realize how big the Universe is? Chances are it was going to happen somewhere. I don't really think it's all that amazing or crazy, or that illogical.

[bmd3287]

Just by coincidence, it happened TWO times and just by coincidence those two individuals could come together and make more individuals and populate the earth each individual with its own form, shape, appearance, and personality. But it was all just by chance. :we:

[MAX]

why do think atheists are so cruel? they pick people apart and rip them to shreds because we dont believe what they believe. your a cold individual, maybe thats a sign that you need some guidance from a higher power. believe me, you'll live a much better life that way. put aside your logical views, man.

Funny..I could have sworn it was the christians doing that during the inquistions and the crusades...and now with people like Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, the Christian Coalition...

Interesting that you'd make that assesment when it's christians that are the ones pushing agendas on people in schools and politics.

Good observation. U lose.

[bmd3287]

everbody reading this can tell your not a happy person. Is it so wrong for some people to find happiness? is it so wrong to believe in a higher power and enjoy being alive for a change? I respected your individual opinion until you started ripping people to shreds because of what they believe. so they believe in god. so what? let them. why do you think most people who are "religious" seem to be happy. because they are. most atheists I've met are cold, bitter, and live life according to their own twisted theories, ALWAYS COVERING THINGS UP WITH LOGICAL "SMARTASS" FACTS. take a look in the mirror, man. you need help.

[MAX]

Just by coincidence, it happened TWO times and just by coincidence those two individuals could come together and make more individuals and populate the earth each individual with its own form, shape, appearance, and personality. But it was all just by chance. :we:

You're falling back on Genises as being correct? Starting with two human individuals? Wow. Do me a favor, and don't substitute your science book with the bible anymore. I won't even bother trying to explain it to you, because it's obvious you will have no ability to grasp ABIOGENESIS.

Feel free to google it.

[bmd3287]

Feel free to google it.

Feel free to kiss my hairy evolved monkey ass :D

[Just Gabriel]

Just by coincidence, it happened TWO times and just by coincidence those two individuals could come together and make more individuals and populate the earth each individual with its own form, shape, appearance, and personality. But it was all just by chance. :we:

What? It happened twice? I think you missed the part where life slowly evolved from reacting chemicals. Nowhere does that particular theory say that two identical beings came to be by chance and mated with eachother. And that somehow all life originated from these two beings. You seem to think that sexual reproduction is the only way to create life as well. Come back when you've actually studied the theories you're criticizing.

[MAX]

everbody reading this can tell your not a happy person. Is it so wrong for some people to find happiness? is it so wrong to believe in a higher power and enjoy being alive for a change? I respected your individual opinion until you started ripping people to shreds because of what they believe. so they believe in god. so what? let them. why do you think most people who are "religious" seem to be happy. because they are. most atheists I've met are cold, bitter, and live life according to their own twisted theories, ALWAYS COVERING THINGS UP WITH LOGICAL "SMARTASS" FACTS. take a look in the mirror, man. you need help.


blah blah blah. I'm actually a happy person, because I don't have to live my life worrying about devine retribution.

I've never met a bitter atheist, but I have met cruel and annoying christians that feel the need to convert people to their beliefs...you know...doing 'god's work and all.

Sorry if you can't handle logic, and you think that living in a fantasy world is better. Good luck in life, lol

[bmd3287]

What? It happened twice? I think you missed the part where life slowly evolved from reacting chemicals. Nowhere does that particular theory say that two identical beings came to be by chance and mated with eachother. And that somehow all life originated from these two beings. You seem to think that sexual reproduction is the only way to create life as well. Come back when you've actually studied the theories you're criticizing.

it amuses me how everyone seems to think scientists created the world. obviously, because they know everything about it. ;)

I respect what your saying, but personally IMO, I do believe that the only way a human being can be brought into this world is through birth. I personally dont believe humans to form from chemicals. just my opinion, not saying its fact, just what I believe.

[bmd3287]

Sorry if you can't handle logic, and you think that living in a fantasy world is better. Good luck in life, lol

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BELIEVE IN GOD! but some people do and it shouldnt be any of your concern. And yes, there are obsessive christians that bug the **** out of people, I agree.

good luck in life as well.

[MAX]

it amuses me how everyone seems to think scientists created the world. obviously, because they know everything about it. ;)

What's even more amusing is that it's only ever creationists that spew that line.

I respect what your saying, but personally IMO, I do believe that the only way a human being can be brought into this world is through birth. I personally dont believe humans to form from chemicals. just my opinion, not saying its fact, just what I believe.


You're right, we're in no way made up from chemicals. Sperm and eggs? Those are just mini-humans. Not DNA. Not the same DNA that's made up of just chemicals, anyway.

[bmd3287]

Also, dont quote scientific THEORIES. theories ARE NOT fact. they are theories scientists came up with. that is also circular reasoning.

[MAX]

Incorrect. But nice try.

[bmd3287]

Evolution is a THEORY, not a law. a law is fact, no getting around it. and theory is something somebody though up to explain something else because "anything else wouldnt be logical". Am I not correct on that?

[MAX]

A THEORY is based on the FACTS accumulated through STUDY.

[bmd3287]

BASED on facts, but is not in itself fact. ;)

They dont know how life started. They werent there. They cannot pass a theory off as truth unless they've experienced it first hand.

[MAX]

BASED on facts, but is not in itself fact. ;)

Are you 12? Do you know how retarded that statement is? Do you go to special needs classes? I'm assuming yes.

They dont know how life started. They werent there. They cannot pass a theory off as truth unless they've experienced it first hand.

Sure we do, it was through chemical reactions. Which have been observed in labs already.

[MAX]

Also, dont quote scientific THEORIES. theories ARE NOT fact. they are theories scientists came up with. that is also circular reasoning.

P.S., replace theories with explanation....then start backpeddling.

[Just Gabriel]

BASED on facts, but is not in itself fact. ;)

They dont know how life started. They werent there. They cannot pass a theory off as truth unless they've experienced it first hand.

My Psychology professor made a point regarding this misconception:
He said that science does not prove anything and the word proof itself is rarely used in science, because in order to prove something it has to be proven for every possibility and circumstance, which is completely unreasonable. For example, to prove gravity, we would have to find every single object that has matter and test them against eachother to see if they exert a force. However, this does not say that we don't know that gravity exists. We then call gravity a theory because there is enough evidence to say it exists and it has not been proven false. A common misonception is that theories aren't necessarily true. However, a theory isn't just some random idea that some scientist came up with. In order to be classified as a theory, an idea must be supported by rigorous testing--substantial enough that it can be considered truth.

Without all this evidence, a "theory" is but a hypothesis.

[MAX]

Thankfully someone else here goes to school..good post Gabe.

[bmd3287]

Lol

[MAX]

Wow... way to shoot any credibility you might have had in the foot. lol

You might want to take that down before I have Jeff give you warning, pumpkin. ;)

[bmd3287]

whats wrong? you dont like it?

[Shawn]

http://www.poke-egg.com/pics/gay_thread.jpg

[bountyhunter]

BASED on facts, but is not in itself fact. ;)

They dont know how life started. They werent there. They cannot pass a theory off as truth unless they've experienced it first hand.

which theory are you referring to?

How many ****ing times have [a large amount of us] tried to explain what a scientific theory is?

You idiots just don't ****ing understand

[Quel'Dorei]

Do you realize how big the Universe is? .

No I don't realize, I've never left planet earth. I see these shiney dots in the sky, but I've never gone close to them or touched them. :P
I don't know what they really are.

[Shawn]

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b330/426yzfn/negative19.jpg

[Rensa]

Of course God exists... and he eats scrambled egg, from a shoe with a COMB!

2000 pts and a shiny new donkey for whosoever guesses to whom I refer.
Manny rocks! :D

I was going to say something a few pages back, but then I forgot what it was. This is fun: it's like chucking Max into a pit with zombies coming at him from all angles and seeing how long he lasts with a shottie :P

[Shawn]

lol ^

[John35]

Like I said before you posted, people have the right to believe or have faith in whatever they want. Go team. Just don't try to pass it off as fact and truth unless you're willing to provide some observable evidence.

Willing, Ha! Yeah, like I'm reluctant to let you see my little God which I carry around with me in my back pocket. Replace "willing" with "able" and you might be on to something.

Guys, don't try to reason with Max because it's not possible. He has completely forgotten the title of the poll which is "Do you believe in God". This isn't the "I'm gonna give the most scientific answer to try and refute what I already know in my heart to be true" thread. We have two of those threads already.

The proof part I personally find silly. Criminals go free everyday for lack of proof. Does that mean what they did didn't happen because no one can provide proof? That sounds like Kobe Bryant's attorney talking.

I'll just stick to my original statement which was "I feel sorry for those who clicked no". I mean, at least give yourself a fighting chance people. Don't lay down and play innocent like athiests and agnostics spend their life doing, in vain naturally.

Naivety to the law won't work with a judge, and it certainly won't work with the creator of all things. Now have a nice day:pwn:

[MAX]

I'll just stick to my original statement which was "I feel sorry for those who clicked no". I mean, at least give yourself a fighting chance people. Don't lay down and play innocent like athiests and agnostics spend their life doing, in vain naturally.

Naivety to the law won't work with a judge, and it certainly won't work with the creator of all things. Now have a nice day:pwn:

Wow, that's a slap in the face to a lot of people. I love how christians portray this holier than thou attitude while spouting off about tolerance. I guess respecting other peoples beliefs only matters when talking about a christians belief. People wonder why society is getting is becoming increasingly intolerant of hearing you people preach about how we're all wrong and we better 'come to our senses', because we'll be doomed to Hell.

There's no God. There's no Hell. There's no Heaven. Move on.

[bmd3287]

I don't like it, how about that dumbass. I don't go for photoshopped personal attacks...ever. Lucky it was removed so I didn't end up seeing it or there would be trouble. How about not liking that?

there was no personal attack. it was a pic of scientists saying "let there be light" and god saying "what the hell". it wasnt even offensive. it was a joke.

[andre]

what do you think about spontaneous generation, and the scientific fact that only life begets life? I believe Louis Pasteur proved that a long time ago. And the scientific evidence that the primitive earth atmosphere was hostile to generating life, and how it cannot be proven that even amino acids were synthesized, let alone much more advanced proteins and nucleic acids formed. They cannot be formed in laboratories, they cannot be tested, and it doesn't follow the scientific method. Busted.

