mehh..

[njcollector]

But a person with no beliefs, wouldn't his belief be that which has no beliefs?

Ab normal- Ab is to be " away from ", while normal is to confirm to a standard.

It is only possible to be abnormal if there is normal, the base or standard to which to be judged. A man whos belief is which that who has no belief, is that not a belief? Do you not abide by it? Do you not defend your belief? A stance where you choose not to hold a belief in any of the gods, Zeus, Apollo, Ra, Allah, Zyzz etc is this not a firm principle to which you abide by?


There is ways to explain your stance
Remember to be firm and honest
Or to attempt to be
Lower your guard
Let go of your angst and breath

 

[fraij da 5 11]

Originally Posted by yngSIMBA

Originally Posted by NjCollector

Atheism is a religion

God is an illusion created by and feeds of fear

Jesus was a hippie who took shrooms

Atheists love gays and wish to stop procreation for anal sex and orgies


Check?

Don't know if your being sarcastic, but No..
Atheism is NOT a religion!!!!

"A" = prefix meaning "lacking/without"  + "Theism" = belief in a god/gods:  Atheism = Lacking a belief in god..

You defined the wrong word though...



[h2]re·li·gion[/h2]   [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by fraij da 5 11

Originally Posted by yngSIMBA

Originally Posted by NjCollector

Atheism is a religion

God is an illusion created by and feeds of fear

Jesus was a hippie who took shrooms

Atheists love gays and wish to stop procreation for anal sex and orgies


Check?

Don't know if your being sarcastic, but No..
Atheism is NOT a religion!!!!

"A" = prefix meaning "lacking/without"  + "Theism" = belief in a god/gods:  Atheism = Lacking a belief in god..

You defined the wrong word though...



[h2]re·li·gion[/h2]   [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

Atheists still don't have a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. So it is not a religion.

 

[fraij da 5 11]

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

Originally Posted by fraij da 5 11

Originally Posted by yngSIMBA


Don't know if your being sarcastic, but No..
Atheism is NOT a religion!!!!

"A" = prefix meaning "lacking/without"  + "Theism" = belief in a god/gods:  Atheism = Lacking a belief in god..

You defined the wrong word though...



[h2]re·li·gion[/h2]   [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

Atheists still don't have a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. So it is not a religion.

They don't?

Big bang, big bang, Its just there.

Those can be someones set of beliefs. Boom, religion.

 

[frankmatthews]

Has it not been shown that science, currently, is not capable of explaining certain phenomenon?
How would you deal with such a phenomenon? Crediting "god" would be the easy answer.
Does one just simply ignore the phenomenon? Reserve judgement? Is it a myth cause
science can't explain it?


The nice thing about being an Atheist is you don't have to do any work or actual thinking
for yourself. Everything is untrue until it is proven with evidence. Since you can't prove
a negative, all you have to do is sit back and wait for science to prove things.
No matter the level of technological sophistication or human ability, you can't prove that
nothing exists. All you can do is prove something to exist. I can say nothing exists
and sit back and wait for someone else to prove something. Easy

 

[rko2004]

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Originally Posted by RKO2004

God creates everyone with the ability of choice. So how can you guys say he creates people just to end up going to hell? If you heard the word then its your free will to believe or not.

Putty, God is downtown Cincinnati. Lets say each route starts from its outbound location. Downtown is its ultimate destination. Sorry I could have made that clearer at first.

Before anything ever existed, god knew that creating me the way he did would result in me becoming an atheist. He must have created me such that I would fulfill what he already knew would happen. He can't contradict himself. Nothing can influence what I do that can't be tied directly back to god meaning that god is responsible for everything that happens in my life. The creation has to abide the creator's rules, no?

I said before it could work like a transit system.

The president/ceo whatever you may call that person oversees everything. He knows all the routes. But it is the passengers who decide where they want to go and what time. Yes there are set times in place but ultimately the passengers to schedule their trips.

Of course when using the transit system there are rules in place. Where aren't there rules.

 

[jet5foo1]

Question for those who know about the process of Evolution:

I am an avid believer of evolution however I came across a bit of an issue with the whole idea and when I asked both my biology and my anthropology professors about it they sort of 'danced around' the answer or maybe I just didn't understand.

So we all know about chromosomes, and how they function and that only those animals with the same amount of chromosomes can produce fertile offspring.
IE: Humans x Humans = Eventually fertile offspring.
Horses x Donkeys = Mule or Hinny which are infertile offspring.

So as evolution takes course and over long, long periods of time animals mutate and the count of their chromosomes change; thus a new species.
How do these first time mutations have fertile offspring if they are in fact now a new species? Would they have to encounter and mate with another member of the ancestor species that just so happened to mutate into a new chromosome count in the same age in the same region? Doesn't it seem like the odds of that happening are wildly slim?

Thanks for anyone that can explain to me.

 

[yngsimba.sneakershoebox]

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by fraij da 5 11

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

Originally Posted by fraij da 5 11

You defined the wrong word though...



[h2]re·li·gion[/h2]   [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.

Atheists still don't have a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. So it is not a religion.

They don't?

Big bang, big bang, Its just there.

Those can be someones set of beliefs. Boom, religion.

Nah, why would you assume ever atheist believes in the Big Bang? You can get 10 atheist in a room and it's not a guarantee you'll get all of them to agree on a set of belief concerning nature, purpose of the universe, and the cause. You may get some guys to agree that as of now the evidence points to these conclusions but it's not at all a given they even bother to address those questions. You're just kinda assuming what atheists beliefs are and they all would fall in line with what scientists discover. That's not always the case, it's just that atheist use common sense and have enough logic that they and scientists are like minded when it comes to reason.

Atheists don't have to agree on any other beliefs. Main thing they have in common is lack in belief in GOD.

So again it's not a religion in the least. I mean are the ppl who do not belief in Santa Claus in a religion?

Originally Posted by FrankMatthews

Has it not been shown that science, currently, is not capable of explaining certain phenomenon?
How would you deal with such a phenomenon? Crediting "god" would be the easy answer.
Does one just simply ignore the phenomenon? Reserve judgement? Is it a myth cause
science can't explain it?

The nice thing about being an Atheist is you don't have to do any work or actual thinking
for yourself. Everything is untrue until it is proven with evidence. Since you can't prove
a negative, all you have to do is sit back and wait for science to prove things.
No matter the level of technological sophistication or human ability, you can't prove that
nothing exists. All you can do is prove something to exist. I can say nothing exists
and sit back and wait for someone else to prove something. Easy

Wait why choose the easy ignorant answer? The GOD of the gaps argument is not the logical approach. You research and investigate the phenomenon until you get answers. What is so difficult/painful/unfathomable about simply saying "I don't know yet."???

