The cancer lady. [locked]
Offline Was it just me or was that lady in the audience who kept pushing Kirk to answer her question a complete moron? He was trying to answer her, and she kept interrupting him and accusing him of avoiding the question which he wasn't doing. What a retard. Why did God allow cancer? The answer to that question is the same answer to why God allows any and all suffering to befall us. And Kirk was trying to answer that broader question, when he kept being very rudely interrupted. God didn't create suffering. He didn't create cancer. He created people with free will, and those people's decisions have caused all the evil in the world, including cancer.
The bible says that the world itself was condemned because of man's sin.
Granted that was a Christian-biblical answer to the question, but that is what was being asked. That question was being asked assuming God was real and Christianity was real. If that is true, then the bible must be the source of the answer to that question.
One angel originally created evil. Then one man recreated it. Evil is nothing more than disobedience to God. For disobedience to God to exist there must be some created thing with the ability to choose whether or not to obey God. That is why sin did not exist prior to the creation of angels. God did not make the angel sin, nor did he make the man sin. He only told them what to do and gave them the free will to obey or not. They chose to not obey. They have suffered the consequences.
That just irked me a little. And then I think I saw somewhere on this website bragging about the fact that Kirk couldn't even answer an audience member's question. Please.....Maybe if she would've shut up long enough for him to answer he could have.
"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18
They do? See!!! Musicdude says you guys have beliefs other than the lack of belief in God! He also says that I have to try and prove that there is not God! Also, that I have to be arrogant when I do it!!!
That's it, I'm gonna be an Agnostic because they believe in nothing. That's right isn't it? They believe in nothing?
I do?
I didn't know I did that. Thanks Musicdude, for pointing out what atheism REALLY is. I have been deceived.
Wait, Agnostics don't believe in God? I thought they didn't believe in anything.
Now I'm all confused and can't decide who I am. Way to go Musicdude, way to go.
Reverse you and I, and you have just said my exact sentiments.
"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18
This is something that most theists I have encountered have a problem with. You see, I do not believe in God (or 'creator' as we have renamed it). This in itself is reason enough for me to not have any interest in this question.
You believe in God (or whatever you want to name it) therefor you find the question relevant. You presume that there MUST be a creator. This is why you (theists in general) believe that I am therefore saying that there CAN'T be a God. I'm not saying that there CAN'T be a God. I have never actually met anyone that did say that. The idea that there are superwizards has no value. It is a trivial rambling based on programmed insanity (until there is any good reason whatsoever to see things differently).
Theists just can't seem to wrap their minds around that even when we respond with "try to prove that there are no pink unicorns" or "that there are not icorporeal monkeys picking incorporeal habba jabbas out of your ass at this very moment". They seem to think that we MUST provide PROOF that their wild claims have no basis in reality. It's nonsense, therefore I give the claim no respect.
Atheist is the opposite of theist. Theists believe there is a God by faith because it cannot be proven. Atheists believe there is not a God by faith, because it can't be proven either.
Agnostics say, "maybe there is a God," but "maybe there isn't" I don't know.
Theist = There is a God.
Atheist = There is no God.
Agnostic = I don't know.
If you don't know which category you fall into, that is an entirely different problem. But you do fall into one of those categories. Maybe some of you are Agnostics and only thought you were Atheists, because you really didn't know the difference.
"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18
And yet most of you are huge fans of science, which quite often tries to answer said question. They spend a lot of time trying to prove how the earth came into being and humans too. And you back up their present theories with much gusto. But now you back down from that stance, because you don't like the way the conversation is going.
"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18
You used to be a free thinking rationalist that understood the basics of science and applied your thinking to religion as well as the other aspects of your life? (if I have misapplied any of this to you Andyy I meant no offense)
That's quite a switch-a-roo.
Why is this so important to you? The point is we DENY that Jesus will save us from hell fire. Isn't that all that's important?
www.andyhanson.net
But that isn't all that you deny. You deny the belief that an intelligent being created the universe. You don't take the stance "I don't know." You take the stance "no, it did not happen that way, and to say that it did is completely absurd." There is a difference between those two statements. If you cannot see it, you are blind.
"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18
Actually, it is less. Men are an observable phenomenon; hitherto christ isn't.
I have never heard this as an "atheist battle cry", and I disagree -- if there is a god, I am open to the prospect that it can be proven (same with unicorns). It just hasn't yet, so there's no good reason to believe in it.
I speak only for myself, but my atheism is not an act of faith. There is no evidence for god, so I don't believe (same with unicorns).
