Thanks for all the back and forth- thought I'd piss all my new friends off one last time...
You all gotta get over all this "prove it" bs, whether u ever accept Christianity or not. I'm sure we all believe in plenty that hasn't ever been scientifically proven based on natural law...evolution (which I have no problem with), human emotion, reason, gravity! Anyone not believe in gravity because it's still a theory? It's effects (affects..whatever) are all around us, but we can't prove it...kinda like you know who.
Ask 1,000,000 Christians "what is God", and I'd bet anything the #1 answer is "love". God IS love. Love exists. Anyone not believe love is real because it hasn't been scientifically proven?
God is supernatural, not natural. Can't prove supernatural beings or energies with natural law. I'd bet anything plenty of you believe in intelligent life outside of Earth...stands to reason for some. Can you prove it? Plus, contrary to popular and arrogant human belief, it is OK to simply admit that our minds can't comprehend everything.
Thanks for an interesting few days. I'm out for now (sure your upset, but it'll be Ok!). Hope you find your truth, whatever that may be...just as long as it is, in fact true. Not "scientifically proven", but true.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Dear oh deary, me. What can you say to a guy like Sinner? Almost all of his arguments are false. There's a whacking great difference between belief and conjecture, for a start. And we can't prove that gravity exists? Someone should teach the guy mathematics. And physics. I don't understand how anyone could learn about the Laws of Thermodynamics and still believe in gods. Certainly, our minds can't comprehend everything. but we'll never comprehend anything unless we walk the path of logic, because only logic leads to truth.
There will be other sinners arriving soon!
I don't doubt it, Chimp3. But wouldn't life be boring without diversity?
You just said "...gravity's still a theory".
You just demonstrated that you don't know what a theory is in a scientific context.
LostLocke: Could you please be specific in who you're addressing? It gets a bit confusing otherwise.Thanks.
Sorry. Yeah this format is a bit different from other threads.
I was talking to Sinner. He asked if we believe in gravity because it was "still just a theory".
Yes, it does take a bit of getting used to. And I thought that you were 'talking' to Sinner, but I just wasn't certain, and I wasn't trying to put you down in any way. I think maybe you understand that, though.
Bye Sinner. Don't let the door hit you in the ass.....just go on your stupid way!
Aw, come on, mykcob4, is there no forgiveness in your heart?:-] I understand your frustration,beleive me, but I try not to let it get the better of me.
Sorry guys, I misworded that- you're right- I was referencing the theory of general relativity, not the law of gravity- my mistake...now grapple with the rest of the post. mykcob4- sorry I made u so angry. I'll let you go back to debating these issues with folks u already agree with.
Try me, sinner, I'm a committed atheist but maybe I'm a little less feisty than mykob4. I'd like to debate with you in a calm and logical way. Is that what you want?
Thanks Mr. Raye- don't necessarily want to, but I'd be glad to and I enjoy it. Like I said before, I'm not an educated guy, just kinda here because I'm passionate about the subject and I like talking with folks that don't instantly revert to the old "you're wrong and a stupid idiot" line... I don't pretend to have all the answers.
You either want to or you don't, son. Logical thinking, see? What is that you're passionate about? Atheism or Religion - and answer me honestly because I can't help you if you don't. And I'd be pleased if you'd call me Keith.
Keith Raye
Sinner isn't here to debate. He is here to get his rocks off. And you're right about what he is passionate about. It is a fascination, an obsession with atheists. We get these guys/gals all the time. This forum asks people if they would like to debate with an atheist. Well, debating isn't what is on their proverbial minds.
They come here or are sent here (christian computer boiler rooms) with an agenda. They either come to convert (they will never do), disrupt and troll(which they always do), proselytize (they continuously do), and or get their rocks off by fighting (what they always end up doing).
It comes from the perception that they have been given about atheists and themselves by their controllers (spiritual guide).
In the USA every evangelical (wacko) church needs something that sets it apart from the mundane ritualistic traditional church. Therefore they seek out targets. Targets to hate. Like gays, minorities, muslims, Liberals, scientists, educators, and most importantly atheists. This gives them a mission, it drives up membership (because everyone wants a group to belong to).
Imagine if you will a typical believer in the USA. Week after week they attend a traditional church. They pray a little at prescribed times, a preacher reads a few passages from a bible, they pass the donation plate around to some solemn music, then the preacher gives a sermon dictating how to live your life.
