Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Atheism or agnosticism?Follow

#152 Apr 29 2011 at 12:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,024 posts
LeWoVoc wrote:
Let me state it this way: There is no evidence or argument strong enough to fully justify belief in a deity. Prove me wrong.


Sure. Belief needs no argument, evidence, nor justification. It's a belief - it doesn't need a basis in anything logical, factual, or provable. You are wrong.

I get your point, but that was too easy Smiley: tongue

Edited, Apr 29th 2011 2:50pm by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#153 Apr 29 2011 at 1:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Seeing someone killed and then come back to life would be pretty compelling evidence.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#154 Apr 29 2011 at 2:14 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
Quote:
Let me state it this way: There is no evidence or argument strong enough to fully justify belief in a deity. Prove me wrong.


Let me state it this way: There is no evidence or argument strong enough to fully justify disbelief in a deity. Prove me wrong.

there is no evidence denying the existence of one either. For all we know God is sharing the secrets of the cosmos with us a bit at a time. Which is why I stand in the middle, until something is disproved outright the possibility of it being true is still there. Personally I do not not worship a deity, but I still harbor the possibility that there could be a divine influence on us.

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#155 Apr 29 2011 at 2:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,024 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Seeing someone killed and then come back to life would be pretty compelling evidence.


Seeing most of the miracles would be. Water to wine? Sign me up for that religion!
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#156Almalieque, Posted: Apr 29 2011 at 2:52 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Likewise. There is no evidence or argument strong enough to fully justify the disbelief in a deity. Prove me wrong.
#157 Apr 29 2011 at 2:53 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Unfortunately I don't have time to watch that right now, but hopefully I'll get to it later. My understanding of the parallel universes theory (sorry-- "hypothesis" for the pedants) is that it differs significantly from theories about multiple universes on the same time/space dimension that we're on. But I'm certainly no astrophysicist/astronomer.

Quote:
As it is impossible for science to create a logical explanation of something coming from nothing (because the very statement brings open another question mark), at one point of time, something supernatural had to occur. This makes it possible for a higher being.


Again, this assumes that something was created from nothing. Never in the history of science has this been witnessed-- in fact, we have scientific laws that say that it doesn't happen (e.g., conservation of matter, conservation of energy). Some scientists posit/support exceptions for the Big Bang-- others don't.

As best we can tell, the universe has always existed. The confusion for many people is that there's a difference between the universe and the universe as we know it. For example, we know that the universe is expanding, but we have no basis for assuming that the expanding universe that we know of is all of the actual universe. What we think of as the universe could easily be only a tiny, isolated collection of cosmic masses and energies-- not even nearly everything. We have no reason to believe that other universes don't exist outside our limited powers of observation-- not even on some seemingly pseudoscientific quantum abstract fourth dimension-- just on the same temporal/spatial plane as what we think of as the universe. And do you know what might likely cause a Big Bang? Two "universes" colliding, which is an inevitability even if there are only two of them.

Edited, Apr 29th 2011 1:57pm by Kachi
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#158Almalieque, Posted: Apr 29 2011 at 2:54 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) This isn't any more logical.
#159 Apr 29 2011 at 2:59 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Kachi wrote:
As best we can tell, the universe has always existed.


This isn't any more logical.


I think what you mean to say is that you can't wrap your head around the idea of infinity, so it doesn't sound logical to you. In actuality, it is entirely logical.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#160 Apr 29 2011 at 3:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Seeing someone killed and then come back to life would be pretty compelling evidence.


Seeing most of the miracles would be. Water to wine? Sign me up for that religion!


Yes please.
#161 Apr 29 2011 at 3:22 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
Kachi wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Kachi wrote:
As best we can tell, the universe has always existed.


This isn't any more logical.


I think what you mean to say is that you can't wrap your head around the idea of infinity, so it doesn't sound logical to you. In actuality, it is entirely logical.


No, I meant exactly what I said. It isn't any more logical in reference to what I was saying. "Something always existing" allows us to say "God simply exists". Either way, you haven't provided anything that excludes a supernatural occurrence or event, which is kinda sorta my point.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#162 Apr 29 2011 at 3:41 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Seeing someone killed and then come back to life would be pretty compelling evidence.


Of zombies, yeah.

Wait, what did you mean?
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#163 Apr 29 2011 at 4:13 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,590 posts
LeWoVoc wrote:

"We're the center of the universe!"
No, you orbit the sun

"Oh yeah, well our sun is at the center of the universe."
No, it's not. It's part of a galaxy and is nowhere near the center.

