Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -

religious debate


  • Please log in to reply
704 replies to this topic

#681 akaslickster

akaslickster

    SLICK

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4852 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In the valley/AZ

Posted 04 July 2008 - 09:29 AM

Proof of diddly pie isn't really what we're after (though it's easily derived from the Cottleston Pie Theorem). It's the in-betweeners that matter. Appreciating the erosion of rationality caused by faith and the abdication of moral responsibility (for war and the environment in particular) that belief in God engenders is really important. Humankind needs to move on and shake off superstition, its taking our species in a very bad direction. If all that is accomplished is encouraging athiests to speak out without apology, then that's worthwhile. If a few people can get a better perspective on why so many people fervently believe stuff that makes no sense, even better.
Personally I've had a lot of fun with this, and it's been an education in human nature.

Yes, that sounds more like it. I won't pull out any written shinola unless I can back it up with living proof. I guess I lost my belief yet, I don't feel any the more naked. An old adage I stay with, " To each their own and peace throughout the entire world" , as bickering over right and wrong was never helpful for a solution to the absolute truth of why humans even exist. Who gives a crud what is correct if it does'nt hinder our well being. We only live here for a short time and then it is up to the next generation to do the exact same thing. In conclusion of this paragraph, I will add that it is not who you are, it is what you do on this earth while you are alive. Be it religion or not. Peace out!
  • 0
Posted ImageThe place where peace begins is within oneself. by Slick

#682 thegirlyouneverknew

thegirlyouneverknew

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 112 posts

Posted 08 July 2008 - 04:50 AM

Yes, that sounds more like it. I won't pull out any written shinola unless I can back it up with living proof. I guess I lost my belief yet, I don't feel any the more naked. An old adage I stay with, " To each their own and peace throughout the entire world" , as bickering over right and wrong was never helpful for a solution to the absolute truth of why humans even exist. Who gives a crud what is correct if it does'nt hinder our well being. We only live here for a short time and then it is up to the next generation to do the exact same thing. In conclusion of this paragraph, I will add that it is not who you are, it is what you do on this earth while you are alive. Be it religion or not. Peace out!


im just as bored with this... although some of their reactions are quite insulting, some are just as amusing as those are insulting lol, i'm staying in unless anyone's against it! :D
  • 0

#683 ADParker

ADParker

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 352 posts

Posted 08 July 2008 - 05:20 AM

Weeoow :wacko:
What is this "God" you speak of? I have seen no evidence of any such thing existing.
On the highest what? The Highest Magic Mushroom trip perhaps?
He Pours! :lol:
He's Imaginary, He reigns over magical pixie land.
Daddy Issues?
Sounds a tad incest like - "Incest the game the whole family can play" (okay, that was pretty bad.)
I fail to see the worthiness of something that you lot can't even provide a shred of evidence or reasoning to make it worthy of deeming its existence even remotely plausible.
Any evidence for this wild claim?
No? Okay then, buh bye.
We have much better explanations of all those things now :D - religion (yours included) was just our species first and worst attempt, it failed. Why not check out it's successors; Philosophy and Science. Careful though they might be a bit different to what you are used to - they actually make sense, and value reason and critical assessment.
Oh, I do! :D
No, I don't think your imaginary friend is the reason, sorry :(

Well that was a nice bit of preaching nonsense right thegirlyouneverknew. Thanks for that timely example of just how irrational and senseless real religious indoctrination can make one. :rolleyes:
Do you actually have anything remotely rational to say, or was it just the religious rant then?

(By the way, why do Faith-Heads always have these grammar issues - in this case excessive CAPITALISATION?)


Oh what the heck :lol:

Glory to The Flying Spaghetti Monster on the HIGHEST!
HE REIGNS!
Worthy is the Great pasta above!
He created the heavens and Earth, the sun and the rain!
Who here believes in coincidence?
EVERYTHING happens for a reason. the reason is THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!