[MAX]

what do you think about spontaneous generation, and the scientific fact that only life begets life? I believe Louis Pasteur proved that a long time ago. And the scientific evidence that the primitive earth atmosphere was hostile to generating life, and how it cannot be proven that even amino acids were synthesized, let alone much more advanced proteins and nucleic acids formed. They cannot be formed in laboratories, they cannot be tested, and it doesn't follow the scientific method. Busted.

Nice cut n paste job. If you'd have done your research (laugh) you'd know that Louis Pasteur died in 1895, and thus wouldn't have a clue about the Miller-Urey experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment).

What's that about busted? Yeah...that's what I though. Do your own research and stop relying on whomever you're cutting and pasting from, jackass.

I don't like it, how about that dumbass. I don't go for photoshopped personal attacks...ever. Lucky it was removed so I didn't end up seeing it or there would be trouble. How about not liking that?

Godwarrior - 0 pts :pwn: Admin - 100pts

there was no personal attack. it was a pic of scientists saying "let there be light" and god saying "what the hell". it wasnt even offensive. it was a joke.

Way to lie right through your teeth, you do realize that even though you can delete your post, the admin can still see what the post was and even undelete it, right?

[andre]

um, yeah. I am fully aware of when Pastueur lived. The 19th century, genius. And isn't it interesting, that even in his time, he could prove that life only comes from pre-existing life? I think he even proved that in the...1850's. Hm. Around an entire century before Miller's experiment.

Don't insult my intelligence. The Miller-Urey experiment does not disprove Pasteur. So, indeed, busted.

[death_by_fire]

What a dumb argument, seriously, why do we keep insisting on arguing over something when everyone knows neither side will ever give? I personally believe there was a creator of the universe, I don't see any reason why not. It's not a bigger leap to think that something created everything and that he has always existed then it is to say everything has existed throughout eternity without need for a creator. You won't find out till your dead anyway, so place your bets and then go on living life. If someone believes in God, I don't see why atheists would feel incredibly compelled to change their minds. That's just being a jerk. And Christians, if the non-believers aren't buying the message then it's their loss anyway (for that perspective), right?

Also, I find Buddha = God to be much harder to swallow then Jesus = God. They were both historical figures though, it is 100% proof-positive both men existed so that argument should already be settled, whether you believe either was better then your average mortal man is totally different.

And as far as God not communicating with humanity and thus not existing, that's kind of silly. If I was the creator of the universe (with my omniscience) I wouldn't talk to these sorry peons either. Heck, I'm a regular person too and I still have trouble sometimes putting up with people. If I didn't have to, and instead just watch them screw up, you'd better believe that's what I'd be doing.


and what the hell created the creator?

[John35]

I love how christians portray this holier than thou attitude while spouting off about tolerance.

As I mentioned before, I don't currently practice any type of organize religion nor was I raised into one.

I guess respecting other peoples beliefs only matters when talking about a christians belief.

By my own measures, I shouldn't have said that I felt sorry for those who clicked "no" without first knowing their reasoning or motive for doing so. I can't clump people's reasoning together and make it one, so I'll take that one.


To leave this on a more light-hearted note...

There's no God.

If that's the case, you and MoN got issues.

[death_by_fire]

Now what happens when we die? Has anyone on here had a near-death experience? seriously, i want to know so that i know whether or not to be afraid of dying.

[death_by_fire]

Are you 12? Do you know how retarded that statement is? Do you go to special needs classes? I'm assuming yes.



Sure we do, it was through chemical reactions. Which have been observed in labs already.

Dont be hatin on 12 year olds i am just barely 13.

[MAX]

um, yeah. I am fully aware of when Pastueur lived. The 19th century, genius. And isn't it interesting, that even in his time, he could prove that life only comes from pre-existing life? I think he even proved that in the...1850's. Hm. Around an entire century before Miller's experiment.

Don't insult my intelligence. The Miller-Urey experiment does not disprove Pasteur. So, indeed, busted.

I'm sure with the technology at the time, and the fact they knew practically nothign about DNA.. I can see why he's make that observation. However, unlike religion, science adapts with new information and techniques. So no, not busted...not when you're using outdated information.

You also obviously don't know what the Miller-Urey experiment was, maybe you should re-read the cut n paste job you stole to figure out why I mentioned it.

Busted. ;)

I don't know why patients get infections when I perform surgery after using the outhouse. It must be god. I'll just use the knife I cut the chicken with to perform this operation...
-- Louis Pasteur

[andre]

You also obviously don't know what the Miller-Urey experiment was, maybe you should re-read the cut n paste job you stole to figure out why I mentioned it.

Uh, yes. This was a test, trying to demonstrate that the primitive atmosphere could beget life. They simulated the sea with boiling water, and the atmosphere with gases that were thought to be around then, without oxygen (since it would destroy the organic compounds), and with electricity sparks to simulate lightning.

I'm sure with the technology at the time, and the fact they knew practically nothign about DNA.. I can see why he's make that observation. However, unlike religion, science adapts with new information and techniques. So no, not busted...not when you're using outdated information.

sure, it keeps adapting. I admire that. But it's adapting, not answering questions. Just raising more of them. Raising questions is fine also, since we are creatures of curiosity. But it can't be denied that it's impossible to test whether life was spawn on a primitive earth. It can't be tested, so it's not under the scientific method, and isn't scientific.

I don't know why patients get infections when I perform surgery after using the outhouse. It must be god. I'll just use the knife I cut the chicken with to perform this operation...
-- Louis Pasteur

yeah, I'm not really caring too much for Pasteur. He's a scientist, and like all scientists, he wasn't infallible. Who cares? The fact is that he proved a scientific fact.

It had nothing to do with DNA with Pasteur. He saw something simple and irrefutable, and made a rule from it. He didn't need to know about DNA to figure that out.

[death_by_fire]

myspace sucks monkey.

[MAX]

Uh, yes. This was a test, trying to demonstrate that the primitive atmosphere could beget life. They simulated the sea with boiling water, and the atmosphere with gases that were thought to be around then, without oxygen (since it would destroy the organic compounds), and with electricity sparks to simulate lightning.

It's a good thing you went to the link I provided...


sure, it keeps adapting. I admire that. But it's adapting, not answering questions. Just raising more of them. Raising questions is fine also, since we are creatures of curiosity. But it can't be denied that it's impossible to test whether life was spawn on a primitive earth. It can't be tested, so it's not under the scientific method, and isn't scientific.

God cannot be tested, and using god as a variable, raises even MORE questions. Saying god did it certainly doesn't answer any questions at all. If anything, using God as an answer stunts advancement. Whereas science may raise more questions, but at least we're getting answers.

yeah, I'm not really caring too much for Pasteur. He's a scientist, and like all scientists, he wasn't infallible. Who cares? The fact is that he proved a scientific fact.

It had nothing to do with DNA with Pasteur. He saw something simple and irrefutable, and made a rule from it. He didn't need to know about DNA to figure that out.

Like I said, as we gain knowledge, we can modify our theories to fit our observations. So yeah, if this was 1850, you'd be right. However, we've managed to create the basic building blocks of life in a lab since then. We've also built a polio (I think it was Polio) virus from scratch. So it's really just a matter of time.

[andre]

But see, my axe to grind is that scientists refuse to acknowledge that God might be a possibility. I think it's great that they're trying to figure things out. That's awesome. I like my science classes because I am figuring out why things work and how they work. I like that a lot.

Something that is kind of old, but is good.

“By applying the strict canons of scientific method to this subject [the spontaneous generation of life], it is possible to demonstrate effectively at several places in the story, how life could not have arisen; the improbabilities are too great, the chances of the emergence of life too small.” --Professor J. D. Bernal, The Origin of Life. He also said: “Regrettably from this point of view, life is here on Earth in all its multiplicity of forms and activities and the arguments have to be bent round to support its existence.”

You see what he meant? In a nutshell, that scientists only consider one possibility, and that whatever they find out has to be in support of that one possibility, that life arose spontaneously.


However, we've managed to create the basic building blocks of life in a lab since then. We've also built a polio (I think it was Polio) virus from scratch.

that's neat that you can create a virus from scratch, but what about being able to combine amino acids to form proteins and nucleic acids? can you create those from scratch in a lab?

[MAX]

But see, my axe to grind is that scientists refuse to acknowledge that God might be a possibility. I think it's great that they're trying to figure things out. That's awesome. I like my science classes because I am figuring out why things work and how they work. I like that a lot.

This is where you fail. God isn't testable, observable, etc etc so on and so forth. That's why he's not part of the equation. It's not that they are trying to PROVE god doesn't exist, they are merely explaining what goes on around us with the evidence we have. Please, for the love of god, look up Occam's Razor.

“By applying the strict canons of scientific method to this subject [the spontaneous generation of life], it is possible to demonstrate effectively at several places in the story, how life could not have arisen; the improbabilities are too great, the chances of the emergence of life too small.” --Professor J. D. Bernal, The Origin of Life. He also said: “Regrettably from this point of view, life is here on Earth in all its multiplicity of forms and activities and the arguments have to be bent round to support its existence.”


I'll have to look that up. Due to your track record, you've either taken it out of context or didn't post the entire thing.

You see what he meant? In a nutshell, that scientists only consider one possibility, and that whatever they find out has to be in support of that one possibility, that life arose spontaneously. [

Science doesn't include supernatural phenomena for a reason. If you fail to understand why after going through numerous threads about this with me...then I really can't help you out, and sugest you stay out of ANY science related field.

that's neat that you can create a virus from scratch, but what about being able to combine amino acids to form proteins and nucleic acids? can you create those from scratch in a lab?

Uh.. They have been. We've only reached the tip of the iceburg with biology. Just because we haven't done it yet, doesn't mean it's impossible. Also, just because we can't do it now, doesn't prove that god exists.

[andre]

Yes, I know that God 'isn't testable.' Blah blah blah. But it is not unscientific to believe that things came about because of God, just because God cannot be tested. Scientists are people, too, and aren't blindly (or shouldn't be) dictated by their profession to shroud the possibilities. It should be a healthy curiosity. But why can't you get it, that the origin of man will never be proven by science?

“We have become aware of the massive information contained in the genes. There is no known way to science how that information can arise spontaneously. It requires an intelligence; it cannot arise from chance events. Just mixing letters does not produce words.”--- “For example, the very complex DNA, RNA, protein replicating system in the cell must have been perfect from the very start. If not, life systems could not exist. The only logical explanation is that this vast quantity of information came from an intelligence.”-->>Professor Maciej Giertych, Institute of Dendrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences.

