PDA

View Full Version : An atheist's call to arms




Reason
02-08-2009, 05:32 PM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IyV9T_OlUro/SOkdnOJKhLI/AAAAAAAABbU/xxYYJJOn6IQ/s320/RichardDawkins.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxGMqKCcN6A

I thought this presentation was very well done and happen to agree with most of Dawkin's points.

Your thoughts on the video? Your thoughts on "Non theism"?

Kludge
02-08-2009, 05:35 PM
Watching now...


o.O Youtube removed time constraints from their videos?

Kludge
02-08-2009, 05:55 PM
I'm at 16:00 right now.... I think he's off when he says that Atheists should exercise their "political muscle". It's not possible. He compares the pandering to the Jews, but seems to not realize that Jews and Christians are not so much in conflict. Atheists are in conflict with EVERY faith. For a politician to not only tolerate, but encourage Atheists, they are opening themselves up to bigotry from the "lion's share" religion, as well as all others. Not seeking conflict, this is also why Atheism is not a popular topic, and why many "non-theists" (myself included) hide their lack of religion.

Dawkins keeps talking about a growing number of Atheists and Agnostics. Unless non-bigots and/or Atheists/Agnostics are a majority, there is no point in trying to bring up Atheism or Agnosticism when trying to win support (as would be the case in running for political office).


Edit: Oh... Dawkins was getting to that :o ;)

M House
02-08-2009, 05:59 PM
Yep, sorry it's tough argue with people who think you need the fear of God to make good decisions. If you look at it scientifically tough fear actually makes people make stupid choices.

M House
02-08-2009, 06:03 PM
Anyway why's Dawkins always gotta be the go to atheist? I'll check out his video I guess but there's little point in trying to assert a lack of religion.

Kludge
02-08-2009, 06:04 PM
Anyway why's Dawkins always gotta be the go to atheist? I'll check out his video I guess but there's little point in trying to assert a lack of religion.

He's refuting it quite well. He talks about Atheism vs. Agnosticism and other labels at around 20:00.

M House
02-08-2009, 06:09 PM
I don't really believe in the majority of evolutionary theory. It just sex and genes to me.

M House
02-08-2009, 06:15 PM
It's very little natural selection. It's female selection specific mate, what embryo doesn't get tossed, and so on. It's actually very complicated and far from pretty sometimes.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-08-2009, 06:39 PM
I don't really believe in the majority of evolutionary theory.

based on what?

M House
02-08-2009, 06:48 PM
Genetics and biology. Your DNA and gene set in a population is usually very stable. The only way you can really effect a massive consistent change for speciation is selective breeding. If you get random with it or hope that super duper mutant comes along it's not gonna do anything. The mutant might not breed and it doesn't just mean it gets passed to offspring. Not to mention the effect is extremely diluted it's one freaking animal. Natural selection just helps cull some of the breeding stock. It's not gonna ever be this survival of the fittest it's kinda just what works. There's only so many ways to stack those genetic legos and get it to pass thru the female reproductive track.

Wendi
02-08-2009, 06:49 PM
Atheists are in conflict with EVERY faith. For a politician to not only tolerate, but encourage Atheists, they are opening themselves up to bigotry from the "lion's share" religion, as well as all others. It doesn't have to be that way, and it shouldn't be that way. Every faith, in some way, is in conflict with every other faith because everyone wants to think that their beliefs are "right" thus making everyone else "wrong." Politicians *should* tolerate *all* belief systems.

heavenlyboy34
02-08-2009, 06:49 PM
I don't really believe in the majority of evolutionary theory. It just sex and genes to me.

Where do you think much of modern evolutionary theory comes from? ;) (hint: genetic science)

M House
02-08-2009, 06:57 PM
Darwin didn't have a remote understand of genetics which is why I'm like I don't really agree with this elegant simplicity of natural selection crap. Anyway if selective breeding counts as natural selection cool I guess I believe in evolutions principles. Animals kinda screw it out and find something that works to me though.

heavenlyboy34
02-08-2009, 07:29 PM
Darwin didn't have a remote understand of genetics which is why I'm like I don't really agree with this elegant simplicity of natural selection crap. Anyway if selective breeding counts as natural selection cool I guess I believe in evolutions principles. Animals kinda screw it out and find something that works to me though.

If I remember correctly, he read enough Mendel to have SOME clue about what he was doing. :o (haven't read his stuff in years, though)

M House
02-08-2009, 07:31 PM
Don't think so if I remember biology class, he believed something else about it.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-08-2009, 07:53 PM
Darwin didn't have a remote understand of genetics which is why I'm like I don't really agree with this elegant simplicity of natural selection crap. Anyway if selective breeding counts as natural selection cool I guess I believe in evolutions principles. Animals kinda screw it out and find something that works to me though.

What does Darwin have to do with this?

Its like saying, "I dont believe in modern fighter jet technology. The Wright Brothers didnt have a remote understanding of jet propulsion."

pcosmar
02-08-2009, 07:54 PM
I believe that everyone has the right to keep and bear arms, even atheists.:cool:

M House
02-08-2009, 08:03 PM
What does Darwin have to do with this?

Its like saying, "I dont believe in modern fighter jet technology. The Wright Brothers didnt have a remote understanding of jet propulsion."

Um yeah I guess it'd be something like that? I kinda believe in the modern fighter jet theory over the Wright Brothers on jet propulsion.....? I just said I don't really believe natural selection plays a large role in evolution. Thus if evolution=natural selection as it seems to for alot of people, I'm not sure I agree much with that at all.

M House
02-08-2009, 08:13 PM
Anyway like I said before I believe your a hybrid of different primate species and maybe something else. You really didn't evolve your crazy characteristics they come from some fairly unique elements in human body and this mixed lineage. Basically got some primate genes a unique reproductive cycle, plus some unique physiology, and the body takes care of the rest. Sounds crazy but that's what I believe. I don't believe you waited for such strange stuff to develop randomly.

Uriel999
02-08-2009, 09:32 PM
I believe that everyone has the right to keep and bear arms, even atheists.:cool:

LOL, I was wondering about armed athiests in this.

I tihnk Dalkins worships at the alter of Douglass Adams. Is the hitchhiker series his Torah?

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-08-2009, 09:47 PM
Anyway like I said before I believe your a hybrid of different primate species and maybe something else. You really didn't evolve your crazy characteristics they come from some fairly unique elements in human body and this mixed lineage. Basically got some primate genes a unique reproductive cycle, plus some unique physiology, and the body takes care of the rest. Sounds crazy but that's what I believe. I don't believe you waited for such strange stuff to develop randomly.

again, you believe this based on what body of research?

Freedom 4 all
02-08-2009, 09:48 PM
If I remember correctly, he read enough Mendel to have SOME clue about what he was doing. :o (haven't read his stuff in years, though)

In one of the ultimate ironies of our time, Mendel was an extremely devout Roman Catholic monk. Now his research is atheist exhibit #1.

Uriel999
02-08-2009, 09:49 PM
We should totally put a teapot in orbit around Mars. :D

M House
02-08-2009, 09:49 PM
again, you believe this based on what body of research?

It's a hypothetical guestimation looking at bunch of gene studies and alot studies on human mechanoreceptors and endocrinology.

M House
02-08-2009, 09:54 PM
In one of the ultimate ironies of our time, Mendel was an extremely devout Roman Catholic monk. Now his research is atheist exhibit #1.

It should be, but this survival of the fittest crap won't go away.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-08-2009, 10:13 PM
It's a hypothetical guestimation looking at bunch of gene studies and alot studies on human mechanoreceptors and endocrinology.

so. . . you pulled it out of your ass?

TER
02-08-2009, 10:20 PM
Yep, sorry it's tough argue with people who think you need the fear of God to make good decisions. If you look at it scientifically tough fear actually makes people make stupid choices.

Fear also keep you from getting killed crossing the street.

M House
02-08-2009, 10:26 PM
so. . . you pulled it out of your ass?

It's better than some things I've seen.

dr. hfn
02-08-2009, 10:47 PM
I don't really believe in the majority of evolutionary theory. It just sex and genes to me.

evolution as we understand it so far happens from 4 things: natural selection, gene flow, gene drift, and mutation. i'm an anthropologist undergrad and have been studying it for two years now and i can tell u that it is very complex!

TER
02-08-2009, 10:48 PM
evolution as we understand it so far happens from 4 things: natural selection, gene flow, gene drift, and mutation. i'm an anthropologist undergrad and have been studying it for two years now and i can tell u that it is very complex!

It's like finding a watch in the woods. ;)

dr. hfn
02-08-2009, 10:50 PM
Anyway like I said before I believe your a hybrid of different primate species and maybe something else. You really didn't evolve your crazy characteristics they come from some fairly unique elements in human body and this mixed lineage. Basically got some primate genes a unique reproductive cycle, plus some unique physiology, and the body takes care of the rest. Sounds crazy but that's what I believe. I don't believe you waited for such strange stuff to develop randomly.

modern humans, AMHs', anatomically modern humans can't mate and produce fertile/viable offspring with apes or monkeys.

we are not the same species, thats how species are determined. if they can produce viable offspring or not.

evolution doesn't have a goal or plan or intention. it's natural and all about survival and passing genes on to a new generation and creating a new generation

dr. hfn
02-08-2009, 10:51 PM
It's like finding a watch in the woods. ;)

what?