Ramen.
;)


lol. just felt like blurting out something for a reaction... WOO HOO it worked... and um first response... on the highest and in the highest... different things but i did mean to say on instead of in so that's for that... hmmm, on page 51 is it? i think... just a side note, i am not proud of the Catholic religion. It actually pisses me off because it makes people stupid and it makes them hate the Lord, and what is UP with the chanting? wtf? did you ever hear of chanting for the Lord in the bible? no. there is music for the Lord, and you dance for the Lord, and you do watever you do for the Lord... i don't know ANYONE who actually enjoys chanting. it's stupid.

besides that, i am NOT disregarding Catholics, just stating my opinion. you should never just be in a religion to please yr parents or watever. it should be based on belief.

grr. okay, as for this response. you remind me of my friend josh. the magical pixie land you say? you sound a bit insane there lol. does there HAVE to be evidence to EVERY BLESSED THING?!?!? nope. sometimes there is no evidence and there are things you can't explain. mystery is a gift in life, and your laughing at that "a gift from WHO?!?!" ... "this GOD of yours?"

lol. yes. lol. and you know what, I just felt like randomly capitalizing things. :rolleyes: i'm random, so sew me. and also i'm surprised at the Faith-Heads remark... you non-faith-brain. lol. don't take offense! i don't get "He Pours"
hmmm. wat else... oh... wat is this Magic Mushroom? dude, I'm not talking about magic here, I'm talking about creation... tell me again, wat made the Earth... a dust speck or explosion... well... where did THAT come from, huh?

answer that question for me. also... you have no proof for how monkeys... turned into humans... or, excuse me... was that from magic? oh, wait, you don't have FAITH for magic. excuse me, non-faith-brain. :P

p.m. me to talk in private if you wish. or start it up again and have all these "Faith-Heads" join in. hopefully this gets somewhere. lol. your funny btw. lol.


Edited by ADParker, 08 July 2008 - 05:28 AM.

  • 0

#684 ADParker

ADParker

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 352 posts

Posted 08 July 2008 - 05:26 AM

lol. just felt like blurting out something for a reaction... WOO HOO it worked... and um first response... on the highest and in the highest... different things but i did mean to say on instead of in so that's for that... hmmm, on page 51 is it?

lol (smilie edited, cause there was 1 too many) That's okay, works either way.

i think... just a side note, i am not proud of the Catholic religion. It actually pisses me off because it makes people stupid and it makes them hate the Lord, and what is UP with the chanting? wtf? did you ever hear of chanting for the Lord in the bible? no. there is music for the Lord, and you dance for the Lord, and you do watever you do for the Lord... i don't know ANYONE who actually enjoys chanting. it's stupid.

besides that, i am NOT disregarding Catholics, just stating my opinion. you should never just be in a religion to please yr parents or watever. it should be based on belief.

Okay, whatever. You shouldn't be in a religion or not based on if they chant or not either - shouldn't it be based on what they claim is true, and how they back those claims up? Surely.

grr. okay, as for this response. you remind me of my friend josh. the magical pixie land you say? you sound a bit insane there lol.

It's an allusion to God being imaginary and thus anything he can be said to reign over is likewise imaginary (like a magical pixie land.) The only insanity would be in believing it is real.

does there HAVE to be evidence to EVERY BLESSED THING?!?!? nope. sometimes there is no evidence and there are things you can't explain. mystery is a gift in life, and your laughing at that "a gift from WHO?!?!" ... "this GOD of yours?"

Yes there should rightly be evidence for anything that one believes in. It doesn't have to be complete (thus Known), but enough to make it at least reasonable to think, believe or accept that it is real.
Yes there are things we can't explain; a grown up would simply accept that - that is not to say accept it as unknowable and forget about it; heavens no; by all means try to find an explanation - but until such evidence is found, accept that you simply do not know the answer. No need to believe any old offered answer just to be comforted in your illusion of knowledge.

I hate this ridiculous religion born concept: Mystery is a Gift?! No it is most definitely not. "Mystery" is just a way of saying "something we are ignorant of". That is not a gift, that is simply something we don't know or understand.
You think ignorance is a gift?! Says a lot about your religion. I hope you don't go to that atrocious extreme of believing that it is somehow admirable and virtuous to try to maintain something as a Mystery! - that is; to attempt to keep it from getting explained.