They don't. You have faith. I lack faith. And every other religion out there is running on the same faith-based fumes that yours is.
Good!
Good!
BZZZT! Logical jump.
Good!
BZZZT! No evidene for god, much less god's grace and power, or its ability to save you. And you were doing so well.
I won't.
What is the point of defending the character of something you can't prove exists?
She said nothing of the sort. She just asked ray comfort how he can attribute the "good" things about the human body to god, when the human body also yields to cancer ("bad" thing).
No - ray was the one with the dumb argument, trying to use human physiology to prove god.
Except that it's not a belief.
Let's look at your thread topic:
Yes, christians are very polite.
We are and we have. What is your explanation for the fossil record? That satan put it there to deceive us?
god cannot be disproven. If god exists, maybe it can be proven.
Can't wait to hear this...
I must conclude you have never done any respectable research on evolution. Otherwise you would have a respectable answer.
So music, are there unicorns?
A) Yes
B) No
C) I don't know
Please think carefully before answering.
There are no theists on operating tables.
Take off the "used to be" and you've got it.
"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18
"C" Most myths are exaggerations of factual events or things. So I will not say they didn't exist just because we haven't found a unicorn fossil yet. Were they magical creatures? I would say no, but that is because of my faith, not proven facts.
"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18
Science does not try to disprove God from what I have ever seen. Science, from what I know, does not acknowledge the existance of god since there is no evidence to lead them to believe that this is true. But honestly that is speaking above my knowledge.
You can interperet what I said any way you like I suppose. If it serves your purpose to display what I said as my backing down from your sound and irrefutable points well .... so be it. You're cool like that.
But what I actually said is that there is NO REASON WHATSOEVER TO BELIEVE IN THE EXISTANCE OF GOD therefore I give the claim no wieght and dismiss it as nonsense.
You think science is the enemy of God and you might be right, but not for the reasons that you profess. If science is on the opposite 'side' from the supernatural it is because the supernatural has no definable parameters and is dismissed accordingly.
*backs down because he doesn't like the way this conversation is going*
Yes. And god is one of them.
Very good. So while we can't prove unicorns don't exist, there is no good reason to believe in them -- at least not until evidence emerges. Same thing goes for god.
There are no theists on operating tables.
I am glad you saw fit to ignore everything prior to this post.
Then you wonder why you have been insulted, asshole.
Please do, we have not heard the same argument over and over from you enough, please restate it.
It is quite simple, the scientific theories you show a propensity for disregarding can be proven, you refuse to even try to understand the evidence, but they can be proven nonetheless.
Again, science is not taken on ‘faith’, if there is a lack of evidence or data the theory is tossed out. PLAIN AND SIMPLE!
Sounds like a rather long way around to say, “I believe because I WANT to.”
Again…. #2 says, “without evidence”, this most certainly does not apply to science. I would hate to see you perform any kind of experiment.
Good, I agree it is a waste of time to ‘prove’ god.
Do you perceive this arrogance because we disagree and we are stating why? We are just stating our position.
Wrong again. I do not state positively god does not exist, merely all the ones I have been presented I do not believe exist.
The christian god is an impossible god and I certainly posit that this particular deity does, in fact, not exist.
First hand knowledge? Adam wrote genesis?
You are right, they could be, but all of the evidence we have for both theories support them very well. Christians have not come up with a plausible, evidence supported counter theory; rather they say “goddidit”. That is the ultimate non-answer. It leads nowhere. It is a dead end to understanding the world.
I think this statement to know how everything came to be from a book written 2000 years ago, is HIGHLY more arrogant.
Fuckwit! Damnit! You absolutely refuse to listen.
PLEASE PICK UP A SCIENCE BOOK!! Start with the first grade level though because you are wayyyyyyyy behind.
Big bang theory has NOTHING to do with transitional fossils. This theory deals with the expansion and evolution of the universe.
Evolutionary theory is not only supported by the fossil, but also genetic evidence and laboratory experiments. I surely hope the transitional fossils you are looking for are not the ones Kirk held up in the debate. Evolutionary theory makes no claims such fossils will be found. Evolution is gradual mutations over long, long periods of time, speciation occurs when members of the same species are separated by distances and different environmental pressure take effect.
Again, PLEASE PICK UP A SCIENCE BOOK!!
How many times have people had to do the following in atheist forums since the beginning of the internet discussion forum?
There is a difference between epistemology and belief. There is a difference between what we know and what we believe. They are often related, but ultimately they are different questions.
'Do you believe god exists?' has two answers; 'yes,' and 'no.'
There is no 'I don't know' to this question, because a belief is either had or not. To say "I don't know" is to simply not answer the question asked. If you don't currently hold an active belief in god, then you don't hold a belief in god; that holds even if the question is in the air and being considered. Until one actually holds a positive and active belief that a god exists, then that person lacks belief in god, at that moment.
The question "does god exist?" is different. You could interpret it as a question about belief, but it's really a question of knowledge or answer based on the best evidence (or lack thereof). Saying "I don't know" to this question is legitimate, and (I would argue) the only one that is even rational, considering our epistemological limits. That aside, answering "I don't know" makes you an agnostic.
But it is possible to say that while one doesn't know whether a god exists or not, they nonetheless believe/lack belief in said being. This would make a person an agnostic theist/atheist, because the issues of knowledge and belief are distinct, and it is possible to be both unsure (agnostic) and yet still not believe (atheist) or believe (theist).
And no matter what atheists say, is said about atheists, etc there is only one common attribute to everyone who calls themselves an 'atheist'; lack of belief in god.
Some will say that certain concepts cannot exist (and that they have proof), others may say that no god exists, no matter the concept, and yet others will simply say that they don't know, but they currently don't believe so. All of these people are atheists but, logically, the only thing that ties them all together is the lack of belief.
Thus, the definition of 'atheist' that pertains to all atheists is one who lacks belief in god, whether said lack of belief is left as a mere lack or as part of a complete denial.
Atheist; lacks belief in god
theist; holds belief in god
and further:
agnostic atheist: lacks belief, but doesn't know
agnostic theist: believes, but does not know.
gnostic theist: believes and knows (claims to know)
gnostic atheist; lacks belief and knows (claims to know)
I hope that helps distinguish what atheist means as an actual atheist uses it.
If you don't like the terms, fine. Attaching different terms to the same definitions won't change the fact that I simply do not know if any gods exist, but nonetheless--because of lack of evidence or proof--do not currently hold any belief of any kind in any gods. I don't deny that any god exists (proving a negative is impossible for the generic term), but i am highly skeptical about any god's existence.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
Shaun, I want to make sure I understand the point.
I had always been under the impression that we were either theist or atheist. The distinction of agnostic is merely a statement of how you perceive the evidence or the 'knowledge'.
So, I am theist or atheist. I CAN (and should) be agnostic regarding these beliefs as there is a perfect absense of knowledge in most cases. But the term agnostic by itself doesn't mean much other than the fact that you hold 'knowledge' in quesiton.
Does that fly? Or am I missing a piece?
I've always thought about 'agnostic' as being a redundant term. I am of the opinion that, concerning the generic 'god' for which many definitions can be given, there is no way to know. The reason; the term is not sufficiently defined to say whether it exists or not.
Thus, everyone is agnostic in this sense, so the term is redundant. Now, concerning some specific definitions of god which are self-contradictory or contradict what we know about the world, we don't have to be agnostic. for these gods, we simply know that they do not exist with the same amount of certainty that we lend to anything else.
Indeed, we are either theist or atheist, concerning what we believe. We are agnostic concerning what we know, which is nothing concerning god. (Knowing what people or books say about some god is not the same as knowing what a real god might be, unless you are pressupposing that what those people/books say are actually true).
There is no middle ground between atheism and theism, so you were correct when you said that we were either/or.
You seem to grasp the idea, but are expressing it differently.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
I find the term agnostic somewhat confusing as well. Many people use the term agnostic as if it means "I don't know" in the sense of "maybe yes, maybe no". Though it is a fine distinction, I think this is different than "having no knowledge of". If I don't know whether or not something exists, then I could still have good reason for thinking it did. If I have no knowledge of a particular thing existing, then there is no real basis for me to think it might exist.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
Ok cool, that's what I figured it was.
I have more curiosity in continuing this conversation but I think I will be derailing this original convo [if there is still even an original convo] beyond recognition.
for a breakdown of Agnosticism you should read T.H. Huxley since he is the original author of Agnosticism.
(Agnosticism is definitely the "middle ground" )
Robert G. Ingersoll is also impressive on the subject. But Bertrand Russell wraps it up best with his "Orbiting Teapotism".
Richard Dawkins breaks Agnosticism into two categories. "TAP" Temporary Agnostic in Practice, and "PAP" Permanent Agnostic in Principle, and breaks the severity of belief (if i remember correctly) into 8 stages of belief; 1. being the strongest in theism i.e. Carl Jung "I know god exists" and 8. being the strongest Athiest i.e. Dawkins "I know god does not exist"
Although even Dawkins agrees that you cannot exceed Agnosticism on either end of the spectrum because of the lack of evidence for both arguments. Becoming a 1 or an 8 involves a leap of (for lack of a better word) "Faith".
(he goes on further to explain how the evidence against, if it does not outweigh, certainly has a stronger foothold in reality than the evidence for a supreme creator.)
I tend to agree.
But then there is another interesting prespective that Sam Harris slightly touches on in "the End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation", But is absolutely hit on the head by Christopher Hitchens the author of "god Is Not Great! how Religion Poisons Everything".
Christopher Hitchens takes it a step further claiming to be an "Anti-Theist". Believing that claiming Atheism gives credence to Theism. Basically by being an A-theist you acknowledge that the theists are entitled to there beliefs whether you believe them or not, whereas an "Anti-Theist" believes Theism is a sociological disease that is dangerous and must be irradicated.
Then there is the Daniel Dennett Athiest that support what has been deemed "Natural Theism" or the theory that "Belief for the sake of Belief" (in an omnipotent creator) can be a healthy philosophy as long as its moral basis is grounded in Humanism.
(Ive only read Dennetts "Darwins Dangerous Idea" and his reference to "Natural Theism" is implied throughout as if youve read every other book he had written. (LOL) but hes the guy that started the "sky-crane" theory of evolution that Dawkins Touches on in "the God Delusion" )
As Far as a debate on the definition of "FAITH" it would be best to read up on some; Socrates or Lucretius (one Theistic one Clearly Not, but similar arguments) I think Immanuel Kant has a lecture on faith, and I think its actually called "On Faith" as well as John Locke and David Hume.
if you read them all youll probably have a better understanding about our perpetual misunderstanding about "Faiths" Definition.
I guarantee the authors listed above are WAY SMARTER THAN ANY OF US, and they couldnt nail it down. So the argument on an Internet Forum {(albeit a great one) little bit of kissass there} is not going to be solved.
I can only suggest that in my opinion Reason posseses more strength than Faith in the sense that it is grounded in fact and sound theory, and encourages debate, although "Faith" is far more powerfull than Reason in the fact that Faith can inflict more damage, because of its invulnerablilty to argument and debate.
Reason is challenged with rationalism whereas the possesion of faith can only be challenged with ridicule. Anything more is an excercise in futility.
Reason calls for respect with the basis in argument and debate and Faith demands respect without question.
I choose Reason and in my philosophy it is the opposite of Faith.
High Pope
Yeeeeeeah I won't be doing that. I'm sure it's all very fascinating stuff and I have the utmost respect for folks that have the patience for that sort of thing ... but I'm pretty sure I don't care about ANYTHING enough to read several books just to get the basic understanding of a single definition.
I'm not mocking what you've said, just marveling in how much my reaction to doing all of that research was "no way jose".
He-He, Thats Awesome.
I Just Read A Lot of Philosophy and on the Subject of Athiesm.
Does this place have the option of ignoring certain members? Just curious.
Your response was immature and pointless. And you accuse me of ignoring your posts? Please. Re-read my post and ask some legitimate questions if you want me to respond to you. Some of your questios don't make any sense at all as responses to what I said. You are getting all worked up over stuff that I didn't even say.
Oh, and drop the namecalling as well. Or continue on and be ignored.
And you need to learn what "atheism" means before you start calling yourself one. Atheism isn't the disbelief in the Christian God. It is disbelief in any God, of any name or form. If the statement "there is no god" is not a statement that you agree with, then you are not an atheist.
edit: I just noticed you are a moderator. Wow, that is sad.
"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18
Your arguments regarding science were refuted three pages ago and you continue to misconstrue the scientific method.
THAT is sad.
Very insightful post. Thank you for that.
I have one discrepency, I don't believe there are agnostic theists. Since theism implies the acceptance of the idea that God is real, if you are still riding the fence, you have not truly crossed over into theism, thus you are still an atheist. If you believe in God, but still have your doubts, then you don't really believe in God. As you said, there aren't different levels of belief. There is only belief and disbelief, no middle-ground. If there is any doubt at all about the reality of God, you are still in disbelief. I'd call that person an atheist who has a respect and curiosity about theism.
Other than that, I agree with everything you said.
And you're right, there is a difference between an agnostic atheist and a gnostic atheist. It's the gnostic atheists that I have an issue with. Gnostic theists may not be able to prove God exists, but then they don't claim to be able to, and admit that it is based on faith. I know Kirk and Ray said they could prove God exists, but as you would undoubtedly agree, they failed in that attempt. The bible does not imply the possibility of proving the existence of God, but instead makes it clear that it can only be accepted by faith. Gnostic atheists admittedly do not base their beliefs on faith, but rather on facts. Since there are no facts which disprove the existence of God, that is an ignorant stance to have. Thus I have a lot more respect for the agnostic atheist than the gnostic. Even when I say "I know there is a God," at the same time I'll admit that it cannot be proven.
"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18
So you say. What I see is you avoiding my questions.
I'm well aware that transitional species has nothing to do with the big bang. I never said it did.
But it has a lot to do with evolution. And infinite matter has a lot to do with both theories.
Neither of which you offered an answer for. I can only assume you didn't have one.
See that's the thing, you will get all enraged about one little detail that I said, and ignore 99% of the rest of my post. So in effect I wasted my time making my argument, because it was just ignored. You change the subject without first answering the questions that have already been asked.
Let me break it down for you, and give you one more chance to answer.
Infinite matter:
If we evolved from lesser species, and they evolved from lesser species, etc.., and even the earth itself started with much less complexity and even less mass, but has evolved into what it is today. The big bang goes right along with this (being the catalyst that began planetary evolution and eventually biological evolution), saying there was just a bunch of gas or somthing in space and then an explosion happened, and things started to swirl around, and eventually a planet was formed, and then another, and then an entire solar system which all stays together in harmony and rotates and revolves, etc. And on one of those planets, life was formed somehow, and thus began biological evolution.
What example have we ever seen on earth of an explosion of any kind causing order and organization and creating life, etc.? Never. Explosions cause disorder, destruction, and kill any life in the vicinity. And somehow the idea that this happened over an extremely long period of time is supposed to make it more likely possible, but I don't see how. The moby dick theory is applicable here. If you sit a monkey in front of a keyboard and let him push buttons for 5 trillion years (this is a theory of course, and assumes that it would be possible for a monkey to live that long and have the attention span to do that) he would eventually type out the entire novel of Moby Dick, word for word. Some things are impossible, and unfathomable lengths of time don't make them any more possible or likely. But that aside. Let's move on with my point.
If that is true, that explains where the planets and such came from. But for an explosion to occur there must be fuel, and a source of ignition. I don't know what that fuel was, but it really doesn't matter for the point I'm making, so let's just say it was some sort of gas. Where did the gas come from? Let's say it came from the remains of a supernova. Where did that star come from that went supernova. If you keep going back using logical deduction, you will inevitably arive at one of two conclusions.
A: At some point back at the beginning of it all, there was someone or something which had to be eternal. This defies science.
B: At some point back at the beginning, there was nothing. Then somehow the first matter was formed from nothing. This also defies science.
There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that would even suggest or imply the remote possibility of either of those conclusions. So unless you (or anyone else in the world) can think of another possibility, we must conclude that the world came into being by supernatural means. By a means that science cannot even begin to explain. A means that science today would state is completely impossible.
The question is, are the big bang and evolution (because both are part of this explanation) false theories, or is there some scientific evidence out there that I'm not aware of, that proves the scientific possiblity of matter being formed spontaneously from nothing, and/or the possibilty of anything at all having no beginning? Unless some new evidence has been discovered, both of those are considered to be impossible.
Or, can you suggest a conclusion "C" ?
Give me a legitimate attempt at an answer, then we will move on to talking about transitional species.
"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
whats so important about having a difinitive answer?
It tells us that human beings dont know everything and we are not perfect.
some of us are comfortable with this imperfection because it is the truth.
theists need perfection and since it is not us, it must be god, Theists call this truth where Athiest call it a lie.
athiests question why something of infinite perfection would create everything so imperfectly.
thiests in theory should try to argue that everything is perfect because their god is infallible, and does not make mistakes.
but there is already countless examples of gods mistakes in the bible, one example at least, is his original experiment was so fucked up he wiped out the entire human race with a flood and only saved 10 people and 2 of every animal (and dinosaur).
then his experiment went so awry that he had his only begotten son brutally murdered to wash away all the sins of the world, but this gesture was the most empty gesture in the history of mankind seeing as jesus was the son of god therefore a god himself and cannot die. (only mortals can die) so it was a big charade, a farce and a blatant lie. even if it did happen.
so now we can establish that your god is a fuck up and a liar.
even by his own admission.
if there were ever a real "god" of absolute perfection it would whoop the christian gods ass for being an idiot
you are doing well following his example, but in the grand scheme of things, he did make you in his own image, so dont blame yourself for your imperfections.
