# Belief in God a 'product of human weaknesses': Einstein letter



## min0 lee (May 13, 2008)

Belief in God a 'product of human weaknesses': Einstein letter

Renowned scientist Albert Einstein dismissed the Bible as a collection of â?????pretty childishâ??? legends and belief in God as a â?????product of human weaknesses,â??? according to a letter to be auctioned this week.
Einstein, who was Jewish, also rejects the notion that Jews were Godâ??????s chosen people. 
The letter was written in German in 1954 to philosopher Eric Gutkind.
It is to be auctioned in London, England, on Thursday by Bloomsbury Auctions, and is expected to fetch between $12,000 and $16,000 US.
Einstein writes "the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
Born to a Jewish family in Germany in 1879, he also adds that "for me, the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."
He also wrote "the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong, and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people.
â?????As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."
*Einstein 'rather quirky about religion': expert*

Many have speculated about the religious or spiritual beliefs of the Nobel Prize-winning physicist, whose theory of relativity revolutionized the study of physics.
Some have pointed to Einsteinâ??????s quote that God "does not play dice" with the universe (his rejection of the randomness of the universe) as proof of his belief in a higher being.
Others have said that the quote does not advocate a belief in God and have referred to other letters written by Einstein.
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly,â??? he wrote in another letter in 1954. "If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
John Brooke, professor emeritus of science and religion at Oxford University, told the Associated Press that the letter lends weight to the notion that "Einstein was not a conventional theist" â?????? although he was not an atheist, either.
"Like many great scientists of the past, he is rather quirky about religion, and not always consistent from one period to another," Brooke said
Brooke said Einstein believed "there is some kind of intelligence working its way through nature. But it is certainly not a conventional Christian or Judaic religious view."
Bloomsbury spokesman Richard Caton said the auction house was "100 per cent certain" of the letter's authenticity.
It is being offered at auction for the first time by a private vendor.
_With files from the Associated Press_


----------



## Gazhole (May 13, 2008)

Go Einstein!


----------



## Yanick (May 13, 2008)

Einstein is one of my all time favorite people. He's a hero to me. His story is actually rather interesting and his intelligence is highly admirable. Had i 16k to throw away i'd buy that letter.


----------



## fufu (May 13, 2008)

Funny, I have come to very similar conclusions.

I think God is just a concept people hold onto to satiate their fear of the unknown. Generally people strive to know everything. When they don't, they make something up. I don't see how a belief in God and religion is any different than a belief that lightning is a magical display of anger from the gods.


----------



## danny81 (May 13, 2008)

wow I never met an athiest in my life and on the internet theres so many of them.


----------



## Hoglander (May 13, 2008)

The GOD Part Of The Brain - Matthew Alper

Some parts of reality suck, so our minds handle it with BS, IMHO.


----------



## fufu (May 13, 2008)

There are just way too many possibilities in the universe to conclude we know the means to creation or reality, way too many intangibles.

The fact that people claim to know these things is laughable and extremely ridiculous.


----------



## min0 lee (May 13, 2008)

danny81 said:


> wow I never met an athiest in my life and on the internet theres so many of them.


Please allow me to introduce myself Danny
Im a Tranny of wealth and taste
Ive been around for a long, long year
Stole many a mans soul and faith
And I was round when AlBob


----------



## min0 lee (May 13, 2008)

danny81 said:


> wow I never met an athiest in my life and on the internet theres so many of them.


Had his moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that pilate
Washed his hands and sealed his ass
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
But whats puzzling you
Is the nature of my game


----------



## danny81 (May 13, 2008)

wat are u trying to say? r u tying to remix a jay z song?


----------



## min0 lee (May 13, 2008)

danny81 said:


> wat are u trying to say? r u tying to remix a jay z song?


Nope, it's a Rolling Stone classic.

It's called "Sympathy For The Devil"


----------



## Arnold (May 13, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> Renowned scientist Albert Einstein dismissed the Bible as a collection of â?????pretty childishâ??? legends and belief in God as a â?????product of human weaknesses,â??? according to a letter to be auctioned this week.


----------



## danny81 (May 13, 2008)

wtf is everyone on this site athiest


----------



## Hoglander (May 13, 2008)

No

Hail our Lord Satan.


----------



## DOMS (May 13, 2008)

fufu said:


> There are just way too many possibilities in the universe to conclude we know the means to creation or reality, way too many intangibles.
> 
> The fact that people claim to know these things is laughable and extremely ridiculous.



So...I take it you're not a fan of the Big Bang theory?


----------



## Arnold (May 13, 2008)

danny81 said:


> wtf is everyone on this site athiest



no, I am sure the "bible thumpers" will jump in here shortly! 

I am not atheist, I just have an issue with organized religions.


----------



## danny81 (May 13, 2008)

im a bible thumper i guess. i go to church someties. like 1-2x a month


----------



## Arnold (May 13, 2008)

danny81 said:


> im a bible thumper i guess. i go to church someties. like 1-2x a month



that does not make you a bible thumper dude.


----------



## danny81 (May 13, 2008)

oo lol


----------



## bio-chem (May 13, 2008)

danny81 said:


> wow I never met an athiest in my life and on the internet theres so many of them.



this may be the only thought out statement i have ever seen you type danny.


----------



## bio-chem (May 13, 2008)

what is the never ending desire for science and religion to fight? why must they be looked at as mutually exclusive? And if any one needs to look at anecdotal quotes from a dead scientist to prove their belief, or lack thereof in God doesn't that just show an inner weakness to make up ones own mind?


----------



## Arnold (May 13, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> what is the never ending desire for science and religion to fight? why must they be looked at as mutually exclusive? And if any one needs to look at anecdotal quotes from a dead scientist to prove their belief, or lack thereof in God doesn't that just show an inner weakness to make up ones own mind?



LMFAO, you refer to Albert Einstein as nothing more than a "dead scientist"? 

Oh my lord, no pun intended.


----------



## Arnold (May 13, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> this may be the only thought out statement i have ever seen you type danny.



it's to be expected really, the average person is just a sheep. (no offense danny)


----------



## bio-chem (May 13, 2008)

Prince said:


> LMFAO, you refer to Albert Einstein as nothing more than a "dead scientist"?
> 
> Oh my lord, no pun intended.



yea, a dead scientist. he was obviously a brilliant man. i'm sure regarded by the majority as the brightest of the century. this doesn't mean his opinion is the end all. my point is that the guy was an expert in physics. how does this make him an expert on God? why should I hold his understanding of God over my own?


----------



## bio-chem (May 13, 2008)

Prince said:


> it's to be expected really, the average person is just a sheep. (no offense danny)



this is the biggest fallacy ever. such a pessimistic, negative view of ones fellow man. do you then consider yourself to be so much greater than the lowly average man unable to think for himself Prince?


----------



## fufu (May 13, 2008)

DOMS said:


> So...I take it you're not a fan of the Big Bang theory?



I wasn't really talking about the Big Bang but I am open to the idea, regardless.


----------



## fufu (May 13, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> this is the biggest fallacy ever. such a pessimistic, negative view of ones fellow man. do you then consider yourself to be so much greater than the lowly average man unable to think for himself Prince?



I know you are talking to Prince, but I agree with him

Believing others are mindless sheep doesn't mean one thinks they are any better than someone else, I sure don't. The idea is only as pessimistic or negative as your own spin on it.

Besides, how can that be called a fallacy? There is no way to prove it either way.


----------



## Mudge (May 13, 2008)

The way he treated women was a product of human indecency.


----------



## Merkaba (May 14, 2008)

Hey I've always believed that the creator was a male, had a male offspring,  and had an ego problem that held eternal grudges and forgets that he knew how everything was going to turn out before creating anything.


----------



## danzik17 (May 14, 2008)




----------



## tucker01 (May 14, 2008)

I wouldn't say I am atheist.  More like agnostic, I hold the idea that there might be a higher power, I am not closing that door.

However organized religion.... eek


----------



## Will Brink (May 14, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> Belief in God a 'product of human weaknesses': Einstein letter
> 
> Renowned scientist Albert Einstein dismissed the Bible as a collection of â?????pretty childishâ??? legends and belief in God as a â?????product of human weaknesses,â??? according to a letter to be auctioned this week.
> [/I]



That is the conclusion most intelligent people will come to on the issue. Comes as no surprise such a mind as his would also, even though people have tried in the past to use selected quoted to make him appear a believer in an all knowing God via the Bible.


----------



## Will Brink (May 14, 2008)

DOMS said:


> So...I take it you're not a fan of the Big Bang theory?



What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.....


----------



## Witchblade (May 14, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> That is the conclusion most intelligent people will come to on the issue. Comes as no surprise such a mind as his would also, even though people have tried in the past to use selected quoted to make him appear a believer in an all knowing God via the Bible.




Most theists are indoctrinated early in their lives. That, fear of the unknown and social pressure are the only reasons people believe in God.

As for the notion that we can't prove God does not exist... that's foolish. You'll have to prove God does exist, then we can talk about falsification. I say we're all in the Matrix. Prove me wrong. 

I like these statistics that suggest belief in God is in fact a psychological phenomenon:
- prayer does not work (scientifically tested).
- strength and frequency of belief in God are inversely correlated with IQ (statistically tested).
- there are hundreds of religions and they change over time.
- most theists are raised as such and their frequency and strength of belief in God are significantly higher (60% IIRC) than is the case with people from other households.
- strength and frequency of belief in God are positively correlated with poverty

I also like these quotes:

Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. — unknown

"Imagine a world in which generations of human beings come to believe that certain films were made by God or that specific software was coded by him.  Imagine a future in which millions of our descendants murder each other over rival interpretations of Star Wars or Windows 98.  Could anything -- anything -- be more ridiculous?  And yet, this would be no more ridiculous than the world we are living in."
— Sam Harris, The End of Faith

"Religion is the process of unconscious wish fulfillment, where, for certain people, if the process did not take place it would put them in self-danger of coming to mental harm, being unable to cope with the idea of a godless, purposeless life."
— Sigmund Freud


----------



## DOMS (May 14, 2008)

Mudge said:


> The way he treated women was a product of human indecency.



That's the thing about "heroes" of the past.  They're often looked up to, but never fully scrutinized.

Take Mahatma Gandhi for example.  His famous response to "What do you think of Western civilization?", "I think it would be a good idea."   This from a man whose society was killing newborn girls in droves because they wouldn't be able to as much work as the boys.

Not that people need to perfect to share ideas, but you have to consider the source.  An immoral man saying that their is no god and a man whose people kill infants saying that someone else need to be civil.


----------



## Witchblade (May 14, 2008)

Gandhi lived in a society he didn't agree with. It wasn't his idea to kill newborn girls (AFAIK). He was actually extremely anti-violence.

I get your point though. People often forget the terrorist-like past of Martin Luther King for example. However, this does not change the fact that he did a lot of very good things afterwards in his life. The point with Einstein is that he was extremely intelligent. How he treated women is in this case irrelevant. It would only be hypocrisy if one quoted Einstein to support feminism.


----------



## DOMS (May 14, 2008)

Witchblade said:


> Gandhi lived in a society he didn't agree with. It wasn't his idea to kill newborn girls (AFAIK). He was actually extremely anti-violence.
> 
> I get your point though. People often forget the terrorist-like past of Martin Luther King for example. However, this does not change the fact that he did a lot of very good things afterwards in his life. The point with Einstein is that he was extremely intelligent. How he treated women is in this case irrelevant. It would only be hypocrisy if one quoted Einstein to support feminism.



I have never heard word one from Gandhi saying anything negative about his own people.  As for Einstein, his treatment of women calls into question the value of morals, which is often central to the belief in a "god."

Another good example of praising the wrong person is Nelson Mandela.  He was a leader of an organization that routinely killed children.  Yet he received praise from stupid people all over the world and a Nobel peace prize.  What a fucking joke.


----------



## Fetusaurus Rex (May 14, 2008)

fufu said:


> Funny, I have come to very similar conclusions.
> 
> I think God is just a concept people hold onto to satiate their fear of the unknown.*Generally people strive to know everything. When they don't*, they make something up. I don't see how a belief in God and religion is any different than a belief that lightning is a magical display of anger from the gods.




Einstein?

Einstein was a brilliant man, but whether he believed in God or not has no effect on my beliefs, I wasn't even aware that he was supposed to have believed in God, so the fact that he didn't doesn't matter to me at all....I don't hold Einstein's beliefs (or lack their of) over my own beliefs...

If there are people out there who were like "Einstein believes in God L0Ls one up on you atheists." and now this letter comes out "Ohhh checkmate, Einstein didn't believe in God LOLS, therefore God is fake" is silly and shouldnt even start a debate, nor end one...


----------



## squanto (May 14, 2008)

DOMS said:


> I have never heard word one from Gandhi saying anything negative about his own people.



"Gandhi criticized both the actions of the British Raj and the retaliatory violence of Indians. He authored the resolution offering condolences to British civilian victims and condemning the riots, which after initial opposition in the party, was accepted following Gandhi's emotional speech advocating his principle that all violence was evil and could not be justified."

There you go, one example. All you had to do was open his wikipedia page.... (and that's cited from R. Gandhi, Patel: A Life)

Gandhi's Principles of Satyagraha

1. Love your enemy
2. Always be truthful
3. Never use violence
4. Try to win your enemy over to your side
5. Don't be angry; suffer the anger of your opponent
6. Wean your opponents from error with patience and sympathy
7. Establish the truth, not by infliction of suffering on your opponent, but by your own suffering.
8. It appears to work slowly. In reality, there is no force in the world that is so direct or so swift in working.

If you're going to go so far as to call Gandhi a hypocrite, at least make a little effort to figure out who the man was... so in essence I agree with you, just a terrible example.


----------



## maniclion (May 14, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> what is the never ending desire for science and religion to fight? why must they be looked at as mutually exclusive? And if any one needs to look at anecdotal quotes from a dead scientist to prove their belief, or lack thereof in God doesn't that just show an inner weakness to make up ones own mind?


I'd rather go by the quotes of a man who was in touch with the Universe and how it worked than a collection of fables written by men who were in touch with their fears and guilt......


----------



## Tier (May 14, 2008)

Religion is idiotic, and the reason I am just name calling is because I have learned from experience that people who believe in religion are incapable of perceiving the logical invalidity of their belief.

It just simple does not make sense, it's not a matter of opinion because if I told you I was in possession of a king tomato that is master of the universe that you can't see you would call me a loon. The only reason somebody would simultaneously accept and reject two parallel statements involving two identical but seperate dietys is simple, brainwashing. If the word "God" did it, it's ok, if the word "King Tomato" did it, it's not, everything else is identical.


----------



## DaMayor (May 14, 2008)

danny81 said:


> im a bible thumper i guess. i go to church someties. like 1-2x a month



So there may be hope for you after all.....praise the Lord....Or, Good luck widdat, Lord.

I go to church regularly. Don't always _want_ to, but I go. For the record, while technically Southern Baptist, I am NOT a Bible thumper. In short, here are my views:

1.) I've said this before...Religion was created *by* man *for* man...plain and simple. What started out as an innocent attempt to define or individualize our belief systems has now turned into a thousand variations of self gratification in the name of [insert {lord's} name here].
2.)The Bible is one of the greatest works in all of literature. It is a guide, a template, a set of rules written in simple terms for the people of the era each book was written in. I do not believe that each word should be interpreted literally.....some folks do.
3.) Its okay to reference other religious works and writings. In fact, in my uneducated and humble opinion, there is a relationship between all religious text that, when integrated, produce answers and insight that we might otherwise never find.
4.)Nibiru will be swinging through in 2012 causing mayhem and destruction anyway....so who really cares how religious you are?

I think that there is only one thing that could possibly be said about religion, and God with any certainty. While we think ourselves to be intelligent beings with all of the answers.....we don't know *JACK*.


----------



## NeilPearson (May 14, 2008)

danny81 said:


> wtf is everyone on this site athiest



Only the smart ones


----------



## NeilPearson (May 14, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> what is the never ending desire for science and religion to fight? why must they be looked at as mutually exclusive? And if any one needs to look at anecdotal quotes from a dead scientist to prove their belief, or lack thereof in God doesn't that just show an inner weakness to make up ones own mind?



Science and religion fight because religion claims things happened in a certain way with no proof and through science we know for a fact that those events simply could not have happened.

Science relies on evidence.  Religion relies on faith.  When the evidence contradicts the faith, conflict arises.


----------



## DaMayor (May 14, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> Only the smart ones










thump thump thump


----------



## danny81 (May 14, 2008)

DaMayor said:


> So there may be hope for you after all.....praise the Lord....Or, Good luck widdat, Lord.
> 
> I go to church regularly. Don't always _want_ to, but I go. For the record, while technically Southern Baptist, I am NOT a Bible thumper. In short, here are my views:
> 
> ...



do u believe in god? i go to church to repent


----------



## fufu (May 14, 2008)

Fetusaurus Rex said:


> Einstein?
> 
> Einstein was a brilliant man, but whether he believed in God or not has no effect on my beliefs, I wasn't even aware that he was supposed to have believed in God, so the fact that he didn't doesn't matter to me at all....I don't hold Einstein's beliefs (or lack their of) over my own beliefs...
> 
> If there are people out there who were like "Einstein believes in God L0Ls one up on you atheists." and now this letter comes out "Ohhh checkmate, Einstein didn't believe in God LOLS, therefore God is fake" is silly and shouldnt even start a debate, nor end one...



I don't really see your point, it seems like you are argueing in your own head rather than the opinions being stated in this thead.


----------



## DaMayor (May 14, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> Science and religion fight because religion claims things happened in a certain way with no proof and through science we know for a fact that those events simply could not have happened.
> 
> Science relies on evidence.  Religion relies on faith.  When the evidence contradicts the faith, conflict arises.



It will only be a matter of time before we find that religion and science have much more in common than ever thought possible. I also think that our human arrogance will take quite a beating when we figure out that we might be the smallest menu item on the food chain.


----------



## DaMayor (May 14, 2008)

danny81 said:


> do u believe in god? i go to church to repent



Nah, I just play guitar.

Of course I do, dip wad.

However, this doesn't mean I don't question things on a regular basis.


----------



## fufu (May 14, 2008)

Witchblade said:


> I like these statistics that suggest belief in God is in fact a psychological phenomenon:
> - prayer does not work (scientifically tested).
> - strength and frequency of belief in God are inversely correlated with IQ (statistically tested).
> - there are hundreds of religions and they change over time.
> ...



Even with my opinions I've stated in this thread, those stats definitely can't be used to an end to this arguement. You can't scientifically prove prayer does not work.


----------



## NeilPearson (May 14, 2008)

DaMayor said:


> It will only be a matter of time before we find that religion and science have much more in common than ever thought possible. I also think that our human arrogance will take quite a beating when we figure out that we might be the smallest menu item on the food chain.



Why would you think we would find out we are the smallest menu item on the food chain.  We know for a fact we are not.  I don't see people being eaten by cows and chickens.

You may want science and religion to have something in common because that would help validate religion but it simply isn't happening... you can wish and pray for it as much as you want but your faith isn't going to change the fact that science does not agree with religion.


----------



## DaMayor (May 14, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> Why would you think we would find out we are the smallest menu item on the food chain.  We know for a fact we are not.  I don't see people being eaten by cows and chickens..



The food chain I was referring to was one a little bigger than the third rock we live on, Dude.



> You may want science and religion to have something in common because that would help validate religion but it simply isn't happening... you can wish and pray for it as much as you want but your faith isn't going to change the fact that science does not agree with religion



I'm not concerned with religion and science becoming buddies...ain't gonna happen if human beings have anything to do with it. In fact, my comment was directed torwards *both* ideologies....._we_ don't know everything, _we_ don't have the answers...yet. And it is my belief that one day we will *all* be caught with our ideological pants down, simply because we, as humans, think we are the only intelligent beings in the entirety of space and time.

Pretty cocky we are.


----------



## Tier (May 14, 2008)

fufu said:


> Even with my opinions I've stated in this thread, those stats definitely can't be used to an end to this arguement. You can't scientifically prove prayer does not work.



Have to prove it does first!

I think you can prove it's extremely ineffective, which is the same as not working.

Have 1000 people pray for something, if 1000 people do not get it then it is a failing process.

Definitely can examine the action and the result. The same way you can prove throwing a water balloon at a car does not create a nuclear explosion, cause and effect.


----------



## NeilPearson (May 14, 2008)

DaMayor said:


> The food chain I was referring to was one a little bigger than the third rock we live on, Dude.



I haven't seen any evidence that a larger food chain even exists nevermind whether or not we are the top of it.



DaMayor said:


> I'm not concerned with religion and science becoming buddies...ain't gonna happen if human beings have anything to do with it. In fact, my comment was directed torwards *both* ideologies....._we_ don't know everything, _we_ don't have the answers...yet. And it is my belief that one day we will *all* be caught with our ideological pants down, simply because we, as humans, think we are the only intelligent beings in the entirety of space and time.
> 
> Pretty cocky we are.



Science hasn't eliminated the possibility that there is intelligent life out there


----------



## danny81 (May 14, 2008)

DaMayor said:


> Nah, I just play guitar.
> 
> Of course I do, dip wad.
> 
> However, this doesn't mean I don't question things on a regular basis.



o lol. do you repent?


----------



## DaMayor (May 14, 2008)

danny81 said:


> o lol. do you repent?



Every chance I get.


----------



## maniclion (May 14, 2008)

Tier said:


> Have to prove it does first!
> 
> I think you can prove it's extremely ineffective, which is the same as not working.
> 
> ...


But if you throw enough water balloons often enough eventually you coincidentally might get a nuclear explosion.  Which is the same thing with prayer enough people praying all the time one is expected to be answered just by coincidence......


----------



## danny81 (May 14, 2008)

DaMayor said:


> Every chance I get.



thats good. thats the main reason i go. i dont want to go to hel so i repent all the time.


----------



## DaMayor (May 14, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> I haven't seen any evidence that a larger food chain even exists nevermind whether or not we are the top of it.



Like I said, we're mighty cocky.



> Science hasn't eliminated the possibility that there is intelligent life out there



To say or believe that we are the _only_ beings in existence, or to posture ourselves as being in the position to prove or disprove this verifies my point. We do not know.....period.


----------



## bio-chem (May 14, 2008)

fufu said:


> I know you are talking to Prince, but I agree with him
> 
> Believing others are mindless sheep doesn't mean one thinks they are any better than someone else, I sure don't. The idea is only as pessimistic or negative as your own spin on it.
> 
> Besides, how can that be called a fallacy? There is no way to prove it either way.



so your saying the average man is a sheep, and unable to think for themselves. yet this is not a negative view of mankind?


----------



## bio-chem (May 14, 2008)

maniclion said:


> I'd rather go by the quotes of a man who was in touch with the Universe and how it worked than a collection of fables written by men who were in touch with their fears and guilt......



Einstein had neither fear nor doubt?


----------



## DOMS (May 14, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> Einstein had neither fear nor doubt?



Of course not.  He wasn't religious...so you can trust him.


----------



## bio-chem (May 14, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> Science and religion fight because religion claims things happened in a certain way with no proof and through science we know for a fact that those events simply could not have happened.
> 
> Science relies on evidence.  Religion relies on faith.  When the evidence contradicts the faith, conflict arises.



thats funny. as a scientist ive not found any discrepency. I love how the arguement against religion. It is always changing, also dierectly applies to science. Science is based upon the facts as we know them today. they are ever changing, ever evolving as our very limited understanding continues to grow and mature. the arguement of science vs religion is really a very stupid one by closed minded individuals trying to twist their beliefs so others will think like them.


----------



## bio-chem (May 14, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Of course not.  He wasn't religious...so you can trust him.


----------



## Witchblade (May 14, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> religion is really a very stupid one by closed minded individuals trying to twist their beliefs so others will think like them.


I agree with this part of your post.


----------



## bio-chem (May 14, 2008)

Witchblade said:


> I agree with this part of your post.



thanks for proving my point about twisting things to make your point. your being foolish. don't.


----------



## bio-chem (May 14, 2008)

science hasn't discovered anything that God doesn't already know.


----------



## KelJu (May 14, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> Einstein had neither fear nor doubt?



Saying Einstein wasn't driven by fear doesn't even remotely sound anything like saying he had no fears. Come on, you and DOMS are putting a spin on what Manic is saying.


----------



## bio-chem (May 14, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Saying Einstein wasn't driven by fear doesn't even remotely sound anything like saying he had no fears. Come on, you and DOMS are putting a spin on what Manic is saying.



not unlike what happened when Prince said I called Einstein "only a dead guy"? 

of course I'm spinning it. It is a more elegant way of saying I disagree with the premise that the prophets of the bible were driven by fear.


----------



## clemson357 (May 14, 2008)

I don't know that you can take one sentence without context and extrapolate it to a long-held affirmative belief.

I think its completely possible that he meant taking the bible literally is childish, and expecting God to solve your problems is a human weakness.  I absolutely don't think what he said can be construed to mean that any sense of God or Spirituality is weakness.  Just another example of a lengthy debate getting dumbed-down for the sake of a catchy headline.


----------



## bio-chem (May 14, 2008)

clemson357 said:


> I don't know that you can take one sentence without context and extrapolate it to a long-held affirmative belief.
> 
> I think its completely possible that he meant taking the bible literally is childish, and expecting God to solve your problems is a human weakness.  I absolutely don't think what he said can be construed to mean that any sense of God or Spirituality is weakness.


----------



## NeilPearson (May 14, 2008)

DaMayor said:


> Like I said, we're mighty cocky.



I don't see anything cocky about it.  I'm not claiming to know everything.  I can only know things I can prove and even then it is always open to new evidence.

I think it is a lot more cocky to claim that you have an understanding of God, what he expects and the after life even though nobody has first hand knowledge of any of this.


----------



## NeilPearson (May 14, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> thats funny. *as a scientist ive not found any discrepency*. I love how the arguement against religion. It is always changing, also dierectly applies to science. Science is based upon the facts as we know them today. they are ever changing, ever evolving as our very limited understanding continues to grow and mature. the arguement of science vs religion is really a very stupid one by closed minded individuals trying to twist their beliefs so others will think like them.



So you don't see a conflict between the story of Adam and Eve and science or the Great Flood, Noah's Arc and science?


----------



## NeilPearson (May 14, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> science hasn't discovered anything that God doesn't already know.



How do you know what God knows?


----------



## Will Brink (May 14, 2008)

Witchblade said:


> "Religion is the process of unconscious wish fulfillment, where, for certain people, if the process did not take place it would put them in self-danger of coming to mental harm, being unable to cope with the idea of a godless, purposeless life."
> â?????? Sigmund Freud



Here's a quote I think sums it up well and a funny pic:

â?????Religion is the opium of the masses.â??? Karl Marx quotes 







However, let me qualify the above. One of my closest friends is born again, as was 8 time Mr O, Lee Haney, another person I know. If faith in God works for you, great, and I am all for it. However, don't shove your beliefs down my throat, try and convert me, or pretend there is any objective evidence at all for the existence of God. 

A true Christian leads by example, does not pass judgment on others or claim his/her religion is the only correct version, and finds faith is very helpful to them while recognizing it's not for everyone. That's how my friend is, and how Lee is. Too bad such people are so rare.


----------



## NeilPearson (May 14, 2008)

Here's a question for the believers:

Why do you believe what you believe?  With science it is obvious - you believe in science because there is physical evidence and science can explain and predict what will happen in response to us doing something...  Why does a believer in religion believe in what they believe?


----------



## Will Brink (May 14, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> Here's a question for the believers:
> 
> Why do you believe what you believe?  With science it is obvious - you believe in science because there is physical evidence and science can explain and predict what will happen in response to us doing something...  Why does a believer in religion believe in what they believe?



They have "faith." Hey, it works for them....


----------



## bio-chem (May 14, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> So you don't see a conflict between the story of Adam and Eve and science or the Great Flood, Noah's Arc and science?



nope, do you?


----------



## bio-chem (May 14, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> Here's a question for the believers:
> 
> Why do you believe what you believe?  With science it is obvious - you believe in science because there is physical evidence and science can explain and predict what will happen in response to us doing something...  Why does a believer in religion believe in what they believe?



in science something held as true and fact today can easily turn out to be false tomorrow.

as far as a belief in God. I have had too many experiences that have led me to believe in the existence of God.


----------



## bio-chem (May 14, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> Here's a quote I think sums it up well and a funny pic:
> 
> â?????Religion is the opium of the masses.â??? Karl Marx quotes
> 
> ...



really? we are quoting Marx to prove our point now?


----------



## Will Brink (May 14, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> really? we are quoting Marx to prove our point now?



Sure, why the hell not? He's spot on with that one.


----------



## DOMS (May 14, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> really? we are quoting Marx to prove our point now?



Again, of course.  He wasn't religious, so he was living the good life.


----------



## Nate K (May 14, 2008)

Supposedly there's some little motor-like appendage on one celled organisims that disproves evolution and proves a higher power.
They called it irreducable somethin....it couldn't have evolved from somethin....I don't believe this or not believe it.

I love asian philosophy and religions....regardless of whether you are religious you can learn a lot from them.


----------



## Arnold (May 14, 2008)

that's it, bio-chem has convinced me once and for all, I am headed off to church to accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savor, and thank him for dieing on the cross to absolve me of all my sins, it all makes perfect sense now...I shall be entering the kingdom of heaven for all eternity when I die to serve the lord! and next time I am at the Motel 6 I plan to steal a bible, that is ok as long as I repent next time I go to church isn't it?


----------



## DOMS (May 14, 2008)

Prince said:


> that's it, bio-chem has convinced me once and for all, I am headed off to church to accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savor, and thank him for dieing on the cross to absolve me of all my sins, it all makes perfect sense now...I shall be entering the kingdom of heaven for all eternity when I die to serve the lord! and next time I am at the Motel 6 I plan to steal a bible, that is ok as long as I repent next time I go to church isn't it?



Fair enough.  You can judge all religious people based on the action of a few.  And the religious people can use Pol Pot, Stalin, and many others to paint you as a moral-less, soul-less, wanton abuser of a person.

Have a nice day.


----------



## bio-chem (May 14, 2008)

Prince said:


> that's it, bio-chem has convinced me once and for all, I am headed off to church to accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savor, and thank him for dieing on the cross to absolve me of all my sins, it all makes perfect sense now...I shall be entering the kingdom of heaven for all eternity when I die to serve the lord! and next time I am at the Motel 6 I plan to steal a bible, that is ok as long as I repent next time I go to church isn't it?



i've never had any intention of convincing you of anything. ill be sure to post in any thread i see where the intelligence of the "religious" is questioned simply because they believe in something you can't touch


----------



## bio-chem (May 14, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> Sure, why the hell not? He's spot on with that one.



the guy had it all wrong. and an argument could be made that he developed a fundamentally flawed system because of his lack of understanding of human nature.


----------



## Arnold (May 14, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> ill be sure to post in any thread i see where the intelligence of the "religious" is questioned simply because they believe in something you can't touch



but I do I believe in things I can't touch, I believe in gravity.


----------



## bio-chem (May 14, 2008)

Prince said:


> but I do I believe in things I can't touch, I believe in gravity.



and like gravity for those who are watching we can see the effects of God all around us. for those who take the time to understand


----------



## danny81 (May 14, 2008)

Prince said:


> that's it, bio-chem has convinced me once and for all, I am headed off to church to accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savor, and thank him for dieing on the cross to absolve me of all my sins, it all makes perfect sense now...I shall be entering the kingdom of heaven for all eternity when I die to serve the lord! and next time I am at the Motel 6 I plan to steal a bible, that is ok as long as I repent next time I go to church isn't it?




yah as long as u repent ur all good. thats wat i do.


----------



## Arnold (May 14, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> and like gravity for those who are watching we can see the effects of God all around us. for those who take the time to understand



like what?


----------



## bio-chem (May 14, 2008)

Prince said:


> like what?



the miracles that happen every day are not coincidences


----------



## Arnold (May 14, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> the miracles that happen every day are not coincidences



ok, like what?


----------



## DaMayor (May 14, 2008)

Prince said:


> that's it, bio-chem has convinced me once and for all, I am headed off to church to accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savor, and thank him for dieing on the cross to absolve me of all my sins, it all makes perfect sense now...I shall be entering the kingdom of heaven for all eternity when I die to serve the lord! and next time I am at the Motel 6 I plan to steal a bible, that is ok as long as I repent next time I go to church isn't it?



Jesus doesn't like smart asses.


I think you missed the point he made. The same point I was going after, although most of you missed it entirely.

Nobody's trying to sell religion here. In fact, it seems that the only people getting their thong in a knot are those who are obviously anti-religion. Either way, I'm not concerned about it too much. 

The bottom line is this.....everyone should be open minded enough to listen to the arguments of others. I don't get all of the defensive responses here....must have been a few knuckles busted by Sister Mary Katherine or something.


----------



## Witchblade (May 14, 2008)

For Prince


----------



## danny81 (May 14, 2008)

OO shit. im finally going to get a PS3 good link wtichblade. thanks.


----------



## bio-chem (May 14, 2008)

Prince said:


> ok, like what?



thats not how it works, and i'm sure you have had these conversations in previous threads that lead to the same result. I'm not here to convince you of anything. If you want to understand faith and God we both know it is not going to happen on a forum


----------



## Arnold (May 14, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> thats not how it works, and i'm sure you have had these conversations in previous threads that lead to the same result. I'm not here to convince you of anything. If you want to understand faith and God we both know it is not going to happen on a forum



yes you're correct, but how again to religeous minded people explain the tragedies that happen and thousands of people, including innocent children, get killed in... ummm... let's say an earthquake in China?


----------



## DaMayor (May 14, 2008)

> thats not how it works, and i'm sure you have had these conversations in previous threads that lead to the same result. I'm not here to convince you of anything. If you want to understand faith and God we both know it is not going to happen on a forum



It *could* happen anywhere. However, as with any sort of knowledge, he would have to first _want_ to understand.....

Hey Prince, I once heard a man by the name of Josh McDowell speak at a youth conference. At the time, I had had my fill of B.S. religion, the bad reputation the crackpot evangelist types gave the average person, the mushy cult-like "feel" some organizations created, the corruption, the lies....I didn't want to be there. But he made some valid points that changed my views considerably. 

No need to say more about him other than the fact that he was a hardcore agnostic, and was asked to participate to *disprove * the Bible, to act as the Devil's advocate per se for a Kellogg College study......

Do I question the legitimacy of the Bible? The interpretation? Sure do. Just because it is my nature to question. Is this a sin? Nah, I don't think so. I am a strong believer that God has given us a very functional (and oftentimes under-used) brain....and he expects us to use it.

I shouldn't be penalized for "Christians" who don't.


----------



## bio-chem (May 14, 2008)

Prince said:


> yes you're correct, but how again to religeous minded people explain the tragedies that happen and thousands of people, including innocent children, get killed in... ummm... let's say an earthquake in China?



Oh I don't know. crap, you got me, how did I not think of this before...............Oh wait. yea, something about without the bad you won't be able to recognize the good.


----------



## Hoglander (May 14, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> the guy had it all wrong. and an argument could be made that he developed a fundamentally flawed system because of his lack of understanding of human nature.



Human nature says you will find the need to make up a god. There is nothing wrong with that. Humans have been doing so long before the god people made up for you came in to being. 

You just need to relax and accept the fact you are human. Just because others don't believe in the afterlife you profess.... don't shove your "I'm scared I just die" shit down their throats.  

You are no less or no greater than others. So shut the fuck up before I have Satan kill you and lock you up forever. Don't think I can't do that.

Hehehe

Hail Satan

:  )


----------



## bio-chem (May 14, 2008)

Hoglander said:


> Human nature says you will find the need to make up a god. There is nothing wrong with that. Humans have been doing so long before the god people made up for you came in to being.
> 
> You just need to relax and accept the fact you are human. Just because others don't believe in the afterlife you profess.... don't shove your "I'm scared I just die" shit down their throats.
> 
> ...



hey dumb fuck. try reading any of these posts you stupid cunt. no one is shoving anything down anyones throat. And i've not said or taken any moral superiority tone throughout this whole conversation. so before you start typing the normal rubish, bullshit. try pulling your head out of your ass.

and enough with the hail satan crap. the ignorance you display makes danny look like he is able go to college.


----------



## danny81 (May 14, 2008)

ignore hoglander hes a moron. he started hating me becauase he said somethign retarded and i didnt understand it so he flipped out


----------



## Arnold (May 14, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> Oh I don't know. crap, you got me, how did I not think of this before...............Oh wait. yea, something about without the bad you won't be able to recognize the good.



that was pretty weak, I thought you would have a better come back.


----------



## Hoglander (May 14, 2008)

Oh, I'm sorry 13th Apostle Bio-Chem. Please give my apologies to Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, the other James, Thaddeus, Simon and of course Judas.

Hail Satan

: )


----------



## fufu (May 14, 2008)

Tier said:


> Have to prove it does first!
> 
> I think you can prove it's extremely ineffective, which is the same as not working.
> 
> ...



I wasn't arguing it worked, but it can't be proved it can't.

Too many intangible factors involved.


----------



## DOMS (May 14, 2008)

Hoglander said:


> Oh, I'm sorry 13th Apostle Bio-Chem. Please give my apologies to Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, the other James, Thaddeus, Simon and of course Judas.
> 
> Hail Satan
> 
> : )




It's funny how many people atheists give shit to religious people for being "morally superior" while trying to come off as superior, and end up just being an ass.  

So pathetic is so epic a fashion.


----------



## fufu (May 14, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> so your saying the average man is a sheep, and unable to think for themselves. yet this is not a negative view of mankind?



Humans are very good at working together for survival through society. Many are able to think for themselves working for the further of their species, but in that process many are merely functions of society. There are different levels of conciousness and application of that conciousness. What I am saying is many people's conciousness are devoted to the continuation of life and society, but why? Well, it is biological, but past our own instintive actions what is there to a human?

I don't think it is a negative view, just the way I see it.

just realized i've been spelling consciousness wrong, oh well.


----------



## Hoglander (May 14, 2008)

DOMS said:


> It's funny how many people atheists give shit to religious people for being "morally superior" while trying to come off as superior, and end up just being an ass.
> 
> So pathetic is so epic a fashion.



Hey, I'm just a human. 

Sorry that I'll never achieve your guys' level and mastery of the true comprehension of your lofty place in the universe. I'll always be under that. That's super groovy to me, BTW.

Hail Satan

: )


----------



## DOMS (May 14, 2008)

Hoglander said:


> Hey, I'm just a human.
> 
> Sorry that I'll never achieve your guys' level and mastery of the true comprehension of your lofty place in the universe. I'll always be under that. That's super groovy to me, BTW.
> 
> ...



What a great nothing post.


----------



## bio-chem (May 14, 2008)

Prince said:


> that was pretty weak, I thought you would have a better come back.



like i said before. im not trying to convince you of anything. rehashing stuff you have read on this forum is not high on my priority list.


----------



## Hoglander (May 14, 2008)

danny81 said:


> ignore hoglander hes a moron. he started hating me becauase he said somethign retarded and i didnt understand it so he flipped out



It's OK danny. I forgive you and wash it away.


----------



## Hoglander (May 14, 2008)

DOMS said:


> What a great nothing post.



Judge NOT less ye be judged

I've studied it for 20 years and know it front to back..... The Great Nothing


----------



## bio-chem (May 14, 2008)

Hoglander said:


> Oh, I'm sorry 13th Apostle Bio-Chem. Please give my apologies to Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, the other James, Thaddeus, Simon and of course Judas.
> 
> Hail Satan
> 
> : )



WOW. i guess I shouldn't be shocked, but i really am. you are a troll.


----------



## DOMS (May 14, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> WOW. i guess I shouldn't be shocked, but i really am. you are a troll.



He's actually below a Danny.


----------



## bio-chem (May 14, 2008)

Hoglander said:


> Judge NOT less ye be judged





I haven't spent as much time here recently as I normally do, but it's easy to see why people really hold you is such disregard. Hell, even danny is more accepted around here than you are.


----------



## bio-chem (May 14, 2008)

Hoglander said:


> Judge NOT less ye be judged
> 
> I've studied it for 20 years and know it front to back..... The Great Nothing



memorization does not show understanding barbie


----------



## Hoglander (May 14, 2008)

If you two want to come off as halfway intelligent buy the book I posted earlier in the thread. Read it and argue any points with me. 

Hail Satan

: )


----------



## bio-chem (May 14, 2008)

fufu said:


> Humans are very good at working together for survival through society. Many are able to think for themselves working for the further of their species, but in that process many are merely functions of society. There are different levels of conciousness and application of that conciousness. What I am saying is many people's conciousness are devoted to the continuation of life and society, but why? Well, it is biological, but past our own instintive actions what is there to a human?
> 
> I don't think it is a negative view, just the way I see it.
> 
> just realized i've been spelling consciousness wrong, oh well.



sorry I missed this, i got preoccupied with something else. I think you kind of went over the deep end a little bit.


----------



## Arnold (May 14, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> like i said before. im not trying to convince you of anything. rehashing stuff you have read on this forum is not high on my priority list.



yet you keep posting in this thread any every other religious thread that pops up here.


----------



## bio-chem (May 14, 2008)

Prince said:


> yet you keep posting in this thread any every other religious thread that pops up here.



not for the purpose of convincing others to believe in God. Just to show that there are both sides


----------



## Arnold (May 14, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> Just to show that there are both sides



and there are people here that don't know this?


----------



## Hoglander (May 14, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> memorization does not show understanding barbie



That's twice you have denied me. You will do it again.


----------



## fufu (May 14, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> sorry I missed this, i got preoccupied with something else. I think you kind of went over the deep end a little bit.


----------



## bio-chem (May 14, 2008)

Hoglander said:


> If you two want to come off as halfway intelligent buy the book I posted earlier in the thread. Read it and argue any points with me.
> 
> Hail Satan
> 
> : )



dude, you're talking about halfway intelligent? You make forest gump look like a member of mensa


----------



## HialeahChico305 (May 14, 2008)

Monkey man sure is taking long to highjack this thread.


----------



## Arnold (May 14, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> You make forest gump look like a member of mensa



Forrest Gump believed in god.


----------



## bio-chem (May 14, 2008)

Prince said:


> Forrest Gump believed in god.



and this relates to..............


----------



## bio-chem (May 14, 2008)

Prince said:


> and there are people here that don't know this?



perhaps some of the sheep you believe in. or maybe i just like a good debate and sharing of ideas.


----------



## bio-chem (May 14, 2008)

Hoglander said:


> That's twice you have denied me. You will do it again.



put down the crack pipe.


----------



## bio-chem (May 14, 2008)

Hoglander said:


> The GOD Part Of The Brain - Matthew Alper
> 
> Some parts of reality suck, so our minds handle it with BS, IMHO.



about the author "is a contributor to the anthology, "Neurotheology," an emergent new science of which he is considered one of its founders. He presently lives in Park Slope, Brooklyn with his cat, Sucio."

i find the entire premise of the book to be really just a joke.


----------



## Hoglander (May 14, 2008)

Read the book or turn the other cheek. 

Is knowledge(the book suggested) and the teaching of the Bible(turning of the cheek) lost on you?


----------



## DaMayor (May 15, 2008)

Hoglander said:


> If you two want to come off as halfway intelligent buy the book I posted earlier in the thread. Read it and argue any points with me.
> 
> Hail Satan
> 
> : )



Dude, if you don't believe in any of this...what's with the hail Satan stuff?

What a mental infant.


----------



## KelJu (May 15, 2008)

fufu said:


> I wasn't arguing it worked, but it can't be proved it can't.
> 
> Too many intangible factors involved.



Actually Fufu, it can be proven to work, and has been proven. New brain imaging technology has been used to show what the brain is doing when one prays or mediates. The results from the studies blew me away. 

The writer of the book Emotional Intelligence, Daniel Goleman wrote another book called Destructive Emotions where he and other scientist studied Buddhist monks to figure out if they could show scientifically that meditation and pray could have any affect on the body. Scientist held meetings with the Dalai Lama to discuss bridging the gap between science and spirituality. What they figured out was that it changed the brain and how it functions.  


Lol, I could type 20 pages on this, so I better stop myself now. Just check out the book sometime. It is the first time I have ever seen spirituality and science playing nice together. The Buddhist people are so emotionally intelligent that they can have a conversation about their faith in relation to science without getting offended and pissy when one doesn't agree with their stance. 

So long story short, science is now doing some really cool research to prove the benefits of prayer. Some of the benefits are reduced anxiety, reduced stress, better mood, improved immune system, better mental alertness, and better memory.You'll have to check otu the book to see how it all works. 


***Quick Note***
The difference between healthy prayer and bad prayer is this. Healthy prayer does not include dialog with your personal god. Healthy prayer is basically more like meditation where one might repeat a mantra or repeat a verse over and over. Its a practice of disconnecting from the world as you perceive it. Too many people pray like they are making a phone call to God. "God, please heal my crotch rash, and let me win the lottery." "God, please make mommy and daddy stop fighting, bla bla bla." This is very unhealthy. You put the blame for other people's behavior on the shoulder of an imaginary person. Then you feel let down when you don't get what you want.


----------



## DaMayor (May 15, 2008)

I yanked this from another thread....



> I just think that organized religion is the root of all evil, that does not mean I have an issue with one being spiritual, e.g. believing in a god, there is a big difference.



I agree, for the most part. I think that a lot of evil has come from the manipulation of power by religious "leaders". 

_Human nature _is what corrupts religion...or spirituality, what ever you want to call it. This is why I can't follow attacks like HogDork's. Its pretty obvious that people will manipulate and reconfigure religion to custom fit their preferences or agenda(s), that's a given. 

I think its pretty sad that both sides can't have a discussion about this without one side or the other reducing it to name calling and hate slinging....like a bunch of second graders.


----------



## tucker01 (May 15, 2008)

I am in the 3rd grade I will have you know.


----------



## bio-chem (May 15, 2008)

Hoglander said:


> Read the book or turn the other cheek.
> 
> Is knowledge(the book suggested) and the teaching of the Bible(turning of the cheek) lost on you?



always learning yet never coming to a knowlege of the truth. i would debate your description of that book as knowlege. If there is a God center in the human brain, the theory that it evolved as a coping mechanism for the realization of ones own existence is nothing more than a theory hardly worth of a high school book report.


----------



## KelJu (May 15, 2008)

DaMayor said:


> I yanked this from another thread....
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I was basically typing something along those lines when I decided not to. But since you did it, I'll jump right on in. 

You can't have a reasonable discussion with people who believe they will spend eternity in total agony if they give one inch on their beliefs. It won't happen. My mother is a strict southern baptist. I love her more than any human on the entire planet. But even a love so strong between a mother and son can't handle that conversation. I tried once, and my mom broke down and cried because she thinks that if I don't accept Jesus as my personal savior that I will go to hell. She has scared to death that I am doomed. What can you do with that? Not a damn thing. Just keep avoiding it I guess. 


The irony is that religion destroyed my faith, but science is helping me but it back together. The more of read about quantum physics, they more I see potential for power more advanced than us. The concept that a particles can change from a wave then back to a particle simply because I decided to observe it is fucking nuts. The concept that time only exist in my brain and that space can be manipulated is insane. There are lots of ideas expressed in quantum physics like entanglement which I have seen when I was tripping on shrooms. I have seen the grid that connects every particle on the planet. I didn't know what it was the, but when I came across it later in a movie about quantum mechanics, I was like "holy shit, I have seen that". 

I owe much of this to Einstein. He saw though the bullshit, and saw the universe for how it really was. How can you deny that he was right about damn near every fucking thing he proposed. His ideas lead to rockets, space travel, nuclear energy. But, some will take his science as fact, but say he knew nothing of the universe? Bullshit. He knew everything of the universe. I'll take his ideas about faith, religion, and the universe as gospel.


----------



## ZECH (May 15, 2008)

I have had several people tell me stories about seeing angels. I never have......does that makes them non existent?


----------



## Nate K (May 15, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> He presently lives in Park Slope, Brooklyn with his cat, Sucio."
> .



giggle


----------



## bio-chem (May 15, 2008)

KelJu said:


> But, some will take his science as fact, but say he knew nothing of the universe? Bullshit. He knew everything of the universe. I'll take his ideas about faith, religion, and the universe as gospel.



kelju, i like you man. i really do. but saying einstein knew everything of the universe. c'mon man. lets back it up a bit.


----------



## DaMayor (May 15, 2008)

Okay, *almost* everything.


----------



## DaMayor (May 15, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> I am in the 3rd grade I will have you know.



Go to time out.


----------



## NeilPearson (May 15, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> They have "faith." Hey, it works for them....



But why do they have faith.  I can understand wanting to believe in something but why Christianity above all the other religions?  There must be something about peoples chosen religion that makes them think theirs is right...  what could that be?


----------



## DaMayor (May 15, 2008)

I agree, KelJu.

On one hand, there are those who due to their literal interpretetion of everything Biblical, or extremely rigid stance on the "rules" of life, tend to make other spiritual folks cynical.

On the other hand, I think it is ludicrous to say with absolution that there is no place for spiritual beliefs, regardless of denomination.

I just think that there is a relationship of commonalities between science and religion, and don't follow this aggressive opposition.


----------



## tucker01 (May 15, 2008)

DaMayor said:


> Go to time out.



Fuck you Teacher.


----------



## NeilPearson (May 15, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> nope, do you?



Yes of course... There simply isn't enough genetic material for any one species to replenish the Earth from only two individuals.  Not to mention there are a lot of species on the Earth - way too many to fit on the Arc, many of them live in small isolated parts of the world and simply couldn't get to Noah.

Flooding the world and killing everything would have caused massive die off.  The methane and other gases from the rotting would have royally screwed up the environment.

That and there is no worldwide geological evidence of a flood.

There are just so many extremely large holes in the theory that it is rediculous


----------



## NeilPearson (May 15, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> in science something held as true and fact today can easily turn out to be false tomorrow.
> 
> as far as a belief in God. I have had too many experiences that have led me to believe in the existence of God.



okay, I can understand believing in a higher force by why specifically would that mean the Christian God?


----------



## NeilPearson (May 15, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> and like gravity for those who are watching we can see the effects of God all around us. for those who take the time to understand



I personnally don't see the effects of God all around us but I can understand how someone would and how they can think that is from a higher power... but again, why would that higher power but the Christian God?  Why not just a mystical life force?


----------



## KelJu (May 15, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> kelju, i like you man. i really do. but saying einstein knew everything of the universe. c'mon man. lets back it up a bit.



That was a figure of speech. No human can know everything.  

I'm trying very hard to phrase my words so that I express my opinion without making a personal attack on religion, but it is pretty hard to do so. Especially when religious nuts hurt the image of the typical everyday Christian so badly. 

A good example is why the fuck won't this dipshits stop trying to legislate creationism to be taught in biology classes. I don't try to teach frog anatomy at your Sunday School class, please keep your fucking religion out of my science class. That one burns my up to no end. Jesus Christ, I don't believe in the big bang either, but it makes more sense than a man in the sky making the world in 6 days.


----------



## bio-chem (May 15, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> I personnally don't see the effects of God all around us but I can understand how someone would and how they can think that is from a higher power... but again, why would that higher power but the Christian God?  Why not just a mystical life force?



God is God. Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Budhist. What ever. There is a higher power that created the earth and everything else. Mankind has a limited ability to understand God. This is why there is so much misunderstanding associated with God, and why so many negative things happen in his name or are attributed to him. This does not take away from his existence in my mind however. It just shows that effort on our part is required to understand. It is not something that is easy.


----------



## bio-chem (May 15, 2008)

KelJu said:


> That was a figure of speech. No human can know everything.
> 
> I'm trying very hard to phrase my words so that I express my opinion without making a personal attack on religion, but it is pretty hard to do so. Especially when religious nuts hurt the image of the typical everyday Christian so badly.
> 
> A good example is why the fuck won't this dipshits stop trying to legislate creationism to be taught in biology classes. I don't try to teach frog anatomy at your Sunday School class, please keep your fucking religion out of my science class. That one burns my up to no end. Jesus Christ, I don't believe in the big bang either, but it makes more sense than a man in the sky making the world in 6 days.



i can't argue with this. oftentimes the most vocal Christians are Christianities biggest enemy.


----------



## NeilPearson (May 15, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> God is God. Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Budhist. What ever. There is a higher power that created the earth and everything else. Mankind has a limited ability to understand God. This is why there is so much misunderstanding associated with God, and why so many negative things happen in his name or are attributed to him. This does not take away from his existence in my mind however. It just shows that effort on our part is required to understand. It is not something that is easy.



Except all those religions believe that if you don't follow their flavor of God and their dogma, you will burn in hell or suffer whatever punishment they believe in.

So what are the odds that you happen to pick the right one?  If you don't you are screwed for eternity...

And if you don't believe that, what is the point of following any of them since they all teach that?


----------



## DaMayor (May 15, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> Fuck you Teacher.


----------



## DaMayor (May 15, 2008)




----------



## Tier (May 23, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> and like gravity for those who are watching we can see the effects of God all around us. for those who take the time to understand



Ah this is just the type of comment I was looking for!

I only need one question, if you choose to answer it straightly, to prove you have no capacity for logic, the same way all Christians do not.

You asserted that we can observe the effects of God all around us. You specified "God" in particular.

Please explain without using Circular logic (using the unproven basis that god exists as your evidence, bible, etc) in a evidenced way that shows that "God" in particular caused these effects, as opposed to any other deity.


And when you fail to answer this logically and rationally, and you will fail or cop out. Please try and recognize why people think unproven subjective ideas like God are fools endeavors.

If you use the "Some higher Power" argument you successfully undermine all the concepts and ideas of Christianity and disprove or dilute your entire religion.


----------



## bio-chem (May 23, 2008)

Tier said:


> Ah this is just the type of comment I was looking for!
> 
> I only need one question, if you choose to answer it straightly, to prove you have no capacity for logic, the same way all Christians do not.
> 
> ...



talk about circular logic. you want me to prove the Christian God as Diety when all I said was God? You want to explain to me how I am diluting my religion? with hundreds of different Christian sects I find it is diluted enough. Like I have said many times before I do not consider Faith and Science to me mutually exclusive. I also don't feel you can use one to prove or disprove the other.


----------



## DOMS (May 23, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> talk about circular logic. you want me to prove the Christian God as Diety when all I said was God? You want to explain to me how I am diluting my religion? with hundreds of different Christian sects I find it is diluted enough. Like I have said many times before I do not consider Faith and Science to me mutually exclusive. I also don't feel you can use one to prove or disprove the other.



Good luck with that.

People who get up on soap boxes to denounce religious people as close-minded, are usually that very type of person.


----------



## Tier (May 23, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> talk about circular logic. you want me to prove the Christian God as Diety when all I said was God? You want to explain to me how I am diluting my religion? with hundreds of different Christian sects I find it is diluted enough. Like I have said many times before I do not consider Faith and Science to me mutually exclusive. I also don't feel you can use one to prove or disprove the other.



Epic Failure, Epic cop out

 Dance Dance around the question!


----------



## KelJu (May 23, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> I also don't feel you can use one to prove or disprove the other.



You're right. You can't use one to prove the other. They are two separate universes: faith and the scientific method are two opposing words. They are on opposite ends of the same spectrum we call perception.


----------



## bio-chem (May 23, 2008)

KelJu said:


> You're right. You can't use one to prove the other. They are two separate universes: faith and the scientific method are two opposing words. They are on opposite ends of the same spectrum we call perception.



i dont feel this is accurate. i really feel that they go hand in hand. but with a limited comprehension of God and an incomplete understanding of science proving one from the other is an exercise in the absurd


----------



## bio-chem (May 23, 2008)

Tier said:


> Epic Failure, Epic cop out
> 
> Dance Dance around the question!



its funny because you're one of those guys that doesn't even read a post in response. you are so caught up in what you are going to write in your next post that you make really childish assumptions.


----------



## bio-chem (May 23, 2008)

DOMS said:


> Good luck with that.
> 
> People who get up on soap boxes to denounce religious people as close-minded, are usually that very type of person.



shhh. he is happy in his make believe world. lets not disturb him.


----------



## Tier (May 23, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> its funny because you're one of those guys that doesn't even read a post in response. you are so caught up in what you are going to write in your next post that you make really childish assumptions.



Keep Dancing! Whatever you do, don't answer the question! Divert! Divert! Divert!


----------



## Hoglander (May 23, 2008)

Hey leave Bio alone. He has suffered enough. He is one of the select few that has life figured out and is above all others. He has earned a place in Heaven for his steadfast beliefs.  

Watch






YouTube Video


----------



## DaMayor (May 23, 2008)

Hoglander said:


> Hey leave Bio alone. He has suffered enough. He is one of the select few that has life figured out and is above all others. He has earned a place in Heaven for his steadfast beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's the dumbest shit I ever heard. Bio-chem has *AT NO TIME *put himself in the position of being _above_ anyone. The guy has simply made his argument...and has done so in a very respectful way. 

What I find interesting is the way anyone and everyone that is anti-religion gets so bent out of shape when those who calmly and respectfully express their opinions. I think this has a LOT to say about the *insecurity* of those who only believe what they conveniently choose to believe. Hey, if its easy for ya...go for it. Make fun of people...that's cool. I'll see ya waaaaay down the road, Brother.


----------



## bio-chem (May 23, 2008)

Hoglander said:


> Hey leave Bio alone. He has suffered enough. He is one of the select few that has life figured out and is above all others. He has earned a place in Heaven for his steadfast beliefs.
> 
> Watch
> 
> ...



thats awesome. southpark is so damn funny


----------



## bio-chem (May 23, 2008)

DaMayor said:


> That's the dumbest shit I ever heard. Bio-chem has *AT NO TIME *put himself in the position of being _above_ anyone. The guy has simply made his argument...and has done so in a very respectful way.
> 
> What I find interesting is the way anyone and everyone that is anti-religion gets so bent out of shape when those who calmly and respectfully express their opinions. I think this has a LOT to say about the *insecurity* of those who only believe what they conveniently choose to believe. Hey, if its easy for ya...go for it. Make fun of people...that's cool. I'll see ya waaaaay down the road, Brother.



thanks for the nice words.


----------



## bio-chem (May 23, 2008)

Tier said:


> Keep Dancing! Whatever you do, don't answer the question! Divert! Divert! Divert!



I didn't dance around anything. the very premise of your question was flawed. If you care to phrase your question into something concise I would be happy to answer.


----------



## Tier (May 24, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> I didn't dance around anything. the very premise of your question was flawed. If you care to phrase your question into something concise I would be happy to answer.



You attacked the question and made disingenuous statements instead of answering it in the spirit it was presented.... Just answer it...

The word God is defined as Supreme being/Creator in English, therefore deity.

You went off on some tangent about multiple Christian sects, that is an intentional deviation from the question. If you understood correctly I said if you take the stance that "I am just saying some supreme being did it" then you are also saying that it was not necessarily the Christian God which dilutes the belief.

Do you need me to beat this dead horse any further or are you going to answer or....

DANCE!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Hoglander (May 24, 2008)

I must say that Bio was very nice to dance with. I'm all for fun. I'm all for inner peace. 

Work on the fun and inner peace, Tier. He's got both you don't, IMHO.

Hail Satan!!

:  )


----------



## Tier (May 25, 2008)

haha, I just have inner anger towards ridiculous people 

I have had this conversation 1000 times and they always avoid questions and never admit that their beliefs boil down to childish belief of Daddy in the sky until backed in to a corner or after hours of conversation.

Now I just start with backing in to a corner, it makes for either obvious question avoidance or instant admission of "It's just faith" which isn't scientific or rational.

In this particular situation he knows what the question is but is dissecting the question attacking things I am not asking and trying to create escape paths which segway on to another topic. It's a-typical of these brainwashed fools.

I know I am being an asshole about it but I know the outcome of this conversation already, it's "I believe in something without any shred of evidence" which makes you -- and I am sorry to say, a flipping moron.


----------



## goob (May 25, 2008)

^^ Wow. 

I think a lot of people need something to believe in, something that makes assures them that it's not all in vain, and there is more than a great void of nothingness afterwards.

My main beef with religeon is that it has been used as an excuse for persecution and warmongering for thousands of years. But it also has been used for a lot of good. It's the flawed human nature that is the root of most evil.


----------



## min0 lee (May 25, 2008)

Bio is good people and I respect him a great deal.


----------



## bio-chem (May 26, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> Bio is good people and I respect him a great deal.



thanks minO.


----------



## bio-chem (May 26, 2008)

Tier said:


> You attacked the question and made disingenuous statements instead of answering it in the spirit it was presented.... Just answer it...
> 
> The word God is defined as Supreme being/Creator in English, therefore deity.
> 
> ...



I disagree with the premise that using God, or Deity dilutes the belief in/of a Christian God. Someone having differing beliefs about God, or not believing in Him at all does not effect my faith. 

Your problem with faith is that it is not scientific or logical? While I disagree with that, I can see how you might think so. The funny thing is neither science nor logic is always accurate. Each leading to an incorrect answer as often as a correct one. There are still many, many things for science to learn, and things held as fact today will be found to be inaccurate as our understanding and control of our world grows. As a graduate with a BS in bio-chemistry I find no difficulty reconciling my faith with my learning.


----------



## bio-chem (May 26, 2008)

goob said:


> My main beef with religeon is that it has been used as an excuse for persecution and warmongering for thousands of years. But it also has been used for a lot of good. It's the flawed human nature that is the root of most evil.



I couldn't agree more.


----------



## bio-chem (May 26, 2008)

Tier said:


> haha, I just have inner anger towards ridiculous people
> .



Is it painful being you?


----------



## Tier (May 26, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> I disagree with the premise that using God, or Deity dilutes the belief in/of a Christian God. Someone having differing beliefs about God, or not believing in Him at all does not effect my faith.
> 
> Your problem with faith is that it is not scientific or logical? While I disagree with that, I can see how you might think so. The funny thing is neither science nor logic is always accurate. Each leading to an incorrect answer as often as a correct one. There are still many, many things for science to learn, and things held as fact today will be found to be inaccurate as our understanding and control of our world grows. As a graduate with a BS in bio-chemistry I find no difficulty reconciling my faith with my learning.



I understood, but my point in case is that you cannot prove or even believe that you are seeing your God's effects as opposed to any other being with creation ability or influence on this world. That simple fact makes your argument completely illogical.

Your comment that "If you are watching, You can see the effects of God all around us" implies that people who believe in something without proof have superior insight, which is silly.


I will also point out that even with my verbose and repeated explanation of my question and what I was asking, you have still *completely avoided the question.....*


----------



## Tier (May 26, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> Is it painful being you?



Very! These religious nut jobs are who essentially believe anything with a book behind it with No Proof, in a religion that is changed over time by man, and even considering that ALL religions have a failure rate of 100% over a long enough time line will not budge.


----------



## bio-chem (May 26, 2008)

Tier said:


> Your comment that "If you are watching, You can see the effects of God all around us" implies that people who believe in something without proof have superior insight, which is silly.
> 
> [/SIZE][/B]



i dont mean to imply that at all. i simply feel that for those who are willing to take the time, they too will be able to find the same answers I, and others have. i do not believe that I have superior insight at all.

I will take issue with anyone who says that my beliefs are blind, or made out of following the crowd without thinking for myself.


----------



## bio-chem (May 26, 2008)

Tier said:


> Very! These religious nut jobs are who essentially believe anything with a book behind it with No Proof, in a religion that is changed over time by man, and even considering that ALL religions have a failure rate of 100% over a long enough time line will not budge.



And in what way has this wronged you?


----------



## Yanick (May 26, 2008)

Atheists and religious nuts (not Bio-Chem, the dude is okay in my book) are not so different as they think.

We cannot know for sure how this world came about. Its just as big of a leap of faith to believe in a monumental coincidence resulting in a huge explosion that created an environment for life to exist as it is to believe that a higher power had something to do with it. Now i'm speaking in a broad sense of "higher power" ie not the judeo-christian god per se, but some sort of power that is beyond the physical realm.

Religious people who believe in this power to the exclusion of all scientific evidence are just as close minded as the athiests who believe in our incomplete scientific understanding of the origins of the universe to the exclusion of any other theories.

Both views are dogmatic and require a pretty similar leap of faith.

That is why i choose to say "i don't know" I don't believe in any specific religion, but i don't discount the probability that there could exist a higher power that we cannot sense with the tools that we have (natural or man-made).

Some of you self proclamed anti religious people should go out and buy The Power of Myth by Joseph Campbell. Read it and rethink your views. As well go out and buy/rent the DVD What the Bleep Do We Know and the later version "Down the Rabbit Hole" and see how incomplete our understanding of science really is. And how nature can change just because of the fact that we are watching. How waves can turn into particles and can be in more places than one etc etc. Science has observed these phenomena but cannot explain them with the rules that we have set forth.


----------



## KelJu (May 26, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> i dont feel this is accurate. i really feel that they go hand in hand. but with a limited comprehension of God and an incomplete understanding of science proving one from the other is an exercise in the absurd



How can you say they go hand in hand? They are total opposites. 

Science requires total objectivity where as religion requires faith. Science is fact. Religion is belief. You can argue facts using logic and experimentation. You can not argue religion using either. 

Are you not a chemist? What would happen if you ever tried to convince a fellow scientist that you know of a new molecule that has never been made before, but you can't show it to them because they have to believe it exist on faith?  

Now, reverse that analogy. What would happen if you went to church and demanded that the beliefs and tenets of your denomination be proven to you before you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior?


----------



## KelJu (May 26, 2008)

Tier said:


> Very! These religious nut jobs are who essentially believe anything with a book behind it with No Proof, in a religion that is changed over time by man, and even considering that ALL religions have a failure rate of 100% over a long enough time line will not budge.



What do you consider failure of a religion? There are religions out there that are successful in their intention. There are some that aren't. How well informed are you in the religions of their world?


----------



## KelJu (May 26, 2008)

Yanick said:


> Some of you self proclamed anti religious people should go out and buy The Power of Myth by Joseph Campbell. Read it and rethink your views. As well go out and buy/rent the DVD What the Bleep Do We Know and the later version "Down the Rabbit Hole" and see how incomplete our understanding of science really is. And how nature can change just because of the fact that we are watching. How waves can turn into particles and can be in more places than one etc etc. Science has observed these phenomena but cannot explain them with the rules that we have set forth.




Woot woot nigga! I'm way ahead of you. What the bleep put me on the path that got me to this:



KelJu said:


> The irony is that religion destroyed my faith, but science is helping me but it back together. The more of read about quantum physics, they more I see potential for power more advanced than us. The concept that a particles can change from a wave then back to a particle simply because I decided to observe it is fucking nuts. The concept that time only exist in my brain and that space can be manipulated is insane. There are lots of ideas expressed in quantum physics like entanglement which I have seen when I was tripping on shrooms. I have seen the grid that connects every particle on the planet. I didn't know what it was the, but when I came across it later in a movie about quantum mechanics, I was like "holy shit, I have seen that".


----------



## Yanick (May 26, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Woot woot nigga! I'm way ahead of you. What the bleep put me on the path that got me to this:



Have you seen the newer one? Its called Down The Rabbit Hole. Its basically like an extended version of the original but goes a bit more in depth with regards to certain aspects or the wave/particle phenomena etc.


----------



## Hoglander (May 26, 2008)

Yanick said:


> Have you seen the newer one? Its called Down The Rabbit Hole. Its basically like an extended version of the original but goes a bit more in depth with regards to certain aspects or the wave/particle phenomena etc.



LMAO, The things I could tell you about Ramtha.


----------



## bio-chem (May 26, 2008)

KelJu said:


> How can you say they go hand in hand? They are total opposites.
> 
> Science requires total objectivity where as religion requires faith. Science is fact. Religion is belief. You can argue facts using logic and experimentation. You can not argue religion using either.
> 
> ...



there are plenty of things that we accept in science as fact that we have not seen. We explain them mathematically. we develop tests to show us if something will behave the way we predict, but we still have not seen it as so. we accept these as fact. for instance the energy levels of electrons around an atom. s,p,d,f orbitals. we have been using these mathematically described orbitals to explain why and how chemical reactions will occur for a long time now. I remember when my inorganic chem teacher walked in put a slide up on the board and showed us a d orbital taken for the first time on an electron microscope. it was pretty amazing. something we had been taught and accepted as true had been confirmed with an image

It is the same thing with me and religion. I have had too many experiences that have led me to accept God even though I have not seen him. I have read scriptures with an open heart, prayed with a desire to know, and continued until I received my answer. Reading and praying to me were the experiments I used to prove God even though I have not seen him. I didn't need to see the image of a d orbital to accept that either. 

Damn, Kelju this is fun for me. Not often do I get to use chemistry lingo outside of the classroom. Lets me be a nerd without looking like a jack ass


----------



## bio-chem (May 26, 2008)

KelJu said:


> What do you consider failure of a religion? There are religions out there that are successful in their intention. There are some that aren't. How well informed are you in the religions of their world?



this is exactly what I was thinking. I just didn't want to be the one to say it.


----------



## cheesegrater (May 27, 2008)

how come whenever there's a debate such as this, the argument atheists use focuses on disproving scientifically that the events in the bible couldnt have happened, therefore science has just proven God doesnt exist? The Bible is not the word of God, it is human's record and interpretation of the word of God. It is an allegorical history of the tribe of Israel and its relationship and understanding of God.

use empirical evidence to disprove prayer doesnt work, therefore God doesnt exist. What that may prove is that the sunday school version of God used as a device to unify people isnt literally correct.

what if God set in motion the big bang, and lets physics take care of the rest? what if God is sort of a hands off ruler? What if he instills in us the ability to reason and rationalize in order to eventually become aware of his true nature? What if science is the key to that lock? What if God presented himself in different ways to different human cultures as a means of making his message amenable to all forms of humanity? what if he is just as surprised at how we evolved as we can be? what if, since he doesnt intervene in human affairs, he weeps at our hatred of others within our species just as we do? what if evolution is an evolution towards theocratic awareness?

there's a story of the US patent officer in 1900 or so saying all the things that can be invented have been invented. Point being, to hold Einstein's view of religion as truth is to suggest that knowledge stops, in his case in 1947 or whenever he died. Einstein could produce physical equations which prove events in the bible didnt happen. Darwin could prove that Adam and Eve werent the first two humans. What science cant fathom is the existence of a why, at least yet. It may turn out there isnt a why, it may turn out science discovers one.  What science cant imagine, at least not yet, is that there is a force beyond that which our knowledge can comprehend. 

Science rightly states that itself is an evolution in knowledge and understanding, yet most who use science as an atheistic background will disavow that principle and state that God Cant Exist, and use current scientific understanding as an evidenciary platform. 

Religion doesnt provide the answer to existence, nor does science. Yet it seems to me that they seem to be converging. A lot of religious thinkers are starting to embrace scientific theories to shape their understanding of God. And there seems to me to be anecdotal evidence of some scientists turning to religious models to help explain the force of science.

either way, the extremes provide no answers to the other party, which makes most of these debates simple masturbation and exercises in humiliation of the other, and thus, meaningless and pointless.


----------



## Tier (May 27, 2008)

cheesegrater said:


> how come whenever there's a debate such as this, the argument atheists use focuses on disproving scientifically that the events in the bible couldnt have happened, therefore science has just proven God doesnt exist? The Bible is not the word of God, it is human's record and interpretation of the word of God. It is an allegorical history of the tribe of Israel and its relationship and understanding of God.
> 
> use empirical evidence to disprove prayer doesnt work, therefore God doesnt exist. What that may prove is that the sunday school version of God used as a device to unify people isnt literally correct.
> 
> ...



What if a nice fresh glass of pomegranate juice did all that?

The argument is not about if a God did it as much as it's about if it is of sound mind to believe God did do it. Maybe God did do it, but the only purpose you serve in spouting off (not you personally) "God did this", "God did that" without any evidence is make yourself look completely insane.

And as I have shown throughout the last couple pages of this thread, Christians will do all they can to avoid answering questions instead of manning up. It's a child's tactic, and anybody who believes in Santa God is a child.


----------



## KelJu (May 27, 2008)

Yanick said:


> Have you seen the newer one? Its called Down The Rabbit Hole. Its basically like an extended version of the original but goes a bit more in depth with regards to certain aspects or the wave/particle phenomena etc.



That is the one I watched. It was the full DVD set which came with what the bleep and down the rabit whole. I was nearly 10 hours worth.


----------



## goob (May 27, 2008)

Creationism vs Darwinism.

<sigh> 

biochem, where do you stand on this?


----------



## Yanick (May 27, 2008)

KelJu said:


> That is the one I watched. It was the full DVD set which came with what the bleep and down the rabit whole. I was nearly 10 hours worth.



The first time i watched Down the Rabbit Hole i had gotten my g/f stoned and some of those points that they make in the movie i had a Keanu Reeves from Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey moment. I was like "Whoa, Shah. Totally cool man!"


----------



## Witchblade (May 27, 2008)

goob said:


> Creationism vs Darwinism.
> 
> <sigh>
> 
> biochem, where do you stand on this?


He's obviously a die-hard Darwinist.


----------



## bio-chem (May 27, 2008)

Witchblade said:


> He's obviously a die-hard Darwinist.



Having read On the Origin of the Species, and Voyage of the Beagle I think Darwin was a great scientist and forward thinker for his time. His theories have laid the foundation for modern biology and science today has continued on his work. I don't feel we are the decendents of monkeys though. Yet another time where I feel science is just scratching the surface of the true record of the earth. Great theories used to progress science, learning, and understanding, but hardly proven as fact which so many claim.


----------



## bio-chem (May 27, 2008)

Tier said:


> What if a nice fresh glass of pomegranate juice did all that?
> 
> The argument is not about if a God did it as much as it's about if it is of sound mind to believe God did do it. Maybe God did do it, but the only purpose you serve in spouting off (not you personally) "God did this", "God did that" without any evidence is make yourself look completely insane.
> 
> And as I have shown throughout the last couple pages of this thread, Christians will do all they can to avoid answering questions instead of manning up. It's a child's tactic, and anybody who believes in Santa God is a child.



You're saying that maybe God did do something, but to say so is insane? I think if you read this thread the only person coming off as ilogical is yourself. You have not shown anything as fact and even those on this forum who agree with your point of view are shying away from you. It's really time for a self assesment buddy.


----------



## Tier (May 27, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> You're saying that maybe God did do something, but to say so is insane? I think if you read this thread the only person coming off as ilogical is yourself. You have not shown anything as fact and even those on this forum who agree with your point of view are shying away from you. It's really time for a self assesment buddy.



Answer my original question, you have shown that you're an exceptional coward by refusing to answer questions on your stance.... 

I am thoroughly unconcerned, I am not looking to play nice so e-buddies agree with me.

Now answer my simple and well explained question.....


----------



## NeilPearson (May 27, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> God is God. Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Budhist. What ever. There is a higher power that created the earth and everything else. Mankind has a limited ability to understand God. This is why there is so much misunderstanding associated with God, and why so many negative things happen in his name or are attributed to him. This does not take away from his existence in my mind however. It just shows that effort on our part is required to understand. It is not something that is easy.



If you believe this, why go to church?  If you believe that all these religions can get away with believing how they feel they should, then you are dismissing the teachings of your religion and will go to hell


----------



## NeilPearson (May 27, 2008)

Tier said:


> If you use the "Some higher Power" argument you successfully undermine all the concepts and ideas of Christianity and disprove or dilute your entire religion.


----------



## NeilPearson (May 27, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> i dont mean to imply that at all. *i simply feel that for those who are willing to take the time, they too will be able to find the same answers I, and others have*. i do not believe that I have superior insight at all.
> 
> I will take issue with anyone who says that my beliefs are blind, or made out of following the crowd without thinking for myself.



I did take the time.  I went to church (my own choice not sent by parents) for years.  I even co-lead a bible study for a couple years.  I was definitely one of the faithful for a time.  It was this learning about what the bible says, what religion says and what history shows that lead me away from religion altogether.  

I took the time and came to different answers.  And they were not the answers that I wanted to come to.  I prayed about and tried to follow the faithful but the more I learned about the big overall picture, the more obvious it was that it was all just made up.


----------



## NeilPearson (May 27, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> It is the same thing with me and religion. I have had too many experiences that have led me to accept God even though I have not seen him. *I have read scriptures with an open heart, prayed with a desire to know, and continued until I received my answer. Reading and praying to me were the experiments I used to prove God even though I have not seen him.* I didn't need to see the image of a d orbital to accept that either.



Well it's not always reproducable.  I did the same for years.  The more I did it, the more I was lead away.


----------



## NeilPearson (May 27, 2008)

cheesegrater said:


> how come whenever there's a debate such as this, the argument atheists use focuses on disproving scientifically that the events in the bible couldnt have happened, therefore science has just proven God doesnt exist? *The Bible is not the word of God, it is human's record and interpretation of the word of God.* It is an allegorical history of the tribe of Israel and its relationship and understanding of God.



The bible makes other claims... and besides, religion relies on the accuracy of the bible.  If the bible tells us that Jesus is our savior and the only way into the kingdom of heaven is through him and if religion accepts this as truth then what the bible says is very important.

Without the bible being accurate, we know nothing about God.  There very well may be a God but without an accurate bible, we don't know if Jesus was the savior or what God expects from us, or whether there is a heaven and hell or whether or not God even cares what we do.  If we prove the bible is majorly flawed, we don't know any of these things and religion becomes pointless.  Why follow anything if we don't know what God wants or if he even wants anything from us?


----------



## bio-chem (May 27, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> If you believe this, why go to church?  If you believe that all these religions can get away with believing how they feel they should, then you are dismissing the teachings of your religion and will go to hell


"get away with believing how they feel"? I was speaking on a general level. I accept that there are different beliefs in God, and I understand where the confusion originates, this does not mean i accept all teachings of all religions.

And don't presume to tell me I'm going to hell. You don't know the teachings of my religion. Just because you have had negative experiences with past Christians does not mean that I subscribe to their brand of Christianity. Grow up.


----------



## NeilPearson (May 27, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> "get away with believing how they feel"? I was speaking on a general level. I accept that there are different beliefs in God, and I understand where the confusion originates, this does not mean i accept all teachings of all religions.
> 
> And don't presume to tell me I'm going to hell. You don't know the teachings of my religion. Just because you have had negative experiences with past Christians does not mean that I subscribe to their brand of Christianity. Grow up.



Grow up?  How Christian of you, and here I thought we could have a friendly discussion.

I don't know of any organized churches that would accept other religions views of God.

I'm not saying you are going to hell.  I don't believe there is such a place and I don't even see a lot of biblical evidence for this idea either.  I think this whole concept was made up by the early churches to keep people afraid and paying...

I didn't have negative experiences with Christians.  In fact most of my experiences with them were great and that was with many different brands of Christianity.

I wasn't saying that you were going to hell.  I was just saying the official view of most religions is that if you accept all other teachings and accept that the belief system and dogma doesn't matter, then that religion will tell you that you are going to hell.  Most Christian churches I have seen believe this.  If you belong to a church and have these other beliefs, then yes, they will tell you that you are going to hell.  Personally I don't buy it.


----------



## bio-chem (May 27, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> Grow up?  How Christian of you, and here I thought we could have a friendly discussion.
> 
> I don't know of any organized churches that would accept other religions views of God.
> 
> ...



i'm sorry. did telling you to grow up upset you? was that unchristian of me?

like I said, I don't accept all religious beliefs. I will accept common beliefs though. and the belief in a supreme being is one of them.


----------



## NeilPearson (May 27, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> i'm sorry. did telling you to grow up upset you? was that unchristian of me?
> 
> like I said, I don't accept all religious beliefs. I will accept common beliefs though. and the belief in a supreme being is one of them.



No it takes a lot more than an internet forum to upset me.


----------



## bio-chem (May 27, 2008)

Tier said:


> Answer my original question, you have shown that you're an exceptional coward by refusing to answer questions on your stance....
> 
> I am thoroughly unconcerned, I am not looking to play nice so e-buddies agree with me.
> 
> Now answer my simple and well explained question.....



I have no way of proving the Christian God to you. I don't have the ability to force someone to believe something. Christ himself was unable to convince the majority of the Jews that he was the Savior. Belief in a supreme being is a choice. One of Gods greatest gifts is freedom of choice. All I can say is that for those willing to follow the same steps open to anyone, they can learn the same things I have. 

Good luck with your belief of intelectual superiority though. I hope it works out well for you.


----------



## natural^ (May 27, 2008)

This is an awesome e-fight.


----------



## NeilPearson (May 27, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> All I can say is that for those willing to follow the same steps open to anyone, they can learn the same things I have.



... and how do I do that?


----------



## DaMayor (May 27, 2008)




----------



## Tier (May 27, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> I have no way of proving the Christian God to you. I don't have the ability to force someone to believe something. Christ himself was unable to convince the majority of the Jews that he was the Savior. Belief in a supreme being is a choice. One of Gods greatest gifts is freedom of choice. All I can say is that for those willing to follow the same steps open to anyone, they can learn the same things I have.
> 
> Good luck with your belief of intelectual superiority though. I hope it works out well for you.



I was just trying to get you to answer one question for 3 pages, I do not claim superiority over anybody. I am of average intelligence.

I just wanted you to admit it was belief without reason/proof. Which to me is as good as saying "I am unreasonable".

Thanks for answering!


----------



## bio-chem (May 27, 2008)

Tier said:


> I was just trying to get you to answer one question for 3 pages, I do not claim superiority over anybody. I am of average intelligence.
> 
> I just wanted you to admit it was belief without reason/proof. Which to me is as good as saying "I am unreasonable".
> 
> Thanks for answering!



i didnt say it is without reason or proof. But evidence for me does not equal evidence for you. sharing the experiences I have had does little for someone elses faith unless they determine to go learn for themselves.


----------



## DaMayor (May 27, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> sharing the experiences I have had does little for someone elses faith *unless they determine to go learn for themselves*.



The answer to Neil P's question.

I see no end to this argument.

Its pretty simple, really. _Life's all about choices_. No one should be expected to defend their beliefs, nor should they be hassled for them.



*quietly eases back out of the debate*


----------



## natural^ (May 27, 2008)

this debate is getting


----------



## lucifuge (May 27, 2008)

I honestly cannot believe this thread is still alive.... it's somewhat amusing actually.


----------



## bio-chem (May 27, 2008)

natural^ said:


> this debate is getting



i'm so sorry. is this not entertaining enough for you? would you care to add something worth while to the conversation, or are you happy with posts consisting of small words and emoticons?


----------



## natural^ (May 27, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> are you happy with posts consisting of small words and emoticons?



^


----------



## bio-chem (May 27, 2008)

natural^ said:


> ^




nice. i like the humor.


----------



## natural^ (May 27, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> nice. i like the humor.



someone has to do it. as to your previous gripe i don't contribute because i think it's pointless, and either way when it comes down to it everyone will basically still have the same beliefs as when the thread started.


----------



## bio-chem (May 27, 2008)

natural^ said:


> someone has to do it. as to your previous gripe i don't contribute because i think it's pointless, and either way when it comes down to it everyone will basically still have the same beliefs as when the thread started.



sure, and knowing this before hand, and knowing that it will bore you why complain? why even enter the thread if it isn't something that interests you?


----------



## natural^ (May 27, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> sure, and knowing this before hand, and knowing that it will bore you why complain? why even enter the thread if it isn't something that interests you?



Because i always look at threads with new posts even if its irrelevant to me and the back and forth between you and tier was interesting for like a day if that, then it got dull. My bad, i'm used to danny threads where the debates and disagreements get better (funny wise) with each post. But you're right this is not a danny thread so i'll be stepping out now, continue with your debate.


----------



## Tier (May 27, 2008)

hehe, the debate was over when the person with the creator assertion could provide no evidence. Overlooking the fact that one of the most intelligent people in human history who had understanding enough of the universe to hypothesize about things that exist before ever seeing them said he could see nothing that points there.

Religious "debates" are never debates.

If God is ever proven, he will become science.


----------



## bio-chem (May 27, 2008)

Tier said:


> hehe, the debate was over when the person with the creator assertion could provide no evidence. Overlooking the fact that one of the most intelligent people in human history who had understanding enough of the universe to hypothesize about things that exist before ever seeing them said he could see nothing that points there.
> 
> Religious "debates" are never debates.
> 
> If God is ever proven, he will become science.



care to prove evolution?


----------



## Tier (May 28, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> care to prove evolution?



Care to show where I made that assertion?


----------



## DaMayor (May 28, 2008)

No, really. Biochem has a great point here.

Why don't you quit with the bashing, which is all too easy for anyone, and put some proof on the table for your argument.

Disprove God. Disprove creationism or Prove evolution. 

I'll wait.


----------



## Arnold (May 28, 2008)

DaMayor said:


> No, really. Biochem has a great point here.
> 
> Why don't you quit with the bashing, which is all too easy for anyone, and put some proof on the table for your argument.
> 
> ...



I would rather admit that I cannot prove nor can I disprove the existence of god, nor can anyone else.


----------



## bio-chem (May 28, 2008)

Tier said:


> Care to show where I made that assertion?



so might as well just believe in nothing then? Because it is so much more fun to be destructive as opposed to constructive? If people didn't know what you were before this thread. they sure do now


----------



## Tier (May 28, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> so might as well just believe in nothing then? Because it is so much more fun to be destructive as opposed to constructive? If people didn't know what you were before this thread. they sure do now



I see no problem with no knowledge of higher powers.

You seem very preoccupied with what others think.


----------



## Tier (May 28, 2008)

I also see no advantage of essentially making wild ass far fetched guesses about something as immense as the creation of everything.


----------



## Tier (May 28, 2008)

DaMayor said:


> No, really. Biochem has a great point here.
> 
> Why don't you quit with the bashing, which is all too easy for anyone, and put some proof on the table for your argument.
> 
> ...



Well on the surface it may seem good, but really it's the weakest argument possible.

There's a magic invisible flying ball that is completely undetectable, prove me wrong. It's impossible to do.

Stuff like that is exactly why you need to prove the existence with empirical evidence before asking people to disprove it.


----------



## NeilPearson (May 28, 2008)

DaMayor said:


> The answer to Neil P's question.



No that is not the answer to my question.  I did that for years and it didn't work for me.

If a christian God exists, he did not create me with a capacity to accept and believe in Him.


----------



## DaMayor (May 28, 2008)

Prince said:


> I would rather admit that I cannot prove nor can I disprove the existence of god, nor can anyone else.



I agree.

The comment was made simply because, as with EVERY SINGLE RELIGIOUS "DISCUSSION" I have ever been witness to (no pun intended) culminated into a dead end. Why? *Because not one person could ever prove or disprove squat.*

If one feels obligated to share one's beliefs....cool. *Share* them....just *don't expect results*. Other than respectfully hearing another person's views, nobody owes anybody anything. 
I will, however,  say this; Some Christians are too often offended by a lack of results, or conformity from others in respect to their beliefs. I think this is where some (not many, and not all) do more damage to and/or misrepresent the real purpose of Christianity. People refuse to be force fed anything. Good information, bad information, hate, rage, warm and fuzzy. No one likes it shoved in their face. 

Hey Neil, sorry it didn't work out for ya, man. And I won't lie, I know *exactly *where you're coming from. In fact, I'm right smack dab in the middle of what you talked about right now. 

Anyway, I believe what I believe. You (collectively) believe what you believe. I just think it is a total waste of time arguing over something that neither side has an answer to.

Selah.


----------



## bio-chem (May 28, 2008)

Tier said:


> I see no problem with no knowledge of higher powers.
> 
> You seem very preoccupied with what others think.



the same acusation could easily be laid upon you as well


----------



## Nate K (May 28, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> care to prove evolution?



Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





YouTube Video











evolution is true but I love religion


----------



## Nate K (May 28, 2008)

YouTube - Human evolution and missing links (Meet the family)


----------



## bio-chem (May 28, 2008)

Nate K said:


> Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...



your proof of evolution is a 2 min youtube video? you must be joking. An extremely incomplete fossil record does not prove evolution.


----------



## Nate K (May 28, 2008)

well it's pretty obvious...a short vid. on youtube is all you need.  

God made apes that look like me just to be tricky.

Do you believe in adam and eve?


----------



## bio-chem (May 28, 2008)

Nate K said:


> well it's pretty obvious...a short vid. on youtube is all you need.
> 
> God made apes that look like me just to be tricky.
> 
> Do you believe in adam and eve?



absolutely


----------



## Nate K (May 28, 2008)

what demonination do you claim. just curious, no hate


----------



## bio-chem (May 28, 2008)

L.d.s


----------



## DaMayor (May 28, 2008)

You're Mormon?


Oh boy, here we go....

*putting on helmet*


----------



## bio-chem (May 28, 2008)

DaMayor said:


> You're Mormon?
> 
> 
> Oh boy, here we go....
> ...



I get that a lot. which did you expect?


----------



## KelJu (May 28, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> L.d.s



Ouch.


----------



## Tier (May 28, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> L.d.s





I really have to start asking that one first, I want a refund on the time I have wasted speaking to you!

I've met some idiots in my time, but you're special.


----------



## bio-chem (May 28, 2008)

Tier said:


> I really have to start asking that one first, I want a refund on the time I have wasted speaking to you!
> 
> I've met some idiots in my time, but you're special.



your a real classy guy.


----------



## Tier (May 28, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> your a real classy guy.



Make sure to throw some rocks in a hat and verify that.


----------



## bio-chem (May 28, 2008)

Tier said:


> Make sure to throw some rocks in a hat and verify that.



It's to be expected from those who really don't have a clue as to what they are talking about. Our previous conversation can attest to that.


----------



## Chevrolet (May 28, 2008)

didnt the mormons get their beliefs out of a hat with some special indian tablets in it that only one guy could read?


----------



## Tier (May 28, 2008)

I absolutely can't wait to see where this goes.


----------



## bio-chem (May 28, 2008)

Chevrolet said:


> didnt the mormons get their beliefs out of a hat with some special indian tablets in it that only one guy could read?



I can see you have spent a lot of time learning about this


----------



## Tier (May 28, 2008)

YouTube Video


----------



## natural^ (May 28, 2008)

how is this thread still going on. ah oh shit <runs away before biochem gripes about complaining.>


----------



## DaMayor (May 28, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> I get that a lot. which did you expect?



I just had a very bad feeling that the idiots would use this as a reason to act more like....well, idiots.

and they did.


----------



## DaMayor (May 28, 2008)

natural^ said:


> how is this thread still going on. ah oh shit <runs away before biochem gripes about complaining.>



Oh shut up boy. Thus far, you've only contributed to this fiasco by griping about griping.

Go work on your pecs...shoo shoo...bubye now...


----------



## Nate K (May 28, 2008)

that god wont heal amputees video is really annoying and stufid...I could only watch 3 minutes.  The guy talking is a tard and I'm not even christian or necessarily believe in a "god"


----------



## Nate K (May 28, 2008)

DaMayor said:


> I just had a very bad feeling that the idiots would use this as a reason to act more like....well, idiots.
> 
> and they did.



lawl...be nice. haha


----------



## Hoglander (May 28, 2008)

I think it's about time that everyone just chills! Stops fucking talking and ranking on things you no nothing about!! Mormons are a good people. Try to learn about them before you put your foot in your mouth! 

Here is a vid I suggest you watch before you look anymore retarded.





YouTube Video











P.S. Hail Satan!!

: )


----------



## DaMayor (May 28, 2008)

> I just had a very bad feeling that the idiots would use this as a reason to act more like....well, idiots.
> 
> and they did.



Yep. Pretty much called that one.



Oh, Hog.....Satan doesn't own a bass boat.


----------



## Hoglander (May 28, 2008)

Yuck! bass!!!???? Bass are for kids and inbred dorks. 

We fish from sleds.


----------



## DaMayor (May 28, 2008)

Hoglander said:


> We fish from sleds.




LOL!

So ya think its such a good idea for a guy that fishes from a sled to hail Satan? Seems like a conflict of interest.


----------



## Hoglander (May 28, 2008)

A "sled" is a jetboat. This means it has no prop it has a jet. It's not just any jetboat. It's made for running rivers. This kind of jetboat is called a "sled." It skims across shallow water, rocks, rapids, logs etc.






YouTube Video









 

Hail Satan

: )


----------



## DaMayor (May 28, 2008)

*Dark Spiritual World Has New Leader*

NEWS FLASH! Anton LaVey ousted by Al Lindler!











Priceless.


----------



## natural^ (May 28, 2008)

DaMayor said:


> Oh shut up boy. Thus far, you've only contributed to this fiasco by griping about griping.
> 
> Go work on your pecs...shoo shoo...bubye now...



fiasco? dont think its a fiasco haha. and fyi, i just worked out my pecs.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 29, 2008)

fufu said:


> I know you are talking to Prince, but I agree with him
> 
> Believing others are mindless sheep doesn't mean one thinks they are any better than someone else, I sure don't. The idea is only as pessimistic or negative as your own spin on it.
> 
> Besides, how can that be called a fallacy? There is no way to prove it either way.



This is nonsense at it's most sticky.  Isaac Netwon, often considered to be one of the smartest men who ever lived (as well as Einstein) spent more time writing about the deity than he did about physics and mathematics.  

Unlikes sheep, many founders of science held a position (like Aquanis) that , being made in the image of the grand engineer, the natural world was itself an expression of the creator.  In effect there were two ways to go about knowing God: scripture and nature.  To understand the universe was, for VERY many of them, to understand the mind of God.

And before anyone demeans Newton as being a victim of a time period when less was known about the universe, I will quickly point out that independent of a naturalistic, materialistic, or reductionist world view the evidence (facts, before they are skewed to one bias or another) specifically related to biochemical machines, digital code, cosmological fine tuning (et al) would likely work to inflate that belief and not demean it.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 29, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> this is the biggest fallacy ever. such a pessimistic, negative view of ones fellow man. do you then consider yourself to be so much greater than the lowly average man unable to think for himself Prince?



You're positive right, their responses to you are condescending and personal.  You say this:


> what is the never ending desire for science and religion to fight? why must they be looked at as mutually exclusive? And if any one needs to look at anecdotal quotes from a dead scientist to prove their belief, or lack thereof in God doesn't that just show an inner weakness to make up ones own mind?



And the response?  this:



> LMFAO, you refer to Albert Einstein as nothing more than a "dead scientist"?



There are a handful of claims and inquires that can be either refuted or answered from the original remark.  The response is, instead, a red herring and completely ignores the meat of the argument.   The implication is apparently that refusing to accept your reference as an authority means he's not thinking clearly.  That's faulty logic.  

As you've all made clear, you believe there is no evidence refuting or supporting God.  Your interpretation and conclusion is not a proof and it is CERTAINLY not deductive; at it's nature, you're making a faithful leap toward that inference.  It is an opinion.  So why Einstein would be an authority on this topic is lost on me.  Regarding his letters on the topic, he does not use much argumentation.  He EXCLUSIVELY gives opinion.  He references "personal meaning" and says "the word God is for *me* nothing".  These letters are not arguments, they are statements.  Appealing to his authority on the topic is especially sad, considering his remarks don't even pretend to be anything other than personal reflection.

Of course, the sheep remark throws an argument ad hominem at believers, stereotyped as mindless followers.  Only a sheep could arrive at a conclusion other than our own!  Only a sheep would fall out of line and not follow!   I hope the irony isn't lost.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 29, 2008)

Tier said:


> Ah this is just the type of comment I was looking for!
> 
> I only need one question, if you choose to answer it straightly, to prove you have no capacity for logic, the same way all Christians do not.
> 
> ...



Classic apples and oranges.  Let me ask you a question: when looking around, what evidence are you drawing upon to conclude that NOTHING caused these effects?  We're both dealing with the same evidence (nature).  That evidence therefore must impart to you that, between a set of possibilities, nothing made more sense.  Of course you have no evidence that NOTHING can create  something.  It violates our understanding of the conservation of energy, doesn't it?  But if I look at the same body of evidence and remark; you know, God seems more likely, and I infer that as the best explanation. - you get to stand on the shoulders of materialism and declare "Christians" incapable of logic!?  

Judging from your snide condescension, fallacious insults, and inflammatory language you've exposed your bias to be far worse than the person you're demeaning.  

Also, you said you had one question to "prove" he has no capacity for logic.  Then you immediately decree, without hearing his response, whatever he says is going to be a TAUTOLOGY!  And yanking that assumption into your arms you beat him over the head with it.  Speaking of circular reasoning there, guy.    Postulate a question.  Dismiss all answers outright.  In process of elimination, you win the argument.  I've heard some bad rationalizing for self-evidential truth, but that's the worst.

Here's a tip, friend.  Using the word proof in a conversation like this is pointless; but in your personal context of use, it's especially bad.  If your logic were a math equation, I would expect it to look like this: *2+2 = 0*.  As far as proofs go, I'd put my money on that arithmetic before I'd put it on the statement you made.

Put your straw man down.  Reharness your personal attacks aimed at Christians.  Whether or not purposeful design can be detected or inferred through the physical sciences is one thing.  Demanding we take those scientific conclusions and merge them into theology to "prove" something to you is ridiculous.  

In that specific way we can't conclude that it is a "God" or that it will narrow down to the "right God" if we can in fact detect design in nature.  Theological beliefs are a second tier question, and trying to force them into one inquiry you jam down his throat is contingent with an unfair jump in logic.  You'd be just as well telling someone to use a differential equation and proove a law restricting narcotic drug use is right.


----------



## Tier (May 29, 2008)

Duncans Donuts said:


> Classic apples and oranges.  Let me ask you a question: when looking around, what evidence are you drawing upon to conclude that NOTHING caused these effects?  We're both dealing with the same evidence (nature).  That evidence therefore must impart to you that, between a set of possibilities, nothing made more sense.  Of course you have no evidence that NOTHING can create  something.  It violates our understanding of the conservation of energy, doesn't it?  But if I look at the same body of evidence and remark; you know, God seems more likely, and I infer that as the best explanation. - you get to stand on the shoulders of materialism and declare "Christians" incapable of logic!?
> 
> Judging from your snide condescension, fallacious insults, and inflammatory language you've exposed your bias to be far worse than the person you're demeaning.
> 
> ...



Easy one, I never made the assertion that nothing created everything.

You used the straw man argument then told me not to in the same post. That makes me laff.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 29, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> Here's a question for the believers:
> 
> Why do you believe what you believe?  With science it is obvious - you believe in science because there is physical evidence and science can explain and predict what will happen in response to us doing something...  Why does a believer in religion believe in what they believe?



Having read this thread and witnessed a nonstop barrage of insults reducing believers to idiots, I'll put up a brief defense for this side of the aisle.  Not everyone is engaging in this pernicious verbal bullying, though, so I want to remark that I actually DO respect differing opinions that don't hang others with their heartfelt faith.

My belief in God is a culmination of experience and observations about and of the natural world.  Having studied physiology undergrad, statistical mathematics and philosophy currently, I confidently believe what I do because I understand the arguments for and against and have arrived at a side that makes the most sense.

Having exhaustedly studied evolution as the predominantly accepted historical-science explanation of life, I find it powerfully lacking.  The issues of origins (which is not something dealt with in the original theory of evolution) is in reality a problem of the order and sequencing of a specifically complicated, functionable binary code.  Any attempts to explain the information and information processing capability of the cell has really fallen flat on its ass.  Self organization doesn't work as an explanation; neither does physical necessity (such things provide repeating patterns).  Chance amino-acids sparking together and forming the most primitive "life" is provocatively unlikely.  As far as happenstance goes, as the explanation for a living creature, it would appear that there just aren't enough probabilistic resources in the entire universe to achieve the sequence a single protein chain.  This is not a deductive conclusion, no certainty can be accepted from it.  I find it reasonable none the less.  

And I am positive I'll have someone jeer me about not accepting the theory.  I am not an archaeologist, and I don't know how old the Earth is; but I accept current scientific conclusions on the topic.  I am not against the idea of micro-evolutionary adaptive response.  What I question is the creative power of natural selection and random mutation; NOT whether they occur, but whether "random" mutations (overwhelmingly neutral) and natural selection are satisfactory explaining the "appearance of design" in nature.  You don't just need new bits of information to produce new functions (such as developing webbed feet into a wing), you need vast reams of digital code, coordinating with the rest of its genetic database in perfect harmony. 

So in that, I am making an argument to the inference of the best explanation.  I am not saying evolution isn't true, so the default is God.  I am concluding from the evidence, related to my knowledge of the cause and effect structure of the world, that a logical mind was at some point in history active in creation.  Who or what that mind is is not a conclusion we can draw from this same body of evidence.  Still, there is one single known and observed cause of information; the cause is consciousness.  

I also believe what I believe by recognizing the implications of reductionism, naturalism, and materialism and what they imply for me and my family if I accept them.  Issues of moral relativism, human value and purpose, and free will weigh heavily on me.   My father has his doctorate in engineering, and having consulted him frequently in college, his insight into the phenomenally sophisticated application of engineering and design logic within living systems, operating within in us on a vast microscopic scale, gave me a unique perspective on biology.  Belief in God is not just a substanceless, ignorant superstition of uneducated yokels.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 29, 2008)

Tier said:


> Easy one, I never made the assertion that nothing created everything.
> 
> You used the straw man argument then told me not to in the same post. That makes me laff.





> Please explain without using Circular logic (using the unproven basis that god exists as your evidence, bible, etc) in a evidenced way that shows that "God" in particular caused these effects, as opposed to any other deity.



Here's your loaded question.  If he can only conclude that there is a God by using, circular reasoning, and that any inference to God CAN NOT BE a substantive evidential conclusion by your self-evidential proclamation, why are YOU allowed to ask that question, but I can't ask it to you (and when I ask it, the snide commentary is toned down vastly)?  It's obvious how you despise the idea of God, so in place of God, what are you suggesting?  

The universe created itself?  The universe is infinite?  Assuming a big bang singularity, you are left with a beginning.  And if there was a beginning, then SOMETHING came to exist from NOTHING, yes?  Recent evidence powerfully suggests that at the universes rate of expansion there will be no way for the matter to compress back into the original singular state.  It damages the hypothesis that the universe is on some kind of eternal loop of expansion and contraction.  The beginning is a scientifically verified point.  

So in offering you a hypothetical question, not a straw man, the same question you asked him after you've demeaned his conclusion that he could find evidence in nature supporting God, what do you personally suppose brought about existence?  Not God, obviously.  So what?  And if you conclude that nothing caused the universe I can accept that without DEMEANING YOU like a fundamentalistic, incoherent bully.  But considering your conclusion and your attitude, I think you look like a jackass for shitting on someone else's belief with that lazy, perfunctory analysis.


----------



## Tier (May 29, 2008)

Are you saying you do not accept the Christian God necessarily? You seem to just state that there was an intelligence, not necessarily "God" but an entity with design capability, is that correct? If Not, what?

Your posts tend to get a bit oceanic too, mind packaging them a bit more tightly?


----------



## Tier (May 29, 2008)

Duncans Donuts said:


> Here's your loaded question.  If he can only conclude that there is a God by using, circular reasoning, and that any inference to God CAN NOT BE a substantive evidential conclusion by your self-evidential proclamation, why are YOU allowed to ask that question, but I can't ask it to you (and when I ask it, the snide commentary is toned down vastly)?  It's obvious how you despise the idea of God, so in place of God, what are you suggesting?
> 
> The universe created itself?  The universe is infinite?  Assuming a big bang singularity, you are left with a beginning.  And if there was a beginning, then SOMETHING came to exist from NOTHING, yes?  Recent evidence powerfully suggests that at the universes rate of expansion there will be no way for the matter to compress back into the original singular state.  It damages the hypothesis that the universe is on some kind of eternal loop of expansion and contraction.  The beginning is a scientifically verified point.
> 
> So in offering you a hypothetical question, not a straw man, the same question you asked him after you've demeaned his conclusion that he could find evidence in nature supporting God, what do you personally suppose brought about existence?  Not God, obviously.  So what?  And if you conclude that nothing caused the universe I can accept that without DEMEANING YOU like a fundamentalistic, incoherent bully.  But considering your conclusion and your attitude, I think you look like a jackass for shitting on someone else's belief with that lazy, perfunctory analysis.



This is what you fail to grasp about these conversations, the opposing side is not making any assertions, we are not offering an explanation. The assertion of the Christian is that their God exists, that is the topic in it's entirety.


----------



## goob (May 29, 2008)

Wow.  I've never seen Tier worked up about anything, but religeon certainly seems to be a sore point with him.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 29, 2008)

Tier said:


> Are you saying you do not accept the Christian God necessarily? You seem to just state that there was an intelligence, not necessarily "God" but an entity with design capability, is that correct? If Not, what?
> 
> Your posts tend to get a bit oceanic too, mind packaging them a bit more tightly?



There is obvious engineering in the cell, as well as in the relative values of things like strong nuclear force, magnetism, gravity, etc.   Regarding cosmetology,  there is nothing in the physical laws of nature that make the laws what they are.  Yet if these values were modified in infinitesimal degrees, the universe as we know it would literally fall apart.

As a scientist, which is what I've dedicated my adult life to, I can not conclude ANYTHING without proof.  Therefore my interpretation is limited to what is a matter of evidence.  We do see advanced engineering in the cell.  We do see a universe that was apparently brought together with the values necessary for things to be as they are.  Hallmarks of a conscious mind are stuffed into our little world, and human beings have a specific method of detecting design.  All things that occur are unlikely as a matter of necessity, but when data or bits are organized in a specific unlikely sequence that is minimally complex (there are some mathematical definitions published several years ago to help carve it into a definition, which is still being worked on) AND organized in according to a reference point, we make design inferences.  All the time, every day.  When a newspaper is delivered to your house, we conclude by the organization of the letters into words and words into sentences and so forth, that the source of information was not the product of chance interaction between ink and paper.   The reason chance can not produce information is that EACH BIT OF INFORMATION that succeeds the previous is related to the entire sequence, not just the one before it and after it.  With the possibility of 26 letters, the dropping of letters into a legible sequence becomes confoundedly frustrating.  

Just because DNA is small, doesn't change the principles.  Just because you can UNDERSTAND THE CONVEYANCE OF THE ALPHABETIC CODE on the ink and the paper, you can't understand or explain the INFORMATION in accordance with the chemical interaction of the paper and the ink.  The paper is a canvas, and the letters could be anything.  Organization is the product of a consciousness.   The exact same thing is true with DNA: the sugar and phosphate backbone has "seats" where the 4 letter nucleotides attach and interact with each other.  But the digital sequence is not organized according to a chemical necessity!  If it was, it would produce a redundant code.  The source of the information, I consider to be, from the evidence, a consciousness.

From the body of evidence in physiology & biology (and others), I can say use this method of observation and analysis to come to a scientific conclusion.  I can't say what exactly that creative mind is.

I can explore the question by jumping through the philosophical evaluations of it.  If the universe had a beginning, then we assume it has a cause.  Infinity is an impossible concept in accordance with the laws of our own universe, so the beginning is a reasonable postulate.  So what was the cause that brought the universe into existence?  I think it's interesting that our most verified understanding of matter and energy contradicts the fact that we exist at all.  Matter can neither be created or destroyed, it only changes form.  So what is the cause of matter?  It's here, so somehow it was brought into being.  The debate is this: is the existence improbable and the universe beat the odds (but we should expect to be aware of it, because otherwise we wouldn't be here)?  Or is existence necessary, with necessity suggesting innate purpose and meaning.

Some people, like Crick, who basically discovered the function of DNA believe that our planet was spored long ago by an alien civilization and we progressed from that.  This could very possibly be the source of the information in living systems.  It does unfortunately just shovel back the problem of origins another generation.  You can only shovel backward so long before you run out of dirt.  I think the most likely philosophical analysis points to God.

My theological beliefs are Christian, and I find a great deal of comfort and love  and meaning in that position.  I want to point out that mankind does evil in the name of everything, including religion and atheism.  Marx (who someone actually QUOTED earlier), Hitler, Stalin, Pao, and so forth were certainly not acting in the name of God.  Some considered religion a virus on the Earth, others a philosophy that was "unsound" because it qualitatively measured a human soul as a worthwhile thing.  You can't help but admit that if a small handful of men in history had converted to Christ's teaching, many tens of millions could have been saved.  The point is, it would be inappropriate for me to hang the deaths of so many on "atheism" just as it is inappropriate to blame religions for the fanatics who used it as a vestige of hate.  What a travesty that is.


----------



## Tier (May 29, 2008)

So what you're trying to say in that juggernaut 7 paragraph mega-post is you believe in intelligent design due to science but Christian God due to Faith?


----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 29, 2008)

Tier said:


> This is what you fail to grasp about these conversations, the opposing side is not making any assertions, we are not offering an explanation. The assertion of the Christian is that their God exists, that is the topic in it's entirety.



Oh come now.  I've seen nothing but dismissive sneers and cocky derision at anyone who claims a belief.

This entire thread is relentless assault on everyone who would dare assign themselves with an organized religion.  

So what on Earth allows you to bring up that kid you were talking to and smack him down, over and over, asking him questions and smearing everything he said?  You OBVIOUSLY ridiculed him in the question.  Why do you get to ask a question like that, and then HAVING NO ANSWER YOURSELF, punk his ass for believing it?  Break it down, it's either three things: God, nothing, or whatever third option you might be thinking of.  Between the possibilities, what do you infer explains it best?  And if you can't make a choice, try and be reasonable enough to acknowledge that GOD isn't necessarily a stupid or ignorant choice.


----------



## Tier (May 29, 2008)

Duncans Donuts said:


> Oh come now.  I've seen nothing but dismissive sneers and cocky derision at anyone who claims a belief.
> 
> This entire thread is relentless assault on everyone who would dare assign themselves with an organized religion.
> 
> So what on Earth allows you to bring up that kid you were talking to and smack him down, over and over, asking him questions and smearing everything he said?  You OBVIOUSLY ridiculed him in the question.  Why do you get to ask a question like that, and then HAVING NO ANSWER YOURSELF, punk his ass for believing it?  Break it down, it's either three things: God, nothing, or whatever third option you might be thinking of.  Between the possibilities, what do you infer explains it best?  And if you can't make a choice, try and be reasonable enough to acknowledge that GOD isn't necessarily a stupid or ignorant choice.



One does not have to know the answer to see an insane conclusion.

2+2= Egg Plant's at eighty times the speed of light.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 29, 2008)

Tier said:


> So what you're trying to say in that juggernaut 7 paragraph mega-post is you believe in intelligent design due to science but Christian God due to Faith?



No, that's not what I said, because I know the insertion of the word faith is going to be as a mark of ridicule.

I have taken a variety of evidence from various fields, examined the multitude of available religions, and chosen which theology explains and fits the nature of the world best.  My spirituality was guided into through a critical, historical discovery of what option made the most sense.  I believe that the Christian savior is True, and that God is love, and that there is a heaven and a hell, i think the consciousness is not a simple byproduct of the brain, that there are moral absolutes, and it's improved my life substantially since I've found myself there.


----------



## Tier (May 29, 2008)

Duncans Donuts said:


> No, that's not what I said, because I know the insertion of the word faith is going to be as a mark of ridicule.
> 
> I have taken a variety of evidence from various fields, examined the multitude of available religions, and chosen which theology explains and fits the nature of the world best.  My spirituality was guided into through a critical, historical discovery of what option made the most sense.  I believe that the Christian savior is True, and that God is love, and that there is a heaven and a hell, i think the consciousness is not a simple byproduct of the brain, that there are moral absolutes, and it's improved my life substantially since I've found myself there.




Your basis is an unproven assumption that we are in possession of the answer already and it just needs to be decided on which answer is best.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 29, 2008)

Tier said:


> One does not have to know the answer to see an insane conclusion.
> 
> 2+2= Egg Plant's at eighty times the speed of light.



The argument from personal incredulity is, because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true.

Theres one more logical fuck-job, should I assume you're packing all of them?

You simply are afraid to remark on what you believe or you just want to slam people who are not as afraid of hanging out in the land of indecisiveness.

That and your bias is starting to bleed through.  Just taking to task those damned Christians, no reason for you to interject with any opinion or counterargument other than: CHRISTIANS USE TAUTOLOGY!  CHRISTIANS DONT UES LOGIC!  CHRISTIANS DONT HAVE EVIDENCE!  Declarations aren't arguments.  I'd love to hear what you believe.


----------



## Tier (May 29, 2008)

Duncans Donuts said:


> The argument from personal incredulity is, because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true.
> 
> Theres one more logical fuck-job, should I assume you're packing all of them?
> 
> ...



My belief is I do not know the origins of the universe, and being it's billions (or whatever) of years older than my species, I am not sure I should be expected to.


----------



## KelJu (May 29, 2008)

goob said:


> Wow.  I've never seen Tier worked up about anything, but religeon certainly seems to be a sore point with him.



Reminds me of myself 5 3-5 years ago. I had some major anger towards Christianity. It was a system that I thought caused me much suffering. Over time I approached it with a fresh perspective and realized that my anger was ill based.  

It was people making poor decisions out of their ignorance that pissed me off, not the religion. I should have figured it out sooner, because the signs were there. My mother was a Christian, the person I love the most in the entire world, and she was the perfect example of love, tolerance, and forgiveness. Same for my grandmother. They relied on their faith to guide them in their life and give them strength.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 29, 2008)

Tier said:


> Your basis is an unproven assumption that we are in possession of the answer already and it just needs to be decided on which answer is best.



I don't think you can characterize my beliefs very well.  My "basis" for my "belief" is built on my experiences as scientist and student, philosophical analysis, and a historical evaluation of religion.  Didn't I previously mention that this kind of discussion is not about proofs?  So what if something here is unproven.  I'm not making assumptions.  I'm making inferences.  

and what does "assumption that we are in the possession of the answer already" mean?  What the hell does that mean?  What answer are you talking about?  I'm not looking for an answer, like a blind man digging for a needle in a haystack.  I arrived at destination from substance, not half-baked conclusions and appealing to the bible.

Possibilities: nothing came into existence, Some Creator brought into existence.  Probability versus Necessity.  Whether that creator is Zeus or Venus or God or a team of Gods doesn't matter.  Either SOMETHING or NOTHING is resonsible for it.  Thats a good place to start. Please don't act so dismissively to people who hold a different position.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 29, 2008)

Tier said:


> My belief is I do not know the origins of the universe, and being it's billions (or whatever) of years older than my species, I am not sure I should be expected to.



What a comfortable place to be.  Since you have no beliefs on the topic, I'll let you go.


----------



## Tier (May 29, 2008)

Things that I perceive as illogical annoy me.

I am simply asking to provide observable evidence that shows that their God did it, and it was in fact their particular God. I cannot wrap my head around why that is such an outrageous question. I mean, they are telling me that XYZ did the most immense thing imaginable, and with that kind of assertion you need a huge amount of evidence, and all they provide is misdirection and cheap lip service.

If I say that that my car is chicken powered, i best be able to back that up and open up my gas tank to reveal the chicken. If I say I single handedly built the pyramids, I better have explanations on why I can live that long, proof that I can live that long, be able to explain the why and how and maybe even reproduce the event on some scale.

The Enormity of the claim establishes the preponderance of evidence required, to know and have a personal relationship with the creator of everything is the hugest claim I can think of.


----------



## Tier (May 29, 2008)

Duncans Donuts said:


> What a comfortable place to be.  Since you have no beliefs on the topic, I'll let you go.



Oh come now, Jesus loves you unconditionally and tucks you in to bed every night and I am in a comfortable place? 

<Heavy on the Sarcasm>


----------



## Tier (May 29, 2008)

Duncans Donuts said:


> I don't think you can characterize my beliefs very well.  My "basis" for my "belief" is built on my experiences as scientist and student, philosophical analysis, and a historical evaluation of religion.  Didn't I previously mention that this kind of discussion is not about proofs?  So what if something here is unproven.  I'm not making assumptions.  I'm making inferences.
> 
> *Proof is exactly what is required IMO*
> 
> ...



You also assume that you can comprehend all the possibilities.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 29, 2008)

Tier said:


> Things that I perceive as illogical annoy me.
> 
> I am simply asking to provide observable evidence that shows that their God did it, and it was in fact their particular God. I cannot wrap my head around why that is such an outrageous question. I mean, they are telling me that XYZ did the most immense thing imaginable, and with that kind of assertion you need a huge amount of evidence, and all they provide is misdirection and cheap lip service.
> 
> ...



I'm not arguing my own personal theology.  I'm not standing on a biblical claim or offering PROOF de facto.   I've demonstrated very clearly what should be obvious to the satisfaction of a mentally retarded goat HOW a person can CONCLUDE from VARIOUS FACTS that a BELIEF IN A GOD IS REASONABLE AND FOLLOWS STEPS IN LOGIC.  You can nod and disagree if you'd like, but get your conceited crap out of my face.  I offered up some of the evidence that I draw my inference from, but you didn't say a fucking word about any of it.  I don't need your validation to climb on board with me, what does it matter?  But fuck off with your hateful assaults, 

You want PROOF?  You want me to fucking organize the evidence and cram it up your ass until you feel it in your "soul" ?  Believe and hate what you want just watch who you demean because your logic itself has been nothing but fallacious, vicious and irrational trash.


----------



## goob (May 29, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Reminds me of myself 5 3-5 years ago. I had some major anger towards Christianity. It was a system that I thought caused me much suffering. Over time I approached it with a fresh perspective and realized that my anger was ill based.
> 
> It was people making poor decisions out of their ignorance that pissed me off, not the religion. I should have figured it out sooner, because the signs were there. My mother was a Christian, the person I love the most in the entire world, and she was the perfect example of love, tolerance, and forgiveness. Same for my grandmother. They relied on their faith to guide them in their life and give them strength.


 
Wow.  You are over 535 years old. You must have seen it first hand.

Hang on.......

...beard.........tall..........benevolent ...........are you....are you.... bio_chem's diety?????

Joking aside.  I hear you.  Real or not, there can be a lot of good come from people who have belief, missionary's, helping the poor, fellow man, christian aid. etc.....  Many religeous people have great humanitarian attitudes and acts.


----------



## Tier (May 29, 2008)

Duncans Donuts said:


> I'm not arguing my own personal theology.  I'm not standing on a biblical claim or offering PROOF de facto.   I've demonstrated very clearly what should be obvious to the satisfaction of a mentally retarded goat HOW a person can CONCLUDE from VARIOUS FACTS that a BELIEF IN A GOD IS REASONABLE AND FOLLOWS STEPS IN LOGIC.  You can nod and disagree if you'd like, but get your conceited crap out of my face.  I offered up some of the evidence that I draw my inference from, but you didn't say a fucking word about any of it.  I don't need your validation to climb on board with me, what does it matter?  But fuck off with your hateful assaults,
> 
> You want PROOF?  You want me to fucking organize the evidence and cram it up your ass until you feel it in your "soul" ?  Believe and hate what you want just watch who you demean because your logic itself has been nothing but fallacious, vicious and irrational trash.



this made me laff


----------



## NeilPearson (May 29, 2008)

Duncans Donuts said:


> Having read this thread and witnessed a nonstop barrage of insults reducing believers to idiots, I'll put up a brief defense for this side of the aisle.  Not everyone is engaging in this pernicious verbal bullying, though, so I want to remark that I actually DO respect differing opinions that don't hang others with their heartfelt faith.
> 
> My belief in God is a culmination of experience and observations about and of the natural world.  Having studied physiology undergrad, statistical mathematics and philosophy currently, I confidently believe what I do because I understand the arguments for and against and have arrived at a side that makes the most sense.
> 
> ...



Ok, that explains a belief in a supernatural power.  Why God though?  As in why do you believe your flavor of religion is correct and everyone else's religion is incorrect?


----------



## Tier (May 29, 2008)

Because he chose that religion out of a hat and it tasted bestest


----------



## KelJu (May 29, 2008)

goob said:


> Wow.  You are over 535 years old. You must have seen it first hand.
> 
> Hang on.......
> 
> ...



Which is what I am starting to see. 

Just some personal observations about the religious right in this country that as far as I can tell seem reasonable and rational:


Christians would have better public relations with non-Christians if they worked hard to stop trying to legislate into law how other people live their lives. 

Stop condemning non-Christians with the "you are going to burn in hell unless you accept Jesus Christ as..." speech. Even if you believe it, you don't have to say it. I might walk up to a 500lb woman and think she is fat. That doesn't mean I have to say it to her face. 

Stop trying to teach religion in science classes.  

Stop the gay bashing and just let the fucking people live their lives. If they want to marry, let them. If they want to have a family, let them.



I could think of more, but these really stick out. If the protestants could go through another reformation which brought their practices up to date with modern western culture, many of these debates would end. Few people would have a beef with a religion that didn't publicly attack and criticize how us non-Christians decide to live.


----------



## goob (May 29, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Which is what I am starting to see.
> 
> Just some personal observations about the religious right in this country that as far as I can tell seem reasonable and rational:
> 
> ...


 
Agree 100%.  Especially on your points - the science class one.  Remember, the bible is essentially a moral code to live by.  Not god's word.  

* Stop trying to teach creationism.  It is not science.


----------



## Tier (May 29, 2008)

* Spreading your opinion on what created everything in modern day religion is the equivalent of telling people how to live.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 29, 2008)

Tier said:


> You also assume that you can comprehend all the possibilities.



Wow, this is an exercise in futility.  

This is not a deductive or mathematical discussion.  There will be no proofs.  I don't require proof for my conclusions because I consider the evidence from the world (biology, cosmology, laws, fine tuning) cumulatively very suggestive for a super intelligent engineer.  Just because you don't agree with my inferences doesn't make me some damned, fundamentalist, illogical Christian.  It is possible that I'm wrong, yes, misinterpreting the evidence, yeah.  I'm not worried.


----------



## Tier (May 29, 2008)

Duncans Donuts said:


> Wow, this is an exercise in futility.
> 
> This is not a deductive or mathematical discussion.  There will be no proofs.  I don't require proof for my conclusions because I consider the evidence from the world (biology, cosmology, laws, fine tuning) cumulatively very suggestive for a super intelligent engineer.  Just because you don't agree with my inferences doesn't make me some damned, fundamentalist, illogical Christian.  It is possible that I'm wrong, yes, misinterpreting the evidence, yeah.  I'm not worried.



You don't need proof, that's all that needs to be said. 

I do.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 29, 2008)

Tier said:


> Because he chose that religion out of a hat and it tasted bestest



Fallacy, fallacy, fallacy.  

That's not how I came to conclude what faith I chose.  Sorry ya'll


----------



## tucker01 (May 29, 2008)

Tier said:


> You don't need proof, that's all that needs to be said.
> 
> I do.



If you needed proof for everything you do or believe.  You wouldn't be doing or believing alot.


----------



## Tier (May 29, 2008)

IainDaniel said:


> If you needed proof for everything you do or believe.  You wouldn't be doing or believing alot.



I don't need it for everything.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 29, 2008)

Tier said:


> You don't need proof, that's all that needs to be said.
> 
> I do.



That is actually can be a good thing.  With a rigorous standard of proof, you will be very skeptical of things you see and study.  Whatever conclusions you draw will be from a high standard of rigor.

Here is one point though; not all people who believe build their "faith" on a bible or a tautology.  A great many scientific thinkers (like Newton) arrived at conclusions for God without being sheep.  Einstein, critical of religion indeed, did believe in deity who was impersonal and disconnected.  Personal attacks are useless.  Bullying and assault are too.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 29, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> Ok, that explains a belief in a supernatural power.  Why God though?  As in why do you believe your flavor of religion is correct and everyone else's religion is incorrect?



I spent a lot of time struggling with issues of personal worth and purpose.   The undertaking of searching for that purpose led me into a historical study of the major religions.  I read a lot of philosophy books, too.  Thomas Aquanis very profoundly influenced me, as well as C.S. Lewis. I also read a great deal of atheistic and materialist literature.  Dawkins, Dennet, Gould.   It took me a long time, having struggled with health and anger issues, to finally arrive happily and confidently with a new found spirtuality.

I believe that the New Testament message is beautiful and elegant. I believe in a universal moral standard that exists, and thank God for it because with that I can confidently say that pedophilia, rape, murder, and those things are wrong on a fundamental level, they are heinous.  Since my niece was born having that sturdy belief helps me, personally.  Moral relativism is a scary thing to me.


----------



## bio-chem (May 29, 2008)

Duncans Donuts said:


> I spent a lot of time struggling with issues of personal worth and purpose.   The undertaking of searching for that purpose led me into a historical study of the major religions.  I read a lot of philosophy books, too.  Thomas Aquanis very profoundly influenced me, as well as C.S. Lewis. I also read a great deal of atheistic and materialist literature.  Dawkins, Dennet, Gould.   It took me a long time, having struggled with health and anger issues, to finally arrive happily and confidently with a new found spirtuality.
> 
> I believe that the New Testament message is beautiful and elegant. I believe in a universal moral standard that exists, and thank God for it because with that I can confidently say that pedophilia, rape, murder, and those things are wrong on a fundamental level, they are heinous.  Since my niece was born having that sturdy belief helps me, personally.  Moral relativism is a scary thing to me.



well said


----------



## NeilPearson (May 29, 2008)

goob said:


> Agree 100%.  Especially on your points - the science class one.  Remember, the bible is essentially a moral code to live by.  Not god's word.
> 
> * Stop trying to teach creationism.  It is not science.



In your opinion... many believe the bible is God's word


----------



## NeilPearson (May 29, 2008)

Duncans Donuts said:


> Fallacy, fallacy, fallacy.
> 
> That's not how I came to conclude what faith I chose.  Sorry ya'll



So how did you chose your faith?  -- edit I see this was answered


----------



## NeilPearson (May 29, 2008)

Duncans Donuts said:


> I spent a lot of time struggling with issues of personal worth and purpose.   The undertaking of searching for that purpose led me into a historical study of the major religions.  I read a lot of philosophy books, too.  Thomas Aquanis very profoundly influenced me, as well as C.S. Lewis. I also read a great deal of atheistic and materialist literature.  Dawkins, Dennet, Gould.   It took me a long time, having struggled with health and anger issues, to finally arrive happily and confidently with a new found spirtuality.
> 
> I believe that the New Testament message is beautiful and elegant. I believe in a universal moral standard that exists, and thank God for it because with that I can confidently say that pedophilia, rape, murder, and those things are wrong on a fundamental level, they are heinous.  Since my niece was born having that sturdy belief helps me, personally.  Moral relativism is a scary thing to me.



So what religion did you settle on?


----------



## Witchblade (May 29, 2008)

I found this bit interesting, because it's one of the few pieces of logical argumentation. Cheers for that.



Duncans Donuts said:


> The universe created itself?  The universe is infinite?  Assuming a big bang singularity, you are left with a beginning.  And if there was a beginning, then SOMETHING came to exist from NOTHING, yes?  Recent evidence powerfully suggests that at the universes rate of expansion there will be no way for the matter to compress back into the original singular state.  It damages the hypothesis that the universe is on some kind of eternal loop of expansion and contraction.  The beginning is a scientifically verified point.


You said you studied philosophy. Then you should know about David Hume and Immanuel Kant. They say causal thinking is simply the way our mind is organized. Causality is not a substance. We can not perceive causality. We only perceive A, which is always followed by B. We therefore conclude A -> B. However, the notion that A caused B is simply rethorics and semantics. We only know that B happens after A. Therefore, we can not logically conclude there was a beginning (of the universe), nor can we disprove infinity. Causality is just the way our mind organizes what it perceives. 

Interestingly, Al Farabi, Averroës and the likes used the theory of the unmoved mover to prove God. I believe this is a logical fallacy, because they say every contingent effect requires a cause and thus there has to be a first cause, which is God. However, the conclusion is ruled out by the premise, as that first cause (basically an effect) would also need a cause. The universe can not be this first cause, but God can? The universe can not be infinite, but God can? This theory holds as much ground as scepticism ('we can not know anything') and the Matrix (which restarts at the end). 

p.s. Another interesting thing about the universe is this. The timeframe humans have studied the universe is 0 relative to the time we think the universe has existed. Total time/witnessed time = 0,000... rounded down to a very large number of digits. It is thus almost impossible to detect any sort of pattern. This is just sidetracking though compared to the main argument that infinity can not be disproven.


----------



## KelJu (May 29, 2008)

Tier said:


> * Spreading your opinion on what created everything in modern day religion is the equivalent of telling people how to live.



Wrong. I suggested. I didn't demand. There is a huge difference. Then again, you aren't here to talk. I didn;t write that for you anyway. You are here to stir shit up and troll. So go fuck yourself. You are a waste of my time.


----------



## goob (May 29, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Wrong. I suggested. I didn't demand. There is a huge difference. Then again, you aren't here to talk. I didn;t write that for you anyway. You are here to stir shit up and troll. So go fuck yourself. You are a waste of my time.


 
 I think you got the wrong end of the stick - he was reffering to teaching Creationism in school.  Classic Kelju moment.


----------



## KelJu (May 29, 2008)

Witchblade said:


> I found this bit interesting, because it's one of the few pieces of logical argumentation. Cheers for that.
> 
> 
> You said you studied philosophy. Then you should know about David Hume and Immanuel Kant. They say causal thinking is simply the way our mind is organized. Causality is not a substance. We can not perceive causality. We only perceive A, which is always followed by B. We therefore conclude A -> B. However, the notion that A caused B is simply rethorics and semantics. We only know that B happens after A. Therefore, we can not logically conclude there was a beginning (of the universe), nor can we disprove infinity. Causality is just the way our mind organizes what it perceives.
> ...



Hume was one of my favorites. I think he said that god was the essence of whatever set the first particles in motion. The universe is nothing but reactions. Whatever had the power to move without being moved by something else is the existence of a power that human beings can't comprehend.


----------



## KelJu (May 29, 2008)

goob said:


> I think you got the wrong end of the stick - he was reffering to teaching Creationism in school.  Classic Kelju moment.



Doesn't matter. I wrote the answer to the wrong question, but none the less, its still correct. Tier is a dickhead that is looking to get a rise out of people.


----------



## Tier (May 29, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Doesn't matter. I wrote the answer to the wrong question, but none the less, its still correct. Tier is a dickhead that is looking to get a rise out of people.



I was having a religious debate, it has happened in the past.

You on the other hand just owned yourself, go ahead and take your gay little nipple piercing right out the thread with you if you don't like the topic. Say hi to Sauron for me tool bag.


----------



## KelJu (May 29, 2008)

Tier said:


> I was having a religious debate, it has happened in the past.
> 
> You on the other hand just owned yourself, go ahead and take your gay little nipple piercing right out the thread with you if you don't like the topic. Say hi to Sauron for me tool bag.





Hahha, I love that picture. I was high as a kite. Thats why I put it in my gallery. 

I guess I must have made you pretty mad to make you go hunting pictures to insult. Looks like somebody can dish it out, but can't take it. I'll give you my photo bucket account if you want it. There are tons of pictures there to insult. You seem to have a lot of time for that.


----------



## goob (May 29, 2008)

Tier said:


> I was having a religious debate, it has happened in the past.
> 
> You on the other hand just owned yourself, go ahead and take your gay little nipple piercing right out the thread with you if you don't like the topic. Say hi to Sauron for me tool bag.


 
 Hats off to Tier, that was a good comeback.


On a sidenote, I know its an old picture, but your built really solid Kelju.  Good work.


----------



## Tier (May 29, 2008)

Yeah, looking huge in that pic.


----------



## Nate K (May 29, 2008)

Why Christianity.....partly becuase it's popular in america and in your family?

Why choose a religion.

I like things like philosophical Taoism n such.....if so much research of religion is necessary why hold yourself back by "choosing" new testament stuff??
like an MMA guy only practicing wrestling? 

Since faith is a choice why put it all in one organized religion?

like a hungy man thinking of food, like a thirsty man thinking of water, like a child longing for its mother.   It don't matter...it's just desire.


----------



## Witchblade (May 29, 2008)

KelJu said:


> Hume was one of my favorites. I think he said that god was the essence of whatever set the first particles in motion. The universe is nothing but reactions. Whatever had the power to move without being moved by something else is the existence of a power that human beings can't comprehend.


Just to clarify: I was referring only to Hume's theory of causality. All the philosophers I mentioned believed in God, but that's beside the point.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 29, 2008)

Witchblade said:


> I found this bit interesting, because it's one of the few pieces of logical argumentation. Cheers for that.
> 
> 
> You said you studied philosophy. Then you should know about David Hume and Immanuel Kant. They say causal thinking is simply the way our mind is organized. Causality is not a substance. We can not perceive causality. We only perceive A, which is always followed by B. We therefore conclude A -> B. However, the notion that A caused B is simply rethorics and semantics. We only know that B happens after A. Therefore, we can not logically conclude there was a beginning (of the universe), nor can we disprove infinity. Causality is just the way our mind organizes what it perceives.
> ...



Hume's philosophical argumentation on causation has been largely divorced from the evidence that has been discovered in cosmetology.  Considering a universal expansion, and the reality of a Big bang singularity (beginning) comprehensively certain, a throwback to thsi antiquated historical document seems relevant: In the beginning, *God*.   What Hume's infinity regress has become is clearly unnecessary, as infinity is not a concept we find in the universe.  

Regarding Hume's position on causes; causes are experimentally verifiable interactions which have quantifiable values (effects).  Forces in physics, gasoline motors, microwaves, etc. operate on our principle understanding of cause and effect.  Assembly line manufacturing depend on it; it is not just a semantic, subjective interpretation.

More on causation:  "In the world of senses, there is an order of efficient causes."  Accorded with observation of the world, effects are always preceded by causes.  A man can't be his own father, and history is thick with the cumulative effects and no contradictions.  Effects are not manufactured without instigation.  Tracing them backward eventually leads to that singularity, that beginning.

Really, causes can be in the midst of an infinite loop of effects with no initial mover?  Aquanis says: "it is not possible to go on to infinity because in all causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate, and the intermediate cause the cause of the ultimate cause."  If you were to watch an endless row of falling dominoes, would we assume that no first domino set the others toppling?  I personally find this incoherent.



> Interestingly, Al Farabi, Averroï¿½s and the likes used the theory of the unmoved mover to prove God. I believe this is a logical fallacy, because they say every contingent effect requires a cause and thus there has to be a first cause, which is God. However, the conclusion is ruled out by the premise, as that first cause (basically an effect) would also need a cause. The universe can not be this first cause, but God can? The universe can not be infinite, but God can? This theory holds as much ground as skepticism ('we can not know anything') and the Matrix (which restarts at the end).



Aquinas confronts this notion in his second cosmological argument: That the idea of a contingent deity is inherently doomed to fail, and thus doomed to fail because whatever God might do to cause the existence of the universe, God's existence would thus require a cause as well.  

"Therefore, not all beings are merely possible; there must exist something the existence of which is *necessary*."

With infinity evidentially disregarded as a component of this universe, attempts to toss back the causation argument immediately fail.  Without infinity, causation smacks its face into the original event.  Some of our most concluded assertions of reality go along with it.  If matter cannot be CREATED nor DESTROYED, how am I sitting on this chair?  If there was a beginning, matter was brought into being.  What process in physics can bring about structures like atoms - out of NOTHING?  It is not a wild inference to make that whatever initiated the first cause, He must be able to violate those laws, in fact likely litigated those laws into nature.    

The materialist position is that the universe is improbable, so God himself must be even more improbable. (Dawkins)

My position assumes that God is himself necessary, and thus is the universe.  

I'm not surprised to see digital code in cells, or biochemical machines, or fined tune laws and constants holding the universe in place.  It validates my conclusion that as much as something is necessary so is it purposeful and so will the evidence testify for it.

If not God, then nothing.  And if nothing seems so plausible, why not God?


----------



## chilco (May 29, 2008)

You see,
People like Einstein and these so called "intellectuals" refuse to bellieve in a God mostly because if they did they'd have to acknowledge something bigger than themsleves. They'd also have to live by a respectable code of conduct.
What can I say to make you believe? Not much I'm sure! there will be a day however when you will accept the fact that there are things you can't control, things you cannot cure, things you cannot change. Some will fall to their knees and pray. Other's will become bitter and push thier Creator further away. For some God will reveal his miracles.
"The time for honouring yourself will soon come to an end........"


----------



## Witchblade (May 29, 2008)

Although I don't agree with it, a very fair thesis. The best logical arguments for the existence of God I've seen so far and I've seen a lot.


----------



## chilco (May 29, 2008)

Does any one believe that 1+1+2?
how do you know this? Are u sure?
Who says? How do we know it's true.
Prove it.
something + something= something
nothing+nothing= nada, zero, nil


----------



## Tier (May 30, 2008)

chilco said:


> You see,
> People like Einstein and these so called "intellectuals" refuse to bellieve in a God mostly *because if they did they'd have to acknowledge something bigger than themsleves*. They'd also have to live by a respectable code of conduct.
> What can I say to make you believe? Not much I'm sure! there will be a day however when you will accept the fact that there are things you can't control, things you cannot cure, things you cannot change. Some will fall to their knees and pray. Other's will become bitter and push thier Creator further away. For some God will reveal his miracles.
> "The time for honouring yourself will soon come to an end........"





But you believe you are created in the image of a god and all who do not agree will burn for eternity in hell fire, you also say that you over everybody else know how the universe came to be. 

If anybody is ego driven, I do not think the people who say "We know nothing" should be the primary focus.


----------



## bio-chem (May 30, 2008)

Tier said:


> But you believe you are created in the image of a god and all who do not agree will burn for eternity in hell fire, you also say that you over everybody else know how the universe came to be.
> 
> If anybody is ego driven, I do not think the people who say "We know nothing" should be the primary focus.



when did someone say those who do not agree will burn in hellfire for eternity? and accepting that God created the worlds acknowleges the power behind the creation without the comprehension of answering a how it was done.


----------



## chilco (May 30, 2008)

Very wrong Tier,

I have said nothing about burning in fire and so on. I actually know very little compared to the wunderkinds who post in here. They are brilliant.
I'm saying that at some point believing in God (whatever religion,) takes a leap of faith, whether your a scientist or a porn star finally taking that step is like going into the unknown. It's not perfect and there are no guarantees.
I believe if you look around at the beauty and complexity of life and of mother earth one cannot come to the conclusion that their is no God. It's just arrogant in my humble opinion.
I remember that movie with Jodie Foster where her character asks her priest how he can believe in a God that can't be more or less proven. His response was" "do you love your mother or father?" And of course she says "YES."
He tells her: "Prove it."
Can't be done, but of course most of us have this intangible thing called love, yet it can't be proven.......in any scientific way. Yest many of those who deny God would be angry if I said you don't love your parents because it can't be proven!
It's all about taking that leap. But I think it is a good thing to question and yes be skeptical.
The Apostle Paul was a skeptic and real rogue until accepting Christ. In today's world he'd be on death row for his crimes, yet thru god he found redemption and brought faith and meaning to many. Today he's looked upon as a hero in the christian church.
Well.... I'm rambling, but I appreciate your point of view.


----------



## bio-chem (May 30, 2008)

chilco said:


> Very wrong Tier,
> 
> I have said nothing about burning in fire and so on. I actually know very little compared to the wunderkinds who post in here. They are brilliant.
> I'm saying that at some point believing in God (whatever religion,) takes a leap of faith, whether your a scientist or a porn star finally taking that step is like going into the unknown. It's not perfect and there are no guarantees.
> ...


----------



## Tier (May 30, 2008)

Person1: God made the universe, and guess what? I look just like him!
Atheist: I don't believe you.
Person1: Arrogant!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 30, 2008)

Tier said:


> Person1: God made the universe, and guess what? I look just like him!
> Atheist: I don't believe you.
> Person1: Arrogant!!!!!!!!!!



You're putting words in peoples mouths.  Why don't you take a class or two in logic and stop wasting time failing miserably in these debates.


----------



## bio-chem (May 30, 2008)

Tier said:


> Person1: God made the universe, and guess what? I look just like him!
> Atheist: I don't believe you.
> Person1: Arrogant!!!!!!!!!!



have you even read what people are posting? this hasn't been the flow of the converstaion at all. If you have had any kind of negative response directed your way it has been because of your antagonistic name calling posts from the very begining.


----------



## Tier (May 30, 2008)

I was just pointing out that one who makes no assertions can not be labeled arrogant, jeez you guys are awful whiney.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 30, 2008)

Tier said:


> I was just pointing out that one who makes no assertions can not be labeled arrogant, jeez you guys are awful whiney.



You're going off the deep end.  Most "rebuttal" you've mad has been personal assaults, including generalizaton of people, the focus of your argument being that CHRISTIANS CAN'T BY DEFINITION USE LOGIC.

That's not arrogant?  Pretentious, then?  Obnoxious?  Arrogance is not a position of someone who "makes no assertions"?  Arrogance is an attitude not a talking point it.  And by the way, you ARE MAKING AN ASSERTION.  You aren't claiming to not know, or being unsure, the conclusion you've chosen is obvious.


----------



## Tier (May 30, 2008)

Take a stress tab


----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 30, 2008)

Let me summarize your argument in about 20 posts this thread:  I'M SMART!!  YOU'RE IDIOTS!!  Then you accuse us of arrogance.  Fuck off you moron.


----------



## DaMayor (May 30, 2008)

Duncans Donuts said:


> Let me summarize your argument in about 20 posts this thread:  I'M SMART!!  YOU'RE IDIOTS!!  Then you accuse us of arrogance.  Fuck off you moron.



Perhaps wrong to laugh, but....


----------



## Tier (May 30, 2008)

All your "Evidence" is anecdotal and interpreted by your subjective evaluation. Some of your methods reek of process of elimination versus proving the existence.

You are unable to show me God in a manner where there can be little or no argument, you are on top of an 11 foot horse of guesses.

Don't get me wrong, I would love for somebody to throw something concrete on the table that says HERES GOD. I can see no down side of there being a God, it would be freaking fantastic.


----------



## chilco (May 30, 2008)

Nah you see my friends,
we are in a brothehood. back in the day when you walked in the gym, you automatically knew that the guy benching next to ya had something deeply in common with ya. You helped that guy, pushed that guy, and had cameraderie that was unparalleled. That seems to be gone these days!
But Tier you are a brother. I'm serious.....it's all good.


----------



## bio-chem (May 30, 2008)

Tier said:


> All your "Evidence" is anecdotal and interpreted by your subjective evaluation. Some of your methods reek of process of elimination versus proving the existence.
> 
> You are unable to show me God in a manner where there can be little or no argument, you are on top of an 11 foot horse of guesses.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I would love for somebody to throw something concrete on the table that says HERES GOD. I can see no down side of there being a God, it would be freaking fantastic.



much of what you described is exactly how science works


----------



## Tier (May 30, 2008)

I understand that, I don't have any ill feelings towards anybody on here.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 30, 2008)

Tier said:


> All your "Evidence" is anecdotal and interpreted by your subjective evaluation. Some of your methods reek of process of elimination versus proving the existence.
> 
> You are unable to show me God in a manner where there can be little or no argument, you are on top of an 11 foot horse of guesses.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I would love for somebody to throw something concrete on the table that says HERES GOD. I can see no down side of there being a God, it would be freaking fantastic.



Anecdotal?  Subjective evaluation??  Process of elimination?

I made an argument from information science / engineering.

Made an argument from physics and fine tuning.  

Said, there are two possibilities that are recognized by physicists and philosophers: either the universe is improbable or necessary.  According to the fine tuning of the laws of nature, the recognition of a beginning point in the universe, the laws of conservation of mass and thermodynamics and causation behind it; the IDEA that the universe is improbable is so unlikely as there are not enough probabilistic resources (time, mass, interactions) IN THE UNIVERSE to generate the factors required for life.  Improbability makes the "chance" hypothesis laughable, literally, nobody takes it seriously  That's why the multi-universe proposition came out.

HOWEVER, the improbable universe with its many LUCKY FACTORS becomes moot if you assume a necessary universe.  

I made an argument from cosmology.

I also believe that morality and consciousness can not be explained by reductionists or materialistic philosophy.  A better explanation is a hypothesis based on a creator.

I pointed out a very big contradiction that atheists have to get around: if not God created, nothing created.  There was a beginning, it's clear.  The backbone of your thesis is that NOTHING can create more reasonably than SOMETHING.

So you mis characterizing my arguments is getting on my nerves since you have made none.


----------



## chilco (May 30, 2008)

there is no concrete when it comes to faith.
It doesn't work that way.
is there anything concrete about your workout routine.
You start off believing "this routine will get me big."
where's the proof?
you're taking a leap of faith.
Really.... I work with alot of old war vet's and they all tell me the same thing: The old saying "their are no atheist's in a foxhole."
They've told me: first the guy pisses his pants and then when the bullets and the tracers fly he cry's out for God!
I'm just sayin'!


----------



## Tier (May 30, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> much of what you described is exactly how science works



Agreed but you could prove almost anything universally scientifically accepted to the point of little or no argument, -- You could still be wrong, but you could give people great scientific and observable reasons to believe it. 

I can show you a strawberry, the strawberry seed, the strawberry plant, I can show you video of it growing and you can take a bite out of it when it's done, there can be little rational argument the strawberry exists.

So since we have been beating this already dead and buried horse on it's 1000th death anniversary. I have lost my interest at this point I will just leave with that one question.

*Show me God in a way there can be little or no rational argument.* 


You should not need to ask me questions to prove your statement
I fully expect you to attack the question instead of just laying out close to indisputable evidence that "God" in particular did this.
Please realize you can provide no more evidence than I can that an invisible cat made the universe
you are a tool because you did exactly what I said you were going to do in this list anyway (just throwing that in there  )


----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 30, 2008)

Tier said:


> Agreed but you could prove almost anything universally scientifically accepted to the point of little or no argument, -- You could still be wrong, but you could give people great scientific and observable reasons to believe it.
> 
> I can show you a strawberry, the strawberry seed, the strawberry plant, I can show you video of it growing and you can take a bite out of it when it's done, there can be little rational argument the strawberry exists.
> 
> ...



I am convinced you are the stupidest person I've ever seen on this forum, and that is really saying something.

Fallacies, stupid logic, incoherent rambling.  

*THEN INSTEAD OF ANSWERING ANY OF THE CLAIMS YOU SET CONDITIONS DISMISSING THEM BECAUSE THEY DON'T MEET YOUR STANDARD.*


----------



## Tier (May 30, 2008)

Tier said:


> Agreed but you could prove almost anything universally scientifically accepted to the point of little or no argument, -- You could still be wrong, but you could give people great scientific and observable reasons to believe it.
> 
> I can show you a strawberry, the strawberry seed, the strawberry plant, I can show you video of it growing and you can take a bite out of it when it's done, there can be little rational argument the strawberry exists.
> 
> ...





Duncans Donuts said:


> I am convinced you are the stupidest person I've ever seen on this forum, and that is really saying something.
> 
> Fallacies, stupid logic, incoherent rambling.
> 
> *THEN INSTEAD OF ANSWERING ANY OF THE CLAIMS YOU SET CONDITIONS DISMISSING THEM BECAUSE THEY DON'T MEET YOUR STANDARD.*



ZING! FAIL!


----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 30, 2008)

pwned.


----------



## chilco (May 30, 2008)

Ahhh but what came first the strawberry or the seed?
i.e., the chicken or the egg?
Just tune in to Forrest Gump or The Green Mile and ponder your questions
(Humor.)


----------



## Tier (May 30, 2008)

It's a shame I have to set such a strict criteria to get a straight question answered straightly. But when you don't have a straight answer I guess it's nice to not have to actually answer a question as it is asked.

Say that 3 times fast!


----------



## Tier (May 30, 2008)

Ohh it's soooo irrational just to ask somebody not to attack a simple question or interrogate the other party when laying down your evidence.

LOL  

How silly.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 30, 2008)

Two competing explanations, God vs. Nothing.  It is perfectly reasonable to make an argument by inferring to the best explanation.

Digital information in biological life.  We know (information science) that consciousness produces information.  Two competing hypothesis: Intelligence vs. Randomness.   Inference to the best explanation.

If you were actually an indifferent party and not only interested in hating believers, you would be just as vicious to the competing explanation. 

That said there's been plenty of argumentation presented that you either don't get or just glance over.


----------



## Tier (May 30, 2008)

I am not asserting "Nothing", Answer the question or take a seat , Prove your assertion, it's not a ridiculous request.

*Show me God in a way there can be little or no rational argument.* 


You should not need to ask me questions to prove your statement
I fully expect you to attack the question instead of just laying out close to indisputable evidence that "God" in particular did this.
Please realize you can provide no more evidence than I can that an invisible cat made the universe
you are a tool because you did exactly what I said you were going to do in this list anyway (just throwing that in there  )


----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 30, 2008)

You haven't addressed the causation argument, the fine tuning argument, the infinite regress argument, the digital information argument, the improbability argument; nor have you addressed the physics arguments that "prove" a beginning.  You haven't made the slightest  attempt at rebuttal.  Give me a break.


----------



## chilco (May 30, 2008)

It's funny....alot of people want this concrete answer to God and at some point thier question(s) about God become a religion and belief all unto itself.
It's a leap my friend. You opt to believe in Christ, Mohammed, Bhudda or whatever.
For me... my book says there were eye witnesses to a death and a resurrection. I'm sorry I can't take you back 2,000 years, but this is the testimony that's been offered up thru the ages. And even in todays courts, the testimony holds up quite well. So there it is... you delve.... you read, you ponder.... and then you make a choice. doesn't make you a better or worse person one way or another.
For the doubter i put it this way: "what's the downside of belief?"
You are a skeptic. And I say good for you! You are a thinking man. But remember to keep an open mind for us believer's and stand up for our right to worship a higher power.
GOD BLESS US ALL.


----------



## Tier (May 30, 2008)

Still refusing to answer my simple question? Just what I expected.

I do not think I have seen somebody fail as hard as you just did in any religious argument I have ever had. It's like dodge ball with rubber band man, it's hilarious.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 30, 2008)

LOL he ignores every argument that has been made, many of which are arguments going on in physics and philosophy at universities, vigorously debated arguments.  And instead of addressing them he dismisses them. 

_"These arguments don't meet my conditions,"_ the whiny bastard shrieks, _"so I don't have to rebut them."_


----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 30, 2008)

Tier said:


> Still refusing to answer my simple question? Just what I expected.
> 
> I do not think I have seen somebody fail as hard as you just did in any religious argument I have ever had. It's like dodge ball with rubber band man, it's hilarious.


----------



## Tier (May 30, 2008)

Duncans Donuts said:


> You haven't addressed the causation argument, the fine tuning argument, the infinite regress argument, the digital information argument, the improbability argument; nor have you addressed the physics arguments that "prove" a beginning.  You haven't made the slightest  attempt at rebuttal.  Give me a break.



You're right, but maybe I am wrong but Einstein knew a few things about physics, he may have considered those before writing that . Improbability is not proof, I do not remember the digital information argument sorry, dont really want to read through your abyss-like posts to find that piece.

Answer the question or fail miserably.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 30, 2008)

To actually engage in an argument, you have to respond to them!  Just ignoring them and pointing to your rule book and saying : SEE!  I DON'T ACCEPT THAT ARGUMENT, SO I WIN.  

It doesn't matter that the on-going debate is going on with these same arguments in universities!  You obviously wouldn't know, clearly having no education.  But the arguments are valid, so either answer them or stop trying to set conditions.


----------



## Tier (May 30, 2008)

Duncans Donuts said:


> LOL he ignores every argument that has been made, many of which are arguments going on in physics and philosophy at universities, vigorously debated arguments.  And instead of addressing them he dismisses them.
> 
> _"These arguments don't meet my conditions,"_ the whiny bastard shrieks, _"so I don't have to rebut them."_



LOL "He"?? Trying to gain support? You should on such weak ground.

Answer the question evasion-man!


----------



## Tier (May 30, 2008)

Duncans Donuts said:


> To actually engage in an argument, you have to respond to them!  Just ignoring them and pointing to your rule book and saying : SEE!  I DON'T ACCEPT THAT ARGUMENT, SO I WIN.
> 
> It doesn't matter that the on-going debate is going on with these same arguments in universities!  You obviously wouldn't know, clearly having no education.  But the arguments are valid, so either answer them or stop trying to set conditions.



I simply set those for a straight answer, not attacking questions or interrogating are not unreasonable requests

You fail yet again....


----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 30, 2008)

Tier said:


> You're right, but maybe I am wrong but Einstein knew a few things about physics, he may have considered those before writing that . Improbability is not proof, I do not remember the digital information argument sorry, dont really want to read through your abyss-like posts to find that piece.
> 
> Answer the question or fail miserably.



Abyss like post?  So my argument was too deep for you to get through?  

POINT:  EINSTEIN WROTE WHAT HE DID ABOUT *RELIGION* WITHOUT FACTS.  IT WAS AN OPINION LETTER.

POINT: EINSTEIN BELIEVED IN A HANDS-OFF DEITY THAT STARTED THE UNIVERSE BECAUSE HE UNDERSTOOD THE CAUSATION ARGUMENT.

POINT: ISAAC NEWTON BELIEVE IN A THEISTIC DEITY.  SO WHAT?

And, you're right about something for a change.  The improbability of the universe is not a DEDUCTIVE argument and thus not proof.  Not everything in science is deductive.  That doesn't mean you don't have to answer it.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 30, 2008)

Tier said:


> I simply set those for a straight answer, not attacking questions or interrogating are not unreasonable requests
> 
> You fail yet again....


----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 30, 2008)

If Tier and myself were driving along, and we came to a mountain that had the phrase: "Tier and Duncan, Hello!" I would point at it and say, "Look!  Someone wrote that for us."

Tier would say, "That's not true.  I believe that chance forces of erosion and wind over the years carved that saying out."

And i would say, "What?  Are you crazy?  The probability of that exact phrase being sliced into the mountain is almost 0."

Tier would sneer, "So?  Improbability isn't deductive. You have no proof."

"Show me the intelligent agent that did this!  And if you don't, I win the argument from lack of proof!"

And in his distorted world, he's technically right.  There is no deductive proof here.  There are two explanations, though: design and chance.  I think mine makes more sense.

And, by the way, an inference to the best explanation from understanding of cause and effect structure of the world IS a scientific argument.


----------



## Tier (May 30, 2008)

And your insistent avoidance of a simple request for definitive proof is all i need.

Thanks for playing, Kirk Out.

*Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.– Thomas Jefferson*


----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 30, 2008)




----------



## bio-chem (May 30, 2008)

Tier said:


> And your insistent avoidance of a simple request for definitive proof is all i need.
> 
> Thanks for playing, Kirk Out.
> 
> *Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.â?????? Thomas Jefferson*



please tell me your really not this slow? It is not about definitive proof. if definitive proof was required to accept any arguement, then there would be no progression. in science, in religion, in life. science continues on with the best information available until proof can later be obtained. we accept theories as facts and based on those theories continue to learn scientifically. then later on when new things have been discovered and we are now more capable we either proove or disprove those theories we accepted as fact in order to move on. like a stepping stone. this was shown in my example of the electron microscope capturing an image of a d electron orbital. 

God is the same way. you have to take a few steps forward before you are capable of looking back and recognizing the stepping stones were really there. 

attacking your desire for definitive proof is absolutely a valid arguement agianst the standards you have required. not just in religion, but also in science


----------



## lucifuge (May 30, 2008)

I still cannot believe this thread is still alive, but anyway, I gotta ask...
Tier, are you demanding proof of "God" in general, the Christian God, or some other specific diety?


----------



## Hoglander (May 30, 2008)

lucifuge said:


> I still cannot believe this thread is still alive, but anyway, I gotta ask...
> Tier, are you demanding proof of "God" in general, the Christian God, or some other specific diety?



He is trying to find himself in the lack of God, IMHO. 

He doesn't believe in his self worth without God yet he fails to embrace God OR his true lord. 

Hail Satan

:  )


----------



## Nate K (May 30, 2008)

Duncans Donuts said:


> If Tier and myself were driving along, and we came to a mountain that had the phrase: "Tier and Duncan, Hello!" I would point at it and say, "Look!  Someone wrote that for us."
> 
> Tier would say, "That's not true.  I believe that chance forces of erosion and wind over the years carved that saying out."
> 
> ...





I don't get your analogy.
By "exact phrase" you mean special god made life.

Just because your brain percieves this life as special doesn't mean it is. 

Science doesn't know jack shit about if there is a god or not. Something can't come from nothing?   we don't know shit....humans have only known about this science stuff for      1/bizilion trilionth x 6  of the amount of known time.


----------



## Tier (May 30, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> please tell me your really not this slow? It is not about definitive proof.* if definitive proof was required to accept any arguement, then there would be no progression. in science, in religion, in life.*



Didn't say for "any argument" anywhere.... Straw Man

For the creator of the universe, yes I'll take 2 servings please.



lucifuge said:


> I still cannot believe this thread is still alive, but anyway, I gotta ask...
> Tier, are you demanding proof of "God" in general, the Christian God, or some other specific diety?



Christian God


How the Christian God did it would also be an interesting inquiry.


----------



## lucifuge (May 30, 2008)

Tier said:


> Didn't say for "any argument" anywhere.... Straw Man
> 
> For the creator of the universe, yes I'll take 2 servings please.
> 
> ...



Ahhh, thanks for clarifying. I got nothing for ya then.


----------



## Tier (May 30, 2008)

lucifuge said:


> I still cannot believe this thread is still alive



The way I see it, the longer this thread lasts the more indicative it is that I am on the correct side


----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 30, 2008)

Nate K said:


> I don't get your analogy.
> By "exact phrase" you mean special god made life.
> 
> Just because your brain percieves this life as special doesn't mean it is.
> ...



You lost the context of my analogy.  He wants deductive proof of everything.  The arguments made to him were not.  This kind of thinking leads to nothing being satisfactory.  He won't even address the arguments made, he dismisses them outright because of his own personal conditions for argument.  

Again, the analogy works perfectly because of what he referred to with regard to improbability and refuting my fine-tuning / digital code argument.  He said something being improbable is not an argument; as if saying so makes the problem go away.  Indeed the improbability type stuff during this kind of discussion IS a good argument, just not one that carries the benefit of absolute certainty.  His own conditions and his own method of acceptance is a demonstration of how he would react in the analogy offered above.

I never said life was special.  Never said a word about what God was right or heaven or hell or the bible.  Saying we don't know shit makes no sense, no offense.  What we do know is that nothing has never produced matter, in many many observations.  Matter has never self generated, nor has a claim been proposed that could define such a process.  I can say this because it is a SCIENTIFICALLY VERIFIED LAW.

"Something can't come from nothing?   we don't know shit"

What are you suggesting, then?  I can't use a scientific argument in my argument, either, because I assume...we just haven't discovered it yet??  Come on.


----------



## min0 lee (May 30, 2008)




----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 30, 2008)

I think it's ridiculous the level of animosity here.  I avoided open chat all 4 years since i started posting, but to see Christians and theists ridiculed as idiots or incapable of using logic is a bad assertion.  I could care less who invests in my argument, but there's not civility here.  I jumped in because I don't like being called bad intellectual names by virtue of my association with God.


----------



## min0 lee (May 30, 2008)

Duncans Donuts said:


> I think it's ridiculous the level of animosity here.


 
Is it because of the smiley? 

I just use the smiley to break the tension, there should be no reason anyone should go name calling here.

The smiley wasn't directed at anyone, I read most of these posts and found it both interesting and amusing.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (May 30, 2008)

min0 lee said:


> Is it because of the smiley?
> 
> I just use the smiley to break the tension, there should be no reason anyone should go name calling here.
> 
> The smiley wasn't directed at anyone, I read most of these posts and found it both interesting and amusing.



No, not you.  It's the endless pages of ad hominem assaults on people who believe in God.  Its hate.  Hate like this isn't pumped out in most arguments, but it is when it comes to people making theistic or even deistic arguments.  I know better than most, at my school during physiology training I'd been in a lot of such discussions.


----------



## DaMayor (May 30, 2008)

I'm still waiting for Tier to offer something other than, "I know you are, but what am I?" 

DISPROVE something, Tier. Stop with your lame asault on what you have no knowledge of...rather, _what you have no more knowledge of than the rest of us_..To ask that someone prove the existence of God is a painfully clear indication that you are a complete idiot. Who could PROVE such a thing? 

Ah then, you say, I am victorious...no, not by a long shot.

Your sorry attack simply shows us all that you are not only without answers, but without faith as well.....this must be a sad place to exist.

Oh, "but I am perfectly content where I am" you say? So why is it you attack those of a different opinion? If your shit doesn't stink, then why are you fanning it all over everybody?

Give up, son. By the time you learn the truth it will be too late anyway.


----------



## Nate K (May 30, 2008)

yeah you can use a scientific argument.
Thinking there is a god is reasonable.

"Just because your brain percieves this life as special doesn't mean it is."  I said this but it doesn't make any sense

I still say we don't know shit...I'm sure many scientists would agree.


----------



## DaMayor (May 31, 2008)

Nate K said:


> I still say we don't know shit...I'm sure many scientists would agree.



That's what I've been saying all along.


----------



## Tier (May 31, 2008)

DaMayor said:


> I'm still waiting for Tier to offer something other than, "I know you are, but what am I?"
> 
> DISPROVE something, Tier. Stop with your lame asault on what you have no knowledge of...rather, _what you have no more knowledge of than the rest of us_..To ask that someone prove the existence of God is a painfully clear indication that you are a complete idiot. *Who could PROVE such a thing?
> *



*Nobody*


----------



## cheesegrater (May 31, 2008)

Tier said:


> What if a nice fresh glass of pomegranate juice did all that?
> 
> The argument is not about if a God did it as much as it's about if it is of sound mind to believe God did do it. Maybe God did do it, but the only purpose you serve in spouting off (not you personally) "God did this", "God did that" without any evidence is make yourself look completely insane.
> 
> And as I have shown throughout the last couple pages of this thread, Christians will do all they can to avoid answering questions instead of manning up. It's a child's tactic, and anybody who believes in Santa God is a child.



if god exists then it isnt in sound mind to disbelieve God did this, god did that...the point of what i was saying is that we dont know if god exists, science doesnt and cant and wont prove whether god exists. For you to say people are insane when they profess belief in god is simply your opinion based on a biased understanding of science.

what is the need for evidence? what would evidence be defined as? what could God do to prov ide evidence that you personally or science generally would believe? why should God provide evidence? Wouldnt god providing evidence be a contradiction of the principle of free will?


----------



## cheesegrater (May 31, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> If you believe this, why go to church?  If you believe that all these religions can get away with believing how they feel they should, then you are dismissing the teachings of your religion and will go to hell



God would decide who goes to hell, not a preacher. therefore, if someone is an attendent of  a church but feels there is but one god and he is the god of all religions revealed to different cultures in different ways, and that's Gods nature, then God wont punish.

Cults are a different story because they seek to apply deistic qualities to human subjects. False prophets and such.


----------



## cheesegrater (May 31, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> The bible makes other claims... and besides, religion relies on the accuracy of the bible.  If the bible tells us that Jesus is our savior and the only way into the kingdom of heaven is through him and if religion accepts this as truth then what the bible says is very important.
> 
> Without the bible being accurate, we know nothing about God.  There very well may be a God but without an accurate bible, we don't know if Jesus was the savior or what God expects from us, or whether there is a heaven and hell or whether or not God even cares what we do.  If we prove the bible is majorly flawed, we don't know any of these things and religion becomes pointless.  Why follow anything if we don't know what God wants or if he even wants anything from us?



as i said, the bible is the hebrew tribe's history of its interaction with God.

my theory is that God reveals himself to different cultures in different ways. Judaism was one way to reveal to an ethnic culture, but it was limited due to the ethnicity of the religion. So Jesus became the vessel of revelation to an audience beyond the Jewish ethnicity.

if you read the bible, a lot of it is recordings of what God supposedly said. As the events of the old testament got passed orally thru the generations, the story takes shape as what we know, when it was written down around 300BC.

religion is pointless because they all seek to be the one true religion. it's a flaw of humanity that we believe our personal belief is always right and the "other" is always wrong. 

Knowledge of God is a personal journey and shouldnt be the domain of a preacher to set the course for that journey.

i personally think God is disgusted at the way we've abused religion. Look at in the bible the numerous times its recorded as God punishing the Jews for breaking the covenant; whats to say Christians arent breaking the covenant, or muslims breaking the covenant or whomever, by preaching the way they do?


----------



## cheesegrater (Jun 1, 2008)

Tier said:


> hehe, the debate was over when the person with the creator assertion could provide no evidence. Overlooking the fact that one of the most intelligent people in human history who had understanding enough of the universe to hypothesize about things that exist before ever seeing them said he could see nothing that points there.
> 
> Religious "debates" are never debates.
> 
> If God is ever proven, he will become science.



why the need for evidence? if god exists, then he gave us free will, as one of the basic tenets of the Bible even states. If we have free will, then him providing a smoking gun renders free will meaningless.

Science will never prove god. If there is a god he is by definition above and beyond the science we know. So every step we make up the scientific ladder he is at least one step ahead.

hypothetically, how would science "prove" God? What would they "find"?


----------



## cheesegrater (Jun 1, 2008)

Tier said:


> Well on the surface it may seem good, but really it's the weakest argument possible.
> 
> There's a magic invisible flying ball that is completely undetectable, prove me wrong. It's impossible to do.
> 
> Stuff like that is exactly why you need to prove the existence with empirical evidence before asking people to disprove it.



a magic, undetectable flying ball makes no claims nor interferes with anything, so there's no need to debate whether to seek to prove it exists. Becasue for all intents and purposes, it doesnt.

a scientific corrolary would be dark matter, but science has started to understand the gravitational effects of it, as far as i know. So until this magic flying ball is thought to affect something, or anything, why even bring it up?


----------



## cheesegrater (Jun 1, 2008)

Tier said:


> YouTube Video



the why wont god heal amputees video is very amateurish propaganda.

like i said in my first post, every argument about God seems to use rationality to debunk the events in the Bible, therefore proving God doesnt exist, which is precisely what this video does.

First, God didnt write the bible. People did. People who-supposedly-were given the word of God by God through various manifestations. It is not a perfect revelation. It is an ehtnic historical blueprint.

to answer the "...why doesnt god do something?" questions, it's because he isnt the God written about in the Bible. That God is our interpretation and hope. God gave us free will and thus is non-interventional as any break with that corrupts the precept of free will.

to answer the questions about why does the Bible tell us to..., it's because the Bible is the Jewish ethnic historical manuscript. God was used by the Jewish tribe to excuse aggressive behavior and corrupted his word in order to justify various transgressions. 

as for the evidence of Jesus' miracles, it wasnt specific enought o answer. What evidence should there be for which miracles?


----------



## Art (Jun 2, 2008)

Well Einstein would have to say that, or he wouldn't be Einstein.

I disagree that Christianity is childish,
I'd also have to say that or I wouldn't be a Christian.
It's easy to be a Christian in Church when you're surrounded by other Christians.
It isn't easy to be a Christian out there in the real world.

And Christian or not,
It takes a man to step up to the plate and live by the most honorable
law given to us in the Bible, and many other religious systems for that matter.

It's much more difficult for me to believe in a Big Bang than a Creation.


----------



## tucker01 (Jun 2, 2008)

Duncans Donuts said:


> I think it's ridiculous the level of animosity here.  I avoided open chat all 4 years since i started posting, but to see Christians and theists ridiculed as idiots or incapable of using logic is a bad assertion.  I could care less who invests in my argument, but there's not civility here.  I jumped in because I don't like being called bad intellectual names by virtue of my association with God.



I enjoy your posts on this matter.  They are well thought out and reasoned.  More so then any other position I have seen presented about following a certain religion

Your choice to follow the Christian religion is your choice, and I respect that.  I just chose to follow an agnostic view.


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 2, 2008)

Duncans Donuts said:


> If Tier and myself were driving along, and we came to a mountain that had the phrase: "Tier and Duncan, Hello!" I would point at it and say, "Look!  Someone wrote that for us."
> 
> Tier would say, "That's not true.  I believe that chance forces of erosion and wind over the years carved that saying out."



I disagree.  It is more more like this:

If Tier and Donuts were driving along and came to a mountain that had the phrase: "Tier and Duncan, Hello!" Donut would point at it and say, "Look!  God wrote that for us.  He created everything in 7 days and gave a guy named Moses some tablets and used him to spread his law.  He flooded the world once and all the animals got on a big boat.  Then years later he had a son through virgin birth and his son died for all of our sins in a type of blood sacrifice so we no longer have to do animal sacrifices for our forgiveness.  Now if we follow his teaching and accept this story as the truth you will live in a paradise world for all of eternity, if not... well you will burn in hellfire."

Then Tier would say, "Ahhh I highly doubt it.  I see no evidence for all of that.  True I really don't know what carved that writing in the mountatin but the details of your story are a little far fetched.  Where did you come up with that story?"

To which the only honest reply would have to be this:

"Well Jesus was born and had a cult following.  Then the religion became quite popular in Rome.  The pagan Roman empire decided it was easier to join the new Christian religion so they absorbed them in and made the two religions play well with each other.  They set Jesus's birthday to be on the same day as their winter solictice celebration to absorb them into pagan Roman culture, used the sign of the cross to help them slaughter their enemies and introduced ideas like burning in hell for all of eternity if they did not fall in line.  They also set up a hierarchy where the head of their newly formed Roman Catholic church had the ultimate athority to decide on docturn and a created a concept that dictated he could not make a mistake.  This heirarchy still remains to this day.  Then in the 3rd century, they decided to put together a book about their beliefs so they studied hundreds of ancient books and chose and manipulated about 70 of them that they felt would represent them the best and they called it the bible.  Of course this was done under the infallible guidance of the pope.  Then the church slaughtered tons of people in cruisades because they wouldn't fall in line with their beliefs.  The pope even has athority to override any of the biblical teachings if at some point the church decided they would no longer work in their favor.  Some Christian groups ultimately saw how twisted and corrupt the Catholic had become so they separated and formed their own Christian religions around their interpretation of what the bible says.  Although they don't agree with the Catholic church and their history, for some reason they decided to use the handbook (the bible) that the Roman organization had compiled.  They believe this is the true word of God and never try and find out what was written in the dozens of other books that the Romans decided would not fit in with their empire.  

This is the book where I get all these stories from and few of the stories has anything to do why the writing is on the mountain.  But for some reason that writing on the mountain must mean that this book is true and accurate, even if the stories seem far fetched and there are contradictions about different facts in the bible.  But hey, that writing is on the mountain, so it must all be true!"


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 2, 2008)

cheesegrater said:


> God would decide who goes to hell, not a preacher. therefore, if someone is an attendent of  a church but feels there is but one god and he is the god of all religions revealed to different cultures in different ways, and that's Gods nature, then God wont punish.
> 
> Cults are a different story because they seek to apply deistic qualities to human subjects. False prophets and such.



How do you know God's nature?

Why attend a church if you believe that God is the same god for all religions and the dogma means nothing.  Why attend a church if that church has fundamentally different beliefs than you do?


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 2, 2008)

cheesegrater said:


> as i said, the bible is the hebrew tribe's history of its interaction with God.



Actually it is a few books chosen out of the many ancient books that existed.  It wasn't compiled until 367 AD by Pope Athanasius and the Roman Catholic church.  Essentially a political group that controlled the pagan Roman Empire put together the books of the bible.



cheesegrater said:


> i personally think God is disgusted at the way we've abused religion. Look at in the bible the numerous times its recorded as God punishing the Jews for breaking the covenant; whats to say Christians arent breaking the covenant, or muslims breaking the covenant or whomever, by preaching the way they do?



I would agree... if there is a God and if he cares about our religions, I am sure he would be disgusted.

I believe Christianity in it's current form, throws out a lot of the bibles teachings.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 2, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> I believe Christianity in it's current form, throws out a lot of the bibles teachings.



This may be the only correct thing you have written in this thread


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 2, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> This may be the only correct thing you have written in this thread



Then I guess I have one up on you!


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Jun 2, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> I disagree.  It is more more like this:
> 
> If Tier and Donuts were driving along and came to a mountain that had the phrase: "Tier and Duncan, Hello!" Donut would point at it and say, "Look!  God wrote that for us.  He created everything in 7 days and gave a guy named Moses some tablets and used him to spread his law.  He flooded the world once and all the animals got on a big boat.  Then years later he had a son through virgin birth and his son died for all of our sins in a type of blood sacrifice so we no longer have to do animal sacrifices for our forgiveness.  Now if we follow his teaching and accept this story as the truth you will live in a paradise world for all of eternity, if not... well you will burn in hellfire."
> 
> ...



I did not one time reference biblical inerrancy or literal 7 day creationism.    What a stupid fucking mis-characterization.  Don't straw-man my arguments like that.  

As I have said OVER AND OVER again my argument here, the one you quoted, deals with Tiers views of science.  He is claiming ONLY DEDUCTIVE PROOF WILL BE SUFFICIENT FOR HIM TO TAKE ANY ARGUMENT SERIOUSLY.  The ANALOGY had NOTHING to do with God; it was in reference to his standard of acceptance.  It was not used to be analogous to God, but instead was used to demonstrate an unreasonable condition.  

Feel free to quote me referencing LITERAL BIBLICAL CREATION or BIBLICAL INERRANCY.  Since I haven't, why don't you revise your response.  It is stunning to me how someone could compose such a snide and mocking response when they are only responding to their mis-characterizing, straw-man, pigeon-holing idea of what a person's argument for God is.  Condescending trash.  Read what I've wrote before you try to "get me" with your oh so impressive rationalizing.


----------



## Tier (Jun 2, 2008)

for being omnipresent that fucker is sure hard to nail down isn't he


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 2, 2008)

Duncans Donuts said:


> I did not one time reference biblical inerrancy or literal 7 day creationism.    What a stupid fucking mis-characterization.  Don't straw-man my arguments like that.
> 
> As I have said OVER AND OVER again my argument here, the one you quoted, deals with Tiers views of science.  He is claiming ONLY DEDUCTIVE PROOF WILL BE SUFFICIENT FOR HIM TO TAKE ANY ARGUMENT SERIOUSLY.  The ANALOGY had NOTHING to do with God; it was in reference to his standard of acceptance.  It was not used to be analogous to God, but instead was used to demonstrate an unreasonable condition.
> 
> Feel free to quote me referencing LITERAL BIBLICAL CREATION or BIBLICAL INERRANCY.  Since I haven't, why don't you revise your response.  It is stunning to me how someone could compose such a snide and mocking response when they are only responding to their mis-characterizing, straw-man, pigeon-holing idea of what a person's argument for God is.  Condescending trash.  Read what I've wrote before you try to "get me" with your oh so impressive rationalizing.



Yeah, I did get a little carried away.

The only point I am trying to make is that one of the main arguements for believing in God is the complexity of creation.  They look at how detailed and specific everything is (and the fact that anything is here at all) and they use this to support their belief in God.

That's great, *my only problem with that whole line of thinking is that proof only suggests that there is order in the universe and maybe a creator.  It doesn't tell you anything about that God*.  Is he a Christian God?  Does He care about us all?  Is there a heaven and hell?  What is the overall purpose?  These are the things that religion tries to answer and explain.

The proof of "look around how did this come to be"... might support the idea of a creator but it in no way supports anything the bible says or any religious dogma at all.

There is no way to know what God wants from you or if He even cares what you do.  He might just want you to try and figure out and learn.  Reincarnation has just as much proof as any Christian ideas.

I believe the bible, Christianity, Mormonism, Norse Mythology and any other organized religion is ultimately flawed... not because I am sure there wasn't a creator but because I don't believe in the relgions fairy tales.  These are human systems and stories that developed because of a belief in God and a desire to understand the bigger picture.

I believe the truth is that we don't have any idea what the bigger picture is and that if there is a creator, he isn't doing a lot to let us know his secrets.

This thread has constantly said that Tier is arrogant but is it not just as arrogant to claim that you understand what God wants and what the afterlife holds for you based on ancient or not so ancient texts that a political organization put together for their own personal benefit?


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 2, 2008)

Tier said:


> for being omnipresent that fucker is sure hard to nail down isn't he



That is kind of lame arguement... if he does exist and doesn't want to share the knowledge of his existance with us then he would be hard to nail down.

But in that case I guess the bible and any other text is probably just made up crap by humans.... but that doesn't prove there is no higher power.


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 2, 2008)

Duncans Donuts said:


> I did not one time reference biblical inerrancy or literal 7 day creationism.    What a stupid fucking mis-characterization.  Don't straw-man my arguments like that.



The point is if you don't believe in 7 day creationism or take anything literal, then what's the point?  The bible is just stories.  At what point do you start taking things literal, at what point do you know what is true and what is fable?

Why believe in the story of salvation if you don't back up the other stories too?  And if you don't believe in salvation, then what is the point?


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Jun 2, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> Yeah, I did get a little carried away.
> 
> The only point I am trying to make is that one of the main arguements for believing in God is the complexity of creation.  They look at how detailed and specific everything is (and the fact that anything is here at all) and they use this to support their belief in God.
> 
> ...



Again, my arguments have been primarily a philosophical, cosmoligical, and information science one.  I never claimed that the science could work to any specific conclusion beside a somewhat first order law, logic, design, and so forth, conclusion.  By the way, NONE of these conclusions have been responded to in this thread.  A second order question would be impossible to answer via scientific mechanisms.  This is where theology finds its place.

The laws under which our universe operate is different than the initial state and why the laws exist.  This is a set of inquires that lead to questions of purpose, morals, consciousness...manifestly,  very personal questions that a person has to address for themselves.  And while it is perfectly reasonable to ARGUE theology between theologies, it is another to impose that belief.  To believe in an absolute truth is not arrogant; to enforce that belief as PROOF is. I could say reasonable, "I believe that Christianity is the summary of moral truths for all mankind.  Here is why I believe that."  But to say, "Christianity IS the summary of moral truth for mankind.  It is a proven." would be a very arrogant thing indeed



> I believe the bible, Christianity, Mormonism, Norse Mythology and any other organized religion is ultimately flawed... not because I am sure there wasn't a creator but because I don't believe in the relgions fairy tales.  These are human systems and stories that developed because of a belief in God and a desire to understand the bigger picture.



The first sentence exclusively hangs the conclusions you make (belief) on zero facts.  It is a perfect demonstration of the fallacious argument of incredulity. The substantive claims (miracles, etc.) of any scriptural text can not be verified or denied, though.  SO the belief you have arrived at is not something I would expect to prove or disprove.  I think that they are bad conclusions, obviously, but at this point facts lose a lot of priority.  If we could take our conclusions and put them under peer review, scientific scrutiny and argumentation, theology would be useless and free-will would lose value.

You can not prove a religious thought as being true.  That is not to say that there is no such truth, however, which is the assertion of theology.  In that regard theology and science occupy different segments of philosophical thought.  Theology says much of purpose and morality; science says nothing of either.   If a theology began to make assertions that contradict science, though, we have a demonstrable refutation of that theology itself.  If a theological set of thoughts made a claim that said: 1+1=4, we would likely dismiss such as an infringement of reason-ability.   How can something which claims to be "true" contradict our basic understanding of the world?

As far as the way non religious people characterize belief is insipid.  I keep hearing references to ancient texts and ancient politics and bearded deities and stone carved commandments, and on and on.  The argument by me is not about inerrancy of the bible.  I don't care what any of you believe, thats why I didn't market my Christianity as my soapbox of argumentation.  My beliefs are an ordered sequence of philosophy and science which merge seamlessly into beliefs on morality and purpose.  Don't assault me on the top floor assuming you'll topple the whole building.  The foundation will still be standing.  And as I've said, I don't believe beating up my own personal theological conclusions with your own personal anti-religious conclusions is going to knock anything down.


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 2, 2008)

I guess I am just saying that there is no reason to have and theological conclusions on anything because we have no reliable source to draw dogma from.

Sure, say you believe in a creator because things exist... but you really can't draw any conclusions about that creator or the afterlife


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Jun 2, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> The point is if you don't believe in 7 day creationism or take anything literal, then what's the point?  The bible is just stories.  At what point do you start taking things literal, at what point do you know what is true and what is fable?
> 
> Why believe in the story of salvation if you don't back up the other stories too?  And if you don't believe in salvation, then what is the point?



The entire bible is made up of much metaphorical, allegorical, literal, poetic, and other literary devices .  The creation event, where all of the mass of the universe (some 10 to the 80 particles) came into being from nothing, is well explained in Genesis.  Poking me into a "literalist or nothing" view of the bible is not accurate, because it isn't my position.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Jun 2, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> I guess I am just saying that there is no reason to have and theological conclusions on anything because we have no reliable source to draw dogma from.
> 
> Sure, say you believe in a creator because things exist... but you really can't draw any conclusions about that creator or the afterlife



That's not my argument, that I believe in a creator because things exist.  Please go back and read the arguments I've used pages ago, if you have the time.  If not, no worries.  From that body of evidence, inferring a creator, I can conclude a lot about the engineer of the universe by the existence we experience as humans.  Why does morality and consciousness exist?  How can reductionism account for the way our MIND exists?  Does chemistry explain feeling and thought?  Are brains just computers with consciousness as a side-effect?   If we are all genetically determined, do we really have free will?  Or, as many geneticists and neuroscientists claim, is free-will an illusion?  

Where does the idea of moral absolutes come from?  Is rape, murder, incest, pedophilia something that itself is wrong or is it only relativistically wrong?  Are the laws that uphold nature perfectly tuned for existence?  Why are there laws at all?  If the universe follows thermodynamic entropy, what are we winding down from?  If winding down, who wound it up in the first condition?  If nature follow logics, where does logic come from?  Why are humans able to decipher logic, logically?  For me transitioning from science to theology was smooth and natural.


----------



## Tier (Jun 3, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> That is kind of lame arguement... if he does exist and doesn't want to share the knowledge of his existance with us then he would be hard to nail down.
> 
> But in that case I guess the bible and any other text is probably just made up crap by humans.... but that doesn't prove there is no higher power.



It was just a wise crack, quit pandering to the other side


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 3, 2008)

Tier said:


> It was just a wise crack, quit pandering to the other side



dude, you really are a jack ass. the guy explains his position, and you claim he is "pandering to the other side" he hasn't changed his position at all. It must be lonely being you.


----------



## Tier (Jun 3, 2008)

I am sorry it's going over your head, he was attacking me in an attempt to seem objective. You do not argue a wise crack because it isn't serious... Tool!


----------



## DaMayor (Jun 3, 2008)

Tier said:


> I am sorry it's going over your head, he was attacking me in an attempt to seem objective. You do not argue a wise crack because it isn't serious... Tool!



A Paranoid jackass.


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 3, 2008)

Tier said:


> I am sorry it's going over your head, he was attacking me in an attempt to seem objective. You do not argue a wise crack because it isn't serious... Tool!



I was hardly attacking you... I just didn't agree with something you posted


----------



## Tier (Jun 3, 2008)

It's cool, jeez I am really running low on e-friends


----------



## Witchblade (Jun 3, 2008)

Tier said:


> It's cool, jeez I am really running low on e-friends


It is because you are an immoral, heretic pig.


----------



## goob (Jun 3, 2008)

Witchblade said:


> It is because you are an immoral, heretic pig.


 
Burn the heretic! Burn the satanist! Burn the Witch!


----------



## Witchblade (Jun 3, 2008)

I sink like a brick, therefore you can logically deduce I am in fact not a Witch.


----------



## brogers (Jun 3, 2008)

People who demand "evidence" of God, meanwhile believing wholeheartedly with blind faith that life just spontaneously arose from some "primordial soup" are quite hilarious.

So Einstein said that  Who cares?  Maybe some of you've heard of Sir Isaac Newton, who was worlds more influential in the scientific world than Einstein.  How about Louis Pasteur? Mendel?

So to the "genius" WillBrink who wrote this:





> That is the conclusion most intelligent people will come to on the issue.


 And the other geniuses slapping him on the back for his comment, please feel free to enlighten me on the idiocy of Newton, an ardent believer of God.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 3, 2008)

brogers said:


> People who demand "evidence" of God, meanwhile believing wholeheartedly with blind faith that life just spontaneously arose from some "primordial soup" are quite hilarious.
> 
> So Einstein said that  Who cares?  Maybe some of you've heard of Sir Isaac Newton, who was worlds more influential in the scientific world than Einstein.  How about Louis Pasteur? Mendel?
> 
> So to the "genius" WillBrink who wrote this: And the other geniuses slapping him on the back for his comment, please feel free to enlighten me on the idiocy of Newton, an ardent believer of God.



Not slamming you for your religious beliefs, but the most recent one of your scientist examples was born almost 200 years ago, I believe before bloodletting was no longer en vogue.


----------



## brogers (Jun 3, 2008)

Dale Mabry said:


> Not slamming you for your religious beliefs, but the most recent one of your scientist examples was born almost 200 years ago, I believe before bloodletting was no longer en vogue.



Intelligence has nothing to do with the time in which you were born.  Have you noticed that SAT, GRE, IQ, etc... tests are not objective, knowledge-based tests, but are subjective reasoning tests?  I think you should read the quote I was responding to again.  Referring to Einstein's quote 





> That is the conclusion most intelligent people will come to on the issue.



Some of the greatest minds in the history of the world concluded that an intelligent creator had to be at work.


----------



## Witchblade (Jun 3, 2008)

Statistically speaking intelligence and strength of belief in a religion are negatively correlated.  

However, it is true that this statistic is not accurate for the most successful people (as in best in the world). This can be psychologically explained as a need for a very strong motivation, something that drives you more than superficial motivators like more money. Also 'best in the world' people are often very non-conformist persons with peculiar quirks.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Jun 3, 2008)

Witchblade said:


> Statistically speaking intelligence and strength of belief in a religion are negatively correlated.
> 
> However, it is true that this statistic is not accurate for the most successful people (as in best in the world). This can be psychologically explained as a need for a very strong motivation, something that drives you more than superficial motivators like more money. Also 'best in the world' people are often very non-conformist persons with peculiar quirks.



Please give me this statistic and the source it came from.  What a ridiculous an oversimplified contention.   If some organization has claimed in a conclusive write-up to find a link between stupidity and God belief, they're grasping as straws.   

This correlation (God and stupidity, No God and sophistication) implicitly relates God belief and unintelligence in a cause-effect relationship.  What arrogant clap-trap is this?  Maybe the university system works to indoctrinate the educated against God?  Maybe the statistc themselves are questionable?  Maybe an atheistic bias is heavily impacting the results?   Send me a link to this "study" and I'll gladly offer you a detailed rebuttal. 

It is not a shy reality that popular opinion doesn't make any argument true.  Scientists are an authority of science, so most of their God conclusions are not scientific but philosophical.  Instead of claiming generally that they are authoritatively more intelligent and have concluded against God, bring up the arguments themselves and lets have a discussion on that.   I am educated, my IQ is very high, my SAT score was 1510, I'm still in school with a dominantly liberal disposition, pursuing more education.  It should be obvious my sharply differening opinions ARE NOT stupid or irrational or ignorant for that matter.  So any of these analytical deductive statistics will have to deal with anomalies like me among others.  



> This can be psychologically explained as a need for a very strong motivation, something that drives you more than superficial motivators like more money



I do not mean this personally, because I think you are an exceptionally bright and respectful person WB.  However, this conclusion is a fairy-tale, utterly biased and fallacious.  You are saying conclusively that anyone of these exceptions that contradict the "study" can be understood as anomalies by MOTIVE SHOPPING them generally.  Come on, man, I consider this kind of thing highly suspect and highly offensive.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Jun 3, 2008)

Dale Mabry said:


> Not slamming you for your religious beliefs, but the most recent one of your scientist examples was born almost 200 years ago, I believe before bloodletting was no longer en vogue.



I think an underlying implication of this statement is that advancements in science of recent time make scientific suppositions about God that are old, irrelevant, preceding whatever arbitrary "enlightenment" occurred.  If this implication is in fact being made, it is fallacious.  Big bang cosmology, digital code in the cell, biochemical machinery, fine-tuning physical law values, and such have in many opinions IMPROVED the evidence for a "creator".  

Claiming all the older scientists opinions are archaic and uninformed while only contemporary scientist opinions are relevant to the discussion is to misunderstand the nature of the argument itself.  Just as proofs were not possible then, as are proofs not possible now.  Scientists do not speak with their scientific authority on God, so the philosophical and inferential conclusions of greats like Mendel and Newton are just as relevant today.


----------



## Witchblade (Jun 3, 2008)

Duncans Donuts said:


> Please give me this statistic and the source it came from.  What a ridiculous an oversimplified contention.   If some organization has claimed in a conclusive write-up to find a link between stupidity and God belief, they're grasping as straws.
> 
> This correlation (God and stupidity, No God and sophistication) implicitly relates God belief and unintelligence in a cause-effect relationship.  What arrogant clap-trap is this?  Maybe the university system works to indoctrinate the educated against God?  Maybe the statistc themselves are questionable?  Maybe an atheistic bias is heavily impacting the results?   Send me a link to this "study" and I'll gladly offer you a detailed rebuttal.
> 
> It is not a shy reality that popular opinion doesn't make any argument true.  Scientists are an authority of science, so most of their God conclusions are not scientific but philosophical.  Instead of claiming generally that they are authoritatively more intelligent and have concluded against God, bring up the arguments themselves and lets have a discussion on that.   I am educated, my IQ is very high, my SAT score was 1510, I'm still in school with a dominantly liberal disposition, pursuing more education.  It should be obvious my sharply differening opinions ARE NOT stupid or irrational or ignorant for that matter.  So any of these analytical deductive statistics will have to deal with anomalies like me among others.


I choose my words carefully in response to Brogers. I'm familiar with statistics and thus I think it goes without saying that correlation does not imply causality. It is also obvious to me that there are always numerous anomalies to the average. 

I said IQ is negatively correlated to strength of belief in a religion. I did not say either one causes the other one. I did not say religious people are stupid. And I definitely didn't call anyone in this thread stupid. I actually consider you highly intelligent.

As for my personal opinion, I see this debate as any other debate. Opinions often differ and ultimately only the arguments matter to me. My view on people who believe in God for the reasons you mentioned is very positive. I'm only condescending towards stupid people, generally and in the case of sheep that don't think for themselves and blindly accept the teachings of their parents or their church. I think it is this blind acceptance that has a higher frequency among less intelligent people, hence the statistics. Those sheep have no (valid) reason, unlike you, for their religious beliefs.

I'll post some of the statistics I was talking about in the next post.


----------



## Witchblade (Jun 3, 2008)

Intelligence & Religion - this link sums up a whole lot of studies

Half Sigma: Religious people are less intelligent

Joakim Carlgren - Religious People Have Lower IQ

Religion and Intelligence, by Vexen Crabtree - this one interprets a bit, but does make a lot of sense IMHO

bLogos: Inverse Correlations





			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> Studies comparing religious belief and I.Q.
> 
> In 2006, a self-published non-peer review study was undertaken[3] to investigate, on a country-by-country level, the possibility of a link between the importance of religion to citizens and their average IQ. The study found that the strength of religious belief in countries was inversely related to their average IQ. The countries with higher IQs on average had significantly lower levels of religious belief than those with lower average IQs. The study has subsequently drawn criticism[citation needed] for neglecting the influence of several critical confounding factors, such as the work of religious institutions in deliberately focusing missionary work in third world countries where educational opportunities are concurrently poor.
> 
> In 2007, Danish newspapers reported that a study conducted by controversial intelligence researcher Helmuth Nyborg estimated that atheists' IQs were on average nearly 6 points higher than believers'.[4] The study is based on data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, which includes intelligence tests on a representative selection of American youth, where they have also replied to questions about religious belief. " I'm not saying that believing in God makes you dumber. My hypothesis is that people with a low intelligence are more easily drawn toward religions, which give answers that are certain, while people with a high intelligence are more skeptical," says the former professor. [5]



This is sort of the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 3, 2008)

Witchblade said:


> Intelligence & Religion - this link sums up a whole lot of studies
> 
> Half Sigma: Religious people are less intelligent
> 
> ...



 self-published non-peer reviewed. this has the credibility of a junior high school book report


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Jun 3, 2008)

Witchblade said:


> Intelligence & Religion - this link sums up a whole lot of studies
> 
> Half Sigma: Religious people are less intelligent
> 
> ...



I think it is rational to argue people who are "sheep" in accepting religion without evaluation are less intelligent.  I'll concede that to you.  A lot of fundamentalist people are less intelligent, but it is not because intelligence and God are linked, but intelligence and indoctrination are linked.  It's clear from some of the personal assaults here that indoctrination is not an exclusive quality of religious fundamentalism, though.  And neither is intolerance. 

Let me point one a very seriously confounding vector in some of these conclusions.  As there is an apparent correlation between education and belief in God, looking at the data itself, this assume that the belief is resultant of the education itself.  That is to say that naturalism, the metaphysical presumption of science (nature is all there is and all there ever was), is the RESULT of the education and not pressed impassionately from the curriculum.  And trust me, theistic or intelligent design views are NOT WELCOMED IN MOST UNIVERSITIES.  Of course anybody who has taken a hard science is fully aware of the ridiculing, dismissive, biased approach theology or God receives from typical professorships.  Therefore I would counter that the education itself is biased against theism, not some pretentious form of enlightenment.

It'd be interesting to look at the relationship between atheism in the arm of Hitler's regime that were involved with the confinement and slaughter of "inferior" people, statistically.  It would also be interesting to determine the relationship between those atheists in the old Soviet Socialist Republic and how many people were executed under that regime, relative to the Christians in both sects.  I suppose we could use statistics to conclude how atheism generally supports genocide, either directly or indirectly, but it would be a bad conclusion.

I don't know what a verbal IQ test is, either, which is how one of the "studies" supported their claim.  I took an IQ test that took an hour when I was about 15, and it was not built exclusively on vocabulary.  This kind of test is by definition less comprehensive and probably less accurate.


----------



## brogers (Jun 3, 2008)

Don't forget Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot in any list of atheist mass murderers.


----------



## maniclion (Jun 4, 2008)

Tier said:


> for being omnipresent that fucker is sure hard to nail down isn't he


I think the Roman's nailed him down pretty good...


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 4, 2008)

Duncans Donuts said:


> I think an underlying implication of this statement is that advancements in science of recent time make scientific suppositions about God that are old, irrelevant, preceding whatever arbitrary "enlightenment" occurred.  If this implication is in fact being made, it is fallacious.  Big bang cosmology, digital code in the cell, biochemical machinery, fine-tuning physical law values, and such have in many opinions IMPROVED the evidence for a "creator".
> 
> Claiming all the older scientists opinions are archaic and uninformed while only contemporary scientist opinions are relevant to the discussion is to misunderstand the nature of the argument itself.  Just as proofs were not possible then, as are proofs not possible now.  Scientists do not speak with their scientific authority on God, so the philosophical and inferential conclusions of greats like Mendel and Newton are just as relevant today.



You are correct in what is being implied.  Now, I think you have every right to believe in religion and don't think you are any dumber for believing in it.  What I do believe is that if Newton or Pasteur had any of the evidence available today, their opinions would be different, based on their belief in the scientific method and not a change in their IQ, which we all know would be the same.


----------



## Tier (Jun 4, 2008)

During the time period of Mr. Newton I believe the law indicated you had to be a member of the Church of England..... So that does not necessarily mean he was under duress but you can't disregard the time period either, it's completely relevant.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 4, 2008)

Dale Mabry said:


> You are correct in what is being implied.  Now, I think you have every right to believe in religion and don't think you are any dumber for believing in it.  What I do believe is that if Newton or Pasteur had any of the evidence available today, their opinions would be different, based on their belief in the scientific method and not a change in their IQ, which we all know would be the same.



I disagree. I feel Newtons opionion of God would be the same. Newton had a very strong sense of God and belief in a higher power, he was very disillusioned with the current state of Christianity and believed the church's available had moved away from the teachings found in the bible. I feel that even with all we have today as far as scientific knowlege Newtons belief would be much the same.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 4, 2008)

Tier said:


> During the time period of Mr. Newton I believe the law indicated you had to be a member of the Church of England..... So that does not necessarily mean he was under duress but you can't disregard the time period either, it's completely relevant.



you had to be a member of the church of england and a pastor to be a professor at the University he was an educator at. england at the time had catholics, jews, even athiests within the country, they were just limited as to what positions they could hold


----------



## Tier (Jun 4, 2008)

I think it is safe to say the time period had some influence on what he could say


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 4, 2008)

Duncans Donuts said:


> Please give me this statistic and the source it came from.  What a ridiculous an oversimplified contention.   If some organization has claimed in a conclusive write-up to find a link between stupidity and God belief, they're grasping as straws..



Oh sure now you need proof... the "look around it has to be true" arguement doesn't work for this too?


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 4, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> self-published non-peer reviewed. this has the credibility of a junior high school book report



Kind of like the book of Mormon


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 4, 2008)

maniclion said:


> I think the Roman's nailed him down pretty good...



That was Jesus, not God


----------



## Will Brink (Jun 4, 2008)

brogers said:


> Some of the greatest minds in the history of the world concluded that an intelligent creator had to be at work.



Good for them. If you are talking about historical figures, yes, many of them, such as Newton, et al were religious men. Makes perfect sense, as science was still quite new, and although they had the minds to look beyond what everyone else thought,* they were able and wiling to look further. Of course it was the religious bone heads of the time (pick any time) that went out their way to hold such great minds back, because any exploration of why things work as they do that didn't conclude "God did it" was a threat to them.

Now, if you are talking about modern scientists, that appears to vary a great deal by discipline. Studies on that are all over the place. A recent survey found 

"Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe"

Scientists' Belief in God Varies Starkly by Discipline | LiveScience

Most surveys do find the % of scientists who believe in God has been declining, and there is no reason to think that trend wont continue as science continues to develop and or disproves more silly religious dogma beliefs. 

For example, a survey done by the  National Academy of Sciences; half replied. When queried about belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism."

That historically some of the great minds seemed to believe in a "intelligent creator" is far different than a Christian God. The Greeks believed in their God(s), etc, etc. 

They also believed a lot of other silly stuff that turned out to be wrong, so...


* = "God did it"


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 4, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> Kind of like the book of Mormon



stop it. your ignorance is showing


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Jun 4, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> Oh sure now you need proof... the "look around it has to be true" arguement doesn't work for this too?



I don't have any idea what you're talking about.  

The logic is flawed, that was the point of my rebuttal.  I already explained this in my response, which you seemed to overlook or just not see.  One word sentence rebuttals are not elaborate enough for me to understand or respond to.  Please tell me exactly what you mean.  "Look around it has to be true", something you are apparently QUOTING ME ON is not an argument or a statement I've used.    Please be more specific.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Jun 4, 2008)

Tier said:


> I think it is safe to say the time period had some influence on what he could say



I would agree, but the content of his writing speaks for itself.  The time period today is biased in the opposite regard, that doesn't mean we can dismiss the conclusions today outright because of the partisanship involved.


----------



## maniclion (Jun 4, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> That was Jesus, not God


*John 1:1 says that â?????the Word was God.â??? John 1:14 says  				that â?????And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among usâ???:  What about the Trinity, all as one??....
*


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 4, 2008)

maniclion said:


> *John 1:1 says that â?????the Word was God.â??? John 1:14 says  				that â?????And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among usâ???:  What about the Trinity, all as one??....
> *



you really think discussing the meaning of scripture with someone who doesn't believe in the bible will be productive?


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Jun 4, 2008)

Dale Mabry said:


> You are correct in what is being implied.  Now, I think you have every right to believe in religion and don't think you are any dumber for believing in it.  What I do believe is that if Newton or Pasteur had any of the evidence available today, their opinions would be different, based on their belief in the scientific method and not a change in their IQ, which we all know would be the same.



I think the conclusion there is more evidence today dismissing God than there was back then is found in error.  It was a long held belief that the universe was in a steady state, which was a bastion against causation arguments.  Netwon UNDERSTOOD that the laws of nature explained the motion of the planets and the forces, but he knew those same laws did not EXPLAIN THE INITIAL STATE!  This is a causation argument, similar to the one I'm using, and he made it hundreds of years ago.  The fine tuning specificity was not known, either.  And the DNA, biomachinery, et al.  To say Newton updated today would change his perspective is silly and far from certain.  You can't help yourself to our proponents just because a few hundred years have passed.  In his Natural Philosophy work he addresses some of these very arguments we are discussing here, in fact:



> Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being, necessarily existing.  1





> Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is every where, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and no where....God is the same God, always and every where. He is omnipresent not virtually only, but also substantially; for virtue cannot subsist without substance.â€¦It is allowed by all that the Supreme God exists necessarily; and by the same necessity he exists always and every where....And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearance of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.  2





> This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being....This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God almighty, or Universal Ruler.... [SIZE="-1"]3[/SIZE]




The fact that naturalism has an explanation for it doesn't mean the contrary explanation is not just as valid.  The philosophical arguments against God go back many, many years.

I would take the position that in Newton's time there was far, far less evidence for God and just as many philosophical arguments against it.  I've heard this line of reasoning used against old NBA players that "wouldn't be able to compete with athletes today" and fantasy match-ups that are made usually resulting in Vince Carter smoking Larry Bird 11-4.  As I said this line of reasoning is unrealistic, unprovocative fantasy.  This demeans beliefs, accomplishments, and is wildly speculative.  

1. Motte, A. 1825 (translated). Newton's Principia: The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. New York: Daniel Adee, 506. 

2. Newton's Principia: The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. pp. 505-506. 

3. Newton's Principia: The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. pp. 501.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Jun 4, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> Kind of like the book of Mormon



The book of Mormon never claimed or made any assertions as a scientific theory, now did it?


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Jun 4, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> Good for them. If you are talking about historical figures, yes, many of them, such as Newton, et al were religious men. Makes perfect sense, as science was still quite new, and although they had the minds to look beyond what everyone else thought,* they were able and wiling to look further. Of course it was the religious bone heads of the time (pick any time) that went out their way to hold such great minds back, because any exploration of why things work as they do that didn't conclude "God did it" was a threat to them.
> 
> Now, if you are talking about modern scientists, that appears to vary a great deal by discipline. Studies on that are all over the place. A recent survey found
> 
> ...




I think any reasonable person here can agree that fundamentalism working toward suppression of an idea or slandering/libeling people in disagreement is a very bad thing.  I like this comment and think it is a fair analysis of the statistics, except for the statement: "[disbelief in God will]..continue as science continues to develop and or disproves more silly religious dogma beliefs".  As I've said many times a declarative statement is not an argument, so please be more elaborate with your rhetoric.

I hope that these statistical points are not trying to be used for proof of anything.  It really ignores the partisanship of the education system itself to assume scientific enlightenment is responsible for the change in thought against God.  Scientists can not disprove God with scientific authority, neither can He be proved in similar fashion.  Many inferential conclusions are being made from the data, which is where the arguments battle on historically into today.  Cosmology, biology, information science, and philosophy are the battle grounds themselves.

Also, God of the gap arguments HAVE been used by individuals working to suppress scientific ideas.  I agree that this is a fallacious travesty.



> They also believed a lot of other silly stuff that turned out to be wrong, so...



Just to note, the way you are applying this to support your cause can just as easily be applied against your cause.  If science is a glorified pursuit of evidential truth, and there is no evidential conclusion on this topic, then it is a possibility that the predominant contention of atheism is something that could "turn out to be wrong".


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 4, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> stop it. your ignorance is showing



Lol, sorry... I couldn't resist the cheap shot


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 4, 2008)

Duncans Donuts said:


> I don't have any idea what you're talking about.
> 
> The logic is flawed, that was the point of my rebuttal.  I already explained this in my response, which you seemed to overlook or just not see.  One word sentence rebuttals are not elaborate enough for me to understand or respond to.  Please tell me exactly what you mean.  "Look around it has to be true", something you are apparently QUOTING ME ON is not an argument or a statement I've used.    Please be more specific.



It wasn't really a one sentence rebuttal... more a joke really.  I was just having fun.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Jun 4, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> It wasn't really a one sentence rebuttal... more a joke really.  I was just having fun.



Sorry, I mistook it then.


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 4, 2008)

maniclion said:


> *John 1:1 says that â?????the Word was God.â??? John 1:14 says  				that â?????And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among usâ???:  What about the Trinity, all as one??....
> *



I don't see a lot of strong biblical support for the trinity.

There are just a couple weak passages that suggest they were one... and for some reason they say "The Word" instead of "God", where almost everywhere else in the bible god is referred to as God or the Father.   I would be interested to see the original text and what words were used to translate that.

There are way more passages showing their separate nature.  Like nobody knows the time of the end not even Jesus... only God knows.  Things like:

â?????For us there is but one God, the Father . . . and one Lord, Jesus Christâ??? (1 Corinthians 8:6).

There is no talk of a "trinity" in the bible.  There are passages that suggest they are the same and others that suggest they are different.  The debate grew over the years and through a series of Councils (General Council of the Church of Niceae, General Council at Constantinople, etc) the Catholic church came up with the idea of the trinity so they could have it both ways and unite the church.  But really the truth is different parts of the bible just don't seem to agree on the nature of Jesus.  The concept of the trinity is just a convenient way to make it work.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 4, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> I don't see a lot of strong biblical support for the trinity.
> 
> There are just a couple weak passages that suggest they were one... and for some reason they say "The Word" instead of "God", where almost everywhere else in the bible god is referred to as God or the Father.   I would be interested to see the original text and what words were used to translate that.
> 
> ...



Your understanding is much better than I would have given you credit for


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 4, 2008)

bio-chem said:


> you really think discussing the meaning of scripture with someone who doesn't believe in the bible will be productive?



Because I don't believe in the bible, I can't have an opinion on its meaning?  I did lead a bible study years ago and I even bought into the churches interpretation at one time.

I think the mistake most people make is studying the bible out of context with no reference to the peoples cultures at the time and without knowing the history of the Roman Catholic church and how todays religions were formed and what they are really based on.


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 4, 2008)

Duncans Donuts said:


> The book of Mormon never claimed or made any assertions as a scientific theory, now did it?



No it claims to hold the knowledge of creation and salvation.  So you are saying science claims should be verified but making claims on topics as important as salvation do not need a similar verification process?


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Jun 4, 2008)

In my Christian belief, the trinity is an analogy of a difficult concept presented to limited human minds.  Three entities having seperate properties making up the whole.    

Think of length, width, and height.  Matter requires all three concepts to occupy a space in the universe, and these values themselves are separate.  Regardless, together they make up something that has a single and unique identity.


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Jun 4, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> No it claims to hold the knowledge of creation and salvation.  So you are saying science claims should be verified but making claims on topics as important as salvation do not need a similar verification process?



I'm saying they occupy different realms.  Why the hell would the book of Mormon be submit to peer review??  I'm using your words to point out that your argument (statement, really) as a rebuttal itself is biased and kind of silly.

His statement that none of the statistical analysis being found in a peer review is notable, because peer-review is a part of the verification process in science.  I happen to think it's erroneous to dismiss them on that point, though.  The claims are not hung on whether they've been submitted or published.  To hold an expectation of peer review for the Book of Mormon is incoherent.


----------



## NeilPearson (Jun 4, 2008)

Duncans Donuts said:


> In my Christian belief, the trinity is an analogy of a difficult concept presented to limited human minds.  Three entities having seperate properties making up the whole.
> 
> Think of length, width, and height.  Matter requires all three concepts to occupy a space in the universe, and these values themselves are separate.  Regardless, together they make up something that has a single and unique identity.



I understand the definitions and how it's explained... I just don't buy it


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Jun 4, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> I understand the definitions and how it's explained... I just don't buy it



Okay.  I do.  That's not unexpected though.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 4, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> No it claims to hold the knowledge of creation and salvation.  So you are saying science claims should be verified but making claims on topics as important as salvation do not need a similar verification process?



science has nothing to do with salvation


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Jun 4, 2008)

I would like to know what exactly natural law and order has to say on topics of morality and purpose.  The answer is, of course, absolutely nothing.  You can't deduce from the basic interaction of materials with physical laws a great deal about the universe and humanity.  The electrons orbit, for example, is explained with science but that science itself is not a resource for reaching EVERYTHING.

Although naturalism, the backbone of scientific reasoning, claims it is.  Naturalism is itself metaphysical and not conclusive.  Not by a long shot.

Please, don't ignore this fact.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 4, 2008)

NeilPearson said:


> Because I don't believe in the bible, I can't have an opinion on its meaning?  .



ive read the koran, but i hardly go around trying to interpret it


----------



## maniclion (Jun 4, 2008)

I don't believe in the Bible but i do hold it in the highest respect as one of the proofs for my own belief that our Ultimate Creator if there is one or more must be present in everyone and everything, but very much so in man due to mans ability to create such wonderments of imagination.  Maybe there are 2 creators as the Yin and Yang suggests which would explain matter/antimatter/dark matter, energy/dark energy, etc and why things with such large areas of empty space seem solid...


----------



## Duncans Donuts (Jun 4, 2008)

maniclion said:


> I don't believe in the Bible but i do hold it in the highest respect as one of the proofs for my own belief that our Ultimate Creator if there is one or more must be present in everyone and everything, but very much so in man due to mans ability to create such wonderments of imagination.  Maybe there are 2 creators as the Yin and Yang suggests which would explain matter/antimatter/dark matter, energy/dark energy, etc and why things with such large areas of empty space seem solid...



To suggest that the universe emulates the creator, whether to a small or to a large degree, is explicitly rational.  These kinds of views progress science and discovery.  People who have strong beliefs in a Creator should not and often do not dismiss mysteries with God of the gaps argumentation but dive head-first into them.  When a person recognizes that science itself can not have all the answers, they begin to infer purpose from the logic and rationality in nature itself.

Earlier I asked: why does the universe make sense logically?  Why does natural follow laws, when there is no good reason it should?  Why does matter exist at all?  How do natural laws operating on physically reducable elements explain consciousness?  

Science discovers a great deal about history, cosmology, physics, mathematics, biology, exercise, engineering, and so on.  However, there is a point at which which this process is incapable of reaching and incapable of proving.  At this point humanity has to being philosophizing and inferring and reasoning.  The metaphysics of naturalism claim to answer or dismiss these questions under the veil of science, but I assure you it does no such thing.


----------

