Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
unreality

Atheism discussion

241 posts in this topic

This might be totally off topic, but it still fits the category of this athiest discussion...BTW I am a Christian, and I am not posting this to bash any of your beliefs at all, so delete this if you will, but you will regret it if you do. Just plead with me here and read the story in the spoiler, it looks long but it is actually pretty short once you start to get into it. It might change the way you think about life, or how science affects living things.

again, please read this....

A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, "Let me explain the problem science has with religion." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"

"Yes sir," the student says.

"So you believe in God?"

"Absolutely."

"Is God good?"

"Sure! God's good."

"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"

"Yes."

"Are you good or evil?"

"The Bible says I'm evil."

The professor grins knowingly. "Aha! The Bible!"

He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good...!"

"I wouldn't say that," the student relpies.

"But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't."

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. "He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"

The student remains silent.

"No, you can't, can you?" the professor says.

He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

"Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"

"Er...yes," the student says.

"Is Satan good?"

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. "No."

"Then where does Satan come from?"

The student falters. "From God"

"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?"

"Yes."

"So who created evil ?" The professor continued, "If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil."

Again, the student has no answer. "Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?"

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"So who created them?"

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. "Who created them?" There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized.

"Tell me," he continues onto another student. "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"

The student's voice betrays him and cracks.

"Yes, professor, I do."

The old man stops pacing. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?"

"No sir. I've never seen Him."

"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"

"No, sir, I have not."

"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?"

"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"Yes."

"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?"

"Nothing," the student replies. "I only have my faith."

"Yes, faith," the professor repeats. "And that is the problem science has with God. Th ere is no evidence, only faith."

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. "Professor, is there such thing as heat?"

"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."

"And is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes, son, there's cold too."

"No sir, there isn't."

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold;

otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.

"Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is wh a t makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a

word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

"What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes," the professor replies without hesitation. "What is night if it isn't darkness?"

"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word.

"In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?"

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. "So what point are you making, young man?"

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed."

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. "Flawed? Can you explain how?"

"You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains. "You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.

"It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it."

"Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"

The professor begins to shake his head, still sm iling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?"

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

"To continue the process, the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean."

The student looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out into laughter.

"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.

"So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?"

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. "I guess you'll have to take them on faith."

"Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life," the student continues. "Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?"

Now uncertain, the professor responds, "Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the col d that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.

That young man's name - Albert Einstein.

His statements are true

Just so you know; that little story is utter bollocks- never happened. A ridiculous bit of theistic propoganda. And it's just laughable as an argument.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all, I could care less if this was einstein who said these things or not, they are backed up by scientific proof....
Okay, so you defend that bit of tripe. (Sorry, but it is.) Do I really have to dissect it? <sigh>

A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, "Let me explain the problem science has with religion." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.
Well does he teach Science or Philosophy? Make up your mind. If science; whey the hel is he talking about religion in a science class? (I hope it isn't a U.S or A one, there are laws you know.) If Philosophy; why the hel is he picking a side (not how one teaches philosophy)?!

Let's skip to the student's game:

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. "Professor, is there such thing as heat?"

"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."

"And is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes, son, there's cold too."

"No sir, there isn't."

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold;

otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.

"Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is wh a t makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a

word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."

Sigh; basic science, and a woeful play of Semantics.

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

"What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes," the professor replies without hesitation. "What is night if it isn't darkness?"

"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word.

"In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?"

Like any real professor would fall for that silly bit of word play a second time. :rolleyes:

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed."

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. "Flawed? Can you explain how?"

"You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains. "You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.

Idiot. Just because some dualities are of the nature of presence or absence does not mean all are. Evil is not the negation of Good, that would also include acts neither good or evil.

"Science can not explain a thought": Typical Argument from Ignorance, a neat little Logical Fallacy. So what if Science doesn't have all the answers? Science is not a claimed set of answers (like the tens of thousands of religions there have been, claim to be) It is a formal method of searching for knowledge and understanding, for those answers.

There are however much of interest to be found in the cognitive sciences, if you cared to look. Not all the answers of course (who would have such hubris to claim that?) but a nice progression of new insights being developed.

"It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one.
Huh? That's grossly over simplifying things. Yes there is electromagnetism in the brain, that offers a little to the picture, but hardly scratches the surface. We understand them quite a bit actually; for one thing electricity and magnetism are different manifestations of one of the four universal fundamental forces; Electromagnetism.

To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it."
Well Duh.

You know making a caricature of this professor of science OR philosophy to be a dumb a** only hurts the plausibility of the story, don't you? [EDIT: Why do they 'bleep' out the proper name for the wild donkey?]

"Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."

Yeah: "evolved from a monkey"; only ignorant Creotard fools would say that. :rolleyes:

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"
Yes; every one of it's aspects have been directly observed and closely, critcally, rationally examined, many many times. The Theory of Evolution has withstood a barrage of falsification attempts throughout its ~150 year history.

As Carl Sagan said in his documentary series Cosmos back in 1980: "Evolution is a Fact, it really happened." And is happening still, of course.

"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?"
As all of your claims are laughably false, your conclusion is worthless my little imaginary opponent.

(Changing style due to the silly limitation of quotes this forum allows)

Jrod_Writer13 Wrote:

The student looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out into laughter.

"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.

"So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?"

Cute. A pity the caricature of what the Professor said earlier was pathetic (and derived) to begin with. What we observe is indirect evidence of this man having a brain - the fact that he is upright and conversing for a start.

Jrod_Writer13 Wrote:

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. "I guess you'll have to take them on faith."

Oh please!

Faith?! No we do not have to abandon reason to establish that the professor has a brain. Understanding what the brain does, we can observe evidences of its presence that way. Childishly simple. But apparently beyond the capacity of the author of this piece of rot to realise, or for those who promulgate this filth, or those naive enough to fall for it.

Jrod_Writer13 Wrote: "Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life," the student continues.

Of course there is Faith in life, it is by no means a good thing, but then a lot of undesirable things exist don't they?

Jrod_Writer13 Wrote:

"Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?"

Now uncertain, the professor responds, "Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God.

Was that a typo? OR did you deliberately make that Non Sequitur of a leap from Evil to God? From past experience I would say that this was a deliberate act of committing yet another Logical fallacy.

Jrod_Writer13 Wrote:

It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the col d that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

Well that is an impressive list of Completely Unsubstantiated Assertions! For shame.

Jrod_Writer13 Wrote:

The professor sat down.

Well he would, he is just a Creationist puppet after all, not a "real boy."

Oh the Stupid, it burns.

Jrod_Writer13 Wrote:

i could care less if this was coming from my dogs mouth if there was scientific proof.