It's a myth cuz even you can't explain it. Crediting a higher being which you have no knowledge of, which you have no idea how it operates, etc. is a cop out. People like that should not even be involved because their opinions come from ignorance.

*cue Neil Degrasse Tyson pic*

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by FrankMatthews

Has it not been shown that science, currently, is not capable of explaining certain phenomenon?
How would you deal with such a phenomenon? Crediting "god" would be the easy answer.
Does one just simply ignore the phenomenon? Reserve judgement? Is it a myth cause
science can't explain it?


The nice thing about being an Atheist is you don't have to do any work or actual thinking
for yourself. Everything is untrue until it is proven with evidence. Since you can't prove
a negative, all you have to do is sit back and wait for science to prove things.
No matter the level of technological sophistication or human ability, you can't prove that
nothing exists. All you can do is prove something to exist. I can say nothing exists
and sit back and wait for someone else to prove something. Easy

So these people aren't doing any work or thinking for themselves?

You do what atheists do ALL THE TIME!!!! You ask for evidence, even if you don't seek it out yourself-If someone presents a claim to you, it's NOT your job to ask for the evidence the burden of proof is on their hands. Some atheists don't concern themselves with looking for the evidence of what created us cause it isn't their job, others are brilliant human beings who have dedicated their lives to discovering the mysteries of our universe. How can atheists sit back and wait for science to prove things when many atheists are scientists themselves---Do you think science just happens? Do you know the amount of work it and critical thinking it takes to be a scientists? No judging from all your posts, you have no idea----Stick to your "God did it" explanation for everything and stop projecting the laziness of believers onto atheists


Basically all you said is, atheists are lazy because they don't believe in myths!!! I don't believe in the God in the Judeochristian bible but that doesn't mean I don't contemplate existence, "Gods", multiverses and distant planets-----The difference between a religious person and a "non-believer" is that the religious person accepts what their imaginations or even worse other people's imaginations from ancient times as fact!!!

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by JET5FOO1

Question for those who know about the process of Evolution:

I am an avid believer of evolution however I came across a bit of an issue with the whole idea and when I asked both my biology and my anthropology professors about it they sort of 'danced around' the answer or maybe I just didn't understand. 

Correction:
One does not "believe" evolution, we "understand" it.

You don't "believe" math. You don't "believe" physics. You "Learn" it. 

It isn't something thats being confused, debated, or challenged at this point. It exists.

Moving on.

So we all know about chromosomes, and how they function and that only those animals with the same amount of chromosomes can produce fertile offspring. 
IE: Humans x Humans = Eventually fertile offspring. 
Horses x Donkeys = Mule or Hinny which are infertile offspring

Sure...

So as evolution takes course and over long, long periods of time animals mutate and the count of their chromosomes change; thus a new species. 
How do these first time mutations have fertile offspring if they are in fact now a new species?

Short answer: it depends how far apart they are phylogenetically.

We study things like rRNA to discern the genetic differences between all species because all living organisms have rRNA (viruses are a different thing).

There is also evidence that humans in the past, depending on the geography of where they resided, mated with other hominid species such as Neanderthals:

http://www.nytimes.com/20...human-origins.html 

Comparing genomes, scientists concluded that today’s humans outside Africa carry an average of 2.5 percent Neanderthal DNA, and that people from parts of Oceania also carry about 5 percent Denisovan DNA. A study published in November found that Southeast Asians carry about 1 percent Denisovan DNA in addition to their Neanderthal genes. It is unclear whether Denisovans and Neanderthals also interbred

Also, the sperm and eggs of different species are only able to interact because of the proteins on the outside of the cells to produce an Acrosomal reaction between sperm and egg that is unique to each species. I forget the names of the proteins right now and you can look them up, but human sperm can only interact with human eggs because the proteins interact in a unique formation that only allows for those to fuse and for somatic cell replication to occur and lead to the process of embryology and all that other stuff. 

So to sum up your question...there is no clear line between when one species ends and another begins. It is a shade of grey of life...a continuum. 

The genetic fitness of these first time mutations occur slowly and are conferred over time. I understand with what you're saying, but speciation doesn't occur within one complete generation. Genes that are preferred in a particular environment will continue to be conferred as dominance is established and preferred until over time you have a population that tends to just have what appears to be a unique set of genes. Not all mutations are completely fatal either. Mutations may occur over time that lead to speciation or subtle differences in some populations (look at humans for example) but it doesn't lead to entirely different species.

Do you understand?

I don't understand what you mean by "how do mules have mules"...they don't. Thats why you don't see a rise in Mule population. They're infertile. They may be a new species but they're incapable of contributing to their own genetic fitness. If a random mutation occurs that allows mules to confer genetic development of gametes and reproductive systems to support fertility, then so be it. 

Would they have to encounter and mate with another member of the ancestor species that just so happened to mutate into a new chromosome count in the same age in the same region? Doesn't it seem like the odds of that happening are wildly slim? 

Thanks for anyone that can explain to me.

Not necessarily.

Mules just can't mate. Males are infertile and no fertile ones have ever been recorded to exist. This is because the males can't undergo meiosis due to their odd number of chromosomes. Only females can rarely produce offspring when inseminated with a purebred horse or donkey. 

Evolution is all about chance. There is no such thing as de-evolution. Things don't regress. They always move forward. Things constantly change depending on their environment and circumstances over many generations. You can't predict what will happen, you can only observed what has occurred. 

It was a slim chance that we observe the diversity of microbiology that we do in the extremes that many Archaea exist in, all of which are the result of genetic fitness evolved over time in populations.

---

---

---

Originally Posted by RKO2004

God creates everyone with the ability of choice. So how can you guys say he creates people just to end up going to hell? If you heard the word then its your free will to believe or not. 

Putty, God is downtown Cincinnati. Lets say each route starts from its outbound location. Downtown is its ultimate destination. Sorry I could have made that clearer at first.

Your bus route example does not make any sense. You assume there is an ultimate destination. You haven't concluded WHY you assume that there is an ultimate destination. Thats the problem. You keep saying there are many paths to god, without establishing what "god" is.

Stop speaking with this innate certainty you possess. Its intellectually dishonest. You don't KNOW anything about god. You assume god did this. You say god said that. You don't know that god created everything. You are only guessing. Start speaking with a little more uncertainty about some things and you might realize how little it is that you are really sure of. 