M House
02-08-2009, 11:05 PM
modern humans, AMHs', anatomically modern humans can't mate and produce fertile/viable offspring with apes or monkeys.

we are not the same species, thats how species are determined. if they can produce viable offspring or not.

evolution doesn't have a goal or plan or intention. it's natural and all about survival and passing genes on to a new generation and creating a new generation

Yep that's what they told you in school. Recent studies show we bred back twice on chimps I believe. There's no way you operate reproductively like a primate either.

M House
02-08-2009, 11:08 PM
Hybrids do actually produce fertile offspring you'll just have to look at the right species. Mules actually slightly fertile there have been cases of successful offspring. Sirenians goddamn take any of the species they vary 48-56 chromosomes and they can produce a fertile hybrid. It's actually a danger to their breeding populations cuz it tends to sterilize the offspring later down the line. However, it seems a good majority of some them are already hybridized so maybe this is not the case.

M House
02-08-2009, 11:12 PM
I wouldn't make a bet on that we can't produce a hybrid with a currently existing primate. To get a compatible offspring with humans you just need the right combo of X chromosomes. Y gets switched on late so either do or die if you got a male over more than one X it'll be weird. Also one parents X can actually negate the others depending on certain elements it's not always a 50/50 barr body gene expression. It can be ridiculously skewwed one way or another.

Bman
02-08-2009, 11:58 PM
I wouldn't make a bet on that we can't produce a hybrid with a currently existing primate. To get a compatible offspring with humans you just need the right combo of X chromosomes. Y gets switched on late so either do or die if you got a male over more than one X it'll be weird. Also one parents X can actually negate the others depending on certain elements it's not always a 50/50 barr body gene expression. It can be ridiculously skewwed one way or another.

Could you show or properly explain a theoretical example in which a monkey and human DNA would actually pair up?

M House
02-09-2009, 12:02 AM
Really your interested?

Athan
02-09-2009, 12:02 AM
I don't really believe in the majority of evolutionary theory. It just sex and genes to me.

It would be easier to have sex with the genes off. :o

*crowd boos and hisses*

:confused:

M House
02-09-2009, 12:02 AM
It'll take some time to get the research together again but I can do it.

Bman
02-09-2009, 12:12 AM
Really your interested?

Well don't go to too much trouble. I just can't wrap my mind around unequal sets of chromosomes pairing up. I'd imagine they could try. I just can't see it happening successfully, since you would have excess on one or another side.

TER
02-09-2009, 12:33 AM
It's like finding a watch in the woods.

what?

Just saying that if you found an intricate pocket watch in the middle of the forest, you would assume someone made it.
Same goes with nature, which is an infinite times more complex.

M House
02-09-2009, 01:04 AM
Human beings are retardly complex that's why I don't like this "random" mating and natural selection stuff to explain it. Thus it's hard for me to argue religion exactly cuz most things are still a bit of a crap shoot. Anyway, Bman you want the really technical articles are just an explanation? I can do both but here's a bit. I'll have to grab the articles later. Basically you're using a very different reproductive system compared to typical primates....

It seems to be a multi-sex chromosome system that actually can work several different ways to produce male and female elements. You there's stuff like XX males actually and XY females and several different things are possible say X+ several other X, XXY, XXYY, XYY, XO this is not even lethal which gives a hint it's weird. It's only dependent on a single fully function X chromosome to do this. Which ironically contains all the androgen receptor coding. You have potentially trisomy on three different chromosomes as well. Note you can catch diseases from several different animals. All this to me strongly supports a hybrid and there are new world primates that chain their sex chromosomes alittle like this. These are Aloutta I believe. They have a hyoid bone as well as a color vision system closer to ours. This gives a hint to me we might have inherited from both New and Old world primates. Genetically we are still closest to chimps and things cuz that was our last genetic pairing.

Okay now it gets weird you don't operate much like primate reproductively and you have different mechano receptor structure and positioning. Also you have fatty skin and complex breast structure with minimal hair except pudes. These traits I believe came from a system offa the Afrotheria line (sirenians, elephants, and hydraxes). Not even primate. However, they are believed to have a long extinct quadruped ancestor in Africa. It could very well just placed enough of itself say in our sex chromosomes and gene hardware to make a huge difference. Sirenians operate on one X as well and range from 48-56 so if they had an ancestor and it was a land mammal it would've been in the ballpark for a hybrid when primates first appeared about 40 million years. Sounds strange but back in mammal beginnings alotta stuff didn't really look that different. They all have extremely flexible DNA just look at the differences between the three families.

reduen
02-09-2009, 01:23 AM
This whole topic is sooo weak you guys....

Why don't you go divide somewhere else? :rolleyes:

AggieforPaul
02-09-2009, 01:46 AM
I hate Dawkins. He whines so much about religion and evangelism, yet he's just the other side of the coin: evangelizing non theism, and acting super smug and annoying in the process.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-09-2009, 08:28 AM
Just saying that if you found an intricate pocket watch in the middle of the forest, you would assume someone made it.
Same goes with nature, which is an infinite times more complex.

Why do you even need the pocket watch in this analogy? Why are the woods alone not enough to convince someone? The fact that the watch is singled out in the argument as an obviously designed object, it implies that the natural environment around it does not appear designed, which refutes the whole point of the argument.


The analogy should be:

"If you walk into the woods and see a tree, you would assume that someone built it."

Oh wait... that analogy is still fucking stupid.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-09-2009, 08:34 AM
Human beings are retardly complex

So complex they exist because of magic.

M House
02-09-2009, 08:46 AM
I don't believe they exist cuz of magic. I'm just saying I'm not gonna fault someone who picks say a religious explanation over the typical evo-natural selection thingy. Neither provides to me a great explanation of how complicated it is to go from a species to another species. You can't just start wanting to walk upright and then your genes grant you the wish of having your spine lock straightish. Things like "natural selection" and "gene drift" can maybe explain some populations mechanics but still don't do a good job of why you can pull 90 whatever percent a chimp genome and still be majorly different mechanically.

TER
02-09-2009, 08:47 AM
Why do you even need the pocket watch in this analogy? Why are the woods alone not enough to convince someone? The fact that the watch is singled out in the argument as an obviously designed object, it implies that the natural environment around it does not appear designed, which refutes the whole point of the argument.


The analogy should be:

"If you walk into the woods and see a tree, you would assume that someone built it."

Oh wait... that analogy is still fucking stupid.

So you say.

TER
02-09-2009, 08:48 AM
So if you found a pocket watch in the forest, you wouldn't assume someone made it?

Pennsylvania
02-09-2009, 08:52 AM
I don't believe they exist cuz of magic. I'm just saying I'm not gonna fault someone who picks say a religious explanation over the typical evo-natural selection thingy. Neither provides to me a great explanation of how complicated it is to go from a species to another species. You can't just start wanting to walk upright and then your genes grant you the wish of having your spine lock straightish. Things like "natural selection" and "gene drift" can maybe explain some populations mechanics but still don't do a good job of why you can pull 90 whatever percent a chimp genome and still be majorly different mechanically.

M, check out the Bonobo, it is our closest great ape relative, who walks upright 25% of the time. :)

M House
02-09-2009, 08:54 AM
Heres the problem you'll have to be specific if you want to resolve this dispute and not use an analogy. I do not believe human beings were created by god nor do I believe the forrest was designed or constructed. Actually within your own body you have several elements that direct the arrangement construction and placement of stuff very well on their own. However, once you get done to something really intricate like how did DNA come about or the Universe operate or physics beats the fuck outta me. I'll have to tackle those issues latter sometime when I feel like it.

heavenlyboy34
02-09-2009, 08:56 AM
So if you a found pocket watch in the forest, you wouldn't assume someone made it?

pocket watches are not made of organic matter, so I always thought that this was kind of a weak analogy. We can't say "there are primitive forms of watches that this watch evolved from". Not that I agree with any particular theory 100%, I just thought it would help you to point out that flaw in your argument.

M House
02-09-2009, 08:57 AM
M, check out the Bonobo, it is our closest great ape relative, who walks upright 25% of the time. :)

I have that's why have this primate hybrid theory. You didn't just "evolve" from that that get all your cool abilities. Hell it doesn't walk like you exactly. When humans learn to walk upright they learn swiggle their locking spine and swing their hips back and forth. Check out a hot girl. Apes don't walk much like that. Your just using a good bit of its genes. However your body did a good bit of customization and tossed in some aftermarket hardware.

M House
02-09-2009, 09:00 AM
Anyway yes a couple million ago our parental species probably bred with Bonobos.

TER
02-09-2009, 09:04 AM
pocket watches are not made of organic matter, so I always thought that this was kind of a weak analogy. We can't say "there are primitive forms of watches that this watch evolved from". Not that I agree with any particular theory 100%, I just thought it would help you to point out that flaw in your argument.

There are primitive forms of pocket watches- the sundial!
But I see your point. It is not an analogy that proves anything. It just helps puts things in perspective, IMHO.

M House
02-09-2009, 09:11 AM
I don't always believe religion is total BS in concept. Take for exception creation stories man created woman stuff. Technically if you switch that it's correct. You can in fact pull the entire male set of secondary sex characteristics offa the X chromosome.

Xenophage
02-09-2009, 11:01 AM
Genetics and biology. Your DNA and gene set in a population is usually very stable. The only way you can really effect a massive consistent change for speciation is selective breeding. If you get random with it or hope that super duper mutant comes along it's not gonna do anything. The mutant might not breed and it doesn't just mean it gets passed to offspring. Not to mention the effect is extremely diluted it's one freaking animal. Natural selection just helps cull some of the breeding stock. It's not gonna ever be this survival of the fittest it's kinda just what works. There's only so many ways to stack those genetic legos and get it to pass thru the female reproductive track.