I love that one. "Just mixing letters does not produce words."

And doesn't the fact that it was perfect from the beginning fly in the face of entropy, which is an observed scientific principle regarding life?

[SpaceOddity]

When are you going to give up man?
Live life to its fullest, give into temptation.

Masterbate, **** your woman, go see brokeback mountain, sin a little damn it.

life is too short to have restraints.

[MAX]

Yes, I know that God 'isn't testable.' Blah blah blah. But it is not unscientific to believe that things came about because of God, just because God cannot be tested. Scientists are people, too, and aren't blindly (or shouldn't be) dictated by their profession to shroud the possibilities. It should be a healthy curiosity. But why can't you get it, that the origin of man will never be proven by science?

Why can't you get it that science only deals with observable phenomena? Like I stated before, whice you've completely glossed over...again.

The "you refuse to acknowledge all the possibilities" argument is a common ******* technique. It is a rhetorical trick designed to take advantage of the fact that if you take an extreme philosophical view, anything is possible. But science has achieved so much because it rejects such extremist (not to mention thoroughly useless) thinking and sticks to what can be demonstrated.

If science did not have this policy, it would never have gotten anywhere. We'd still be arguing about whether every action really has an equal and opposite reaction, and whether the Sun is really Apollo's chariot because we have to "acknowledge the possibility", no matter how little evidence or how little logic there is behind it.


“We have become aware of the massive information contained in the genes. There is no known way to science how that information can arise spontaneously. It requires an intelligence; it cannot arise from chance events. Just mixing letters does not produce words.”--- “For example, the very complex DNA, RNA, protein replicating system in the cell must have been perfect from the very start. If not, life systems could not exist. The only logical explanation is that this vast quantity of information came from an intelligence.”-->>Professor Maciej Giertych, Institute of Dendrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences.

Yeah, I know who that is. He's a creationist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maciej_Giertych

Nice try though. Maybe you should stop getting your information from whatever creationist site you're visiting.

I love that one. "Just mixing letters does not produce words."

You do realize that chemicals have very specific reactions with each other, right. That "mixing letters does not produce words" is very inaccurate.

And doesn't the fact that it was perfect from the beginning fly in the face of entropy, which is an observed scientific principle regarding life?

What was perfect?

Hmmm... maybe you should just have whomever is feeding you this information post instead.

[blue rogue]

This whole topic became pointless after like the second or third page. No one is going to change their beliefs.

[MoN]

I have 'one' question, and it's not an insult or joke or anything like that.

Since science is everchanging, and we will all die, how can we put our faith into the knowledge of science we currently have that are NOT laws (100% irrefuteable)?

I'm not trying to discredit the knowledge departed upon us, but if we base it off our current technology, which will change days, months, and years from now, how will WE -- the people currently living -- ever get closer to "the truth" if what we know is actually a lie?

Of course we're going to help the future, but what about ourselves?

[MAX]

One word: MECHANISM. In science, you test mechanisms, not histories. You can't devise a scientific test to see whether OJ Simpson murdered his wife, but you can test a hypothesis about this event to see if it was possible for him to murder his wife in the timeframe available to him.

Similarly, we can't test the history of what happened when life first spawned on Earth, but we can test the mechanisms underlying any particular hypothesis which should show that it's possible. And in order to do this, you need only test the catalytic chemical reactions possible with basic organic "building blocks".

In regards to Pasteur, which Andre has (once again) gotten wrong: Pasteur disproves Spontaneous Generation which is a different concept altogether to abiogenesis. SG is the ridiculous notion that dead things become other, seperate living things, like a slab of meat spontaneously generates maggots, rather than the fly laying them, or that ropes spontaneously generate mice, water spontaneously generates algae.

He showed that if you sterilise a sample of something (for instance, by boiling), then keep it away from everything that's living, nothing living will generate within that sample.

Abiogenesis is saying something entirely different, it is noticing that living organisms live due to their complex biochemistry, and that chemistry would've started by other chemical reactions that culminated in a self replicator. This "there is no life from non-life" is an oversimplification and frankly, silly; viruses aren't alive yet they reproduce, prions aren't alive yet they reproduce, and they don't even have any genes!

[Wicked Clownz]

insane clown posse is ****ing queer.



why don't you go choke a trojan or something?

im sorry it took me so long to post this ive been out of town ............no ur mom is a ****ing queer ass face

[bountyhunter]

My mom could be a log stump, but that's irrelevant.

The only thing that matters is that you listen to ICP. You need to be removed.

[MoN]

One word: MECHANISM. In science, you test mechanisms, not histories. You can't devise a scientific test to see whether OJ Simpson murdered his wife, but you can test a hypothesis about this event to see if it was possible for him to murder his wife in the timeframe available to him.

Similarly, we can't test the history of what happened when life first spawned on Earth, but we can test the mechanisms underlying any particular hypothesis which should show that it's possible. And in order to do this, you need only test the catalytic chemical reactions possible with basic organic "building blocks".But what if the **** we learn is actually not the possibility, and it's something completely different?

[andre]

You do realize that chemicals have very specific reactions with each other, right. That "mixing letters does not produce words" is very inaccurate.

Uh, yes. The illustration is very accurate, since words have very specific ways to be spelled correctly. A chemical reaction is a 'chemical sentence,' made up of 'chemical words' that need the correct components to exist.

What is the possibility that all of that just so happened to be due to chance?

In regards to Pasteur, which Andre has (once again) gotten wrong: Pasteur disproves Spontaneous Generation which is a different concept altogether to abiogenesis. SG is the ridiculous notion that dead things become other, seperate living things, like a slab of meat spontaneously generates maggots, rather than the fly laying them, or that ropes spontaneously generate mice, water spontaneously generates algae.

Life only comes from pre-existing life. So how did it get here, genius? Guess what? You can't prove how life came about. Trying to explain it by all of this 'abiogenesis' crap is a fool's errand.


Yeah, I know who that is. He's a creationist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maciej_Giertych

Nice try though. Maybe you should stop getting your information from whatever creationist site you're visiting.

He could be as equally guilty of being 'uncredible' in your eyes if he were an atheist. The point is, he's a scientist, and knows what he's talking about. You're a peon compared to what he knows about the human body, and you have the gall to throw stones at him because he is humble and isn't brainwashed into believing something that observable evidence doesn't support?

“There is an impressive contrast between the considerable success in synthesizing amino acids and the consistent failure to synthesize protein and DNA.”

has this at all been overcome?

[MAX]

Uh, yes. The illustration is very accurate, since words have very specific ways to be spelled correctly. A chemical reaction is a 'chemical sentence,' made up of 'chemical words' that need the correct components to exist.

What is the possibility that all of that just so happened to be due to chance?

It's not chance you moron. When you combine Hydrogen and Oxygen, you don't get Nitrogen. If you knew anything about chemestry, you'd know that 'mixing letters you don't get the alphabet' is very misleading, and intended to be directed at sheep who are too afraid of anything outside of the bible being right.


Life only comes from pre-existing life. So how did it get here, genius? Guess what? You can't prove how life came about. Trying to explain it by all of this 'abiogenesis' crap is a fool's errand.

Spontaneous Generation and abiogenesis basically amount to the same thing... Just, let's work on what Pasteur really showed:

Boiled meat, left still for several weeks not in direct sunlight, did not rot.

Wow, so, if you have like a quarter kilo of organic matter and you don't apply any energy to it, and you give up after a few weeks, you're not going to get life that's so obvious you can't help but smell it.

Compare this to trying with all of the carbon on Earth, under the sun's rays, trying continuously for billions of years.

It's the same thing at the base, but in the end it's not the same thing at all.

I feel like I'm continually giving you very VERY basic science information andre. I suggest not moving to California. The education there is craptastic, and any of the good schools they DO have there, won't take morons like you that don't understand basic science principles, or take creationist arguments to heart.

He could be as equally guilty of being 'uncredible' in your eyes if he were an atheist. The point is, he's a scientist, and knows what he's talking about. You're a peon compared to what he knows about the human body, and you have the gall to throw stones at him because he is humble and isn't brainwashed into believing something that observable evidence doesn't support?

I find it rather intersting, that no matter how many scientist, who are much more credible in their fields than this joke, say that there is no need for this intelligent designer...and you skoff at them. Then make the remark that I highlighted. I suggest you take a looong hard look in the mirror, because you..my friend...are more of a peon than I. Since I've actually GONE to college for biology, and actually know when I see bullshit or not.

That's very interesting. For every one or two random scientists you bring forth, that are actually creationists, I give you 10-12 actual scientists in the biological, and evolutionary field that know what they are talking about. Good thing I have more to back me up than wishful thinking and a bible.

has this at all been overcome?

Has the ability to recreate gravity in space been overcome? No, but we know it exists. Your critical thinking skills are critically retarded. Seek some professional help.

[doylethefirst]

When are you going to give up man?
Live life to its fullest, give into temptation.

Masterbate, **** your woman, go see brokeback mountain, sin a little damn it.

life is too short to have restraints.

thank you.i couldn't have sed it better

[andre]

Has the ability to recreate gravity in space been overcome? No, but we know it exists. Your critical thinking skills are critically retarded. Seek some professional help.

by that same logic, you could say the same thing about God.

wait...my critical thinking skills are retarded? oh, pardon me, Mr. Right.

The funny thing is that people seeing all kinds of evidence around them. People see evidence of at least 2 possible scenarios: 1) Man truly did evolve, as did all other life on earth, from simpler matter and from non-living material, in the beginning, or 2) a higher intelligence played a hand in the beginning of life. Well, I suppose that scientists (some of them) only see one possible perspective. The problem is, the evidence of our existence doesn't add up to us being here due to possibility #1. But, all that science does is collect evidence to support something that is, in fact (and due to a lack of facts) untenable.

[MAX]

by that same logic, you could say the same thing about God.

Let's try it and find out.

Has the ability to recreate God in space been overcome? No, but we know it exists.

Umm...funny. Not only does that sound retarded, but the last time I checked, nobody had evidence to support if god existed or not, being that he's unobservable, untestable, and basically a figment of mans imagination created to explain the unexplainable.

wait...my critical thinking skills are retarded? oh, pardon me, Mr. Right.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that your critical thinking skills were retarded. I meant to infer that they are non existant.