The only good thing about "Mystery", the only thing I like about it, is the opportunity it presents to uncovering the mystery, to undoing it and making it a mystery no more. But to say therefore mystery is a good thing is like saying A murder is a good thing if you are a police detective, because you get to try to solve it. Or being illiterate is a "gift" because you get to learn to read :blink:

No, I laugh at those who say things like you just did, but it's a sad laugh indeed.
Are you suggesting I thank your God for all this wealth of ignorance he has given me?! :rolleyes:

lol. yes. lol. and you know what, I just felt like randomly capitalizing things. :rolleyes: i'm random, so sew me. and also i'm surprised at the Faith-Heads remark... you non-faith-brain. lol. don't take offense! i don't get "He Pours"

I don't take offense unless one personally attacks me; when offense is clearly intended.
The Faith-Head remark is a way of stipulating that I mean the real in deep religious types, who take it to the extreme - there are religious believers and then there are Faith-Heads. The more people seem to lean toward that extreme, the more notable these kinds of oddities tend to come to the fore. The main three are (found individually or combined):

1. a complete lack of capitalisation, i (and many others) find it most annoying when they can't even capitalise the word "i".

2. EXTREME capitalisation of CERTAIN words, like GOD, but often innumerable others as well, some SEEMINGLY for no reason AT ALL.

3. The odd way of cutting sentences
into little pieces, much
like the religious rant you just gave, to which this
is all about. In other words much like many of
their scriptures and hymns etc. are written.

The "He Pours" crack is in response to your "HE REIGNS!"

"He Reigns, he pours." Like "It rains, it pours." Get it?

hmmm. wat else... oh... wat is this Magic Mushroom? dude, I'm not talking about magic here, I'm talking about creation... tell me again, wat made the Earth... a dust speck or explosion... well... where did THAT come from, huh?

:lol: This is funny because that particular reference to "magic" wasn't about real magic at all:
"Magic Mushroom" is the popular name for a type of mushroom that when ingested produces a hallucinatory effect; they are a natural recreational drug. Like marijuana. So I was referring to God being "High" as you said, as being High in the drug taking sense of the word.

Creation in this sense of a supernatural intelligence from beyond space and time, is evoking magic. (although I lump "magic" in with "mystery"; another cover word for "the unknown, that which we are ignorant of".)

What made the earth? Natural forces, the fundamental ones: Gravity, electromagnetism, the strong Nuclear force, the weak nuclear force. All acting on matter that resulted from the big bang, star formation, star destruction and new star formations...There is a whole bunch of science behind that one, just look on YouTube for some nice little vids on it (easier than reading through the science.)
If you want to read how the earth (and much more, like most of the rest of the universe) formed then I suggest you read Origins by Neil deGrasse Tyson. But for a start you can watch the documantary he made based on it:
Here's the first one of the series on YouTube. :D

"a dust speck or explosion." Are you perhaps alluding to the origin of the Universe and not the Earth at all?! Why do so many theists have such trouble with that distinction? I mean the Earth is a single planet with a radius of about 6,371 km (0.0000000007 ly) , while the universe is an immense thing containing billions of stars and planets (and more) whose observable radius is about 47.5 billion light years (450,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 km) :excl:

And the big bang theory eh? And how did the universe first come to be? Well the answer is.... I don't know. There are numerous theories and astrophysicists, cosmologists, quantum physicists etc. are working on it. But unlike many people I don't feel the need to fill that gap in my understanding with some primitive myth, to comfort me. I can quite happily accept that I am ignorant in that area at present (and may well always be so). There is no reason, none whatsoever, to even consider it at all plausible that it was created by a supernatural intelligence from beyond space and time. Largely because there is no evidence or reason to assume that there is any such thing.
And as you brought it up. Might I enquire what needs the greater explanation for it's existence:
1. This "Speck", or
2. This "Supernatural intelligence from beyond space and time"?

Once again; Ignorance, not having the answer, in no way improves the plausibility of the God-Hypothesis!

answer that question for me. also... you have no proof for how monkeys... turned into humans... or, excuse me... was that from magic? oh, wait, you don't have FAITH for magic. excuse me, non-faith-brain. :P

Wow you've got it bad!
We didn't evolve from monkeys. We and modern monkeys (which actually form two families; old and new world monkeys) share a common ancestor.
But first; once again personal igorance on how something happened does not infer; therfore GODDIDIT. All it infers is what it is "I don't know", ignorance.