Selective breeding occurs during times of unusual stress that kills off high percentages of a population, or otherwise prevents them from breeding. Typically, evolution happens most readily among species that have a high mortality rate for a long period of time (lots of stress on the gene pool). Sometimes its geographically localized, depending on the stressing factors, and you see divergent species arise.

This is basic evolutionary theory.

M House
02-09-2009, 11:20 AM
Um yeah well it's a bit of the modernized evo theory form. I don't really believe on such "natural" forces and chance to effect the a large genetic change necessary for alot of speciation. Something bred with a something. And in our case I believe it was more than alittle creative. Selective breeding to me is mate selection combined with reproductive physiology and barriers to affect change. In humans mate selection makes a huge difference due the specific endocrine receptors coded only to the X chromosome. Depending on the set of these you get the results will be very wild.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-09-2009, 11:32 AM
Neither provides to me a great explanation of how complicated it is to go from a species to another species.

Thats because you obviously dont understand the science.

M House
02-09-2009, 11:36 AM
Um yeah? Well, I'm not perfect but if you want to explain our ancestral line go ahead. I explain the gaps in fossil records and stuff pretty well I think with the hybrids. I mean with them the offspring doesn't have to resemble either parent and you can introduce new traits as well pretty easily combining some physiology.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
02-09-2009, 11:37 AM
Yep, sorry it's tough argue with people who think you need the fear of God to make good decisions. If you look at it scientifically tough fear actually makes people make stupid choices.

According to that which is self-evident and unalienably a natural-right, we aren't here to make choices. We are here to be happy

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-09-2009, 11:39 AM
So if you found a pocket watch in the forest, you wouldn't assume someone made it?

Why do you need to use the pocket watch in this analogy? The forest alone should suffice. Yet it doesnt.

The analogy should still work if you replaced the watch with something supposedly infinitely so much more complex that only a magical sky god could have made it, such as a rock. The analogy should now be, "So you are walking in the forest and you find a rock. You would look at that rock and assume someone built it." Yet this analogy would convince nobody.

The entire analogy is flawed in that it points out a pocket watch as being obviously designed, meaning that the forest surrounding it obviously is not designed. Meaning that the entire point of the analogy is refuted.

M House
02-09-2009, 11:40 AM
Um? I'll just go on making choices and decisions and stuff. Doesn't really bother me about God, philosophy, or whatever. I just think as far as I can tell.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-09-2009, 11:41 AM
I explain the gaps in fossil records and stuff pretty well I think with the hybrids.

lol?

M House
02-09-2009, 11:44 AM
Never said it had to work. You act like I committed sacrilege or something. Anyway I forgot what university suggested something like this recently. Maybe Yale? I've been studying at school on other craptastic things and might be able to get the papers or a pdf or something later.

Edit: It's apparently MIT and Harvard

M House
02-09-2009, 11:48 AM
Anyway can't find the online article but for starters check this out

CHROMOSOMAL ANALYSES OF LEIOMYOMA FROM THE NONHUMAN PRIMATES:
The Chimpanzee, Macaque and Baboon
F. S. Khan, C. M. Moore,† B. G. DUNN,‡ G. B. Hubbard*
Department of Pathology, West Virginia School of Medicine, Morgantown, WV; †Department of Cellular and Structural Biology,
‡Department of Clinical Laboratory Sciences, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas,
and *Department of Comparative Medicine, Southwest National Primate Research Center, San Antonio, Texas

M House
02-09-2009, 11:49 AM
Chromosome painting in the manatee supports Afrotheria and
Paenungulata
Margaret E Kellogg1, Sandra Burkett2, Thomas R Dennis3, Gary Stone2,
Brian A Gray3, Peter M McGuire4, Roberto T Zori3 and Roscoe Stanyon*5

M House
02-09-2009, 11:49 AM
Revised karyotype of Alouatta caraya (Primates: Platyrrhini) based
on synaptonemal complex and banding analyses
MARTA D. MUDRY’, M. RAHN2, M. GOROSTIAGA’, A. HICK’, M. S. MERAN12 and
A. J. SOLAR12
Naturales (FCEyN), Universidad de Bs.As., (UBA), Ciudad Universitaria, Pabellon II. 40,Pi so. (1428) Bs.As.
Argentina
CIR (Centro de Investigaciones en Reproduccion), Fac. de Medicina, UBA, Piso 10, Paraguay 2155. (1121)
Bs.As. Argentina

M House
02-09-2009, 11:51 AM
Anyway, those are some major ones I used have to track them down again and attempt to explain it better how it works along with some other articles to come up with the hypothesis.

M House
02-09-2009, 11:54 AM
Alright here you go about the hybridizing with primates.

http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/05/18/humans_chimps_may_have_bred_after_split/

I had a better article on the research but that'll have to do for now.

Xenophage
02-09-2009, 11:54 AM
Never said it had to work. You act like I committed sacrilege or something. Anyway I forgot what university suggested something like this recently. Maybe Yale? I've been studying at school on other craptastic things and might be able to get the papers or a pdf or something later.

Your basic comprehension of evolutionary theory is a bit sketchy. We see affirmations of basic evolution all around us on a daily basis. The process is sped up in simpler organisms, with the simplest organisms evolving so quickly as to be observed in terms of months or weeks.

Examples? Introduce mild dosages of anti-bacterials to a colony of bacteria inconsistently for a period of time and eventually resistances start to evolve amongst the population.

M House
02-09-2009, 11:58 AM
It is? I just said I don't like most of the concepts brought up to explain alot of it. Natural selection and the emphasis on random mutations and mating make me cringe. However if you want to throw as many scientific elements of speciation and genetics into evolution as possible to buff it up, I do support that.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-09-2009, 12:05 PM
It is? I just said I don't like most of the concepts brought up to explain alot of it. Natural selection and the emphasis on random mutations and mating make me cringe. However if you want to throw as many scientific elements of speciation and genetics into evolution as possible to buff it up, I do support that.

huh? Nothing in that statement made any sense.

Barackistan
02-09-2009, 12:09 PM
Watching now...


o.O Youtube removed time constraints from their videos?

It's a director's account. They were discontinued last year, but I believe you have to pay to get that account.

Nevertheless, a brilliant video!

M House
02-09-2009, 12:19 PM
If you're confused, I do not believe genetic drift and natural selection play a dominant role in what you call "evolution" particularly in the development of our species. And these are the two cornerstones of the modern version of "evolution" theory from what I understand. Thus I just looked at some hybridization as an option. Most of the time this is thought to be non-possible. Like I said before hell I could be wrong.

Brooklyn Red Leg
02-09-2009, 01:33 PM
So complex they exist because of magic.

Well, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. :eek::D

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-09-2009, 01:42 PM
If you're confused, I do not believe genetic drift and natural selection play a dominant role in what you call "evolution" particularly in the development of our species.

Because? Again, you are just making assertions with no scientific justification.

TER
02-09-2009, 01:47 PM
Why do you need to use the pocket watch in this analogy? The forest alone should suffice. Yet it doesnt.

The analogy should still work if you replaced the watch with something supposedly infinitely so much more complex that only a magical sky god could have made it, such as a rock. The analogy should now be, "So you are walking in the forest and you find a rock. You would look at that rock and assume someone built it." Yet this analogy would convince nobody.

The entire analogy is flawed in that it points out a pocket watch as being obviously designed, meaning that the forest surrounding it obviously is not designed. Meaning that the entire point of the analogy is refuted.

You have yet to refute the analogy or answer the question.

If you found a pocket watch in the forest, would you assume someone made it?

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-09-2009, 01:51 PM
You have yet to refute the analogy or answer the question.

If you found a pocket watch in the forest, would you assume someone made it?

Yes. If I found a watch in the forest, I would assume someone made it.

If you found a rock in the forest, would you assume someone made it?

Kludge
02-09-2009, 01:51 PM
I only skimmed through the new posts.... The watchmaker argument has been corrupted.


I do not contend that it is Man's complexity which means there is a creator, but mass itself. It would not be logical for mass to just "exist", created out of nothing. There is no logical explanation. There is still room for faith (the supernatural) regarding our creation.

TER
02-09-2009, 01:54 PM
Yes. If I found a watch in the forest, I would assume someone made it.

If you found a rock in the forest, would you assume someone made it?

But why would you assume someone made the watch? Did you see them make the watch?

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-09-2009, 02:03 PM
But why would you assume someone made the watch? Did you see them make the watch?

If the watch is obviously designed, it implys that the surrounding forest is obviously not designed, thus refuting your entire argument.

TER
02-09-2009, 02:04 PM
If the watch is obviously designed, it implys that the surrounding forest is obviously not designed, thus refuting your entire argument.

Well, why do you say the watch is obviously designed and the surrounding forest isn't. Why is that?

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-09-2009, 02:13 PM
Well, why do you say the watch is obviously designed and the surrounding forest isn't. Why is that?

Because of evidence. I have knowledge about watches, how they are built, how they are manufactured, characteristics that show evidence of being built. On the other hand, I have no evidence of any natural process that would result in a watch forming.

As I said, the watch should not be needed. If you are arguing from intelligent design, then everything is designed, and absolutely anything should be proof of design in your analogy. You should be able to pick up a rock, show it to me, and say, "You see, this rock is obviously designed."

Furthermore, I never said the watch is obviously designed and the forest obviously is not. You did. In your analogy. Your own analogy refutes the point you are trying to make.

TER
02-09-2009, 02:16 PM
Because of evidence. I have knowledge about watches, how they are built, how they are manufactured, characteristics that show evidence of being built. On the other hand, I have no evidence of any natural process that would result in a watch forming.

