[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I believe that you can’t quantitative measure and categorize how god answers prayers. If God’s answer were “no” in that study it would go down in the god doesn’t’ exist category.[/quote]
That would be true if you were looking at a single data point, but that wasn’t what the study did.
If god really does answer “yes” to prayers more than would be expected by chance alone, then the study was designed to show that effect.
If god doesn’t answer “yes” to prayers more than would be expected by chance alone, why the hell would you worship him/her/it?
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
So you are admitting morals are relative without god.
I think that is probably the case.
That said, it is possible that “love” is a force that reflects one of the fundamental laws of the universe, without needing to believe that law is any more connected to a supernatural being than the laws of gravity and electricity.
Again, you don’t need to believe in fairy tales to believe the universe exists and operates according to a common set of laws.
You can choose that of course, I’m glad you do, but without god in the equation, you can’t fault someone else for abiding by their own morals.
Having internally derived morality doesn’t make it any less meaningful. I believe people should do whatever they want, as long as they don’t hurt others in the process. That value of not hurting others is fortunately shared by most of the rest of society, so we can consensually agree on laws that support it.
If morals are indeed majority based, then quit bitching about not having gay marriage. The majority thinks it’s immoral, so that would mean that it is immoral by your definition. Like I said before you also can’t call the Nazis immoral by your logic.
My personal morality doesn’t have to reflect the morality of the majority. On most points it does, and fortunately society is moving along nicely in supporting equal rights for gays.[/quote]
Moving along, as in becoming better? how can relative morals become better without a universal standard of comparison?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Because without a god, good/bad/happy/sad/love are non-nonsensical terms.[/quote]
You’re still not getting it. Just because a value is internally derived doesn’t make it nonsensical. It is absolutely sensical, but the source is internal rather than external.
An atheist can love just as deeply as a theist. A buddhist can love just as deeply as a christian. The source of the value is irrelevant, what matter is whether the person truly values it.
Best in the sense that it produces the greatest net happiness for mankind. I value humanity, and I value happiness. I value love because I believe it increases happiness.
None of that requires believing in a bearded white man floating in the sky, or in the elephant-headed deity Ganesha.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Moving along, as in becoming better? how can relative morals become better without a universal standard of comparison?[/quote]
Moving along, as in aligning with my personal set of moral values.
Obviously, from the perspective of most Christian fundamentalists, society isn’t moving along at all and in fact is bound for destruction.
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I believe that you can’t quantitative measure and categorize how god answers prayers. If God’s answer were “no” in that study it would go down in the god doesn’t’ exist category.
That would be true if you were looking at a single data point, but that wasn’t what the study did.
If god really does answer “yes” to prayers more than would be expected by chance alone, then the study was designed to show that effect.
If god doesn’t answer “yes” to prayers more than would be expected by chance alone, why the hell would you worship him/her/it?[/quote]
You have to stop flip-flopping between attacking god and the Christian God, when it suits your argument.
Would a child be better off if the parents gave it everything it asked for?
[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Because without a god, good/bad/happy/sad/love are non-nonsensical terms.
You’re still not getting it. Just because a value is internally derived doesn’t make it nonsensical. It is absolutely sensical, but the source is internal rather than external.
An atheist can love just as deeply as a theist. A buddhist can love just as deeply as a christian. The source of the value is irrelevant, what matter is whether the person truly values it.
You say best interest of mankind. How do you figure that?
Best in the sense that it produces the greatest net happiness for mankind. I value humanity, and I value happiness. I value love because I believe it increases happiness.
None of that requires believing in a bearded white man floating in the sky, or in the elephant-headed deity Ganesha.
[/quote]
My point is that happiness, love, value, are are entirely relative without god. You cannot decide a “best” course without assigning a relative judgment. You cannot say any society or person is any better than any other. If you are going to argue for some mystical reason that continuation of the species is somehow universal moral (it isn’t) then shouldn’t we be trying to end gay relationships?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So I don’t see a big difference between theoretical science saying that God doesn’t exist or ID science saying God does exist. Both of these ideas are based on theories and data that cannot be verified in a controlled and repeatable manner. As such, they are both just as valid given the available data.
It’s not a black and white methodology, where you either know the truth with 100% certainty or are completely ignorant. All scientific hypotheses (including the god hypothesis) can be formulated, tested, and conclusions drawn based on the probability of them being correct.
The most honest and accurate approach is to go with the most probable hypothesis given what we currently know, and to keep an open mind to new evidence as it becomes available.[/quote]
True and the problem with that is that basing probability on previous theories based on probability, from previous theories also based on probability, based on a few testable physical principles is a house of cards at best. The margin or error and uncontrolled variables involved in this process really makes this approach not as accurate or unbiased as you might think.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
So I don’t see a big difference between theoretical science saying that God doesn’t exist or ID science saying God does exist. Both of these ideas are based on theories and data that cannot be verified in a controlled and repeatable manner. As such, they are both just as valid given the available data.[/quote]
Backup for a second there. Proper science shouldn’t be discounting the notion of a higher power without evidence to back it up. You’ll find a lot of scientists may reject the “traditional” view of an old white guy with a beard, but still believe there is a much larger driving force behind the universe.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
And you think the natural path of natural selection or evolution doesn’t make any mistakes. [/quote]
Sigh. Of course there are mistakes. To say nature doesn’t make mistakes is retarded. Of course there are mistakes, WE make mistakes in the course of trying to improve something. Then after learning form said mistakes, we fix and improve.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Very nice, the replies seemed to hint I insulted their God or something on that level.[/quote]
Piggybacking on DD’s posts is not something you should be doing.