But as it is an interesting subject: There is a hel of a lot of evidence for our common ancestry with our fellow primates as it happens. the two branches of monkey are somewhat more distant, but our closer cousins esp. the two surviving species of Chimpanzee, show remarkable connections! Again check out some YouTube videos for a crash course.
This for a start:
Irrefutable Proof of Evolution- Part 1 (mtDNA, ERVs, Fusion)
Proof of Evolution - Part 2 (Summation)
Proof of Evolution - Part 3 (Atavisms and Fossils)

Ken Miller on Human Evolution
Ken Miller on Intelligent Design (The whole thing from what the above is an excerpt)

And there are plenty more.

If you are willing to actually read something on it:
Chimps are human, gene study implies
Comparison of the Human and Great Ape Chromosomes as Evidence for Common Ancestry

Monkeys turning into humans is nothing more than a ridiculously childish strawman caricature of the real science, offered by Religious Creationists apologetics alone! You have been duped by "Liars for Jesus." (unless you are one of them of course, but I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here.)

p.m. me to talk in private if you wish. or start it up again and have all these "Faith-Heads" join in. hopefully this gets somewhere. lol. your funny btw. lol. :D :lol:

I am more than happy to take this onto the public forum, and would have posted the above there, if not for your response being in this private manner. I am more than willing to repost this on the forum proper, if you are not opposed to it. As your PM post (as quoted by me here) would therefore be displayed there as well.


lol. oooo. good one! lately i have no time to write that long of a message, being an author and scientist, and other things, i have no time for much. i feel that it's important to take time for people who would leave such a long message for what they believe in. i'll leave you just as long of a message as soon as i have the time.
you can post my response on the forum... i'd be oblidged since lately my computer doesn't seem to want that to work for me... lol
besides all of that, id like to know... what is the common ancestor and no need for the benefit of the doubt... i don't need that because i'm sure that I'm not lying for Jesus. I'm am just trying to keep a fair fight and not give the other advantage (or myself an unfair advantage) please educate me, and I will, in return, answer any questions. :) lol thank you.


  • 0

#685 ADParker

ADParker

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 352 posts

Posted 08 July 2008 - 06:32 AM

you can post my response on the forum... i'd be oblidged since lately my computer doesn't seem to want that to work for me... lol

Done :D
And now that we are back in "forum land":

besides all of that, id like to know... what is the common ancestor and no need for the benefit of the doubt... i don't need that because i'm sure that I'm not lying for Jesus. I'm am just trying to keep a fair fight and not give the other advantage (or myself an unfair advantage) please educate me, and I will, in return, answer any questions. :) lol thank you.

The "common ancestor" of what? :lol:
Common Ancestor is not a single thing you know, it's a general concept.

The common ancestor of my brother and I for example is our mother and father ;)

The common ancestor of all the mitochondria living in every human being alive today is known as "Mitochondrial Eve" (because Mitochondria are only passed through the female line, via the Ova) who she is or exactly when she lived is a big question mark. And who she is changes as the current body of living humans shifts.

The common ancestor of we Humans (Homo sapiens) and our closest living 'cousins', the Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes)and Bonobo (Pan paniscus).
What exactly it was is in question, as one would expect, the fossil record only gives us so much, and when you get down to the details of within a few million years it gets sketchy. Our Most recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) is thought to have lived about 6,000,000 years ago (best estimate: 5.4 to 6.3 million years ago). It was most definitely a Primate, as we and Chimpanzees are both primates, other similarities suggest the features of that MRCA.

In fact here are our Scientific classifications:
Domain:				 Eukaryota
Kingdom:				Animalia
Phylum:				 Chordata
Class:				  Mammalia
Order:				  Primates
Suborder:			   Haplorrhini
Infraorder:			 Simiiformes
Parvorder:			  Catarrhini
Superfamily:			Hominoidea
Family:				 Hominidae
Subfamily:			  Homininae
Tribe:				  Hominini
Subtribe:	Hominina			   Panina
Genus:	   Homo				   Pan
Species:	 H. sapiens			 P. troglodytes
Here are some family trees to help:
Posted Image
Posted Image
These guys lived around the time of that split, so if not the actual MRCA of humans and chimpanzees, they are pretty close to it:
Orrorin tugenensis ( 6.1 and 5.8 million years ago)
Sahelanthropus tchadensis (~7 million years ago)
  • 0

#686 tawanna

tawanna

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts

Posted 09 August 2008 - 11:38 PM

Hello,anybody there? Is this thing on? Have I finally been released from the Troll cage?
  • 0

#687 ADParker

ADParker

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 352 posts

Posted 10 August 2008 - 01:31 AM

Hello,anybody there? Is this thing on? Have I finally been released from the Troll cage?

Hej, been a while (over a month) - well I'm still here, don't know about anyone else.
  • 0

#688 tawanna

tawanna

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts

Posted 10 August 2008 - 10:43 AM

I was looking at the info you provided and I have to admit that you've got some learnin in you. That being said your proof still shows that evolution has not by any means been proven to the point that every living creature came from the same common ancestor. At some point shouldn't all life on this planet be traced back to sponge bob or some other aquatic life form? Wheres that evidence.

Monkeys turning into humans is nothing more than a ridiculously childish strawman caricature of the real science, offered by Religious Creationists apologetics alone! You have been duped by "Liars for Jesus." (unless you are one of them of course, but I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here.)

I don't know why you attribute this to liars for jesus. This is common to theists and atheists alike. I'm willing to bet that a majority of people posting on this debate can only give a cursory third grade definition of what the theory of evolution is all about. Even then most would have to look it up.
BTW since I was deemed a Troll by the referee I want to make it clear that I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN. I have many christian beliefs but I am not a christian. I am probably closer to being an atheist than I am to a theist but I suppose I still believe in God. In some ways I have to. I've had a few personal experiences that almost require I believe but unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on how you look at it ,I still doubt those beliefs. I won't get specific but let me put it this way, if one day God walked up and kicked you square in the nuts and left a boot heel tattoo on your scrotum that said "Believe or die". What would you do? Ignore it or embrace it.(The warning not the nut sack.)
What is the minimum amount of evidence needed to qualify as proof that God exists. Does a person have to drag Gods bloody carcass in and lay it at your feet or will just the head suffice? How about his right hand or maybe just a finger off his right hand? How about the finger nail off the pinky of his right hand? The fear of God was put in to me long ago and wether it was drug induced,a mental disorder or too much pizza its hard not to believe.
Proof that there isn't a God is what I'm looking for. So far the insults, ridicule, and sheer smugness of some of the people that post on this thread hasn't done much to bolster the atheist view point of this quasi-theist. If being like them is what it is to be atheist then no thanks. Theres a few of you atheist that have some good things to ponder and if nothing else keep things interesting and entertaining( adparker and unreality to name a couple.) Which of course shows a little higher class of intelligence.
Oops times up. Gotta go
  • 0

#689 ADParker

ADParker

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 352 posts

Posted 10 August 2008 - 01:09 PM

I was looking at the info you provided and I have to admit that you've got some learnin in you. That being said your proof still shows that evolution has not by any means been proven to the point that every living creature came from the same common ancestor.

As I said, its been a while, can’t even remember what I wrote (yeah I could just read it again :lol: )
It wasn't "proof" - I you are looking for Proof try Mathematics, or Alcohol. What it was was a small representation of the overwhelming evidence. And only for one certain aspect of evolution, the common ancestry of humans and Chimpanzees - a minuscule slice of the whole "pie."

The simple fact of the matter is that Evolution is a fact - that is; it happens, all the process are known to occur. The Theory of Evolution (ToE)deals with what those facts lead too. This is your "living creature came from the same common ancestor" and much else besides. The weight of the evidence for the various theories therein (ToE is an umbrella term for innumerable theories of course) varies from highly speculative to pretty much beyond all reasonable doubt. The common ancestry of all life on this planet is a strong theory indeed, supported by evidence in genetics, embryology, morphology, comparative anatomy, fossils, homology, distribution (chronological and geological)...
Not only does each of these provide impressive evidence themselves, more important is that they, while coming from often completely different directions, match up so perfectly.
A personal favourite point is that:
When one examines a gene of an existing organism we can plot an evolutionary tree for that single gene.
Then when we can do the same for another (same organism or completely different kind of critter, it doesn't matter) we get the exact same tree.
And we do this over and over with more and more genes - same result!
If we then look at something else, like the fossil record which shows when and where certain organisms lived? They fit that same tree perfectly. And on it goes! It is simply staggering! :blink:

The upshot is simply this Evolution of all life from a common origin - a "universal common ancestor" if you will - is quite simply not only the best theory for how life came to be as it is, came to be in all its forms over all if its history, but the only remotely viable theory we have. It is the only direction that all the evidence we have ever found points!