Critical thinking consists of a mental process of analyzing or evaluating information, particularly statements or propositions that people have offered as true. It forms a process of reflecting upon the meaning of statements, examining the offered evidence and reasoning, and forming judgments about the facts.

Critical thinkers can gather such information from observation, experience, reasoning, and/or communication. Critical thinking has its basis in intellectual values that go beyond subject-matter divisions and which include: clarity, accuracy, precision, evidence, thoroughness and fairness. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical%5Fthinking)

Let's break that down a bit.

reflecting upon the meaning of statements, examining the offered evidence and reasoning, and forming judgments about the facts.

No evidence for god has been given or will be given. The bible isn't evidence as that is circular reasoning (http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/circular.html). You have a problem with making invalid deductive arguments because of this.

I'm sure you're going to jump on the part that states experience, however ambiguous that word is. That's the problem with you people. You jump on the smallest slightest piece of anything to validate your argument, and in turn you think poking a few holes here and there will invalidate the opposition...regardless that that the mountain of evidence is still stacked higher than yours.

The funny thing is that people seeing all kinds of evidence around them. People see evidence of at least 2 possible scenarios: 1) Man truly did evolve, as did all other life on earth, from simpler matter and from non-living material, in the beginning, or 2) a higher intelligence played a hand in the beginning of life. Well, I suppose that scientists (some of them) only see one possible perspective.

And here were are trying to skew the statistics. It's amazing the things fundi nuts will type in order to 'win'. Unfortunately for you, anybody that reads your posts will already be on guard for this. Some of them, andre? Try 99 percent of scientists agree with the theories and laws that science has formatted. Of course you'll just quote someone that has no background in biology or evolutionary science to try and 'show' everyone that there are scientist that think there is an intelligent designer. OR you'll pull another creationist scientist from your ass. This is why APPEALS TO AUTHORITY (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html) DON'T WORK.

The problem is, the evidence of our existence doesn't add up to us being here due to possibility #1. But, all that science does is collect evidence to support something that is, in fact (and due to a lack of facts) untenable.

No, the problem is you've been brainwashed by your religion to think that there's somehow no chance that life would pop up somewhere in a universe that is too big to even comprehend, without some guiding sentient force. The problem is also that you go to christian websites to cut and paste your propaganda. What degree do you have, again, that you know for (I'll use your word that I highlighted) fact that evolution and abiogenesis are impossible? For those reading, untenable means impossible. Andre likes to use big words to a) show people he's 'intelligent' and b) to throw people off that don't actually check his sources or words.

:pwn:

[bmd3287]

You can't argue with maxx. He revolves his whole life around this thread. :D

[Rensa]

I move we turn off post count increments in this thread. Max and andre are clearly just bumping their post counts now ;)

[McBizzel]

Wow, another one of these threads.

I believe in God. I choose to. It's a comforting concept.

I think belief in God or a god is absolutely a choice.

There are things that you could contemplate or cling to as "proof" of an existance or non-existance of a divine creator or savior, but I think that at the end of the day, it all counts for nothing, that it really comes down to a choice.


Although, that enigma of how did God create himself is a toughy... I look at it this way:
He always was.

That's a toughy too, because how can that be?
The only thing I have to combat that is existance itself. Everything, the sun, this world, the universe, came from a source, the big bang right? Now, as far as I know, matter can't be created from nothing. All the matter that is now, in the universe, was made from the explosion of the big bang, then stars forming and exploding and collapsing, things like that.

Well, to relate that to God, you have to pose another question:
Where did the matter come from?

The answer could be that God made it, but that's not what I'm saying, at all.

I'm saying, that the matter was just there. I'm no quantum physicist, so some of my assumptions and suppositions previously stated could be erroneous. However, in the pretense that matter can't be created or destroyed, only changed, it does stand that all that is now in the universe comes from matter that simply was.

That's how I can combat the enigma of how God could just have always been, by presenting another situation, one that is of this existence, where something simply was, and came from nothing.


The problem with debates about God and existence is that no one ever knows anything. I probably sound like a complete ass with what I've said in this post. It's probable that all my beliefs I've said are just plain wrong. That's why I just choose to believe. If all I believe in isn't true, then what have I lost?

People lived and died knowing that the sun revolved around the earth. They were wrong, we knoow that, but what does that matter really? It doesn't make me mad or hurt my feelings, and I doubt that once they died that they cared.

The same is true, at least to me, when it comes to belief in God. When I die, if I'm wrong, I won't even know. Meanwhile, it gives me comfort to believe that when I die, I won't cease to be. It's comforting to believe that no matter what I do, someone will never stop loving me. That's why I choose to believe in God, I don't think I REALLY need proof. I don't think that there really is any anyway, so why bother?


Sorry if I've just repeated any of you, but I only read the first post. This is the tenth page, I wasn't about to go through that many pages. Sorry. --~

[Wicked Clownz]

My mom could be a log stump, but that's irrelevant.

The only thing that matters is that you listen to ICP. You need to be removed.

u need to be deleted from earth dick sucker and the only thing that truly mattersi think i am ur dad because i waswith ur mom way before!!!!!!!!i was all like this:banana2: :banana2: :banana2:

[Wicked Clownz]

My mom could be a log stump, but that's irrelevant.

The only thing that matters is that you listen to ICP. You need to be removed.

^ i was tap danceing all over her tits ^^^^^it was cool

[MAX]

Everything, the sun, this world, the universe, came from a source, the big bang right? Now, as far as I know, matter can't be created from nothing. All the matter that is now, in the universe, was made from the explosion of the big bang, then stars forming and exploding and collapsing, things like that.


Somewhat accurate. The matter was always there. There's no need to add an unknown variable into the equation. See Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor). One of the current theories is that all matter was condensed down to a zero singularity, and the big bang was merely a mechanism that caused everything to expand, not actually create matter per se. As to what caused the Big Bang? See M-Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory). As to why god couldn't have made matter out of nothing, well, everyones knows the law of conservation of energy prohibits the spontaneous formation from nothing.

I'm sure someone will say the typical, but they're just theories, without knowing what a scientific theory is. Even thought god is just an idea, not even close to a fact, theory, or law.

[MAX]

You can't argue with maxx. He revolves his whole life around this thread. :D


...and if I help one person not become a fundi moron like you and andre, then it'll have been worth it.

[McBizzel]

Somewhat accurate. The matter was always there. There's no need to add an unknown variable into the equation. See Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor). One of the current theories is that all matter was condensed down to a zero singularity, and the big bang was merely a mechanism that caused everything to expand, not actually create matter per se. As to what caused the Big Bang? See M-Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory). As to why god couldn't have made matter out of nothing, well, everyones knows the law of conservation of energy prohibits the spontaneous formation from nothing.

I'm sure someone will say the typical, but they're just theories, without knowing what a scientific theory is. Even thought god is just an idea, not even close to a fact, theory, or law.


Max, I agree with you 100%. There is NO possible way to prove God's existence, none, nothing. The concept is abstract and has nothing to do with science. Trying to argue with that is simply mute. At least, I have yet to see an arguement the slightest bit convincing that says God is a fact. Science is one thing, God is another, they don't mix.

I don't believe that religion is something to be blindly followed or simply accepted as fact. That seems lazy to me, and believe me, I know lazy.


I disagree with Max, but I deeply respect him and his opinion on this matter. It's based on logic that I absolutely agree with. Hmm, seems like I had another point, but I can't spit it out at the moment. Meh, oh well. Maybe it will come back to me later. --~

[MAX]

Max, I agree with you 100%. There is NO possible way to prove God's existence, none, nothing. The concept is abstract and has nothing to do with science. Trying to argue with that is simply mute. At least, I have yet to see an arguement the slightest bit convincing that says God is a fact. Science is one thing, God is another, they don't mix.

I don't believe that religion is something to be blindly followed or simply accepted as fact. That seems lazy to me, and believe me, I know lazy.


I disagree with Max, but I deeply respect him and his opinion on this matter. It's based on logic that I absolutely agree with. Hmm, seems like I had another point, but I can't spit it out at the moment. Meh, oh well. Maybe it will come back to me later. --~

THANK YOU...that's what I've been saying the entire time.

[bountyhunter]

yeh, I agree with McBizzel, whole heartedly.

I believe in God, but I know God makes no sense. I'm not going to try and argue it, because it's illogical and unreasonable.

[MoN]

I couldn't care less what others believe. Others are always beneath me because I am ME, and they are not. Hence, what I think matters.

And therefore, if people assume I am 'crazy,' so be it.

Anyway, why did you not answer my question, "MAX"? Were you afraid of the answer or were you hiding the truth? Or, perhaps, you don't care?

Which brings me to this "Occam's Razor." It doesn't exactly scream, "HEY! THERE'S NO GOD!" Without 'researching' (****, this is a forum post, and I couldn't care less about the knowledge gained or lost) and using only Wikipedia, it seems many use the OR as this: "Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler."

Okay, so let's see. If you're a scientist, you're going to likely have the following to say.

"There's no proof of a god existing, and it only makes the equation of creation more difficult, so using Occam's Razor, a god is not needed and more illogical."

However, using it from "the other side" would probably sound like:

"How did matter come into existence? It would seem more likely that something created it, but what? A higher power would seem logical, and using Occam's Razor, a God creating us is a lot more simpler than a Big Bang."

Now, I'm not trying to discredit Occam's Razor, but such a..."law" just seems to be up for interpretation, much like the Bible.

The above can be wrong for all I care. Pick it apart, whatever. I didn't look into it that much.

[MoN]

Who was that to? Surely not me this time, am I right?

[MAX]

Anyway, why did you not answer my question, "MAX"? Were you afraid of the answer or were you hiding the truth? Or, perhaps, you don't care?

Which one, I can never tell if you're being stupid on accident, or stupid on purpose.

Which brings me to this "Occam's Razor." It doesn't exactly scream, "HEY! THERE'S NO GOD!" Without 'researching' (****, this is a forum post, and I couldn't care less about the knowledge gained or lost) and using only Wikipedia, it seems many use the OR as this: "Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler."

Occam's Razor stipulates that one should use the minimum number of unproven premises that describes what we observe. This cuts god out of the picture for to include him/her/it would be irrational.

Okay, so let's see. If you're a scientist, you're going to likely have the following to say.

"There's no proof of a god existing, and it only makes the equation of creation more difficult, so using Occam's Razor, a god is not needed and more illogical."