Well if you aren't moved by all this you seek spiritual guidance elsewhere. So you hear of a preacher that performs miracles. That is a show you just can't resist. You go and the preacher spends nearly 3 hours convincing you to not only separate yourself from your hard-earned cash but to be active and vanquish the Devil's demons. He gives you the mission the means and the direction to do so. He is bombastic charismatic outrageous. He tells you god wants you to hate gays etc. And in this church, you don't just pray. You pray the gay away, the atheist away as if you can just wash mud from your hands.
That is where Sinner, beleever, and others like them come from.
So you will never "debate" Sinner. At best he will isolate you to proselytize. He will never weigh anything that you will say....EVER. He knows that in a debate, a real debate, he hasn't got a chance. His preacher has told him this. His preacher has also told him how to counter facts with lies and bible verses, to just say "god is love" everytime he is cornered.
Mark my words and just see if I'm correct.
There has only been one christian that has come here to actually debate and think since I've been here, and that is John Breezy. That is 1 out of the hundreds that I have witnessed. Now two young pups came here and claimed that I had converted them, but they ended up just being a couple of conservative punks who eventually were banned for various reasons. It's very hard to get banned on this site no matter who you are, but they managed to do so.
So yes, you see my replies are vehemently harsh. That comes with experience here. MCD is probably harsher but I am famous for it.
Oh and yes in reply to your other post to me "Till" does mean to plow the land, but that is not what the supposed college student meant now is it?
mykob4 There's lot I could say about that and I appreciate that you're only trying to be helpful. But please understand, that I'm old enough , and ( I hope) wise enough to make my own decisions. If I'm going to make a fool of myself, then I've only got myself to blame. But I genuinely would like Sinner to talk to me, because both he and I might learn something from it.
If he's not genuine, I'm going to know he's not. And I wouldn't mind betting that, right now, he's trying to get advice from his 'handler'. But I can cope with that too.
I have not been on these boards the last 3 weeks, so I do not know your previous discussions. Here is my responses.
My entire worldview is based around proof and evidence. Yours is too, you just do not apply it to certain areas of convenience to you. (In this case your religion.)
Basing life and your actions on proof is in an incredibly important and useful tool. You do not blindly cross a busy intersection on faith, you wisely use the proof your eyes and other senses give you that the way is clear from danger. You do not pay a bill without looking at the bill and doing some quick very basic math. You use proof and evidence to determine the bill is fair and appropriate.
Are you saying evolution has not been scientifically proven? How about extremely well supported? How about: far more well supported then genesis?
I agree with that statement, but probably in a different way then you do.
Gravity, (you meant theory of relativity,) is well supported, we could get into semantics of proof versus evidence versus supporting evidence and so on, but their is lots of well supported evidence, experiments test, and supporting conclusions around the theory of relativity, it is easy to say with great confidence that the theory of relativity is a good theory to base rational decision on.
I agree, much of what this god concept can be described as "love," again I agree with this statement by likely interpreting that statement very differently than you do. I actually feel love does not exist, anywhere but in our minds. It is a thought process, not a real thing, unless you want to describe similar brain cell connection patterns among humans to be a "thing."
I believe the possibility of intelligent life outside of earth to be quite high, based upon the estimated trillion trillions stars out there. So even if intelligent life was a 1 in quintillion chance of all the right situations occurring, that is still billions of possibilities. Certainly can not prove it, we only guesstimate their is 100 trillion stars in the "observable" universe, and can only roughly guess how many stars there really are, which changes the math quite a lot. It purely speculation and a numbers game based on poor data. That is why I say there is a decent possibility, but I never claim that I can prove it.
I STRONGLY agree with this. If you do too, apply that to your god idea concept please!
I am always seeking more truth, I know I will never get the "whole" truth, or even more then a tiny fraction of the truth, but each new well supported truth I find, I find it to be powerful tool that leads to success, safety, and happiness/well being in my life.
To me it is very difficult to find truth's without the scientific method or other evidence based discovery methods. As soon as you entertain unsupported ideas outside of evidence and discovery methods, the overwhelming weight of all unsupported ideas being possible crush any hope of finding truths. To me, believing in the man made fairy tale of god as truth is one of the most powerful ways to step away from finding truths that any one person can do.
Still a theory? Were you expecting it to turn into a hippopotamus?
Keith- thank you very much for the straight-forward honesty. I'm passionate about God, passionate about understanding atheism- I think I have a good grasp on agnostics, and I can respect where they're coming from, but not atheists. I hope to be taught. I would like to answer you directly whether I'm passionate about religion, but I honesty must ask you what your definition of religion is. I recognize only 1, and it literally is following Christ. Pray, love, sacrifice and serve. Please tell me how to proceed if you'd like to debate, I'd like that.
LOGIC4tw- I really appreciate your post, both in your attention to detail and ability to respectfully express your thoughts. I ask you, why is evidence, as opposed to scientific proof, not valid when it comes to a Christian expressing evidence of intelligent design? Do you trust science, as formulated by man, even though well accepted theories have later been proven false time and time again? If I'm way off, plz correct me.
mykcob4- get one thing straight- u don't know me, or my motives. Likewise, I don't know yours. I'm not an evangelical, and I have no preacher. I don't claim to prove God scientifically via the Bible. I'm a Catholic, and belong the the Church instituted by Christ, not Bill and Franks post-reformation pick and choose congregation. Don't confuse Catholics with evangelicals. Probably oughta move on, as you're obviously too pissed at me to conduct a constructive debate.
I feel Christians (and other religions,) expressing evidence of intelligent design is a rather flimsy one. But I will agree it is a form of evidence. Certainly better than nothing. I feel it is flimsy evidence because it can not be tested, reproduced but perhaps most importantly there is no control for polluting outside factors that can render any of the conclusion completely mute.
You can cut open a human eye or other highly evolved eye and say "look how complex this is!" Look how perfectly adapted this eye is for what the organism needs! The human eye can see incredible detail and color variety within a range of colors that are really important to better able to manipulate and examine objects held in our hands. Look at the eye of this bird of prey! How it can spot movement of a mouse in a grass field from 500 feet away! Surely that is intelligent design!
Look at this planet, look how perfectly adapted it is to support human life! If it was just as measly 10% closer or further from the our "perfect" sun, life as we know would not be possible for us humans! It would be too hot, too cold, not enough atmosphere, etc etc etc
But these observation does not deal with the fact that perhaps the design of the eye may not have come from intelligent design. Evolution shows given enough time amazing complex features can develop that better suit an organism to improve its chances of survival and reproducing. All manner of life survives in the poles that has 100 straight days of night, and subzero temperatures and no living vegetation for half the year. There is huge amounts of life around volcanic sea vents where their is crushing pressure and no sunlight ever reaches.
Or that the reverse of life on this planet is true, that it is not that the earth was perfectly adapted to suit humans. But humans and other life on earth perfectly adapted to the conditions that earth has.
-
Which well accepted scientific theories utilizing tools like the scientific method was later found to be proven false? You say time and time again? So a bunch should come to your mind quickly? I heard about advanced college physics books needing to have some of their more obscure theories updated or removed. I know some of the theories I learned in 200+ level college chemistry and physics books has been later found incorrect or wrong or in need of a major revision, but they were not well accepted to begin with. Also I tend to trust people and procedures that allow for and say "we are not perfect" we sometimes get things wrong, but we look to correct them" more than people that say: they, (or saying their god,) is always 100% absolutely correct and infallible. Nevermind that god is interpreted by humans and the bible is written, edited, translated, printed and otherwise made by humans.
Additionally, scientist use the word "theory" for a reason. Scientist understand the conclusions they found may be wrong. And their is a long vetting procedure as a theory progresses from an idea to a well supported generally accepted theory.
Let me begin by saying that, in my opinion, everyone is entitled to a point of view. I would like to see a world in which everyone is free to follow their own way of life and belief, to form their own opinions and to follow whatever doctrines they are comfortable with as individuals. It's inevitable, in such a world, that points of view will often not agree with each other, but I see that as a basis for calm, logical, adult debate rather than conflict. I see diversity, in all it's forms, as adding to the richness of life rather than detracting from it. But if we use that freedom to harass, denigrate, interfere with or detract from the similar right to freedom of our fellow humans, then we reduce and spoil that freedom and diversity for all of us. If I have made comments here that belittle your personal
beliefs, then, before everyone on this website, I apologise for them. What I'm talking about here isn't about caving in to one side or the other. What I'm talking about is mutual respect.