If god created me with free will then I'm free to say that god doesn't exist and you can't be mad about it. 

---

---

---

Originally Posted by FrankMatthews

Has it not been shown that science, currently, is not capable of explaining certain phenomenon?

Yes.

Your point?

How would you deal with such a phenomenon?

Figure it out?

 Crediting "god" would be the easy answer.

I didn't know "easy" was code word for "completely lazy and stupid"

Does one just simply ignore the phenomenon? Reserve judgement? Is it a myth cause
science can't explain it?

I guess trying to figure if we could ever colonize the moon can't be explained so we'll say god did it...instead of experiments that show pregnancy would potentially be fatal in space with the absence of gravity... 

The nice thing about being an Atheist is you don't have to do any work or actual thinking
for yourself. Everything is untrue until it is proven with evidence.

Good thing the jury doesn't decide you're guilty before you walk in the court-room. 

Since you can't prove
a negative, all you have to do is sit back and wait for science to prove things.

Yep.
Just like you waited for GPS and Polio vaccines and HDTVs.

No matter the level of technological sophistication or human ability, you can't prove that 
nothing exists.

No offense, but this sentence makes no sense.

All you can do is prove something to exist.
Yep.
If you can't prove something, then you can never be wrong about a particular thing, idea, or fact.

If you can never be wrong, then you can never be sure if you're right.

I can say nothing exists and sit back and wait for someone else to prove something. Easy

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

You can't even begin to ASSERT anything without supporting the claim.

I can't assert that nothing exists because that implies that I'm making a decision that "nothing exists." I have to prove that the state of "nothing" exists. 

If I can't begin to assert something then the answer is: I do not know one way or the other. 

If I assert that I can fly, its my responsibility to show you that I can fly. 

If I assert that women aren't smart then I must prove that notion.

If I assert that god does not exist, then I must prove that notion.

I can't disprove god. I don't know if god exists or not. I don't claim to know. All I know is that there is no evidence to suggest that one does exist, so I don't subcribe to claims that say god exists. It is not proven.

I do NOT say that god doesn't exist. I can't say that. I have no way to prove that god doesn't exist.

Thats why you can't prove a negative. 

---

---

---

---

Originally Posted by NjCollector

But a person with no beliefs, wouldn't his belief be that which has no beliefs?

A+Theism = Atheism = Is connotated primarily in the context of religious/spiritual matters.

You are an atheist with respect to Thor, Zeus, and Ra, I assume.

You are also an atheist with regards to the flat earth theory, and the notion of earthquakes being the result of god's wrath.

Ab normal- Ab is to be " away from ", while normal is to confirm to a standard.

It is only possible to be abnormal if there is normal, the base or standard to which to be judged.

Abnormality is based on statistical representations of occurrences. 

It doesn't establish validity of the claim.

Close to 2 billion people are christians. 1.5 billion muslims. The rest are a rag-tag bunch of other variations of faith.

Statistically, there is a vast majority of people that believe in a god...but it doesn't mean that "god" actually exists and is real.

An inaccurate belief is not any more accurate when more people support it than who don't.

For example, it is abnormal for a human to be under 3 feet tall...but is it still not a human? 

It is abnormal for a woman to give birth after 7 months...but does she still not give birth?

Statistical spreads of occurrences only explain the composition of an array of data, NOT the implications of the data points themselves.

Your point fails.

A man whos belief is which that who has no belief, is that not a belief?
Do you collect stamps? Are you an a-stampist?
I don't think the concept of NOT having belief is getting through to you.

I do not believe in any god or higher power.

Do I have beliefs about political structures, sociological constructs, and ethical frameworks that I use to make decisions and influence others? Yes. I do.

Do I believe in the collect good of humans working to better the lives of others? Yes.

Do I believe that altruism has benefits? Yes I do.

Do I believe in the characters of the bible, quran, torah, vedas, etc.? No. I do not. 

Do you not abide by it? Do you not defend your belief? A stance where you choose not to hold a belief in any of the gods, Zeus, Apollo, Ra, Allah, Zyzz etc is this not a firm principle to which you abide by?

What?

There is ways to explain your stance
Remember to be firm and honest
Or to attempt to be
Lower your guard
Let go of your angst and breath

This is a poor attempt at poetry, being deep, or whatever implied conclusion you may have wanted to illustrate.

 

[so nyuh shi dae]

Originally Posted by RKO2004

Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae

Originally Posted by RKO2004

God creates everyone with the ability of choice. So how can you guys say he creates people just to end up going to hell? If you heard the word then its your free will to believe or not.

Putty, God is downtown Cincinnati. Lets say each route starts from its outbound location. Downtown is its ultimate destination. Sorry I could have made that clearer at first.

Before anything ever existed, god knew that creating me the way he did would result in me becoming an atheist. He must have created me such that I would fulfill what he already knew would happen. He can't contradict himself. Nothing can influence what I do that can't be tied directly back to god meaning that god is responsible for everything that happens in my life. The creation has to abide the creator's rules, no?

I said before it could work like a transit system.

The president/ceo whatever you may call that person oversees everything. He knows all the routes. But it is the passengers who decide where they want to go and what time. Yes there are set times in place but ultimately the passengers to schedule their trips.

Of course when using the transit system there are rules in place. Where aren't there rules.

The president/CEO didn't create you, the transit system, and every possible interaction that can ever take place, so the analogy isn't fair. 
You're still not addressing the point I made. If god created you, and he knows everything you will ever do, it should follow that god created you so that you would fulfill these things. Everything you do is because of how god created you. You can't act in a way that god didn't intend for you to act. You can't choose to become an atheist if god intended for you to be a believer. Everything was decided for you before you ever existed. 

 

[frankmatthews]

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

Originally Posted by FrankMatthews

Has it not been shown that science, currently, is not capable of explaining certain phenomenon?
How would you deal with such a phenomenon? Crediting "god" would be the easy answer.
Does one just simply ignore the phenomenon? Reserve judgement? Is it a myth cause
science can't explain it?

The nice thing about being an Atheist is you don't have to do any work or actual thinking
for yourself. Everything is untrue until it is proven with evidence. Since you can't prove
a negative, all you have to do is sit back and wait for science to prove things.
No matter the level of technological sophistication or human ability, you can't prove that
nothing exists. All you can do is prove something to exist. I can say nothing exists
and sit back and wait for someone else to prove something. Easy

Wait why choose the easy ignorant answer? The GOD of the gaps argument is not the logical approach. You research and investigate the phenomenon until you get answers. What is so difficult/painful/unfathomable about simply saying "I don't know yet."???

It's a myth cuz even you can't explain it. Crediting a higher being which you have no knowledge of, which you have no idea how it operates, etc. is a cop out. People like that should not even be involved because their opinions come from ignorance.

*cue Neil Degrasse Tyson pic*

I wasn't suggesting take the easy answer.  I was posing a question and trying to eliminate that as anyone's response.
I haven't really heard anyone here say "I don't know yet" as it relates to god or spiritual matters, seems likes it's a foregone
conclusion that none of that stuff is even possible based on this thread and others.

And I must say you all jump to conclusions way too fast.  I realize you are used to debating the religious types but not
everyone that questions your viewpoint is advocating the viewpoint of organized religion.  I thought I was making it clear
that the "god gaps" was not sufficient imo, but everyone who responded took it the other way, I see that happening often.
I think it's because while some of us agree with a lot of whats been said, if we have a point of contention, you take it as
a challenge to your whole thought process.  Just relax a little guys.

AntonLaVey wrote:

---

You do what atheists do ALL THE TIME!!!! You ask for evidence, even if you don't seek it out yourself-If someone presents a claim to you, it's NOT your job to ask for the evidence the burden of proof is on their hands. Some atheists don't concern themselves with looking for the evidence of what created us cause it isn't their job, others are brilliant human beings who have dedicated their lives to discovering the mysteries of our universe. How can atheists sit back and wait for science to prove things when many atheists are scientists themselves---Do you think science just happens? Do you know the amount of work it and critical thinking it takes to be a scientists? No judging from all your posts, you have no idea----Stick to your "God did it" explanation for everything and stop projecting the laziness of believers onto atheists


Basically all you said is, atheists are lazy because they don't believe in myths!!! I don't believe in the God in the Judeochristian bible but that doesn't mean I don't contemplate existence, "Gods", multiverses and distant planets-----The difference between a religious person and a "non-believer" is that the religious person accepts what their imaginations or even worse other people's imaginations from ancient times as fact!!!


I wasn't implying that all atheists are lazy couch potatos, majority are not scientists though, although
I didn't know DeGrasse was an atheist.  I meant that it's easy for the average person to get into.

All that is besides the point though, I'm talking about things science can't prove for whatever reason.
Cytochrome C for example.   Oh, and you never heard me say "god did it", so who's projecting?

I like your second to last sentence.  How about for a change up, instead of telling us what you don't believe
you tell us what are some of the possibilities you find valid in relation to existence based on your lifelong
dedication to "discovering the mysteries of our universe"?  Or are you the other kind of atheist? 

sillyputty wrote:

---

Originally Posted by FrankMatthews

Has it not been shown that science, currently, is not capable of explaining certain phenomenon?

Yes.

Your point?

 
Perhaps lack of proof in certain cases could be a failing of science and not necessarily a reason to completely
dismiss somethings.  Is that beyond reason?

How would you deal with such a phenomenon?

Figure it out?

I meant how would you deal with in the meantime?  Like before you are able to figure it out?  Like the cytochrome C example.

 Crediting "god" would be the easy answer.

I didn't know "easy" was code word for "completely lazy and stupid"

I was trying to keep it civilized.  I don't particularly feel the need to insult religious people.

Does one just simply ignore the phenomenon? Reserve judgement? Is it a myth cause
science can't explain it?

I guess trying to figure if we could ever colonize the moon can't be explained so we'll say god did it...instead of experiments that show pregnancy would potentially be fatal in space with the absence of gravity... 

Again I never once said "god did it" in relation to anything.  I don't see how your comment relates.  I am asking
how you view phenomenon that are unexplainable by current scientific standards? Those were 3 possible answer.

The nice thing about being an Atheist is you don't have to do any work or actual thinking
for yourself. Everything is untrue until it is proven with evidence.

Good thing the jury doesn't decide you're guilty before you walk in the court-room. 

Good thing they don't decide i'm innocent either right? 

Since you can't prove
a negative, all you have to do is sit back and wait for science to prove things.
Yep.
Just like you waited for GPS and Polio vaccines and HDTVs.

Fair enough, my point was that if we all just sat back and waited we wouldn't have that stuff.
It takes an open mind, creativity, and a willingness to imagine what may seem impossible currently.
That's how we progress correct?

No matter the level of technological sophistication or human ability, you can't prove that 
nothing exists.

No offense, but this sentence makes no sense.

It was a reiteration.  No matter how smart people or technology get, negatives can't be proven.

All you can do is prove something to exist.
Yep.
If you can't prove something, then you can never be wrong about a particular thing, idea, or fact.

If you can never be wrong, then you can never be sure if you're right.

No argument here

I can say nothing exists and sit back and wait for someone else to prove something. Easy

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

You can't even begin to ASSERT anything without supporting the claim.

I can't assert that nothing exists because that implies that I'm making a decision that "nothing exists." I have to prove that the state of "nothing" exists.

If I can't begin to assert something then the answer is: I do not know one way or the other.

I have rarely heard you state that you do not know one way or the other concerning spiritual matters.  I've heard quite a few definitive
statements from you on what exists and doesn't exist, whats real and whats not. 

I do NOT say that god doesn't exist. I can't say that. I have no way to prove that god doesn't exist.

Thats why you can't prove a negative.

Yes, that was my point.  Again, you seem to give some pretty definitive statements on things you have
no way to prove.  Calling people foolish, stupid, ignorant or any number of your favorite insults seems
a little presumptuous.


I do not believe in any god or higher power.
Yet you have no problem belittling those that do, or at least are open to the possibility, when
you just admitted that you do not know for sure and have no way of proving such.  That is
probably my only problem with your posts.  Even if you could prove your belief, even if it
was absolute truth, what good is insulting people who refuse to believe? It makes you look
insecure and takes away from the credible arguments you do make.  No offense.

 

[mycoldyourdone]

yall just suck at the "what is more likely?" game.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by FrankMatthews

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

Originally Posted by FrankMatthews

Has it not been shown that science, currently, is not capable of explaining certain phenomenon?
How would you deal with such a phenomenon? Crediting "god" would be the easy answer.
Does one just simply ignore the phenomenon? Reserve judgement? Is it a myth cause
science can't explain it?

The nice thing about being an Atheist is you don't have to do any work or actual thinking
for yourself. Everything is untrue until it is proven with evidence. Since you can't prove
a negative, all you have to do is sit back and wait for science to prove things.
No matter the level of technological sophistication or human ability, you can't prove that
nothing exists. All you can do is prove something to exist. I can say nothing exists
and sit back and wait for someone else to prove something. Easy

Wait why choose the easy ignorant answer? The GOD of the gaps argument is not the logical approach. You research and investigate the phenomenon until you get answers. What is so difficult/painful/unfathomable about simply saying "I don't know yet."???

It's a myth cuz even you can't explain it. Crediting a higher being which you have no knowledge of, which you have no idea how it operates, etc. is a cop out. People like that should not even be involved because their opinions come from ignorance.

*cue Neil Degrasse Tyson pic*

I wasn't suggesting take the easy answer.  I was posing a question and trying to eliminate that as anyone's response.
I haven't really heard anyone here say "I don't know yet" as it relates to god or spiritual matters, seems likes it's a foregone
conclusion that none of that stuff is even possible based on this thread and others.

And I must say you all jump to conclusions way too fast.  I realize you are used to debating the religious types but not
everyone that questions your viewpoint is advocating the viewpoint of organized religion.  I thought I was making it clear
that the "god gaps" was not sufficient imo, but everyone who responded took it the other way, I see that happening often.
I think it's because while some of us agree with a lot of whats been said, if we have a point of contention, you take it as
a challenge to your whole thought process.  Just relax a little guys.

AntonLaVey wrote:

---

You do what atheists do ALL THE TIME!!!! You ask for evidence, even if you don't seek it out yourself-If someone presents a claim to you, it's NOT your job to ask for the evidence the burden of proof is on their hands. Some atheists don't concern themselves with looking for the evidence of what created us cause it isn't their job, others are brilliant human beings who have dedicated their lives to discovering the mysteries of our universe. How can atheists sit back and wait for science to prove things when many atheists are scientists themselves---Do you think science just happens? Do you know the amount of work it and critical thinking it takes to be a scientists? No judging from all your posts, you have no idea----Stick to your "God did it" explanation for everything and stop projecting the laziness of believers onto atheists


Basically all you said is, atheists are lazy because they don't believe in myths!!! I don't believe in the God in the Judeochristian bible but that doesn't mean I don't contemplate existence, "Gods", multiverses and distant planets-----The difference between a religious person and a "non-believer" is that the religious person accepts what their imaginations or even worse other people's imaginations from ancient times as fact!!!

I wasn't implying that all atheists are lazy couch potatos, majority are not scientists though, although
I didn't know DeGrasse was an atheist.  I meant that it's easy for the average person to get into.

All that is besides the point though, I'm talking about things science can't prove for whatever reason.
Cytochrome C for example.   Oh, and you never heard me say "god did it", so who's projecting?

I like your second to last sentence.  How about for a change up, instead of telling us what you don't believe
you tell us what are some of the possibilities you find valid in relation to existence based on your lifelong
dedication to "discovering the mysteries of our universe"?  Or are you the other kind of atheist? 

Just thought I'd highlight that sentence just so everybody else sees how dumb and hypocritical you sound---Religious people themselves look for evidence in most situations as long as it does not apply to their own religion--They even use their own religion as "EVIDENCE" of the lack of existence of other Gods

I dunno are YOU the other other kind of atheist? Isn't everybody on this planet and atheist?

Are you the other type of Atheist?

If you like me to discuss possibilities, I could create a thread dedicated to human imagination, I suspect the thread would still offend religious people

Putty and I are building a church dedicated to Spiderman in Sudan, and passing out Bible Comics---Scientists cannot prove that out there somewhere spiderman does not exist, so I'm going to dedicate my life to worshipping it like he does exist

Is the flying spaghetti monster a myth because science can't explain it Frank Matthews? Let's all ignore "reality" and evidence and go about our lives like things we haven't discovered actually exist---I'm giving up on evidence-based medicine and giving my patients holy water enemas---I don't need to read peer reviewed articles with statistical significance of its efficacy

 

[sillyputty]

sillyputty wrote:

---

Originally Posted by FrankMatthews

Has it not been shown that science, currently, is not capable of explaining certain phenomenon?

Yes.

Your point?

 
Perhaps lack of proof in certain cases could be a failing of science and not necessarily a reason to completely 
dismiss somethings.  Is that beyond reason?

Are.



You.




Serious?




Science is not a "thing"...its the pursuit of understanding how something works.




Is the lack of an AIDS vaccine a failing of science?

I guess the introduction of Anti-retrovirals in the mid-90s means NOTHING to you.


We should have thrown our hands up back in the 80s when AIDS exploded (traced actually to the early 1900s in Congo) instead of trying to save lives. Its God's will at that point, right?




There are tons of things in medicine that work that we can't explain...but THAT  DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE CANT figure it out sooner or later. We didn't even understand how Gram-Staining literally worked until the late 80s...and we had been using it for close to 100 years to identify and categorize bacteria and other microorganisms.

How would you deal with such a phenomenon?

Figure it out?

I meant how would you deal with in the meantime?  Like before you are able to figure it out?  Like the cytochrome C example. 


...Try to figure it out?




I don't understand what you're asking.




How do I deal with something I don't know?...try to see if theres an existing explanation? Come up with a guess, test it, then revise the theory. 




I don't just make crap up then ride with the first thing that comes to mind. 







And what is your fascination with cytochrome C? It deals with the Electron Transport Chain in cellular respiration as an electron transporter.




Its a highly conserved molecule as well and is used to establish evolutionary differences between animals as certain sequences in the protein differ between species.




Whats your point?

 Crediting "god" would be the easy answer.

I didn't know "easy" was code word for "completely lazy and stupid"

I was trying to keep it civilized.  I don't particularly feel the need to insult religious people.


 


I didn't insult religious people. 




I said that saying "god did it" was lazy and stupid. I didn't call you lazy or stupid. I said the IDEA was lazy and stupid, and I stand by that.




Hearing a thud behind your house doesn't mean "god did it" it means that something probably fell or something blew up or whatever. Its up to you to go see what made that noise.

Does one just simply ignore the phenomenon? Reserve judgement? Is it a myth cause
science can't explain it?

I guess trying to figure if we could ever colonize the moon can't be explained so we'll say god did it...instead of experiments that show pregnancy would potentially be fatal in space with the absence of gravity... 

Again I never once said "god did it" in relation to anything.  I don't see how your comment relates.  I am asking
how you view phenomenon that are unexplainable by current scientific standards? Those were 3 possible answer.


If we can't explain something, we say "we don't know"




I don't know why our noses are angled the way they are. But thats not going to stop me from trying to figure it out.




Not being able to explain something doesn't  mean that there is no answer. It just means that you have to keep working until you get it.




I don't understand how the lack of knowledge at one point in time equates to the unknowable...




Are you going to keep pushing the goal-posts further and further back with each advancement in scientific understanding? When we figure out the next big hurdle will you admit that there is one more thing that we don't understand? Will you just keep saying we don't know this one thing? What will you say when we figure it out?




We didn't even technically know how cats drink milk until we had cameras slow enough to observe them disturbing the surface tension of their water in such a way that makes the liquid literally jet into their mouths.

The nice thing about being an Atheist is you don't have to do any work or actual thinking
for yourself. Everything is untrue until it is proven with evidence.

Good thing the jury doesn't decide you're guilty before you walk in the court-room. 

Good thing they don't decide i'm innocent either right?  

You're innocent until PROVEN guilty.




That means that you are charged with doing something, and the experiment, or trial, must establish the validity of the claim that you are guilty. Otherwise, you are free to go.




If the claim that you are guilty is not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, then you are not proven guilty.




That is how science works. If I make a claim that the eye can see UV light then it is my responsibility to prove that claim. If I do not prove that claim then the claim is unsubstantiated and can not be accepted.

Since you can't prove
a negative, all you have to do is sit back and wait for science to prove things.

Yep.

Just like you waited for GPS and Polio vaccines and HDTVs.

Fair enough, my point was that if we all just sat back and waited we wouldn't have that stuff.
It takes an open mind, creativity, and a willingness to imagine what may seem impossible currently.
That's how we progress correct?


Creativity is spurned by manipulating what already exists.




Every invention is a build upon something that exists currently.




Name one truly novel innovation that is independent in both origin and structure.




Everything, comes from something else or some existing understanding. It builds upon prior entities.




Creativity is limited by reality however. You are limited by what you have and the resources you encounter and forms of capital at your disposal.




If you assert that god creates everything and this is your form of creativity...then please, explain how you arrive at this answer and what implications that involves. Explain what processes are used and how this can be applied to other areas. Explain what you mean and how it changes things. Until you can support this notion, then your notion is not accepted.




If you want to believe in your god, go ahead. I won't stop you. But until your god is proven to exist or has characteristics that can be accepted or measured in consistently verifiable ways, then your theory will remain unsubstantiated. It will not be adopted on the LACK of evidence, as will any other unproven or untenable claim. You can try for the rest of your life to prove your claim. I encourage you to do so. Never stop searching.




But until you find that proof, it won't be accepted. Remember that. No one will take you seriously without evidence to support ANY claim you make. Any. Claim.

No matter the level of technological sophistication or human ability, you can't prove that 
nothing exists.

No offense, but this sentence makes no sense.

It was a reiteration.  No matter how smart people or technology get, negatives can't be proven. 


Moving on.

All you can do is prove something to exist.

Yep.
If you can't prove something, then you can never be wrong about a particular thing, idea, or fact.

If you can never be wrong, then you can never be sure if you're right.

No argument here


Good.

I can say nothing exists and sit back and wait for someone else to prove something. Easy

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

You can't even begin to ASSERT anything without supporting the claim.

I can't assert that nothing exists because that implies that I'm making a decision that "nothing exists." I have to prove that the state of "nothing" exists. 

If I can't begin to assert something then the answer is: I do not know one way or the other. 

I have rarely heard you state that you do not know one way or the other concerning spiritual matters.  I've heard quite a few definitive
statements from you on what exists and doesn't exist, whats real and whats not.  


I am an agnostic-atheist.




Agnosticism deals with knowledge. Gnostic = Knowledge. A+Gnostic = Lack of knowledge. I do NOT know if a god exists. 




Atheism addresses belief. Theism = Belief (in this case god/religion/spirituality). A+Theism = Lack of belief. I don't not believe that a god exists because there is no evidence.




I do not know if a god exists one way or the other, but I do not believe that one does.




Is it technically wrong for me to assert that god does NOT exist? Yes. So I apologize.




However, you do not KNOW that god does exist either. You do not KNOW this fact. You are an agnostic.




You do however BELIEVE that a god exists. You are a theist. 




You are an agnostic-theist.




You do not know that a god exists, but you believe that one does.




That is the difference.

I do NOT say that god doesn't exist. I can't say that. I have no way to prove that god doesn't exist.

Thats why you can't prove a negative. 

Yes, that was my point.  Again, you seem to give some pretty definitive statements on things you have
no way to prove.  Calling people foolish, stupid, ignorant or any number of your favorite insults seems 
a little presumptuous.

I didn't call anyone any of the aforementioned name, so don't make that mistake again. Thats a serious charge in these threads with Mods and I won't let you get away making those sorts of wild assertions. Especially if i'm going to be held to that standard.




Moving on...




I do not believe that a god exists...but I can't prove it and I do not know.




I just think its pretty improbable that the god of the bible, quran, etc exists in the form that they say it does. Until a case is presented to sustain those claims then I won't believe in them. 




Its simple. 

I do not believe in any god or higher power.
Yet you have no problem belittling those that do, or at least are open to the possibility, when
you just admitted that you do not know for sure and have no way of proving such.  That is
probably my only problem with your posts.  Even if you could prove your belief, even if it
was absolute truth, what good is insulting people who refuse to believe? It makes you look 
insecure and takes away from the credible arguments you do make.  No offense.

I didn't belittle anyone.




I didn't insult anyone.




I didn't make fun of anyone.










Furthermore if you're THAT concerned with the validity of my arguments, why don't you spend more time addressing the content of my points and not their context. 

 

[jet5foo1]

sillyputty wrote:

So to sum up your question...there is no clear line between when species ends and another begins. It is a shade of grey of life...a continuum.
I'm still lost on this. Are you saying the DNA slowly changes over generations enough to add or reduce the chromosome number itself? Yes I am aware quite a bit more than one generations time. I want to know what the middle stages are between having 24 chromosomes and 23.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

               "Let us re-iterate what we find on human chromosome 2. Its centromere is at the same place as the chimpanzee chromosome 2p as determined by sequence similarity. Even more telling is the fact that on the 2q arm of the human chromosome 2 is the unmistakable remains of the original chromosome centromere of the common ancestor of human and chimp 2q chromosome, at the same position as the chimp 2q centromere (this structure in humans no longer acts as a centromere for chromosome 2."

Strong evidence suggest that it is a direct mutation of the chromosomes fusing together. However, does this happen over time? If so what do the middle stages look like? Are there partial Chromosomes? Is there a level 23.5 that compatible with both 23's and 24's?
If not than obviously this mutation is not an advantage because differential in chromosome number produces infertile offspring. So unless two species of any kind, (from OG single celled organisms and whatever chromosome # they had all the way up to the modern human) got this exact same mutation at the exact same time in the exact same area and happened to be M and F and happened to conceive, it wouldn't carry on much further than the first "mule" so to speak.