That said, nobody even implied you insulted our “God”. The responses I imagine are derived from amusement at the fact that people choose to take a literal view of Genesis.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Very nice, the replies seemed to hint I insulted their God or something on that level.
Piggybacking on DD’s posts is not something you should be doing.
That said, nobody even implied you insulted our “God”. The responses I imagine are derived from amusement at the fact that people choose to take a literal view of Genesis.[/quote]
Ouch that hurts man. I’m just stating that If you believe in concepts like love, basic rights, good and bad/right and wrong, in a way you have to believe in something higher.
I’m not saying forelife doesn’t experience love, I’m saying he’s not as atheist as he thinks.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Makavali wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Very nice, the replies seemed to hint I insulted their God or something on that level.
Piggybacking on DD’s posts is not something you should be doing.
That said, nobody even implied you insulted our “God”. The responses I imagine are derived from amusement at the fact that people choose to take a literal view of Genesis.
Ouch that hurts man. I’m just stating that If you believe in concepts like love, basic rights, good and bad/right and wrong, in a way you have to believe in something higher.
I’m not saying forelife doesn’t experience love, I’m saying he’s not as atheist as he thinks.[/quote]
Huh? Ouch? That wasn’t a dig at you man.
For the record, I DO believe in something higher, just not a bearded old guy.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Makavali wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
Very nice, the replies seemed to hint I insulted their God or something on that level.
Piggybacking on DD’s posts is not something you should be doing.
That said, nobody even implied you insulted our “God”. The responses I imagine are derived from amusement at the fact that people choose to take a literal view of Genesis.
Ouch that hurts man. I’m just stating that If you believe in concepts like love, basic rights, good and bad/right and wrong, in a way you have to believe in something higher.
I’m not saying forelife doesn’t experience love, I’m saying he’s not as atheist as he thinks.
Huh? Ouch? That wasn’t a dig at you man.
For the record, I DO believe in something higher, just not a bearded old guy.[/quote]
I don’t think my views are that different than your’s.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
Yet again, I’m not religious. I’m not defending ID. But I think evolution is equally, if not more likely to be bullshit.
Evolution is a THEORY. If teachers these days are so retarded they can’t point this out, then that’s a different problem entirely. I seem to recall being told that evolution was a THEORY pretty early on.
Carbon dating has prove the earth has been around long before he supposed 3000 years the earth has been around.
To a lot of people, evolution is the most plausible explanation.
And RE: mutations, you should read up on adaption and exaptation.[/quote]
Ok, I am going to show my ignorance.
How are we able to measure the accuracy of carbon dating beyond a few thousand years?
If carbon dating sugests that something is 1 million years old, wat other evidence can you show to substanciate that claim?
If carbon dating sugests something is 1000 years old and then historical evidence sugestes that it is 1000 years old, and this is repeated numerous times, you can conclude that it is accurate for that timeframe. It seems like a stretch to me to say that because carbon dating is accurate over a thousand years it must be accurate over a million, or a hundred million.
I’m not having a dig at anyone and I would actually like a serious answer.
[quote]pat wrote:
Science is limited in scope. It can only discover that which already exists.It creates or destroys nothing. It can materialize nothing.
Many have taken it, that because science has debunked somethings that used to be attributed to God, that God therefore does not exist. That is a flying leap deduction, they can only prove that ‘X’ was not derived directly from God, but in no way does that dispell the notion of the existence of God. [/quote] I dont think they can prove that x isnt derived directly from god, just that X is something caused by something else, regardless of whether god exists or not or had any hand in creating it or not. This should help clear things up.
[quote]
I find therefore that many scientists are weak minded people. They will take an extremely small amount of information and make giant absolute conclusions out of them, often the next generation finds the errors in their way of thinking.
Science is useful, but it is not the end all be all of information gathering, it is only a tool.[/quote]
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So I don’t see a big difference between theoretical science saying that God doesn’t exist or ID science saying God does exist. Both of these ideas are based on theories and data that cannot be verified in a controlled and repeatable manner. As such, they are both just as valid given the available data.
Backup for a second there. Proper science shouldn’t be discounting the notion of a higher power without evidence to back it up. You’ll find a lot of scientists may reject the “traditional” view of an old white guy with a beard, but still believe there is a much larger driving force behind the universe.[/quote]
I haven’t heard of many scientists openly expressing that position, but if they did then I would agree with them. Typically they openly state a very closed minded almost religious conviction that there is no higher power or force.
[quote]Doyle wrote:
Ok, I am going to show my ignorance.
How are we able to measure the accuracy of carbon dating beyond a few thousand years?[/quote]
Carbon dating is not used beyond about 50,000 years. There are other methods for older timespans.
If you want to know how it works and why people believe it to be fairly accurate, put “carbon dating” in Google and read. There are numerous sites with explanations ranging from the simplified layman versions to the highly technical ones with equations you can verify yourself.