(Why do creationists have such trouble with capitalising the word "I"?)

What proof? There was proof in there somewhere?!

Jrod_Writer13 Wrote:

This story is NOT proof that there is a God, but it is proof that it takes faith to believe in other concepts of life (i.e. darkness, evil, his brain(which by the way, the MRI machine was not invented till 1977. Even if he somehow did get this MRI(???), the professor did not state that he had seen his brain, which by the theory he came up with, proved that he had no brain.))

Oh please; this imagined student defeated a pathetic Straw man of a professor (Logical Fallacy number three), and that's all.

Faith is Belief through the wilful abandonment of reason. And if you think (as the words put into the mouth of the professor suggest) that only what YOU observe directly with your own senses counts as all reason, then you have a lot to learn.

Jrod_Writer13 Wrote:

So I am not saying that this story proves there is a God, but it DOES prove that their are believed physical facits of life, which in fact dont exist.

What, there are things that people believe in that don't exist? We all know that - Even you believe that everyone who has believed in any of the tens of thousands of gods, besides your one, were believing on things that don't exist. We just go one god more. ;) We realise that you too believe in something that doesn't exist. BUT even though this is true; that silly story playing pathetic games with semantics proved no such thing.

Jrod_Writer13 Wrote:

Also, "this student"(for your sake) is not implying that good or evil exists, he is contrasting the belief of God, to the belief of those words/the profesors brain, which by theory(of that time period, and particular predicament) dont exist themselves.

Except that we have EVIDENCE for all of those things. Yes even "darkness" and "Cold"; they exist, we just understand what the words mean, they aren't physical things, entities, but they exist as concepts that have a real meaning. Darkness for instance means that the amount of light is at a certain level (amount of candelas) or below, which level depends on the visual apparatus of the observer. Darkness is as real as the number 2 is real.

Only your god (and all gods) possess no such evidential support: Therefore you have nothing but Faith, which by definition means that your belief is based on NOTHING (or that you need nothing to believe in it anyway.) Faith is also by definition Irrational.

Jrod_Writer13 Wrote:

Also, what would give you the notion to believe in evolution?

More evidential support than the Theory of Gravity enjoys perhaps? Evidence in all manner of different fields, all or which corroborate each others stories. Over 18,000 peer reviewed papers published on the subject (in reputable peer-review science journals) in 2007 alone. The ~150 years of evidence gathering, falsification attempts overcome, and all such chances for people to have proven it wrong a million times over. You know things like that.

Jrod_Writer13 Wrote:

Evolution is not credible without the "missing link", which has not been found yet, so it is therefore not true.

What? Missing link?! Did we just travel back in time to 1900, and I missed it? No one (in science) uses that antiquated term anymore. Its meaningless in the light of subsequent scientific advances. There are "Transitional fossils"; and plenty of them have been found, thank you very much. But to be honest, not that it matters; Genetics alone shows Evolution to be true beyond all Reasonable doubt. (Oh if old Charles Darwin knew about genetics back then eh? Mendel had only just begun at that point in time.)

Jrod_Writer13 Wrote:

Or, let me rephrase that, "scientifically proven".

Scientific theories don't get proven; that is not how science (or reason) works. You want proof; try Mathematics, Formal Logic or Alcohol.

Jrod_Writer13 Wrote:

So my arguement boils down to this. By believing in evolution, you are actually creating a paradox, because evolution is not proven and in order to believe in that you are using faith, and if you are using faith, you have to believe in God.

You are erroneously equating "Faith" with "Belief."

There is Faith based belief; which is actually baseless belief, as all it means is ignoring reason and just believing anyway. And;

Reason based belief. Which; because people like you can't seem to grasp this simple concept, for your benefit I avoid it as much as feasible:

So: No, I don't "Believe" in Evolution, I "Accept" the theory of evolution, for the powerful scientific theory that it is, and reject your childish little fairy tale for the work of imagination rife, but reason free, work of fiction that it is. Have a nice day, :D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And on the topic that Einstein was an atheist(which was not proven/nor supported specifically), here is proof that he was in fact a theist. This is historically documented and it IS proven as it appeared in The Saturday Evening Post in 1929.

"To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?"

"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."

"Have you read Emil Ludwig's book on Jesus?"

"Emil Ludwig's Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot."

"You accept the historical Jesus?"

"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life." 7

And what is your response to that?;).....BTW i am not trying to be rude...just arguing beliefs:0

So? He believed (as many of us atheists do today) that Jesus was a real historical figure/, not that your magic man exists.

Albert also said this:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

And that was in a letter to an atheist, in 1954, the year before he died. (Perhaps he too grew up, out of his childhood indoctrination?)

If you want a bit more context, try this:

Einstein & Faith

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait....so are you saying that nothing is ever proven? Youre saying that 2 + 2 does not truly equal four, and that there is just a large amount of mutual agreeing evidence that suports it? Idk who told you that one, but that is false. A proven theory is in fact proven, and there can be no flaw if it is proven. Tell me, at which point(as you described something will be found to contradict that principal) will 2 + 2 not equal 4? If you have something that contradicts that please tell me...
No those are the exceptions: Mathematical and Formal Logic proofs - Neither of which have any actual physical reality; when the physical reality comes in thats when things lose their 100% proof status. (Oh and the thrird are to find proof is of course Alcohol

s8132.jpg

:lol:

In science; theories (and hypotheses of course) are never proven. There are good reasons for this, it's impossible or damn near. They are proven false; falsified, or they withstand falsification attempts, and make successful predictions (Tiktaalik is a brilliant example of this on Evolution, and it is a fantastic Transitional Fossil to boot.)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To both of you, since I have already given my proof, and if Einstein did in fact belief in Jesus, then he DID belief in God.
Ha, you funny. Jesus (Or more accurately; Yeshua) was a Jew who lived around the time of the advent of the Roman calendar that we still use. One of many prophets and claimed Messiahs (Christos in Greek) at the time. Believing that this prophet existed in no way entails believing that his imaginary friend did as well.

God and Jesus and The Holy Spirit, are all one.
Really?! got any evidence for that, or should we just take your word for it then? (Sounds like this God of yours is suffering from a touch of multiple personality disorder.)

There for, a man as smart as Einstein, by saying that he believed in Jesus, he knew that he was saying he believed in God.
He may have been a Deist, he believed in Spinoza's God:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." - Albert Einstein.

But Spinoza viewed "God" and "Nature" as two words for the same thing. And it was this awe of nature (the universe) which inspired Einstein. This doesn't even count as a real god either; more like a twisting of words to keep the idea of god, without actually believing in anything supernatural. I would say that today Einstein would rightly be called an Atheist; he did not have any real belief in anything a theist would recognise as a god.