Now, you can believe the any of the little religious fairy tales pat answers if you so choose, I can't stop you. But if you value reason and evidence at all you must concede that Evolution is the only viable answer we have. Leaving you the choice to Accept it (not "believe" I', not asking you to bow down to a doctrine here - and thus take it on Faith that it is the one and only truth or whatever, just accept a powerful scientific theory) or choose to take the position that it is "not good enough", or more honestly that you are not convinced - Which leaves you with "I don't know" as the only real answer to the origin of life question. Because if you are going to rely on evidence and reason that is your only real option.
Either was is fine to be honest. But I feel strongly that if one were to take that "Rational" path, they would conclude that Evolution is a highly probable, incredibly well supported by the evidence, theory indeed.

(Man I am hanging out for Richard Dawkins new book, coming out next year! The topic is just this; the Evidence for Evolution - And he is a top evolutionary biologist, and a bloody good science appreciation writer as too boot.)

At some point shouldn't all life on this planet be traced back to sponge bob or some other aquatic life form? Wheres that evidence.

All over the place, there are screeds and screeds of it. Much of it tied up in scientific papers and the like, designed to the eyes of scientists, so would probably make you brain hurt to read them (That's not an insult; the few I have read make mine hurt ;) ) and you would get little out of them. But out of general interest: over 18,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers on evolution were published last year alone!
There are good websites out there on this stuff, just surf the web. Most give the results of the evidence more than the evidence itself however, as it is far easier to digest and present to the general public. (That's why I'm hanging out for that book)

I would suggest, if you are really interested in learning abut the actual evidence (as opposed to just declaring it not good enough because it contradicts your particular beliefs or whatever.)
A good start (it was mine, but then I had already taken my God-Goggles off by then) was the books by Richard Dawkins; The Selfish Gene being his first. Ones I would suggest are:
The Blind Watchmaker
Climbing Mount Improbable
The Ancestor's Tale (That's a long one though)

As for online resources, generally not quite as good to be honest, but how about:
Evolution Resources (Updated 7th June 2008 ): This is A forum linking to a lot of such resources unearthed by members of The Richard Dawkins forum - a lot of good stuff there.
Talk Origins: Evidence for Evolution
Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
The Evolution Evidence Page

Another step won; Videos - easy to just sit back and take in, but generally even lighter on detail and quantity of information:
Growing Up in the Universe: A lecture series Richard Dawkins gave way back in 1991.
cdk007: Evidence for Evolution (Part one linked to only) He's got a bunch of other good videos as well, go have a look.
smaakjeks: Evidence for Evolution (another series - part I)
potholer54 : 7 -- The Theory of Evolution Made Easy - he too has a bunch of good videos, this one is part 7 of a series of various bits of science (origin of universe etc.)

And I am sure you could find a hel of a lot more it you just looked.

I don't know why you attribute this to liars for jesus. This is common to theists and atheists alike. I'm willing to bet that a majority of people posting on this debate can only give a cursory third grade definition of what the theory of evolution is all about. Even then most would have to look it up.

I was speaking of a certain well organised group of religious apologetics, who go out of there way to spin the truth, and spin outright lies, to further their "holy" agenda.
It was in response to this:
"answer that question for me. also... you have no proof for how monkeys... turned into humans... or, excuse me... was that from magic? oh, wait, you don't have FAITH for magic. excuse me, non-faith-brain."
as you might recall :rolleyes:
There’s Ignorance (which is fine and quite understandable) then there is wilful ignorance, pride in ones ignorance, and the Argument from Ignorance (Its a form of Logical Fallacy.)