In my view, the universe is a logical place, the laws that govern it are logical - everything physical that happens in it is subject to natural laws that can be mathematically proven to be correct. Therefore, it behoves us, as creatures of that logical universe, to behave in a logical way. Nothing in this universe is above nature. Whatever your personal beliefs are - which you are entitled to - that simple fact never changes.
@Sinner
You're right I don't know you personally, but I have what you have posted. You continually get wrong what who has said what to whom. I don't know why that is but it is a fact. Maybe you just aren't use to the way the forum works. I know it took me a little time to get use to it in the beginning.
Also, you tend to get the science wrong. Gravity isn't a theory, it is a fact. What causes gravity in specific is still unknown.
By the display of your posts, the history of them, and the history of people that have posted here before, I did generalize you. I have dealt with people like you before and so I associate you with those people, a natural act.
As far as being catholic goes, it affords you no special consideration. To me, evangelicals, charismatics, radical christians, catholics are very much the same. They lack the capability of independent critical thought. They apologize for religion.
Now you get one thing straight, I am not pissed, you'll know when I am. My replies are always straightforward and blunt. That is just the way I post.
As far as evidence versus science, all I can say is, what I have been telling believers ever since I have been here, what you think is evidence really isn't. It doesn't meet a minimum requirement for evidence. The evidence does not necessarily need to be scientific but it does have to be credible. Saying things like "Look in your fridge" isn't proof of anything. If you understand that you can realize why it is dismissed out of hand. Plus just because you want something to be true doesn't make it true. I have provided ample evidence that Hitler was not only christian but also catholic. You desperately don't want that to be the case, but you haven't provided any facts or evidence to refute that fact. Instead, you just say "that you will not take the word of a madman." You want to be taken seriously but you haven't even been serious. So if I categorized you with others in the past that have a certain agenda instead of just an opinion, you have led me to believe that is the case. I don't put words in your mouth. I only respond to the words that you have posted.
It's easy to converse with anyone that is going to be all mamby-pamby, it is quite different to be required to back up your statements with real facts. I make you think, make you search for facts. I call you out when you make an unsubstantiated claim. If you take that as an insult, then I can't help you. If you think that I get pissed about your posts, then you don't understand.
Heres the thing Sinner, and all christians, for some reason you come on an atheist forum, out of curiosity I guess. You read what must be insulting to you personally and you react. You all have this idea that you can use two methods to prove things.
1) The bible
and
2) the idea that we can just look around ourselves and reach a conclusion that there is a god.
Neither are even logical, neither meet muster as evidence.
Then when those forms of offered evidence are not accepted, you all get frustrated.
You claim to be uneducated. That doesn't matter and it isn't an excuse. Anyone can educate themselves. It is the method by which you are educated that is really the key.
The whole purpose of a university is to enlighten the brain. To make one wake up and learn how to learn without outside help. Why do you think that every college course requires so many research papers? The reason is the very exercise teaches you how to teach yourself.
Also, you and every christian should bear in mind just where most atheists come from. Almost all of us were christians and have been extensively trained to be christians. The process of becoming an atheist usually includes a step of researching every aspect of christianity to exhaust all possibilities that becoming an atheist is wrong.
Logic- I agree that evolutionary characteristics, such as your example of the eye, are obviously taking place all around us. I think it's very interesting how life on earth has evolved, but for me I look at it more as mans observations and understanding of how God makes things work. To me, scientists increased understanding of natural law and how it works does not automatically discount the possibility of a supernatural Creator anymore than an auto mechanics understanding of how a vehicle works discounts Henry Ford. I'm not sure why so many Christians are so dead-set against evolution- if God can create the heavens and the earth, I would think He might have the foresight to enable his creatures to adapt to each other and their environments over time.
The scientific theories commonly held that have been abandoned would include a flat planet (I know, Catholicism affected astronomy during these times), spontaneous generation and Ptolemy's law of refraction.
Keith- thanks and hopefully I never offend you- it's not my intention to do so. I agree that logic is key in finding truth, and mathematics do play a role. Where do you think math came from (to put it kinda dumbly). Who created it, or is it just our understanding of how numbers relate to natural law? I think math is a great example of one hell of a set of coincidences that must have resulted from that Big Bang! Thanks
If you agree/believe in the evolution theory, and just want to give god credit for it, I am fine with that. The argument sort of turns into a first creator in a sense. But to me on these arguments, they get so metaphysical I am fine with you believing your way and I believing my way. In the end that does not really matter. I only take issue to theist that try to push their belief system on others, especially when they get together and form pressure governments to enact laws.
You mentioned you understand agnostic, but struggle with atheist.
For many years of my life I considered myself agnostic. The quote that goes something like: "I could never possibly be so arrogant to know everything, since I do not know everything I must accept their is some possibility of a greater being even if it may be small."
Rung true to me. I actually consider still consider myself agnostic. Then I read the definition of atheist. And the definition of god.
Agnostic and atheist are not counter to each other. You can easily be both if you carefully read and understand the generally accepted definition of both.
Definition of atheist: -- Not theist.
Definition of theist: -- the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ). 2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism ).
Definition of God: -- the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe.
I realized that I can believe in some remote possibility of a greater being, but also definitely be an atheist.
To me, the possibility of their being some sort of creator and ruler of the universe, that is perfect in power wisdom and goodness and is to be worshipped is extremely remote, so remote to me I for all intent and purposes can say and live like there is no such god. All the evidence I ever gathered on if their is a god or not, very strongly (to me anyways) points that there is no god. I do not know everything, but everything I have learned so far on this subject makes it a very, very good bet for me.
The evidence is so good to me, that I am willing to bet eternity on it.
Hi Sinner, glad you're still there. Mathematics plays more than a role, it's the language of logic. They are as inseparable as the horse and cart. "You can't have one without the other" as the old song goes, but you're probably too young to remember that one. Where did it come from? Like all other languages it evolved as mankind did. It was already an established doctrine among the ancient Greeks and the civilizations that came before them. You start by counting beans, and it goes on from there. The Persians were the great mathematical masters though, because they invented algebra and named every star in the sky. It could have been them too, who first thought out the concept of zero, which is a very important step in the development of mathematics.
As for offending me, Sinner, don't worry about it. You're highly unlikely to do that. Unlike some other users of this forum, who can be rude and discourteous, who use obfuscation as a tool to assert their assumed authority and get a kick out of doing it, I get my kicks out of finding out what makes people tick. I listen to their arguments and weigh them against my own so we might learn something from each other. Are you ok with that?
@Keith Raye
What fucking "obfuscation?! What assumed authority?! Who are you talking about?! All I said to you is that MCD merely stated his opinion and you got all pissy about it. You want to dole out advice but won't accept any. That is YOUR problem.
Oooh! Did I touch a raw spot, mykob4? I don't remember mentioning your handle in that post. But if the cap fits, you go ahead and wear it. As a matter of fact, I agree with pretty much everything you've said. I think your arguments are mostly well put, and you obviously know what you're talking about. I think too, that the guy who posts as Sinner is actually more than one person. He ignores points put to him that are entirely valid and logical, then simply continues with his pre-programmed rant. It may be, of course,that he actually believes what he's saying, that he's been indoctrinated to think that way, and he's blind to logical truth. Whatever, to me, this is a fascinating exchange we have going on here and I'm glad I got involved in it.
Logic- I can appreciate your thoughts, and thanks for the explanation. I agree that men / governments have conducted themselves horribly in the name of God. I never understood how a Christian could attempt to follow Christ, all about self-sacrifice and charity, and then go out and slaughter their "brothers" because they don't believe. Christ came for unbelievers and "sinners", not self-proclaimed righteous men.
Keith- no offense taken! Glad we have a little dialogue going, and I do want to learn from several on this site. To be more specific, do u view mathematics as a language, like those concocted by men, or a set of laws like natural laws? Did men create math, or just attempt to understand and utilize math?
Prove it, Sinner. Prove jesus even existed. There is no Roman record, no Jewish record, no Greek record only a biblical record written over 300 years after the fact.
@Sinner
Math is a human construct to sort, organize and make sense of the surroundings. It is a very useful tool, that "quantifies things" that allows us through precision achieve much more than we could without it.
Natural laws exist w/o math. We just apply math to them and find useful patterns.
Pages