"So! At least we're the only galaxy"
No, we're not.

"Well, we're a special creature on Earth!"
No, you evolved just like everything else

And so religion changes, adapts, and evolves.

And interesting article about perhaps one of the next biggest retcons in (Christian) religion.

And I might as well link today's.

Edited, Apr 29th 2011 5:15pm by Allegory
#164 Apr 29 2011 at 4:19 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
2nd link above wrote:
Is Gandhi in ****? It’s a question that should puncture religious chauvinism and unsettle fundamentalists of every stripe. But there’s a question that should be asked in turn: Is Tony Soprano really in heaven? 


I like how this article ends...

Is this real person in ****? And the counter is this fictional character in Heaven?
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#165 Apr 29 2011 at 4:26 PM Rating: Decent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
Kachi wrote:
(sorry-- "hypothesis" for the pedants)
I'm not being pedantic, they don't mean the same thing. Sorry.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#166 Apr 29 2011 at 5:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Caffeine Queen
*****
14,450 posts

Almalieque wrote:
A scientific explanation HAS to have a logical explanation or it isn't science. Faith does not require a "why" only science


Earlier on you wrote

Almalieque wrote:
Before I went to college, I challenged my own faith and concluded that being in God was more logical than following science.



So I reiterate, you're not only impatient and must have an answer NOW to fill in the blanks we have yet to figure out, even if it's wrong, you're also lazy and hypocritical. Got it.



Almalieque wrote:
Wait,wait,wait a minute. You do realize that it is believed that Jesus Christ is to come back to Earth? Wouldn't that be evidence enough? Can't you just WAIT till he comes back as evidence of religion, why do you need an answer NOW? You're so impatient.


Did you see it happen? Do you know anyone personally who did? Can it be proven aside from the Bible? Are there any other documents in that time era that states a man rose from the grave, saying he was Gods son?

Yeah, I think I can wait to see for myself or have more viable proof . I dont need an answer now. Id rather wait for actual evidence.

Almalieque wrote:
Sound stupid huh?


You havent sounded anything else yet but I can feign surprise if you want.
____________________________
Uglysasquatch wrote:
DSD kicked Alma in the *** on another thread over the weekend. Clearly, she kicked too hard as he's obviously still feeling it.

Suburban Rebel Mom Blog
#167Almalieque, Posted: Apr 29 2011 at 5:25 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) The actual evidence is coming, you just have to be patient. Therefore, you can not disregard God being responsible for the creation of existence. It's your logic of thinking....go by it.
#168 Apr 29 2011 at 5:33 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
DSD, wait until May 22nd. When Jesus doesn't show up to rapture the good Christians into heaven you can call Alma a moron again.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#169 Apr 29 2011 at 5:45 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Nilatai wrote:
DSD, wait until May 22nd. When Jesus doesn't show up to rapture the good Christians into heaven you can call Alma a moron again.


I saw those billboards as well. Why hasn't the media picked up on this?
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#170 Apr 29 2011 at 5:56 PM Rating: Good
Caffeine Queen
*****
14,450 posts
I'm going to an End of the World party on the 20th. I cant wait to see the back pedaling on the 22 though.

Quote:
Nothing you quoted contradicted you not being patient with Jesus' arrival or showed how I was being impatient in science.


Who said I wasnt patient? I've got all the time in the world to wait for Jesus's return. Doesnt mean I have to sit around believing its going to happen though and deny the logic of science before my very eyes. I've got other things to do. Like enjoy lifes little joys such as watching you make a total *** out of yourself =)
____________________________
Uglysasquatch wrote:
DSD kicked Alma in the *** on another thread over the weekend. Clearly, she kicked too hard as he's obviously still feeling it.

Suburban Rebel Mom Blog
#171 Apr 29 2011 at 6:03 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
DSD wrote:
I'm going to an End of the World party on the 20th. I cant wait to see the back pedaling on the 22 though.



To be fair, the billboards just say May 21....no year. Pretty easy backpedaling on that one.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#172 Apr 29 2011 at 6:11 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
Ailitardif wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
DSD, wait until May 22nd. When Jesus doesn't show up to rapture the good Christians into heaven you can call Alma a moron again.


I saw those billboards as well. Why hasn't the media picked up on this?
It's clearly a liberal conspiracy! I only know about them because of internets and youtubes tbh. We don't have that level of religious nutbaggery this side of the pond, for which I'm eternally grateful.


Well, we do have it, but not quite as bad as you guys. You 'Merikans do right wing Christian nutbaggery like no other nation. You should be proud. ;)

Edited, Apr 29th 2011 8:13pm by Nilatai
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#173 Apr 29 2011 at 6:51 PM Rating: Good
Caffeine Queen
*****
14,450 posts
Ailitardif wrote:
DSD wrote:
I'm going to an End of the World party on the 20th. I cant wait to see the back pedaling on the 22 though.



To be fair, the billboards just say May 21....no year. Pretty easy backpedaling on that one.


Not true. And for the **** of it I looked up the URL blasted on her car:
http://www.wecanknow.com/
____________________________
Uglysasquatch wrote:
DSD kicked Alma in the *** on another thread over the weekend. Clearly, she kicked too hard as he's obviously still feeling it.

Suburban Rebel Mom Blog
#174 Apr 29 2011 at 6:51 PM Rating: Good
Caffeine Queen
*****
14,450 posts
So good Zam wanted it posted twice!!!

Edited, Apr 29th 2011 8:51pm by DSD
____________________________
Uglysasquatch wrote:
DSD kicked Alma in the *** on another thread over the weekend. Clearly, she kicked too hard as he's obviously still feeling it.

Suburban Rebel Mom Blog
#175 Apr 29 2011 at 6:57 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
50 posts
Almalieque wrote:

LeWoVoc wrote:
Science does not prove or attempt to prove anything. It attempts to limit the chance of being wrong.


False. I'm not sure what "science" you're thinking of. Maybe you're thinking of "Art". Science is all about proving what's false to be true and what's true to be false. Please don't put down science as some emotional "Make you feel better" crap.


I'm a little late to respond to this, but I feel it needs addressing.

This quote reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method. Science does not prove anything, it only disproves. The scientific method helps us to put forth theories that make the most sense based on evidence. It also helps us to disprove theories that evidence contradicts or that can be more easily explained. Science progresses through disproving theories that don't hold up to testing and evidence and by replacing those theories with theories that hold up to testing.

Furthermore, the very idea of a scientific truth is inherently at odds with the scientific method itself. Truths don't have to be tested or scrutinized, because they are true. Science, which continually progresses with new findings, would halt if people accepted anything as true.
____________________________
"Cogito Ergo Sum" - Rene Descartes
#176 Apr 29 2011 at 6:59 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
Bertrand Russel. One of the smartest men who ever lived, in my humble opinion. I felt like sharing.


Also, this.


Oh, this too. If you only watch one of these videos, watch this one.

Edited, Apr 29th 2011 9:00pm by Nilatai
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#177 Apr 29 2011 at 7:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,345 posts
Well, we like to go all out.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#178 Apr 29 2011 at 7:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,345 posts
DSD wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
DSD wrote:
I'm going to an End of the World party on the 20th. I cant wait to see the back pedaling on the 22 though.



To be fair, the billboards just say May 21....no year. Pretty easy backpedaling on that one.


Not true. And for the **** of it I looked up the URL blasted on her car:
http://www.wecanknow.com/



Yeah, that guy lives out here. It's not the first time he's predicted The End, either. Of course, the first time around he hedged his bets, as is sensible when pulling "facts" out of one's hiney.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#179 Apr 29 2011 at 7:45 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,069 posts
kiworrior wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

LeWoVoc wrote:
Science does not prove or attempt to prove anything. It attempts to limit the chance of being wrong.


False. I'm not sure what "science" you're thinking of. Maybe you're thinking of "Art". Science is all about proving what's false to be true and what's true to be false. Please don't put down science as some emotional "Make you feel better" crap.


I'm a little late to respond to this, but I feel it needs addressing.

This quote reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method. Science does not prove anything, it only disproves. The scientific method helps us to put forth theories that make the most sense based on evidence. It also helps us to disprove theories that evidence contradicts or that can be more easily explained. Science progresses through disproving theories that don't hold up to testing and evidence and by replacing those theories with theories that hold up to testing.

Furthermore, the very idea of a scientific truth is inherently at odds with the scientific method itself. Truths don't have to be tested or scrutinized, because they are true. Science, which continually progresses with new findings, would halt if people accepted anything as true.