However, using it from "the other side" would probably sound like:

"How did matter come into existence? It would seem more likely that something created it, but what? A higher power would seem logical, and using Occam's Razor, a God creating us is a lot more simpler than a Big Bang."

Now, I'm not trying to discredit Occam's Razor, but such a..."law" just seems to be up for interpretation, much like the Bible.

The above can be wrong for all I care. Pick it apart, whatever. I didn't look into it that much.

Occams Razor is simply the refusal to accept any unneccesary postulates, and to not give the idea "god" special exception over the infinite number of wacky things that "might" exist. We KNOW the universe exists, we KNOW you cannot create matter out of nothing. It is NOT the positive assertion that there is definitively no god: that is a strawman.

If you don't beleive me, substitute "Santa Claus" and "god" and see if that appears to make as much sense as "god".

[MoN]

Max, you insult me for absolutely no reason, DIRECTLY after Jeff said to stop. How does that make you feel? I feel insulted and violated.
But what if the **** we learn is actually not the possibility, and it's something completely different?There's my question. All I wanted was an actual answer of what YOU thought, or anyone who was reading.

Anyway, yeah, I feel you on Occam's Razor... I'm just not liking what Wikipedia used to describe it.

Regardless, science can't omit God as a possibility, but they can't back it up without observation, so science tries to ignore the possibility. "We can't study it, so it's not possible." That's the basic stance it seems, yes?

[MAX]

Max, you insult me for absolutely no reason, DIRECTLY after Jeff said to stop. How does that make you feel? I feel insulted and violated.
There's my question. All I wanted was an actual answer of what YOU thought, or anyone who was reading.

Anyway, yeah, I feel you on Occam's Razor... I'm just not liking what Wikipedia used to describe it.

Regardless, science can't omit God as a possibility, but they can't back it up without observation, so science tries to ignore the possibility. "We can't study it, so it's not possible." That's the basic stance it seems, yes?

Science deals with observation. Do you believe in Leprechauns?

Can you explain even one mystery of life by invoking the name of a deity who is inscrutable and beyond analysis by definition, when the very concept of a rational explanation requires analysis?

And if you cannot produce a rational explanation of even one mystery of life by invoking this "God" term, then it is obviously redundant.

I know, here's an alternative explanations for the origins of life on Earth: "my theory is that Yoda created life on Earth. Remember that he lived a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. And we also know that he likes humans, and has superior technology. Not to mention existing outside of space and time because he's a ghost. He's definitely a strong candidate for an alternate theory of creation. And the Yoda theory can also explain why we've never found the Garden of Eden, so it definitely beats the Bible theory."

Of course, if you point out that Yoda is a fictional character who only "exists" in movies, I'll have to point out that God is a fictional character who only "exists" in books.


I keep running into a common problem faced when debating the overly religious, you people simply don't have the mental tools necessary to analyze the world in a rational way. The whole concept of evidence is foreign to you, as far as you are concerned emotional fullfillment from and faith in a particular belief makes it accurate, period dot.

[MoN]

Who says he's fictional? This whole "Leprechauns," "Santa Claus," and "Easter Bunny" crap is a bit too retarded. We're talking about a being that, as far as histories go, has ALWAYS been real. It's never passed off as fictional. And you'd claim that the stories of the aforementioned were nonfiction?

Please.

While God cannot be proven nor disproven, it's a choice, one that you don't have to agree with or like, but you don't have to knock it. How often, besides jokingly, have you seen me insult science? There's madmen out there who do, but the people on this forum, from what I see, are not these madmen...these obviously dillusion people. You may disagree, but until I approach you with stones, treat what I believe in with a little respect. I'm joking.

[John35]

...and if I help one person not become a fundi moron like you and andre, then it'll have been worth it.

I knew you had an agenda...I was just waiting for you to admit it. I see the above comment as nothing more than a double standard, if you catch my drift.

[MAX]

Who says he's fictional? This whole "Leprechauns," "Santa Claus," and "Easter Bunny" crap is a bit too retarded. We're talking about a being that, as far as histories go, has ALWAYS been real. It's never passed off as fictional. And you'd claim that the stories of the aforementioned were nonfiction?

It actually is pretty much the same thing. Prove to me that God is real and Leprechauns aren't. The bible isn't history, and the only people passing it off as 'historical' and nonfiction are christians. Many people for many many many years believed in different egyptian gods, greek gods, norse gods..etc. Show me why the christian god is real, and not those others.

While God cannot be proven nor disproven, it's a choice, one that you don't have to agree with or like, but you don't have to knock it. How often, besides jokingly, have you seen me insult science? There's madmen out there who do, but the people on this forum, from what I see, are not these madmen...these obviously dillusion people. You may disagree, but until I approach you with stones, treat what I believe in with a little respect. I'm joking.

So, how do we know Leprechauns aren't real, again?

I knew you had an agenda...I was just waiting for you to admit it. I see the above comment as nothing more than a double standard, if you catch my drift.

Considering I didn't even make this thread, nor did I say I was actively trying to convert anyone, I'd hardly call it an agenda. However, I'm not going sit around and let a few fundi's make **** up and spin things either.

[andre]

...and if I help one person not become a fundi moron like you and andre, then it'll have been worth it.

if I could help somebody realize that is absurd that life just came together completely un-aided, then it would have been worth it.

[MAX]

Well.. you do have the luxury of being able to make stuff up and being irrational...

[andre]

and you do have the luxury of being completely wrong

[MAX]

I know...good thing I'm not though. What with all the evidence stacked in my favor. ;)

[andre]

I know...good thing I'm not though. What with all the evidence stacked in my favor. ;)

We both see the same evidence. You just have a different way of interpreting it (however bad the interpretation is).

[MAX]

Yeah, christians do have a hard time telling the difference between good and bad evidence. I can see your point on that. Hopefully you'll learn something through all of this though.

That I'm right, and you're wrong. ;)

[andre]

Yeah, christians do have a hard time telling the difference between good and bad evidence. I can see your point on that. Hopefully you'll learn something through all of this though.

That I'm right, and you're wrong. ;)

Your interpretation of the evidence will never get rid of the riddles and mysteries of life. If you're setting out to do that, MAX, I can wish you the world of luck, because it's a fools errand, and will never happen. Your answers aren't satisfying and are incomplete, at the very best.

[MAX]

Your interpretation of the evidence will never get rid of the riddles and mysteries of life. If you're setting out to do that, MAX, I can wish you the world of luck, because it's a fools errand, and will never happen. Your answers aren't satisfying and are incomplete, at the very best.

God is a figment of your imagination, and isn't observable or testable by any means whatsoever. You can't produce any evidence for his/her/it's existance, and therefore create more questions than answers. It's very unsatisfying, imo, to have such an unnecessary variable that basically does nothing but stunt human growth. To fall back on 'God did it' as a catch all, doesn't promote advancement in any way. Hopefully you'll mature some day and realize there's more than a bible to read.

[andre]

Belief in God doesn't hinder advancement, on the same hand. Belief in religion gives people hope. It gives them answers for problems in life. Belief that we sprouted from a pool of goop doesn't give answers. You can't prove your beliefs (or your theories), or completely explain why we are here. This has nothing to do with God not being able to be observed/tested. It doesn't have anything to do with science. It's just plain common sense.

You sound like the Communists, when they reached space and proclaimed that there was no God because you couldn't see him or a heaven of any type. Hm. They seemed just like a group of people that stunted human advancement.

I hope that you will mature and realize that you will never be correct.

[MAX]

Belief in God doesn't hinder advancement, on the same hand. Belief in religion gives people hope. It gives them answers for problems in life. Belief that we sprouted from a pool of goop doesn't give answers. You can't prove your beliefs (or your theories), or completely explain why we are here. This has nothing to do with God not being able to be observed/tested. It doesn't have anything to do with science. It's just plain common sense.

You're right andre, god made Adam from a clump of clay, and then made Eve from a rib. What was I thinking!

The theories have been tested, observed, and peer reviewed. So, again, you're wrong. It also has everything to do with being able to test/observe god. If we can't test it or observe it, there's no point of using it as a variable. So yes, it does hinder advanvement. Beliefe in god isn't going to cure cancer. Belief in god didn't give us nuclear technology. Belief in god doesn't help us understand the brain during neurosurgery.

You sound like the Communists, when they reached space and proclaimed that there was no God because you couldn't see him or a heaven of any type. Hm. They seemed just like a group of people that stunted human advancement.

Funny, you sound like Hitler. After all, he too was adament about religion.

I hope that you will mature and realize that you will never be correct.

Pssst... God doesn't exist still. No mater how many of my jabs you plagerize and throw back at me. :pwn:

[andre]

The theories have been tested, observed, and peer reviewed. So, again, you're wrong. It also has everything to do with being able to test/observe god. If we can't test it or observe it, there's no point of using it as a variable. So yes, it does hinder advanvement. Beliefe in god isn't going to cure cancer. Belief in god didn't give us nuclear technology. Belief in god doesn't help us understand the brain during neurosurgery.

I must have missed it when the news announced that DNA had been synthesized in a lab, or that scientists have recreated the conditions at the beginning of the earth.

You're wrong. When people have hope, it can cure cancer, jack ass. There is plenty of documented evidence that when people have something to believe in, it can make them better.

And isn't it funny that belief in God made a lot of the scientists who made nuclear technology feel absolutely awful? Belief in God gives morality.


Funny, you sound like Hitler. After all, he too was adament about religion.

He was an occultist, you clod. Yeah. He was adament about religion...about destroying it.

Pssst... God doesn't exist still. No mater how many of my jabs you plagerize and throw back at me.

It's funny that we know a lot about how the universe and man could not have had their start. You've proved that there is a lot that people will never figure out. Your beliefs are hindering mankind, since they are running in circles.

[MAX]

I must have missed it when the news announced that DNA had been synthesized in a lab, or that scientists have recreated the conditions at the beginning of the earth.

Repetitive, debunked 2001 paragraphs ago, moving on.

You're wrong. When people have hope, it can cure cancer, jack ass.

I never once mentioned hope, dumb****. Hope and God are not the same thing.

There is plenty of documented evidence that when people have something to believe in, it can make them better.

I never once denied any argument about 'mind over body'. Once again, that doesn't mean god did it, it just means that the human mind is a very powerfull organ.

And isn't it funny that belief in God made a lot of the scientists who made nuclear technology feel absolutely awful? Belief in God gives morality.