Ex...Lets say you dont believe in Jesus, and it is a fact that God/Jesus are the same....and then you are convinced to believe in Jesus and you do....then dont you believe in God?
No.

Lets say you don't believe in Santa Claus, and it is a fact that Daddy/Santa are the same....and then you are convinced to believe in Daddy and you do....then don't you believe in Santa? :lol:

Your "Fact" is completely unsubstantiated anyway. There is some evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed. There is none that YHWH, Allah, God exists though, let alone that Jesus was not just this man from Nathereth but one of them as well.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Woah, back up. I never said nothing can be scientifically proven! I've been saying that the bible hasn't been scientifically proven. Lots of things have been proven. Like evolution, the earth not being flat, gravity, etc. etc. etc.

I'm still standing behind my view of Einstein being an atheist. Atheisim, by definition, is not believing in God, not anti-theism. Einstein did not believe in God. He never accepted Jesus and God to be one person. Because of this, Einstein is an atheist.

This is rushed. Got to take a lame shower. Shall continue tomorrow!

I guess you people dont get it yet. By believing in Jesus, whether you want to believe in God or not, you are believing in him. I dont care if Einstein sad he doesnt believe in God...He said he believes in Jesus, therefore he believes in God. (And I know how you are gonna respond with this....dont waste your time. Let me guess "that's just my opinion"???) Fools...

AD said "Oh please!

Faith?! No we do not have to abandon reason to establish that the professor has a brain. Understanding what the brain does, we can observe evidences of its presence that way. Childishly simple. But apparently beyond the capacity of the author of this piece of rot to realise, or for those who promulgate this filth, or those naive enough to fall for it."

I could disect a number of your explanations...which by the way you obviously took your time on, and I actually thought that was really cool, because most people(including myself) would never write something that devote and longevic in an arguement. :) ....now back to being mean :lol: .....

Many of your above quotes are just simply your opinion, and some of them are just straight false.

About the quote above in particular, "Understanding what the brain does, we can observe evidences of its presence that way. Childishly Simple." You kind of set yourself in a trap on this one. So what your saying is, if we have evidence of its presence that automatically makes it real? Really? Well in fact, you are absolutely correct. Which leads me to my next point....We can observe evidences of its presence that way(which is your arguement)...and this is what Einstein, excuse me, the "student" was getting at with the brain. We can observe evidences of God, and his presence. And that is a fact. Might you ever of watched TBN or seen any manifestation of someone being healed in the presence of God(which I am guessing you have at some point in your life) then that is plenty of evidence. How do you explain people's legs growing back right in front of my eyes.....people crippled and paralyzed getting up and running from wheelchairs....is it just all a figment of are imagination? A gimmick? Then there supposes that the brain is also. I could tell you many more stories of God's presence, but I think I have made myself clear. By you saying that if we can "observe evidences of somethings presence" , even though it might not been seen....it in fact exists.

This is turning into an interesting debate... :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read this yes...and it says that Einsein did not believe in God. But yet he said he did believe in Jesus. So maybe the problem within here is that, the all-intellectual Einstein is confused, because those two figures are interchangeble.
ONLY if you buy your little magic book of myths without question. We don't, so we don't have to believe that spurious claim of yours.

You can insist and assert that Yeshua and YHWH were one and the same (begging the question of why in the Buybull Jebus asks himself why he has forsaken himself :wacko: Let alone how Jesus can be his own father - "Luke... I mean Jesus... I am your my Father!" "Noooo!" :lol: ) but without rational support for this claim it is just a worthless assertion on your part.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is where some of you are lost.....it is proven in the Bible(which in fact is a book with true statements in it....whether you agree or not)that God/Jesus are one...and that "the historical Jesus, the person"(as you have referred to) states that:

"I and my father are one." - John 10:30

"He who hath seen me, hath seen my Father." -John 14:7 & 9

Ha ha ha! Please tell me that you are a Poe.

You are not seriously arguing that its true 'cause it says so on the bible are you?!

And just because the Bible might have some true statements in it does not make it all true. How naive are you?! And another Logical fallacy raises its irrational head. The Fallacy of composition

So what if it says that in your book. It also says that Insects have four legs, Snakes eat dust, rabbits chew their cud and bats are birds...

I saw a movie years ago; it had a great deal of "true statements" in it, even real video footage. Does that mean the rest of the story was true as well? (The story was about how things were 50 years after Germany won World War II.)

So by believing in the historical figure Jesus(whether Einstein likes it or not) he is believing in God, otherwise he truly does not believe in the historical figure of Jesus.
He said (back in 1929 at least) that he believed in the Historical Jesus, not everything about him in your cherished book of fairy tales.

I believe that Socrates existed, in part from the works of Plato. But realise that the Character of Socrates in most of his Dialogues was not the words of Plato's teacher himself.

Nor does it follow that Einstein believed everything Jesus claimed either. Do you believe that your country's politicians exist? Do you therefore believe that everything they claim, even about themselves ("I am not a crook", "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" :lol: ) are also true?!

You can not rationally make this claim of yours. It makes no sense. Einstein could easily deny that God exists while believing Jesus did. EVEN if it was true that they were one and the same. He would be in error, but he could still believe it.

At one time there were two well known stars in the sky: The morning star and the evening star. Astrologers used them to make their silly predictions, and each one of these stars had vastly different effects on us (or so the asserted.) How embarrassing when it was discovered that not only were these two stars were not stars at all, but planets, but they were actually the exact same planet (Venus.)

Not that any of this really matters; we aren't slaves to Authority figures, Einstein was a great man. If he did believe in god, then so what? He would then have been a great man who believed in something I do not. He also rubbished Quantum mechanics, due to an excessive adherence to determinism; silly boy.

Now Isaac Newton; He did believe in God. He also believed in Alchemy. And he was probably the greatest scientist who ever lived (yes he trumps Einstein, and apparently due to a recent survey the majority if the Royal Society agree.) The one has little to do with the other; even brilliant people make mistakes, we are none of us perfect.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lol...actually I am listening to what you are saying....and that's the problem :P:) . You just said "there is absolutely no proof....." . Didnt you just get done saying that nothing is based on proof, because "nothing" can be scientifically proven? Now you are contradicting yourself, which is the key to a flawed theory.
Oh don't play with semantics, it's just petty. Replace "proof" with "evidence". Happy now? It is a perfectly acceptable synonym in casual conversation. Just one that people should be careful with, mainly because certain religious apologetics types love to jump on it, like you just did.

And I didnt say what Einstein says is the law, we simply got into that by arguing if he was an athiest or a thiest. And by my points, he is neither.....he is just confused. Smart...actually very very smart....but confused. :P
One can not be neither a Theist or an Atheist. This is the same as claiming that something is neither A nor Not-A.

"Atheism" is simply Without ("A") the belief in gods (Theism, from the Greek Theos for "gods". )

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess you people dont get it yet.
Oh I get it; you are just wrong.

By believing in Jesus, whether you want to believe in God or not, you are believing in him.
Rubbish, laughable rubbish.

Just because I believe that some Jewish guy from some hole in the ground in the desert, on the arse end of nowhere believed he was the messiah as prophesied in his magic book (the Tanakh), like many others did at the time (claimed to anyway) and Zeus knows how many have believed themselves to be the same since (The second coming or whatever) does not mean that I have to believe that he really was who he apparently claimed to be, any more than I have to believe all those people who really believe that they are Napoleon Bonaparte!

I dont care if Einstein sad he doesnt believe in God...He said he believes in Jesus, therefore he believes in God.
Bollocks. I believe that a patient I had way back when really existed, therefore I believe he was indeed the 18 year old grunt who found the cure for AIDS but scientists stole it from him... Or not; I believe that he was suffering from delusions. Yeshua, if he believed what you believe he claimed, was probably therefore in the same boat.

(And I know how you are gonna respond with this....dont waste your time. Let me guess "that's just my opinion"???) Fools...
Personal attacks (Ad Hominems) are not welcome here my friend. Attack the argument not the person. <_<

AD said "Oh please!

Faith?! No we do not have to abandon reason to establish that the professor has a brain. Understanding what the brain does, we can observe evidences of its presence that way. Childishly simple. But apparently beyond the capacity of the author of this piece of rot to realise, or for those who promulgate this filth, or those naive enough to fall for it."

I could disect a number of your explanations...which by the way you obviously took your time on, and I actually thought that was really cool, because most people(including myself) would never write something that devote and longevic in an arguement. :) ....now back to being mean :lol: .....

Oh; that's a cheap tactic: "I can beat your arguments, but won't bother here (just believe that I can okay." No, don't believe you.

Many of your above quotes are just simply your opinion, and some of them are just straight false.
You have to back that up for that claim to have any value whatsoever. Can you?

About the quote above in particular, "Understanding what the brain does, we can observe evidences of its presence that way. Childishly Simple." You kind of set yourself in a trap on this one. So what your saying is, if we have evidence of its presence that automatically makes it real?
No. Do you have no understanding of science at all?!

Evidence doesn't make things real. It gives us reason to think that they are real. The strength of the evidence (falsifications, predictions, corroborating evidence...) determines how reliable the evidence is as supporting any claim of the hypothesis/theory ("Thing X is real" for instance) is valid.

Really? Well in fact, you are absolutely correct.
Well as I just denied your erroneous interpretation of what you said; lets see where this leads.

Which leads me to my next point....We can observe evidences of its presence that way(which is your arguement)...and this is what Einstein, excuse me, the "student" was getting at with the brain.
Uh, no it wasn't. It was a silly claim that we have to take it on Faith, even though there is no evidence (which is rubbish of course, but that was how the straw man caricature ridden story went.)

We can observe evidences of God, and his presence. And that is a fact.
You do realise that just calling it a fact doesn't make it one, don't you? You better be able to back that up. Where is this so called evidence (and why haven't I seen any of it, depite asking for it repeatedly, and being presented with innumerable, ultimately flawed, attempts?)

rod_Writer13 Wrote:

Might you ever of watched TBN

I'm not an American. I just looked them up (Trinity Broadcasting Network right?) Interesting; the first think I see is a request for money, typical. Seen similar though, go on.

rod_Writer13 Wrote:

or seen any manifestation of someone being healed in the presence of God(which I am guessing you have at some point in your life) then that is plenty of evidence.

Parlour tricks? That's your evidence?!

Oh yes; impressive:

A Question of Miracles - Faith Healing 1/6

Faith Healing Discussion w/ James Randi 1/5

:rolleyes:

(I especially like the Miracle healings where the cured person dies of what they were cured of, don't you? :rolleyes: )

(Even if any of that rubbish was real; at best it would be evidence that these people somehow have the power to heal, not that their claim that GodDidIt)

rod_Writer13 Wrote:

How do you explain people's legs growing back right in front of my eyes.....people crippled and paralyzed getting up and running from wheelchairs....is it just all a figment of are imagination? A gimmick?

Where is the evidence? The real independently verified evidence, convincing the Faithful is easy, appallingly easy. Can you point me to any peer reviewed medical science journal papers on any of these? Just one will do.

rod_Writer13 Wrote:

Then there supposes that the brain is also.

:blink:

rod_Writer13 Wrote:

I could tell you many more stories of God's presence, but I think I have made myself clear.

Sadly, I think you have. You have nothing.

rod_Writer13 Wrote:

By you saying that if we can "observe evidences of somethings presence" , even though it might not been seen....it in fact exists.

False. Try harder.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hats off to you ADParker, when it comes to dissecting nonsense there's none better :D . But there's one other aspect of that story which hasn't been discussed: the large scale thrust of the tale. What's the point? What is it trying to say? I called it a straw man argument but on consideration I'm not sure it can be an argument since it asserts nothing, and merely picks holes in the fictitious flawed opinions of some non-existent professor.

As an item of propaganda, it's quite interesting in that regard. I can think of two implied interpretations that could be placed on it:

1) Our straw man atheist is a fool, therefore atheism is wrong, therefore (by elimination) theism is right, therefore God exists (or at least a god, might be Ganesha for all we know, but never mind that).

2) Our straw man scientist is a fool, therefore science and reason are wrong, therefore confusion and bamboozlement reign supreme, therefore you can feel free to abandon reason and take religion on faith.

The lack of clear statement is, I feel, intentional and designed to confuse (and indeed to promote confusion as a way of thinking). Its makes you wonder at the morality of people who concoct this kind of dupery. I mean, you need some intelligence to do it, and probably some awareness of the fallacies that are being promoted and the emptiness of the whole thing. That makes it disturbingly disingenuous, and I feel that whoever would generate and propagate such a thing would have to be a pretty nasty piece of work. Perhaps they think that, since religious indoctrination is the goal, the end justifies any means, and since many people can be duped by fallacious rhetoric you may as well go ahead and use that.