You will learn quickly that facts have no meaning to some people...it's still fun to mess with them though
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#180 Apr 29 2011 at 7:48 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
DSD wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
DSD wrote:
I'm going to an End of the World party on the 20th. I cant wait to see the back pedaling on the 22 though.



To be fair, the billboards just say May 21....no year. Pretty easy backpedaling on that one.


Not true. And for the **** of it I looked up the URL blasted on her car:
http://www.wecanknow.com/


Hmmm...the billboards here don't have a year.

At least it's a Saturday, I would hate to have the world end while I'm at work.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#181 Apr 29 2011 at 7:50 PM Rating: Good
Caffeine Queen
*****
14,450 posts
Ailitardif wrote:
DSD wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
DSD wrote:
I'm going to an End of the World party on the 20th. I cant wait to see the back pedaling on the 22 though.



To be fair, the billboards just say May 21....no year. Pretty easy backpedaling on that one.


Not true. And for the **** of it I looked up the URL blasted on her car:
http://www.wecanknow.com/


Hmmm...the billboards here don't have a year.

At least it's a Saturday, I would hate to have the world end while I'm at work.

I dunno. I think the world ending on one of your 2 days off would show proof that God has a warped sense of humor.


Edited, Apr 29th 2011 9:50pm by DSD
____________________________
Uglysasquatch wrote:
DSD kicked Alma in the *** on another thread over the weekend. Clearly, she kicked too hard as he's obviously still feeling it.

Suburban Rebel Mom Blog
#182 Apr 30 2011 at 9:37 AM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
Ok, so there's no argument or evidence for the existence of something. Therefore, you believe in it. The correct stance is what rdm takes, agnosticism. But since we're talking practicality here, atheism works just as well. Agnosticism, in a sense, covers my own branch of atheism, as agnosticism requires first a statement of disbelief. It allows for possibilities, as I do, but you cannot simultaneously believe and not hold a belief. And you leave yourself all the work in the world when you simply say a God must exist (it doesn't have to) or that a God does exist. You still haven't shown that it's your god. What I can comfortably say, however, is that most of the dogmas and teachings of Christianity are harmful and nearly all are **** near certainly close to untrue.

As for your view on science... you're an idiot. Have you read nothing on the subject? It has nothing to do with making us feel good or whatever you seem to be talking about, it's an empirical analysis of the universe. The conclusions drawn from science are not absolutes, nor do they claim to be. They're the best we have, and when something better comes along, we change the theory to fit the evidence, not the evidence to fit the theory. It's literally the process of whittling away the chance of being wrong with the full knowledge that we can never be certain that we're right.
#183 Apr 30 2011 at 9:41 AM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Let me state it this way: There is no evidence or argument strong enough to fully justify disbelief in a deity. Prove me wrong.
Of course there is. You can't prove an absolute negative, so if you're going to say that you can't disprove god doesn't exist, then you can't disprove anything (gods from other religions, unicorns, narnia, etc.) doesn't exist. Of course we can say those don't exist. It's called induction. If 100% of the recorded history of the human race does not show any evidence whatsoever of something, why assume "you can't say it doesn't exist!" just because we aren't all-knowing? If that's the case we couldn't ever know anything for certain.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#184Almalieque, Posted: Apr 30 2011 at 10:25 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Are you talking to me? In either case, you can't say "or whatever seem to be talking about" (which clearly displays you not understanding the argument) while calling that same argument on science wrong. That doesn't even make any sense. If you're referring to me, I explicitly said that science has nothing to do with making us feel good.
#185rdmcandie, Posted: Apr 30 2011 at 1:41 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Thats not what I said at all. I said that there is no evidence that God does not exist. For all we know the knowledge we have gained over time was him opening the secrets of the cosmos to us. We could argue all day about it, but take gravity for example. Did the apple fall because of gravity, or did God make the apple fall and thus give birth to the idea of Gravity. Perhaps God is what keeps us from floating away, perhaps gravity is an actual force of nature.
#186 Apr 30 2011 at 3:00 PM Rating: Excellent
How is it that so many Christians can't seem to reconcile faith and science?

I'm a practicing Christian and I'm perfectly happy to disregard parts, indeed, entire books of the Old Testament in regards to my beliefs. Deuteronomy, Kings 1 and 2, Chronicles etc have no bearing whatsoever on my relationship with the LORD, so ignoring the creation myth doesn't bother me a bit.


____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#187 Apr 30 2011 at 3:26 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
Almalieque wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:


As for your view on science... you're an idiot. Have you read nothing on the subject? It has nothing to do with making us feel good or whatever you seem to be talking about, it's an empirical analysis of the universe. The conclusions drawn from science are not absolutes, nor do they claim to be. They're the best we have, and when something better comes along, we change the theory to fit the evidence, not the evidence to fit the theory. It's literally the process of whittling away the chance of being wrong with the full knowledge that we can never be certain that we're right.


Are you talking to me? In either case, you can't say "or whatever seem to be talking about" (which clearly displays you not understanding the argument) while calling that same argument on science wrong. That doesn't even make any sense. If you're referring to me, I explicitly said that science has nothing to do with making us feel good.
The fact that I misread your post doesn't change the fact that you're wrong about science. It neither proves nor attempts to prove anything. Ever.
#188Almalieque, Posted: Apr 30 2011 at 3:57 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) So the fact that you made up something in place of an argument that you misread, somehow proves my point of science wrong? Interesting....
#189 Apr 30 2011 at 4:10 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
Almalieque wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:


As for your view on science... you're an idiot. Have you read nothing on the subject? It has nothing to do with making us feel good or whatever you seem to be talking about, it's an empirical analysis of the universe. The conclusions drawn from science are not absolutes, nor do they claim to be. They're the best we have, and when something better comes along, we change the theory to fit the evidence, not the evidence to fit the theory. It's literally the process of whittling away the chance of being wrong with the full knowledge that we can never be certain that we're right.


Are you talking to me? In either case, you can't say "or whatever seem to be talking about" (which clearly displays you not understanding the argument) while calling that same argument on science wrong. That doesn't even make any sense. If you're referring to me, I explicitly said that science has nothing to do with making us feel good.
The fact that I misread your post doesn't change the fact that you're wrong about science. It neither proves nor attempts to prove anything. Ever.


So the fact that you made up something in place of an argument that you misread, somehow proves my point of science wrong? Interesting....
No, you dunce. You were right on the point which was brought to my attention that I misread. Science is not about making you feel good. You were wrong in interpreting my initial description of science as such.

The part that you continue to be wrong on is your claim that science proves something. Try to read this post slowly and admit, as I did, when you realize your comprehension mistake.

Edited, Apr 30th 2011 4:11pm by LeWoVoc
#190 Apr 30 2011 at 4:12 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,071 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
How is it that so many Christians can't seem to reconcile faith and science?

I'm a practicing Christian and I'm perfectly happy to disregard parts, indeed, entire books of the Old Testament in regards to my beliefs. Deuteronomy, Kings 1 and 2, Chronicles etc have no bearing whatsoever on my relationship with the LORD, so ignoring the creation myth doesn't bother me a bit.


Because there is plenty in the new testament that is equivalently indefensible. If you take out all the mythic elements, you are left with a book of morals and very little in the way of a religion.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#191 Apr 30 2011 at 4:21 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Thats not what I said at all. I said that there is no evidence that God does not exist.
You're missing the point.

Anything that doesn't exist has no proof that it doesn't exist.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#192 Apr 30 2011 at 4:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,024 posts
bsphil wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Thats not what I said at all. I said that there is no evidence that God does not exist.
You're missing the point.

Anything that doesn't exist has no proof that it doesn't exist.


Yeah, I read rdm's paragraph and thought to myself, "Man, Alma just keeps getting dumber." Then saw the author and went "Oh..."
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#193 Apr 30 2011 at 4:54 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
bsphil wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Thats not what I said at all. I said that there is no evidence that God does not exist.
You're missing the point.

Anything that doesn't exist has no proof that it doesn't exist.
Yeah, I read rdm's paragraph and thought to myself, "Man, Alma just keeps getting dumber." Then saw the author and went "Oh..."
Smiley: lol
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#194 Apr 30 2011 at 5:03 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
LeWoVoc wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:


As for your view on science... you're an idiot. Have you read nothing on the subject? It has nothing to do with making us feel good or whatever you seem to be talking about, it's an empirical analysis of the universe. The conclusions drawn from science are not absolutes, nor do they claim to be. They're the best we have, and when something better comes along, we change the theory to fit the evidence, not the evidence to fit the theory. It's literally the process of whittling away the chance of being wrong with the full knowledge that we can never be certain that we're right.


