[quote]Professor X wrote:
You’re like the guy who comes to the party at 1 in the morning asking where the food is. I mentioned it before, but for you and anyone else who missed it, there was a RECENT HUGE discussion on this very topic. I went into much detail as did many others. It would be a ridiculous waste of time to RETYPE all of that information as well as my position on this topic. Have fun learning how to scroll down and read old threads.[/quote]
GREAT! You participated in a thread that came before this one. So what? I didn’t read it. And if you’re tired of posting on this subject, why don’t you ignore the thread instead of getting pissed when you take the time to come in and comment on a ‘worthless’ thread.
[quote]haney wrote:
I would assume you would know that there are marine fossils found on the upper parts of everest? That being said if the land was a little flatter than it is possible for all water in the world to cover the surface by 1.7 miles.
I guess you buy into the idea that mars was once flooded? [/quote]
That’s beside the point. When those marine fossils were alive, no humans would be around for thousands of years, therefore, no Noah’s Arc.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I guess you’d be the resident expert on pre-teen mentality, wouldn’t you?
[/quote]
I dunno, you’ve taught me a thing or two…
You made your point long ago then. Why continue to waste your precious time?
First off, I didn’t suggest that I only ‘went through the motions’. During that period I tried as hard as I could to get involved with my heart, and in the end I saw I was wasting my time.
Second, ALL OF YOU believers just ‘go through the motions’ at one time or another. Like you’ve never sung a hymn without putting your heart and soul into it… How bout the lord’s supper? Are you gonna tell me that every time you ate that little piece of bread and drank a little wine or grape juice you were doing it on a deeply religious level? I’d call you a liar, if that’s the case.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
It’s the law that refutes the theory of evolution. “Energy can neither be created, nor destroyed, only changed.”
[/quote]
That doesn’t refute evolution at all. All of the elements that make up all of life on Earth today were on Earth before that life existed. Life finds ways to harness the elements that are on earth.
[quote]Zoro wrote:
I really dont know if anyone said anything about this because i only saw the first page and wanted to say something about it. Really if your going to have a disscusion/talk/argue on something learn about it first, God didnt create sin, there was this little angel who decided to rebel and blah blah, read on it.[/quote]
The basic flaw in that is that God had to create the angel. And if God created the angel, he had to create the angel’s motivations and desires to create sin. Therefore, God created sin.
If NOTHING existed before God made things, EVERYTHING that exists is a result of God’s creation. That makes God responsible for sin.
[quote]pookie wrote:
But didn’t God create the angel?
If God is omniscient, then he knew the angel would rebel and cause sin to appear in the world. So God did create sin, only indirectly.
There cannot be anything in this world that is not God’s will, if God is the omnipotent and omniscient Creator.
The common argument is that God gave us free will, and the we choose to do evil, not God. But God could’ve given free will without the possibility of doing evil, if that was his wish. He didn’t allow us to walk thru walls, or become invisible or a whole bunch of other stuff we can’t do. So why permit us to do evil, if not because he wills it?
[/quote]
[quote]randman wrote:
pookie wrote:
What Jesus went through is nowhere near the worst way to die I can think of. Not even close.
Just about everything you wrote kinda pissed me off but this part, I admit, did get to me the most. You try getting beat to near death, your hands and feet nailed to a cross, and then be left to die up there. You know, Pookie, you can be a real asshole. You are highly antagonist to believers. Why don’t you keep your posionous comments to yourself. Asshole.[/quote]
He may have said it in a kinda asshole way, but I kinda agree with him. Not that ANYONE would want to go through what Christ supposedly went through, but thousands of people did. The Romans executed PLENTY of people in the same fashion, and plenty of people in the history of mankind have had worse deaths than that one. So what makes Christ’s death so much more important? Why do you think its SO AMAZING that he died that way? He was being executed at the mercy of his captors, nothing more.
What do you get out of believing that God created that day for you? Pride? Assurance?
Is it easier to live life thinking that when you die, its not over? Does it make it easier to get through your day thinking that your friends and relatives that have died are still there waiting for you?
[quote]XCelticX wrote:
rainjack wrote:
It’s the law that refutes the theory of evolution. “Energy can neither be created, nor destroyed, only changed.”
That doesn’t refute evolution at all. All of the elements that make up all of life on Earth today were on Earth before that life existed. Life finds ways to harness the elements that are on earth.[/quote]
RJ, he’s right. Thermodynamics/entropy is statistical and easy to maintain within the whole universe despite some small pockets (a few planets for a few billion years) locally going against the flow. Just to clarify.
I don’t know why though, whenever I read stuff from XCelticX he just sounds like he wants to get mad.
Ah, religion or politics. Now there are two topics that never start arguments. I for one don’t believe everything that’s put in front of me, be it the bible or any other book. I do find it interesting that while some believers talk tolerence they don’t practise it. Why for instance is a person that doesn’t accept god viewed negatively by believers? ie, athiest. I for one do not define myself by beliefs I DON’T follow, but by those I do. I define myself positively ,not as what I’m not, but what I am, an Evolutionist. I’ve always beleived that(evolution) for as long as I can remember.
When one considers the size of the known universe and the incredible number of possibilities I fail to understand how anything can be dismissed, including a god. There are most likely lifeforms that we wouldn’t even recogonize as such due to our preconceived notions. The problem is that some people on either side of this fence can’t accept what the others believe. No wonder this planet is so fucked up. Until god or an alien shows up at the Whitehouse maybe we need to shut the fuck up about this, accept that people have different beliefs, not force ours (whatever they may be) on others, and get on with things.
[quote]XCelticX wrote:
First off, I didn’t suggest that I only ‘went through the motions’. During that period I tried as hard as I could to get involved with my heart, and in the end I saw I was wasting my time.[/quote]
Yes you did admit to going through the motions. You said that you were religous. You never mentioned faith once. I don’t think you have mentioned faith in any of your posts. You’ve even gone so far as to say that you’ve heard different folks TELL you about the story of the flood. But you’ve yet to say that you’ve ever read it for yourself.
You tried as hard as you could? You tried as hard as YOU could. You have no idea what faith is if you think for even one second that it has anything in the world to do with what YOU can do. Isaiah says that our efforts as as filthy rags (insert a pile of dirty, bloody kotex’s for filthy rags - and you might get close)in the eyes of God. So your efforts to ‘get involved with your heart’ is a pile of dirty Kotex.
Maybe - I certainly can’t speak for all believers as well as you evidently are able to - but I’ve never made any claims to being perfect. I don’t have to be. That’s a religous thing. I am forgiven. That trumps a Lord’s Supper, a Hymn, and a dozen Hail Mary’s.
Once again - there’s a huge, huge difference between faith and religion - a difference that seems to fly just over your head. But I’m sure you don’t think so. You just need to stick to making fun of Noah’s Ark, kissing pookies ass, and quit trying to wax theological - it just makes you look like an even bigger idiot.
“First off, don’t take this as a guy trying to piss off and flame you because you’re Christian. I’m looking for a good discussion…”
This is false advertising. Seems to me your whole intent was to whip up your own jollies by arguing - make that re-arguing - the scientific record that does not promote the existence of a God.
What you fail to understand is that it is not science’s goal to prove or disprove the existence of a God. Your argument is really with just a handful of fundamentalists - many are non-Christian, by the way, though you failed to mention Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Shintoists, or Hindus - about using scientific knowledge to debunk some metaphors used in the language of the holy books.
You may get an argument back from a few of us, but most people have a very comfortable relationship with their faith and the advancement of science and knowledge.
You think the evidence proves something it doesn’t. Wanna be an atheist? No problem, help yourself. But the only thing science does is give explanations to phenomena. There isn’t an ounce of research that disproves the existence of a God, or, for that matter, that proves the existence of a God.
The decision to be a believer or non-believer has to be based on something else, something much more intuitive.
As is, I’ve typed too much on a thread that is predicated on a false bill of goods.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
RJ, he’s right. Thermodynamics/entropy is statistical and easy to maintain within the whole universe despite some small pockets (a few planets for a few billion years) locally going against the flow. Just to clarify.
I don’t know why though, whenever I read stuff from XCelticX he just sounds like he wants to get mad.[/quote]
It deeply saddens me to read this from you, Mert.
Seriously, I think that one can statistically show the transfer of energy from one state to another throughout the history of the universe just like you say. BUT - there has to be a beginning point in which there was nothing. No energy, no matter, nothing. In other words energy had to be created from something, which is distinctly contrary to the “Energy cannot be created” part.
[quote]veruvius wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
Bellegueule wrote:
From lectures in my undergraduate days, the most cogent criticism of Evolution is that it is not refutable or testable in the same sense as a chemical or physics theory. Behe’s argument seems to be a good criticism of Darwinian evolution, but of course, Intelligent Design is not testable or refutable either as a null hypothesis.
Enjoy!
No argument-only want to add that determinism is also not falsefiable. and I haven’t yet seen a well worked out scientific explanation for free will.
Well, using the knowledge gained from my fantastically expensive education, quantum mechanics can be used to argue for or against determinism. I can’t remember the arguments themselves, but it involves QM as being either statistical in nature (implying free will) or as having a governing set of rules like classical mechanics.[/quote]
Yea, I tried to develop that on “the problem of Evil” thread. There, I think we resolved that QM doesn’t disprove determinism, but does give a legitimate potential model for free will.
The main thing here is that QM ultimately goes down one of two roads (funny I said that). Either the multiple parallel reality model or that free will directly affects the universe (as the Bell Theorem showed that there are no hidden variable explanations.) The first begs the question of why are we in the one we’re in and is it special?
Also, determinism is non-falsefiable meaning that it can not be a premise of science. If you had no free will, your observations of the universe would be pre-determined to give you an answer to the question of free will and so it is non-falsefiable in principle, therefore the word “determinism” is as unscientific as “God”, perhaps moreso. God could prove himself. Why doesn’t he? Not for faith IMO. God is so self evident that we don’t notice the proof on a daily basis, and we come up with justifications. Each of our births was a 1 in 10,000 shot, influenced through SDIC by every breath of every creature before us.
By the way, Evolution and determinism can’t coexist at least using their own conventional terminology
I understand things grow and change, but everest would have to under go massive changes to reach its height. Changes that have never been recorded before.
I have never said it has to be this way I only pointed out that He was mis stating facts.
Just to summarize, we’ve had the following threads in the past 2 months or so:
Iconoclastic Atheist turns believer
The problem of Evil
Atheists only please
as well as the Affirmative action and Gay marriage and abortion questions which ended up in debates about moral relativism. Some people came to some new understandings on those threads, but after 6-8 posts they become a couple of two or three way discussions. Someday someones going to do an archaeological study of the internet and get a laugh.
Why do we do it? If someone PMed me about this topic I wouldn’t waste my time.
Well, this is my first post here, but I just wanted to add my take on the topic. I think anyone who tries to use science to explain or even support religion will run into some major problems. Yes, I do realize that there is scientific evidence for many Biblical stories. However, religion is not meant to explain what or even how things happen, but is instead intended to answer the question of why. Science does a great job of explaining how things happen, but does not assign meaning to any such events.
Just as I think using science to explain/support religion is a waste of time for the former and a disservice to the latter, I also think using science to refute religion is pointless. Sure, the Creation story (to many) is not scientifically accurate in terms of how the world was created. In fact, I think evolution explains how life came to be in a much more plausible manner than Genesis. Nevertheless, the Bible's purpose is not to scientifically explain what happened, but rather to explain the meaning of the human condition and how we experience life. Discarding what Genesis says because it isn't scientifically accurate is like saying Letterman sucks because he doesn't report the news very well. In both cases, we're not taking into account the purpose of the message.
Likewise, I think those that get caught up trying to scientifically prove or disprove the life of Jesus will miss the point. In fact, Jesus just plain doesn't make sense. He said he was going to save the world, but didn't have any money or political power. He didn't offer any material/tangible solutions, but instead focused his teachings on the human condition. I know it is easy to write-off Jesus as the creation of some religious zealots trying to convert people to their cult, but don't throw out his message/teachings because some (read: a lot of) people have misrepresented him.
As a final point, I want to wonder out loud whether human society really has advanced through science. Today's society might be richer (on the whole), more capable of curing diseases, and more free than previous generations, but I would have to argue that, on an individual level, we still feel hatred at times, try to control things (like how other people think/act) we can't, and still worry about our lives. If you don't, congratulations, you have more faith than I do. If you do, I'm sure science is close to explaining how that all physically happens. However, if you're looking to understand the meaning of it, I think religion is the field to look to.
[quote]pookie wrote:
haney wrote:
Well lets take a look at somethings that defy logic. I was in a CPR class last week. The instructor who I have no clue what his belief in anything is said " I have seem some things that I can’t explain. There was a boy that had passed out in a pond. He was recovered 4 hours later. The paramedics begin performing CPR on him. He somehow lived. He had no brain damage."
Obviously, he didn’t stop breathing for 4 hours, or he’d be dead. Simply because your instructor cannot explain something, doesn’t a miracle make.
Was someone at the pond watching him for 4 hours? Is there video footage? Maybe he was floating on his back for 3h59 or stuck ashore… Maybe when he flipped around at some point and the noise grabbed the attention of whoever found him. Whatever the explanation, I can assure you that no miracle is required.[/quote]
He is a Paramedic/Fireman. The call was a paramedic call. the people searching for Him for 4 hours where paramedics. He never claimed it was a miracle. He only said He could not explain it. It was a CPR class offered by my job. No one asked him about his religious affiliation, and no one asked him what he thought it was. He just said he has seen some things that defy explination.
I never said it was a miracle I just said there is no explination for it.
I never assummed I just said it defies logic. Saying there are too many unknowns though is like what you said Christians do we can’t understand something. Atheist do this, but it is we don’t know but there must be an explination.
What reason would he have to lie? He had no motives.
I would agree, but if it happened then it would defy logic which is the point of me posting it.
Lets say God is not all powerful, but He is all knowing. Does that still mean God is making you choose evil?
You are the one who said as we understand it it makes no sense. I said you are right we can’t understand it, and then you say that is the way you Theist are, you take the we can’t understand it route, and now you have come full circle back to we can’t understand it.
Maybe you should give up talking about logic since you keep running in circles.
Prove the guy wrong. He was there not me. I personally could care less about the story. I never said it was a miracle. I just said it is something this guy who saw it believes fully. You however who was not there swear you know the whole points bedind the story.
I never said it was a miracle. You did.
I don’t care what flew believed. I only pointed it out because you were saying there are Christians who have said things that are wrong. I brought flew up so you would stop trying to lump us all together. No one person speaks for us any more than anyone atheist speaks for you.
See above reply.
If you want to tackle the other last few issues just look up the thread from early december. I am not going to repost all of it.