As I said, the watch should not be needed. If you are arguing from intelligent design, then everything is designed, and absolutely anything should be proof of design in your analogy. You should be able to pick up a rock, show it to me, and say, "You see, this rock is obviously designed."

Furthermore, I never said the watch is obviously designed and the forest obviously is not. You did. In your analogy.

So you base the existence of God on your own personal knowledge. In other words, your mind has enough knowledge to confidently say "there is no God". Wow. You must be the smartest person in the universe.

captainelectron
02-09-2009, 02:19 PM
I only skimmed through the new posts.... The watchmaker argument has been corrupted.


I do not contend that it is Man's complexity which means there is a creator, but mass itself. It would not be logical for mass to just "exist", created out of nothing. There is no logical explanation. There is still room for faith (the supernatural) regarding our creation.



Why is it logically more plausible for a vast intellect to just exist than it is for mass to just exist? Does the creator have mass? Did the complex thinking creator just "exist"? Primates have questions.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-09-2009, 02:20 PM
So you base the existence of God on your own personal knowledge. In other words, your mind has enough knowledge to confidently say "there is no God". Wow. You must be the smartest person in the universe.

Im done playing your silly games. Come back when you have a real argument.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-09-2009, 02:23 PM
Why is it logically more plausible for a vast intellect to just exist than it is for mass to just exist? Does the creator have mass? Did the complex thinking creator just "exist"?

my point exactly.

Their reasoning goes like this:

Creationist: "Matter and the universe couldnt have always existed. They must have come from somewhere. And they didnt just spring into existence on their own, they must have been created by an intelligence"

Voice of Reason: "Where did this intelligent designer come from?"

Creationist: "The intelligent designer has always existed."

Voice of Reason: "So why couldnt matter and the universe have always existed?"

Creationist: ". . ."

TER
02-09-2009, 02:24 PM
Im done playing your silly games. Come back when you have a real argument.

:)

I guess I'm not as smart or knowledgeable as you, being that you know in your vastly superior mind that there is no God. I'm obviously out of my league discussing such matters.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-09-2009, 02:25 PM
:)

I guess I'm not as smart or knowledgeable as you, being that you know in your vastly superior mind that there is no God. I'm obviously out of my league discussing such matters.

More strawman argument I see.

I dont need absolute knowledge of the universe in order to determine that there are no fairies or gnomes. I just need to know your claims of fairies and gnomes have not met their burden of proof. Why should my standards be different for gods?

TER
02-09-2009, 02:28 PM
More strawman argument I see.

I dont need absolute knowledge of the universe in order to determine that there are no fairies or gnomes. I just need to know your claims of fairies and gnomes have not met their burden of proof. Why should my standards be different for gods?

Well, you have come to the conclusion that there is no God because you know there is no God, which would obviously make you amongst the most intelligent life forms in all of the universe.

ooh ooh, I just thought of something to discuss which you might consider a 'real' argument.

If my definition of God is that which is Uncreated, how could you disprove that?

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-09-2009, 02:32 PM
Well, you have come to the conclusion that there is no God because you know there is no God, which would obviously make you amongst the most intelligent life forms in all of the universe.

ooh ooh, I just thought of something to discuss which you might consider a 'real' argument.

If my definition of God is that which is Uncreated, how could you disprove that?

Wrong. I have come to the conclusion that there are no gods because non of the god claims have satisfactorily met their burden of proof. There is no justified reason to believe any of them to be true.

TER
02-09-2009, 02:35 PM
Wrong. I have come to the conclusion that there are no gods because non of the god claims have satisfactorily met their burden of proof. There is no justified reason to believe any of them to be true.

Well, again, it seem that you are basing your conclusions on your vastly superior mind. Still, you haven't answered my question:

If my definition of God is that which is Uncreated, how could you disprove that?

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-09-2009, 02:37 PM
Well, again, it seem that you are basing your conclusions on your vastly superior mind. Still, you haven't answered my question:

If my definition of God is that which is Uncreated, how could you disprove that?

You keep jumping from one argument to the next as your points or clearly refuted. . .

You can define a god to be anything you want. Its not my job to disprove your claims. Its up to you to provide evidence that your claims are true.

TER
02-09-2009, 02:40 PM
You keep jumping from one argument to the next as your points or clearly refuted. . .

You can define a god to be anything you want. Its not my job to disprove your claims. Its up to you to provide evidence that your claims are true.

No, I'm not jumping around and I don't believe my points have been clearly refuted.

You are making a positive statement that there is no God. The burden is just as much on you since you make such an affirmitve claim.

Again, if my definition of God is that which is Uncreated, how could you disprove that?

Kludge
02-09-2009, 02:49 PM
Why is it logically more plausible for a vast intellect to just exist than it is for mass to just exist? Does the creator have mass? Did the complex thinking creator just "exist"? Primates have questions.

Where did the mass come from, unless it is "magic" mass?

Mesogen
02-09-2009, 03:11 PM
I highly recommend watching a show that came on the National Geographic Channel called Morphed.
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/morphed

It was on last night and I think it's a series.
It's interesting.

M House
02-09-2009, 03:20 PM
Because? Again, you are just making assertions with no scientific justification.

Um what scientific justification do you want? I just posted a few thoughts and tried a bit of reasoning that's all. Hell, I thought it was scientific. I posted three gene studies and a article for a start. I mean there's quite a bit more I guess. I could go thru the Meissner Corpuscle's you got in your skin and the color vision arrangement you got. Adrenal structures whatever. What specific evolutionary path do you want me to say happened? I just kinda thru in the hybrid stuff cuz well this hominid doesn't just work itself into that hominid then into a human the way I see it using just a bit of nat. selection and genetic drift. With a incredibly small starting population of humans, I mean that just won't work. I mean you agree that we started out with a very small population right. Unless you can somehow show there were millions of humans around and a massive amount of genes to pick from there's gotta be alittle more here with the mechanics.

Pennsylvania
02-09-2009, 03:27 PM
Most atheists would only ever say something like "there is no God" out of convenience, and because it is inconvenient to give a detailed opinion on the burden of proof when stating one's opinion on God. I'm going to take a guess and say that MRS probably doesn't think the non-existence of God is 100%, absolutely, positively, guaranteed.

To me, there appear to be two different ways of approaching the question does something exist?

The common approach: Until we have evidence supporting the claim of the existence of that thing in question, the answer to the question is "both existence and non-existence are equiprobable".

The scientific approach: Until we have evidence supporting the claim of the existence of that thing in question, the answer to the question is "no"

However, in the first scenario, why do we start at maybe? If we start at maybe and can only move toward yes then "no" is never an acceptable answer.

If someone asked you the question: "are there interdimensional turkish-speaking space aliens trying to contact you via telepathy?"

Would you feel obligated to reply with "maybe" because you could not disprove the notion? Or would you reply with "no" as the likely and convenient answer.

Long story short, most of the debate we have about this subject could be avoided with a more efficient natural language. English is simply not efficient enough to convey a complex outlook with a simple convenient sentence.

M House
02-09-2009, 03:46 PM
I'm an atheist cuz I want to find an answer that's something I can comprehend. It's pretty simple. I do not feel it's intrinsically wrong though to believe otherwise since it's tough to prove anything along the lines of you're a super evolved primate or a being divinely created. Common it's like pure elitist both ways. You're a biological organism that got here like most animals aka sex. Thus the simpler more definite and less it's up to chance the better to me. Other than some sweet and fairly unique physiology, we're not like very well adapted innately or superior to much in the mammal families. Let's leave you butt naked in the wild and what are you gonna be able to do. O yeah remove from your head all knowledge of the previous generations. You might make it...?

Freedom 4 all
02-09-2009, 05:19 PM
All atheists seem to be able to do is shift the burden of proof. You can't prove a negative, all you can do is try and disprove a believer's assumptions.

TER
02-09-2009, 05:42 PM
All atheists seem to be able to do is shift the burden of proof. You can't prove a negative, all you can do is try and disprove a believer's assumptions.

Very well said.

M House
02-09-2009, 05:46 PM
Um yeah... burden of proof? I just said you can believe whatever. Guess Mitt will just start calling you unscientific and you'll get in a hissy fit on that. Personally I have no idea why either side treats it like some super absolute religion. Anyway science is about trying to prove disprove hypothesis. So I just made one. I can go back and check out different stuff relating to it anytime. I think there's alittle too much dead seriousness involved when discussing our dead ancestors and/or this God thing. However, I'll let people like Mitt and Dawkins here do the talking for atheism. I could kinda care less. Afterall, it's not a religion to me.

Pennsylvania
02-09-2009, 05:50 PM
All atheists seem to be able to do is shift the burden of proof. You can't prove a negative, all you can do is try and disprove a believer's assumptions.

What do you mean shift it? Shift it from what?

M House
02-09-2009, 05:53 PM
I have no idea Penn you're not even an atheist are you? I guess that's a message to MRS.

M House
02-09-2009, 05:58 PM
Wait sec my bad, who was that message too?

heavenlyboy34
02-09-2009, 06:00 PM
The burden of proof lies on those who wish to cause others to conform. This applies to both atheists and theists. 'Nuff said. :)

AutoDas
02-09-2009, 06:06 PM
All atheists seem to be able to do is shift the burden of proof. You can't prove a negative, all you can do is try and disprove a believer's assumptions.

And if I said that we were revolving around in a teacup then the burden of proof should be mine to bear, not the anti-teacup believers.

Xenophage
02-09-2009, 06:25 PM
All atheists seem to be able to do is shift the burden of proof. You can't prove a negative, all you can do is try and disprove a believer's assumptions.

I've never tried to disprove a believer. I've yet to have God proven to me.

If I said that the world is an illusion and in reality we're all giant worm-like creatures plugged into virtual reality devices, you couldn't really disprove me on that :) Would you even try? No, that's stupid. You'd laugh at me, and say "Oh yeah? Prove it."

TER
02-09-2009, 06:34 PM
Anyway science is about trying to prove disprove hypothesis.

Well, in so much that it needs to keep breaking the bonds that restrain it. Science has proved one thing consistently- that it's function is always growing and expanding. What were once considered established truths and at the forefronts of knowledge, almost invariably end up being replaced by another more deeper understanding.

The pattern to date has consistently shown that there exist limits only in our understanding of things. In relatively minuscule amounts of time (as compared to the age of the universe) complete paradigms change in our view of the cosmos. Due to the spread of ideas and the genius of certain great people, what were once considered impossible or mocked at and labeled 'foolish', in the end, reveal a deeper and more profound truth.

And it is this love for truth that drives science. It is a search for more light in the darkness. This is the quest of science.

This is also the quest for the human soul. To find the truth. Why? Because there is beauty in truth. In truth, all questions are answered. All meanings find purpose. And isn't that what this is really all about? To find purpose??

We cannot rely on 'known science' to be a limitation to our quest for purpose. Our purpose is not to disprove hypotheses, it is to find beauty and life.

M House
02-09-2009, 06:36 PM
Well I always joked even from taking neurobiology, I gotz no idea how you are self-aware and remotely conscious. I'll have to take some guesses at that later.

Xenophage
02-09-2009, 06:44 PM
Well I always joked even from taking neurobiology, I gotz no idea how you are self-aware and remotely conscious. I'll have to take some guesses at that later.

Still a mystery, but there are some good ideas. My favorite hypothesis comes from Roger Penrose, who speculates that consciousness operates at some quantum level and incorporates the breakdown of probability waves to account for our freewill. There's no evidence to support this theory, but we certainly have to break away from Newtonian determinism to account for a real physical explanation of the way that choice works in our brains, and quantum physics (in all its absurdity) might offer one.

If one compact little part of the Universe (our brains) can become self-aware, how about bigger parts of the Universe? How does it happen? Its cool stuff!

heavenlyboy34
02-09-2009, 06:49 PM
Still a mystery, but there are some good ideas. My favorite hypothesis comes from Roger Penrose, who speculates that consciousness operates at some quantum level and incorporates the breakdown of probability waves to account for our freewill. There's no evidence to support this theory, but we certainly have to break away from Newtonian determinism to account for a real physical explanation of the way that choice works in our brains, and quantum physics (in all its absurdity) might offer one.

If one compact little part of the Universe (our brains) can become self-aware, how about bigger parts of the Universe? How does it happen? Its cool stuff!

Perhaps someone could borrow from super string theory or the theoretical "Theory Of Everything" to help explain this. That would be neato! :D:)

Freedom 4 all
02-09-2009, 06:51 PM
And if I said that we were revolving around in a teacup then the burden of proof should be mine to bear, not the anti-teacup believers.

Of course it would be, I have no problem with Russel's Teacup. My point is that you can not PROVE there is no God any more than I can prove there is one.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-09-2009, 07:37 PM
Of course it would be, I have no problem with Russel's Teacup. My point is that you can not PROVE there is no God any more than I can prove there is one.

Stop buying into the idea of absolute certainty. Its meaningless. Its useless. It will get you nowhere. You cant be absolutely certain about anything.


For example:

Goerge Bush was a space alien from the moon of Xenonbulon 7. PROVE ME WRONG! Until you do, I am just as justified believing it as you are not believing it.

Do you not see how FUCKING STUPID this line of reasoning is?

TER
02-09-2009, 07:42 PM
Stop buying into the idea of absolute certainty. Its meaningless. Its useless. It will get you nowhere. You cant be absolutely certain about anything.

Than how are you certain there is no God?

TER
02-09-2009, 07:43 PM
partially certain?

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-09-2009, 07:46 PM
Than how are you certain there is no God?

I feel just as justified in saying there is no God as I feel justified saying there is no Godzilla.

Its not about absolute certainty. Its about evidence to what is likely true and likely untrue. If you claim Godzilla exists, I will not feel justified in believing you until you present me with evidence that your claim is true. If you claim God exists, I will not feel justified in believing you until you present me with evidence that your claim is true.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-09-2009, 07:55 PM
Im curious. Do you apply this premise to all questions in life? Any claim anyone makes, do you feel its justified to accept it until it is disproven? How then do you go about building a rational world view? Or is it just the question of gods that you apply this to? If so, why the double standard? Are you simply constructing a double standard to accommodate beliefs you simply want to believe?

And why does this line of reasoning not apply to other religions? Have you proven that Thor does not exist? If not, how can you be justified in your belief that he does not exist?

TER
02-09-2009, 08:00 PM
I feel just as justified in saying there is no God as I feel justified saying there is no Godzilla.

So truth only exists when you feel justified? Wow. That's an incredible gift you have!


Its not about absolute certainty. Its about evidence to what is likely true and likely untrue. If you claim Godzilla exists, I will not feel justified in believing you until you present me with evidence that your claim is true. If you claim God exists, I will not feel justified in believing you until you present me with evidence that your claim is true.

First of all, it is about 'absolute certainty' when you make the statement that 'there is no God'. It's not saying there probably is not God, but rather making the claim that there is no God and the believer is wrong. And based on what? About your experiences and the knowledge you gained in this life? Are you the gold standard in what is true?

Isn't the pride smacking you right in the face?

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-09-2009, 08:05 PM
So truth only exists when you feel justified? Wow. That's an incredible gift you have!



First of all, it is about 'absolute certainty' when you make the statement that 'there is no God'. It's not saying there probably is not God, but rather making the claim that there is no God and the believer is wrong. And based on what? About your experiences and the knowledge you gained in this life? Are you the gold standard in what is true?

Isn't the pride smacking you right in the face?

Is there a Godzilla?

TER
02-09-2009, 08:06 PM
Is there a Godzilla?

You tell me since you know all things.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-09-2009, 08:08 PM
You tell me since you know all things.

Im asking you. Is there a Godzilla?

And I didnt say I know all things. I said that due to lack of evidence, I dont believe your assertion of a god.

TER
02-09-2009, 08:08 PM
Im curious. Do you apply this premise to all questions in life? Any claim anyone makes, do you feel its justified to accept it until it is disproven? How then do you go about building a rational world view? Or is it just the question of gods that you apply this to? If so, why the double standard? Are you simply constructing a double standard to accommodate beliefs you simply want to believe?

And why does this line of reasoning not apply to other religions? Have you proven that Thor does not exist? If not, how can you be justified in your belief that he does not exist?

I believe Thor does not exist because I have faith he does not exist.
You believe God does not exist because you have faith he does not exist.

It is a question of faith.

Tatsit
02-09-2009, 08:09 PM
I'm at 16:00 right now.... I think he's off when he says that Atheists should exercise their "political muscle". It's not possible. He compares the pandering to the Jews, but seems to not realize that Jews and Christians are not so much in conflict. Atheists are in conflict with EVERY faith. For a politician to not only tolerate, but encourage Atheists, they are opening themselves up to bigotry from the "lion's share" religion, as well as all others. Not seeking conflict, this is also why Atheism is not a popular topic, and why many "non-theists" (myself included) hide their lack of religion.

Dawkins keeps talking about a growing number of Atheists and Agnostics. Unless non-bigots and/or Atheists/Agnostics are a majority, there is no point in trying to bring up Atheism or Agnosticism when trying to win support (as would be the case in running for political office).


Edit: Oh... Dawkins was getting to that :o ;)

Atheists no different then Christianity, jewdism etc.... The difference is what you believe in and how you practice the belief.

I am atheist I do not believe in mysticism and I disagree with all organized religion but I do not feel any different no more then a jew compared to a budist, or a Muslim compared to a Christian.

I believe to each their own... you want to believe in the "ARK" that is your choice, have fun with that.

I also believe that getting rid of all religion in the world would solve have the worlds problems and bad attitudes.

So if a lets say the Pope says draw your guns and fight a war against someone... its ok...

But if an athiest says all athiest draw your guns and fight a war against someone... its not ok???

That sounds pretty hypocritical don't you think?



For a politician to not only tolerate, but encourage Atheists, they are opening themselves up to bigotry from the "lion's share" religion, as well as all others. Not seeking conflict, this is also why Atheism is not a popular topic, and why many "non-theists" (myself included) hide their lack of religion.


How would this be different then any other religion? Muslims and Islam are bigots to Christians, and visa versa.... Mormans are critical of every religion besides their own, and that goes for Catholics, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists and every other religion in the world.

Live, learn and get luvs

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-09-2009, 08:11 PM
I believe Thor does not exist because I have faith he does not exist.
You believe God does not exist because you have faith he does not exist.

It is a question of faith.

Do you use "faith" for establishing other world views? For example, do you simply walk across the street with "faith" there are no cars coming? Or do you look both ways first?