I don't understand what you mean by "how do mules have mules"...they don't. Thats why you don't see a rise in Mule population. They're infertile. They may be a new species but they're incapable of contributing to their own genetic fitness. If a random mutation occurs that allows mules to confer genetic development of gametes and reproductive systems to support fertility, then so be it...

Mules just can't mate. Males are infertile and no fertile ones have ever been recorded to exist. This is because the males can't undergo meiosis due to their odd number of chromosomes. Only females can rarely produce offspring when inseminated with a purebred horse or donkey.

Yeah I clearly understand that mules can't mate. That's why I put "Horses x Donkeys = Mule or Hinny which are infertile offspring".

Correction:
One does not "believe" evolution, we "understand" it.

You don't "believe" math. You don't "believe" physics. You "Learn" it. 

It isn't something thats being confused, debated, or challenged at this point. It exists.

Moving on.

A bit fastidious on your part. Not gonna argue with you, but we both know there are people out there that choose not to believe in it.

 

[frankmatthews]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey


Just thought I'd highlight that sentence just so everybody else sees how dumb and hypocritical you sound---Religious people themselves look for evidence in most situations as long as it does not apply to their own religion--They even use their own religion as "EVIDENCE" of the lack of existence of other Gods.

Again with the insults.  Let's say I am in fact dumb, what do insults accomplish other than stroke your ego for being smarter?

What does what religious people do have to do with our convo?  Did you think I was religious?  Not sure I follow your point.  The highlighted
statement goes double for religious people. How exactly am I hypocritical now?

I dunno are YOU the other other kind of atheist? Isn't everybody on this planet and atheist?

Are you the other type of Atheist?

I don't consider myself an atheist if that's what you are asking.

If you like me to discuss possibilities, I could create a thread dedicated to human imagination, I suspect the thread would still offend religious people

I really don't see why you keep bringing up religious people.  The crux of your argument seems to depend on a religious person being
on the other side of it. Are you capable of discussing possibilities, seems you only deal in absolutes?

Putty and I are building a church dedicated to Spiderman in Sudan, and passing out Bible Comics---Scientists cannot prove that out there somewhere spiderman does not exist, so I'm going to dedicate my life to worshipping it like he does exist

Is this a response to something I said?  Cause I never advocated worshiping or proclaiming existence as fact in any post of mine.  Am I supposed
to agree that that sounds dumb?  The concept of worship is clearly an ego-based, human idea.


Let's all ignore "reality" and evidence and go about our lives like things we haven't discovered actually exist---

Wait what?  Just because we haven't discovered it yet means it doesn't exist?  I think most scientist will agree there
are a number of species in this world that have not been discovered.  Do they therefore not exist?  It's debatable that they
don't but not solid fact, metaphysically speaking.

Also, why are you such an angry person? 

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by JET5FOO1

sillyputty wrote:

So to sum up your question...there is no clear line between when species ends and another begins. It is a shade of grey of life...a continuum.

I'm still lost on this. Are you saying the DNA slowly changes over generations enough to add or reduce the chromosome number itself? Yes I am aware quite a bit more than one generations time. I want to know what the middle stages are between having 24 chromosomes and 23.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

               "Let us re-iterate what we find on human chromosome 2. Its centromere is at the same place as the chimpanzee chromosome 2p as determined by sequence similarity. Even more telling is the fact that on the 2q arm of the human chromosome 2 is the unmistakable remains of the original chromosome centromere of the common ancestor of human and chimp 2q chromosome, at the same position as the chimp 2q centromere (this structure in humans no longer acts as a centromere for chromosome 2."

Strong evidence suggest that it is a direct mutation of the chromosomes fusing together. However, does this happen over time? If so what do the middle stages look like? Are there partial Chromosomes? Is there a level 23.5 that compatible with both 23's and 24's?
If not than obviously this mutation is not an advantage because differential in chromosome number produces infertile offspring. So unless two species of any kind, (from OG single celled organisms and whatever chromosome # they had all the way up to the modern human) got this exact same mutation at the exact same time in the exact same area and happened to be M and F and happened to conceive, it wouldn't carry on much further than the first "mule" so to speak.

I don't understand what you mean by "how do mules have mules"...they don't. Thats why you don't see a rise in Mule population. They're infertile. They may be a new species but they're incapable of contributing to their own genetic fitness. If a random mutation occurs that allows mules to confer genetic development of gametes and reproductive systems to support fertility, then so be it...

Mules just can't mate. Males are infertile and no fertile ones have ever been recorded to exist. This is because the males can't undergo meiosis due to their odd number of chromosomes. Only females can rarely produce offspring when inseminated with a purebred horse or donkey.

Yeah I clearly understand that mules can't mate. That's why I put "Horses x Donkeys = Mule or Hinny which are infertile offspring".

Correction:
One does not "believe" evolution, we "understand" it.

You don't "believe" math. You don't "believe" physics. You "Learn" it. 

It isn't something thats being confused, debated, or challenged at this point. It exists.

Moving on.

A bit fastidious on your part. Not gonna argue with you, but we both know there are people out there that choose not to believe in it.



I see what you're saying. 



To be honest...I really don't know. (Its feels liberating and humbling to say that from time to time.

...gotta know what you really don't know.) I'm going to look into it and post what I find.




A big push behind our understanding of human evolution is that the 2nd chromosome in humans is actually a fusion of two chimp chromosomes and we can see the literal similarities in their composition. Its exactly where we would expect it to be...it lines up basically on the dot where the telomeres would usually end. Its pretty amazing.




Speciation is hard to grasp because many of the "transitional" species that we observe have....well... died off. We are left to piece together what we find and try to make sense of it all. Making fossils is hard enough. Analyzing it is where we get stuck. Every organism now is the result of its ancestors. We didn't evolve from MODERN chimps. We evolved from common ancestors of chimps AND humans. Thats what we have to remember. 




Its hard for people to grasp that we evolved from things like mice...but not MODERN mice...we evolved from the ancestors of mammals that probably looked like furry little rodents. 




Everything that exists now is at the terminal branches of its existence on the evolutionary tree (as we understand it now...word to Carl Woese)




Thats why I kinda cringe when people say "we're more evolved than mice or ants or bees"




Thats false. Everything... I repeat... EVERYTHING...that is alive RIGHT NOW is at its most terminal stage in that evolutionary line of life. What lives now will influence what lives 1000 years from now. We aren't more "evolved" than any other living thing right now.