I'll actually have to step out and disagree with AiiA here. As we say, atheists rarely agree about anything more than we share a lack of belief in any gods--and then we'll disagree with what lacking belief even means....
I would say that if you believe that a god exists, but questions and doubts exist in your mind about it, then your belief only holds so long as those questions are not sufficiently strong to remove your active belief.
More discussion and parsing of the issue is needed before I'd be willing to state how much doubt is necessary for the belief to no longer exist.
But, then again, I've never believed, so I might be talking out of my ass. it just seems to me to be possible that a person could believe and still have doubts about that belief.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
Keep sticking your head in the sand and chanting that if you want. But if you really believe that, you haven't looked very hard.
Go to www.yahoo.com and type "Christian Apologetics" and prepare to be enlightened.
Some of the sites that will come up are a stupid, but some are quite interesting. If you just make a tiny bit of effort to look into it, you will see there is actually a ton of evidence of God, and more specifically evidence of the accuracy of the bible.
"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18
I guess we will take this sentence by sentence.
Okay, maybe I mis-read that.
Well, you’re misunderstanding again, they are PART of the evolutionary evidence, not ‘all’, or even ‘most’. Just part.
This is wrong, evolution deals with changes in species once life began, that’s it. Evolutionary theory says nothing about abiogenisis.
Answers have been offered, but have been ignored.
So, I am responding to 100% this time, you better read every last word.
And I feel the same about my previous posts which you ignored.
I have not changed the argument, you went with the other posters definition of ‘faith’, I merely followed the discussion.
Oh, thank you again for allowing me to re-state….
Ok.
Correct. Yay.
Stop… you misunderstand the Big Bang here, it was not an explosion. It was a rapid expansion of space in all directions.
Nothing ‘swirled’ at first, once gravity could act against the expansion and mass could accumulate, then things started ‘swirling’.
Yes, a planetary disc developed around the star and planets were formed out of this material.
Once life began, yes evolution started.
The Big Bang was NOT an explosion. Please look into what big bang theory actually states.
The Big Bang was NOT an explosion. Please look into what big bang theory actually states.
This is an argument from ignorance, because you cannot understand it does not make it untrue.
Oh, great.
Actually I have heard this one, it actually says the ‘complete works of Shakespear’, not Moby Dick.
Again, this is an argument from ignorance, because you cannot understand it does not make it untrue.
You say this like and eternal ‘god’ is not highly more impossible.
Wheeeee, this is fun.
Yep.
The Big Bang was NOT an explosion. Please look into what big bang theory actually states.
The Big Bang was NOT an explosion. Please look into what big bang theory actually states.
Again, this is an argument from ignorance, because you cannot understand it does not make it untrue.
The Big Bang was NOT an explosion. Please look into what big bang theory actually states.
Again, this is an argument from ignorance, because you cannot understand it does not make it untrue.
The Big Bang was NOT an explosion. Please look into what big bang theory actually states.
Again, this is an argument from ignorance, because you cannot understand it does not make it untrue.
The Big Bang was NOT an explosion. Please look into what big bang theory actually states.
Again, this is an argument from ignorance, because you cannot understand it does not make it untrue.
I sense a false dichotomy coming.
Wrong science says, matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed. This fits perfectly with science.
You are right this does defy science, that is why a ‘creator’ could not have created the universe out of nothing.
Yes, there is, the first one. Open a science book, please!!!
No, again this is an argument from ignorance. Because you cannot comprehend does not make scientific theory false.
Science does a better job of explaining than the ‘magic’ of god creation.
Yes, science is not good at ‘magic’.
No, they are not. ‘Magic’ is a false theory though.
From the arguments you posed there is much science you are not aware of.
No, matter could be eternal, just as you claim ‘god’ is.
No, matter could be eternal, just as you claim ‘god’ is.
Oh, they are highly more possible than a magic sky daddy watching over us, making something out of nothing and making humans out of dirt.
Really? You want to go with the dirty ‘theory’?
There is no conclusion “C”, everything you have said about science is WRONG!
Great… next up… THE CROCADUCK.
Seriously, please crack a science book
PLEASE!!!!
And the rest, for me, is arguing semantics. You can't prove it, I can't prove it, I'll go on no believing in something that, thus far, I have no reason to believe in the first place.
There are plenty of reasons. You may not consider them valid reasons, but an overwhelming majority of the human population disagrees with you.
"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18
And once again, you don't even attempt to answer my question, because you can't.
My level of scientific knowledge is more than adequate to make the point I was making.
You telling me I lack scientific knowledge is a copout. Instead of making such a generic accusation, why not explain to me why my assertion was wrong. My statement was about 99% logic and 1% science. The details I was innacurrate about were irrlevant to my argument.
"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18
If there is a ton of evidence of a god start a thread and present some. Beware, however, that what constitutes evidence for the existence of a god is not simply saying, "we dont know how this happened, ergo, a god". Such a thing requires one to presuppose the existence of a god before they can consider this evidence of a god (even then it is not really 'evidence' but better termed 'support' for a belief). Evidence of a god would be evidence that someone who has no concept of a god could examine and come to the conclusion, without making any logical jumps, that a god exists
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
You are a serious fucking asshole!! I responded to each and every sentence and this is the best you can do, you ignored everything posted except the last sentence.
Kiss my scientific ass!!
It doesnt matter if you have a PHD in Biology if you let your dogma close your mind to the reality that science shows. You can 'know' all the facts of science but still play your Jesus/Bible trump card.
But I totally understand you Musicdude! I was once like you. I took a good handful of science classes in college... but when I took my advanced theology classes,, I conveniently ignored the parts of science that contradicted what we we learning. (yes, I went to Bethel University, an accredited evangelical University in St Paul, MN...)
www.andyhanson.net
Musicdude: BGH MORE than answered your question. Other have answered your question. Your refusal to accept the answers given and your ability to ignore posts does not negate the validity of the arguments made.
/Mod Hat on/ You are being antagonistic. Here are the forum rules:
2.1. Antagonism.
Antagonism is giving one or more members a hard time. Cases typically comprise a series of provocations, each not necessarily sanctionable in its own right. Incidents can include, but are by no means limited to the following:
The notoriously fickle and blurry nature of such exchanges makes it near-impossible to draw up a hardcoded definition of what exactly constitutes Antagonism. Moderators are more often than not simply forced to draw upon their vast and collective experience to adjudicate when enough is enough and take whatever steps they deem necessary in order to keep the peace, good will and reputation of the board.
Not sure if this is your first, but consider it a warning.
/Mod hat off/
Correct, I do not find the "reasoning" to support a superwizard to be valid.
And the fact that the majority of the human population disagrees with me? I'll take that as a compliment. And just so you know, "everyone is doing it" is not a sound argument.
And they have done the exact same thing to me.
I'm sorry if I missed a point or two which was made. I am arguing with about 8 people at once, while they are only arguing with one. I'm am trying to answer all the questions as best I can. I am not intentionally avoiding anything at all.
Secondly, I have treated everyone in this forum with respect, and not resorted to childish namecalling, which a couple of the atheists (including a moderator) have done exactly that, but they are not being warned, are they?
Moderators are not supposed to show partiality.
You can kick me out of this forum. In fact, I hope you do. It might be just the motivation I need to quit coming back and beating my head against the same brick wall over and over again. Apparently, my hard-headedness is stronger than my frustration, because I have threatened to leave several times and kept coming back for more.
Being kicked from a forum such as this, with moderators such as you and BGH is a compliment.
"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18
I keep hearing "wizard" and "magic." Gunpowder used to be considered magic. Magic is a nice explanation for things science can't yet explain. Somethings science will never be able to explain, but that doesn't make them magical.
"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18
Or perhaps you are the brick wall?
I am open to evidence. You have just provided very weak, flimsy, faith-based evidence. As I have mentioned, I have listened to the 'evidence' for God for 10+ years, including time at a Christian University. Simply being intellectually honest show's that the 'evidence' for Christianity, is more psychological tricks than it is real, hard evidence.
But again, this is why I have a soft spot in my heart for your musicdude! I've read lots of posts of theists here, and you are my twin from the past! I've lived the life of an evangelical, and as an atheist. I lived both lives fully and full of passion... and while there were good times in both, the true freedom of atheism, is that if you THINK(which you obviously do), you don't have to spend most of your mental energy rationalizing the irrational.
Non-thinking Christians can run around smiling singing "Jesus Loves Me!" But thinking Christians, like you I believe, are a true tragedy... instead of studying a cure for cancer, you're more likely to come up with the next generations 'revolutionary' insight of how God allows suffering or something like that...
www.andyhanson.net
I'm curious: what is it you believe you just proved there? That it is likely we do not comprehend all 'things' with our current level of understanding? Sure. Ok, what point is it you believe you just made?
You keep saying that ... we can't prove everything therefore a superwizard is perfectly reasonable ... cool, my imaginary superwisard just ate your imaginary superwizard ... prove that didn't just happen! You CAN'T, cuz your superwizard is in my superwizards BELLEH.
Where is the warning for this one?
He can curse me out, but I can't accuse him of not answering my question. Nice place you've got here.
"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18
*hugs*
BTW, please don't ban me for saying that my superwizard ate his superwizard. In all honesty, his superwizard had honey-mustard sauce all over him so you can hardly blame my superwizard for eating him.
Seriously.
I think you really want answers. Your arguement is not with us, its with yourself. Embrace your doubt. Stop banging your head, and listen to some of the points of view we are sharing.
Your angry, not with us or even athiests in general, your just angry, and because of it youre being met with hostility.
Quit being an ass. We dont hand out respect for free, the moment you can prove an interesting point that helps your argument, we will grant you some kudos.
Probably still argue, but still give you kudos for making a valid claim.
Look at the claims we are making. Based on physical and natural evidence weve established this philosophy. We are not swayed with mysticism or anything supernatural. We arent swayed by your feelings or the gnosis you get from your beliefs. We are surely not swayed with popular opinion either. We only want concrete, imperical evidence that substantiates your claims.
so far every claim youve made has either been poorly thought out, or completely baseless.
It really is okay to set your faith aside.
I did it and never picked it up again, and life is good. Better even!
Try the Punch! LOL!
If you leave the forum, honestly, I believe its because of your fear of temptation. The temptation to believe that what we say not only makes sense, but it may be true as well! You dont seem like that big of a coward when faced with your opposition. That is why I believe youre afraid of yourself. Loosing your faith is a long slow and painful process, but well be here when you get back!
High Pope
Its possible for one to resolve doubt and believe there's a god again, but this individual is on his/her way to be doubtful again permanently. This is why the evangelist pushes hard.
And this is one reason why I believe most people who are not neurotic are indeed closet atheists.
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
I'm with you on that one.
Timewise, it took me a good 3 years from the time I first seriously even considered my doubt as valid until I was able to say "I am not a Christian".
Painwise, it cost me a few friends, including my bestfriend. (they told me they were not to be yoked to unbelievers!) I also have had to deal with crying family members on numberous occasions. And of course my 2 spiritual mentors (of 7 and 10 years respectively) have both pretty much disowned me and refuse to talk to me, saying my blood is not on their hands.
www.andyhanson.net
Sorry man. You seem eloquent, unlike most Fish People, but you're tripping here.
One of the main themes of the bible is to scare the shitting hell out of people. Most Fish People cannot.. I mean really CANNOT even think about the possibility of not being a god without feeling butterflies because of fear of going to hell.
http://www.dailywackadoo.com
So He answers that question, before He tells you about the savior. It's like the Way of the Master guys explain in thier gospel presentation. The first thing they do is show you that you are a sinner, and guilty of breaking many of God's laws. That way when they tell you about Jesus Christ and salvation, you will already know why you need them.
The bible is truth, and nothing more. Sometimes the truth is scary. I would rather be scared than ignorant of reality. But again, if you'll read on past the Hell part of the bible, you'll see that there is no need to be scared. If you believe in Hell, you should believe in salvation from Hell. If you don't believe in Hell, then what is there to be scared of?
To quote Jules from Pulp Fiction: "If my answers frighten you Vincent, then you should stop asking scary questions."
If I knew a bus was about to run over you, but you didn't see it coming, and you didn't hear it. And all I had to do was shout "hey, move out of the way" and you would look up and see the bus, and move out of the way. Knowing that a bus is about to plow through you is pretty scary information. Would you rather I not tell you about it, and let you be blissfully ignorant? Assuming there was no chance of escape, maybe you would rather not know about it. But if there was a 100% chance of escape, wouldn't you want to know about it?
And if I told you that, would you accuse me of trying to scare you, or would you thank me for saving your life? The problem is, people all over the world are telling you the bus is coming, and you still won't look up and see it for yourself.
You can argue with me until you are blue in the face about why other people serve God. But I know my own motivation, and it's got nothing to do with fear. What have I got to be scared of? Nothing. The worst thing that could possibly happen to me is to be killed, and if that happened I would go to a far better place than I am now. So if death doesn't scare me, then what can? Nothing. I can't serve God out of fear, because I don't have any fear.
"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18