Neither of us can prove the existance of our theory - creation or big bang.

For the religous people, God always has asked for faith in him - therefore he is not going to leave around solid evidence that he exists.

For the atheists, Science was not advanced enough when it came up with the big bang theory to justify it, and i very much doubt science will ever be advanced enough to give you the proof you need.

Arguments of who or what exists or is just a figment of a child with an overactive imagination are futile - no one can prove either.

Why not instead, argue the benefits of following religion or not? discuss the moral values, the historical facts. The ins of everything in a religion, and the outs of freedoms given from being an atheist.

***

Because both sides are usually too close-minded.

quote:Originally posted by osmandius:

Why not instead, argue the benefits of following religion or not? discuss the moral values, the historical facts. The ins of everything in a religion, and the outs of freedoms given from being an atheist.

Because I'm intelligent and badass enough to live by my own norms, values, morals and ethics. People who need religion for those are mentally retarded. That's fact.

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

Because I'm intelligent and badass enough to live by my own norms, values, morals and ethics. People who need religion for those are mentally retarded. That's fact.

yep, or they are lonely and need 'something' to talk to in times of shit, insecurity too.

or they are affraid of that when we die, there is nothing, NOTHING. pussys.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Religious people are in denial. Their faith is just something that shows on the outside. Inside, they rot.

Meh. I believe faith is direction. It's purpose. If you have no purpose in faith, you're only purpose is yourself. Since the nature of yourself is selfdestructive greed, it's healthy to believe in some form of right or wrong. In the belief that there is a right and wrong, there must be beliefs to justify whether something is right or wrong. Thus, religion.

Athiests may not believe that there is a God, but most believe there is a right and a wrong. It's wrong to steal, it's right to help people (both are circumstancial, but you know what I mean). They justify these beliefs through a given philosophy a.k.a religion (I can't say I truly understand it though, as I'm not an athiest).



[This message has been edited by Elephantitis Man (edited 05-13-2005).]

I might add, that i am a christian.

My point was simply that arguing wether God exists is futile - if he wanted to give us a sure 100% 'i exist' he'd have carved it into the face of the earth in bold letters that everyone in the world somehow understands, and also have provided a live webcam into heaven to see him 24/7.

If life, the universe and everything isn't enough proof for you, theres not much an argument on an internet based forums will do.

***

quote:Originally posted by osmandius:

If life, the universe and everything isn't enough proof for you, theres not much an argument on an internet based forums will do.

How's "everything" proof of a Christian god? You make about as much sense as a steaming pile of retarded shit.

Why not take the middle path?

how the world was created or cam about is irrelevant. The fact is, we are here, and thats all that we know for sure. Why dont we spend our lives studying the life we know and understanding ourselves, rather than spending our lives searching for proof to theories, that if proven, really wont make any difference in our lives.

The only difference it would make if our origin was proven would be this:

the right side could say "Wow, we're right"

and the wrong side would probably commit suicide

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

How's "everything" proof of a Christian god? You make about as much sense as a steaming pile of retarded shit.

Maybe not a christian god but, I can see why he would say everything is proof when you think about how perfect nature is for example, something like a complicated process like photosynthesis wouldn't really happen acidentaly, it's that pro-god arguement "If you put all the pieces for a camera in a box and shook it would it make a fully functioning camera?" unlikely they would say, to try and show that the universe is so complicated there must be someone who created it.(incedentaly(sp?) I'm Agnostic)

Perfect? Then why does my back hurt?

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

Because I'm intelligent and badass enough to live by my own norms, values, morals and ethics. People who need religion for those are mentally retarded. That's fact.

Snoopy makes a good point. Morality should be able to exist without forces (like religion), forcing it on people. This goes for anybody, religious or not. Otherwise morality would be hollow and meaningless.

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

Because I'm intelligent and badass enough to live by my own norms, values, morals and ethics. People who need religion for those are mentally retarded. That's fact.

I normally hate you, but this post is perfect.

quote:Originally posted by The_ReReckoning:

I normally hate you, but this post is perfect.

I banned you a few days ago.

quote:Originally posted by osmandius:

I might add, that i am a christian.

This is why you're trying to compromise and slink away from your inadequacies like a greasy weasel.

quote:Originally posted by Krispy:

Why not take the middle path?

how the world was created or cam about is irrelevant. The fact is, we are here, and thats all that we know for sure. Why dont we spend our lives studying the life we know and understanding ourselves, rather than spending our lives searching for proof to theories, that if proven, really wont make any difference in our lives.

The middle path you describe is athiesm.

quote:Originally posted by Stiffmajj The Giant:

Maybe not a christian god but, I can see why he would say everything is proof when you think about how perfect nature is for example, something like a complicated process like photosynthesis wouldn't really happen acidentaly, it's that pro-god arguement "If you put all the pieces for a camera in a box and shook it would it make a fully functioning camera?" unlikely they would say, to try and show that the universe is so complicated there must be someone who created it.(incedentaly(sp?) I'm Agnostic)

Of course photosynthesis didnt happen accidentally all at once. It happened bit by bit accidentally over many years. And I dont see how nature is perfect, its just not a failure, because failures dont survive. Nature or anything on this planet is far from perfect.

quote:Originally posted by AGruntsJaggon:

Of course photosynthesis didnt happen accidentally all at once. It happened bit by bit accidentally over many years. And I dont see how nature is perfect, its just not a failure, because failures dont survive. Nature or anything on this planet is far from perfect.



Yeah, and we don't know how many times photosynthesis went wrong.

If you got camera parts and shook them up, they would eventually make a camera at some point after a long, long time. Just like the monkeys, typwriters and shakespeare analogy.

quote:Originally posted by tommyk:

If you got camera parts and shook them up, they would eventually make a camera at some point after a long, long time. Just like the monkeys, typwriters and shakespeare analogy.

OK, you start shaking the camera pieces. I think what you will find is that, even if some pieces "shake" together, they can and will "shake" apart.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

OK, you start shaking the camera pieces. I think what you will find is that, even if some pieces "shake" together, they can and will "shake" apart.

Yeah, many times.

But will eventually shake completely into place.

quote:Originally posted by osmandius:

Why not instead, argue the benefits of following religion or not? discuss the moral values, the historical facts. The ins of everything in a religion, and the outs of freedoms given from being an atheist.

***

I suppose that if you truly believe and have faith in something, that's one thing. I know no more about why I'm here than anybody else. However, it's of my understanding that you need to find morals, inner peace, a sense of security, a reason for life, or anything else that you think religion gives you, not from some doctrinal statement, but from within yourself.

I mean come on, benefits? If you're comparing benefits of religions that's probably not a good thing. I guess if you really find the need to feel superior...

quote:Originally posted by tommyk:

Yeah, many times.

But will eventually shake completely into place.

no and that is also the problem with the typewriter, chimp & W.S

the law of probability agrees with you, but it also agrees that the parts have an equal chance of coming apart... there needs a "holding" method to 1)"know" that the right piece is in place 2)keep that piece in place while waiting for the others to follow suit

Also, and this is more important in the camera example, certain things have to "fall into place" before or after other parts i.e the two pieces of the case cannot fall together first, because the insides could never get inside.

Before darwin, people saw the "watchmaker" senario as proof of God. What darwin did, was to say that the difference between the watch and organisms, is that organisms are "self-replicating, where as the watch needs a maker. What you were refering to is basically "the Wilberforce-Huxley debate", and even though wilberforce was prof. of math., he missed the fact that the law of prob. would be a two-edged sword.

Basically, probability and self-replicating was the mechanism that convinced the world of the lie of evolution being the origin of organisms.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

no and that is also the problem with the typewriter, chimp & W.S

the law of probability agrees with you, but it also agrees that the parts have an equal chance of coming apart... there needs a "holding" method to 1)"know" that the right piece is in place 2)keep that piece in place while waiting for the others to follow suit

Also, and this is more important in the camera example, certain things have to "fall into place" before or after other parts i.e the two pieces of the case cannot fall together first, because the insides could never get inside.

Before darwin, people saw the "watchmaker" senario as proof of God. What darwin did, was to say that the difference between the watch and organisms, is that organisms are "self-replicating, where as the watch needs a maker. What you were refering to is basically "the Wilberforce-Huxley debate", and even though wilberforce was prof. of math., he missed the fact that the law of prob. would be a two-edged sword.

Basically, probability and self-replicating was the mechanism that convinced the world of the lie of evolution being the origin of organisms.

I see what you're getting at, with the "holding" thing, this would be important with a camera, but only if bits cannot click apart once they have clicked together. If they can infinitely click apart and together until resting at a properly put together state the number of times going wrong isn't important.

This also comes up as far as evolution goes. If we are at the end of the chain so far, and it was possible for evolution to have happened at each step, then it makes sense surely for evolution to be a possibility?

If it went wrong, we would not necessarily be here to witness it?

quote:Originally posted by tommyk:

This also comes up as far as evolution goes. If we are at the end of the chain so far, and it was possible for evolution to have happened at each step, then it makes sense surely for evolution to be a possibility?

the problem with evolution being the origin, is that it requires and increase in genetic info. As species get more specific (positve mutations), they end up with less info. A quick example would be the resistance that insects get from insecticides.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

the problem with evolution being the origin, is that it requires and increase in genetic info. As species get more specific (positve mutations), they end up with less info. A quick example would be the resistance that insects get from insecticides.





You got a source for that at all?

I'm having trouble finding info about it.

quote:Originally posted by tommyk:



You got a source for that at all?

I'm having trouble finding info about it.

i think Beeman 1982.. DDT, also DDT Tanaka 1984.

Rowland 1987.. mosquitos & dieldrin

i got these references form Spetner [i]not by chance[/b]

There are more, but these were reguarding insects.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

the problem with evolution being the origin, is that it requires and increase in genetic info. As species get more specific (positve mutations), they end up with less info. A quick example would be the resistance that insects get from insecticides.



Refuted here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/spetner.html

And a similar argument, here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

Yeah, also although mutations may lessen genetic info, other processes in evolution could cause genetic info to increase.

'Jumping genes' and Polyploidy are two areas of research at the moment.

ok i'm atheist but i stand for the facts before stupid faith systems or simply bagging the other side because they don't agree. the big bang can fit into a religious view as well as a scientific one. the theory is that everything came from a tiny point right? well a god COULD have made that tiny point and suddenly the universe is borne or there COULD be a scientific explanation to it. read Memnock the Devil by Anne Rice. it may be mainly about vampires but it gives a really good view of the melding of science with god. basically it theorises that god did create all matter and the big bang did happen, that we evolved naturally after that though with science basically taking over. it also features a brilliant theory on god not giving a shit and the devil actually being the one who cares about people. god says "why should i give a shit? i created them thats all, they mean nothing to me." and the devil sticks up for man and tells god to get fucked, hence the banishment and all. for both christians and atheists alike i reccomend this book, particularly christians actually because it will raise the issue of whether god really cares quite well