Complexity is a different story though. 

 

[jet5foo1]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Damn. Well I think it's safe to say the answer has to be out there somewhere. I mean that's obviously a large gaping hole in the theory that if not plugged would have been pointed out and we would be on to other theories by now. It has to work somehow.

Thanks for the response.

Go on with the less rational; never ending debates against the faith-havers.

 

[rko2004]

Putty have you ever entertained the idea that just because we are advancing in science, doesn't cancel out God?

Science is ever changing. What stops the possibility that God made things that way?

Originally Posted by RKO2004

God creates everyone with the ability of choice. So how can you guys say he creates people just to end up going to hell? If you heard the word then its your free will to believe or not. 

Putty, God is downtown Cincinnati. Lets say each route starts from its outbound location. Downtown is its ultimate destination. Sorry I could have made that clearer at first.

Your bus route example does not make any sense. You assume there is an ultimate destination. You haven't concluded WHY you assume that there is an ultimate destination. Thats the problem. You keep saying there are many paths to god, without establishing what "god" is.

Stop speaking with this innate certainty you possess. Its intellectually dishonest. You don't KNOW anything about god. You assume god did this. You say god said that. You don't know that god created everything. You are only guessing. Start speaking with a little more uncertainty about some things and you might realize how little it is that you are really sure of. 

If god created me with free will then I'm free to say that god doesn't exist and you can't be mad about it.


OK it doesn't make sense because I haven't concluded an ultimate destination. You KNOW what I believe God is.

I'm not mad at you for expressing your free will. I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion but Putty I'm not.

I just have a great deal of faith in God. Me personally, I'm certain God exist. For me, evidence of his existence is in my face everyday.

Stop speaking with this innate certainty you possess.

Putty you come on here just about everyday and post wall of text about her certain you are about God not existing.

Do you not?

 

[rko2004]

Also my atheist buddies have to realize. You're giving a awful lot of credit to NOTHING but random accidental events. You guys basically bash believers for believing that there was is a creator when just about everything we know has a creator.

The whole evolution thing leaves so many gaping holes in life and really renders life as an accident. You guys are essentially saying we're here for NOTHING. Why love or hate if we have no purpose? Why the need for feelings? We have no purpose, right? Why live with no purpose?

Everything that we see coexist in a way that everything is connected like a chain. The circle of life. Everything has purpose. To justify our existence as an accident is empty to me.

We have teachers to instruct so we may grow more knowledgeable in life.

We have a heart to pump the blood coursing through our body.

Tongues to taste. Eyes to see. Nose to smell.

Purpose is what drives all of us who live on this earth. Without purpose, whats the point?

 

[yngsimba.sneakershoebox]

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by FrankMatthews

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey


Just thought I'd highlight that sentence just so everybody else sees how dumb and hypocritical you sound---Religious people themselves look for evidence in most situations as long as it does not apply to their own religion--They even use their own religion as "EVIDENCE" of the lack of existence of other Gods.

Again with the insults.  Let's say I am in fact dumb, what do insults accomplish other than stroke your ego for being smarter?

What does what religious people do have to do with our convo?  Did you think I was religious?  Not sure I follow your point.  The highlighted
statement goes double for religious people. How exactly am I hypocritical now?

I dunno are YOU the other other kind of atheist? Isn't everybody on this planet and atheist?

Are you the other type of Atheist?

I don't consider myself an atheist if that's what you are asking.

If you like me to discuss possibilities, I could create a thread dedicated to human imagination, I suspect the thread would still offend religious people

I really don't see why you keep bringing up religious people.  The crux of your argument seems to depend on a religious person being
on the other side of it. Are you capable of discussing possibilities, seems you only deal in absolutes?

Putty and I are building a church dedicated to Spiderman in Sudan, and passing out Bible Comics---Scientists cannot prove that out there somewhere spiderman does not exist, so I'm going to dedicate my life to worshipping it like he does exist

Is this a response to something I said?  Cause I never advocated worshiping or proclaiming existence as fact in any post of mine.  Am I supposed
to agree that that sounds dumb?  The concept of worship is clearly an ego-based, human idea.


Let's all ignore "reality" and evidence and go about our lives like things we haven't discovered actually exist---

Wait what?  Just because we haven't discovered it yet means it doesn't exist?  I think most scientist will agree there
are a number of species in this world that have not been discovered.  Do they therefore not exist?  It's debatable that they
don't but not solid fact, metaphysically speaking.

Also, why are you such an angry person? 

• THE OFFICIAL RELIGION DEBATE THREAD!!!!

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/font]

 

[rko2004]

Originally Posted by yngSIMBA

Originally Posted by RKO2004

Also my atheist buddies have to realize. You're giving a awful lot of creditto NOTHING but random accidental events. You guys basically bash believers for believing that there was is a creator when just about everything we know has a creator.

The whole evolution thing leaves so many gaping holes in life and reallyrenders life as an accident. You guys are essentially saying we're herefor NOTHING. Whylove or hate if we have no purpose? Why the need for feelings? We have no purpose, right? Why live with no purpose?

Everything that we see coexist in a way that everything is connected like a chain. The circle of life. Everything has purpose. To justify our existence as an accident is empty to me.

We have teachers to instruct so we may grow more knowledgeable in life.

We have a heart to pump the blood coursing through our body.

Purpose is what drives all of us who live on this earth. Without purpose, whats the point?

I don't believe in a creator..
Our bodies, and other animals, evolved according to our surroundings..

If the Earth existed in some other way, we would have evolved differently, or maybe not at all.

This is what creationists believe.. watch the vid

Is it really crazy that humans and dinosaurs walked at once? Fossils being found with blood still inside. Wouldn't that mean that they may have been alive closer to our lifetime than we think?

Humans have survived this long with all the animals in the world.

Also the bible describes creatures that sound like dino's. 2000+ years ago and not 65 million.

[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]Behold now, Behemoth, whichI made as well as you; He eats grass like an ox.  Behold now,hisstrength in his loins, And his power in the muscles of his belly. Hebendshis tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are knit together. Hisbones are tubes of bronze; His limbs are like bars ofiron.   (Job 40:15–1[/size][/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]
Big tails. [/size][/font]

Deodar Cedar tree Height: 40-70 feet

About the length of those tails right?
[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]
I mean I guess one could say "Well maybe they found fossils back then". But for the notion that the bible is wrong because it doesn't mention dino's is off.


[/size][/font]
[font=Arial,Helvetica][size=-1]
[/size][/font]