That had nothing to do with what I originally posted. I said belief in god doesn't give us the answers to create things like nuclear technology, and medicine, and computers.

Not only that, people can be moral without god. Considering more people voted NO to believing in god than YES, I hope none of them flame you. You basically called them immoral.


He was an occultist, you clod. Yeah. He was adament about religion...about destroying it.

Hahahaha Boy, it really bugs fundies that Hitler was Christian to the point where they spend alot of time saying he was not Christian and some even going so far as to say he was so evil that he could not be representing Christianity - ignoring of course the other evils visited by the Church and Christianity like the Inquisition, Crusades, etc.

Hitler was raised Catholic, was an altar boy as a child, referenced the Bible and Jesus in Mein Kampf, conducted a campaign of persecution against the same ethnic group that the Catholics had been persecuting for centuries, and attempted to force dissenting churches to obey his rule. How is any of this inconsistent with the behaviour of a Catholic? No matter what kind of life you lead, if you accept Jesus as your savior you're Christian.


It's funny that we know a lot about how the universe and man could not have had their start. You've proved that there is a lot that people will never figure out. Your beliefs are hindering mankind, since they are running in circles.

Can you show me how they are running in circles? I've already repeatedly shown you why your beliefs do, but you have yet to provide any rational evidence as to why mine (in your opinion) do.

Or is the fact that I'm winning this little debate making it too hard for you to think clearly. ;)

[Just Gabriel]

Belief in God doesn't hinder advancement

Woah. Pause. STOP.

The church has stood in the way of scientific advancements MANY times. In fact, if "God nuts" had their way at the dawn of biological and psychological sciences, we would still know nearly nothing about it today. For example, Rene Descartes actually had to convince the church that the soul was contained in the pineal gland (a small gland in the brain) so he could have permission to study the brain. Beforehand, it was considered sacrilegious to "tamper with the soul", because it was God that had control of that, wasn't it? The church also prevented Galileo from publicizing the idea that the earth travelled around the sun, rather than the other way around. God created the earth as the center of the universe, so Galileo had to be wrong. It wasn't until a few hundred years later that they changed their position on the subject--and it's all thanks to science.

When you use god as an explanation for everything, you hinder advancement. Period. Science attempts to explain. When you already have an answer that "works fine" for everything, why bother study alternative possibilities? God should only be used as an explanation for things if there's evidence of such a connection. Otherwise, accepting the "easy way out" is counter-intuitive.

I'm assuming you're studying chemistry, what with the random pictures you post in the pictures thread. But why? God created matter, and he obviously doesn't conform to our primitive rules of chemistry and physics (like MAX mentioned, he created Adam from clay and Eve from a bone, after all.) Why is it important to study chemistry if God is a fine explanation for everything. If pioneers in your field of science had quit in the early stages because they expected God as the answer, you sure wouldn't be in a classroom studying their principles right now.

[MAX]

Gabe just pwnd andre...pwnd him goooooood. lol

Gabe, it's flat out impossible to debate belief in any sort of meaningful sense, because belief is not required to have a basis in reality to be valid, unlike an opinion, which must be based off of facts to be valid. It's when people *ahem* take their belief and try to say "It's not a belief, it's FACT!" that these arguments are useful.

Also, if they say "LOLZ GOD R OUTSIED TEH MODERN SCIUNCE" then they're attempting to debate belief, because they're making an existential claim without any attempt at verification. Those which argue that God exists based on observed phenomona and their own messed up reasoning are subject to the full brunt of a logic Smackdown, because their belief is being present as opinion based on fact. For the past 3 pages, this is more of an excersize in logic rather than me trying to convince anyone of anything.

[MoN]

The next person to throw insults around at me (I couldn't care less about any of the others) will be banned for a week, per Jeff's post. Don't any of you read?

Fair warning.

I'll probably just get this locked up since some people are not mature enough to STFU about subjects they will never understand. Science will never understand the way of life, and religion will never be understood until you're dead. And even then, it's all a moot point.

Live life the way you want. Nothing more, nothing less. Enough trying to control others' thoughts, emotions, and the very existence they live. Just stop.

[andre]

I will reference Letterman's comment to Bill: 'I'm not smart enough to debate you point for point, so I'll just say that 60% of what you say is crap.'

I am not smart enough to debate you point for point on all of the scientific issues, since you and I both know that science will never will out the existence of some kind of God to people of the earth. So, whatever. It's alright.

[MAX]

You're not smart enough, period.

I shall reference my friend, Sam Harris.

Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture, and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at most.

Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical laws that govern the lives of six billion human beings. The same statistics also suggest that this girl’s parents believe -- at this very moment -- that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this?

No.

The entirety of atheism is contained in this response. Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious.

[andre]

Belief in God has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence.

[MAX]

Belief in God has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence.

Important Reminder: Someone who subscribes to the 'invisible beings interact with people' line of thought should not be expected to be all too good at lining up cause and effect.

You're right, one can be intelligent and believe in god, however, you can also be intelligent yet irrational. I consider people being irrational in light of logic, as being stupid. No matter their intelligence.

Seriously, you can only push your ignorance as an opinion for so long...

[andre]

You aren't sorry. Sorry my white ass you are.

You have some kind of bullshit elitist complex that makes you think that you are better because you only believe in what you can see.

There are smart people who believe in God, there are stupid people who believe in God. There are smart atheists, and there are dumb atheists. You have smart and dumb people in every single subscription to every single notion of anything.

[MAX]

If you believe that something intangible exists out there, that's your problem. But if you try to tell me that said intangible thing regularly interfaces with the real world, such as that your god healed someone with cancer via magic, I feel pretty confident in stating that you are irrational, and suck at determining cause and effect.

[andre]

I don't say that God makes magical cures and such. I said that belief in something, such as God, can make people feel better. It was badly worded on my part, yes.

Ok, MAX. Cause and effect. What caused humanity to exist?

[MAX]

Ok, MAX. Cause and effect. What caused humanity to exist?

Says the ******* who wouldn't recognize the scientific method if it was strangling him to death...

"Not doing homework" bug: check!

Ahem. Lets see...Dinosaur to bird transition. Reptile to mammal transition. Water to land transition. Land to water transition in the whale lineage. And oh yeah, Primate to human transition! Need I go on?

"Dismissal of inconvenient evidence" bug: check!

Well, you pretty much ignored the majority of the questions I asked, poo-poo'd any logical reasoning or evidence, made several more empty claims, made appeal to authority fallacies and basically preached your beliefs at me.

Color me not surprised...:dry:

[andre]

Says the ******* who wouldn't recognize the scientific method if it was strangling him to death...

The Scientific Method calls for the completion of experiments to test a hypothesis, correct?

Ahem. Lets see...Dinosaur to bird transition. Reptile to mammal transition. Water to land transition. Land to water transition in the whale lineage. And oh yeah, Primate to human transition! Need I go on?

Ok. And this was tested...how?

The conditions that prevailed on earth cannot be duplicated, since they are unknown. Therefore, a correct experiment cannot be devised to try and recreate the conditions under which your theories hold that life evolved. That means that the scientifc method is not followed.

[MAX]

The Scientific Method calls for the completion of experiments to test a hypothesis, correct?

This is how it works. The situation Y and the event X are facts, the relationship between them is first a hypothesis, then, if it was correct (or correct enough, Newton's laws of motion are correct enough, but not 'law'), it then becomes a theory.

Ok. And this was tested...how?

...These messages brought to you by the Pat Robertson School for the Mentally Disadvantaged.


The conditions that prevailed on earth cannot be duplicated, since they are unknown. Therefore, a correct experiment cannot be devised to try and recreate the conditions under which your theories hold that life evolved. That means that the scientifc method is not followed.

Basically, you would have a pool of chemicals that has lots of carbon and nitrogen and such, then the carbons and other stuff react to produce more complex molecules (which early earth would have had, and which we can duplicate in a lab). Those complex molecules start replicating themselves, which begins the process of evolution, causing the molecules to develop new traits that improve its chances of replicating themselves. At some point in that process, you have something that you can call life.

Of course, there is always the alternate "theory" that some invisible man in the sky just willed it to happen, thus eliminating the need for any physical mechanisms or testable predictions or remote semblance of scientific method at all ...


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

[andre]

why did humans evolve a sense of justice, and appreciation for beauty, and for art and truth and love?

[bountyhunter]

why did humans evolve a sense of justice, and appreciation for beauty, and for art and truth and love?

We don't have an answer for everything.

Again, we don't have an answer.

don't

[andre]

You just don't want to look at an answer that is "unscientific."

[MAX]

why did humans evolve a sense of justice, and appreciation for beauty, and for art and truth and love?

I see what we're doing. We're playing the answer-all-of-my-questions-or-I-win-by-default game!! Honestly, it gets old.

FUN!!! Too bad it's fallacious to think that because science doesn't answer something now, doesn't mean it won't eventually be able to. Also, if science doesn't answer something, that doesn't mean "zomgsh god diddit!!1!"

To answer your question? Interacting with other human beings, in general.

Few of my acquaintances are outright atheists. But I think the reason that love of beauty, art, truth, and justice are universal to all moral schemes (even if they're submerged beneath a lot of crap in some) is that to a certain level, they're almost instinctive. There is an instinctive physiological reaction associated with hearing a baby cry, for example. Similarly, children start complaining about unfairness looooong before you try to teach the concept of justice to them.

[andre]

“When we ask how a process [evolution] that resembles a game of chance, with dreadful penalties for the losers, could have generated such qualities as love of beauty and truth, compassion, freedom, and, above all, the expansiveness of the human spirit, we are perplexed. The more we ponder our spiritual resources, the more our wonder deepens.”

“The religious quest for meaning . . . is the common experience in every culture and every age since the emergence of humankind.”

why? if we are just an accidental assemblage of molecules, then why?

I see what we're doing. We're playing the answer-all-of-my-questions-or-I-win-by-default game!! Honestly, it gets old.

FUN!!! Too bad it's fallacious to think that because science doesn't answer something now, doesn't mean it won't eventually be able to. Also, if science doesn't answer something, that doesn't mean "zomgsh god diddit!!1!"

I don't care if it get's old, because you will never win.

[MAX]

why? if we are just an accidental assemblage of molecules, then why?

Religion is just one more cultural product of human societies. Religion is just nothing but a pale reflex of a society. Like so many creations of mankind, is both good and evil. True, it has agendas, holy wars, converting, and, of course, hanging people because they just happen to be a witch(Or possibly someone says they are). It has also, however, given rise to philosophy and science(Here I obviously don't speak of Christianity and it's ilk, but the beginnings of religion, which would be rejected by the philosophers of Greece, thus beginning their quest for truth.), as well as many of mankind's great works.

So is it good or bad? Meh. It's necessary. Obviously not necessary in this time and age.. The many atheists leading full, happy, productive lives clearly demonstrates this. But from the point of view of looking at our advancement as a species, it becomes obvious we needed it, especially in our earliest days.

Think about it. Try telling a grade school kid about current theories on gravity... They'll look at you like you're insane. So we tell them it makes things stay on big things and pulls things into circles. Clean and tidy, and not so far from the truth that we can't unlearn it. Often, these are called Lies-To-Children, and we have alot of them.

So religion can be thought of as a Lie-To-Cavemen. 'How's the bright sparkly things get up there, Og?' 'Uh... I reckon a really big man went and put 'em there, Ug.' '...It'd be pretty neat to be a really big man who can put bright sparklies in the sky.' (There's also the theory that religion was made by the very first conman, who convinced his neighbour to leave a cooked cow on a hill each week, and the conman ate well)

Unfortunately, we had mostly outgrown the Lie before Christianity rose. Sure, many people believed in Gods, but philosophy was steamrolling ahead.

A real pity we'll never know what happened, if Christianity had never taken over the Roman Empire...


I don't care if it get's old, because you will never win.

I pretty much already have, feel free to make a poll asking the rest of the forum. ;)

[andre]

I pretty much already have, feel free to make a poll asking the rest of the forum.

You can't win. You cannot conclusively prove that you will ever be correct, as I won't be able to either.

So religion can be thought of as a Lie-To-Cavemen.

Cavemen are a real trip, aren't they? I love how evolutionists hire all of these artists to show how people supposedly looked as they evolved from lesser forms. You've got an awful lot of imagination, that's for sure ;)

Here's something cool, from a fellow named Dr. David Premack: “Human language is an embarrassment for evolutionary theory because it is vastly more powerful than one can account for.”

[X-ACTOMAN]

Here you go...ready...not one Christian whom I have ever come in contact with accepted/realized this: the parables of the bible...NOT REAL, that's right all the parables of the bible were meant to be merely fables...yeah just stories to give people good morales to live thier lives by. The thing is, is that "follower" blew it waaaaaaaaaay out of proportion.

Also, to all my fundamentalist christian friends out there...find a real religion, yeah the earth is 12,000 years old eh? One word question: DINOSAURS? Why is there nothing in the bible about dinosaurs? Surely one day while walking through the pastures of Nazareth, Jesus would have ran into a Brontasaurus or something. There is no death, life is a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves. There...shutup this arguement is pointless, it's not like when you are going to change someone's mind on such a topic as religion, especially christianity.

[MAX]

You can't win. You cannot conclusively prove that you will ever be correct, as I won't be able to either.

I'm going to post this agian. In science, you test mechanisms, not histories. You can't devise a scientific test to see whether OJ Simpson murdered his wife, but you can test a hypothesis about this event to see if it was possible for him to murder his wife in the timeframe available to him.

Similarly, we can't test the history of what happened when life first spawned on Earth, but we can test the mechanisms underlying any particular hypothesis which should show that it's possible. And in order to do this, you need only test the catalytic chemical reactions possible with basic organic "building blocks".

This is why I win, and you lose. Life exists, we observe that. God doesn't...unless you can provide evidence.

So yes, I win.

Cavemen are a real trip, aren't they? I love how evolutionists hire all of these artists to show how people supposedly looked as they evolved from lesser forms. You've got an awful lot of imagination, that's for sure ;)

It's actually very simple to sketch out with the transitional fossils we do have on record. Using muscular and bone structure. Any anthropological/forensic sketch artist can do it.

It definately takes a LOT more imagination to personify an intangible ghost and say it just popped into existance and created everything out of nothing.

Here's something cool, from a fellow named Dr. David Premack: “Human language is an embarrassment for evolutionary theory because it is vastly more powerful than one can account for.”


So. If you're going to continue with the Appeal to (nebulous) authority, who is this Dr. David Premack and why should we care? At least appeal to scientists in the biological and evolutionary science fields. Not a creationist who happens to be a behavioral psychologist (soft science, btw)

*Dons flame-retardant suit and equips Sword of Logic and Shield of Reason*

First of all: Talk.origins Evolution is a fact and theory FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html)

Talk.origins Evolutionary Biology FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html)

Talk.origins Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution article. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof)

Plenty of cited evolution evidence there. And, while it's a bit of a dry read, it's not entirely inaccessible to the layperson. Given that evolution is a widely accepted scientific theory with a mountain of evidence bigger than Olympus Mons, it is the most extreme ignorance to state that evolution is impossible, and state it with a straight face

There...shutup this arguement is pointless, it's not like when you are going to change someone's mind on such a topic as religion, especially christianity.

I think the main focus isn't to change the fundy's mind, just to change anyone else's that's not adopted a stance, or is having doubts they can't voice, etc. Sometimes you "bag a fundy" too.

[John35]

Insecurity Abounds

[XboxEvolved]

Seriously Max do you just find Godless, anti-everything friends and get them to post here? I have never once in my life seen a game forum that has so many people trying so hard to prove that God doesn't exist (or some sort of social issue). Ok look people, we get it. There are like 30,000 of these topics already at least (with 90% of them by Max).

[MAX]

Seriously Max do you just find Godless, anti-everything friends and get them to post here? I have never once in my life seen a game forum that has so many people trying so hard to prove that God doesn't exist (or some sort of social issue). Ok look people, we get it. There are like 30,000 of these topics already at least (with 90% of them by Max).

"Waaaah, I can't rebuttle any of his statements so I'm going to attack his character!! Waaah!!! Seriously, are you 10 years old? Your posts feel that way. That or overly christian, because sometimes I can't tell the difference. Both use the same tactics.

Let's see, who voted NO..
Battousai36, dafko, Darkling05, death_by_fire, doylethefirst, Erik-AMN, Gabriel-GAD, GCA-Shawn, jgzeidan, jvanort5553, Kiron, kurst3030, MAX, Monkeylord, Rensa, Smalldude76, X-ACTOMAN.

Most of those people are regulars here, and unless I paid them or something without knowing, I didn't tell them to respond OR vote No. The fact that more people voted No actually surprises me.

I never asked anyone to post here, they posted because they felt like it. If you and everyone else who believes there is a sky pixie out there feel threatened...don't open these threads. I'm continually amazed when morons feel they need to enter into debates they KNOW they won't like to post what amounts to SPAM.

If you don't like it, avoid it. It's not rocket science folks.

[andre]

Given that evolution is a widely accepted scientific theory with a mountain of evidence bigger than Olympus Mons, it is the most extreme ignorance to state that evolution is impossible, and state it with a straight face

I found this straight from my Psychology book.

Those who are troubled by an apparent conflict between scientific and religious accounts of human origins may find it helpful to recall that different perspectives of life can be complimentary (Chapter 1). For example, the scientific account attempts to tell us when and how; religious creation stories usually aim to tell about an ultimate who and why. As Gallileo explained to the Grand Duchess Christina, "The Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

To completely write off religious accounts as if they are worthless is also incredible ignorance.

[MAX]

...psychology is a soft science, lol. Nice try though.

[andre]

A "soft science"? I can say that you are supremely ignorant for saying that, since understanding the human mind and behavior is an extremely deep field.

No, it was more than a nice try. It's a straight-up reasonable statement, from the author of my Psychology book. Psychologists are scientists, too, lest you forget.

[MAX]

We all know who the ignorant one is between us, and it's not me. Since the human mind is still so incredibly unknown to us, psychology is a science that sort of "grasps" at the subject matter, rather than holding it firmly like more hard sciences, like engineering or such.

Psychology can be a science. However, it can also be a worthless pseudoscience. That's the problem of having a profession where you can be a practitioner with either a PhD in neurobiology or a low-grade diploma. The standards for entry are set so ****ing low that any idiot can call himself a psychologist, so the term has no meaning.

[andre]

you're full of **** for that entire above post, and if you had any kind of sense, you'd actually look into what you are saying before you make such ignorant remarks.

[MAX]

I've taken college level psych. So, unfortunately for you and your obvious highschool education (I use that word loosely), I know what I'm talking about.

[andre]

Psychology can be a science.

correction: is a science.


The science that deals with mental processes and behavior.

[MAX]

correction: is a science.

The thing I've seen a lack of in the psychological community is independent peer review. You never hear of psychologists trying to independently reproduce another's experiment to verify its conclusions. This is a critical part of the scientific method. Thus why I said it can be a science, but it can also be a pseudoscience.

If you can't quantify the variables (human behavior, in this case) in some kind of objective, relevant manner, you can't make predictions or test theories, and if you can't make predictions and test theories, it's not a hard science. Deal with it.

If you're going to quote me, don't take me out of context please.

[andre]

The human brain is the most marvelous thing on the entire planet, so many scientists claim. Understanding why we do things the way we do them, and just why in general is extremely hardcore.

[MAX]

I've said now and then that if the psychologists ever got their acts together, psychology could be made into a hard science. All you need is a reliable mathmatical model of human behavior. That should be ready no later than April 18, 3009.

[andre]

Then you sacrifice ethics and morality, purely for the sake of scientific advancement.

[MAX]

Wrong. Anyone with half a brain knows that's wrong. lol

[andre]

Then why aren't scientists rearing children in laboratories from infancy and subjecting them to a battery of tests and then analyzing the results? Ever heard of a certain Nazi who was called "The Angel of Death"?

It's un-ethical, that's why.

[MAX]

What does that have to do with science, other than showing everyone your inherent paranoia towards it.

You are being guilty of a style over substance fallacy. It is important to be objective and rational, and that means quantitative analysis. That doesn't mean scientists are going to grow children in test tubes, then assail them with random tests. Stop going to movies, and pull your head out of your ass.

[andre]

I have no paranoia toward science. All I am stating is that there are certain things that science, no matter what branch, will not be able to figure out due to limitations that can't be overcome.

[MAX]

Never say never.

[andre]

Can I hold you to that? :P

[MAX]

Go for it. I'm secure knowing that even if science can't explain something today, that doesn't mean that it won't sometime in the future.

[andre]

But are you at least open to the possibility that there may be certain things that cannot entirely be explained?

[MAX]

If it can be observed and tested, it can be explained.

[andre]

If it can be observed and tested, it can be explained.

and that would include the human capacity to reflect on our past, present, and future? that would include the human conscience? the human need for understanding? all of those are not found in other animals, but they supposedly evolved as well as humans...

[MAX]

No, Human feelings are not objective, therefore not easily testible. If I'm a psychologist conducting a study, and ask people if something makes them angry, how do I quantify anger? "More angry" and "somewhat angry" aren't good enough because "more" and "somewhat" are widely interpretable, just like "kinda fast" isn't good enough in physics.

There has to be an actual number behind something for it to be objective. That's why all of the predictions made by hard sciences use numbers. Making a prediction like, "50% of people won't like this" isn't objective. It cannot quantify the degree of dislike and relies on heavily subjective and easily influenced human behavior. Making a prediction like, "An object in free fall, in a frictionless environment, will accelerate toward the Earth at 9.8 m/s^2 plus or minus 0.5 m/s^2" is objective and easily tested. Math is an indispensable part of science. Throwing around numbers doesn't make something scientific, but leaving any meaningful quantifications completely out doesn't, either.

[MAX]

and that would include the human capacity to reflect on our past, present, and future? that would include the human conscience? the human need for understanding? all of those are not found in other animals, but they supposedly evolved as well as humans...

Funny... animals exhibit conscience (bears protecting bear cubs, dogs protecting family members, etc. The need for understanding...monkeys exhibit this.

Interesting you THINK you know what you are talking about, but you obviously don't. Granted, humans show a broader range, but that's expected when one has a larger brain. :)

[andre]

instinct and conscious desire are different, mon ami.

Everything on the planet has instinct. From where? What random assemblage of nucleic acids and proteins decided to give every single living creature some kind of basic instinct?

Granted, humans show a broader range, but that's expected when one has a larger brain. :)

I like the statistic that a flattened human cerebral cortex covers four sheets of typing paper, and a chimpanzee's one sheet, and a rat's covers a postage stamp.

[PsyKyX]

but that's expected when one has a larger brain. :)
What about whales?

[XboxEvolved]

Whales have giant brains filled with carmel and shrimp. With cocktail sauce.

[SpaceOddity]

There must be a god or who was andre's girlfriend screaming out to as i pounded her last night??:snap:

but yeah creationism and creationist are the dumbest people I've ever met, i will never believe anything on blind faith when there is something with evidence that can be tested and studied out there to go with. What are you basing creationism on? The Bible? Last I check the Oddessy was written before the Bible and I don't suppose you believe that there is an island with giant cyclopi on it do you?

[andre]

I like shrimp and cocktail sauce. damnit John, now I want some shrimp! --~

i will never believe anything on blind faith when there is something with evidence that can be tested and studied out there to go with.

I agree with you. You have to make sure that what you know is true. Being blindly loyal to anything is stupid.

[SpaceOddity]

ok then show me how you can test creationism, and how you have solid evidence to show me to prove it, how is it not just you doing what your mommy and daddy forced upon you in church when you were little?

[PsyKyX]

I like shrimp and cocktail sauce. damnit John, now I want some shrimp!

That's what I was thinking. Long John Silvers has some pretty good shrimp...

and I'm waiting for Ragnarok. Until then, bring on the shrimp!

[andre]

ok then show me how you can test creationism, and how you have solid evidence to show me to prove it, how is it not just you doing what your mommy and daddy forced upon you in church when you were little?

As I mentioned earlier. The world is full of evidence that we were either: 1)created or 2) evolved

It all depends on how you look at it.

I don't believe that I was created simply because somebody told me so. However, you seem to believe that you evolved simply because you don't want to acknowledge any other alternative. Seems rather narrow-minded, mon ami.

[SpaceOddity]

first off lets stop being a pompous dick and drop the psuedo french talk...yea thanks

and no i am open to other ideas as to how we came about, but so far evolution has the largest amount of evidence supporting it and can actually be tested and disproven if the case arises, creationism is based on a old book that tells me if i have mildew in my houes i should tear my house down and carry the stones outside of town. I'm sorry but thats not exactly the place id go to for reliable information on how i came to be...

yeah long day, im rather testy. heh testy

[MAX]

What about whales?

..is a perfect example of an animal that shows conscious desire.

We're the only species known to have developed language without outside prompting, for one - but we're far from the only species to have a high degree of self-awareness.

[MAX]

There's 0 evidence for creation.

[PsyKyX]

tsk tsk MAX. I'm referring to your comment about brain size. Whale's have huge brains...
You're also treading on iffy ground with the language comment.

You know Andre, you would most likely be Hindu if you were born in India. Just a thought.

@Erik
hehe, you said testi...

[MAX]

tsk tsk MAX. I'm referring to your comment about brain size. Whale's have huge brains...

So do elephants. Both species have been known to exhibit post-traumatic stress disorder. Which would fit into what I had stated earlier...bigger brain, broader emotional range.

[bountyhunter]

You just don't want to look at an answer that is "unscientific."

That's because nobody can show me the work for unscientific answers.

For 2+2 = 4, we know that 4 is correct because 2+2 does, in fact, equal 4.

on the other hand, given simply that 4 is the answer, we have no idea what it's the answer to. 2+2? 3-1? 16^(1/2)?

Some things make sense. Other things don't. It's not all that hard.

correction: is a science.

Sorry Benny, Psychology is, has been, and always will be much more of an interpretive, circumstancial art then it will ever be a science.

As I mentioned earlier. The world is full of evidence that we were either: 1)created or 2) evolved

It all depends on how you look at it.

I don't believe that I was created simply because somebody told me so. However, you seem to believe that you evolved simply because you don't want to acknowledge any other alternative. Seems rather narrow-minded, mon ami.


people that believe in evolution tend to believe in it because it can be observed....

god, on the other hand......Well, I don't recall the last time I saw him.

[MoN]

3-1 doesn't equal 4.

[Rensa]

I was gonna make a comment on psychology before, but this discussion moves too quickly for me :P

I've read similar things in philosophy about psychology. As Max mentioned, it doesn't use clearly defined variables, which is a big no-no. And, as bountyhunter mentioned, it's very interrpretive: the writer of the piece, Popper, stated that you have to test stuff in science for it to be a real science, you can't just interpret the results in light of your theory. I have to say, I agree. Not to say that it's a complete waste of time, but it's not a science, IMHO.

[Just Gabriel]

I was gonna make a comment on psychology before, but this discussion moves too quickly for me :P

I've read similar things in philosophy about psychology. As Max mentioned, it doesn't use clearly defined variables, which is a big no-no. And, as bountyhunter mentioned, it's very interrpretive: the writer of the piece, Popper, stated that you have to test stuff in science for it to be a real science, you can't just interpret the results in light of your theory. I have to say, I agree. Not to say that it's a complete waste of time, but it's not a science, IMHO.

You test things in psychology all the time... I don't know if we're talking about the same discipline here, but use of the scientific method in psychology is what defines it as psychology and not philosophy or sociology...

My psychology professor, for example, did a scientific test to determine whether perception of time is affected by mental engagement (here's a link if you're interested: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=11829). I think what MAX meant by referring to it as a "soft science" is that it's not as easy as tossing chemicals in a vial and watching the explosion, or throwing a brick through a window and examining the effect. The tests are much more delicate, and care must be taken to make sure you have all the variables under control. It's easier to make mistakes if you don't know what you're doing.
As for it sometimes being a "pseudoscience", that's very true--when not used properly. It's quite a misunderstanding to think that if a psychologist says something about people he must automatically be right. Psychologists are merely people who know how to properly test behaviour, and who can use knowledge gained from such tests in practical applications. This doesn't mean that they understand the human mind. This also doesn't mean that every phrase that comes from a psychologist's mouth is true. People often mistake psychologists for people who "have all the answers" about human behaviour, and this misconception is the fault of pseudo-psychologists like Freud and Dr. Phil.
Did I ever mention I hate Dr. Phil?

Andre: Don't quote someone on their opinion and expect it to be taken as a decisive argument. Psychologists can have false opinions just like anyone else.

[Rensa]

Well, I'm no psyche student, so it's unfair for me to be so generalistic, of course. I should probably say that if Popper and Max are indeed correct, psychology could be judged a pseudoscience. But, as you said, it deals with the mind, which is a big ball of mystery. It seems to me that in a lot of (tho not all) cases, it would be hard to pin down variables.

[andre]

There's 0 evidence for creation.

*sigh*

Perhaps I can reference your earlier quote?

Never say never

There is circumstantial evidence that supports the idea, but it makes you uncomfortable.

[MAX]

There is circumstantial evidence that supports the idea, but it makes you uncomfortable.

Really, can you please tell us all, in detail, what this circumstantial evidence is? Circumstantial evidence (whichi is far less powerfull than direct evidence) is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence. So...show me/us/scientific community the EVIDENCE for creation, and make sure it's a SIGNIFICANT QUANTITY. ;)

I'm pretty sure you've gotten circumstantial evidence confused with inconclusive evidence and conjecture.

[andre]

Practically all of the evidence around us is open to interpretation, as I've stated a few times before.

It's funny. My Biology professor was talking about neurotransmitters and stuff, and he mentioned that the more that we find out, the less we know. And he even joked around and said that 'intelligent design is the white flag of science, when we surrender and say, I don't know.' So, he made a point. Sometimes, you just don't know. It takes a humble attitude for people to just say that they don't know. Oh heck, plenty of scientists have said that.

[MAX]

Practically all of the evidence around us is open to interpretation, as I've stated a few times before.

That's not evidence then.

It's funny. My Biology professor was talking about neurotransmitters and stuff, and he mentioned that the more that we find out, the less we know. And he even joked around and said that 'intelligent design is the white flag of science, when we surrender and say, I don't know.' So, he made a point. Sometimes, you just don't know. It takes a humble attitude for people to just say that they don't know. Oh heck, plenty of scientists have said that.

For some reason, I have a feeling you interpreted him wrong. So instead of giving us evidence to support creationism, you give us yet ANOTHER appeal to authority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

[andre]

what is this lame 'appeal to authority' business you keep on dropping?

I would hardly call my Biology professor an authority, but he is a fairly smart fellow, and that comment he made was in jest, as anybody can see.

You know, I think it's funny to talk about all of the supposed evidence for the support of evolution. Did you know that all of the fossil 'evidence' to support evolution won't even fill a coffin?