A big thankyou to Jrod_Writer13 for that offering. Very thought-provoking.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hats off to you ADParker, when it comes to dissecting nonsense there's none better :D . But there's one other aspect of that story which hasn't been discussed: the large scale thrust of the tale. What's the point? What is it trying to say? I called it a straw man argument but on consideration I'm not sure it can be an argument since it asserts nothing, and merely picks holes in the fictitious flawed opinions of some non-existent professor.
First off; thanks :D

Yes the whole thing is more of a Straw man Caricature, in particular the Professor. It's not an argument itself, but rather a set up to make an argument, to sway the reader, not all arguments are direct, especially the dishonest ones like this - a story intended to get you to reach a certain conclusion, without expressly saying "here is my argument." The subtlety of this is that one is more likely to take on board the hidden argument's conclusion as if it was one they had reached themselves, and thus believe it more readily and strongly.

Going through it I was actually reminded of the Chick Tracts, especially this one: Big Daddy?

As an item of propaganda, it's quite interesting in that regard. I can think of two implied interpretations that could be placed on it:

1) Our straw man atheist is a fool, therefore atheism is wrong, therefore (by elimination) theism is right, therefore God exists (or at least a god, might be Ganesha for all we know, but never mind that).

Right. The "This atheist argument is flawed therefore my God argument is right" argument is known as the False Dilemma

2) Our straw man scientist is a fool, therefore science and reason are wrong, therefore confusion and bamboozlement reign supreme, therefore you can feel free to abandon reason and take religion on faith.
Yup. The thing is that it becomes apparent that this "student" is not just making a theistic based argument, but a Creationist one (monkeys?) and creationists have a real problem with science. Even when they try to use it (abuse it really) to support their claims. Because the evidence and conclusions science now makes, that is; the evidence we get from observable reality, flies right in the face of their beliefs. So they attack it. The attack here (and this is common) is not that science is bunk (thus allowing them to use it when it suits them) but that it has limits, and by implying that same false dilemma logical fallacy and other unsubstantiated assertions, suggesting that their way, Faith in their particular imaginary friend and so on, the Truth can be gained. Nothing backs up this assertion of course, hence the need for the False Dilemma - "All I have to do is show that atheistic science (whatever that is meant to be) has limits, and that proves that religion has the answers beyond those limits." (Sorry, I am not even any good at mimicking the inane drivel they seem so capable of spewing.)

The lack of clear statement is, I feel, intentional and designed to confuse (and indeed to promote confusion as a way of thinking).
I think so. Much of religion promotes the love of the divine and the mysterious "God works in mysterious ways...God is beyond our understanding (and here is specifically what he thinks about this... :rolleyes: )" And this mystery is pushed as a wonderful thing. NOT the wonder of mystery that we science lovers enjoy; the love of a good mystery because its a puzzle to solve. Oh no; the love of a mystery maintained as a mystery. Some even take great offense when people (like us) try to unwrap the mystery, to demystify it. They like it as it is. This is a huge part of the very basis of Richard Dawkins' book Unweaving the Rainbow for instance.

Bringing me to an apt metaphor (being the season and all): It's kind of like a kid seeing all the presents all rapped up neatly under the tree, and being so in awe with them, that he is positively hostile toward anyone that dares even suggest that we should unwrap them to see whats inside!

So confusion is good; the more confusing, the more mysterious, thus the more wonderful. But also the greater need to rely on the authority of the holders of the reigns of religious power; the ones who apparently (or so they claim) understand it. The appeal to authority being another major aspect of religion.

Its makes you wonder at the morality of people who concoct this kind of dupery.
I know! It often amazes me (still) the lengths some of these people are willing to go to! No way do many (most?) actually fail to see their own duplicity.

(That Tract, by the way, was done in part by Kent Hovind [or "Prisoner number 135733" as we can now affectionately call him], now there's one Serious Liar for Jesus!)

Lying for Jesus: Seriously some religious apologists must think that this is not only okay, but noble. How else could they believe and act as they do?!

Have they not read Job 13:7-12?:

7 Will you speak wickedly on God's behalf?

Will you speak deceitfully for him?

8 Will you show him partiality?

Will you argue the case for God?

9 Would it turn out well if he examined you?

Could you deceive him as you might deceive men?

10 He would surely rebuke you

if you secretly showed partiality.

11 Would not his splendor terrify you?

Would not the dread of him fall on you?

12 Your maxims are proverbs of ashes;

your defenses are defenses of clay. :P

Others I think might believe (unbelievably irrationally) that if their whoppers support their beliefs then despite all evidence and reason they must be true! :blink:

I mean, you need some intelligence to do it, and probably some awareness of the fallacies that are being promoted and the emptiness of the whole thing.
You would have to assume so wouldn't you. I mean no one makes that level of Fallacy ridden misdirecting dishonesty by naive chance!

That makes it disturbingly disingenuous, and I feel that whoever would generate and propagate such a thing would have to be a pretty nasty piece of work.
Agreed. And people love them for it!

Perhaps they think that, since religious indoctrination is the goal, the end justifies any means, and since many people can be duped by fallacious rhetoric you may as well go ahead and use that.
Indeed. For some I think converts are more important than truth. Some for their own personal greed, but others for their religion.

Also that old canard that they have a higher TruthTM. Make no sense of course, but perhaps this implies in their minds at some level that they need not worry about ordinary run of the mill truth so much, as long as it aids this higher Truth.

A big thankyou to Jrod_Writer13 for that offering. Very thought-provoking.
Seconded. Not the thoughts he might have wanted perhaps, but there you go.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(I especially like the Miracle healings where the cured person dies of what they were cured of, don't you? )

(Even if any of that rubbish was real; at best it would be evidence that these people somehow have the power to heal, not that their claim that GodDidIt)

First of all.....back to the quotes you used from the Bible, picking out random quotes that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, is pointless and stupid, especially since you are intending to use them as being derrogatory(spelling?). And I just love how after everything I say you use the words....."Rubbish", "Bullocks", "Childish".....Have you not read the quote in my signature? Yet, you still think you are a judge of truth and knowledge.... -_-

Second, to the quote above, Just because you dont believe that people have been healed doesnt make it false. Remember, back to some of the first posts, by not believing it still makes the object real, you just dont believe in it. Also, I have seen more examples of God's presence....Last year I sprained my ankle just before a basketball game. I prayed to God and asked him to heal it....and he did. How do you explain something that hurts so bad you can barely walk one minute, and then pain free the next. Am I just going crazy? Highly doubt it.

Third, I am only 16....so I will admit that I dont have near the knowledge to go into depth with you in this arguement(although I am in ap calculus as a sophomore :P ) ...But if you dont believe that God is real....and deep down you really want to know the absolute truth....why not just except him into your heart? Because you're afraid to be proven wrong....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, I have seen more examples of God's presence....Last year I sprained my ankle just before a basketball game. I prayed to God and asked him to heal it....and he did. How do you explain something that hurts so bad you can barely walk one minute, and then pain free the next. Am I just going crazy? Highly doubt it.

I hate to break this to you, but scientific study after study after study have been done where large groups of people prayed for certain illnesses. There was a control group where no one was prayed for, a group where people thought some not-so-nice thoughts about people, and a group where people were truly prayed for by several churches. There was absolutely no affect on the patients in any of the studies conducted. Prayer doesn't work. Thinking nice thoughts about yourself might cheer you up, but as a scientific thing, it has no affect.

Also, being 16 is no excuse. :P I'm 14 and seem to be doing pretty okay.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...But if you dont believe that God is real..
I don't
..and deep down you really want to know the absolute truth..
I do
..why not just except him into your heart?
Because I don't believe that God is real. I would have to believe that in order to accept him into my heart. You're asking us to believe without reason.
Because you're afraid to be proven wrong....
Absolutely not. Being proven wrong is always a learning experience and I'm always up for it.

But losing my critical reasoning capability to the point where I could accept religious ideas without evidence? Without consideration of the huge assumptions that are made when we come to any conclusion about something we do not understand? Accepting the "Truth" as provided by some holy book or other when there is no reason to consider it more valid than any other holy book or religion that has ever existed, except that it is the version of religion currently prevalent in our society? Embracing Faith, and thus losing the will to distinguish between what I know and what I do not know? Now there is something to be afraid of.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Amen, brother! ;)

Jrod, the problem is no one will ever change their oppinion on this through debating. In my mind, I believe theists are afraid being proven wrong or are just too stubborn to realize that there is no God. Clearly you believe the total opposite. Neither of us are getting any where as both of us are convinced we're right. :(

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^Amen, brother! ;)

Jrod, the problem is no one will ever change their oppinion on this through debating. In my mind, I believe theists are afraid being proven wrong or are just too stubborn to realize that there is no God. Clearly you believe the total opposite. Neither of us are getting any where as both of us are convinced we're right. :(

Lol....yeah my efforts have proven kind of fruitless. There is no way in hel (pun intended) that any of you will change your mind, as goes for me. No matter what a theist says, even if he provides evidence, an atheist is going to turn him down, and call his beliefs "rubbish". I understand that. Just remember....

"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." Psalm 14:1

;):P:)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stepping away from the debating, The God Delusion came in the mail today! Yaaay!!! :D :D :D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I put my opinion into a sentance - there are those that need it, there are those that don't. You can debate all you like. Those that require proof either way are beating themselves up or each other for a need to pick a side. And I see no comfort in feeling/knowing that I made the 'right choice'.

I am glad to share the world with both so long as they make ther honest choice and not push there ideals at anyone Maybe that sounds like I sit on the fence. I do watch these debates and have an empathy for both while there are no fanatics.

It is not about proof really - we all know that the theists and the atheists do not have it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, it's not about proof. What it is about depends on what side of the debate you sit on.

Religion generally demands that you see the doctrine of your religion as absolute truth which others must be convinced of (so they can be "saved"). Hence the motivation for the religious.

And the motivation of atheists? Atheism, not being a belief, places no demands for evangelism on its non-believers. It's essentially a passive position, a default state in the absence of theistic belief. So where's the incentive?

Everybody believes in something to some degree. ADParker has called himself a "reasonist" and that is very much to the point. I also believe in reason, in intelligence and honesty. I believe it is wise and positive to be clear about what you know and do not know, to question assumptions, to identify and challenge fallacies. Whether this qualifies as a belief in the same sense that a religious belief is one, is debatable, since it is rooted in clear logic. But insofar as it is a belief it is my belief, and that's what drives me to contribute here. Religious people promote religion. Reasonists promote reason. If religion and reason were compatible, there would be no debate.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I wholeheartedly want this debate to end, I couldn't resist replying.... :)

I agree with what both of you are saying, especially you LIS. I think that there is not realy any proof for evolution or the existance of God. Well, there is evidence from my viewpoint, but for this arguement i will say there is none for fear of being ripped up and down(again). Although I see where you are coming from Octopuppy, I think we are on a different page here, not just in beliefs, but in the understanding of what religion is. Religion is a set of conducts resulted from tenets (or a belief system) about the ultimate power. God doesnt want us Christians being religous, as much as he wants us to simply obey his word and preach the Gospel. So as far as religion goes...well that's about as far as it goes. Religion can also lead to downfall. Religion as stated above is simply a set of conducts, by which some religions worship other/multiple gods. It really is far too ignorant to speak of it as the absence of reason, as you stated above. Who is to say that religion and reason are unrelated? Do you not have to use reason to choose what you believe in? I have used reason(and quite frankly some knowledgable reason) in my decision that evolution is false, ergo God does exist. You are treating reason as if it is some doctrine by which to base on a set of conducts, aka a religion. Reason is not something to believe, but something to use.

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." -C. S. Lewis

Edited by Jrod_Writer13
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(I especially like the Miracle healings where the cured person dies of what they were cured of, don't you? )

(Even if any of that rubbish was real; at best it would be evidence that these people somehow have the power to heal, not that their claim that GodDidIt)

First of all.....back to the quotes you used from the Bible, picking out random quotes that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, is pointless and stupid, especially since you are intending to use them as being derrogatory(spelling?).

"Derogatory" Use a spell check program.

Those quotes were not to or about you. They were on the topic of "Lying for Jesus" (as the concept is colloquially termed, even though it counts for God, Allah, YHWH etc, just as well.) And it was precisely on the topic that we (not you) were discussing at that point. What was so derogatory about it? I mentioned that some people lie for Jesus (they do, seen it myself) and People (like Martin Luther) have even asserted that it is justified - even though in their magic book God himself says it is wicked.

And I just love how after everything I say you use the words....."Rubbish", "Bullocks", "Childish".....Have you not read the quote in my signature? Yet, you still think you are a judge of truth and knowledge.... -_-
Yes I have read your signature, what about it?

I pointed out all that rubbish because that is what it was. Am I a judge of truth and knowledge? No more than everybody else is, and should be. We all have a responsibility in that area. It is a bit like the quote:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke (attributed to him, but doubtful.)

The same is true for irrational memes and poor/sloppy reasoning. All one need to do to allow for their spread is to say nothing.

I just happen to have studied a fair bit of Formal Logic, so can spot errors in reasoning pretty well. If you can't back up your assertions, defend your claims against rational criticism; don't moan about it, it adds nothing to the discussion.

If I say something is "bollocks" (and why) then why don't you explain how it isn't, rather than just complaining? That just sounds like the Hurt feelings card.

I have pointed out that, and how, most of your assertions are flawed, you have defended practically none of them, and none of them adequately.

Second, to the quote above, Just because you dont believe that people have been healed doesnt make it false.
Well no it doesn't. Never said it did. Never just said I don't believe it either, I gave a brief explanation that the evidence for any of these claims (which I once again asked for you to provide; you didn't even try) are non-existent.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

You made the claims, where is the evidence? (And no; personal testimony does not cut it.)

Just because you don't believe that I have a Dragon in my Garage, doesn't make it false either :P

Still no reason to believe it though, is there?

Remember, back to some of the first posts, by not believing it still makes the object real, you just dont believe in it.
You do realise that that is gibberish don't you?

Also, I have seen more examples of God's presence....Last year I sprained my ankle just before a basketball game. I prayed to God and asked him to heal it....and he did.
Really? Any evidence of that one either? No? No evidence that it really was sprained? I used to be an army medic, so I assure you I will understand the data that I am sure will be forthcoming.

He did? How do you know it was God that healed it? Could have been Satan for all you know, or Santa, or the Easter bunny.Could have been dumb luck. More likely the power of mind over matter; the placebo effect. Yes it even works with imaginary magic men. The mind is an incredibly powerful tool, I know of one fellow medic who administered IM saline (water and 0.9% sodium chloride [salt] injected into the muscle, which does squat) to a patient who was in pain after having the max dose of Morphine, and explained how it was a more powerful drug, and the effects that it would have (all rubbish of course, it was just slightly salty water!) and due to the power of the mind, the placebo effect, it worked!

Did you watch the videos? Does your story sound just like the miraculous cures (none of which worked) Benny Hinn preformed? It does to me.

How do you explain something that hurts so bad you can barely walk one minute, and then pain free the next. Am I just going crazy? Highly doubt it.
Yes the truly insane (met a few of those as well) always "highly doubt it." :rolleyes:

But in your case; I can't really say can I? All I have to go on is your all too brief assertion above. No details at all, not a shred of evidence. Personal experience alone is scientificially and rationally worthless.

Third, I am only 16....so I will admit that I dont have near the knowledge to go into depth with you in this arguement(although I am in ap calculus as a sophomore :P )
Good for you. I am a darn site older, and have two university degrees to my name, one in Science the other in philosophy. Doesn't really mean a thing though.

...But if you dont believe that God is real....and deep down you really want to know the absolute truth....why not just except him into your heart?
Oh not this old canard as well! :rolleyes:

Are you seriously suggesting that I accept someone I have no reason at all to believe exists into my heart?! Why that is certainly irrational.

What does "accept X into your heart" really mean anyway?! Sounds like:

"Just believe it is true, no don't think about it or apply any reasoning to it, just believe Believe BELIEVE!"

That isn't the way to find truth. Certainly is not the way to have any assurance at all that what you believe is the truth. It's just assuming that what you assert (without a shred of rationale in support) is true. What if it isn't! :blink: With your method there is no way to know, you just assume it is for no reason at all. That is not how you find the truth; it's how you convince yourself to assume that what you believe is the truth.

So all I get from your suggestion is: "If you want the truth, just believe without question that what I tell you is that truth." (Or do you have some way to explain it that doesn't sound absolutely inane and irrational?!)

And why do you assume that I have always been an atheist? I wasn't you know, I was a christian up until about your age (15ish actually) then my "Age of Reason" genes must have kicked in (there's a whole story there but I will leave it for now) and I realised that my beliefs were all based on irrational foundations - I had built a castle on the sand, to use a Christian metaphor. In short; I grew up.

May I ask how you come to the bizarre notion that the way to search for absolute truth is in accepting some evidence free entity, not into your mind (the seat of reason from whence evidence and truth can be derived) but instead; your heart (not the blood pumping muscle I assume, but the seat of emotion.)?! Makes no sense to me at all.

I will stick with reason thanks. It has a far better track record of improving human knowledge and understanding than appeals to emotion ever has.

You are barely at the age of reason my lad. Why not try embracing that for a spell (check out some books on logic and philosophical thinking and thought experiments for a start) you might actually learn something.

And if your religious beliefs do happen to be rationally founded they will be all the stronger as a result. Because I am suggesting Reason, not atheism.

Oh, and do come back to us is that happens, I would love to see some real rational arguments for theism. Hey; there could always be a first time, and I keep an open mind. I don't believe in gods because I have seen no Reason to, provide me with said reason and I will reassess my position based on that new reasoning and/or evidence, not before.

Because you're afraid to be proven wrong....
Don't presume to tell me what I think.

I did that, I was proven wrong, but not in the direction your presume.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jrod, there is plenty of proof the evolution happened. Google them. ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lol....yeah my efforts have proven kind of fruitless. There is no way in hel (pun intended) that any of you will change your mind, as goes for me. No matter what a theist says, even if he provides evidence, an atheist is going to turn him down, and call his beliefs "rubbish". I understand that.[/qu Just remember....
Not for me. I am by nature a Reasonist (a lover of Reason), my atheism only comes along as a result of that - give me the reason and the atheism dissipates, easy - really it is. I have no vested interest in not believing in gods, I couldn't care less which is true. I just chose to only believe what is rationally supported, because I really care what is really true and reasonable to accept as true, whatever it might happen to be. No theist has, as of yet, ever succeeded in my presence to present even a halfway decent argument, and invariably fall into all kinds of logical Fallacies in the attempt. It's sad really.

"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." Psalm 14:1
You do realise that this too is a logical fallacy don't you? (Incredible how many I have spotted in the various verses theists have given me.)

This one says if you don't believe in God then you are a fool. There is a famous analogy to this isn't there?

Can you guess what it is?

A famous fairy tale.

Hans Christian Anderson.

Got it yet? No?

The Emperor's New Clothes. : If you don't believe the Emperor has clothes (despite the lack of evidence...) then you are a fool, because only fools cannot see that he has splended new clothes.

It's an Ad hominem abusive Logical Fallacy.

Just so that is perfectly clear to you:

Your magic book:

"The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God."

The example in the link:

"You can't believe Jack when he says there is a God because he doesn't even have a job."

Connecting the two:

"You can't believe an atheist when he says there is no God because he is a fool."

What this amounts to is telling people to ignore anybody, and any argument, that even suggests there is no God - just assume they are fools and dismiss them as wrong without question or any rational assessment of their arguments at all. <_<

Oh well done Jrod_Writer13, I always enjoy more examples of the Holy Bible making such fundamental errors of reasoning. How embarrassing eh? :lol:

Reminds me of this as well: The Courtier's Reply

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As much as I wholeheartedly want this debate to end, I couldn't resist replying.... :)

I agree with what both of you are saying, especially you LIS. I think that there is not realy any proof for evolution or the existance of God.

Whoah; hold on there a minute Bucky!

There are mountains of evidence for evolution. It is a scientific Fact, and it has a powerful theory; the Theory of evolution, which is really now beyond all reasonable doubt. The only questions that remain (which still amounts to a great deal) are on how exactly it occurred to get the various organisms and features we see, and how is first started of course.

I thought it might have been on this forum, but no; it was not on this forum which I was invited to join from RichardDawkins.net, but the forum I was invited to from this one: The Revival. A thread on Evolution: evolution

And if you really want to get a serious dose try RichardDawkins.net.

I warn you however that forum caters for adults, and we take it seriously (we have fun as well of course ;) )

I would link you to some stuff from the "Debunking Creationism" area of the forum. As that seems to be where the most appropriate explanations of how robust the theory of evolution is aimed at your level are. But you have to be a registered member to view that section.

How about a link to some Evolution Resources instead:

Evolution Resources (Updated 16th October 2008 )

You are also correct as far as I can tell, that there is no proof for the evidence of gods (any of them.) No credible evidence either. That is why the only rational response to this is, as Calilasseia from RD.net put it:

"If an entity X is postulated to exist, and no substantive evidence capable of withstanding intense critical scrutiny is present to support the postulated existence of entity X, then the default position is to regard entity X as not existing until said substantive supporting evidence for the postulated existence of entity X becomes present."

Well, there is evidence from my viewpoint, but for this arguement i will say there is none for fear of being ripped up and down(again).
You should never fear having your arguments (not you) "ripped up and down"; you should welcome it, relish it, actively seek it out even. That is how ones beliefs, ideas, notions and assumptions improve - removing the fallacious and only keeping the rational, and improving upon them. You do want your fallacious assumptions removed don't you? You do want to only believe what is true, or at least rational to believe, do you not? Or do you choose to hold onto all of your beliefs, even if some of them are untrue?!

Religion as stated above is simply a set of conducts, by which some religions worship other/multiple gods.
From my investigations I have come to the conclusion that all religions are belief systems borne out of emotion and imagination driven stories. The products of emotional and imaginative explanations for why things are as they are (I could go on.) These were superceeded by what became known as Philosophy and then Science. The difference these methodologies of determining truth, or deriving explanations from what we observe, is that they employed an extra third mental activity: Reason; the only one of the three that offers any form of reliable assurance of validity to the stories (hypotheses and theories they are called when Reason is at their base.)

No; Religion need not be completely reason free, but it is not founded/based on reason. Once again the Castles on the sand analogy springs to mind.

It really is far too ignorant to speak of it as the absence of reason, as you stated above.
That's not exactly what he was saying. But for my part I have to say that the Absence of Reason part comes in with Faith; pure and simple: Faith is belief without the use of reason. When looked at as an active action (Active Faith you could say) the definition in my signature comes to the fore:

Faith: Belief through the wilful abandonment of Reason.

Who is to say that religion and reason are unrelated? Do you not have to use reason to choose what you believe in?
Unfortunately no you don't. You can rely solely on Faith or Emotion for instance. As many an appeal to emotion ("believe or burn", "believe if you want to survive your own death") attest. Which brings us to the fact that even if one uses reason they can use faulty reasoning, the worst cases of this are known as Logical Fallacies, of which there are many. And unfortunately, due it appears to Religions being based on imagination and emotion, not reason; religious belief seems especially prone to them. AS they are pseudo-reasoning tools to con the listener into thinking that they are choosing something rational when they are not. :(

I have used reason(and quite frankly some knowledgable reason) in my decision that evolution is false, ergo God does exist.
I would say that I am most impressed that a 16 year old boy has been able to conclude that evolution is false, when for the past ~150 years the world's greatest minds dedicating their professional careers to the question and the sciences involved have failed to do so despite innumerable attempts. That being how science works of course; testing theories by trying to falsify them. And even overcoming the 18,000+ papers the were published in peer-review science journals (in 2007 alone) all concluding, complete with carefully tested evidence, that evolution is true! At least I would if I believed a word of it.

Well your first mistake is assuming that falsifying Evolution adds anything to the God hypothesis whatsoever. It doesn't. Evolution is a threat to Creationism, because if it is true (and it is) creationism flounders, and fails miserably. But that does not mean that If Evolution is false then Creationism is true.

I could wait for a response to this before explaining, but this is Formal Logic, a passion of mine, so I will explain it now:

This above can be formalised like so:

Premise 1: If Evolution is true then Creationism is False

Premise 2: Evolution is False

Therefore

Conclusion: Creationism is True.

That the argument? It is the one I imagined from what you have said.

The first step (for clarity if you need it) is to turn this into a mathematical logic formula, replacing specifics with variables:

But first a bit of tidying - makes the answer easier to see in the end. Lets name the variables (may seem odd, but its the tidying process):

Let P = Evolution is true (therefore Evolution is false = Not-P)

and Q = Creationism if false (therefore Creationism is true = Not-Q)

Premise 1: If P then Q

Premise 2: Not-P

Therefore

Conclusion: Not-Q

This argument format is INVALID.

It is known as Denying the Antecedent (See? :D )

The easiest way to show that it is fallacious is to plug in an example. If it fails then that means that the structure is flawed. Okay ( there is one in the link, I will give another):

P1: If it is a Shark then it is a fish (True. Formal way to say "All sharks are fish")

P2.: This guppy is not a shark (True; It's a little guppy)

Therefore (and the conclusion must be true if the premises are, if it is to be a VALID argument)

Conclusion: This guppy is not a Fish (False; oh dear - FAIL - INAVALID argument.)

A bit of Formal Logic for ya. Isn't that fun?

You are treating reason as if it is some doctrine by which to base on a set of conducts, aka a religion. Reason is not something to believe, but something to use.
Of course it is (nice to here a religious apologist say that for a change.)

But remember; all tools can be used properly or improperly. Committing logical Fallacies is like nailing a plank with a spanner. It might work if you are lucky (might not) but it is an inappropriate abuse and misuse of the spanner. <_<

"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." -C. S. Lewis
What a putz he was eh? I like those analogies though:

Like Bill O'Reilly saying "Sun go up, Sun go down" :lol:

I recall mentioning this a few days ago elsewher so I will just quote that:

"*& the sun doesn't really "rise and set" does it? No, the Earth is the one doing the moving, and it spins/rotates "under" the sun, giving the illusion of the sun rising and setting.

- That's reason and science over Faith for ya ;) "

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.