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-09-2009, 08:15 PM
Ok, here is what we have established:

You have made an assertion. You have no evidence to back up that assertion. Normally, it would be pretty obvious that since you have no evidence that your assertion is true, there is no justification in believing it to be true. However, you have defined your assertion into a position that its SO FUCKING IMPORTANT, that not believing it is simply barbaric. You have also defined it in such a way that it can neither be proven or disproven, further building up this little cycle.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-09-2009, 08:18 PM
The point is, if this line of reasoning were made about ANYTHING other than a god, you would be laughed out of here. Everyone would point you out as an idiot. Yet since the subject matter is a god belief, which is at the very foundation of your world view, and it so important, you feel it is reasonable to make such an unreasonable argument, and people are OK with it.

TER
02-09-2009, 08:19 PM
Do you use "faith" for establishing other world views? For example, do you simply walk across the street with "faith" there are no cars coming? Or do you look both ways first?

I look both ways. And at the end of the day I thank God for keeping me safe for another day.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-09-2009, 08:20 PM
Still havnt answered the question. Is there a Godzilla?

M House
02-09-2009, 08:23 PM
Okay just like a pick a specific real topic to talk about. I mean there's little point in arguing about Godzilla or if God exists really. You can always talk about dinosaurs though. I mean couple them could own a Godzilla I bet.

TER
02-09-2009, 08:24 PM
The point is, if this line of reasoning were made about ANYTHING other than a god, you would be laughed out of here. Everyone would point you out as an idiot. Yet since the subject matter is a god belief, which is at the very foundation of your world view, and it so important, you feel it is reasonable to make such an unreasonable argument, and people are OK with it.

Well, the reason people are OK with it is because the topic of God is unlike any other topic in human thought.


Ok, here is what we have established:

You have made an assertion. You have no evidence to back up that assertion. Normally, it would be pretty obvious that since you have no evidence that your assertion is true, there is no justification in believing it to be true. However, you have defined your assertion into a position that its SO FUCKING IMPORTANT, that not believing it is simply barbaric. You have also defined it in such a way that it can neither be proven or disprove, further building up this little cycle.

The reason I defined it in such a way is because God can not be disproven, but you seem to keep ignoring that fact when you so proudly exclaim that you know there is no God.

M House
02-09-2009, 08:25 PM
Anyway my favorite dino is Troodon.

TER
02-09-2009, 08:25 PM
Still havnt answered the question. Is there a Godzilla?

Still didn't catch the concept of faith yet, have you.

I'm going to go put on a pot of coffee...

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-09-2009, 08:26 PM
Well, the reason people are OK with it is because the topic of God is unlike any other topic in human thought.



The reason I defined it in such a way is because God can not be disproven, but you seem to keep ignoring that fact when you so proudly exclaim that you know there is no God.

You cant disprove Godzilla.

M House
02-09-2009, 08:30 PM
Ugh can't like you guys argue about something concrete. I mean this is like trying argue wether humans have souls.

TER
02-09-2009, 08:32 PM
You cant disprove Godzilla.

I am not trying to disprove anything other than your claim that you know there is no God.

M House
02-09-2009, 08:36 PM
How comes these god arguments follow the same pattern. It's like a person says there's a god. Then MRS picks a magical creature. You argue back and forth wether either exists. Then we get some stupid thread about it later.

TER
02-09-2009, 08:44 PM
You cant disprove Godzilla.

If I can't disprove Godzilla, how can you say there is no God? Have you disproved God?

Pennsylvania
02-09-2009, 08:45 PM
I have no idea Penn you're not even an atheist are you? I guess that's a message to MRS.

M, I am an atheist for sure :)

TER
02-09-2009, 08:46 PM
isn't it time you should admit that you don't know if there is a God ?

Pennsylvania
02-09-2009, 08:49 PM
isn't it time you should admit that you don't know if there is a God ?

TEP, was this directed at me? :)

TER
02-09-2009, 08:53 PM
TEP, was this directed at me? :)

No, but to MRS. You already made clear that their is a possibility of a God. MRS is taking the position that he knows there is no possibility of a God.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-09-2009, 09:08 PM
No, but to MRS. You already made clear that their is a possibility of a God. MRS is taking the position that he knows there is no possibility of a God.

When did I ever say that I am absolutely certain there is no god or gods?

Im talking about "know" in every day common usage. I "know" there is no God, just as I "know" there is no Godzilla. I will continue to believe this until evidence is put forward to justify the assertion that a god or a Godzilla exists.

I dont believe in Godzilla. I would say I think there is no such thing as Godzilla. However, if you would provide evidence that a Godzilla exists, I would be happy to change my stance on the issue.

I will believe in a god if you can provide evidence that a god exists.

misterx
02-09-2009, 09:08 PM
Call to arms against what? Why should I have a problem with someone else's faith? Atheists can be just as intolerant of other beliefs as the most evangelical of preachers. I don't know where you people get the idea that secularism is under attack; it dominates the western world. What I find disgusting is the bitter hatred of faith by so many Athiestr.

TER
02-09-2009, 09:29 PM
When did I ever say that I am absolutely certain there is no god or gods?

Im talking about "know" in every day common usage. I "know" there is no God, just as I "know" there is no Godzilla. I will continue to believe this until evidence is put forward to justify the assertion that a god or a Godzilla exists.

I dont believe in Godzilla. I would say I think there is no such thing as Godzilla. However, if you would provide evidence that a Godzilla exists, I would be happy to change my stance on the issue.

I will believe in a god if you can provide evidence that a god exists.

So you are agnostic, and not atheistic. I think I understand now.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-09-2009, 09:50 PM
So you are agnostic, and not atheistic. I think I understand now.

::sigh::

Agnostic is not a fence sitting position. Agnostic is the position that you think nothing can be known with absolute certainty. Atheist is the position that you dont believe in a god.

Agnosticism has nothing to do with god. Its a position on the nature of knowledge.

TER
02-09-2009, 10:03 PM
::sigh::

Agnostic is not a fence sitting position. Agnostic is the position that you think nothing can be known with absolute certainty. Atheist is the position that you dont believe in a god.

Agnosticism has nothing to do with god. Its a position on the nature of knowledge.

I see. So you are both? :confused:

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-09-2009, 10:09 PM
I see. So you are both? :confused:

they are not mutually exclusive.

TER
02-09-2009, 10:29 PM
they are not mutually exclusive.

And from my understanding, they share some characteristics. For example, faith. Both require faith. The first that nothing can be absolutely known and the other that God does not exist.

So they both pertain to beliefs that can't be proven or disproven.

But doesn't this sound like religion?

Man from La Mancha
02-09-2009, 10:50 PM
I can't prove God exists but guns sure do and we need as many as we can get.

.

Brooklyn Red Leg
02-09-2009, 10:52 PM
Perhaps someone could borrow from super string theory or the theoretical "Theory Of Everything" to help explain this. That would be neato! :D:)

Ugh. No super-string theory, please. Its bad enough that blackholes are said to be both airtight and leaky (how is THAT possible) as well as the simple fact they've never once been observed. While I don't think the entirety of the Plasma Universe model is correct, neither do I think the entirety of the Gravity Universe model is incorrect.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-09-2009, 11:12 PM
And from my understanding, they share some characteristics. For example, faith. Both require faith. The first that nothing can be absolutely known and the other that God does not exist.

So they both pertain to beliefs that can't be proven or disproven.

But doesn't this sound like religion?

Does it take "faith" to believe that we are not all hooked up into the Matrix?

So does that make "not believing I am in the Matrix" a religion? By your definition you have just put forth, the belief that I am not hooked up into the Matrix is a belief based on faith, because I cant know anything for certain, and therefore a religion.

Thus a new religion is formed. Amatrixism.


You keep falling back on tired old arguments. You havnt produced a single argument here that thousands before you havnt tried. This time you went with the old, "Atheism is a religion too, so haha, we are both equally stupid"

Xenophage
02-10-2009, 11:32 AM
Its awesome that religious nutcases invariably fall back on "You can't prove there is no God!" Totally true, but that doesn't mean I should believe there is one. How about this one though? Can I prove that YOUR GOD isn't real? Fucking sure as hell can.

In fact, you can prove it to yourself. Pray for Jesus to reveal himself. As a matter of fact, pray for anything. Pray for an apple, to appear in your hand right now. Guess what happens? NOTHING. Oops?

Here's another one: If God is all powerful, and can do anything, can he make 1+1=3?

Guess my thinking is too bound and restricted by logic. Sorry, I'll never be a mystic.

Interestingly, all you religious dolts are atheists too. You don't believe in Buddha, or Zeus, or Shiva... as a matter of fact, you're almost as atheist as I am. I just believe in one less god than you do.

Mesogen
02-10-2009, 12:58 PM
http://xs136.xs.to/xs136/09072/faithmotivationalthumbnvc2129.jpg

tnvoter
02-10-2009, 01:22 PM
This is a much better video imo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc

Reason
02-10-2009, 01:26 PM
http://xs136.xs.to/xs136/09072/faithmotivationalthumbnvc2129.jpg

lmao

SimpleName
02-10-2009, 06:39 PM
Really sad how negatively atheists are viewed in the U.S. I do understand the ignorance as it is clear in every other spectrum of human life, but it is so irritating. Atheists can easily have more values and stronger morals than religious people and definitely more than many religious leaders, but stupid stigmas oppress them. It doesn't help that some atheist groups insist on eliminating all religion from every aspect of human life. Just throwing that in there

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-10-2009, 07:56 PM
Furthermore, you DO NOT base your belief in God on "faith". You base it on evidence, just as anyone would base any other belief on.

In the case of God, your evidence is the events of the Bible. You evidence that Jesus was who he claims, is the virgin birth and the miracles he performed. If you truly based your belief on faith, why would you need the miracles? See, the miracles are your claim of evidence.


The problem is, I dont believe the evidence you put forth is in itself anything more than fabrications.

