|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
posted November 28, 2007 01:30 AM |
|
|
My little brother found out today at school that he must go and buy another bible because he does not have the "new, revised edition"...
How can you have a new, revised version of the bible?
Isn't that like bringing out a new Elvis album? 
Also nice post Moonlith.
What most religious people don't want to understand is that there is a difference between religious stubborn-ness and atheism.
If there was evidence that points towards a Christian God, believe me, I'd be the first one in the church every morning. If there was any logical reason to believe, I would. But there isn't, and religious people like to call this "stubborn" and "ignorant".
It is possible that there is a god, there is just no reason to believe there is. There might have been when we were in caves, but not anymore. What's more, if there is a god, humans would almost certainly got him wrong and as such any religion alive today is pretty much defunct, and their petty differences and violent rules have begun to poison everything.
This frank justification is frowned upon because blind faith in someting is thought to be a "good" thing, because it is very romantic and you can make movies and nice speeches about it. But in reality, if people had blind faith in things separate to religion, there would be chaos, insanity. That's what blind faith is.
People like The Death like to point out the fact that strange things are possible like computer simulations and almighty gods, and while they are certainly possible, it's just not logical to assume that they are true, and as such living your life as if they were makes no sense.
And then they say "you don't think it's logical". Of course I don't, there is no evidence. Which is the favourite response of every religious person, ah, but evidence is not everything you shallow minded baffoon! This again is something that sounds very romantic, very cool, that evidence is not everything. Evidence is looked at as something materialistic and in a discussion with someone who believes a man created adam from dust, this is not seen as a good thing. However evidence IS everything that we do. In any other situation, any other context, acting against all evidence is the same as blind faith. It's like running across a speeding highway with the belief that you'll be fine. Maybe, you will. It is possible. It's fine to acknowledge that possibiblity, but it is also very stupid to act upon, even though making it across seems like a very tempting idea.
That's why people WANT to believe.
Religion, conversely, is stubborn. Now this is looked upon as the ultimate hypocrisy in almost every discussion. As religious people are unable to argue that it isn't stubborn they like to take the approach that so is atheism, but as I just stated above, they are very different due to the key element evidence (which religious people don't like). Of course I'm willing to bet that Baklava is still not convinced and there's really not much I can say other than I'm perfectly willing to change my mind. (in real life I'm really indifferent it's only because this is the topic of debate in this thread that I seem so militant)
It's like Richard Dawkins so rightly put;
Religious fundamentalism is the kissing cousin to patriotism. Both demand that the practitioner blindly trumpet the superiority of one mode of thinking above all others for no rational reason. And both also discourage questioning the truth of the facts offered because such a thing is somehow morally wrong.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted November 28, 2007 02:16 AM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 02:23, 28 Nov 2007.
|
Quote:
Quote:
And if you're asking what is absurd, then I'd refer you two examples of Noah's little tale, as well of Eva being created out of Adam's rib, just to give something random.
And I do not consider them true, just metaphors(Noah) or rubbish(rib thing)  , that got into the Bible by human error, that God has no intention of correcting... for reasons obscure to noone but God.
So, how do you know which parts are man-made and which are written by God? I mean with Adam and Eve and Noah it is, apparently, obvious, although some people even believe that nonsense.
But what of things that aren't so obvious? Jezus walking on Water? Jezus saying he is the son of God? How do you know Jezus wasn't just a puppet used by some monks? What if he were just a regular socialist rebel who got a buckload of people behind him, and the chruch thought; we can use that!
How do you know what parts are false and which aren't ?
Oh and speaking of Adam and Eve - if incest were as much a crime as the bible states, humanity wouldn't have survived, IF we indeed asume Adam and Eve were the first two humans  Another contradiction in the bible.
@ TA: Unfortunately, I fear most religious people don't even bother letting those words get through to them. It is as you say though. But how do you explain that to a religious person?
Indoctrination is a strange thing I like it, on one hand, but on the other, I loathe it.
Oh, here's a fun new fact: I read Tony Blair was inspired by God himself to aid America in attacking Iraq. Hip hip hooray! Yet again religion caused a "holy crusade" to "liberate" people from "tyranny".
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted November 28, 2007 07:08 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Unless some really heavy bible (or other religious book) has fallen from a really great height, religion has never killed anybody. People of those religions might have, but again this is the 'not me' defense. Oh a human could never do something like that, must have been some other reason.
I highly doubt that if you took religion out of world history every death that happened would remain..
No one is saying that a human can't kill, but even a human has motives for what they do.
Religion brings people together? Sure, we all dance around worshiping the lord until someone says "No, your tonal shift in your intepretation of this scripture second line fourth word is slightly off."
Then wars start
Quote:
So which is more likely. That the mass that the 'big bang' used just appeared from nowehere, and that random events just happened to happen at exactly the right place at exactly the correct time, through pure blind luck...
Or that something made the universe on purpose, and used Intelligent Designing to make it the way it is?
And yes it is very unlikely that we are here. Yet we are, here, so that argument doesn't really make much sense. If you have a million yellow marbles and one black marble, it is unlikely that you will pick the black one. But if you pick enough marbles...
And no matter how complex or unlikely our existence is, a creator MUST be more complex by factors way higher than the creation, and is as such much LESS likely.
So despite your heavily biased wording, option A is, and always will be, more likely.
I'd steer clear of this path if I were you, statistics and gods don't mix
Quote:
Imagine what somebody who actually knew what they were doing took a shot at it? The arguments against ID right now are as much blind faith as they accuse ID of having.
Can you please explain this statement, I'm not sure I get what you are saying.
Remember that NOT believing in something isn't blind faith, because blind faith implies that there is no evidence, and obviously for something that, well, ISN'T THERE, you can't have anything BUT no evidence. I wouldn't call it your blind faith that you don't check under your bed every night for the boogey man, it's just not logical or necessary, and you have absolutely no reason to believe that he's there.
So tell me, where is the blind faith in NOT believing in a god?
Quote:
Then comes the "That only works if you think humans was a purposeful direction of evolution." We've covered that. I don't think anything is a 'purposeful end' human or otherwise. Then again, though I think creatures adapt to their environment, I don't think they say ... grow gills when starting out say... an ape (just examples, don't get too excited) even over trillions of years (let alone billions or millions).
Adaption does not cause evolution.
Natural selection causes evolution. There is a vast difference.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted November 28, 2007 07:18 AM |
|
|
Sorry for my posting style:
I post a quick answer as I think about it and then go back and edit 1000 times so you may have missed some things in the above post.
As for the mass before the big bang: I don't know. I don't have blind faith in anything, I have no evidence or any way of finding out where it came from, so any idea of mine of where it came from (god or creator or cheese monster) will be absolute nonsense.
I'd just like to add that if it were a 'god' that created the initial mass of the universe and then left it to happen as it does, this is a deist god (hardly can be called a god in todays terms) and is much less flawed than a big man who cares what men do in bed or if we work on some arbitrary day of the week
EDIT:
Quote:
Also, who says statistics and gods don't match?. A godlike being could very well shift statistics in favor of the outcome they desire.
I don't think you understand what I meant.
A creator MUST be more complex than the creation. A watchmaker can't create a watch more complex than himself.
What I meant was, if you want to argue that it is extremely unlikely that we are here, a creator that put us here is EVEN LESS likely.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted November 28, 2007 07:32 AM |
|
|
@Mytical (from previous post)
Quote:
Also, who says statistics and gods don't match?. A godlike being could very well shift statistics in favor of the outcome they desire.
I don't think you understand what I meant.
A creator MUST be more complex than the creation. A watchmaker can't create a watch more complex than himself.
What I meant was, if you want to argue that it is extremely unlikely that we are here, a creator that put us here is EVEN LESS likely.
(In addition, a creator can't shift the odds in his own creation... but that's getting a little surreal for our little thought experiment )
Quote:
However, the mass 'big bang' ect is only one possible theory, created by man (who is not infallible). The other where everything was made at once, and the god still sticks around and 'watches' is another.
Yes it is a theory and yes we are fallible but that does not make it automatically wrong. For example, the big bang theory doesn't necessarily dictate where we came from or try to enforce cosmology. It just attempts to explain the phenomena we observe; the expanding universe.
Quote:
1) Did some of the things you say are 'useless', have possible reasons in the past?
No, because then I wouldn't have said they were useless.
For example, I never said that the appendix was useless, I said it was a vestigial structure (don't know how that got into this topic)
Quote:
2) Is it possible that some things that you think of as useless (and thus arguements against Intelligent Design) have uses we have not yet discovered. (Ie that Scientific Experiments might uncover uses for in the future?).
I wouldn't rule anything out but I think that this argument does not really follow the points that I made. I didn't really list features of human beings that either have a use or do not.
For example, the fact that if we don't eat enough we die (and/or various other bad things happen) and if we eat too much we become obese. It isn't a question of whether or not this has a function or not, it's that it's just that it's unfortunate to the point of cruelty.
Quote:
3) Considering the answers to 1 and 2, just because we don't know why, does that mean that Intelligent Design is not a possibility?
I have said that Intelligent Design is a possibility...
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted November 28, 2007 11:56 AM |
|
|
Of course obesity is a man made issue when you put it like that...
It's like putting traps all around a child and blaming them when they get hurt.
Our bodies have been made as such that if we eat too much we balloon up and become unhealthy. You say that it's our fault for eating so much; how about, just NOT having this difficulty altogether? You blame man's greed on something that is completely unnecessary. Why is greed a sin?
As I said, our bodies have been created as such that we need constant food and vitamins that we are unable to manufacture.
We need to eat to survive, it is our instinct (given to us by god) and when we get it wrong SIN! PUNISH HIM!
There's no sound reason for it. Remember, god can do anything. You're thinking of it in terms of post-creation, that it's our fault that we cause this to happen. That's like blaming the computer for breaking down; it's microsofts fault for making it so crappy. Sure it could be that the computer chose to do something "sinful" like go on the internet or open word or function or do what it's programmed to do, but is there even a reason for that sin?
Again, I agree wholeheartedly that obesity is entirely the fault of the person, in the context of living in today's society. In fact I would be far more adamant to argue this in real life and would sooner agree that God is real than to argue that obesity is not the fault of the obese person.
But it's the fault of the creator that this problem is even there in the first place. It's the fault of the creator that it afflicts the HUMAN RACE, not the INDIVIDUAL. You have to take it into the context of creator/creation.
Quote:
As for the opposit problem, obesity, it is because we are putting unnatural things in our bodies. Does that mean it's not delicious? No..just not things straight from a garden, ect. Which has problems of it's own however. If you took sugar cane straight from the field and ate it, as is, it would taste horrible. We process it, modify it, and we have 'sugar'. We took something humans generally would not eat, and made it eddible. Other examples are the same, half the stuff that is in our foods now I can not even pronounce.
Hmm... are you saying that there was no fat people before we invented sugar and donuts and processed food
Quote:
In some cultures and in old times, however, a big belly was sign of success. The reasoning was that to be so big they must be great hunters. They became desired mates. That is another contributing factor to our obesity delimma.
Ah, I see. Here you try to explain why obesity is so widespread. I know exactly why it is so widespread, I live in the second fattest country in the world and I fully agree with you.
But explain to me why obesity EXISTS in the first place.
oh, and as for blaming the individual for starvation, that is just senseless and morally depraved.
On the flip side, it is probably the HUMAN RACE'S fault, not the INDIVIDUAL, which is the polar opposite to obesity. it's not a starving african child's fault that he cannot be supplied with food it's western capitalist society. This is hardly fair on that child that they should have to suffer from this affliction because god decided that we would be slaves to vitamins.
Quote:
I am simply rising the point that it is because of greed (they can not afford it or to move), or choice (even if it is not the hungry persons choice).
How is it greedy if they cannot afford to move? And where would a Tanzanian orphan go?
Perhaps it is fun for a creator to watch us balloon and shrivel, but it is certainly not intelligent
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Gallow
Bad-mannered
Known Hero
Avenger
|
|
posted November 28, 2007 12:19 PM |
|
Edited by Gallow at 12:20, 28 Nov 2007.
|
|
Agree with mytical,obesity is a man made issue,not god made,like others think..and i think you canīt blame god for human errors,you forgeting something:he gave us free will..so you can choose the big and wide door,is the easy one,or the small and narrow door,to follow godīs will(is in the bible if memory dont fails me,nice example)So thatīs the point,he is so kind that gave the man free will but one that is fatal to their belief in libertarian free will,two different things.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted November 28, 2007 01:04 PM |
|
|
@Gallow:Yes, humans are responsible for the spread of obesity.
God, however, INVENTED obesity.
QED.
@Mytical:Quote:
Quote:
Ah, I see. Here you try to explain why obesity is so widespread. I know exactly why it is so widespread, I live in the second fattest country in the world and I fully agree with you.
But explain to me why obesity EXISTS in the first place.
I thought I did. Excessive eating, or putting unnatural things into your body.
nononononono. That's why we become obese, but why is there SUCH THING as obesity in the first place?
God made us such that doing those things makes us obese. Why?
Quote:
So land is free, transportation is free, shelter is free. Are you saying there is absolutely nowhere on earth they could go with those conditions? However, because of greed (people don't want to give away land, transportation, ect) they are unable to do so. That is greed's doing, not gods. Now if you are living somewhere, and the above is true again (ie greed is out of the picture) that is experiencing severe food shortages, and you do not leave..is that not your choice to stay there? For whatever reason. If somebody forces you to stay there, even if the above is true, then that is again choice. That person chooses to force you to stay in such terrible conditions.
Why should these children have to suffer from starvation because of some greed of someone else? Why do they have to go through malnutrition because someone before they came and took away all the vital vitamins that, in theory, wouldn't even be necessary in the first place if god didn't decide to MAKE them necessary?
You really can't justify it, sensibly, morally or logically.
Quote:
God would not enjoy us going hungry or 'balloning up'. He knows that we are choosing to let it happen. Free will and all. If we would choose to change things, we would not suffer from these problems. So, who's the stupid/insane ones?
Choosing something that he created in the first place...... like the Reagan administration putting crack cocaine in the ghettos
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
sorcery
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted November 28, 2007 05:51 PM |
|
|
Not like i'd studied God as a subject or something, but i happen to have come to a conclusion, that God was invented just because people are lonely. Really, life can be grey and boring, living in bad conditions, working hard for a living and taking everything that the upper side decides to do to you, does get people down. So why not believe that we get to be in heaven for allowing a group of people controll us and not resisting them, purely because this perfect being will surely send them to hell for their misdeeds. God is, or was, a perfect solution for the not-so-perfect life.
I'm an atheist, if you're wondering.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 28, 2007 06:01 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 18:19, 28 Nov 2007.
|
@Mytical
Please read carefully.
Quote:
Unless some really heavy bible (or other religious book) has fallen from a really great height, religion has never killed anybody.
No, religion is not an item that physically kills someone, like a sword. For the same reason you could say that envy, greed, or wrath have never physically killed anyone. However, I think you'd certainly agree that envy, greed and wrath have provided the necessary motivation for many humans to kill other humans, and so it is with religion. That's not a universal damnation of religion, btw, so don't get your panties in a bunch. It's merely to say that religion HAS been a force that HAS been a contributing factor to SOME unspecified quantity of death, and using such fatuous statements like "Guns don't kill people; people kill people!", while maybe fun from a philosophical perspective, really don't have any practical use.
Quote:
Now as it pertains to logic. The universe just happened to 'pop' into being (by whatever means)? Even though the original 'mass' for the big bang had to come from somewhere, must have just created itself mysteriously.
Enough with the strawman arguments, please. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a cosmologist who believes the universe just "popped into being" and that the mass for the big bag created itself out of nothing. Trying to justify religious creationist ideas by building up and then striking down your caricature of scientific cosmological theory is just poor form and will convince nobody with more than half a brain. There are a number of cosmological theories (at this point, many just at the level of speculation) to try to answer the question of where the original big bang mass came from. Many speculate that the big bang was not an absolute beginning, but rather was the beginning of a repeated cycle - check out oscillating universes. Additionally, such statements as "the universe just happened to 'pop' into being" assumes that time existed before the universe started, which is not necessarily a good assumption. If there was no time prior to the big bang, then the problem of mass just popping into existence is not really a problem at all, because "popping" is a process, which requires time. No time, no popping. In other words, it is possible that you are using commonplace cause and effect relationships for something that may not have such a simple logical framework. Yes, it's all very mind boggling. One problem is that many physical laws as we currently understand them break down before we can extrapolate to "zero" time. A better understanding of the laws of physics may help us answer some of these questions.
Please note that using God as an explanation is a dead-end and does not lead to a better understanding of anything, and certainly not the laws of physics. Such a conclusion makes no predictions and cannot be tested. Possible? Certainly? Helpful? Not in the slightest. Scientists may not understand a lot about the big bang, but at least they are trying, and they understand that resorting to ideas that cannot be evaluated, tested, or even quantified in their likelihood is just a complete waste of time.
Quote:
Once our world was formed, the conditions just happen to be right for life to be created
See, you are looking at the problem all wrong. The fact of the matter is that life exists on our planet. Amazingly (seemingly, anyway, according to you), conditions on this planet just happen to be right for life! Wow, that's a great observation, Sherlock. Wouldn't it be something if the conditions on this planet were NOT right for life? OBVIOUSLY conditions on this planet are right for life. That's why there's life. You seem to think that the odds of that happening are so low as to be impossible. And so you conclude, illogically, that chance couldn't explain it. There are many things wrong with your logic.
First, it's hard to actually quantify the odds of having a planet capable of sustaining life, because of the sheer volume of factors involved. Maybe the odds are only 1 in 1 gazillion (use some suitably ridiculously large number) that it happens. Well, there's also a suitably ridiculously large number of stars in the universe. When you are dealing with such large numbers of events, even exceedingly rare possibilities have a decent change of occurring. Also, in addition to the sheer number of stars out there, you are also dealing with an incredible amount of time.
Second, you assume that only one set of conditions is right for life. That's a very poor assumption, but one that is bred by familiarity. Given the diversity of life on this one planet, it stands to reason that there are a vast number of very different conditions that could give rise to life.
Third, and most importantly, you are looking at the problem ex post facto. It's easy to look at yourself and be amazed. "I'm so unique - no way I arose by chance!" Indeed, something as complex as a human just popping into existence is staggeringly low in its probability. Evolutionary theory goes a long way towards chipping away at such a large number. But even so, it's easy to say, after the fact, that the odds are so low as to be negligable and that conditions were miraculously just right here for that to happen. Unfortunately, it's also incorrect thinking. If you could spend time on every planet and at every time point where the conditions were NOT right, you might have a better appreciate for the problem of probability that you are dealing with. More on this below.
Quote:
Then 'evolution' (not my theory of evolution where creatures do change, but not as some people see evolution (ie we came from the same ancestors as monkies)) just happened to hit the right combination for intelligent life that had opposible thumbs.
Again, it's not really that amazing when you consider the amount of time that evolution has had for trial and error. I used a baking analogy before - I'd suggest you look at it again.
Quote:
So which is more likely. That the mass that the 'big bang' used just appeared from nowehere, and that random events just happened to happen at exactly the right place at exactly the correct time, through pure blind luck...
Or that something made the universe on purpose, and used Intelligent Designing to make it the way it is?
And really, this illustrates the crux of the problem with your thinking. Why?
In principle, the probability of humans (or life in general) evolving from the big bang can be evaluated. That is, there is a real, numerical probability that could - again in principle - be calculated for life arising on a given planet. Given life's adaptability and murky definition, I don't think it's as unlikely as you seem to, but that's beside the point. More importantly, we know the probability isn't zero. There's at least one instance in the whole huge universe where it happened.
On the other hand, the probability that God (or whatever) is involved, that some intelligent being made the conditions on earth ripe for life (and made life) cannot be evaluated. Certainly, we cannot PROVE that it didn't happen. But, as far as quantifying a probability, well, it just cannot be done. So to ask a question like "which is more likely?" is just pointless. The question cannot be answered. The "intelligent designer" option may sound attractive to you, because it doesn't require you to accept seemingly amazing coincidences. As far as you're concerned, the non-evaluate-ability (is that word?) of the intelligent designer is a good thing, because it means you can compare it to the quantifiable "chance" option in any way you want. But you see, the coincidences only seem amazing to you because you're evaluating them ex post facto, and you're negecting to consider all many, many more events where the conditions were probably NOT right.
I mean, if you bought a lottery ticket, and won, what would you think? You'd consider yourself very lucky. 1 in a billion chance! You probably would just assume that you are lucky and the other 50 billion people who played were not. Nothing magical going on, there, right? Now, say a friend, probably pissed because you won and he didn't, came to you and said, "Well, how do you know that the game wasn't rigged? I mean, the conditions were just magically right for you to win - you just happened to be on Main Street on Friday, May 30th (of all days), at 6 pm (of all times!) and you just happened to need gas, because you just happened to be taking a long road trip the next day, and you just happened to pick a pump where the credit-card machine wasn't working, so you just happened to need to go into the store to pay (something you don't usually do), and you just happened to pick the right register (out of 5!) and you just happened to see the lottery tickets for sale because the person in front of you just happened to buy a ticket himself, and you just happened to have an extra 2 dollars cash in your wallet, and the lucky number just happened to be your birthdate backwards (of all the numbers it could have been - amazing! - what are the odds!!!). I mean, that's a whole lot of coincidences all wrapped up in one! No WAY you got that lucky! The odds are just too low! Someone definitely rigged it all for you to win." What would you say? You'd probably say something like, "Please, it was just dumb luck!" And your friend says, "Oh come on, what's more likely, that you just happened to get lucky, or someone rigged it?" What would you answer? You can't evaluate the probability that someone rigged the game for you to win, but nor can you completely discount the possibility. Nevertheless, you feel it only makes logical sense that you won by luck and luck alone, and that your friend is just going through his head and questioning all the "just happened to's" in his head AFTER you won. What he's not doing is counting all the other people who "just happened to" play all over the country and who did NOT win. It's just easy to scrutinize the lucky winner after the fact.
Quote:
As a final note, logic is an overused word. When somebody is absoultely positive they are right, and somebody else is not, they use the word 'logic'. Your argument is not logical, I'm right, here is a billion papers to prove it (all made by humans mind you, and humans are fallible and not perfect).
No, that's not the case. I believe in science and so I believe the more logical answer is the right one. That is not proof positive that I am right. You may feel that the answer is an illogical one. And you may ultimately be correct - maybe the origins of life don't have a logical answer. What amuses me is when people like you try to use logic to try to justify an illogical end. When you say things like, "What's more likely, A or B?", that's trying to use logic to prove a point. But the thing is that you can't use logic when B is an illogical, nonquantitative end. If you would just say, "Well, I don't believe that the world is logical, and so the scientific explanation for the origin of life is not what I believe in!" and end it there, I think you'd find the discussion would find an endpoint. But the reason you find us arguing is because you try to justify, using logic (or science), how a fundamentally illogical/nonlogical (or nonscientific) explanation could be or is correct. Which is fundamentally an illogical way to construct your argument!!
Quote:
Even I, who am not a genetic specialist, have proposed logical and reasonable explinations (even if a little hard to swallow and pure conjecture).
You haven't, mostly through a flawed understanding of the theory. And even if you could use logical/scientific arguments to discount evolution, which you can't, to me ID is not a viable replacement because it is fundamentally illogical/nonscientific. I would be most happy to discard evolution in the fact of a new and better SCIENTIFIC theory. If you could use logic to destroy evolution and provide a better logical explanation, I'd be all for it. But what you and others do is try to use logic to cast doubt on evolution, in order to replace it with an illogical theory. It is an impossible exercise for you because (A) much less ignorant (non perjorative) people than yourself (many of them) who know the theory much better have failed to find or provide any shred of logical evidence against the theory and (B) as a matter of belief, only a logical explanation will satisfy me and so even if you COULD somehow use logic to disprove evolutionary theory, you'd need to replace it with another logical theory with supporting evidence - which nobody has ever been able to do at all. If you want to argue about your belief from a philosophical standpoint, that's fine, but please - stop using science and logic to try to justify a viewpoint that is nonscientific and illogical.
Quote:
The arguments against ID right now are as much blind faith as they accuse ID of having.
The only faith involved in arguments against ID is the faith that the world is fundamentally governed by physical law and logic. That's not blind faith at all, because I certainly can use my eyes to convince me that this is true. Whether it is ultimately the correct belief, well, we'll never know, but we certainly aren't going to use logical arguments to determine the answer. On the other hand, ID has no logic behind it, and no scientific justification, which is fine for you if you don't believe that science explains everything. But again, the problem that I have is those who would try to use flawed, illogical, or strawman arguments (or downright lies) to cast doubt on evolution (and somehow use that as evidence that ID is the only answer, as if negative evidence for one thing constitutes positive evidence for another) AND who would teach such nonscientific approaches in a science classroom.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted November 29, 2007 12:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I believe in science and so I believe the more logical answer is the right one.
Hmm.. this will be frowned upon by many theists for reasons unexplainable
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted November 29, 2007 06:27 AM |
|
|
You seem to be unable to think outside of the frameset that is the world as we see it.
Quote:
So, because we choose to do something in excess it is god's fault.
No, no, no, no, no, no. I have never said this, in fact I have blatantly contradicted this in stating the exact opposite, in nearly every post on this agenda.
Yes, we eat alot and we get fat. This is our fault that we eat alot.
However it is gods fault that this process (eating too much-> get fat) exists.
God created us such that if we do not eat the perfect amount of food we will suffer, our physical bodies are structured that way.
If god wished it, there would never been such an idea as obesity.
That is the point I have reiterated in every post from the beggining and you seem to translate this as "GOD IS MAKING US EAT LOTS", he's not. But he made it such that IF WE DO EAT ALOT, in effect, WE DO SUFFER FROM OBESITY. He is not physically making us become obese, no, but he created everything and as such he created obesity.
Quote:
C) Eating the things God did create in some basic logical moderation would not cause this .
You have said yourself that it would.. you can become obese from eating solely natural things.
Quote:
As to why children must suffer. Yes it's tragic, but it is called free choice. People choose to allow this to happen. We produce enough food to feed everybody in the world, it is a cop out to blame God that we don't do so.
Yes but god made us such that if we don't have the perfect vitamins in constant supply, we die. God made us such that this is the case, by choice, knowing full well that we would become greedy and keep food from poor little african babies. This seems unfair that those innocent babies should have to be punished (by god in death) because of the greedy actions of some fat westerner. God could have avoided this problem altogether ON THE LOWEST AND SIMPLEST LEVEL by making us able to manufacture our own vitamins as many organisms do, and thus not contribute to the vast hoard of human misery in the world.
Never once, however, did I blame god that we do not distribute the wealth in the world.
I blamed god for making this actually matter on such a drastic level.
Sorry, but this point was a passing comment and has been blown out over nearly a page because you misunderstand what I'm writing time and time again, and has become way out of proportion.
I really don't know how else to put it such that you will understand what I'm saying.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted November 29, 2007 07:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Right now, you are so convinced that the big bang is the only possibilty
Please, don't make things up.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 29, 2007 07:21 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 09:20, 29 Nov 2007.
|
Just want to appologise to the mods, left a mess. They will figure out what I mean soon enough. To everybody else, I will say good luck and god speed.
____________
Message received.
|
|
gallow
Bad-mannered
Known Hero
Avenger
|
|
posted November 29, 2007 10:57 AM |
|
Edited by gallow at 10:58, 29 Nov 2007.
|
Quote:
So, because we choose to do something in excess it is god's fault.However it is gods fault that this process (eating too much-> get fat) exists.
God created us such that if we do not eat the perfect amount of food we will suffer, our physical bodies are structured that way.
So...he has the fault of a person eat the fat-food from mcīdonalds every day?no more excuses/theories nonsence, read the bible just a bit please,the Genesis.
Quote:
This seems unfair that those innocent babies should have to be punished (by god in death) because of the greedy actions of some fat westerner. God could have avoided this problem altogether ON THE LOWEST AND SIMPLEST LEVEL by making us able to manufacture our own vitamins as many organisms do, and thus not contribute to the vast hoard of human misery in the world.
Never once, however, did I blame god that we do not distribute the wealth in the world.
I blamed god for making this actually matter on such a drastic level.
Here you have the answer: 17 And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; 18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. 19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return."
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted November 29, 2007 11:29 AM |
|
|
Quote:
So...he has the fault of a person eat the fat-food from mcīdonalds every day?no more excuses/theories nonsence, read the bible just a bit please,the Genesis.
THATS THE POINT
Bible=CRAP=LIES.
im sorry im being brutal here,but consitar the bible fanfiction! now review this statement! read the bible,i have my harry poter bible lol! how is that for a bibile! both are ficitnal!
Gallow man,you cant persude everyone to belive what u belive,that might be UNTRUE to say least.
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
gallow
Bad-mannered
Known Hero
Avenger
|
|
posted November 29, 2007 12:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
THATS THE POINT
Bible=CRAP=LIES.
im sorry im being brutal here,but consitar the bible fanfiction! now review this statement! read the bible,i have my harry poter bible lol! how is that for a bibile! both are ficitnal!
Direct offense here..maybe not just to me,but many persons here,you cant compare with a harry potter book,you could say that to a muslim about his coran? cmon say it,moderator please....And im not PERSUADING anybody ,just i say the facts,read one or 3 times again,plus i feel in your reply is full of anger and hate antipaladin,leave me alone i feel that you are pissed off 100%.
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted November 29, 2007 01:06 PM |
|
|
its not anger,its sarcesm.
You feel that me compering bible with harry poter is offensive.
and I feel you not compering is offensive,why is your claim better?
I say herry pottery is a a new realigion
And everyone are fools who rot in voldermot house if they dont belive in allmighty potter! what makes your god,better then mine lol! this i think you can understand, Nothing,therefore it oesnt metter.therefor this converstion is silly.
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted November 29, 2007 01:10 PM |
|
|
No matter how TA puts it someone always seems to get it wrong.
He isn't trying to say god makes us fat he is saying that god made in us a possibility to become fat. Am I right?
Interesting statement Anti coming from an israeli. Do you take the whole bible or just the new testament that way? Or some parts? There are purely historical parts there too and this you mostlylikely know. You were atheist (or was it almost one) if I remember correctly but still...
Completely out of topic but what does god speed mean? i've heard it in many places but never got the meaning. Luck? Success?
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted November 29, 2007 01:18 PM |
|
|
im an israely,but im atheist nonetheless.you'd be suprised how meny are in israel.
Israel is very realigouse plays we have more sheeple here then anyware.
We ghave a saying: "Ish Ish beemunoto ihiae" A person person will live in hes own belifes. Meaning dont do my brains what u believ in i really dont care.
____________
types in obscure english
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
