Plectrum

Was Frankenstein's monster not proof that Frankenstein existed? Are the pastries and breads in the store not proof of a baker? I don't know about you but I have to see the bakers, just so I know for a fact that the bread didn't evolve from a single cell wheat seed.

And the media isn't to blame for anything except following the detrimental standards that are set by society. Think about it. The easiest way for women to compete with men in our society is by being as attractive as possible. Women haven't always had the same opportunities as men. And in certain situation women still don't have the same opportunities as men. So don't blame the media. Blame society.

Newcastle =P~ It tastes like a cloud. *Drool*

I think the argument here is that God, being omniscient, knew the exact results of creating Hitler, founders of the KKK, etc. Essentially, the argument is that God turns a blind eye to the horrors and suffering that exists on Earth. He has the power to smite evil at any time and save lives and make people happier, yet he chooses not to. For example -- say you create extremely intelligent robots for a living. Each robot is equipped with a "Shut Down" button that only you hold. Now, say a few of these robots "turned evil" and began to kill innocent lives and makes others suffer. Would you press the button to stop the robots-gone-bad? Or would you let them destroy innocent lives simply because the robots have made that choice? You, as the creator, are ultimately responsible for the robots. Now imagine the same scenario, but this time you know (in advance) exactly which robots would "turn evil". Would you still create those particular robots, even though you are well aware of the consequences? That's a huge (false) generalization to say that the reason most atheists don't believe is because they are scared and/or stubborn. :-k The thing is we aren't omniscient. Let's say God does shutdown Hitler if he starts doing evil things. Is that a good or bad thing? It can be argued either way. And eventually Hitler did die. Did he not die soon enough? Should he have died before he even had a chance to do evil things? Where is the line? Are we even able to comprehend when someone's time is? Some argue for the death penalty, others against it. Who is right?

How do they know its not the other way? My hypothesis is that land mammals came from the cetaceans and not the other way around. They are only assuming that cetaceans evolved from land mammals. I'm assuming the opposite. Who's wrong? Still irrelevant to the topic. The fatal flaw with that hypothesis is probably that cetaceans come after the major land tetrapods in the fossil record (and thus chronologically). Your hypothesis must predict cetaceans come before all land tatrapods and thus would be falsified. There are probably other hiccups to that hypothesis. You'd just need to think about it more and predict exactly what the data should say, embryonically, biochemically and in terms of the fossil evidence. Another drawback with your hypothesis would be that the cetaceans should show no embryonic leg buds nor any atavistic legs as legs should come after the cetaceans. So yeah, major flaws. Biologists don't assume when there is evidence of a given evolutionary link and the alternative, your hypothesis, is basically falsified by that same evidence. What if those embryonic leg buds having been slowly evolving over the past 10,000 years so eventually they can evolve into land mammals. You are only assuming that the embryonic leg buds are leftovers from land mammals. This still has nothing to do with the topic. :wall:

Like a car can't die of mileage. If a car dies at 300,000 miles it isn't actually dying of mileage. It died because problems related to its parts........................................................................................................ :wall:

How do they know its not the other way? My hypothesis is that land mammals came from the cetaceans and not the other way around. They are only assuming that cetaceans evolved from land mammals. I'm assuming the opposite. Who's wrong? Still irrelevant to the topic.

It's because it's not relevant to the task at hand. What exactly is the gripe you have? What are you finding difficult here? Actually it is relevant. You are disregarding the possibility of a lineage tracing back to the first man in support of your argument, but you provide no evidence. I disregarded nor asserted any possibility. I said it was irrelevant to the purposes of the task. Anything else not regarding my point you want to argue? Anything stated in your argument in support of your argument is up for discussion. Actually I was just wondering how your thoughts on biogenesis relate to the topic at hand: "Is God real or not". Clearly it is an epistemological question, philosophical in nature. But if we ever find God in a biology I'm sure what you have to say would be relevant. :wall: This dosen't change the fact that I disregarded nor asserted any possibility as you wrongly claimed. I said the possibility of abiogenesis is irrelevant to the purposes of the task of concluding evolution. If you want to argue a point I made at least make sure I made the point! Anything else not regarding my point you want to argue? I don't understand what you mean in your second paragraph about 'finding god in biology' making 'what I have to say relevant'. I don't think biogenesis has anything to do with god. I think it has to do with DNA and it's replication. I wasn't trying to argue a point you did or didn't make. I was just wondering why you were ruling out possibilities. By saying my interest in what you said is irrelevant is proof enough that what you said was irrelevant. Truthfully, I find everything you say increasingly interesting every time I hear about it. Biology is probably the most fascinating sciences. But the conclusions that biologist jump to are based on observation, which isn't alway scientific. For example, in my Biology class the teacher was explaining how birds evolved from reptiles. On the basis that birds have scaled feet doesn't seem to be enough evidence to support that. I'm wondering if you can share any knowledge you have about this topic? The thing about biology is that a lot of stuff has to be assumed. Assumption doesn't really cut it for me. There are too many missing links in biology.

It's because it's not relevant to the task at hand. What exactly is the gripe you have? What are you finding difficult here? Actually it is relevant. You are disregarding the possibility of a lineage tracing back to the first man in support of your argument, but you provide no evidence. I disregarded nor asserted any possibility. I said it was irrelevant to the purposes of the task. Anything else not regarding my point you want to argue? Anything stated in your argument in support of your argument is up for discussion. Actually I was just wondering how your thoughts on biogenesis relate to the topic at hand: "Is God real or not". Clearly it is an epistemological question, philosophical in nature. But if we ever find God in a biology I'm sure what you have to say would be relevant.

It's because it's not relevant to the task at hand. What exactly is the gripe you have? What are you finding difficult here? Actually it is relevant. You are disregarding the possibility of a lineage tracing back to the first man in support of your argument, but you provide no evidence.

Why not? Because, for all intenstive purposes, it's completely unrelated and useless to the task at hand. It's a different topic all together- real family trees don't go back that far, ever. If you don't get the parallel warri0r's making, just think about it for a second, it'll come to you :| . Why do you think that real family trees don't go back that far?

I think you're misconstruing things. In general life only comes from life. This is the law of biogenesis, yet biologists recognise that this law would break down if there was a favourable environment where life may be able to arise from non-life (namely in an earth with no life where all the right chemicals aren't being ingested and recycled by microorganisms). In general biogenesis seems to be the one and only way it rolls, hence why it's referred to as a law I suppose. I don't think anyone seriously believes in a contradiction. Added to this if you believe in evolution, you don't have to believe in abiogenesis; they are different concepts. Do you demand to know where the first human came from when reconstructing your family tree? Why not?

I would choose A. Since it would be too boring not speaking (the utterance of intelligible speech) to anyone/anything I would request a J.R.R. Tolkien clone and have him teach me the unintelligible language of elven. Has anyone seen Cast Away? In the movie Tom Hanks was gone like 5 years but he lost everything. I could never imagine coming back and having the woman I planned to marry, married to someone else. Cast Away is probably the saddest movie I've ever seen.

I understand what you are saying. But I am wondering who is controlling the world if God isn't. The Devil? Humans? Animals? Nature? What makes the world go round?

Saying that the only base of Atheism is the disbelief in God and then going onto say that Atheism believe that there isn't a higher purpose does not refer to a God. It is very obvious to see that he is saying in one sentence that Atheism has a certain base and then in another sentence he is saying that it has another. This is a contradiction.

Which two points did I take out of context? Edit: Actually, he explained is own points away.

Absolutely true. I rest my case. Do you have anything to say about my other two points?

I hate anime. :evil:

(1) I'm not sure what you are talking about. When I am referring to ideas I am referring to the beliefs of both the belief in God and the disbelief in God. They are both ideas. Since ideas can be materialistic I am trying to find common ground between Atheism and Theism. By saying that you don't believe in a higher purpose you are saying that some ideas can't be true. Which is true in some cases. But looking at the evidence of spirituality in human psyche (the feeling of there being something greater than our selves, theism), these ideas of God are real ideas. Therefore making the divine conceivable. Though this doesn't prove the divine, it does make common ground between Atheism and Theism. (2) In this statement you said that Atheism doesn't have any base of beliefs other than disbelief. Meaning that there is no belief in purpose or meaning. We are here for nothing. Which brings me back to my main point. If we weren't meant to have purpose why would we discover this? It would be like discovering that there is darkness in a world without light. Darkness would be a word with out meaning. (3) I agree that is why I brought up the point about ideas. (4) You contradicted yourself. You said that Atheist don't have a base of beliefs beside the disbelief in God. Then you went on to say that Atheist don't believe in higher purpose. This is why I brought up point three. A lot of people on this forum are not explaining there side very well. Mainly regarding the argument that Atheism does not have a base of beliefs.

(1) You keep using examples of materialistic things being meaningful and somehow important. Since you and I don't have the same beliefs I can't argue things that are divine to prove my point. So I used a materialistic example, ideas, to prove my point. I never said that Atheist don't have ideas, Atheism is an idea. (2) You fail to understand there are more details to a belief than the definition of the word. Christian, the word, means "Christ Ones", it doesn't even mention God. You can't argue an entire set of beliefs on one word. Atheism is the base of what Atheists believe. Its not the only thing. Atheists don't believe in universal purpose. Why is it hard to come to grips with this? (3) No, I just don't understand why you don't understand your own beliefs. But if you do understand them I don't understand why you can't explain them well. (4) I don't want this higher purpose. People who believe in a God accept that there is a higher purpose.

(1) That's quite false, ideas have died and been destroyed very quickly in history if a ruler or a wealthy class decided those ideas work against their own interests. (2)After all, an idea only exists in an amount of people who know about it. If the Wright brothers were assassinated while inventing the airplane, nobody would have anything to continue their work from. If I right now knew a scheme to stop world hunger 100% foolproof, that idea only exists in my mind. If I die tomorrow, the idea dies. (3)Or, if Albert Einstein had died before publishing his magnificent theories, facts, ideas about the world... They would've gone with him to the grave. (1) Actually, its quite true. The Roman empire had power, it had money, it had ideas. Which one of those still exists? The Nazi's had power, they had money, they had ideas. Which one of those still exists? William Wilburforce (the guy who wrote the bill to abolish slavery in England.) had power, had money, and had ideas. Which one of those is still around? (2) Of course, anything dies if it isn't passed on. Ideas that are passed on can never die because they are being passed on. (3) Refer back to 2. @:IGoddessI Sorry I missed your question. I looked back and couldn't find it through all of the posts. What was it?

You fail to easy what higher purpose is. Purpose beyond death. That is why Atheism is so simple, its only concerned with the here and now. There is no ultimate purpose to life, there is no meaning to our existence. You keep arguing mundane aspects of life that don't even matter. There is only one thing that never dies, and that is ideas. Not power; not money; ideas. I don't understand why you keep arguing the mundane. Atheist believe there is no higher purpose. Face it. It's not my fault your faith is so boring.

You don't seem to realize what purpose is. Purpose is a driving force. But what is the sense of a driving force if it doesn't go anywhere? If your entire life is spent feeding the hungry but as soon as you feed the hungry the entire world implodes? What is the purpose of feeding the hungry? What is the purpose of living if you die? What is the purpose of suffering if there isn't joy? And what is the purpose of joy if there wasn't suffering? What is the purpose of light if there isn't dark? What is the purpose of Atheism if there wasn't belief in God? What is the purpose of jail if there weren't criminals? What is the purpose of safety if there isn't danger? What is the purpose of eating if your going to die? What is the purpose of working if you are going to die? What is the purpose of laughing if your are going to cry? What is the purpose of a beginning if there wasn't an end? Purpose always relates back to a higher reason. The purpose of eating is to live, but ultimately you are going to die. So what is the higher purpose of eating?

They are incoherent because I can't find the connection between your points and life having purpose.

PaperClips, your previous post was hardly coherent. I'll go back and decipher it when I have 5 hours to spare.