LP Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Sheer infinite improbability and scientific evidence for the contrary. ^^pretty much sums it up if you understand it... P.S. agnostics, you're all just atheists who are scared you'll be punished by a god that may exist... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 You're calling faith irrational? Alot of people would disagree with you, I personally don't see how the Big Bang Theory is a flawless explanation to how we got here. I'm pretty sure the word irrational is already in the definition of faith :| . I agree with the fact that the theory is flawed. See my previous reply about the Cyclic Universe theory for more info. I think certain faiths are more rational than others. Buddhism, for one, does not have absolute belief in a single entity, and it encourages that you question everything, including its own teachings. It seems more rational than atheism. That's interesting :-k . That theory seems much more logical than the Big Bang theory. Oh, and yes, it is far more rational than atheism. Sheer infinite improbability and scientific evidence for the contrary. ^^pretty much sums it up if you understand it... P.S. agnostics, you're all just atheists who are scared you'll be punished by a god that may exist... Dear God do I hate people like that. Especially those who believe in a God (or any of it's variants) simply because they want to stay out of some man-made Hell and instead get eternal happyness or some crap like that. Nonetheless, I am agnostic, and my reasons for being such are far from your general assumptions. Simply put, there's absolutely no reason for one to make random guesses about a subject of which we can obtain no data or knowledge whatsoever. For that reason I choose not to choose. The possibility of a god will always be there, but there is no evidence on either side of the argument about whether or not it exists. (though, it would be nice to hear what scientific evidence you have to dispute the existence of a creator). Oh, and just so you know, I don't believe in Hell or Heaven, nor an afterlife at all. The ideology behind the afterlife is pathetically illogical, so I see no reason to believe in a god based on fear, because with my current opinions I have nothing to fear. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LP Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 The possibility of a god will always be there, but there is no evidence on either side of the argument about whether or not it exists. (though, it would be nice to hear what scientific evidence you have to dispute the existence of a creator). Uh, evolution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 The possibility of a god will always be there, but there is no evidence on either side of the argument about whether or not it exists. (though, it would be nice to hear what scientific evidence you have to dispute the existence of a creator). Uh, evolution? -.- :wall: -.- A god. Not God. Not the Christian God. Evolution does not disprove a creator of the multiverse. It just disproves Genesis, which is just fully of flowery stories and contradictions anyways. I don't believe any image of god(s) formed here on earth is correct, though I'd be willing to bet that some of them hold properties of the creator of our universe, if there is one (i.e., omniscience, etc.). [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LP Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 even if you believe in 'A' god... who created it? good reading below: http://thecreationfallacy.blogspot.com/ http://thecreationfallacy.blogspot.com/#download http://www.chrisbeach.co.uk/viewQuotes.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 You cannot ignore all the good religion has done in the world, in the past and nowadays. Ever heard of Christian-Aid? The Salvation Army? The church near me has a 'charity of the week' where they donate a percentage of their collection money to. Churches are always having stalls and festivals to raise money for charities of all different shapes and sizes. In the past Churches have always focused on helping people in times of conflict. For example in the Irish potato famine they set up soup kitchens for the starving. They aren't all bad news, and it would be wrong to say so. Just to make some relevance I wouldn't doubt that the church has done some great things over the years. Anyway on to the Irish potatos. Sorry, just can't pass up this irony. It's great that the church helped in such a devistating crop loss but a knowlege of evolution could have stopped such a total devastation from ever occuring by manipulating the genetics of the crops through artificial selection. :P Just because there are scientific explanations for phenomena within our plane of existence does not mean there isn't a God people. Man-made Gods can be disproved, for they can contain contradictory properties. The idea that there is a God, the one and only creator and observer of the multiuniverse, however, can not be disproved no matter how hard one tries. Basically, it's pointless to choose a side. That's like deciding a defendant is guilty without even knowing what the trial's about. There's a very good reason for not being wishy washy and rather being skeptical and highly doubtful of any god. Any concession to a god explanation halts scientific progress because it makes us content with knowing that we don't know, so to speak. Scientists have come along way and realised labelling natural phenomenon with deity after deity is useless to progress. It's only through conceding that we don't have the answers that we can start looking for them. Come to think of it, this is an argument against theism rather than agnosticism. your scientist have shown you there's not...and scientist who believe in darwinism and big bang are the biggest non religouse people out there..that they need to prove there right Please, don't paint scientists out to be the ones with an agenda. I could easily turn this around and question why is it that the only ones who oppose said science have religious beliefs to defend? If evolution was disproven for a bigger and better theory I would be glad because the scientific process would have worked. though, it would be nice to hear what scientific evidence you have to dispute the existence of a creator There is no such thing for or against, Reb. Science is a purely naturalistsic methodology. Trying to gather evidence from the supernatural is, as you said, impossible because there's no data or knowlege to grasp. Note that this is for your archetypal, arbitrary creator; I've seen good arguments against many specific deities made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 LP, when you get right down to it, philosophy, science, everything leads to the simple unanswered question: How did all of this come to existence, and why? A creator or god of some form is just a hypothesis for the reason behind existence. Those articles appear to be focused on disproving Christians though. Again, I'm not talking about the christian god, just a being or entity that could have effected or created this plane of existence. For all we know, this "creator", if it exists, could be incapable of thought or emotion. We just don't know. There's a very good reason for not being wishy washy and rather being skeptical and highly doubtful of any god. Any concession to a god explanation halts scientific progress because it makes us content with knowing that we don't know, so to speak. Scientists have come along way and realised labelling natural phenomenon with deity after deity is useless to progress. It's only through conceding that we don't have the answers that we can start looking for them. Come to think of it, this is an argument against theism rather than agnosticism. I am highly doubtful and skeptical of any god that has been thought up and given specificproperties. I am however not closed off to the idea that some creator does exist, most likely one not like any god we humans have thought up. And yes, as you established in your last sentence, you have reiterated my argument :P . though, it would be nice to hear what scientific evidence you have to dispute the existence of a creator There is no such thing for or against, Reb. Science is a purely naturalistsic methodology. Trying to gather evidence from the supernatural is, as you said, impossible because there's no data or knowlege to grasp. Note that this is for your archetypal, arbitrary creator; I've seen good arguments against many specific deities made. Which is exactly my point :P . And yes, as I said, specific man-created deities can be pretty much completely disproven, but the simple idea of a creator can not be disproven. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 LP, when you get right down to it, philosophy, science, everything leads to the simple unanswered question: How did all of this come to existence, and why? A creator or god of some form is just a hypothesis for the reason behind existence. There's a very good reason for not being wishy washy and rather being skeptical and highly doubtful of any god. Any concession to a god explanation halts scientific progress because it makes us content with knowing that we don't know, so to speak. Scientists have come along way and realised labelling natural phenomenon with deity after deity is useless to progress. It's only through conceding that we don't have the answers that we can start looking for them. Come to think of it, this is an argument against theism rather than agnosticism. I am highly doubtful and skeptical of any god that has been thought up and given specificproperties. I am however not closed off to the idea that some creator does exist, most likely one not like any god we humans have thought up. And yes, as you established in your last sentence, you have reiterated my argument :P . though, it would be nice to hear what scientific evidence you have to dispute the existence of a creator There is no such thing for or against, Reb. Science is a purely naturalistsic methodology. Trying to gather evidence from the supernatural is, as you said, impossible because there's no data or knowlege to grasp. Note that this is for your archetypal, arbitrary creator; I've seen good arguments against many specific deities made. Which is exactly my point :P . And yes, as I said, specific man-created deities can be pretty much completely disproven, but the simple idea of a creator can not be disproven. Looks like we're in total agreement then. :P :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LP Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 2500 yrs. ago people thought the earth was flat, probably... 500 years ago they still did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth Edit* -someone must have edited their post because i cant find where my response was directed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leila Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 No solid proof of God? Wow I didn't realise there was solid proof that he didn't exist either. Have I missed something? :roll: Perhaps then you believe in Thor, Zeus or Quetzalcoatl? Or the invisible pink elephant, flying spaghetti monster or the flying teapot? Or ghosts, pixies, faries, gremlins, trolls, witches and warlocks? I think I've made my point clear enough. Ihave thouroghly read this post, and have come to the conclusion that you are very close-minded and intolerant. It would seem that you have not been touched by his noodly appendage, and should visit this webpage. -Pastafarian for life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Looks like we're in total agreement then. :P :) Huzzah :mrgreen: ! Oh, and LP- In order to maintain their delusion in face of evidence and reason to the contrary believers say god is totally outside of logic, reason, evidence, and human understanding. But that's just an excuse because if that really was true then they would know nothing about him, and there would be no handbooks. This maintains the evidence and reason, which disproves the existence of god. I maintain that I know nothing about "god", and I am certain nearly all of it's properties are outside of human logic, reason, evidence, and understanding. I know nothing about this god, I merely admit that the possibility of it existing exists. These articles are little more than an attack on Christian creationists, who have already given properties to something they understand nothing about. No solid proof of God? Wow I didn't realise there was solid proof that he didn't exist either. Have I missed something? :roll: Perhaps then you believe in Thor, Zeus or Quetzalcoatl? Or the invisible pink elephant, flying spaghetti monster or the flying teapot? Or ghosts, pixies, faries, gremlins, trolls, witches and warlocks? I think I've made my point clear enough. Ihave thouroghly read this post, and have come to the conclusion that you are very close-minded and intolerant. It would seem that you have not been touched by his noodly appendage, and should visit this webpage. -Pastafarian for life. :XD: There's a website for the thing :lol: ? Where have I been? [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 No solid proof of God? Wow I didn't realise there was solid proof that he didn't exist either. Have I missed something? :roll: Perhaps then you believe in Thor, Zeus or Quetzalcoatl? Or the invisible pink elephant, flying spaghetti monster or the flying teapot? Or ghosts, pixies, faries, gremlins, trolls, witches and warlocks? I think I've made my point clear enough. Ihave thouroghly read this post, and have come to the conclusion that you are very close-minded and intolerant. It would seem that you have not been touched by his noodly appendage, and should visit this webpage. -Pastafarian for life. In the name of the FSM I see the light! :P (humour, people. Please don't get offended) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LP Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 yeah, i guess i hate Christians... I do... especially fundamentalist I figured out where u were going in ur lasts post in that you don't rule out the possibility of a divine creator and there is nothing anyone could say to challenge your thought, so im just going to drop it. edit: odd, that link that guy posted on the last page, the first time i clicked it, it directed me to some crap about the iphone, and ring tones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leila Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 yeah, i guess i hate Christians... I do... especially fundamentalist I figured out where u were going in ur lasts post in that you don't rule out the possibility of a divine creator and there is nothing anyone could say to challenge your thought, so im just going to drop it. edit: odd, that link that guy posted on the last page, the first time i clicked it, it directed me to some crap about the iphone, and ring tones. I had mistyped the webpage, don't worry, it's the correct page now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pureodoom1 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 No solid proof of God? Wow I didn't realise there was solid proof that he didn't exist either. Have I missed something? :roll: Perhaps then you believe in Thor, Zeus or Quetzalcoatl? Or the invisible pink elephant, flying spaghetti monster or the flying teapot? Or ghosts, pixies, faries, gremlins, trolls, witches and warlocks? I think I've made my point clear enough. You don't have to be rude. :shame: Retired from Runescape as of June 1, 2007.Visit my guide on internet conduct and abbreviations! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pureodoom1 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Okay, the reason God is God is because he is outside of human reason that is what makes him divine. There are many things science can prove but it has never fully proven spontaneous creation. The only that has been proven to be spontaneous is amino acids. Proves nothing. :| Retired from Runescape as of June 1, 2007.Visit my guide on internet conduct and abbreviations! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pureodoom1 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 And I have something to disprove evolution. If evolution were true where'd the monkies/fish come from? Eh? Retired from Runescape as of June 1, 2007.Visit my guide on internet conduct and abbreviations! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadril Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 And I have something to disprove evolution. If evolution were true where'd the monkies/fish come from? Eh? To be completely honest even if we explained it to you you'd just rear your ignorant head. I can however say safely you have no idea what you are talking about though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warri0r45 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 And I have something to disprove evolution. If evolution were true where'd the monkies/fish come from? Eh? And that disproves evolution how? Be a lot more specific in your critique please. Anyway they came from thier evolutionary ancestors, as according to the theory of universal common descent and as evidenced by fossils, and similarities of all kinds (including in biochemistry, anatomy, embryology, genetic code, energy currency, bone structure etc, etc, etc...) I'm assuming you're referring to abiogenesis. It's a common criticism which is totally misguided to say the least. The theories of abogenesis and evolution are two distinctly different theories. I'm not as apt with abiogenesis so I'd suggest do some personal study for yourself. If you try and argue that evolution has to explain where the first cell came from then science and how it's taught would collapse into a heap. Think of aerodynamics. When studying such a science, it's taken as an axiom that there is air just like in evolution it's taken as an axiom that in some point in the past, there was life (which is obviously true). It's just that all empirical evidence and observations suggest universal common descent, which is taken into account in the broader theory of evolution. Another reason why I'm an atheist; I find the concept of a deceptive designer disturbing. The account of genesis and what scientists have found out obviously conflict, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Okay, the reason God is God is because he is outside of human reason that is what makes him divine. There are many things science can prove but it has never fully proven spontaneous creation. The only that has been proven to be spontaneous is amino acids. Proves nothing. :| In order to maintain their delusion in face of evidence and reason to the contrary believers say god is totally outside of logic, reason, evidence, and human understanding. But that's just an excuse because if that really was true then they would know nothing about him, and there would be no handbooks. This maintains the evidence and reason, which disproves the existence of god. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pureodoom1 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 And I have something to disprove evolution. If evolution were true where'd the monkies/fish come from? Eh? And that disproves evolution how? Be a lot more specific in your critique please. Anyway they came from thier evolutionary ancestors, as according to the theory of universal common descent and as evidenced by fossils, and similarities of all kinds (including in biochemistry, anatomy, embryology, genetic code, energy currency, bone structure etc, etc, etc...) I'm assuming you're referring to abiogenesis. It's a common criticism which is totally misguided to say the least. The theories of abogenesis and evolution are two distinctly different theories. I'm not as apt with abiogenesis so I'd suggest do some personal study for yourself. If you try and argue that evolution has to explain where the first cell came from then science and how it's taught would collapse into a heap. Think of aerodynamics. When studying such a science, it's taken as an axiom that there is air just like in evolution it's taken as an axiom that in some point in the past, there was life (which is obviously true). It's just that all empirical evidence and observations suggest universal common descent, which is taken into account in the broader theory of evolution. Another reason why I'm an atheist; I find the concept of a deceptive designer disturbing. The account of genesis and what scientists have found out obviously conflict, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. God you're smart :). Retired from Runescape as of June 1, 2007.Visit my guide on internet conduct and abbreviations! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LP Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 You're not. :-w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pureodoom1 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 And I have something to disprove evolution. If evolution were true where'd the monkies/fish come from? Eh? To be completely honest even if we explained it to you you'd just rear your ignorant head. I can however say safely you have no idea what you are talking about though. I'm just voicing my opinion nothing I have said or done insinuates I am ignorant. I am completely open to your ideas just not fully convinced that thousands of years of belief is untrue so please don't insinuate I am ignorant again please. Retired from Runescape as of June 1, 2007.Visit my guide on internet conduct and abbreviations! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pureodoom1 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 You're not. :-w Please let me compliment someones intelligence without being insulted. You are being totally rude all I am doing is voicing my opinion in a thread specifically created to do so. Retired from Runescape as of June 1, 2007.Visit my guide on internet conduct and abbreviations! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nadril Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 And I have something to disprove evolution. If evolution were true where'd the monkies/fish come from? Eh? To be completely honest even if we explained it to you you'd just rear your ignorant head. I can however say safely you have no idea what you are talking about though. I'm just voicing my opinion nothing I have said or done insinuates I am ignorant. I am completely open to your ideas just not fully convinced that thousands of years of belief is untrue so please don't insinuate I am ignorant again please. There is a different between an opinion and a false statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts