I went when I was really young. I think I mainly visited resorts and amusement parks.
Prime Factor
-
be careful FinsterniS. Religion is not merely an inner sensation of a god-presence, however it is also a collection of histories, rituals and beliefs passed down via texts etc. Science is no more “infected” with religion then it is by politics (much less, i’d imagine), the biases of scientists seeking their own agenda’s of malice or success, industry, etc. Religion provides a jumping point for science in many respects. It asks why - science replies with how, and both may answer when and where. While it has been repeated that “religious people” have stood in the way of science, there are also many religious people furthering science (myself included). While historically creationists have tried to influence the development of science, they do have some good points (http://www.origins.org/menus/pjohnson.html). Furthermore, creationists are useful in challenging the theory of evolution as being merely a theory, forcing scientitsts to be honest about this point, to find proof for it, and to not declare it the “law of evolution” prematurely.
And really, is “infect” the best adjective you could come up with? Not “permeating” or “lacing”? And every science? And necessarily in a “bad” way? how manichaeistic - Good (science) vs. Evil (religion).
:lol: -
I think we’re all forgetting one of the greatest patrons to modern science and technology – war.
-
The biggest motivator for science is the almighty dollar. Science now is driven by results for profit. As TG Moses VI said, war is a good contributor to science and technology. As Vietnam showed us, big business can keep a war going. I’ll agree politics is a motivator, probably not as much now as in the Cold War. The doesn’t seem much left for religion to affect…
-
Yeah, modern science means absolutely nothing without the almighty dollar. The overhead, logistics, research cost, materials, worker staff all need to be paid for, usually millions of dollars for higher level bio-chemistry. Though private contributions play a large part, the government spends billions of dollars each year on research cost. From World War II came the computer, the drive in Nuclear physics, plastic, synthetic rubber, the radio proximity fuse, rocketry, ect. the list is endless.
-
@cystic:
be careful FinsterniS. Religion is not merely an inner sensation of a god-presence, however it is also a collection of histories, rituals and beliefs passed down via texts etc.
True
Science is no more “infected” with religion then it is by politics (much less, i’d imagine), the biases of scientists seeking their own agenda’s of malice or success, industry, etc. Religion provides a jumping point for science in many respects. It asks why - science replies with how, and both may answer when and where. While it has been repeated that “religious people” have stood in the way of science, there are also many religious people furthering science (myself included).
Sure, science is not pure, but Religion is a counter-force to science that politic & money cannot match, because it does’nt only slow down science, it try to reverse it.
While historically creationists have tried to influence the development of science, they do have some good points (http://www.origins.org/menus/pjohnson.html). Furthermore, creationists are useful in challenging the theory of evolution as being merely a theory, forcing scientitsts to be honest about this point, to find proof for it, and to not declare it the “law of evolution” prematurely.
Creationism influence can be resume to the common people. There’s so many kind of evolutionism that it does’nt require creationism to remind it of it’s fragility. Still, evolution occur, the question is; How ? Creationists are making every move possible to point out problem of the evolutionism but not in a constructive way. There’s something very problematic with Creationism; it’s own method.
Evolutionism =
(Evidence) ==> Theory
(New Evidence) ==> Modification of the theoryIt’s the scientific way. Evolutionism “regenerate” itself with new evidence.
Creationism =
(Religious Belief) ==> TheoryIt’s not scientific. A creationist won’t use evidence of creation but evidence of incoherence in evolutionism. It does’nt regenerate on new evidence… Because these evidence simply does’nt exist. “new earth” creationist just look completly ridiculous, i was really shocked by the importence they seem to have in the US. The major argument religion ALWAYS has used it the argument from ignorance = “We don’t know how X work, then it’s god”
Creationism is just like geocentrism; it’s not in any way valid; it’s just an easy to understand theory, and very good for the oversized ego of the masses. Just look at statistic… the power of Creationism do not lie in his inherent value but in it’s ability to be easily understood by the poppulation.
And really, is “infect” the best adjective you could come up with? Not “permeating” or “lacing”? And every science? And necessarily in a “bad” way? how manichaeistic - Good (science) vs. Evil (religion).
:lol:You know i hate “Good” & “Evil”, black & white term… i’m not qualifying in a general way Religion as being “Evil”, i just say it’s a counter force to Science, and also (i think); evolution himself. The belief in a almighty god is irrational (nobody here seem to be able to say oterwise) and arrogant (human is the center of the “creation”). oh sure i don’t think christian are idiot… well not all. Descarte was a real genius, he make big developpement in science, mathematic, method & logic, still when it come to religion he was completly irrational, every single logical proof he made are not consider as fallacious.
The only argument for religion is faith.
-
Sure, science is not pure, but Religion is a counter-force to science that politic & money cannot match, because it does’nt only slow down science, it try to reverse it.
This is, i believe, a very subjective opinion. Certainly many religious figures (people with religious beliefs) act irrationally, but i’ve seen the same, and worse, from non-religious people as well. Religion and science are outside of each other, and should be (if they do not compliment each other). You are falling into a fallacy of generalizing by assigning all of religion a position of opposing science. Science answers questions about the physical realms, religion about the spiritual ones. They do not have to conflict (unless we humans choose to make it do so).
Creationism influence can be resume to the common people. There’s so many kind of evolutionism that it does’nt require creationism to remind it of it’s fragility. Still, evolution occur, the question is; How ? Creationists are making every move possible to point out problem of the evolutionism but not in a constructive way. There’s something very problematic with Creationism; it’s own method.
I do believe that evolution is occuring, but still not all creationists are out to simply bash the concept. Many of us consider intelligent design to be a wholistic way of tying everything together. Certainly we can not yet PROVE intelligent design, however given our experiences - both inwardly, and our awe at the scope of the creation of the universe - a rational person might understand how one might come by considering intelligent design. But again, if creationists are the only ones telling scientists “wait - you have a theory, not a law, there are alternative explanations” that does not translate into “reversing science” or even being “not constructive”. (dare i consider that it is almost scientific of us to do that?)
It’s not scientific. A creationist won’t use evidence of creation but evidence of incoherence in evolutionism. It does’nt regenerate on new evidence… Because these evidence simply does’nt exist. “new earth” creationist just look completly ridiculous, i was really shocked by the importence they seem to have in the US. The major argument religion ALWAYS has used it the argument from ignorance = “We don’t know how X work, then it’s god”
I do have a problem with new earth creation, although i have heard excellent theories supporting it. Also you might modify your last statement to “We don’t know how X works. We have a relationship with God. It is possible/likely/true that God created the universe”.
Creationism is just like geocentrism; it’s not in any way valid; it’s just an easy to understand theory, and very good for the oversized ego of the masses. Just look at statistic… the power of Creationism do not lie in his inherent value but in it’s ability to be easily understood by the poppulation.
“not in any way valid”? Because God did not leave a literal signiture on the planet that we can identify? This statement again is very subjective.
The only argument for religion is faith.
should it really be any other way? would it make any sense? why would we need both science and religion otherwise? religion is not here to tell us what science can, just as science can never tell us what religion can. dare i consider that it is possible that your viewpoint on the subject is narrower than it might otherwise be - that is, if all you believe in is that what you can see and hear - what would happen if you were born without sight?
-
@Field:
YB - I’ll agree no miracles are attributed to Bigfoot. What miracles are you refering to? The Red Sea crossing? Jesus’ resurrection? Where is God now???
Fatima, Lourdes, Janarius, Guadalupe, Turin, Miraculous Preservation of some Saints’ bodies, for some of the more modern ones. There are so many recorded miracles during the history of the Catholic Church, you have no idea.
Try one I saw myself. I don’t remeber what it is called, but it is this crying statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I saw it myself. The statue was crying. I couldn’tt believe it. I looked for some kind of glands or someting, none. No candles, humidity, anything that could explain it. I saw it at two different places. Crying. A statue.
-
True, and just because you call it reality does not make it so.
You say often Fisternis that just because 85% of the world’s population believes in God does not make it His existence so. However, you are missing the logic that there is enough to support God’s existence to make 85% of the World’s population believe.
The more common theme in religion are justice and post-mortem existance.
No the more common themes are love of God and fellow man
We are human; so the creator must look like human. We are (were) a society dominated by male; so god must be male.
This is straight from you Fisternis, no one here believes this.
The better argument i’ve heard to support god evidence is; god exist because god exist.
You’re pretending there is a circular argument were there is none.
Also, there is more to life and this world than mere utility.
I agree
If God does not exist, what exactly is the point of life? To procreate? To have as much pleasure as possible? To watch TV? What?
If A is not useful when we try to explain X, The it would not be logic to integrate A in the understanding of X.
You are just adding some fancy pants logic to gloss over the real reason you not just disagree with the existence of God, but are vehemently oppossed to the existence of anyone who believes differently.
OIt is because it makes you uncomfortable. Plain and simple.
i’m becoming more and more anti-religious with time…
Again, your hatred of Religion (seperate from your disbelief in God) is a very irrational and emotional aspect, the kind of thing you like to critisiz in other people
You should be proud, biology is a beautiful science… well… like all science
You’re simply trying to replace your natural yearn for God with a new god, science. In april I was working at a camp for sixth graders. Before we ate, we sang a song of thankfulness, it was baisically a protestant grace except “the Lord” was replaced with “the Earth” They had simply moved from worshipping God to nature. When people stop turning to God they make “new gods” to turn to, science, nature, sex, drugs, violence, etc.
-
evolution himself.
Again, you just replacing God with another god, called science. Only science does not offer love, support, or heaven, simply an explanation as to why it rains
-
evolution himself.
Again, you just replacing God with another god, called science. Only science does not offer love, support, or heaven, simply an explanation as to why it rains
I don’t need a heaven.
I don’t need “support” or “love” in the way the church offers.
I believe that science is right. It is a belief, as it starts with some assumptions, that you of course you can deny to believe if you want to and try to find another explanation.But: from that science comes much more respect for living beings, nature (or “creation”), than would come if someone told me to respect it.
I see the beauty and especially the fragility of our ecosystem. And i see how some persons who call themself christian and have sworn on the bible treat our world as if they had a spare one in their shed.I respect Jesus Christ for his philosophy of how we should live with each other.
But, i don’t need someone to tell me what to believe, or what is beneficial or not to myself or to mankind as a whole. I can think for myself.I don’t need a savior, i am responsible for myself and my actions. Whatever “sins” i commit are my actions. If i feel uncomfortable having done some things, then i have to change that i don’t do them again.
Science gave me a certain understanding of how things work in nature. This enables me to a certain degree to foresee the response of nature to the things we do.
Out of pure pessimism i might hope for the existance of an allmighty and caring god, as otherwise we will really face a tough time, unless we change our behavior soon. -
"Soooo… proving god exist is hard. I will just ask that;
i want the rational proof that the concept of god is needed in the explanaition of the creation. "I am agnostic for 3 reasons…
1. Things always happen to spite me…some sort of power is at work.
2. When and what created the universe?
3. It answers all the questions i’m not advanced enuff mentally to answer (i know it enough!)not very good reasons huh? Well if you want people to prove god exists, prove that it doesn’t! You can’t definantly say there is a god or no god, because there is no way we can prove it either away…until we get good enough at physics! meh, i would rather be ignorant!
-
You say often Fisternis that just because 85% of the world’s population believes in God does not make it His existence so. However, you are missing the logic that there is enough to support God’s existence to make 85% of the World’s population believe.
Argumentum ad numerum
You seem to think people in general own the scientific knowledge and method to understand such complex thing. 1 000 years, even if the earth was proven to be a sphere (quasi), most people were thinking it was still flat… You are using very poor argument my friend. There’s no evidence of god, i ask a question at the first post that you are unable, with your “logical evidence”, to answer.
No the more common themes are love of God and fellow man
in christianism. you know butt every people are not christian, theres was countess religion in this earth. Norse, German, Gaul, Greek; they all had “false religion” like christian call them.
This is straight from you Fisternis, no one here believes this.
Christian do not believe in a personnal god ? Then christian are not theist.
That is a projection, a complete lack of creative logic.
You’re pretending there is a circular argument were there is none.
The only argument you’ve made exept the empirical one were circular… And that’s the only one i heard about.
If God does not exist, what exactly is the point of life? To procreate? To have as much pleasure as possible? To watch TV? What?
I am sure my answer will make you happy; i don’t know.
When man does’nt know, he create myth. I don’t know. I see a species that make everything (sometime not the right way…) to survive.
You are just adding some fancy pants logic to gloss over the real reason you not just disagree with the existence of God, but are vehemently oppossed to the existence of anyone who believes differently.
OIt is because it makes you uncomfortable. Plain and simple.
Argumentum ad hominem.
You attack me because you cannot attack my argument. And that is not “fancy pants logic”. I have only one certitude; god does’nt exist. Empiricism, rationalism, lamarckisme, darwinisme… i have no camp, but not on religion. You are making every move possible butt to use ignorance & to dodge argument i am making, discussion with you is useless.
Again, your hatred of Religion (seperate from your disbelief in God) is a very irrational and emotional aspect, the kind of thing you like to critisiz in other people
You are surely omnipotent to know such thing… no seriously that is first a rational reasonning, and people like you, that make me hate religion. Just look at your argumentation, that is empty, how can i not, as a scientist, be angry about this mayhem of logic ? You are using a lot of argumention i am sure will convince a lot of people, but using such logic will always get you problem with scientist or people with a minimum of logic.
You’re simply trying to replace your natural yearn for God with a new god, science. In april I was working at a camp for sixth graders. Before we ate, we sang a song of thankfulness, it was baisically a protestant grace except “the Lord” was replaced with “the Earth” They had simply moved from worshipping God to nature. When people stop turning to God they make “new gods” to turn to, science, nature, sex, drugs, violence, etc.
Everyone in this earth is not like you, i do not need religion, i do not need stable belief, stable ethic. I do not need religion, i do not need any personnal god. I have a fascination for science and math that cannot be
assimilate to any religious feeling. Theist stating X is a religion is a good way not to face directly the subject. Science is not my “god”, you are making a big & dangerous projection, like you are projecting your “essence” in your god.I must say your aggressivity is far beyond mine. You could at least dream that your all-loving almighty god will send me in hell for my “crime”.
-
You say often Fisternis that just because 85% of the world’s population believes in God does not make it His existence so. However, you are missing the logic that there is enough to support God’s existence to make 85% of the World’s population believe.
Argumentum ad numerum
You seem to think people in general own the scientific knowledge and method to understand such complex thing. 1 000 years, even if the earth was proven to be a sphere (quasi), most people were thinking it was still flat… You are using very poor argument my friend. There’s no evidence of god, i ask a question at the first post that you are unable, with your “logical evidence”, to answer.
In essence one person or 85% of the world (it’s all the same once you invoke argumentum ad numerum) having experienced God or having the impetus towards faith is not evidence (regardless of the numbers)? Simply because this experience is not quantifyable by you? A person tells me they experience crushing chest pain, do i tell them that it’s all in their head? (Maybe, if they are malingering).
This is straight from you Fisternis, no one here believes this.
Christian do not believe in a personnal god ? Then christian are not theist.
Now FinsterniS, you know that Butt was making reference to your comment :We are human; so the creator must look like human. We are (were) a society dominated by male; so god must be male
We don’t all necessarily believe that the creator must “look” human but rather blessed us with a spiritual aspect (breathing a soul into us). We don’t believe that God must be male simply because of society. I think you made this up or took it from your limited experience with people of faith.
You’re pretending there is a circular argument were there is none.
The only argument you’ve made exept the empirical one were circular… And that’s the only one i heard about.
again, he’s referencing your statement that we believe the circular idea that “god exists because god exists”. None of us purport that (but we believe that God exists because of many other reasons), although you suggest that we do, therefore we argue with a complete lack of logic.
If God does not exist, what exactly is the point of life? To procreate? To have as much pleasure as possible? To watch TV? What?
I am sure my answer will make you happy; i don’t know.
When man does’nt know, he create myth. I don’t know. I see a species that make everything (sometime not the right way…) to survive.
How do you know that? How do you know that all the myths generated over thousands of years are simply “filling in the blanks”? You really have NO idea (and neither do i).
You are just adding some fancy pants logic to gloss over the real reason you not just disagree with the existence of God, but are vehemently oppossed to the existence of anyone who believes differently.
OIt is because it makes you uncomfortable. Plain and simple.
Argumentum ad hominem.
You attack me because you cannot attack my argument. And that is not “fancy pants logic”. I have only one certitude; god does’nt exist. Empiricism, rationalism, lamarckisme, darwinisme… i have no camp, but not on religion. You are making every move possible butt to use ignorance & to dodge argument i am making, discussion with you is useless.
I think that you might be being a little unfair to Butt. Obviously we do not all speak the same language. You have demonstrated mastery in your skills of philosophical reasoning and mathematical logic - a language that Butt (nor I) have yet to study. You also seem to assume that this language (as you have learned it) is the only path to enlightment and if one strays from this path then we must be made to ridicule. Consider that there are things outside of your ideology that bear consideration, despite the fact that some of us have difficulty articulating it properly. If i talk in physics, biology, or chemistry metaphors with a person with limited knowledge of these areas and hold them up to ridicule for not knowing the language (despite their adeptness at music, poetry etc.) then i am doing themselves (and myself) an injustice.
Again, your hatred of Religion (seperate from your disbelief in God) is a very irrational and emotional aspect, the kind of thing you like to critisiz in other people
You are surely omnipotent to know such thing… no seriously that is first a rational reasonning, and people like you, that make me hate religion. Just look at your argumentation, that is empty, how can i not, as a scientist, be angry about this mayhem of logic ? You are using a lot of argumention i am sure will convince a lot of people, but using such logic will always get you problem with scientist or people with a minimum of logic.
You do seem quite emotional about this. Science is not all about logic. Certainly it is a valuable tool, however “chance favors the prepared mind”, and i have garnered several papers by listening to the muse of whimsy. There are other ways of understanding the world then through logic and critical thinking - Butt and you seem to have trouble relating to the way each other understands it.
You’re simply trying to replace your natural yearn for God with a new god, science. In april I was working at a camp for sixth graders. Before we ate, we sang a song of thankfulness, it was baisically a protestant grace except “the Lord” was replaced with “the Earth” They had simply moved from worshipping God to nature. When people stop turning to God they make “new gods” to turn to, science, nature, sex, drugs, violence, etc.
Everyone in this earth is not like you, i do not need religion, i do not need stable belief, stable ethic. I do not need religion, i do not need any personnal god. I have a fascination for science and math that cannot be
assimilate to any religious feeling. Theist stating X is a religion is a good way not to face directly the subject. Science is not my “god”, you are making a big & dangerous projection, like you are projecting your “essence” in your god.Actually, my limited experience in psychology suggests that Butt isn’t far off on this one. You have a fanatical zeal for “your way of thinking” that i wish i had for my Lord.
I must say your aggressivity is far beyond mine. You could at least dream that your all-loving almighty god will send me in hell for my “crime”.
You really seem to get off on this belief that Christians want you to go to hell. It may not be a bad idea to consider that the hell you are speaking of is one that may be yours of your own making - purposely pushing your way as far from God as possible, that you would never be reconcilled to him.
-
You really seem to get off on this belief that Christians want you to go to hell. It may not be a bad idea to consider that the hell you are speaking of is one that may be yours of your own making - purposely pushing your way as far from God as possible, that you would never be reconcilled to him.
It’s an easy assumption with no real basis. The fact is i don’t believe in god, and i find the concept of Hell so ridicoulus i’m often speaking of it, with sarcasm. CC you are playing Butt game of personnal “attack”, this is useless and a good way NOT to argue.
-
You accuse me of personal attacks, you started them.
You accuse me of not proving anything, and yet you have not proved anything.
You accuse me of undue emotion, yet you speak of hate of religious.
Lets go back over our argument on the existence of God:
Logic
Me: Everything in the Universe has a cause, thus there must be a chain of cause(s) leading to the universe. The chain must start with an uncaused causer.
You: Everything has always existed, it simply changes form.
-How come you say you logically come out on top and I come off logically ignorant? What is so much more logical about your logic?
Complexity of People
Me: Odds are unlikely of such a complex life form like man forming accidentally.
You: People are arrogant to assume a personal creator. And the odds are so good that an ultra-complex life form would form up that hundreds of planents have them.
-Here it is something of a toss up. How exactly are we suppossed to calcuate the odds of complicated life forming?
MIracles
Me: Fatima, Turin, Janarius, Guadaloupe, Bodies of Saints, Crying Mary, for some of the more modern ones which come to me off the top of my head.
You: The gregorian calendar was changed, and carbon 14 tests are 100% infalible. Plus miracles are empiric. (What does that mean? How does it in your mind rule out miracles as proof?)
-You didn’t really counter miracles, not even the tiny fraction of them I actually listed.
Evolution/Begining of Earth
Me: Evolution does not disprove anything. God exists outside of time; he created it. Thus how the way he created the Earth appears to us is in material.
You: Creationism is illogical and unscientific. Thus religion is also.
-Since creationism does not have to take the form you have critisized, your critisism does not neccessarily apply.
Myth
You: People create myths like religion to make them feel better.
Me: There is a lot more to Christianity than myth.
-This is very circular, but on both sides.
Now I can understand why you believe you come out on top. However, I don’t see why you call me ignorant, and my arguments garbage. Whats up? Is it because I disagree with you?
-
You accuse me of not proving anything, and yet you have not proved anything.
That is just ridiculous, i don’t have to prove god does’nt, that is VERY hard to prove somethin that does’nt exist really does’nt exist. Try to proove the tooth fairy does’nt exist.
Me: Everything in the Universe has a cause, thus there must be a chain of cause(s) leading to the universe. The chain must start with an uncaused causer.
You: Everything has always existed, it simply changes form.
You are making me says somethine i never said. i said, i will repeat it even if it’s not the first time; i said the TWO OPTIONS ARE POSSIBLE.
The chain must start with an uncaused causer.
Completly ridiculous…. That is the kind of argument that have been refute several time but people don’t want to listen…
Even if there’s a start (highly probable LIKE I ALREADY SAID), theres no need for god… You are trying to counter several logical concept. I will refute it very briefly… more explicitly if it is needed…
The only thing god add to the chain is the “Uncaused”, while this argument seem valid at first (Aquinas, Descartes…), it is completly illogical and a good exemple of how people want to believe.
Why god does’nt need a cause but others things (like Law themself) does ? Laws are outside time & space, they don’t have position, they just exist, so they seem not to need anyone to create them. They don’t act nor react, they do not influence the universe, they form it. They seem to have everything to be the uncaused cause, the permanent stability.
Then you will say; god create law.
The fact is; god cannot be more fit for “Uncaused cause” than law themself… Then it is just adding an useless concept to something already “explained”. (occam’s razor; basic logic). You cannot say god create the universe because it can be explained without god.The PRIME FACTOR argument is even more illogical than the ORDER NEED ORDERER argument.
You are using pretty old argument, while this does’nt make it false it have been often refute. For this reason, theist mathematician always use the “Faith” argument, not the “logical one”.
Me: Odds are unlikely of such a complex life form like man forming accidentally.
You: People are arrogant to assume a personal creator. And the odds are so good that an ultra-complex life form would form up that hundreds of planents have them.
Never said that !!!
I will make an analogy;
Roll 1 * 10^6 die,
If you get 1 * 10^6 time the number 6, you’ll have a baby.
If not; you’ll have no baby.If the baby never came to existence, will he ask question about his existance ?
Also we don’t know how improbable life is, this is many a far more natural phenomena, maybe not, but anyway, we exist. So saying life is improbable so i god must have guide it is a little prematured.
You are right that i think religion is taint with misplaced arrogance.
Me: Fatima, Turin, Janarius, Guadaloupe, Bodies of Saints, Crying Mary, for some of the more modern ones which come to me off the top of my head.
You: The gregorian calendar was changed, and carbon 14 tests are 100% infalible. Plus miracles are empiric. (What does that mean? How does it in your mind rule out miracles as proof?)
That is not me; it is F_alk. Only the Empirical was mine. As i said i don’t want to speak empirical problem in this topic; too neboulus and too easy to proove anything.
Me: Evolution does not disprove anything. God exists outside of time; he created it. Thus how the way he created the Earth appears to us is in material.
You: Creationism is illogical and unscientific. Thus religion is also.
I NEVER SAID THAT !!!
Sure creationism is unscientific, but you are adding the “thus religion is also”. That is not logical… Relgion is a bunch of lies and it breed lies, but to say “creationism is false; so do religion” would be an easy, but illogical argument.
You: People create myths like religion to make them feel better.
Me: There is a lot more to Christianity than myth.
wow ! you actually quote me right… Again, we can discuss this for eternity so i won’t continue on the subject…
Now I can understand why you believe you come out on top. However, I don’t see why you call me ignorant, and my arguments garbage. Whats up? Is it because I disagree with you?
No, you are just using a big bunch of logical fallacies…
When i’m speaking of Argumentum ad ignorantis; that is in a very large way… I mean; is something we understand need the concept of god anymore ? …and before ? When there’s some darkness in any subject, the concept of god pop up from nowhere until we really understand the real cause. That is historical… but you could always try to refute that, anyway this is the kind of discussion i don’t want to have… I was just explaining why i accuse religion of “ignorance”.
-
You accuse me of personal attacks, you started them.
You accuse me of not proving anything, and yet you have not proved anything.
You accuse me of undue emotion, yet you speak of hate of religious.
(snip)
MIraclesMe: Fatima, Turin, Janarius, Guadaloupe, Bodies of Saints, Crying Mary, for some of the more modern ones which come to me off the top of my head.
You: The gregorian calendar was changed, and carbon 14 tests are 100% infalible. Plus miracles are empiric. (What does that mean? How does it in your mind rule out miracles as proof?)
Sorry kiddo, you are ridiculous.
I told you once that i am not Finsternis.
You don’t listen.
I will not continue except for this and the next posting:Something for you to remember:
I was the one going into your arguments, working on them etc. You have not even tried to listen to what i say, otherwise you would have noticed that i am not Finsternis.LISTENING IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF AN ARGUMENT !!!
If you don’t learn that, then neither i or your god or any god can help you!
-
Logic
Me: Everything in the Universe has a cause, thus there must be a chain of cause(s) leading to the universe. The chain must start with an uncaused causer.
You: Everything has always existed, it simply changes form.
-How come you say you logically come out on top and I come off logically ignorant? What is so much more logical about your logic?
Excluding god from the need of having a cause, but not the universe, is illogical.
Complexity of People
Me: Odds are unlikely of such a complex life form like man forming accidentally.
You: People are arrogant to assume a personal creator. And the odds are so good that an ultra-complex life form would form up that hundreds of planents have them.
-Here it is something of a toss up. How exactly are we suppossed to calcuate the odds of complicated life forming?
You are the one who claims the odds are too low for accidental forming. How low are they? You brought up this as a proof for god, your turn to derive the formula to show me the odds.
An approximate formula has been given elsewhere by Moses (afair) anyway. Read what is written!
MIracles
Me: Fatima, Turin, Janarius, Guadaloupe, Bodies of Saints, Crying Mary, for some of the more modern ones which come to me off the top of my head.
You: The gregorian calendar was changed, and carbon 14 tests are 100% infalible. Plus miracles are empiric. (What does that mean? How does it in your mind rule out miracles as proof?)
-You didn’t really counter miracles, not even the tiny fraction of them I actually listed.
Where did i say C14 test are infallible?
DONT F%CKING LIE WHEN QUOTING ME !
READ WHAT I WROTE !!Damn, i should be old enough not be angered by your ignorance.
( Horten, please note that yb is a prime example of the behavior to feed my prejudices)(snip)
Now I can understand why you believe you come out on top. However, I don’t see why you call me ignorant, and my arguments garbage. Whats up? Is it because I disagree with you?I call you ignorant, because you don’t read postings, you don’t try to follow the arguments of your opponent. You reiterate what you have written before, that’s all, but doesn’t change the truth in a statement.
-
This is a fairly intense series. Shouldn’t we be having more fun then this? I mean, fun debate topix and all, but we all seem to be getting a little “foamy at the mouth-y” about it. Let’s all get together for a beer (YB - you only get rootbeer - you’re too young for beer - unless we meet on FinsterniS’ turf), and we’ll have a nacho fight. First one to get salsa in someone else’s eye loses.
-
cc,
you are right with that…as said before, i will not go on writing in this thread.
should anyone start more of these christianity threads, i might step back in there though.I like the nacho fight idea…
greetings,
Falk
Suggested Topics