Reason
02-11-2009, 12:02 AM
Furthermore, you DO NOT base your belief in God on "faith". You base it on evidence, just as anyone would base any other belief on.

In the case of God, your evidence is the events of the Bible. You evidence that Jesus was who he claims, is the virgin birth and the miracles he performed. If you truly based your belief on faith, why would you need the miracles? See, the miracles are your claim of evidence.


The problem is, I dont believe the evidence you put forth is in itself anything more than fabrications.

if you had even the slightest idea how many times the bible has been rewritten by MEN with alterations that these MEN decided to make for their own personal/political reasons you wouldn't dare consider the bible evidence of anything more than entertaining fiction.

TER
02-11-2009, 01:31 AM
If you truly based your belief on faith, why would you need the miracles?

You miss an important part of the Christian message:

When you have faith and trust, you do not need miracles in order to live a life in joy and peace, because life itself become one great revealing miracle. One living prayer to God.

Jesus performed miracles, amazing and instructive miracles, to fulfill His mission on earth- to tear down the veil separating God and man. To be a bridge of healing, a source of salvation, a life-giving spring. Yes, He did all these, and this: He sent down the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life. And this Spirit is Life itself!

The human experience should not be discredited simply because it seems relative. After all, you admitted before that there possibly is a God. That is as much a relative statement as it is a statement of logical fact.

The soul does not live in your mind. It lives in your heart.

And the longer you let your mind lead you at the expense of your heart, the longer you will live in doubt- confusion- fear.

Use the mind. Yes, of course! Let it take you there.

But let your heart help guide you.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-11-2009, 08:27 AM
You miss an important part of the Christian message:

When you have faith and trust, you do not need miracles in order to live a life in joy and peace, because life itself become one great revealing miracle. One living prayer to God.

Jesus performed miracles, amazing and instructive miracles, to fulfill His mission on earth- to tear down the veil separating God and man. To be a bridge of healing, a source of salvation, a life-giving spring. Yes, He did all these, and this: He sent down the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life. And this Spirit is Life itself!

The human experience should not be discredited simply because it seems relative. After all, you admitted before that there possibly is a God. That is as much a relative statement as it is a statement of logical fact.

The soul does not live in your mind. It lives in your heart.

And the longer you let your mind lead you at the expense of your heart, the longer you will live in doubt- confusion- fear.

Use the mind. Yes, of course! Let it take you there.

But let your heart help guide you.

If Jesus was not born of a virgin birth, and performed no miracles, would you still believe he was the son of God?

TER
02-11-2009, 08:48 AM
If Jesus was not born of a virgin birth, and performed no miracles, would you still believe he was the son of God?

If Jesus was not born of a virgin birth and performed no miracles, than He couldn't be the Son of God.

M House
02-11-2009, 08:55 AM
So those conditions weren't met what would that mean exactly? All of your religion would be void or it'd just be different.

TER
02-11-2009, 09:00 AM
So those conditions weren't met what would that mean exactly? All of your religion would be void or it'd just be different.

It would argue against the claim that Jesus is the Son of God and a divine being, the God-man.

M House
02-11-2009, 09:07 AM
It's tough for me to argue totally against say does a divine being affect some element of our lives. I don't think so but that's alot of whatever it would be could affect. However, it stills seems to me that it's kinda impossible to have a virgin birth. And depending on the miracle that's more or less physically impossible as well. The problem I got with most any religion is it's just inflexible and defies alotta testable and observable things in nature.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-11-2009, 11:25 AM
It would argue against the claim that Jesus is the Son of God and a divine being, the God-man.

so the virgin birth is. . .

EVIDENCE,

Thus your belief is based on. . .

EVIDENCE, NOT FAITH

TER
02-11-2009, 11:31 AM
so the virgin birth is. . .

EVIDENCE,

Thus your belief is based on. . .

EVIDENCE, NOT FAITH

My belief is based on evidence and faith.

Just as yours is. (As was demonstrated earlier in this thread)

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-11-2009, 12:11 PM
My belief is based on evidence and faith.

Just as yours is. (As was demonstrated earlier in this thread)

No, stop trying the tired old argument, "your's is a religion too, haha, you are just as stupid as I am"

I dont believe your evidence because I think it is nothing more than myth, superstition, and fabrication.

You dont believe the scientific evidence because 1) you are uneducated in science, and 2) you have already reached your own conclusion and will not let things like facts get in your way.

Xenophage
02-11-2009, 12:29 PM
You miss an important part of the Christian message:

When you have faith and trust, you do not need miracles in order to live a life in joy and peace, because life itself become one great revealing miracle. One living prayer to God.

Jesus performed miracles, amazing and instructive miracles, to fulfill His mission on earth- to tear down the veil separating God and man. To be a bridge of healing, a source of salvation, a life-giving spring. Yes, He did all these, and this: He sent down the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life. And this Spirit is Life itself!

The human experience should not be discredited simply because it seems relative. After all, you admitted before that there possibly is a God. That is as much a relative statement as it is a statement of logical fact.

The soul does not live in your mind. It lives in your heart.

And the longer you let your mind lead you at the expense of your heart, the longer you will live in doubt- confusion- fear.

Use the mind. Yes, of course! Let it take you there.

But let your heart help guide you.

When you learn to let go your conscious self and stretch out with your feelings, you do not need luck. Life becomes meaningful and guided by purpose. One Universe, one Force.

Yoda performed miracles, amazing miracles, and instructed our savior Luke so he could fulfill his destiny - his mission, to reunify the Dark and the Light Side of The Force and return balance to the Universe with the aid of his father. Yes, he did all these things, and yes, he destroyed the Emperor, and gave us freedom!

Although much of the truths we cling to depend entirely upon our point of view, this should not discredit the sentient experience and the great awe and completeness felt by one who is in tune with The Force. Even if you're some scruffy nerf-herder who believes in luck, you've got to at least admit there COULD be a Force.

Remember: The Force does not live within you. It lives through you, and it surrounds us and binds the Universe together.

Fear, confusion, anger - these lead to the Dark Side of the force. Do not let your passions control your destiny.

Use The Force! May it be with you, always.

TER
02-11-2009, 12:31 PM
No, stop trying the tired old argument, "your's is a religion too, haha, you are just as stupid as I am"

I'm not saying your stupid, I'm saying you have a religion, though you won't call it that.



I dont believe your evidence because I think it is nothing more than myth, superstition, and fabrication.

So you believe...


You dont believe the scientific evidence because 1) you are uneducated in science, and 2) you have already reached your own conclusion and will not let things like facts get in your way.

How are you so sure I am uneducated in science? Do you know me well enough to make that claim? What if I told you I graduated from an engineering university with high honors and have earned a doctorate with 12 years post-secondary education and have been published in peer reviewed journals? I'm not trying to boast or claim I know more science than you, but rather am claiming that you are still confused with the demonstrable fact that you have a religion based on faith and yet you still continue to deny it.

TER
02-11-2009, 12:32 PM
When you learn to let go your conscious self and stretch out with your feelings, you do not need luck. Life becomes meaningful and guided by purpose. One Universe, one Force.

Yoda performed miracles, amazing miracles, and instructed our savior Luke so he could fulfill his destiny - his mission, to reunify the Dark and the Light Side of The Force and return balance to the Universe with the aid of his father. Yes, he did all these things, and yes, he destroyed the Emperor, and gave us freedom!

Although much of the truths we cling to depend entirely upon our point of view, this should not discredit the sentient experience and the great awe and completeness felt by one who is in tune with The Force. Even if you're some scruffy nerf-herder who believes in luck, you've got to at least admit there COULD be a Force.

Remember: The Force does not live within you. It lives through you, and it surrounds us and binds the Universe together.

Fear, confusion, anger - these lead to the Dark Side of the force. Do not let your passions control your destiny.

Use The Force! May it be with you, always.

Thank you! You see, the truth can be found in varying degrees in all faiths and human acts of creation, be it art, music, or literature!

Pennsylvania
02-11-2009, 12:40 PM
Doubt != Faith

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-11-2009, 01:02 PM
I'm not saying your stupid, I'm saying you have a religion, though you won't call it that.




So you believe...



How are you so sure I am uneducated in science? Do you know me well enough to make that claim? What if I told you I graduated from an engineering university with high honors and have earned a doctorate with 12 years post-secondary education and have been published in peer reviewed journals? I'm not trying to boast or claim I know more science than you, but rather am claiming that you are still confused with the demonstrable fact that you have a religion based on faith and yet you still continue to deny it.

Then I would tell you to go boast your credentials in the WTC tower 7 thread. Your degree has nothing to do with biology.

Xenophage
02-11-2009, 01:03 PM
Doubt != Faith

Class Ethics extends Epistemology {

boolean god = Universe.isThereAGod();
Person self = new Person();
Slut whore = new Slut();

public Ethics() {
if(god) {
self.pray();
} else {
self.sex(whore);
}
}

JAVA FTW!

TER
02-11-2009, 01:04 PM
Then I would tell you to go boast your credentials in the WTC tower 7 thread. Your degree has nothing to do with biology.

Actually, it was my major. ;)

M House
02-11-2009, 01:08 PM
Wait TER your a biology major. What did you end up doing with your degree?

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-11-2009, 01:12 PM
Wait TER your a biology major. What did you end up doing with your degree?

used it as toilet paper, seeing as how he obviously didnt learn anything.

He wasted about as much time as Bernanke did when he spent all those years studying the Great Depression.

TER
02-11-2009, 01:18 PM
Wait TER your a biology major. What did you end up doing with your degree?

I became a physician. :)

Are you a biology major?

Xenophage
02-11-2009, 01:18 PM
Remember guys: just because someone is religious, that doesn't make them a Democrat. TER won't vote to raise your taxes, and for that I just might want to bake him a Jesus cake.

TER
02-11-2009, 01:21 PM
Remember guys: just because someone is religious, that doesn't make them a Democrat. TER won't vote to raise your taxes, and for that I just might want to bake him a Jesus cake.

:)

M House
02-11-2009, 01:22 PM
I became a physician. :)

Are you a biology major?

Yep, I'm a biology major been like in college since I was 18 now at 25 I guess it's time to wrap it up which I've been doing. Took some psychology and neurobiology along the way with drugs, bioethics, and couple diff. things thrown in.

Pennsylvania
02-11-2009, 01:22 PM
OT: TER what is that in your avatar exactly? I've never been able to figure it out.

Xenophage
02-11-2009, 01:24 PM
OT: TER what is that in your avatar exactly? I've never been able to figure it out.

Someone breaking out of chains? Looks a little bit like He-Man, with the bronze cuffs...

Pennsylvania
02-11-2009, 01:28 PM
Someone breaking out of chains? Looks a little bit like He-Man, with the bronze cuffs...

Now that you point them out, I can make out the chains, but not the rest of it.

I originally had something in my mind like two scarecrow hands on the sides of some tin foil with light and flies on it.

M House
02-11-2009, 01:28 PM
Well TER, I know I've said some mean things about physicians and plenty that might piss religious people off, but you seem like a rather decent guy so props. I do not feel any of the negative that I would've addressed in that direction should apply to you at all.

TER
02-11-2009, 01:29 PM
Yep, I'm a biology major been like in college since I was 18 now at 25 I guess it's time to wrap it up which I've been doing. Took some psychology and neurobiology along the way with drugs, bioethics, and couple diff. things thrown in.

That basically describes my college years. The life sciences are so much fun and amazing.

Kludge
02-11-2009, 01:29 PM
Everything we "know" is based on faith. Agnosticism/Nihilism rules.

M House
02-11-2009, 01:31 PM
That basically describes my college years. The life sciences are so much fun and amazing.

If your a physician you outta post in the health forum some. I have never known a doctor that posted there on this forum.

TER
02-11-2009, 01:35 PM
Now that you point them out, I can make out the chains, but not the rest of it.

I originally had something in my mind like two scarecrow hands on the sides of some tin foil with light and flies on it.

?
lol

Actually, its two scarecrows hands breaking a tin foil hat!

No, seriously, Xenophage got it right. Its two hands breaking the chains that bind them. Sort of reminds me of what this whole freedom movement is about.

Pennsylvania
02-11-2009, 01:40 PM
?
lol

Actually, its two scarecrows hands breaking a tin foil hat!

No, seriously, Xenophage got it right. Its two hands breaking the chains that bind them. Sort of reminds me of what this whole freedom movement is about.

Until I enlarged the image in paint I couldn't see the outline of the hand parts at all, now I can see it pretty clearly. Similar colors blend together sometimes as a function of my brand of colorblindness. When I said scarecrow hands, I was seeing twig-like hands instead of the fists that you guys were seeing.

TER
02-11-2009, 01:43 PM
If your a physician you outta post in the health forum some. I have never known a doctor that posted there on this forum.

I didn't even know there to be an active health forum here. Thanks, but honestly, I'm not that interested in healthcare policies and the business of it. I'm an ER doctor. I go to work, I do the best I can for my patient regardless of who they are, and then I go home to my family. I leave the rest to people smarter than me.

M House
02-11-2009, 01:47 PM
That's cool being an ER doctor probably pretty difficult.

TER
02-11-2009, 01:56 PM
That's cool being an ER doctor probably pretty difficult.

More stressful than cool, but a blessing above all.

Brooklyn Red Leg
02-11-2009, 02:23 PM
More stressful than cool, but a blessing above all.

Ah, the Knife and Gun Club make it fun working in the ER, neh? :D

TER
02-11-2009, 02:35 PM
Ah, the Knife and Gun Club make it fun working in the ER, neh? :D

That reminds me of my days working in an ER in Manhattan. (more Harlem than Manhattan, actually!) :eek:

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-11-2009, 06:32 PM
Everything we "know" is based on faith. Agnosticism/Nihilism rules.

this line of reasoning is useless

Kludge
02-11-2009, 06:51 PM
this line of reasoning is useless

Everything is useless - everything is worthless, except that which we value, but we can't value anything objectively, anyway, not that it matters, since we can just forget about them and the experience may as well have not happened, which permits me, a humble douchebag, to use far more commas than are necessary.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
02-11-2009, 06:56 PM
Everything is useless - everything is worthless, except that which we value, but we can't value anything objectively, anyway, not that it matters, since we can just forget about them and the experience may as well have not happened, which permits me, a humble douchebag, to use far more commas than are necessary.
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/6377/picardfacepalmky2.jpg

Reason
02-12-2009, 01:26 AM
I am happy that my post stimulated 20 pages worth of debate! =D

It has been interesting reading everyone's thoughts!

Reason
05-06-2009, 02:47 PM
bump

Eric21ND
05-06-2009, 06:00 PM
If I remember correctly, he read enough Mendel to have SOME clue about what he was doing. :o (haven't read his stuff in years, though)

Genetic science didnít really take off until well into the 20th century, not until the 1950ís with Watson and Crickís article on the molecular structure of DNA. Mendelís work largely had to be rediscovered in the early 1900ís and he had no notion what impact heíd have on genetics. Basically, it took 50 years for anyone to see the significance of his work, which gets to my earlier point that scientists before him and even his contemporaries did not have any knowledge of what he was working on. News travelled much slower in those days and Mendelís work was not widely published, only a handful of copies existed.

Itís interesting to note that others were on the same path though. Here is an excerpt of a letter by Charles Darwin to fellow naturalist Alfred Wallace hinting at his own pre-Mendelian genetic experiements with pea plants.

"My dear Wallace... I do not think you understand what I mean by the non-blending of certain varieties. It does not refer to fertility; an instance will explain. I crossed the Painted Lady and Purple sweetpeas, which are very differently coloured varieties, and got, even out of the same pod, both varieties perfect but none intermediate. Something of this kind I should think must occur at least with your butterflies & the three forms of Lythrum; thoí these cases are in appearance so wonderful, I do not know that they are really more so than every female in the world producing distinct male and female offspring...C. Darwin

RevolutionSD
05-06-2009, 07:32 PM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IyV9T_OlUro/SOkdnOJKhLI/AAAAAAAABbU/xxYYJJOn6IQ/s320/RichardDawkins.jpg
YouTube - Richard Dawkins: An atheist's call to arms (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxGMqKCcN6A)

I thought this presentation was very well done and happen to agree with most of Dawkin's points.

Your thoughts on the video? Your thoughts on "Non theism"?

I'm an atheist too, and a Dawkins fan when it comes to a lot of his writing, but he's a statist, and we as libertarians have no use for him.

Reason
05-06-2009, 08:05 PM
I'm an atheist too, and a Dawkins fan when it comes to a lot of his writing, but he's a statist, and we as libertarians have no use for him.

A statist? How so?

idiom
05-08-2009, 04:29 AM
This thread has a really low corn density.

TheEvilDetector
05-08-2009, 04:44 AM
Just saying that if you found an intricate pocket watch in the middle of the forest, you would assume someone made it.
Same goes with nature, which is an infinite times more complex.

This is not a solid example to prove your point.

You are starting with an object we KNOW is man made to begin with.

Here is another example:

We find a hydrogen atom in the middle of nowhere in space using sophisticated instruments attached to our space ship.

You are the lead scientific officer on the space ship and the captain asks you:

Who put the atom there?

When? How? Evidence?

You could say you don't know, but if you actually know, the captain humbly asks for evidence.

Nothing more than that.

If you say God, but don't have evidence of such, that's ok say so, while not ideal, it is an answer too.

I will then discuss your answer in more detail.

Objectivist
05-08-2009, 04:50 AM
I'll have to catch the rest later. Too bad TED isn't coming back here next year.

TheEvilDetector
05-08-2009, 04:51 AM
my point exactly.

Their reasoning goes like this:

Creationist: "Matter and the universe couldnt have always existed. They must have come from somewhere. And they didnt just spring into existence on their own, they must have been created by an intelligence"

Voice of Reason: "Where did this intelligent designer come from?"

Creationist: "The intelligent designer has always existed."

Voice of Reason: "So why couldnt matter and the universe have always existed?"

Creationist: ". . ."

Precisely.

Reason
05-08-2009, 03:01 PM
my point exactly.

Their reasoning goes like this:

Creationist: "Matter and the universe couldnt have always existed. They must have come from somewhere. And they didnt just spring into existence on their own, they must have been created by an intelligence"

Voice of Reason: "Where did this intelligent designer come from?"

Creationist: "The intelligent designer has always existed."

Voice of Reason: "So why couldnt matter and the universe have always existed?"

Creationist: ". . ."

:)

Athan
05-08-2009, 04:06 PM
I think we should focus all of our fight on what Dr. Paul is fighting for. I'm not interested in anything else but liberty, restoring our Republic, and securing our prosperity as a nation. I am NOT interested in this little culture war O'Reilly loves to use to act like an ass-clown.

With Liberty comes peace with fellow Americans and their beliefs.

Ozwest
05-08-2009, 04:11 PM
A statist? How so?

I agree with you CivilRadiant.

We are not clones, and I will not be categorized.