• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New York Atheists Angry Over 'Heaven' Street Sign Honoring Sept. 11 victims

theplaydrive said:
Personal experience, experiences shared with other believers and religious texts.
Click to expand...
When we look at the many differing supernatural claims by people we see some commonality but also a lot of differences, many of the differences are incompatible with the claims of others. What is noticeable is that there is some type of "mental phenomenon" occurring. Perhaps some people really do converse or see actual gods, demons, spirits, auras, different dimensions, etc. But if they do, they do so in situations and manners indistinguishable from imagination/fraud/mistake/delusion. The "spiritual" or "supernatural" events are entirely confined to the minds of the claimants.

theplaydrive said:
You said verifiable by ANYONE - my point was that that is a poor measurement of anything.
Click to expand...
If anyone can verify something then that is a pretty good standard for determining that the thing is real. If only a small group of people claim to see/hear/communicate with something and no independent/unaffiliated person can verify their claims then that is a pretty good indication that something is wrong with their claim, perhaps imagination/fraud/mistake/delusion.

theplaydrive said:
Now you've changed it to verifiable by OTHERS. Thank you for recognizing your mistake.
Click to expand...
This appears to be an insubstantial quibble.

theplaydrive said:
What does this have to do with you telling me "you can now understand why people don't believe in your god"? I already understand why people don't believe in God; you should stop making assumptions.
Click to expand...
theplaydrive said:
Strawman. I don't know - never said or implied I did. I said I believe.
People don't believe in supernatural for a variety of reasons. Sometimes for good reasons and sometimes for bad reasons. One line of "good" reasoning is that supernatural claims are fundamentally indistinguishable from others. You don't seem to understand that. Many supernatural beliefs stem from the exact line of reasoning you present: I don't understand why X happens but I can imagine that [insert supernatural explanation] causes it. Therefore I believe [insert supernatural explanation] causes it.


theplaydrive said:
Strawman: I don't believe in God because of a "holy book" - the same applies to many many others.
Click to expand...

theplaydrive said:
1)I don't believe in a holy book.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression you were a christian. Am I wrong?
Do you not believe that the Bible was written/inspired by a god? Are you some type of deist or christian "heretic"?

theplaydrive said:
Also, sure, unicorns and the like could be posited to exist from "personal experience" and "religious texts". However, most people don't believe in things like that anymore because they are contradicted by science and our near complete discovery of all physical things on the planet.
Click to expand...
As stated before, unicorns can be believed for the same reason you believe in your god: because their existence and abilities can forever be put outside the realm of falsifiability. I.E., there is always some excuse why gods, unicorns, or leprechauns cannot be contradicted by science. (E.G., fur that makes them invisible, living outside space/time, magic, etc).

Just look at the "evolution" of god as an example:
Do you see a pattern?
* We don't know why our crops failed so "God-did-it".
* We don't know how the sun moves across the sky so "God-did-it".
* We don't know why lightening occurs so "God-did-it".
* We don't why the earth shakes so "God-did-it".
* We don't know why there are so many different types of plants and animals so "God-did-it".
* We don't know how life first started so "God-did-it".
* We don't know exactly how consciousness works so "God-did-it"?
* We don't know how the universe started so "God-did-it".

You present the latest iteration of flawed thinking that has existed for thousands of years: We don't know how or why X occurs but I can imagine a god-did-it therefore I believe "God-did-it".


theplaydrive said:
When things are disproved, educated people stop believing in them and things like unicorns fall into that category.
Click to expand...
You can't disprove an unfalsifiable claim!!! Gods, unicorns, leprechauns, spirits, etc can all be claimed to exist in unfalsifiable ways.


theplaydrive said:
The only thing that could have the power to "trick" us and break the laws of nature is the one who created them - this ability goes to one idea - God.
Click to expand...
That is invalid reasoning. There is no reason other beings couldn't exist that are not as powerful/magical as an all-powerful god but still powerful/magical enough to "trick" you, or break laws of nature, or perform magic. All you are demonstrating is that you have a particular BIAS towards one supernatural explanation over others. Which is fine, but at least CONCEDE that other supernatural beings could exist and CONCEDE you have a bias.


theplaydrive said:
You seem to think you're teaching me a lot of things in this post, but you're not. I actually made this exact same argument in the previous post:

The point is that a unicorn has no practical ability to break the laws of nature - God does. You should be able to understand that.
Click to expand...
You are demonstrating that you have a bias that your god is the only thing that can have supernatural abilities. You deny the possibility that other beings can be imagined that have supernatural abilities yet are not your god.


theplaydrive said:
God is just the name given to something that may have created the universe.
Click to expand...
god is usually defined as a supreme being or entity. Are you trying to equivocate with the word "god"? That "god" is anything that created the universe, intelligent or not? E.G., if the universe started purely due to random chance or necessity and not the result of some intentional being then you'd call that process "god"? Because until now you've been making statements that "god" is some type of conscious/intentional being.

theplaydrive said:
Can you understand that a thing that would have created the laws of nature could break them just like human beings can break the laws of society?
Click to expand...
yes, I can IMAGINE that. That doesn't mean that such a being actually exists or even can exist or that anything stated is possible. Can you understand that supernatural explanations have limitless explanatory power? It just so happens that you are particularly enthralled with a supernatural explanation because you can use it to explain anything and everything! Its the 4000 year old "god-did-it" routine.


theplaydrive said:
Reason: there is a cause for everything else in the universe, maybe the universe itself has a cause to.
Click to expand...
Key word: "maybe".

"Maybe" the universe has always existed. Maybe it was never created. Maybe it was created by a supernatural unicorn who can only create universes and then the unicorn died. Maybe we are all a simulation being run by humans in the future who are re-creating the past in giant computers. Your imagination is a piss-poor standard for determining what is true and what is not.

Are you concerned with what is true or are you only concerned with what beliefs make you feel happy or satisfied?

theplaydrive said:
1. I don't care if you "respect" my God, so another strawman for you.
Click to expand...
I said nothing about respecting or disrespecting you. What I said was: It can be pointed out that thousands of gods, spirits, demons, auras, and other supernatural claims are EQUALLY supported with the same reasoning that you use to justify a belief in your god. It just so happens that you have a particular bias to one supernatural explanation over others.

Furthermore, you don't understand that no supernatural explanation is required. There are things in this world that you may never understand or know before you die. Imagining particular solutions for these questions doesn't make them true!


theplaydrive said:
2. I don't believe "my God" is anymore worthy of respect than others, so another strawman for you.
Click to expand...
I never claimed your god is any less or any more worthy of respect. What I was stating is that your belief in the existence of a particular god is based on poor reasoning that is no more credible than most other supernatural explanations and ideas.


theplaydrive said:
The only one who can break those laws is the one who created them.
Click to expand...
And you determined this how? Because you imagine its true therefore it is?

theplaydrive said:
Uh. Not so much. What does this have to do with the fact that everything in the universe has a cause?
Click to expand...
Let's get your logic presented:
1) Everything I know of that exists has a cause
2) The universe exists
3) Therefore the universe has a cause.

Do you know what this fallacy is called?

theplaydrive said:
Question #1: Why do you think that 4-5 billion people believe in God but not unicorns?
Click to expand...
4-5 billion people do NOT believe in "A God". People believe in thousands of different supernatural entities with different characteristics, qualities, and traits. Some believe god is a guy with a gray beard sitting in clouds. Others believe its some entity living in an imaginary place "outside space/time". Others use the term "god" as a synonym for nature (Einstein, spinoza). They all put the generic label "god" on it but they are NOT talking about the same thing.

theplaydrive said:
Question #2: Why do you think that people still believe in God
Click to expand...
for a variety of reasons too long to list here.

theplaydrive said:
Why do you think that people still believe in God but let go of literal interpretations of the Bible ?
Click to expand...
Most do not. Fundamentalists/literalists/biblicists are still a large group (if not the largest) in the US.

People let go of literal interpretations for a variety of reasons to long to list here.
Click to expand...
 
I’ve got to post on belief again. This is not about god specifically, it’s more basic than that.

I’ve found two basic types of conclusion mechanisms that people use. to describe to themselves and then, at times, to others. They use them in three different ways. I’ll use two words. The psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true is a belief (ref. wiki), no proof is necessary, it could come from a proof, emotion or feeling. The other is the understanding of fact that is supported by a proof that can be tested. Note that an exhaustive proof of 1+1=2 was just completed and published; it’s over 100 pages.

So the three types of people: believers, analytical and a combination. One would think that most people are a combination of believers and analytical and few at the extremes. However, as a design engineer for 30 years, a very analytical task, I found that a significant percentage of design engineers were pure believers. Although there were more that had a belief in god or sometimes a specific God and/or in other things; but for most knowledge they required an analytical scientific type proof that they accepted or developed themselves. And there were more pure analytical types than you would find in other types of jobs. But, there were more pure believers that one would expect in the demographic class of design engineers. They believed in the facts that are supported by proofs and they appeared to be the same as analytical engineers. However, there are times in design engineering that what is thought to be a fact is not. When one solves design problems there are so many variables that proofs are near impossible; however, the first solution is often taken as the only way to solve the problem. That solution then sets a standard and is used repeatedly. The analytical engineer may find that the standard solution causes compromises in a design sufficiently to cause him question the standard solution and look for a better solution for a set of particular requirements. His analytical coworkers will praise his solution, but the believers in the old solution will hold the position that he is making a mistake and doing it wrong. I’ve never been able to convert a believer design engineer into an analytical design engineer.

Pure believers can’t know anything by an analytical process even when it appears they do; also, they think that everyone does thinking the same way they do. A believer believes everyone is a believer, and the ones that disagree with them have a problem. This sets up believers to have trouble with almost everyone else, especially other believers. A discussion concerning god is a place where this difference in thinking and problem solving processes makes communication impossible.

Very briefly, the case that brought me to my above opinion is: Hot air rises, so a cooling fan in electronic equipment should work with convection not against it! Wrong in many cases, but believer engineers, even when it’s demonstrated, do not accept that it is ever wrong to work with convection.
 
American said:
TOTAL FAIL, the thread you referenced has nothing to do with gay marriage, forcing prayer in classrooms or at NASCAR events. Most people in that thread don't even understand the premise on which the title is based. But we're not going to derail this thread with that one here, are we? You ascersion in the first sentence of your second paragraph has no support.
Click to expand...

Nice try. Your argument was that atheists are "rabid" and "mouthfoaming" when discussing religion, and I linked you a thread - one that you created - where you basically claimed that without God, there are no inalienable rights. You can argue your intentions all day long, but that thread was created for nothing more than to get a rise out of folks who may not see it that way, so that you could bash people who don't believe in God, or who may worship some other entity.

And now here you are, after being shown your own thread in which you do the exact same thing you despise atheists for, trying to play it off as if gay marriage, NASCAR events, and forced prayer in school was the main focus of my illustration. It wasn't. Go back and reread.

If anything, I showed you that every person (or group of persons) are capable of going overboard on whatever issue comes down the pipeline. These atheists getting all bent out of shape over this issue are just as stupid as those a few years ago who posted that billboard reminding folks during the holiday season that it's a myth. I chalk that up to nonsense, in the same way I chalk your God & Inalienable rights thread. It's nothing more than something meant to get a rise out of someone who believes something different.
 
NGNM85 said:
We are running out of frontiers. Like I said, we're closing in on a unified theory of physics, after that point, physics will, essentially, cease to exist as a discipline. There will be nothing more to know. The human body, likewise, has very few secrets left. etc., etc. The expanse of virgin territory is rapidly dwindling.
Click to expand...

Surely, I must have misinterpreted this part of an otherwise plausible post. Do you really mean to say than humankind, occupying one minor planet circling one minor star among hundreds of billions of other stars in the universe, that microscopic bit of life we call humanity, has run out of new territory to study, that we are close to knowing everything that there is to know?

Surely, no one could make such a statement.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Surely, I must have misinterpreted this part of an otherwise plausible post. Do you really mean to say than humankind, occupying one minor planet circling one minor star among hundreds of billions of other stars in the universe, that microscopic bit of life we call humanity, has run out of new territory to study, that we are close to knowing everything that there is to know?

Surely, no one could make such a statement.
Click to expand...
I was wondering about that as well. We haven't even begun to reach the end of discovery.
 
Atheists tend to be overly self important and the more vocal ones demand to be the center of attention. That is why we see idiots like that moron who sued over the pledge of allegiance or an idiot in Cincinnati who sued to get rid of Christmas as a holiday.

I think why some of these people advocate atheism is not because they really can prove God doesn't exist (btw I am agnostic) but they hate thinking there is actually something more important than they are
 
Dittohead not! said:
Surely, I must have misinterpreted this part of an otherwise plausible post. Do you really mean to say than humankind, occupying one minor planet circling one minor star among hundreds of billions of other stars in the universe, that microscopic bit of life we call humanity, has run out of new territory to study, that we are close to knowing everything that there is to know?

Surely, no one could make such a statement.
Click to expand...

Excellent point sir.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Surely, I must have misinterpreted this part of an otherwise plausible post. Do you really mean to say than humankind, occupying one minor planet circling one minor star among hundreds of billions of other stars in the universe, that microscopic bit of life we call humanity, has run out of new territory to study, that we are close to knowing everything that there is to know?

Surely, no one could make such a statement.
Click to expand...

I said we are close to a unified theory of physics. Once we have that we would have one set of rules governing everything from subatomic particles to supermassive black holes, every manifestation of matter and energy in the entire universe. One need not study the entire universe to completely understand how it works, any more than we would have to study each individual human body to understand human physiology. I'm not saying there aren't discoveries to be made, but they are finite, at the rate of progression, barring an existential catastrophe, it is conceivable that we will discover all that which can be discovered.
 
I originally wrote out a point by point response, but then I realized you were more interested in projecting your invalid assumptions about theists onto me rather than actually reading what I wrote and understanding my responses, so I did this instead.

This is you pretentiously teaching me things that I both know and have told you that I understand:

scourge99 said:
People don't believe in supernatural for a variety of reasons. [then you go on to explain atheism to me]
Click to expand...
scourge99 said:
Key word: "maybe".

"Maybe" the universe has always existed. Maybe it was never created. Etc.
Click to expand...

scourge99 said:
There are things in this world that you may never understand or know before you die. Imagining particular solutions for these questions doesn't make them true!
Click to expand...
scourge99 said:
People believe in thousands of different supernatural entities with different characteristics, qualities, and trait. [...] They all put the generic label "god" on it but they are NOT talking about the same thing.
Click to expand...

This is you condescendingly and presumptuously projecting your invalid assumptions about theists onto my arguments:

scourge99 said:
Are you concerned with what is true or are you only concerned with what beliefs make you feel happy or satisfied?
Click to expand...
scourge99 said:
It just so happens that you are particularly enthralled with a supernatural explanation because you can use it to explain anything and everything! Its the 4000 year old "god-did-it" routine.
Click to expand...

This is you presenting your subjective claims as objective and absolute:

scourge99 said:
The "spiritual" or "supernatural" events are entirely confined to the minds of the claimants.
Click to expand...


This is you misrepresenting my argument:
scourge99 said:
Let's get your logic presented:
1) Everything I know of that exists has a cause
2) The universe exists
3) Therefore the universe has a cause.

Do you know what this fallacy is called?
Click to expand...
I don't know, but "therefore the universe has a cause" is not my argument. My argument is that "it MAY have a cause" which is why I believe in God.

scourge99 said:
You are demonstrating that you have a bias that your god is the only thing that can have supernatural abilities.
Click to expand...
I'll address this point because I'm stupid and masochistic. Analogy: A man-made robot cannot break the "laws" of his programming. A God-made animal (unicorn or whatever) cannot break the "laws" of nature. Human beings can break the programming laws b/c they created them. God can break the laws of nature because He created them. This has nothing to do with "bias" for my God.

And to answer your question about my beliefs: I am not a Christian. I believe in God. I think anything is possible. The end.


In conclusion:
Your misrepresentation of my arguments is the Jesus Christ of why atheism gets a bad name...and to think that at the beginning of our conversation I praised you for being some version of respectful.
 
Last edited:
theplaydrive said:
I originally wrote out a point by point response, but then I realized you were more interested in projecting your invalid assumptions about theists onto me rather than actually reading what I wrote and understanding my responses, so I did this instead.
Click to expand...
As anyone can verify, you don't actually show where I have made invalid assumptions in my response. Instead you have snipped my responses from their context and presented ad-hominem after ad-hominem expressing nothing but personal outrage and contempt. You have halted this discussion by failing to directly and honestly respond to my questions and statements.

Its possible that I have misunderstood your position and created strawmen. That is a normal occurrence in debate. All I can do is assure you that its not intentional. I hope that in the future you will address my responses rather than reading into them and resorting to ad-homs

theplaydrive said:
This is you pretentiously teaching me things that I both know and have told you that I understand:
Click to expand...
I don't claim to teach you anything. That is an idea you have invented and have projected onto me. If you disagree with something then you should say so and why. If you agree with something then just quote it and say "I agree".

theplaydrive said:
This is you condescendingly and presumptuously projecting your invalid assumptions about theists onto my arguments:
Click to expand...

MY response flows from your statements:

thePlayDrive said:
The only thing that could have the power to "trick" us and break the laws of nature is the one who created them - this ability goes to one idea - God.

...

Can you understand that a thing that would have created the laws of nature could break them just like human beings can break the laws of society?
...

Unicorns don't have any rational basis for breaking the laws of nature. The only one who can break those laws is the one who created them.
Click to expand...
scourge99 said:
You are particularly enthralled with a supernatural explanation because you can use it to explain anything and everything (as opposed to unicorns, or leprechauns, or greek gods which can only be used to explain a limited amount of things by appealing to the supernatural)! God is the ultimate leprechaun/unicorn/greek_god. Its the 4000 year old "god-did-it" routine:

* We don't know why our crops failed so "God-did-it".
* We don't know how the sun moves across the sky so "God-did-it".
* We don't know why lightening occurs so "God-did-it".
* We don't why the earth shakes so "God-did-it".
* We don't know why there are so many different types of plants and animals so "God-did-it".
* We don't know how life first started so "God-did-it".
* We don't know exactly how consciousness works so "God-did-it"?
* We don't know how the universe started so "God-did-it".

You present the latest iteration of flawed thinking that has existed for thousands of years: "I don't know how or why X occurs but I can imagine a god-did-it therefore I believe 'God-did-it'."
Click to expand...



Are you concerned with what is true or are you only concerned with what beliefs make you feel happy or satisfied?
Click to expand...
This is a fair and honest question. There are quite a few people who have said that they ARE NOT all that interested in truth if it affects their happiness. Some ascribe to the saying "ignorance is bliss". I'm wondering if you are one such person.

thePlayDrive said:
This is you presenting your subjective claims as objective and absolute:
Click to expand...
And if you didn't snip out the context of that statement which supports my claim then it would be obvious:

When we look at the many differing supernatural claims by people we see some commonality but also a lot of differences, many of the differences are incompatible with the claims of others. What is noticeable is that there is some type of "mental phenomenon" occurring. Perhaps some people really do converse or see actual gods, demons, spirits, auras, different dimensions, etc. But if they do, they do so in situations and manners indistinguishable from imagination/fraud/mistake/delusion. The "spiritual" or "supernatural" events are entirely confined to the minds of the claimants.


theplaydrive said:
This is you misrepresenting my argument:

I don't know, but "therefore the universe has a cause" is not my argument. My argument is that "it MAY have a cause" which is why I believe in God.
Click to expand...
and I explained why that was poor reasoning:

"Many supernatural beliefs stem from the exact line of reasoning you present: I don't understand why/how X happens but I can imagine that [insert supernatural explanation] causes it. Therefore I believe [insert supernatural explanation] causes it."
"You are demonstrating that you have a particular BIAS towards one supernatural explanation over others. Which is fine, but at least CONCEDE that other supernatural beings could exist and CONCEDE you have a bias."

"Furthermore, there are things in this world that we may never understand or know before we die. Imagining particular solutions for these questions doesn't make them true (or reasonable to believe in)!"


You are demonstrating that you have a bias that your god is the only thing that can have supernatural abilities
Click to expand...

theplaydrive said:
I'll address this point.... Analogy: A man-made robot cannot break the "laws" of his programming. A God-made animal (unicorn or whatever) cannot break the "laws" of nature. Human beings can break the programming laws b/c they created them. God can break the laws of nature because He created them. This has nothing to do with "bias" for my God.
Click to expand...
1) This has EVERYTHING to do with your bias for a god. You are starting with the PREMISE that your God exists and then proclaiming that because your God created everything then nothing can exist that can break its laws therefore if leprechauns, unicorns, etc, exist then they cannot break the laws. Your whole line of thought is poisoned by that premise because you are unwilling or able to consider possibilities without that premise.

2) Your logic is invalid: Even if a god created everything it doesn't mean his creations are incapable of breaking the laws he created. For example a man could create a computer that can reprogram itself or a god could create or allow for the creation of a being that could break the laws.

3) Analogies do not an argument make. You can create analogy after analogy if you'd like but they are all trumped by a single DIRECT EXPLANATION. It is a FACT that when debaters struggle to defend their arguments then they often resort to analogies/metaphors to hide the flaws. Analogies/metaphors are excellent in that they help get a confusing or difficult point across but they are NOT a substitute for a direct explanation, which you have failed to provide. A "naked" analogy, like you have presented is a telltale sign that your argument is flawed.

theplaydrive said:
And to answer your question about my beliefs: I am not a Christian. I believe in God. I think anything is possible.
Click to expand...
Which god do you believe in? There are thousands of gods proposed by man. What are his/her/its characteristics, traits, properties? Why do you believe so?
 
NGNM85 said:
I said we are close to a unified theory of physics. Once we have that we would have one set of rules governing everything from subatomic particles to supermassive black holes, every manifestation of matter and energy in the entire universe. One need not study the entire universe to completely understand how it works, any more than we would have to study each individual human body to understand human physiology. I'm not saying there aren't discoveries to be made, but they are finite, at the rate of progression, barring an existential catastrophe, it is conceivable that we will discover all that which can be discovered.
Click to expand...

Even though much of the universe is composed of "dark matter" and "dark energy", which we don't understand at all?
 
scourge99 said:
As anyone can verify, you don't actually show where I have made invalid assumptions in my response. Instead you have snipped my responses from their context and presented ad-hominem after ad-hominem expressing nothing but personal outrage and contempt. You have halted this discussion by failing to directly and honestly respond to my questions and statements.
Click to expand...
I'm not outraged and I don't feel contempt, I think you project your invalid assumptions about theists onto every post because half the stuff you said comes out of nowhere and has absolutely nothing to do with what I've posted.

=scourge99;1059591081I don't claim to teach you anything. That is an idea you have invented and have projected onto me. If you disagree with something then you should say so and why. If you agree with something then just quote it and say "I agree".
Click to expand...
Yeah, the problem with this is that I've told you "I agree" several times and you continue to teach me about why atheists exist and what "maybe" means.

scourge99 said:
MY response flows from your statements:
Click to expand...

scourge99 said:
You are particularly enthralled with a supernatural explanation because you can use it to explain anything and everything (as opposed to unicorns, or leprechauns, or greek gods which can only be used to explain a limited amount of things by appealing to the supernatural)! God is the ultimate leprechaun/unicorn/greek_god. Its the 4000 year old "god-did-it" routine...You present the latest iteration of flawed thinking that has existed for thousands of years: "I don't know how or why X occurs but I can imagine a god-did-it therefore I believe 'God-did-it'."
Click to expand...
This does not represent my position. I don't just run to God to explain anything and everything. It's pretty clear to me that the only "rational" conclusion for you is that there is no God, but that way of thinking is not at all conducive to fruitful discussion.

scourge99 said:
This is a fair and honest question. There are quite a few people who have said that they ARE NOT all that interested in truth if it affects their happiness. Some ascribe to the saying "ignorance is bliss". I'm wondering if you are one such person.
Click to expand...
You asked a presumptuous question that had absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. The answer is self-evident.

scourge99 said:
And if you didn't snip out the context of that statement which supports my claim then it would be obvious:

When we look at the many differing supernatural claims by people we see some commonality but also a lot of differences, many of the differences are incompatible with the claims of others. What is noticeable is that there is some type of "mental phenomenon" occurring. Perhaps some people really do converse or see actual gods, demons, spirits, auras, different dimensions, etc. But if they do, they do so in situations and manners indistinguishable from imagination/fraud/mistake/delusion. The "spiritual" or "supernatural" events are entirely confined to the minds of the claimants.
Click to expand...
This "context" of your statement shows the exact same thing. I agree with the part you highlighted. This is not the statement I'm talking about. I addressed your conclusion that these experiences are "entirely confined to the minds of the claimants". You don't know if it's all in their minds, therefore it's illogical to present it as an absolute.

scourge99 said:
and I explained why that was poor reasoning:

"Many supernatural beliefs stem from the exact line of reasoning you present: I don't understand why/how X happens but I can imagine that [insert supernatural explanation] causes it. Therefore I believe [insert supernatural explanation] causes it."
"You are demonstrating that you have a particular BIAS towards one supernatural explanation over others. Which is fine, but at least CONCEDE that other supernatural beings could exist and CONCEDE you have a bias."

"Furthermore, there are things in this world that we may never understand or know before we die. Imagining particular solutions for these questions doesn't make them true (or reasonable to believe in)!"
Click to expand...
It's not about just imagining some God creating it - it's about the fact that there are patterns of cause and creation in nature that I also attribute to the beginning of the universe. You've chosen pretend that paying attention to them is "poor reasoning".

It's pretty clear to me that there is only one conclusion that you think is based in good reasoning and that's the atheist conclusion - I'm not interested in debating someone whose already made up his mind that his idea is inherently superior to mine.

scourge99 said:
1) This has EVERYTHING to do with your bias for a god. You are starting with the PREMISE that your God exists and then proclaiming that because your God created everything then nothing can exist that can break its laws therefore if leprechauns, unicorns, etc, exist then they cannot break the laws. Your whole line of thought is poisoned by that premise because you are unwilling or able to consider possibilities without that premise.
Click to expand...
No, I'm starting with the premise "if you create the laws, you can break them". I got this premise from observing our world. I then thought to myself, "IF a creator exists, then he can break the rules he created." I didn't start with the premise that God exists - that's literally the LAST step in my thought process.

scourge99 said:
2) Your logic is invalid: Even if a god created everything it doesn't mean his creations are incapable of breaking the laws he created. For example a man could create a computer that can reprogram itself or a god could create or allow for the creation of a being that could break the laws.
Click to expand...
I haven't observed anything in nature that suggests anything can break the laws of nature and I come to my conclusions based on observations, so...

scourge99 said:
Analogies do not an argument make. You can create analogy after analogy if you'd like but they are all trumped by a single DIRECT EXPLANATION. It is a FACT that when debaters struggle to defend their arguments then they often resort to analogies/metaphors to hide the flaws. Analogies/metaphors are excellent in that they help get a confusing or difficult point across but they are NOT a substitute for a direct explanation, which you have failed to provide. A "naked" analogy, like you have presented is a telltale sign that your argument is flawed.
Click to expand...
Analogies are ways of explaining arguments in more familiar terms. I already explained it directly and you continually misinterpreted, so an analogy was the last resort. Please do not project your poor interpretation skills onto my last resort use of this method.

For more information visit:Analogy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

scourge99 said:
Which god do you believe in? There are thousands of gods proposed by man. What are his/her/its characteristics, traits, properties? Why do you believe so?
Click to expand...
I believe in God, that one. I'm not about to explain the details to a guy who thinks believing in God is all about "poor reasoning" and who doesn't understand what an analogy is used for in a debate.
 
Last edited:
NGNM85;1059588324]Not really. Again, scientists tend to be very conservative in their asessments. Certainly, fundamental truths, like evolution, that consciousness exists in the brain, that gravity is a force exhibited by objects proportional to mass, these will never be disproven. Also, science, as I said before, becomes more accurate with time. Bogus theories like Phlogiston, or Phrenology could only exist because people had such a rudimentary understanding of biology and physics, at the time. This is no longer the case.
Click to expand...

Evolution has been proven ??? Maybe to your satisfaction, but certainly not to mine .. where is the missing link ? Did evolution stop after man started walking upright ?

The standard response to that is evolution took a million years ..or whatever time frame you choose to use..... but why don't find or a stage of evolution that took place 50 years later, 100 years later, 150 years later .. so either man evolved .. started breeding .. and evolution stopped … or you can go to the apes … but the same process holds true there .. where are the half man half apes .. ?? Did we have evolution before the ice age ? Or did it begin only after it ? If so why ?



We are running out of frontiers. Like I said, we're closing in on a unified theory of physics, after that point, physics will, essentially, cease to exist as a discipline. There will be nothing more to know. The human body, likewise, has very few secrets left. etc., etc. The expanse of virgin territory is rapidly dwindling.
Click to expand...

Out of frontiers that we now know of perhaps....



By measuring increased bloodflow and activity in the brain, as well as measuring hormones and neurotransmitters in the blood, we can fairly accurately identify the phenomena we know as 'love.' This has been borne out by medical studies. So, yes, with a team of qualified doctors, an fMRI machine, and some blood tests, I could definitively prove to you that I was in love.

I see no legal, or rational basis for comelling people to submit to said tests as a prerequisite for a marriage license.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry … you might be able to prove something … perhaps lust … but until I see a scientist write a paper .. and him backing with his job that he can “prove” love .. I personally think you are blowing smoke up someones back side.



In no other sphere of conversation are we under any obligation to respect eachothers' views. People engage in raucous debate over everything from politics to sports. The idea that I should sit idly mute while some true believer makes extreme claims about the nature of the universe without any evidence, whatsoever, is ridiculous. To paraphrase Carl Sagan; extreme claims require extreme evidence. If you're going to assert that the scripture is, at least to a great extent literally true, you are going to have to be ready to meet the burden of proof for that assertion.
Click to expand...

Gee I'm sorry... I thought we lived in a free country, with the freedom of religion, so in your self esteemed mind, those that believe should be ridiculed and silenced ? Simply because you believe them to be wrong?

You have the right to believe whatever kind of nonsense you want to believe. However, I'm under no obligation, whatsoever, to respect that any more than I'm obligated to respect Young Earth Creationism, Holocaust Denialism, or Neo-Nazism. My biggest complaint is not simply the irrationality of religion, that's just irritating, but, rather, the horrible social problems that go along with it.
Click to expand...

Lets see .. most religions teach to be a good person, to not steal, not kill, love your neighbor and many other socially redeeming qualities .. I can see where you might find that offensive .. I just don't happen too . Does that mean all that believe are good people .. . of course not .. just as those that don't believe are "not" all good or bad people.

Now you can have the last word because I'm, quite frankly not going to waste anymore time with you .. We will never agree .. Mine is a belief in something, it's not based on anything scientific .. and to put this as bluntly as you prefer .. I really don't give a flying f**k what you think or think you know .. .
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
Even though much of the universe is composed of "dark matter" and "dark energy", which we don't understand at all?
Click to expand...

There are some compelling theories. Dark matter is likely just a kind of exotic matter that only interacts with other matter via gravity and the strong nuclear force, there are likely candidates such as WIMPS. It is totally conceivable that the LHC will allow us to analyze and understand these exotic particles, in which case we will know everything about them that there is to know.
 
The Barbarian said:
Evolution has been proven ??? Maybe to your satisfaction, but certainly not to mine .. where is the missing link ? Did evolution stop after man started walking upright ?

The standard response to that is evolution took a million years ..or whatever time frame you choose to use..... but why don't find or a stage of evolution that took place 50 years later, 100 years later, 150 years later .. so either man evolved .. started breeding .. and evolution stopped … or you can go to the apes … but the same process holds true there .. where are the half man half apes .. ?? Did we have evolution before the ice age ? Or did it begin only after it ? If so why ?
Click to expand...

I started trying to respond to this point-by-point, however, again, the problem, here is that you really don't have a firm grasp on evolution, as a concept. I would recommend you read the Wikipedia article for a basic introduction, if you want something more comprehensive, I highly recommend Richard Dawkins' Greatest Show on Earth. However, I assure you, the theory of evolution is as sound as the theory of gravity.

The Barbarian said:
Out of frontiers that we now know of perhaps....
Click to expand...

Well, what other frontiers are there?

The Barbarian said:
I'm sorry … you might be able to prove something … perhaps lust … but until I see a scientist write a paper .. and him backing with his job that he can “prove” love .. I personally think you are blowing smoke up someones back side.
Click to expand...

Within a reasonable margin of error. One would check the blood for elevated levels of hormones like oxytocin, the so-called 'cuddle hormone', and vasopressin. One would also expect to find elevated levels of key neurotransmitters, such as seratonin, dopamine, and adrenaline. One the brain scans one would be looking for increased bloodflow and electrical activity. The presence of all of this would be fairly definitive. A Google search will reveal a number of studies along these lines.

The Barbarian said:
Gee I'm sorry... I thought we lived in a free country, with the freedom of religion, so in your self esteemed mind, those that believe should be ridiculed and silenced ? Simply because you believe them to be wrong?
Click to expand...

Rideculed, but not silenced. Free speech applies to everyone, therefore, if you spout your ideas in a public forum, you can expect to get a response. Specifically; if you're going to make extreme claims about the origins of the universe, or magic essences, etc., you are going to be expected to meet a burden of proof, which is where religion fails miserably, because these assertions cannot withstand even a cursory analysis. I am a militant, unapologetic cheerleader for free speech, which means I support it for views I find, personally, repellent. Neo-Nazis, Young-Earth Creationists, and Evangelical Christians should all have the right to spew their respective brands of nonsense, just as I have the right to point out how backwards and crazy their ideas are.

The Barbarian said:
Lets see .. most religions teach to be a good person, to not steal, not kill, love your neighbor and many other socially redeeming qualities .. I can see where you might find that offensive .. I just don't happen too . Does that mean all that believe are good people .. . of course not .. just as those that don't believe are "not" all good or bad people.
Click to expand...

They also teach a lot of socially destructive things, like killing homosexuals, apostates, heretics, disobediant children, etc. There are bad religious people, there are bad people who are atheists, etc., etc. However, history is essentially entirely devoid of atheist violence. There have been violent atheists, but atheism is in no way responsible, it doesn't have any tenets, it is not an ethos. Alternately, if we flip open a Bible, or the Koran, we can find hundreds of very explicit exhortations to commit acts of violence. As a result of these beliefs, we are presently faced with a multitude of social problems. It's the reason why homosexuals are denied equal rights, and are, occasionally, dragged to death behind pickup trucks. It's the reason why women's reproductive rights are constantly under siege, and abortion clinics have to have bulletproof windows. It's the reason why Catholic missionaries are going into the most AIDS-ravaged sections of Africa and pursuading villagers who don't even have the benefit of a Junior-High-School education on what virus are, etc. that they must not use condoms, which, according to the church, are worse than AIDS. It's the reason why Uganda is very close to making homosexuality a capital crime. In the Middle East, it's even worse. These are specifically religious manifestations of violence and cruelty, whereas none of the so-called 'positive' aspects of religion are explicitly religious, in nature.

The Barbarian said:
Now you can have the last word because I'm, quite frankly not going to waste anymore time with you .. We will never agree .. Mine is a belief in something, it's not based on anything scientific .. and to put this as bluntly as you prefer .. I really don't give a flying f**k what you think or think you know .. .
Click to expand...

Again to say that anything is true, that it, in any way, accurately reflects the world, is a scientific claim. Your profession that the universe was created by an omnipotent diety is a scientific claim, it's just a bogus one.
 
NGNM85 said:
There are some compelling theories. Dark matter is likely just a kind of exotic matter that only interacts with other matter via gravity and the strong nuclear force, there are likely candidates such as WIMPS. It is totally conceivable that the LHC will allow us to analyze and understand these exotic particles, in which case we will know everything about them that there is to know.
Click to expand...

Yes, until the next unknown is noticed.

The more we learn, the more we realize we don't know.
 
The Barbarian said:
Evolution has been proven ???
Click to expand...

Why, yes, many times over. Why do you ask?

The Barbarian said:
Maybe to your satisfaction,
Click to expand...
and to that of anyone who understands the process and knows what constitutes a scientific theory.

The Barbarian said:
but certainly not to mine ..
Click to expand...

That's because you don't fit into the groups I described above.

The Barbarian said:
where is the missing link ?
Click to expand...

genus Astralopithecus > genus homo, which evolved into homo erectus, homo neanderthalensis, and homo sapiens, among others. The fossil record is pretty complete.


The Barbarian said:
Did evolution stop after man started walking upright ?
Click to expand...

Oh, no. Evolution is still gong on as a matter of fact. What makes you think it has stopped? And, BTW, manlike creatures started walking upright before humans evolved big brains. Walking upright, interestingly enough, was important to the development of brains capable of rational thought, of toolmaking, of advanced language, and other hallmarks of modern humans.

The Barbarian said:
The standard response to that is evolution took a million years
Click to expand...

No, actually, it took many millions of years just for the genus homo do evolve into modern humans. It took about sixty million years for the age of mammals to develop to the point it has today.

The Barbarian said:
or whatever time frame you choose to use..... but why don't find or a stage of evolution that took place 50 years later, 100 years later, 150 years later .. so either man evolved .. started breeding .. and evolution stopped … or you can go to the apes … but the same process holds true there .. where are the half man half apes .. ?? Did we have evolution before the ice age ? Or did it begin only after it ? If so why ?
Click to expand...

Half man, half apes? Evolution over 50 years? Evolution stopped? Which ice age?

No, really. The reason you are trying to dispute evolution is that you simply don't understand it. Now, I'm not trying to put you down, you understand. I'm the first one to admit, for example, that I simply do not understand the big bang theory. That doesn't make it wrong, however. In a similar way, you not understanding evolution does not make that wrong either.

Oh, yes, and evolution and atheism? Two very different things. Science can not prove or disprove the existence of god. There really is no conflict, and no requirement that understanding evolution has to lead to atheism.

And, I'm not an evolutionary scientist, simply an interested layman who reads what science is telling us.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, until the next unknown is noticed.

The more we learn, the more we realize we don't know.
Click to expand...

The amount of unknowns is finite, and shrinking.

Dittohead not! said:
I'm the first one to admit, for example, that I simply do not understand the big bang theory.
Click to expand...

What exactly is it that you are having trouble understanding? Perhaps I may be of assistance.

Dittohead not! said:
Oh, yes, and evolution and atheism? Two very different things. Science can not prove or disprove the existence of god. There really is no conflict, and no requirement that understanding evolution has to lead to atheism.
Click to expand...

The existence of god could, theoretically, be scientifically determined, just not today. However, even if we did disprove the existence of good, I suspect it would make no difference to the devout.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Why, yes, many times over. Why do you ask?


and to that of anyone who understands the process and knows what constitutes a scientific theory.



That's because you don't fit into the groups I described above.



genus Astralopithecus > genus homo, which evolved into homo erectus, homo neanderthalensis, and homo sapiens, among others. The fossil record is pretty complete.




Oh, no. Evolution is still gong on as a matter of fact. What makes you think it has stopped? And, BTW, manlike creatures started walking upright before humans evolved big brains. Walking upright, interestingly enough, was important to the development of brains capable of rational thought, of toolmaking, of advanced language, and other hallmarks of modern humans.



No, actually, it took many millions of years just for the genus homo do evolve into modern humans. It took about sixty million years for the age of mammals to develop to the point it has today.



Half man, half apes? Evolution over 50 years? Evolution stopped? Which ice age?

No, really. The reason you are trying to dispute evolution is that you simply don't understand it. Now, I'm not trying to put you down, you understand. I'm the first one to admit, for example, that I simply do not understand the big bang theory. That doesn't make it wrong, however. In a similar way, you not understanding evolution does not make that wrong either.

Oh, yes, and evolution and atheism? Two very different things. Science can not prove or disprove the existence of god. There really is no conflict, and no requirement that understanding evolution has to lead to atheism.

And, I'm not an evolutionary scientist, simply an interested layman who reads what science is telling us.
Click to expand...


Okay .. you seem like someone I can at least ask questions of ..

So you believe in evolution … . the point I was trying to make .. and apparently failed … is why don't we continue to see forms of evolution from where ever it is that it's claimed we evolved from. What I'm asking .. is once the big brained human formed .. was it just a one shot deal … or did more form 100 … 500 .. 1000 years later .. and why isn't it a continuous cycle.

I'm not taking your post as putting me down .. and your right .. I don't understand evolution because to my simple mind .. it doesn't make sense I look at evolution as a process so why isn't that process repeating it's self ???

I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying . And perhaps I'm using the wrong time frame .. so lets take your genus Astralopithecus example a quick look up . puts that back 4 million years ago .. .so why haven't we found and example of it that is 3 million years old .. then another that is 2 million years old .. yet another that is 1 million years old . Or did the evolution just stop with the appearance of genus Astralopithecus ? If not why didn't something continue to evolve into genus Astralopithecus ??

I'm not a religious nut case .. and I question a lot of things .. usually when someone who believes starts pressing me on my believes or the bible .. I have question for them as well . Not because I think they are wrong . . just because I like to question things I don't understand, and when pressed I will freely admit that I don't understand all that is in .. or isn't in the bible, as well.

and to that of anyone who understands the process and knows what constitutes a scientific theory.
Click to expand...

just a note on this .. why is it called a theory .. rather then a scientific fact ??
 
Hey Barbarian.

Evolution is constantly continuing. This is why it's hard to answer the question "why are there not transitional fossils?" Because everything is transitional. There's never a "finished product," so to speak. There's just many stages between here, and the beginning of life.

Evolution (at least, significant evolution) takes place over a much larger timespan than a human life span, or even a thousand years. Every time an organism reproduces, the DNA of the off-spring has a couple of mutations. These are random "shake-ups" of the genetic code. I can give you a very obvious one in myself - I have no wisdom teeth. I've had my whole head X-rayed, and they just aren't there. I also have a "flaw" in this mutation, because I'm missing one of my 12-year molars as well. :lol:

The DNA mutations are completely random. But whether or not the organism survives indicates whether the mutation will be passed on. Mutations that help survival get passed on more, because the organism lives longer and is more likely to reproduce. So, evolution is "random," but the success of certain traits is not.

The DNA sequence as a whole is enormous - there are tens of thousands of genes. With only a few mutations in each organism, you can see why evolution is so slow.

Evolution can also takes forms that are hard to see. This is especially common in humans. After all, our best adaptive trait is out brains. For example, the fastest and most obvious example we experience is our increase in intelligence. This is physically completely invisible, but IQ tests have to be re-calibrated every 10 or 20 years to account for a 3-point increase in average IQ.

Hope this makes at least a little sense.
 
Last edited:
tessaesque said:
I've actually had a conversation with a few staunchly religious people on this board and we came to the conclusion that, most often, it isn't a matter of atheists being rabid and aggressive assholes, so much as it's a matter of two fundamentally opposed ideologies crashing into one another. Atheists believe the bible is an allegorical tale written by man and, as such, is just a really, really well-selling fiction book. Because of this, many religious practices and beliefs are just ridiculous. There is a fine line between pointing out a personal opinion regarding how ridiculous some religious practices are, and not offending somebody who is religious. Sometimes, people cannot remove themselves from the argument and take things personally. For example, I asked in a rapture thread if any Christian felt that the text of the rapture, or the premise for it, seemed even slightly illogical or impractical to them. In posing that question, I offended several Christians in the thread. It was not my intent to ridicule their entire belief system, but they certainly took it that way. Is it my fault for not posing a question that wouldn't have derived the answer I was looking for, or generated the train of thought I was seeking to take part in? Is it their fault for having trouble understanding that my perspective is diametrically opposed to theirs?

People assume that an atheist's approach is hostile and offensive because it can't be perceived any other way by the staunchly religious. We aren't mocking the person, we're challenging the system. If that differentiation can't be made then the debate won't move forward. Religious adherents will think we're hateful, mocking bastards, and we'll think that religious adherents are close-minded and incapable of questioning themselves.
Click to expand...

When atheists tell you that your beliefs are fiction and ridiculous or joke about a sky daddy, I think they're trying to be offensive. I don't think there is any doubt about it.
 
American said:
When atheists tell you that your beliefs are fiction and ridiculous or joke about a sky daddy, I think they're trying to be offensive. I don't think there is any doubt about it.
Click to expand...
Totally and completely agree.
 
American said:
When atheists tell you that your beliefs are fiction and ridiculous or joke about a sky daddy, I think they're trying to be offensive. I don't think there is any doubt about it.
Click to expand...

The thing about offense is that it's a choice. Whether they're actually trying to be offended or not, you're making a choice about whether you will be or not. I believe that much of the bible is fiction. I'm not trying to offend you when I say that; I'm expressing my belief. If my belief is offensive to you that is beyong my control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom