The prime mover fallacy seems to be the hardest thing for theists to wrap their heads around. I don't know why this is. I'm ashamed to say it even took me a while:
It's such a simple concept, but religion warps your mind and lets you apply logic to everything except your own beliefs. Yet after I had this sudden yet simple realization, religion was basically over for me.
God is something that is outside the physical realm, or Universe.
It's like this, when you take out everything ( Universe and all) what's
left, or more correctly, who's left is God. When everything is taken
out, there's only God.
No. If you take away the universe and anything is left over, then you have a multiverse, by definition. In which case, you can take away the following extraneous and redundant properties from your god:
1) Intelligence (god can be a rube-goldberg machine for all we know)
2) Jealousy
3) Genocidal mania
4) Desire for believers to worship you
5) etc.
When you strip away all these redundant properties, you are left with a naturalistic multiverse theory. "God" is synonymous with the universe and the laws of nature. "God" could be the impersonal higher dimensional branes. This is the same way that Einstein (an agnostic) used the term "god". I know you guys like to think that god is above space & time & the multiverse & the universe & everything & blah blah blah, but you know what, at this point, you're just making up your own laws of logic that nobody but you subscribes to. This is why God adds nothing to our understanding. You're back at your starting point, that "it's magic".
The universe has not always existed. Its a proven point. There was a
point at creation.
Anybody who says such a thing has failed his physics class. I've explained this multiple times in this thread. It's impossible for us to know what happened before the Planck time, because quantum mechanics & uncertainty take over. We don't have a unified theory of physics yet.
There is no time before the big bang. I will point again that time is an
illusion that runs across the dimensions of our universe(This
automatically destroys Multiverse by the way). So only something
eternal/beyond time was present.
Now repeat after me, time is an illusion x 100.
This statement right here lets me know you did absolutely no research on this topic. In the braneworld, space & time exist forever. The big bang is not the beginning of time; rather, it is a bridge to a pre-existing contracting era.
Also, what about other theories like the Big Bounce, which don't depend on a multiverse? You realize it would be dumb to bet on anything being the right answer at this point?
Quote:
The universe looks pretty intelligently created. Very precise and perfect. The slightest change in the system would render it naught/nothing. Engineered for life.
Now repeat after me, universe is engineered at the highest precision. No luck, No randomness. x100
Multiverse & bubble universe theory allow for creation of universes with different variables. The only reason you're sitting here wondering about how lucky you are to exist is because 99.9999% of the other times, it has failed. And it's true, you are lucky, but that's all it is. The anthropic principle is worthless. Do you know why there is no such principle for history? How stupid would it be if someone went out & calculated the odds that history ended up the way it did. Pretty stupid, right? Yet that's what you're doing. But of course, I don't need to remind you why you're doing it.
Science:
1) Observe evidence
2) Formulate hypothesis based on evidence
3) Validate or invalidate hypothesis through experimentation, drawing your conclusion.
Religion:
1) Start with the pre-conceived notion that God exists.
2) Go out and look for anything you can find or misrepresent as "evidence" to support this notion.
3) Declare that god exists regardless of what you find.
You see now why I dont view this as cold hard science?. And how, its
more like a belief type of thing. Might be right or wrong(and we`ll get
to that point), irrelevant, but it doesn`t really warrant being called a
science. Testable or otherwise. Is that a fair assumption?.
Here is a very easy to understand irrefutable explanation for why human evolution is correct:
Again, the theory of evolution is no more in doubt at this point than the theory that the planets revolve around the sun.
Religious beliefs tend to become more important when the question of raising a family surfaces. Given that this is also becoming less of a priority for modern couples (get married later, don't always have kids), it is logical that religion is also taking a back seat to personal interests. This ALSO relates to societal pressures considering that there is a rise in the "need" to be independent. Science isn't telling people to postpone having a family in favor of pursuing self-interests.
We're living in a fairly selfish age where youth are encouraged both to conform and focus on their own needs. Those needs being ones that align with social expectations such as sexual reputation. Being a virgin past high school is taboo. What does that have to do with science? Drug use is moving towards legal recreational consumption. Science for the win? Nudity is quickly becoming an acceptable form of family entertainment. Is that science too? The world is all about "does it feel good? Great!" It can be difficult to find religion in the midst of that.
You know there are plenty of rational reasons not to do those things right? Not to mention the fact that religion does not have a monopoly on "good". After watching my father's side of the family get destroyed by one man's alcoholism, I can't say I'll be taking it up anytime soon. This doesn't mean I'll be living like a puritan and refusing every single drink. Everything in moderation.
Why not keep the good morals and throw away the brutal, violent, bronze-age myths that are meant only to make you feel pathetic, small and guilty to even be alive? You don't need religion to tell you how to be a good, moral person.
If you actually want them to be interested in learning anything in the
first place do not insult them, repeatedly type 'lol' and give them this
crap. Hell, EW has often got me to read and atleast try to understand in
what way the bible could be true just because he is polite and gives
feedback. Stop scaring people away from science.
EW legitimately cares about this debate, whereas taintedwisp has established himself as a troll. FD did a decent job of educating people at the beginning of the thread. If he's irritated it's because arguing with people like taintedwisp is like playing chess with a pigeon. They knock over all the pieces and then take a crap on the board. Who wouldn't be irritated? It's the same reason why people like Richard Dawkins come off as arrogant to unbelievers: after educating and using logic for so long, there comes a point when you realize what Thomas Jefferson knew:
“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.”
Thanks for proving my point for me beautifully. What you posted here is a picture of Bryant G. Wood:
"Bryant G. Wood is a biblical archaeologist and Research Director of the inerrantist Associates for Biblical Research."
The linked image's source is "http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/" which like most creationist sites is full of nonsense including anti-evolution propaganda. It is at this point at which I cannot these joke images seriously. Do you not get tired of getting all your "evidence" from these stupid, biased sites? But even so, let's look at it anyway. In a typical reversal of the scientific process, this creationist has come here to fabricate evidence to support his pre-determined conclusion that the bible isn't a fairy-tale. He finds some sulfur, connects it to a vague biblical reference, and ignores everything else that points to the fact that this isn't the city:
Quote:
Christian scholars argue that this was the site of the biblical "Sodom", but archaeologists disagree as the village is too small, not in the designated geographical area and was not destroyed in the appropriate time frame. There are various hypothesis put forward to explain the causes of its downfall. Bitumen and petroleum deposits have been found in the area, which contain sulfur and natural gas (as such deposits normally do), and one theory suggests that a pocket of natural gas led to the incineration of the city.
Bryant G. Wood does not deserve to be called a scientist. He molests the scientific process. When he can't find a sign which says "Welcome to Gomorrah," he just makes shit up instead.
Science:
1) Observe evidence
2) Formulate hypothesis based on evidence
3) Validate or invalidate hypothesis through experimentation, drawing your conclusion.
Religion:
1) Start with pre-conceived notion that God exists.
2) Go out and look for anything you can find or misrepresent as "evidence" to support this notion.
3) Declare that god exists regardless of what you find as per step 1.
Now Mr. Wood here is a "biblical archaeologist". Get it yet? It's literally his job to go out and look for "evidence" to support his pre-determined conclusion. This isn't meant to be insulting. It's just how religion works, which is, again, why religion has contributed nothing to our understanding of the universe. It is literally the exact opposite of the scientific process.
If all our knowledge was obliterated and we had to start from scratch, science and its laws would be reinvented the same way they are now. Your talking snake story however would be lost, I assure you.
Quote:
Totally not true. Seek the truth, Seek the truth, Seek the truth. Test all things, Test all things, Test all things. Seek wisdom and knowledge, Seek wisdom and knowlege, Seek wisdom and knowledge. The God of the bible encourages this.
Oh yeah, question & seek the truth all day long.....as long as it leads you back to Jesus. I've read enough of the bible's circular mental traps & guilt trips to know that you get sent straight to hell if your "conclusion" isn't the correct one (Christianity). Even so, I think hell would be preferable to the jealous & petty maniac god of the bible. The death tolls speak for themselves:
Either way, if Satan punishes bad people, that makes him the good guy, right?! ;D
Christianity is such a flawed myth it's ridiculous.
There is no Sodom & Gomorah, only ruined & unrelated cities. There is no science in the bible, only vague verses that can mean anything. All there is is creationists looking for & twisting anything they can find to try to support their pre-determined conclusion that "gawd did it". So long as you continue to subscribe to religion, you will never ever ever reach a conclusion based on evidence. What science does, you literally do the opposite. It's why religion has contributed jack-crap to humanity.
So far, physicists have not been able to identify the exact mechanism that would produce this apparent "asymmetry," or difference, between matter and antimatter to explain why all the matter wasn't also destroyed.
It could have been a quantum fluctuation or a brane collision. As I've said multiple times, the reason scientists don't know is because it's impossible to tell what happened before the planck time since QM & uncertainty takes over. This does not mean it's time for god mode. It means we need a grand unified theory to fill the gap with facts instead of wishful thinking. Once again, you are trying to fill the last gap in human ignorance (cosmology) with your God instead of the myriad more rational options that are out there.
The problem with you religious people is that you read a sentence like "scientists are unable..." or "we do not know...", etc. and you mistake it for ignorance instead of humility, knowing full well that if the situations were reversed your priests would have no problem filling the gaps with nonsense, while maintaining your all-around pretensions to knowledge.
Quote:
God is not a hypothesis. Its a logical answer of which the definition fulfills the equation. You do not know the definition. Science will never solve the equation unless they understand the definition. You will be stuck in chain logic and come to a stumbling block unless you understand it.
You're right, God does not ever deserve to be called a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an educated guess based on limited evidence. God is nothing more than wishful thinking. If you still consider "goddidit" as a valid answer for anything, then there's nothing more I can say.
Scientific advancement is not an invariably noble endeavor regardless of anything. If it surpasses our moral advancement it'll be our doom.
The reason we have modern ethics & morals today is because we've progressed this far as a civilization through scientific means. Scientific advancement has given us time to sit down and actually think about what it means to be moral. Again, things such as being nice to animals, equality of women, equality of African Americans, etc. have arisen only in the last century.
I find it appalling that in 2012 I still have to tell people that a book which gives you instructions on how to keep and beat slaves (the bible) is not fit to be used for moral instruction.
Understand the universe? Thats the most idiotic Notion I have ever
heard, you really believe that Some idiots from a dot on the universal
scale, can ever understand the universe? at all? No not even to a
degree. Thats the same as saying in scientific terms, that a Microbe can
understand Humans. and if you were to say that then you contradict
yourself on soo many levels that it just shows how stupid you can be.
What the actual fuck? That's right, we can't understand the universe, which is why we've deduced how it evolved, why we've mapped out the lifetimes of stars, the cosmic microwave background radiation, the superstructure of the galaxy filaments, the interaction of dark matter/energy with regular matter, and why we are planning possible experiments to test m-theory and the like. We should just give up and live in caves because this guy hates science.
In the end Athiesm is just a really stupid thing to use so you dont feel bad when you become a mass murderer...
What a sad little shell of a human being you must be knowing that you'll go on a mass-murdering rampage without your holy book telling you how to be a good person because you can't figure it out yourself. You're literally a slave, which in retrospect I guess religion is a good thing for people like you.
Any comparison that you, or a muslim with his quran, or whoever else
makes these claims, is made in hindsight. If there were truly science in
either, why has nothing been discovered though them?
A good example would be the relationship between you and your parents (assuming a traditional family). As a child, your parents expect you to obey them and not your neighbor’s/friend’s parents because they are responsible for you. In this way, we “have no other Gods before him.”
So this is basically polytheism, just that God the father is superior?
Quote:
I think it’s a mistake to assume all science is humble considering how egotistical people can be about it. New discoveries are usually named after the people who discover them or at the very least BY the people who discover them. It seems to me like attaching your name to science is an effort to immortalize yourself. The term “mad scientist” didn’t spring up out of nothing. Science is but a tool as is Religion. Both are fully capable of being corrupted by the men that use it.
There are arrogant scientists that have the “hubris” to assume they know how reality works just like there are arrogant religious figures that have the “hubris” to assume they know what God is thinking. A religious man is JUST as capable of humble discourse as a scientific man. I am willing to admit that men acting on behalf of religion can make mistakes. I’d hope you’d be willing to do the same for science.
The one difference I can agree on, however, is that even if a corrupt scientist makes a discovery, it is still a discovery (assuming it’s not false). When a corrupt religious leader acts corruptly, there is no benefit. Here I can concede that a discovery made through corrupt science can still be used for good while a corrupt act by religion can’t really be retooled. An example being Nuclear Physics as a method for destruction or energy compared to a religious war.
I wasn't talking about the people behind science or religion. Clearly they can all be evil and egotistical. I'm referring more to the philosophies themselves. I find the scientific method to be humble. And indeed, there is no sign of arrogance or hubris in any science textbook I've ever read. I cannot say the same for all religious texts.
Guess which one the church says is more harmful for children:
With science there is no interpretation, because there is real-life proof for discoveries. Christianity came along and they decided that Jesus was the messiah. Now the Jews and the rest of the world, they didn't really give a damn because religion is religion and nobody gives a shit what you think. But if religion worked anything like science, they would have been like "Ok, you guys were right. Jesus is lord. Thank god we got this figured out, for the good of humanity." Scientists don't get their feelings hurt when you question their theories or when their theories are proven wrong. And that's because science isn't a "I'm right, you're wrong" ordeal like religion, it's a communal effort to help improve the world. Certainly there is some pride/jealousy involved in people's work, but that's inevitable when you spend your entire life working on it.
Quote:
I’d appreciate it if you’d provide what you consider to be reliable documentation for this. This is consistently cited in criticism against us, but I have never found the evidence reliable.
What you’re asking for defeats the entire purpose of what many believe to be the point of our existence. If we are here to make choices but God steps in to take care of everything, he is depriving us of the ability to choose. This was Lucifer/Satan’s plan and was rejected. God allows us to act as we desire so that we can be judged us by our actions. This is also discussed in The Plan of Salvation under “agency and theodicy.”
So do you agree with me then that God does not care what protocols/religion you follow? Or is it just that 2/3 of the planet is getting screwed over? Furthermore, would it not be of benefit to be a nonbeliever and a good person, that way you can't say you did any of the things you did hoping for reward?
My perspective on this is that it's just another one of religion's mental traps to keep believers complicit. There will always be an excuse for why there can be no evidence or why God can't provide any. You can't tempt god, etc. etc.
Quote:
As a Mormon I am especially aware of how WRONG observers get things. I have “outside observers” ask me if I really can’t have sugar! Of course religion is going to look crazy if you don’t have an actual understanding of what it entails. I addressed your points because, to me, they are false observations of what I believe. By correcting the observations it is my way of demonstrating that you should take more time to understand something before you reject it as “childish.” You might think that Catholicism is childish based on these points, but you can’t blanket everyone with the same points.
"I don't take the silly parts of the bible literally" is not exactly the greatest defense. But that aside I've already admitted that Catholics are the flavor of the month, so what's the problem? When you understand why you reject Zeus, Thor and Vishnu, you'll understand why I reject your God.
Jacob's parable about the tame and wild olive trees.
This is the longest and most boring chapter in the most boring book ever written (The Book of Mormon). Thirty-one times it came to pass that the trees were cumbered, grafted, pruned, plucked, dunged, and digged about for no apparent purpose, except to waste 3733 words. 5:1-77
I have to say though, there's alot less bigotry in your holy book compared to the original bible from a cursory glance. The anti-homosexuality section isn't particularly large for example. Perhaps that's why Mormons are generally nice people.
It has since become clear, however, that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems, and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects. Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology.
Most scientists today agree that quantum mechanics is a complete theory. This paper shows that you can't have any extension to QM, hidden variables or not, that would increase its predictive power: http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.5173.
Radiation for example does not have a cause. Quantum tunneling is merely the mechanism by which it works, not the cause of it. The typical creationist "everything must have a cause" argument is doomed to fail from the get-go.
There is much to discuss about asking God for healing. Even more so about the laws that govern healing and restoration. Divine or through medicines. Far beyond the scope of this thread, and even of my limited understanding of the matter.
The only reason it needs to be so complicated is so that it can be unfalsifiable, which is just the way you guys like it.
People are too lazy to read, and I take the time and effort to present the data here to silence any stupidity and ignorance.
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.
-Stephen Hawking
I can think of no greater pretension to knowledge than saying "I have here a book inspired by the creator of the entire universe, therefore you should do what it says." And yes, it is nothing more than pretensions, because religion has given mankind nothing of value that any decent moral person could not have thought of himself.
It is, from a scientific perspective, exploring all available options.
If you received unfallible evidence of a supernatural event, would you
shun all possible experiments and studies of it just because of the fact
that it was supernatural? And what I meant was possible credibility in
the supernatural. Like, "well we really don't know much about this and
it really seems like a mystery, so maybe a supernatural explanation is
present here." Or would you take the arguably ignorant stance of, "well,
it just can't be supernatural so let us not even consider that."
"Supernatural" is something that only exists in TV dramas and the like. I consider the word itself to be a contradiction, along with omnipotence. If it can be detected by our instruments, then it's part of this universe/multiverse, and therefore natural. Yes, if we detect something we would investigate it, whatever it is. But the truly ignorant stance would be to throw our hands up in the air and say "I give up, it's magic!" That is not an answer. The point at which you say "goddidit" is the point at which scientific inquiry just grinds to a dead halt.
About your comments earlier on Dark energy and matter being related to, er, `branes` from higher dimensions. I never replied to that, because you know thats crazy right?. Anyway, I was wondering if you read this and what your thoughts are on it
A few years back it seems, do you know if there has been significant changes to the theory or different models of explanation?. I haven`t kept track with progress made on dark energy and matter.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2009/08/68497142/1
The only problem is that for the equations to work, we must be "literally at the center of the universe, which is, to say the least, unusual," says physicist Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University in Tempe
That would indeed be interesting.
Truth be told I'm not a big fan of it myself, seeing as how nobody has been able to detect a single particle of it. The best alternative to dark energy/dark matter is MOND: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics
But I ask you this from the bottom of my
heart to please pray one more time to God, and ask him to reveal himself
to you, when no one is around. Soften your heart if for only one moment
to the possibility he may be on the other end of the line. Pour your
heart unto him, and he will give you a
resolution like nothing you've ever known... but only if you mean it, if
only for a moment in time.
The mystical feeling you describe is not reserved just for religion. Either way, the reason God doesn't reveal himself to anybody directly is the same reason Gandalf doesn't come by and put up a fireworks display.
I'm not saying that you would become a Christian, I'm stating that much
of your argument is built upon Catholic history and does not represent
all parts of Christianity.
A valid argument. And yet, we can only handle one thing at a time. I guess Catholics are the topic of the month and at some point we'll move on to Mormons and their magic underwear, but we can't accommodate everyone who comes in here and says "but wait, those beliefs don't apply to my sect of Christianity". After all, there's over 30000 different denominations.
So scientists are allowed to consistently disagree (something that will
never change so long as science is pursued by humans), but religion
(based heavily upon human interpretation of human translations) isn't
allowed to disagree? This is a weak argument and a stretch at best.
Scientists disagree about one thing and one thing only: reality. Religious people disagree about totally different religious books, and even identical religious books. The disagreement in science stems from our humility in the knowledge that our assessment of reality is not always objective and it is this that drives the scientific process, bringing us medicine, cars, and computers. The disagreement in religion stems from pride and the idea that one person knows the mind of god better than another. The inconsistency here is that religion is based on authority and is supposed to be a static dogma.
If God truly cares, he'd have affected history to have made Christianity the only religion, instead of just one of the main religions. You do after all believe that God intervenes in our affairs? Is it not logical to assume that even if he exists that he simply does not care what religion you are?
As for the idea that knowing what God wants is hubris, I think you're
being dramatically grandiose. You might have a point if religion was
based entirely upon the ideas of men without any literature to support
it, but that's not the case. We believe God told us what he wants and
that the personal accounts of those from Biblical times illustrate these
things. We don't assume "God wants us to be good because I think that's
what he'd want," we believe this because the scriptures contain what we
believe is the word of God.
The danger is when people twist the meaning of scripture to suit their purposes. But indeed, most of the blame lies with the people who actually sat down and formulated these texts. You might be thinking, why would somebody make all this stuff up? Well, look around you, people play hoaxes all the time. Unfortunately for Mormonism, Joseph Smith's fraudulency has been rather well documented. Hell, the guy was already arrested once for banking fraud.
Now you're trying too hard. This isn't an excuse and I'd suggest you go
learn what an excuse actually looks like. Not only did I agree with you
(it does sound like a fairy tale), I went further and said I couldn't
prove it happened. An excuse would have been "I don't need proof, I have
faith."
While I would have found that answer acceptable, I knew you wouldn't.
Somehow me agreeing with you is still an excuse and thus unacceptable to
you. Brushing aside the rest of what I said as "mental gymnastics"
and/or "handwaving" tells me that you're not interested in hearing what
I have to say.
An excuse is "you can't prove it didn't happen". My only point was that you don't have to provide justification for what many believers consider to be miraculous events anyway. It's redundant. But what else did I miss? Are there any other sections of the bible you agree that sound like man-made fairy-tales? Is the bible still the infallible word of god?
I didn't use the Bible to justify the Bible, I used real
world examples to justify the Bible and admitted those points that
couldn't justify in a manner you would accept.
And I appreciate it. However, I've had my fill of looking at self-serving creationist websites.
"There is always some air in the whale's stomach, and, as long as the animal it has swallowed is still alive, digestive activity will not begin."
This is just wrong. No human can have enough air to last more than a few minutes in a whale's stomach. The whale feeds mostly underwater, and the lungs are not connected to the throat like they are in humans. So just where the heck does the air come from?
Religion will never reach a conclusion based on evidence. It only seeks to find or fabricate evidence for its already pre-determined conclusion.
Talking birds - this is not remotely close to talking donkeys, who don't even have the same capability as birds. This is what I mean by handwaving.
Bombardier beetle - pretty cool. thanks for the link.
Giants - alright, so we've established that these are some tall dudes.
800 yr lifespans - So the bible authors at least attempted to have some sense of verisimilitude by gradually decreasing the lifespans. It fits a pattern which is great, but this does little to address the problem at hand: people living to protoss lifespans. Again, handwaving.
I'm not going to entertain anymore of your points until you address mine. It would be a waste of my time to exert effort providing my perspective when you're going to ignore the bulk of my points by jumping to points that I agree with you on. . . which you then attempt to spin as if I'm dodging your criticism.
You were never supposed to address any of those points to begin with. I only listed them to show believers what their faith looks like to an outside observer. Like how we look back on the ancient greeks and think how silly they were with their gods throwing lightning bolts down on top of people from mountains, or their Hercules myth (which christians also have).
But inevitably, somebody always replies to that list. I am aware that somebody can always come up with a theistic justification for whatever I come up with. I'm sure you or EternalWraith look at the list and are facepalming just because you know there's an excuse, just like if a Hindu, Sikh, or Jew was here, he'd be able to defend his beliefs with equal effectiveness. I am also aware that there might even be a clever real-world connection/excuse for some of these things on the list. That is not the point. The point is that the bible actually has these things in it, and they are childish, and future observers will laugh at us the same way we laugh at the ancient greeks.
Do not bother arguing with Gradius, anyone(Christians). Eventually it
comes to a point that you must remember Matthew 7:6. Let him live in
wonderland which is devoid of any truth and requires more faith than our
knowledge.
Yeah, I'm down here living in "wonderland" aka. observable reality. It's a blast.
└(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┐└(-.-)┐
Asking for proof isn't putting God to the test. To test here means to provoke into doing something to prove supremacy for example or any other thing that can be turned against Him. To provoke is different than to ask for a miracle, help, or enlightenment. I believe.
Religion employs several mental traps to keeps its believers complicit, and this is one of them.
There is no evidence for god -> why doesn't god prove himself -> you cannot tempt god OR god removed himself from our sight after original sin
There is no evidence for god -> show me the evidence -> evidence is not needed because:
1) Not asking for evidence will multiply your rewards in the afterlife. "Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.""
2) This is the correct religion anyway. People who disagree are just setting out to deceive you. See EternalWraith's last quote.
3) The scripture is the word of god, and the priests are entrusted with the authority of God. They have divine authority, therefore it's not even up for debate.
The con men who wrote the bible put in hundreds of these verses which reassure believers of how virtuous they are for the mere act of believing, and how foolish everyone else is for not, most notably "no one can come to the Father except through me". This is why believers consistently reiterate that not only do they not need evidence, but they're also proud of the fact that they don't need evidence. It's a sad state of affairs.
If Christianity itself can't agree on what makes you Christian, how can you hope to substitute one part for the whole in this argument when some wouldn't even consider the part you're using a part at all?
This isn't exactly a defense of Christianity. The fact that Christianity is not the only option, let alone of the fact that Christians can't even agree between themselves, is the most telling proof that people have absolutely no idea what god wants or that god even cares whether you follow arcane protocols or not.
The universe does not revolve around us. In the lifetime of the universe it is likely that thousands of other civilizations flourished. There is no reason for God to notice our insignificant speck of a planet, let alone care whether we prostrate to Mecca at a certain time, to what specifications we cut our penis at birth, or whether we work on the Sabbath. There would be no reason for the creator of the entire universe to be thinking about you, Josh. Or you, Sarah. Or you, Kyle.
Granted, this is speculation. I don't know how the mind of an omnipotent creator of the universe would actually work, but neither does anyone else. It's the height of hubris to say otherwise.
6.) I can agree this sounds like a fairy tale. You either believe it or
you don't. Not really possible to "prove" it happened.
You could have just used this same excuse for all the examples instead of going through a series of mental gymnastics & handwaving.
Quote:
Taking but one example and ignoring the rest is a rather ignorant way of "battling" religion.
But there's more:
9. God created light before he created the sun & stars.
10. Elisha ordered bears to maul 42 children for calling him a "baldhead".
11. Resurrection was something of a triviality in biblical times. A bunch of dead saints appeared to people in the city. (Matthew 27:52-53)
12. Virgins births.
13. At one point, the entire world spoke one language.
14. God played hide & seek with Adam & Eve in the garden.
15. Talking trees (Judges 9:8).
16. God once tried to kill Moses (Exodus 4:24).
He's refering to how it started, in which case, he is correct.
Perhaps in the USA, but in Africa after it entered into the hunters' systems, it spread through regular old prostitution that resulted from the urbanization in the "Scramble for Africa". At least that's what it says on wikipedia unless you have any other sources?
Not that the notion of assigning blame to a sexual orientation for this condition is any less absurd.
If you were to ask God for one proof that you consider to be the ultimate, undeniable proof of His existence, what would it be?
Ultimate? I can't really pinpoint one thing, as long as it's physical, testable & repeatable. It has to be something that happens to multiple people or that more than one person can verify because I have no way to tell if I'm not hallucinating. The mind is a powerful tool, but it's susceptible to hallucination. For example, if we could detect with our scientific instruments this hidden layer of reality called "heaven" that theists have been talking about for so long, it would be a major breakthrough. Even a single event seen by multiple people and captured on video camera would force me to reconsider my stance. 9/11 happened once, we got decent, clear camera footage and everybody was able to go see the wreckage of the twin towers for themselves. Given all the supposed miracles that have happened, there is proportionately less camera footage and legitimate results to go around (unless you count vague pictures appearing on toast/peanut butter to be a miracle).
One other thing that would be a great proof of God is if everyone on the planet agreed to pray at midnight on a certain day for everyone be healed of cancer. This is a benevolent and selfless prayer that could truly demonstrate God's infinite power and love. Yet let me ask you guys an honest question. If every person on the planet actually did pray for everyone to be cured of cancer, do you honestly believe it would work? Rhetorical question. Of course not. What'd you expect? :P
If people adhered to non-homosexual lifestyles, then not only would HIV be far, far less prevalent, but it may not have even gotten a significant start.
So in fact, if people did follow Church doctrine, we might well have never had the epidemic.
Just no. HIV is spread most often through heterosexual means.
It's also bigoted to tell people how to live their lives. There is numerous scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. It is present in over 1500 species.
Quote:
A 400 million year old species of fish that scientists claimed was evolving, because it has suspicious looking fins, and then they yank one of the extinct fish out of the ocean and hello! It looked exactly the same. 'Oh, well that's because it's a Lazarus taxon.' Scientist speak for, 'we just make stuff up whenever it looks like we're wrong.'
Whatever dubious creationist site you got this from, I can't be bothered to double check right now. Even so, it's irrelevant because:
A) If you want to see evolution on human time scales then I suggest working with fruit flies, look at a dog breeding chart, or watch bacteria become resistant to drugs in a lab.
B) You should be skeptical of everyone, but one scientist being wrong is irrelevant. Science's progress speaks for itself. So does religion's (aka. none).
C) Evolution is a fact. The debate is over. Being a biologist today without believing in a core scientific framework like evolution is like trying to be a doctor without believing in germ theory.
Quote:
There's a historical record for one. There's 'eyewitness accounts'.
The same can be said of aliens and bigfoot. Religious people love talking about dubious claims of the distant past because you can make up whatever you want and nobody can prove you wrong.
Quote:
And has anyone made a decent refutation of Gentry's haloes yet? www.halos.com
There's the Cambrian explosion, where life fairly much exploded on the scene, with no viable precursors in the Pre-Cambrian. (Darwinian evolution really should have been falsified by now, but what are you going to do?) Which is why Punctuated Equilibrium was invented.
Oh great, so what did I miss, is the Earth really not 6000 years old? The evolution of life is fine for you up until 500 million years ago? That's where you draw the line? Either way, if there were truly no viable precursors in the pre-cambrian, then we wouldn't be alive today. This is a bizarre argument. Nowhere have I heard that punctuated equilibrium was a problem.
But if you don't like it, find another explanation instead of throwing your hands up into the air and saying "I give up, goddidit." That's intellectual laziness. It's not even an answer. How can you even accept that as an answer?
Even if evolution is totally wrong, this is what the bible proposes as an alternative:
1. Fire breathing monster in the book of job
2. Giants once walked the earth
3. People once lived to be 800 years old
4. A talking donkey
5. The trinity. God gives birth to himself so that he can sacrifice himself to himself
6. Samson slays 1000 men with the jawbone of an ass. This is basically Christianity's version of Hercules.
7. Man lived in a whale for 3 days
8. Jacob wrestles with god & WINS
You could switch this stuff with any of the other fairy tales you grew up with, like three little pigs or snow white, and you wouldn't know the difference. Personally, for me, I choose to be an adult.
Quote:
The world-wide prevalence of a world-destroying flood legend in basically every culture that matches up even to details like the boat (sometimes tree, though) or the surviving family, etc. This is best explained as indicating an actual event, that happened before the divergence of these cultures. The more the bible is validated on these accounts, the stronger the inference grows for historical accuracy.
Nobody can read that link and still say such a flood is scientifically possible. We've been through it in this thread, somewhere on page 8. The idea that there was in actuality a flood that covered the planet in its entirety and that there was a man who brought each of every animal with him is just stupidity of the highest order of magnitude, no matter what religion you are. And there's the proof. Sorry if that's offensive, but that's just the way it is. Suffice to say, I really could care less if you believe in a flood, as long as you acknowledge that it was magically facilitated by a deity who then went on to erase the scientific evidence.
Quote:
All these things are pieces of evidence that one would take to a cosmic court, if so available. They do not necessarily constitute proof, but they certainly qualify as evidence.
Yes, but it's no coincidence that hearsay & testimony are considered the lowest form of evidence. As Eivin said, creationists have no scientific, repeatable evidence that can be tested in a lab.
There is as much evidence for god as there is for bigfoot.
Quote:
just like I went from old-earth to young-earth.
o.O
How does that even happen? Either way, weren't you referencing the Cambrian explosion in your earlier argument?
It's getting late though so I won't bother addressing the rest of the misconceptions and just skip ahead to this:
Quote:
They had the scholars, the monks, universities, they kept learning and knowledge alive through the dark ages (actually the dark ages were a time of great intellectual and cultural advancement)
Here is the definition of dark ages:
Dark Ages (historiography), the concept of a period of intellectual darkness and economic regression that supposedly occurred in Europe following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.
I don't know what creationist books you're reading, but they sound like they belong in the trash bin if they tell you the dark ages are a period of great intellectual advancement. Religion had its chance to run the world, but the dark ages are over.
As for Soulcarverr, well there isn't a lot to say about his posts on
here. He announced he was going to troll at the very start, so the fact
that he is doing it should be no surprise. I would agree his grammar is
atrocious, I almost think he does it worse on purpose to bother people.
Despite his quirks though, I think he has done a fine job of pointing
out the amazing amount of hypocrisy occuring on this thread, even if
there is about 1 spelling/grammar error per sentence. He is crazy for
sure, but still makes a good point that the atheists posting here are
exactly what they claim to hate most.
Since your guys' cause is already hopeless enough I'll give you a tip. Religious fervor and religious trolling are indistinguishable. It serves my cause more to treat him like like he's being serious, because nobody can tell the difference anyway. Soulcarver is an atheist factory.
The only thing he's done a good job at is explicitly ignoring the posts I've made. It's easy for him to come in and say "lerl, I am going to troll this thread guyz," but I think I'll just continue treating him as if he's an idiot in real life, because he probably is. That's the sad thing about religious extremists.
Quote:
I think EternalWraith has done a pretty conistent job on providing answers according to scripture to many of your questions
Which one was your favorite? I particularly enjoyed "it's not genocide, it's just god killing evil people (and the children/animals because God is too incompetent to think of a simpler solution)". Or "it's not rape, it's people taking away wives from their bad husbands so they can be taken care of!"
Quote:
Say what you like about me or my religion, but I'm happy with where I'm at and who I am. Can you honestly say the same?
Ah yes, "Ignorance is bliss." I tried that for 17 years. Trust me, it's nothing to be happy about. Do not mistake my discontent with religion that it so justly deserves as my attitude with life in general. In fact, I have a greater appreciation for the universe and my life now than I did when I was a theist because I now realize that this is the only chance I get. What are the odds that you were born? They're astronomical, and you should be thankful to have been born into a scientific and economic golden age. For tens of thousands of years before this, every human fought tooth and nail to survive and died young. We enjoy luxuries such as never seen before.
Quote:
Obviously we should all be looking to those such as yourself for ultimate truth and wisdom, right? Forgive the sarcasm, but the atheists of sc2mapster are proving a terribly arrogant lot, at least those who are keeping this thread going.
Nowhere did anybody say that. You are simply offended that people question your faith. This picture cannot be posted enough:
The religious right simply has too much power. So long as people such as yourself continue to enable this and associate criticism and skepticism with "arrogance", innovation will continue to be dragged down and anti-scientific beliefs will continue to dominate. Senseless killing such as this will continue forever: http://teapotatheism.blogspot.com/2008/06/anonymous-wanted-body-count-total-so-he.html
That is, unless we kill IT at its heart through intellectual discourse. Your question should not be, "why are atheists pissed off at religion?" Your question should be "after all that religion has done to repress humanity, why am I the one that's not offended?" And you should also ask yourself whether the transient comfort it provides you is really worth the welfare of future generations, or whether you even care or have the foresight to think like this, given that you care more about heaven in some imaginary afterlife as opposed to creating one here on Earth.
Like to point out that the word hate does not mean what you think it means here. It was the best fit translation of its original meaning. What it really means in this case is to love less than. So using this kind of thinking, I love my wife and hate my children would be accurate. Not that this is true using the words as we know them, but it is very important to understand what the words meant at the time, or what words they were translated from.
Uhm, what's the difference there buddy? I love my family deeply. If a man walked up to me on the street and told me to love him more than I love my family, I'd tell him to go screw himself. It makes no difference that it's from a book 2000 years ago. In fact, that makes it even worse. If you love some random man more than your children just because he told you to, you're a crappy parent guilty of neglect.
Quote:
Your other cherry picking quotes aren't even worth acknowledging.
For being so against cherry picking, you certainly excel at it :)
Did you have a legitimate point to make or are you just here to join in the trolling along with SoulCarverr? I eagerly await your response for why those children deserve to be executed. "Child abuse" can mean a broad range of things, including neglect. Stop being so pedantic. Your playing of devil's advocate for religion was nice at first but now it's just getting sad.
It's no coincidence that Jesus never spoke up against slavery but only endorsed it. As for child abuse:
1) In Matthew 15:4-7 Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.”
2) Jesus asks that you leave your children for him. This is child abuse. Matthew 19:29
3) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark 7:9
4) "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14:26)
Once again, this so-called "most perfect book of all time" gets thrown into the garbage bin where it belongs. There are much better fictional books out there with much higher moral standards. The three little pigs is a good one.
And whoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it
is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he
were cast into the sea. Mark 9:42
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them,
for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." Matthew 19:14
When Jesus saw what was happening, he was angry with his disciples. He
said to them, "Let the children come to me. Don't stop them! For the
Kingdom of God belongs to those who are like these children. Mark 10:14
This is irrelevant because it's nothing more than cherrypicking the good parts of the bible to conform to western moral practices while ignoring all the evil and violence you find in this bronze age book. Things such as being nice to animals, equality of women, etc. are something that has emerged within the past hundred years. Morals are something that is debated using rational thinking and our own evolved internal moral compass. It does not come from your book. You twist your book to FIT our highly developed morals.
All this thread does is give bigots the chance to mock others beliefs. It should really be locked... I didn't think SC2mapster or curse for that matter supported such ignorant attacks on individuals freedoms.
Indeed, there was a name for the time when religion had its chance to run the world: it was called the dark ages. My means of fighting religion are limited to intellectual discourse, which I have made clear. Yet I seem to recall you physically threatening pretty much every non-believer on this forum. Are there no rules against that here? Either way, you're a dangerous idiot and a prime example of my point.
The only reason you want this thread locked is because you want to prohibit OUR freedom of speech and continue propagating your intellectual slavery. I'm not Korean but maybe you should move to China if you want to be such a god damn communist.
Religion isnt so much about what they actually belief...... they are generally as a whole revolve around how to live your life.
You can not tell me that the teaching's of Jesus Christ do not make the world a better place. If if you don't think he was a magic man. His teaching still hold values.
Jesus also advocates child abuse, beating slaves and murdering those who don't believe as you do. Perfect moral teachings if you're a brutal bronze-age troglodyte. Screw Jesus and screw you.
Religion is directly responsible for millions of deaths: http://teapotatheism.blogspot.com/2008/06/anonymous-wanted-body-count-total-so-he.html
Final tally for theism: 2,229,074,100
Highest possible atheism death toll with Stalin: 95,000,000
Stalin shouldn't even count because his atheism was no more responsible for his actions than his communism or any of his other beliefs were.
Yes, I think the world would be better off if all religion was eradicated. No, I don't plan on scourging heretics anytime soon, that's religion's job. The comfort that it provides people is not worth the atrocities that it brings and the years of scientific progress that it takes away. There is no such thing as moderate religion. Again, even my parents, my parents; friends, and my friends have expressed bigoted, anti-scientific beliefs. Shit, just look at what you people post in this thread. The world would be better off without these beliefs, but I do not blame these people. They are victims of childhood religious indoctrination, and that's another reason why religion is evil.
The prime mover fallacy seems to be the hardest thing for theists to wrap their heads around. I don't know why this is. I'm ashamed to say it even took me a while:
It's such a simple concept, but religion warps your mind and lets you apply logic to everything except your own beliefs. Yet after I had this sudden yet simple realization, religion was basically over for me.
No. If you take away the universe and anything is left over, then you have a multiverse, by definition. In which case, you can take away the following extraneous and redundant properties from your god:
1) Intelligence (god can be a rube-goldberg machine for all we know)
2) Jealousy
3) Genocidal mania
4) Desire for believers to worship you
5) etc.
When you strip away all these redundant properties, you are left with a naturalistic multiverse theory. "God" is synonymous with the universe and the laws of nature. "God" could be the impersonal higher dimensional branes. This is the same way that Einstein (an agnostic) used the term "god". I know you guys like to think that god is above space & time & the multiverse & the universe & everything & blah blah blah, but you know what, at this point, you're just making up your own laws of logic that nobody but you subscribes to. This is why God adds nothing to our understanding. You're back at your starting point, that "it's magic".
Anybody who says such a thing has failed his physics class. I've explained this multiple times in this thread. It's impossible for us to know what happened before the Planck time, because quantum mechanics & uncertainty take over. We don't have a unified theory of physics yet.
This statement right here lets me know you did absolutely no research on this topic. In the braneworld, space & time exist forever. The big bang is not the beginning of time; rather, it is a bridge to a pre-existing contracting era.
Also, what about other theories like the Big Bounce, which don't depend on a multiverse? You realize it would be dumb to bet on anything being the right answer at this point?
Multiverse & bubble universe theory allow for creation of universes with different variables. The only reason you're sitting here wondering about how lucky you are to exist is because 99.9999% of the other times, it has failed. And it's true, you are lucky, but that's all it is. The anthropic principle is worthless. Do you know why there is no such principle for history? How stupid would it be if someone went out & calculated the odds that history ended up the way it did. Pretty stupid, right? Yet that's what you're doing. But of course, I don't need to remind you why you're doing it.
Science:
1) Observe evidence
2) Formulate hypothesis based on evidence
3) Validate or invalidate hypothesis through experimentation, drawing your conclusion.
Religion:
1) Start with the pre-conceived notion that God exists.
2) Go out and look for anything you can find or misrepresent as "evidence" to support this notion.
3) Declare that god exists regardless of what you find.
Here is a very easy to understand irrefutable explanation for why human evolution is correct:
Again, the theory of evolution is no more in doubt at this point than the theory that the planets revolve around the sun.
I'm sorry but didn't we give you similar links to the failed prophecies of Jesus:
http://www.evilbible.com/jesus_false.htm
http://faithskeptic.50megs.com/prophecies.htm
Doesn't count when it's your religion, right? You need to start considering the possibility that you're brainwashed.
Irony overload.
You know there are plenty of rational reasons not to do those things right? Not to mention the fact that religion does not have a monopoly on "good". After watching my father's side of the family get destroyed by one man's alcoholism, I can't say I'll be taking it up anytime soon. This doesn't mean I'll be living like a puritan and refusing every single drink. Everything in moderation.
Why not keep the good morals and throw away the brutal, violent, bronze-age myths that are meant only to make you feel pathetic, small and guilty to even be alive? You don't need religion to tell you how to be a good, moral person.
EW legitimately cares about this debate, whereas taintedwisp has established himself as a troll. FD did a decent job of educating people at the beginning of the thread. If he's irritated it's because arguing with people like taintedwisp is like playing chess with a pigeon. They knock over all the pieces and then take a crap on the board. Who wouldn't be irritated? It's the same reason why people like Richard Dawkins come off as arrogant to unbelievers: after educating and using logic for so long, there comes a point when you realize what Thomas Jefferson knew:
“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.”
Thanks for proving my point for me beautifully. What you posted here is a picture of Bryant G. Wood:
"Bryant G. Wood is a biblical archaeologist and Research Director of the inerrantist Associates for Biblical Research."
The linked image's source is "http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/" which like most creationist sites is full of nonsense including anti-evolution propaganda. It is at this point at which I cannot these joke images seriously. Do you not get tired of getting all your "evidence" from these stupid, biased sites? But even so, let's look at it anyway. In a typical reversal of the scientific process, this creationist has come here to fabricate evidence to support his pre-determined conclusion that the bible isn't a fairy-tale. He finds some sulfur, connects it to a vague biblical reference, and ignores everything else that points to the fact that this isn't the city:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bab_edh-Dhra
Bryant G. Wood does not deserve to be called a scientist. He molests the scientific process. When he can't find a sign which says "Welcome to Gomorrah," he just makes shit up instead.
Science:
1) Observe evidence
2) Formulate hypothesis based on evidence
3) Validate or invalidate hypothesis through experimentation, drawing your conclusion.
Religion:
1) Start with pre-conceived notion that God exists.
2) Go out and look for anything you can find or misrepresent as "evidence" to support this notion.
3) Declare that god exists regardless of what you find as per step 1.
Now Mr. Wood here is a "biblical archaeologist". Get it yet? It's literally his job to go out and look for "evidence" to support his pre-determined conclusion. This isn't meant to be insulting. It's just how religion works, which is, again, why religion has contributed nothing to our understanding of the universe. It is literally the exact opposite of the scientific process.
If all our knowledge was obliterated and we had to start from scratch, science and its laws would be reinvented the same way they are now. Your talking snake story however would be lost, I assure you.
Oh yeah, question & seek the truth all day long.....as long as it leads you back to Jesus. I've read enough of the bible's circular mental traps & guilt trips to know that you get sent straight to hell if your "conclusion" isn't the correct one (Christianity). Even so, I think hell would be preferable to the jealous & petty maniac god of the bible. The death tolls speak for themselves:
Either way, if Satan punishes bad people, that makes him the good guy, right?! ;D
Christianity is such a flawed myth it's ridiculous.
There is no Sodom & Gomorah, only ruined & unrelated cities. There is no science in the bible, only vague verses that can mean anything. All there is is creationists looking for & twisting anything they can find to try to support their pre-determined conclusion that "gawd did it". So long as you continue to subscribe to religion, you will never ever ever reach a conclusion based on evidence. What science does, you literally do the opposite. It's why religion has contributed jack-crap to humanity.
It could have been a quantum fluctuation or a brane collision. As I've said multiple times, the reason scientists don't know is because it's impossible to tell what happened before the planck time since QM & uncertainty takes over. This does not mean it's time for god mode. It means we need a grand unified theory to fill the gap with facts instead of wishful thinking. Once again, you are trying to fill the last gap in human ignorance (cosmology) with your God instead of the myriad more rational options that are out there.
The problem with you religious people is that you read a sentence like "scientists are unable..." or "we do not know...", etc. and you mistake it for ignorance instead of humility, knowing full well that if the situations were reversed your priests would have no problem filling the gaps with nonsense, while maintaining your all-around pretensions to knowledge.
You're right, God does not ever deserve to be called a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an educated guess based on limited evidence. God is nothing more than wishful thinking. If you still consider "goddidit" as a valid answer for anything, then there's nothing more I can say.
The only thing I advocate is dealing with observable reality and basing your morals off of actual modern ethics instead of brutal bronze-age myths.
The reason we have modern ethics & morals today is because we've progressed this far as a civilization through scientific means. Scientific advancement has given us time to sit down and actually think about what it means to be moral. Again, things such as being nice to animals, equality of women, equality of African Americans, etc. have arisen only in the last century.
I find it appalling that in 2012 I still have to tell people that a book which gives you instructions on how to keep and beat slaves (the bible) is not fit to be used for moral instruction.
What the actual fuck? That's right, we can't understand the universe, which is why we've deduced how it evolved, why we've mapped out the lifetimes of stars, the cosmic microwave background radiation, the superstructure of the galaxy filaments, the interaction of dark matter/energy with regular matter, and why we are planning possible experiments to test m-theory and the like. We should just give up and live in caves because this guy hates science.
What a sad little shell of a human being you must be knowing that you'll go on a mass-murdering rampage without your holy book telling you how to be a good person because you can't figure it out yourself. You're literally a slave, which in retrospect I guess religion is a good thing for people like you.
Quoted for truth.
So this is basically polytheism, just that God the father is superior?
I wasn't talking about the people behind science or religion. Clearly they can all be evil and egotistical. I'm referring more to the philosophies themselves. I find the scientific method to be humble. And indeed, there is no sign of arrogance or hubris in any science textbook I've ever read. I cannot say the same for all religious texts.
Guess which one the church says is more harmful for children:
With science there is no interpretation, because there is real-life proof for discoveries. Christianity came along and they decided that Jesus was the messiah. Now the Jews and the rest of the world, they didn't really give a damn because religion is religion and nobody gives a shit what you think. But if religion worked anything like science, they would have been like "Ok, you guys were right. Jesus is lord. Thank god we got this figured out, for the good of humanity." Scientists don't get their feelings hurt when you question their theories or when their theories are proven wrong. And that's because science isn't a "I'm right, you're wrong" ordeal like religion, it's a communal effort to help improve the world. Certainly there is some pride/jealousy involved in people's work, but that's inevitable when you spend your entire life working on it.
Well here's the actual records from a google search:
http://byulaw.blogspot.com/2005/09/joseph-smiths-arrest-records-found.html
So do you agree with me then that God does not care what protocols/religion you follow? Or is it just that 2/3 of the planet is getting screwed over? Furthermore, would it not be of benefit to be a nonbeliever and a good person, that way you can't say you did any of the things you did hoping for reward?
My perspective on this is that it's just another one of religion's mental traps to keep believers complicit. There will always be an excuse for why there can be no evidence or why God can't provide any. You can't tempt god, etc. etc.
"I don't take the silly parts of the bible literally" is not exactly the greatest defense. But that aside I've already admitted that Catholics are the flavor of the month, so what's the problem? When you understand why you reject Zeus, Thor and Vishnu, you'll understand why I reject your God.
In the meantime, I suggest you check out this site: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/index.htm
I found this especially amusing:
I have to say though, there's alot less bigotry in your holy book compared to the original bible from a cursory glance. The anti-homosexuality section isn't particularly large for example. Perhaps that's why Mormons are generally nice people.
Not everything has to be point-counterpoint. Perhaps somebody else reading will get something out of my reply.
Bah. There are much better ways of finding out which religion is correct:
http://i.imgur.com/3RQDA.gif
Like I said before, quantum mechanics has pretty much left determinism in shambles and randomness is built into the quantum world.
Radiation for example does not have a cause. Quantum tunneling is merely the mechanism by which it works, not the cause of it. The typical creationist "everything must have a cause" argument is doomed to fail from the get-go.
The only reason it needs to be so complicated is so that it can be unfalsifiable, which is just the way you guys like it.
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. -Stephen Hawking
I can think of no greater pretension to knowledge than saying "I have here a book inspired by the creator of the entire universe, therefore you should do what it says." And yes, it is nothing more than pretensions, because religion has given mankind nothing of value that any decent moral person could not have thought of himself.
"Supernatural" is something that only exists in TV dramas and the like. I consider the word itself to be a contradiction, along with omnipotence. If it can be detected by our instruments, then it's part of this universe/multiverse, and therefore natural. Yes, if we detect something we would investigate it, whatever it is. But the truly ignorant stance would be to throw our hands up in the air and say "I give up, it's magic!" That is not an answer. The point at which you say "goddidit" is the point at which scientific inquiry just grinds to a dead halt.
Truth be told I'm not a big fan of it myself, seeing as how nobody has been able to detect a single particle of it. The best alternative to dark energy/dark matter is MOND: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics
Nonetheless, dark energy is pretty much here to stay: http://news.discovery.com/space/new-study-re-confirms-evidence-for-dark-energy-120912.html
^-Ignore the sensationalistic headline
Guess we'll see how it turns out.
The mystical feeling you describe is not reserved just for religion. Either way, the reason God doesn't reveal himself to anybody directly is the same reason Gandalf doesn't come by and put up a fireworks display.
A valid argument. And yet, we can only handle one thing at a time. I guess Catholics are the topic of the month and at some point we'll move on to Mormons and their magic underwear, but we can't accommodate everyone who comes in here and says "but wait, those beliefs don't apply to my sect of Christianity". After all, there's over 30000 different denominations.
Scientists disagree about one thing and one thing only: reality. Religious people disagree about totally different religious books, and even identical religious books. The disagreement in science stems from our humility in the knowledge that our assessment of reality is not always objective and it is this that drives the scientific process, bringing us medicine, cars, and computers. The disagreement in religion stems from pride and the idea that one person knows the mind of god better than another. The inconsistency here is that religion is based on authority and is supposed to be a static dogma.
If God truly cares, he'd have affected history to have made Christianity the only religion, instead of just one of the main religions. You do after all believe that God intervenes in our affairs? Is it not logical to assume that even if he exists that he simply does not care what religion you are?
One of them being that we each get to rule a planet if we lived a good life correct? http://exmormon.org/d6/drupal/Mormons-get-their-own-worlds
The danger is when people twist the meaning of scripture to suit their purposes. But indeed, most of the blame lies with the people who actually sat down and formulated these texts. You might be thinking, why would somebody make all this stuff up? Well, look around you, people play hoaxes all the time. Unfortunately for Mormonism, Joseph Smith's fraudulency has been rather well documented. Hell, the guy was already arrested once for banking fraud.
An excuse is "you can't prove it didn't happen". My only point was that you don't have to provide justification for what many believers consider to be miraculous events anyway. It's redundant. But what else did I miss? Are there any other sections of the bible you agree that sound like man-made fairy-tales? Is the bible still the infallible word of god?
And I appreciate it. However, I've had my fill of looking at self-serving creationist websites.
http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t004.html
"There is always some air in the whale's stomach, and, as long as the animal it has swallowed is still alive, digestive activity will not begin."
This is just wrong. No human can have enough air to last more than a few minutes in a whale's stomach. The whale feeds mostly underwater, and the lungs are not connected to the throat like they are in humans. So just where the heck does the air come from?
Religion will never reach a conclusion based on evidence. It only seeks to find or fabricate evidence for its already pre-determined conclusion.
Talking birds - this is not remotely close to talking donkeys, who don't even have the same capability as birds. This is what I mean by handwaving.
Bombardier beetle - pretty cool. thanks for the link.
Giants - alright, so we've established that these are some tall dudes.
800 yr lifespans - So the bible authors at least attempted to have some sense of verisimilitude by gradually decreasing the lifespans. It fits a pattern which is great, but this does little to address the problem at hand: people living to protoss lifespans. Again, handwaving.
You were never supposed to address any of those points to begin with. I only listed them to show believers what their faith looks like to an outside observer. Like how we look back on the ancient greeks and think how silly they were with their gods throwing lightning bolts down on top of people from mountains, or their Hercules myth (which christians also have).
But inevitably, somebody always replies to that list. I am aware that somebody can always come up with a theistic justification for whatever I come up with. I'm sure you or EternalWraith look at the list and are facepalming just because you know there's an excuse, just like if a Hindu, Sikh, or Jew was here, he'd be able to defend his beliefs with equal effectiveness. I am also aware that there might even be a clever real-world connection/excuse for some of these things on the list. That is not the point. The point is that the bible actually has these things in it, and they are childish, and future observers will laugh at us the same way we laugh at the ancient greeks.
Yeah, I'm down here living in "wonderland" aka. observable reality. It's a blast.
└(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┐└(-.-)┐
Religion employs several mental traps to keeps its believers complicit, and this is one of them.
There is no evidence for god -> why doesn't god prove himself -> you cannot tempt god OR god removed himself from our sight after original sin
There is no evidence for god -> show me the evidence -> evidence is not needed because:
1) Not asking for evidence will multiply your rewards in the afterlife. "Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.""
2) This is the correct religion anyway. People who disagree are just setting out to deceive you. See EternalWraith's last quote.
3) The scripture is the word of god, and the priests are entrusted with the authority of God. They have divine authority, therefore it's not even up for debate.
The con men who wrote the bible put in hundreds of these verses which reassure believers of how virtuous they are for the mere act of believing, and how foolish everyone else is for not, most notably "no one can come to the Father except through me". This is why believers consistently reiterate that not only do they not need evidence, but they're also proud of the fact that they don't need evidence. It's a sad state of affairs.
Science has designed a "space-time" clock that can outlast the universe and tell time with perfect precision down to the last picosecond: http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/66404-spacetime-clock-could-outlast-the-universe-as-we-know-it
Yet religion cannot decide whether a day is a day or 1000 years. I wonder which I should go with. :P
This isn't exactly a defense of Christianity. The fact that Christianity is not the only option, let alone of the fact that Christians can't even agree between themselves, is the most telling proof that people have absolutely no idea what god wants or that god even cares whether you follow arcane protocols or not.
The universe does not revolve around us. In the lifetime of the universe it is likely that thousands of other civilizations flourished. There is no reason for God to notice our insignificant speck of a planet, let alone care whether we prostrate to Mecca at a certain time, to what specifications we cut our penis at birth, or whether we work on the Sabbath. There would be no reason for the creator of the entire universe to be thinking about you, Josh. Or you, Sarah. Or you, Kyle.
Granted, this is speculation. I don't know how the mind of an omnipotent creator of the universe would actually work, but neither does anyone else. It's the height of hubris to say otherwise.
You could have just used this same excuse for all the examples instead of going through a series of mental gymnastics & handwaving.
But there's more:
9. God created light before he created the sun & stars.
10. Elisha ordered bears to maul 42 children for calling him a "baldhead".
11. Resurrection was something of a triviality in biblical times. A bunch of dead saints appeared to people in the city. (Matthew 27:52-53)
12. Virgins births.
13. At one point, the entire world spoke one language.
14. God played hide & seek with Adam & Eve in the garden.
15. Talking trees (Judges 9:8).
16. God once tried to kill Moses (Exodus 4:24).
Perhaps in the USA, but in Africa after it entered into the hunters' systems, it spread through regular old prostitution that resulted from the urbanization in the "Scramble for Africa". At least that's what it says on wikipedia unless you have any other sources?
Not that the notion of assigning blame to a sexual orientation for this condition is any less absurd.
Ultimate? I can't really pinpoint one thing, as long as it's physical, testable & repeatable. It has to be something that happens to multiple people or that more than one person can verify because I have no way to tell if I'm not hallucinating. The mind is a powerful tool, but it's susceptible to hallucination. For example, if we could detect with our scientific instruments this hidden layer of reality called "heaven" that theists have been talking about for so long, it would be a major breakthrough. Even a single event seen by multiple people and captured on video camera would force me to reconsider my stance. 9/11 happened once, we got decent, clear camera footage and everybody was able to go see the wreckage of the twin towers for themselves. Given all the supposed miracles that have happened, there is proportionately less camera footage and legitimate results to go around (unless you count vague pictures appearing on toast/peanut butter to be a miracle).
One other thing that would be a great proof of God is if everyone on the planet agreed to pray at midnight on a certain day for everyone be healed of cancer. This is a benevolent and selfless prayer that could truly demonstrate God's infinite power and love. Yet let me ask you guys an honest question. If every person on the planet actually did pray for everyone to be cured of cancer, do you honestly believe it would work? Rhetorical question. Of course not. What'd you expect? :P
Just no. HIV is spread most often through heterosexual means.
It's also bigoted to tell people how to live their lives. There is numerous scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. It is present in over 1500 species.
Whatever dubious creationist site you got this from, I can't be bothered to double check right now. Even so, it's irrelevant because:
A) If you want to see evolution on human time scales then I suggest working with fruit flies, look at a dog breeding chart, or watch bacteria become resistant to drugs in a lab.
B) You should be skeptical of everyone, but one scientist being wrong is irrelevant. Science's progress speaks for itself. So does religion's (aka. none).
C) Evolution is a fact. The debate is over. Being a biologist today without believing in a core scientific framework like evolution is like trying to be a doctor without believing in germ theory.
The same can be said of aliens and bigfoot. Religious people love talking about dubious claims of the distant past because you can make up whatever you want and nobody can prove you wrong.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
Oh great, so what did I miss, is the Earth really not 6000 years old? The evolution of life is fine for you up until 500 million years ago? That's where you draw the line? Either way, if there were truly no viable precursors in the pre-cambrian, then we wouldn't be alive today. This is a bizarre argument. Nowhere have I heard that punctuated equilibrium was a problem.
But if you don't like it, find another explanation instead of throwing your hands up into the air and saying "I give up, goddidit." That's intellectual laziness. It's not even an answer. How can you even accept that as an answer?
Even if evolution is totally wrong, this is what the bible proposes as an alternative:
1. Fire breathing monster in the book of job
2. Giants once walked the earth
3. People once lived to be 800 years old
4. A talking donkey
5. The trinity. God gives birth to himself so that he can sacrifice himself to himself
6. Samson slays 1000 men with the jawbone of an ass. This is basically Christianity's version of Hercules.
7. Man lived in a whale for 3 days
8. Jacob wrestles with god & WINS
You could switch this stuff with any of the other fairy tales you grew up with, like three little pigs or snow white, and you wouldn't know the difference. Personally, for me, I choose to be an adult.
There was no flood: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
Nobody can read that link and still say such a flood is scientifically possible. We've been through it in this thread, somewhere on page 8. The idea that there was in actuality a flood that covered the planet in its entirety and that there was a man who brought each of every animal with him is just stupidity of the highest order of magnitude, no matter what religion you are. And there's the proof. Sorry if that's offensive, but that's just the way it is. Suffice to say, I really could care less if you believe in a flood, as long as you acknowledge that it was magically facilitated by a deity who then went on to erase the scientific evidence.
Yes, but it's no coincidence that hearsay & testimony are considered the lowest form of evidence. As Eivin said, creationists have no scientific, repeatable evidence that can be tested in a lab.
There is as much evidence for god as there is for bigfoot.
o.O
How does that even happen? Either way, weren't you referencing the Cambrian explosion in your earlier argument?
It's getting late though so I won't bother addressing the rest of the misconceptions and just skip ahead to this:
Here is the definition of dark ages:
Dark Ages (historiography), the concept of a period of intellectual darkness and economic regression that supposedly occurred in Europe following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.
I don't know what creationist books you're reading, but they sound like they belong in the trash bin if they tell you the dark ages are a period of great intellectual advancement. Religion had its chance to run the world, but the dark ages are over.
Since your guys' cause is already hopeless enough I'll give you a tip. Religious fervor and religious trolling are indistinguishable. It serves my cause more to treat him like like he's being serious, because nobody can tell the difference anyway. Soulcarver is an atheist factory.
The only thing he's done a good job at is explicitly ignoring the posts I've made. It's easy for him to come in and say "lerl, I am going to troll this thread guyz," but I think I'll just continue treating him as if he's an idiot in real life, because he probably is. That's the sad thing about religious extremists.
Which one was your favorite? I particularly enjoyed "it's not genocide, it's just god killing evil people (and the children/animals because God is too incompetent to think of a simpler solution)". Or "it's not rape, it's people taking away wives from their bad husbands so they can be taken care of!"
Ah yes, "Ignorance is bliss." I tried that for 17 years. Trust me, it's nothing to be happy about. Do not mistake my discontent with religion that it so justly deserves as my attitude with life in general. In fact, I have a greater appreciation for the universe and my life now than I did when I was a theist because I now realize that this is the only chance I get. What are the odds that you were born? They're astronomical, and you should be thankful to have been born into a scientific and economic golden age. For tens of thousands of years before this, every human fought tooth and nail to survive and died young. We enjoy luxuries such as never seen before.
Nowhere did anybody say that. You are simply offended that people question your faith. This picture cannot be posted enough:
The religious right simply has too much power. So long as people such as yourself continue to enable this and associate criticism and skepticism with "arrogance", innovation will continue to be dragged down and anti-scientific beliefs will continue to dominate. Senseless killing such as this will continue forever: http://teapotatheism.blogspot.com/2008/06/anonymous-wanted-body-count-total-so-he.html
That is, unless we kill IT at its heart through intellectual discourse. Your question should not be, "why are atheists pissed off at religion?" Your question should be "after all that religion has done to repress humanity, why am I the one that's not offended?" And you should also ask yourself whether the transient comfort it provides you is really worth the welfare of future generations, or whether you even care or have the foresight to think like this, given that you care more about heaven in some imaginary afterlife as opposed to creating one here on Earth.
Yeah, you have worse reading comprehension skills than a six year old.
Me: "but I do not blame these people"
Uhm, what's the difference there buddy? I love my family deeply. If a man walked up to me on the street and told me to love him more than I love my family, I'd tell him to go screw himself. It makes no difference that it's from a book 2000 years ago. In fact, that makes it even worse. If you love some random man more than your children just because he told you to, you're a crappy parent guilty of neglect.
Did you have a legitimate point to make or are you just here to join in the trolling along with SoulCarverr? I eagerly await your response for why those children deserve to be executed. "Child abuse" can mean a broad range of things, including neglect. Stop being so pedantic. Your playing of devil's advocate for religion was nice at first but now it's just getting sad.
@EternalWraith: Go
It's no coincidence that Jesus never spoke up against slavery but only endorsed it. As for child abuse:
1) In Matthew 15:4-7 Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.”
2) Jesus asks that you leave your children for him. This is child abuse. Matthew 19:29
3) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark 7:9
4) "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14:26)
Once again, this so-called "most perfect book of all time" gets thrown into the garbage bin where it belongs. There are much better fictional books out there with much higher moral standards. The three little pigs is a good one.
This is irrelevant because it's nothing more than cherrypicking the good parts of the bible to conform to western moral practices while ignoring all the evil and violence you find in this bronze age book. Things such as being nice to animals, equality of women, etc. are something that has emerged within the past hundred years. Morals are something that is debated using rational thinking and our own evolved internal moral compass. It does not come from your book. You twist your book to FIT our highly developed morals.
Indeed, there was a name for the time when religion had its chance to run the world: it was called the dark ages. My means of fighting religion are limited to intellectual discourse, which I have made clear. Yet I seem to recall you physically threatening pretty much every non-believer on this forum. Are there no rules against that here? Either way, you're a dangerous idiot and a prime example of my point.
The only reason you want this thread locked is because you want to prohibit OUR freedom of speech and continue propagating your intellectual slavery. I'm not Korean but maybe you should move to China if you want to be such a god damn communist.
Jesus also advocates child abuse, beating slaves and murdering those who don't believe as you do. Perfect moral teachings if you're a brutal bronze-age troglodyte. Screw Jesus and screw you.
Religion is directly responsible for millions of deaths: http://teapotatheism.blogspot.com/2008/06/anonymous-wanted-body-count-total-so-he.html
Final tally for theism: 2,229,074,100
Highest possible atheism death toll with Stalin: 95,000,000
Stalin shouldn't even count because his atheism was no more responsible for his actions than his communism or any of his other beliefs were.
Yes, I think the world would be better off if all religion was eradicated. No, I don't plan on scourging heretics anytime soon, that's religion's job. The comfort that it provides people is not worth the atrocities that it brings and the years of scientific progress that it takes away. There is no such thing as moderate religion. Again, even my parents, my parents; friends, and my friends have expressed bigoted, anti-scientific beliefs. Shit, just look at what you people post in this thread. The world would be better off without these beliefs, but I do not blame these people. They are victims of childhood religious indoctrination, and that's another reason why religion is evil.