Are you talking to me? In either case, you can't say "or whatever seem to be talking about" (which clearly displays you not understanding the argument) while calling that same argument on science wrong. That doesn't even make any sense. If you're referring to me, I explicitly said that science has nothing to do with making us feel good.
The fact that I misread your post doesn't change the fact that you're wrong about science. It neither proves nor attempts to prove anything. Ever.


So the fact that you made up something in place of an argument that you misread, somehow proves my point of science wrong? Interesting....
No, you dunce. You were right on the point which was brought to my attention that I misread. Science is not about making you feel good. You were wrong in interpreting my initial description of science as such.

The part that you continue to be wrong on is your claim that science proves something. Try to read this post slowly and admit, as I did, when you realize your comprehension mistake.

Edited, Apr 30th 2011 4:11pm by LeWoVoc


Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.[1][2][3][4] An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that of Aristotle, for whom scientific knowledge was a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained (see "History and etymology" section below).[5]
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#195 Apr 30 2011 at 7:48 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
bsphil wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Thats not what I said at all. I said that there is no evidence that God does not exist.
You're missing the point.

Anything that doesn't exist has no proof that it doesn't exist.


Yeah, I read rdm's paragraph and thought to myself, "Man, Alma just keeps getting dumber." Then saw the author and went "Oh..."


=( harsh.

Also how do you know a "God" does not exist though? Proof please, because it will be much easier for me to say I believe in evolution and science, without adding but there could be a chance that something coerced us to evolve(created us) this way and controls everything.

Ya know what I am saying? You can't prove the existence, or nonexistence, therefor the possibility remains that a "God" figure could exist or could not.

There is no proof either way. So there is no way to state for fact in one event or the other, some believe heavily that one does exist, others fiercely disbelieve, and others like myself, believe that it could be one way or the other.

But if you have undeniable proof of either position please share it.




Edited, Apr 30th 2011 9:50pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#196 Apr 30 2011 at 8:01 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
I have no proof that pigs don't fly, or that a Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create the universe, or that Alma isn't a massive ******. Why do you reject all of these things yet embrace your equally unproven idea?
#197 Apr 30 2011 at 8:25 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
bsphil wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Thats not what I said at all. I said that there is no evidence that God does not exist.
You're missing the point.

Anything that doesn't exist has no proof that it doesn't exist.


Yeah, I read rdm's paragraph and thought to myself, "Man, Alma just keeps getting dumber." Then saw the author and went "Oh..."
Also how do you know a "God" does not exist though? Proof please
How do you keep missing the point here? Go back and read the first page, skim down to my first response. ****, I'll save you the time:
bsphil wrote:
Both [agnosticism and atheism], because atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

Atheism is the lack/denial of belief in a god or gods. Agnosticism is a lack/denial of certainty or ultimate knowledge. An agnostic atheist would be someone who does not believe in a god or gods but lacks absolute certain proof for this (lack of) belief - typically because logically you cannot prove nonexistence.

Most self-described atheists and agnostics are almost always all agnostic atheists.

Holy sh*t that's a lot of assonance.

____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#198 Apr 30 2011 at 8:38 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
Majivo wrote:
I have no proof that pigs don't fly, or that a Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create the universe, or that Alma isn't a massive ******.


Well it's about time someone admits that s/he doesn't have any proof to counter my overwhelming intelligence. As for the flying pigs and the FSM, there exist proof, YOU just don't posses it.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#199 Apr 30 2011 at 8:39 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,616 posts
Possess
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#200 Apr 30 2011 at 8:40 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Majivo wrote:
I have no proof that pigs don't fly, or that a Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create the universe, or that Alma isn't a massive ******.


Well it's about time someone admits that s/he doesn't have any proof to counter my overwhelming intelligence. As for the flying pigs and the FSM, there exist proof, YOU just don't posses it.


I don't know, spaghetti is pretty **** good. I assume we are talking about the entree and not just the pasta? Anyway the entree is godlike in its deliciousness.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#201 Apr 30 2011 at 8:41 PM Rating: Good
******
44,512 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Majivo wrote:
I have no proof that pigs don't fly, or that a Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create the universe, or that Alma isn't a massive ******.
Well it's about time someone admits that s/he doesn't have any proof to counter my overwhelming intelligence. As for the flying pigs and the FSM, there exist proof, YOU just don't posses it.
Wow.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 40 All times are in CST
Timelordwho, TirithRR, Anonymous Guests (38)