I have had people ask me questions like that many times, sometimes they come off (or I give them the benefit of the doubt) as simply ignorant of the subject matter, and/or have been mislead by certain people (creationist preachers or whatnot) into thinking in this way. So I quite patiently and calmly explain it to them. But if they come off as hostile, if it is clear that their question is not so much a genuine enquiry but rather a challenge, a slap across the face, then I react as I did then. Which if you look at it was still giving the benefit of the doubt that she was simply a victim of others who led her to believe these lies.

Oh and as too "Even then most would have to look it up" you know what? Good for them (I look up stuff all the time, even when I think I could get by without doing so), but she came off as one who was convinced, and thus felt no need to look it up, she was right and I was wrong, that's all there is to it.

BTW since I was deemed a Troll by the referee I want to make it clear that I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN. I have many christian beliefs but I am not a christian. I am probably closer to being an atheist than I am to a theist but I suppose I still believe in God.

<Shrug> I just argue the reasoning - I would call myself a Reasonist more than anything.
You would be a Theist - as you believe in a god, which is what theism means; "belief in gods." But that that's just a technicality, call yourself as you will.

In some ways I have to. I've had a few personal experiences that almost require I believe but unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on how you look at it ,I still doubt those beliefs.

Fortunately - Doubt is always good, always!

The problem with personal experiences is that they are largely non-transferable. That you had them offers us no reason to believe as you do, because we haven't. At best you could describe them, but depending of the details, and how well you could convey them, it might be hard for anyone else to fully assess their truth value.
I have heard of a few such personal experiences that were rather easy to demonstrate that they simply did not rationally lead to the belief the experiencer got from them, but they were rather trivial examples.

I won't get specific but let me put it this way, if one day God walked up and kicked you square in the nuts and left a boot heel tattoo on your scrotum that said "Believe or die". What would you do? Ignore it or embrace it.(The warning not the nut sack.)

Well you are assuming that I would somehow know that this assaulting arsehole was indeed God, but I do have a couple of responses to that:
1. If it was such that I knew that it was god, then of course I would believe that God existed (in as much as I could ascertain about him) that is simply the rational response - give me evidence and I wil accept it for what it is.
2. I would believe that God is a complete and utter wanker.
3. As too "Believe or Die" well I would be highly offended at such a atrocious Appeal to Consequences (Logical Fallacy) One should never believe something simply because bad consequences will arise (or at least be threatened to arise) if you don't (or the reverse believe something because good consequences will come if you do) - one should only believe (or better yet; accept) something because there is Reason to believe that thing. An analogy to push home the problem with this fallacy is: I "believe" that the Nazi's killed ~12,000,000 people during their reign of terror - Now I would very much prefer it if they hadn't, and if I didn't have to believe it was true; but the evidence supports it no matter the consequences of it being true.
It is of course much like being told to believe in Santa Claws, because if you don’t you won't get any presents. It's the old Carrot / Stick ploy. Argument through wishful thinking or fear - reward and punishment. Something used in brainwashing techniques as it happens.
If not for by valuing of reason (which would force me to believe in him, cause he's right there) I would be sorely tempted to refuse to "Believe" just to spite such an arsehole that world make such a threat.

As it happens I am under just such a thing at the moment - My employer (big faceless company) has made it that we must do this silly, worthless task (to us, them, anyone) a number of times over the year in order to receive our annual "bonus" (it's not really a bonus at all, its a contracted part of our pay). This is quite simply a bribe: do this task and receive this prize (carrot) or conversely a threat: Don't do it and no bonus for you (Stick). Ethically and Rationally I can simply not bring myself to do it. And as I said last year; if we cave in they will just come up with something worse this year - I didn't cave but every one else did and covered my short fall (we got the bonus). And I was right it's even more inane this year (And it looks like everyone will cave once again - but this time it is done on an individual basis.)

But anyway – back on track: I would believe if given reason to do so, but in this situation It is pretty clear that I would go from one who has no belief in any gods, to someone who realises (is it really "belief" when you know it's true?) that this god does exist, and is a complete Logical fallacy spinning, physically assaulting complete and utter wanker! As a result I certainly wouldn't worship the prick or any such thing. And might well lead a charge to convince everyone that God is real and someone to be avoided and fought against, a real threat, basically that God exists but that he is to be shunned and most definitely not one to follow at all.

What is the minimum amount of evidence needed to qualify as proof that God exists.

Proof? Well that's easy - 100%
But then that is what proof means.
But what would be sufficient evidence to conclude that god most probably does exist? I don't know. But I would like to see some actual evidence, any at all - it would be a start; enough to render the God-Hypothesis something worth considering at least. As much as I have tries, and as often as I have asked; I have yet to see a single shred of it.
Oh don't get me wrong' many many attempts, just none that held up to the slightest scrutiny.

Does a person have to drag Gods bloody carcass in and lay it at your feet or will just the head suffice? How about his right hand or maybe just a finger off his right hand? How about the finger nail off the pinky of his right hand?

Well actual physical evidence of his actual body parts would clinch it if it could be confirmed as his (not as easy as one might think though is that?) - not that he would have to be dead for that - in fact living tissue is better of course. :rolleyes:

The fear of God was put in to me long ago and wether it was drug induced,a mental disorder or too much pizza its hard not to believe.

Wow, that’s quite an admission on your part there. I would suggest pondering on that one a good while.
It is actually some realisation like that in me that lead me escape from my own religious indoctrination. I too only believed through logical fallacy laden causes - mine was more appeal to Authority than your Appeal to Consequences Logical Fallacy - perhaps that is why it was easier for me.
You believe because you have been made to fear God? To fear the consequences of not believing as wel I would guess (hell and all that). That is simply horrible - It is one of the things I really hate about Organised religion (my Grandmother was one of those hellfire types - scared the s*** out of me) teaching (no; indoctrinating) impressionable minds (esp. kids) to fear God, Non-belief (this is the belief in belief crap), or even doubting the "one true faith", through (unsubstantiated) threats of eternal pain and suffering - it is just vile. And as I already mentioned; a tried and true brainwashing technique.
I know it's a hard thing to break free of, but it is important to realise and remember this: Fear is not a reason to believe anything - that is a wholly irrational idea!

Grr.. Too many quotes again. Oh well rather than mangle my post I will simply cut it in two.
  • 0

#690 ADParker

ADParker

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 352 posts

Posted 10 August 2008 - 01:09 PM

Continuing on:

Proof that there isn't a God is what I'm looking for.

Well that's pointless for a number of reasons:

1. The Burden of proof is on the one with the positive claim.
2. You are asking the wrong guy - I make no claim that god does not exist, merely that there is no reason to believe this ridiculous God-hypothesis is at all true. There is simply no evidence of Reason to believe it.
3. There is a saying, a cliché: You can't prove a negative. Perhaps not strictly true, but it has real truth value. Proving God exists should be relatively easy - produce him. But proving he doesn't exist would be much more difficult - how could one do it? Show he is not to be found in every single corner of the entire universe? (We know even that, which is pretty much impossible anyway, wouldn't suffice)

So far the insults, ridicule, and sheer smugness of some of the people that post on this thread hasn't done much to bolster the atheist view point of this quasi-theist.

<shrug> Can't speak for anyone else.
There is no "Atheist view point" Atheism is simply not-theism. To call one an atheist is simply ti say that they are not a theist - not a god believer. It is not that I as an Atheist have any particular beliefs or viewpoints, but simply that I do not absribe, accept as true, one particlaur type of belief - God-belief.
To get this point across I should also mentionthat I am also an Afairyist, and Anelfist, and Agoblinist, and Aracist, and Asexist... They all describe certain beliefs or view points that I DON'T HAVE.

If being like them is what it is to be atheist then no thanks.

(This forum is a proportionately yong one remember) No, being an Atheist simply entails not having a positive belief in any Magical Sky Fairies :rolleyes:

Theres a few of you atheist that have some good things to ponder and if nothing else keep things interesting and entertaining( adparker and unreality to name a couple.) Which of course shows a little higher class of intelligence.
Oops times up. Gotta go

Hey, just because someone has not brought into any of the pre-scientific, pre-philosophical Fairy tales of our intellectual infancy (religiousone that is) doesn't mean they can't still be complete idiots (although most studies show a negative correlation between religious belief and intellect - this is a proprtions scale type deal, meaning that even so, there ar geniuses and morons in both camps)
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users