Let's say that you know an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. To know 100 percent, you would have to know everything. There wouldn't be a rock in the universe that you would not be intimately familiar with, or a grain of sand that you would not be aware of. You would know everything that has happened in history, from that which is common knowledge to the minor details of the secret love life of Napoleon's great-grandmother's black cat's fleas. You would know every hair of every head, and every thought of every heart. All history would be laid out before you, because you would be omniscient (all-knowing).

Bear in mind that one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, Thomas Edison, said, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Let me repeat: Let's say that you have an incredible one percent of all the knowledge in the universe. Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine percent of the knowledge that you haven't yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God? If you are reasonable, you will be forced to admit that it is possible. Somewhere, in the knowledge you haven't yet discovered, there could be enough evidence to prove that God does exist.

Let's look at the same thought from another angle. If I were to make an absolute statement such as, "There is no gold in China," what is needed for that statement to be proven true? I need absolute or total knowledge. I need to have information that there is no gold in any rock, in any river, in the ground, in any store, in any ring, or in any mouth (gold filling) in China. If there is one speck of gold in China, then my statement is false and I have no basis for it. I need absolute knowledge before I can make an absolute statement of that nature. Conversely, for me to say, "There is gold in China," I don't need to have all knowledge. I just need to have seen a speck of gold in the country, and the statement is then true.

To say categorically, "There is no God," is to make an absolute statement. For the statement to be true, I must know for certain that there is no God in the entire universe. No human being has all knowledge. Therefore, none of us is able to truthfully make this assertion.

If you insist upon disbelief in God, what you must say is, "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God." Owing to a lack of knowledge on your part, you don't know if God exists. So, in the strict sense of the word, you cannot be an atheist. The only true qualifier for the title is the One who has absolute knowledge, and why on earth would God want to deny His own existence?

The professing atheist is what is commonly known as an "agnostic" - one who claims he "doesn't know" if God exists. It is interesting to note that the Latin equivalent for the Greek word is "ignoramus." The Bible tells us that this ignorance is "willful" (Psalm 10:4). It's not that a person can't find God, but that he won't. It has been rightly said that the "atheist" can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman. He knows that if he admits that there is a God, he is admitting that he is ultimately responsible to Him. This is not a pleasant thought for some.

It is said that Mussolini (the Italian dictator), once stood on a pinnacle and cried, "God, if you are there, strike me dead!" When God didn't immediately bow to his dictates, Mussolini then concluded that there was no God. However, his prayer was answered some time later.

~ Excerpted from God Doesn't Believe in Atheists, by Ray Comfort

************************************************** ***************

This has no beginning debate, but I know from experience that one will spawn from this.

Just know that I am not trying to be insulting here...I think it is far wiser to say, "We don't know, because it cannot be proven." than to say, "There is no God."

That's the point I am driving here.

Elementary, Digital.

quote: To say categorically, "There is no God," is to make an absolute statement. For the statement to be true, I must know for certain that there is no God in the entire universe.

I don't believe anyone is talking in absolutist terms when they state a belief of theirs. But nevertheless, flip the coin and have a Christian say: "There is a God".

quote:For the (atheist's)statement to be true, I must know for certain that there is no God in the entire universe.

And for the Christian's "There is a God" statement to be true, I must know for certain that there IS a God in the entire Universe.

(last quote, so help me...)

quote: No human being has all knowledge. Therefore, none of us is able to truthfully make this assertion.

Just know that I am not trying to be insulting here...I think it is far wiser to say, "We don't know, because it cannot be proven." than to say, "There is a God."

Finally, in agreement! Not all debates have to end on a negative note http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine percent of the knowledge that you haven't yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove the existence of God?

Yes.

Just as it could be evidence refuting god. Or evidence proving that Jesus was a black hermaphrodite with a penchant of eating human excrement...



quote:If you insist upon disbelief in God, what you must say is, "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God." Owing to a lack of knowledge on your part, you don't know if God exists. So, in the strict sense of the word, you cannot be an atheist. The only true qualifier for the title is the One who has absolute knowledge, and why on earth would God want to deny His own existence?

Wrong.

The definition of "atheism" is not "claiming that god doesn't exist".

Atheism:

"Atheism is the state either of being without theistic beliefs, or of actively believing in the non-existence of deities."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

"Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods."

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Disbelief in a god, does not equal a claim that he doesn't exist.

So one is certainly an atheist "in the strict sense" if one is of the belief that he doesn't exist.

quote:The professing atheist is what is commonly known as an "agnostic" - one who claims he "doesn't know" if God exists. It is interesting to note that the Latin equivalent for the Greek word is "ignoramus."

Pathetic attempt at an insult by the author.

1. So what?

2. "Ignoramus" means "not to know" in Latin. Moreover, it was not used as a degrading remark, that is actually product of Anglo-Saxon culture.

That he says this is somehow "interesting" clearly shows either, his agenda, to insult atheism or his ignorance. How ironic.

quote:I think it is far wiser to say, "We don't know, because it cannot be proven." than to say, "There is no God."

Certainly not if saying that ignores the myriad of evidence which either refute the Christian god, or make it illogical (and thus no reasonable to believe in).

The whole thing is irrelevant. The arguement typically isn't about weather or not some Supreme Being exists, but rather that the nature of the Christian God is inherantly contradictory.

Furthermore, that precludes the existance of people like me, who could theoreticay admit the existance of God, but would never worship him. A theif may be held accountable to a cop, but I will be accountable to myself.

You don't have to be able to prove something to believe it. Thus, it is quite possible to be an atheist.

quote:

Yes.

Just as it could be evidence refuting god. Or evidence proving that Jesus was a black hermaphrodite with a penchant of eating human excrement...

There certainly could, but since we don't have evidence either way, it is kind of ignorant to say that there isn't any evidence proving God at all, which is what an atheist must believe in order to come to the assumption that there is no God.

quote:Wrong.

The definition of "atheism" is not "claiming that god doesn't exist".

Atheism:

"Atheism is the state either of being without theistic beliefs, or of actively believing in the non-existence of deities." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

"Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods."

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Disbelief in a god, does not equal a claim that he doesn't exist.

So one is certainly an atheist "in the strict sense" if one is of the belief that he doesn't exist.

How is "actively believing in the non-existence of deities", and "of the existence of God or gods" not equivalent to "claiming that god doesn't exist" ?

That has got to be the weakest argument you have ever tried to present. If you can't see how full of holes that assertion is, then it is not worth arguing.

If you disbelieve that something exists, you will most certainly (AT SOME POINT IN YOUR LIFE) state/claim/articulate that it doesn't.

I don't believe pink unicorns exist, so I will claim that they don't.

Maybe I am just missing your point here...

quote:Pathetic attempt at an insult by the author.

1. So what?

2. "Ignoramus" means "not to know" in Latin. Moreover, it was not used as a degrading remark, that is actually product of Anglo-Saxon culture.

That he says this is somehow "interesting" clearly shows either, his agenda, to insult atheism or his ignorance. How ironic.

Agreed.

It was a part of the article. I could have left it out, but...didn't want to bother with the editting.

It does seem like a cheap shot, which is worthless.

quote:Certainly not if saying that ignores the myriad of evidence which either refute the Christian god, or make it illogical (and thus no reasonable to believe in).

Going back to what this guy said - it is impossible for us to claim we even have 1% of the 100% Knowledge scenario.

So, what may seem like a myriad of evidence to you is possibly, in fact, paltry.

Just as paltry as you claim the Bible is, which is OUR myriad of proof that He does exist.

Im going to be mature and say that this is probably the smartest thing Ive ever read by Digital Savior.

Now Im going to be immature and say that Christianity is still stupid as hell.

That's my stance.

How can a religion be created without proof of god? The idea had to pop into someones head at one time or other. What made Jesus believe? What makes you believe? How did the people in the bible like noah, know that god existed? The whole idea of god or a supreme being is irrational if proof was never part of it's creation. See, rationalizing is done by taking facts to make a conclusion. To have done this someone must have had proof, but we find none. Books are books, and there only as credible as those who write them.

I agree Digital, well, almost.

To say there is no God is a stupid statement. Luckily most atheists do not make this statement, and to try and claim they do just so it fits with your argument is very dishonest, so I hope you don't do that.

Rust gave the answer you just ignored it. Atheists Believe there is no God. This, "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God." is a common atheistic position.



This is an old argument and not a bad one against some strong atheists (you do know what strong and weak atheism is, right?) but it's often used as a strawman against all atheists by christians who don't understand atheism. Try not to be one of them.

I don't think the sexual habits of Napoleon's great grandmother's black cat's fleas should be considered as knowledge, at least not important knowledge. The physical laws are though and I believe we are way beyond the 1% of them. Still a long way to go but so far those laws only disprove the notion of the christian God with qualities such as omniscience and omnipotence. However, I think it is a good definition we lack for God, more than anything else. Religion has long ago stopped looking for a better definition and now it's up to science to do the rest of the work.

On the basis of your argument, Digital_Saviour, there is no rational reason for not believing in every superstition or myth we have ever heard, eg. I cannot disprove the existence of magic carpets, werewolves or vampires, so does that mean I have to believe in them? Belief in God is a matter of faith, not rational thought or evidence.



[This message has been edited by dontdrinkbleach (edited 07-30-2005).]

well?

[This message has been edited by dontdrinkbleach (edited 07-30-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by dontdrinkbleach:

On the basis of your argument, Digital_Saviour, there is no rational reason for not believing in every superstition or myth we have ever heard, eg. I cannot disprove the existence of magic carpets, werewolves or vampires, so does that mean I have to believe in them? Belief in God is a matter of faith, not rational thought or evidence.







if you cant disprove magic carpets, vampires and werewolves, i dont think its christians that are the titanic idiots here.

Name me ONE THING that gives credibility to the notion that there is a god.

quote:Originally posted by Dehymenizer:

Name me ONE THING that gives credibility to the notion that there is a god.



thought

quote:Originally posted by Dehymenizer:

Name me ONE THING that gives credibility to the notion that there is a god.

Infinity

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



To say categorically, "There is no God," is to make an absolute statement. For the statement to be true, I must know for certain that there is no God in the entire universe. No human being has all knowledge. Therefore, none of us is able to truthfully make this assertion.





Let’s rephrase this statement to show that the opposite is true as well:



To say categorically, "There is a God," is to make an absolute statement. For the statement to be true, I must know for certain that there is a God and ONLY ONE GOD (as most western religions believe) in the entire universe. No human being has all knowledge. Therefore, none of us is able to truthfully make this assertion.



Christians: Stop saying there is a God, as if it were an absolute fact. It should be more like: “I think maybe in this vast universe, I with my infinitesimally small amount of knowledge, think there is a God. I cannot prove it at all, so I have FAITH alone, of course I could be wrong.”

When I facetiously say “there is no God”, I’m merely being antagonistic to western religion. It doesn’t mean I’m omniscient and have traveled throughout the universe.

The statement “there is no God” is an appeal to logic and “burden of proof”. I have faith the statement:” there is a God” was uttered shortly before the statement:”no there isn’t.”

The burden of proof is on the former and not the latter.

A short story written by SWIM to illustrate this:

Two cave men Ug and Durg are sittin’ round the camp fire 10,000 years ago. Durg say’s to Ug: “over there by that creek bed, I found some Shoshone arrowheads, and there is a God up there in the sky.”

Ug (the pre-Aristotelian logician that he was) say’s “Prove it.”

Durg shows Ug the Shoshone arrowheads.

Ug: And, and???

Durg:



.

**crickets chirp**

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



thought

How is thought proof of god? Why do you need god to think. Thought is no more than organized electrical impulses and chemical releases in the brain that are always triggered by stimulous. If you were born without any of your senses, you wouldn't be congnitive that your even alive little known have a thought. Thinking is a learned process, or else we'd all think the same.

It's up to religion to provide reason for the existence of God, it's not up to unbelievers to disprove god. How the hell can we find proof that something doesn't exist? That's the stupidest arguement ever, and wouldn't even fly in the real world. Maybe we should just convict people cause we think they did it, and just bypass those messy court proceedings. The lack of proof is proof that there isn't a god. When you actually sit down with any religeous person and ask what gives them faith, they either don't know, or they just give meaning to an event that was meaningless and can be explained away.

Why do you have faith in something based on nothing? Everyone feel free to answer.

Stupid bitch isn't aware of the fact that useless information isn't knowledge. Knowledge is not information. Knowledge is what your brain does with the information it gets. Being religious is being anti-knowledge. In other words, being a dumb ass.

quote:Originally posted by dontdrinkbleach:

On the basis of your argument, Digital_Saviour, there is no rational reason for not believing in every superstition or myth we have ever heard, eg. I cannot disprove the existence of magic carpets, werewolves or vampires, so does that mean I have to believe in them? Belief in God is a matter of faith, not rational thought or evidence.





That's the point. *smiles*

No one here is anti-Vampire, or anti-Alien, though.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

No one here is anti-Vampire, or anti-Alien, though.

Of course not, but everyon does think that the people who believe in them are fucking retards.

Dearest Snoopy,

KNOWLEDGE

1. The state or fact of knowing.

2. Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.

3. The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.

4. Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge.

5. Specific information about something.

6. Carnal knowledge.

INFORMATION

1. Knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction.

2. Knowledge of specific events or situations that has been gathered or received by communication; intelligence or news. See Synonyms at knowledge.

3. A collection of facts or data: statistical information.

4. The act of informing or the condition of being informed; communication of knowledge: 5. Safety instructions are provided for the information of our passengers.

6. Computer Science. Processed, stored, or transmitted data.

7. A numerical measure of the uncertainty of an experimental outcome.



************************************************** ***************

Immature brat doesn't have the reading comprehension skills to grasp the topic, and should therefore not participate.

I am an atheist, but respect the fact that the exsistence of God can never be disproved or proved, and those that think it can by the phrase 'there is no proof' are just morons. there is no proof God exists, and there is no proof he doesn't, but I still strongly believe he doesn't as others will strongly believe he does. I wish the idiots that simply dismiss the ideas of others would just shut up.

You must be pretty damn stupid to think that information and knowledge are the same. Information is something anyone can have. Knowledge isn't. A dictionary gives you information, however, you have no knowledge, or insight to process that information. Knowing a bunch of stuff, doesn't mean you have knowledge. You can teach monkeys to remember crap. Hell, you could teach monkeys to believe in Jesus if you want to.

You're a dumb ho. Go read a book you don't understand, dumb ho.

You don't even understand what words are. That's why you're religious in the first place. You don't believe in God. You believe in the definition of the human made word God. Go on dictionary.com, look up God, then look up shit, and try to realize how dumb you are.

P.S.

I'm going to rape the blonde out of your children.

quote:Originally posted by dontdrinkbleach:



I am an atheist, but respect the fact that the exsistence of God can never be disproved or proved, and those that think it can by the phrase 'there is no proof' are just morons. there is no proof God exists, and there is no proof he doesn't, but I still strongly believe he doesn't as others will strongly believe he does. I wish the idiots that simply dismiss the ideas of others would just shut up.

What's this God you speak of? How can you prove or disprove something, if you don't even know what it is. How can you even talk about something, if you don't know what it is? You people are just talking about nothing. Morons.

QUOTE Originally posted by BaKeD_gOoDs:

How is thought proof of god? Why do you need god to think.

Explain how thought occurred through chance, random process.

Explain how information occured (dna etc.) at the formation of life; through chance, random process.

Thought is no more than organized electrical impulses and chemical releases in the brain that are always triggered by stimulous.

"Organized". Oh. Not chance, random process?

If you were born without any of your senses, you wouldn't be congnitive that your even alive little known have a thought.

Exactly. At the beginning of evolutionary life (you know, the accidental chemicals/elements and process that 'ignited' life).. those single celled organisms could not have had thought. Even now, as far as we know, plants dont have thought.

What makes you think you have thought? Thought is just a word. For all you know, it doesn't even exist.

"there is no proof God exists, and there is no proof he doesn't" = don't know for sure = agnosticism

Which supports this threads topic.

All I am saying is, you can't logically say you are an atheist, because you have no proof that there is not God.

Atheist - One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Which means, to be an atheist, once must assert that God does not exist. It is an absolute which can never be proven, and therefore not really an "absolute" (Not to be doubted or questioned; positive).

I am just talking about titles here, not beliefs.

What is God?

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

What makes you think you have thought? Thought is just a word. For all you know, it doesn't even exist.

Profundity.

We use the word "thought" to describe the series of synapses and electronic impulses that occur in the brain which give us recognition, memory, and function.

You could call it "Darble" for all I care, it will still mean the same thing.

Blue is really pork, and train is really air.

:roll eyes:

quote:Originally posted by WolfinSheepsClothing:

Two cave men Ug and Durg are sittin’ round the camp fire 10,000 years ago.

That story is bogus, the universe is only 6000 years old. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

It does bring up a good point. Proof for God is subjective and changes with the times.

At one point in the bible, a messenger of God is doubted by a group of people, so an asp jumps out of some wood and bites him, he doesn't become sick and this is taken as a sign he is really from God. (paraphrased of course)

Now, with todays knowledge we know that,

1) Venemous snakes often use up all their venom when they kill their food and it can take time to recharge before they are dangerous again.

2) When making a defensive strike, they don't always inject venom.

3) Some non venemous snakes look very similar to venemous one's, especially if you don't get a good look at the snake.

Knowing this we can say he may have been lucky but being bitten by a venemous snake and not becoming sick is not a great miracle, and has most likely happened to many since then. Yet at the time that was all the proof they needed.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Profundity.

We use the word "thought" to describe the series of synapses and electronic impulses that occur in the brain which give us recognition, memory, and function.

You could call it "Darble" for all I care, it will still mean the same thing.

Blue is really pork, and train is really air.

:roll eyes:

Thought is created by electronic impulses? So, my CPU thinks? It has a memory, recongition patterns and other function. Bitch, shut the fuck up. You don't know what thought is.

God is, unfortunately, whatever man fashions Him to be...

Let's take just ONE definition of "thought", for the sake of brevity:

To exercise the power of reason, as by conceiving ideas, drawing inferences, and using judgment.

Your CPU can't do that, so I think it is YOU who needs to STFU.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Let's take just ONE definition of "thought", for the sake of brevity:

To exercise the power of reason, as by conceiving ideas, drawing inferences, and using judgment.

Your CPU can't do that, so I think it is YOU who needs to STFU.

Yes it can. Human reason can be programmed, to the extent of our understanding of it. The problem is, badass motherfuckers like me defy human reason, and people just don't understand why and how.

So it's you who needs to gargle cock.

You don't know shit about shit.

Xtreem: Danger danger xtreem, Logical fallacy.

quote:"Explain how thought occurred through chance, random process. "

First of all, evolution is not random, Not Random, NOT RANDOM.

Second, this is a logical fallacy, called God of the gaps (or argument from ignorance). It means that if something can't be explained it doesn't mean God did it. This is a very common fallacy, don't fall into it.

Many arguments for atheism, theism, intelligent design, fall into this rut. Speaking to atheists, don't let "God" in "god of the gaps" fool you, many atheists make the same mistake.

Learn, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_Ignorance



Digital: I see you are taking the dishonest route. Maybe you can turn back now and pay attention to what the atheists say.

If someone said christians worship the cross as God, and they ignored your corrections would you not think of them as ignorant? Right now atheists see you as ignorant because of your argument against them, but you can correct that.

Your definition: "Atheist - One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods"

Pay attention now, "Atheist - One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods"

Notice, atheism can be called a belief that God doesn't exist, it is not an absolute. PTFA.

I ask more seriously this time, do you understand the difference between strong atheism and weak atheism? Do you know what agnostic atheism is? Do you know what agnostic theism is? Do you know the difference between strong agnostic and weak agnostic?

I hope you do, unless you are going into a battle of wits unarmed.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

God is, unfortunately, whatever man fashions Him to be...

You just blew your whole beliefs into a septic pit. What a dumb ho. Jesus wants to molest your children, and you're too stupid to see.

"Knowing this we can say he may have been lucky but being bitten by a venemous snake and not becoming sick is not a great miracle, and has most likely happened to many since then. Yet at the time that was all the proof they needed."

You haven't read the Bible.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You haven't read the Bible.

You've done anal.

P.S.

You're most likely doing anal right this minute.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

"Knowing this we can say he may have been lucky but being bitten by a venemous snake and not becoming sick is not a great miracle, and has most likely happened to many since then. Yet at the time that was all the proof they needed."

You haven't read the Bible.

Wow, thanks for that amazing insight.

I think you and snoopy are made for each other.

Crap in crap out.

Now, if you care to be more than a dumb twit and pay attention to the point or make some sort of intelligent remark, maybe a real conversation can come out of the dumbasses that visit totse.

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

You just blew your whole beliefs into a septic pit. What a dumb ho. Jesus wants to molest your children, and you're too stupid to see.

Actually, I didn't...and I worded it that way for a REASON. Simply because you can't understand that reason, doesn't mean it proves YOUR case.

Christians believe that God is who He says He is in the Bible, but even amongst Christians He is twisted into something else to suit their own selfish desires.

If someone just read the Bible, who God is would be painfully clear, and referencable against the universe (the universe is all the proof we need that God is exactly as He is described in the Bible).

Now, for others, God is Shiva, Zeus, Nephthys, Catholic, Mormon, Allah, money, self....

Don't try to twist my words...I know very well what I mean, and can explain down to the minutest detail.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Wow, thanks for that amazing insight.

I think you and snoopy are made for each other.

Crap in crap out.

Now, if you care to be more than a dumb twit and pay attention to the point or make some sort of intelligent remark, maybe a real conversation can come out of the dumbasses that visit totse.

You've most definitely done anal too.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Actually, I didn't...and I worded it that way for a REASON. Simply because you can't understand that reason, doesn't mean it proves YOUR case.

Christians believe that God is who He says He is in the Bible, but even amongst Christians He is twisted into something else to suit their own selfish desires.

If someone just read the Bible, who God is would be painfully clear, and referencable against the universe (the universe is all the proof we need that God is exactly as He is described in the Bible).

Now, for others, God is Shiva, Zeus, Nephthys, Catholic, Mormon, Allah, money, self....

Don't try to twist my words...I know very well what I mean, and can explain down to the minutest detail.

You believe you're going to heaven for whoreshiping the cock? By whoreshipping the cock, you already are in heaven. Wow, I see this religious stuff really working out. Now your ass is bleeding though, and you're outa money to feed your kids. Don't forget about the AIDS.

Who the Hell is Jesus anyway? Is he like Rufus on bumfights?

Beta,

Hold on...let's back up here.

I didn't mean that to be offensive...so, why did you take it that way ?

You made an anology of how stupid people are, which is THE explanation for why religion exists (paraphrasing here).

Based on that analogy, which I am assuming is your personal belief, I can safely say that you haven't read the Bible, because it obliterates that analogy in an infinite number of ways.

No one who reads the Bible can take it lightly. From a literary standpoint, it is a masterpiece. From a historical standpoint, it is nothing short of impressive. It cannot be compared to a bunch of stories about people surviving snake bites (which somehow proves that they suffer from inexplicable divination), and if you had read it, you would know that.

That's all I meant. I guess I should have said, "It cannot be compared."

My apologies for any offense.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

No one who reads the Bible can take it lightly. From a literary standpoint, it is a masterpiece. From a historical standpoint, it is nothing short of impressive. It cannot be compared to a bunch of stories about people surviving snake bites (which somehow proves that they suffer from inexplicable divination), and if you had read it, you would know that.

If being stupid wasn't enough, now this bitch has to start talking in everyone's name. No one? You're dumb and arrogant. And you're the reason rape is fu-huhahhaha-unny.

Stupid people think the bible is deep. 40% of the bible is just kike names being repeated over and over. People used to have too many kids back in the old days. And they named them stupid moron names. That's one thing that the bible teaches.

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

You believe you're going to heaven for whoreshiping the cock? By whoreshipping the cock, you already are in heaven. Wow, I see this religious stuff really working out. Now your ass is bleeding though, and you're outa money to feed your kids. Don't forget about the AIDS.

Who the Hell is Jesus anyway? Is he like Rufus on bumfights?

You believe you are intelligent because you suffer from Feces of the Mouth ?

No amount of nastiness you exude is going to cover up the little boy that you are.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You believe you are intelligent because you suffer from Feces of the Mouth ?

No amount of nastiness you exude is going to cover up the little boy that you are.

Is the crude language getting to Miss Dumbshit's stupid brain?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You made an anology of how stupid people are, which is THE explanation for why religion exists (paraphrasing here).

You misstook my analogy, it wasn't about how stupid people are (I know that as the bible claims go, a snake bite is probably the weakest evidence of divine guidance or authority in it), but that all religious evidence is subjective. Because it is subjective, it becomes very hard to use in any sort of debate asking for "proof." Proof doesn't exist on either side, and any attempt to give it runs into fallacies and endless arguement.

The point was, at one time, living through a snake bite was considered proof of God, but it probably wouldn't be considered proof today.

Just like atheists in the past have used the infinite steady state theory of the universe as proof against God. That wouldn't be considered proof today.

It's all subjective.

Now, going back to the OP, an atheist who somehow things they have proof God exists, is fooling themselves. When it comes right down to it, strong atheism, strong theism and strong agnostic are based on blind faith. weak theism, weak atheism, weak agnostic and agnostic atheism are based on slightly less blind faith.

But it's all faith, or belief (since faith is sometimes treated as a dirty word).

Edit: I should also say that a strong theist who admits evidence is subjective has a more solid belief than a strong atheist even if they admit evidence is subjective.

The reason for this is the argument stated in the OP.



[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 07-30-2005).]

"There is no God." and "I don't believe in a God" are two very different statements. You don't have to know everything to be an atheist.

Also, atheists could ask you the same question. "Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine percent of the knowledge that you haven't yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to disprove the existence of God?" If you suggest that it is impossible to be an atheist because of this statement, then it is also impossible to be a Christian because you do not know everything.

quote:Your definition: "Atheist - One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods"

Pay attention now, "Atheist - One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods"

Notice, atheism can be called a belief that God doesn't exist, it is not an absolute. PTFA.

I ask more seriously this time, do you understand the difference between strong atheism and weak atheism? Do you know what agnostic atheism is? Do you know what agnostic theism is? Do you know the difference between strong agnostic and weak agnostic?

I hope you do, unless you are going into a battle of wits unarmed.

It wasn't my definition. It was the dictionary's definition.

So, let me play the bolding game, since you think that is what will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt who is right and who is wrong.

Pay attention now, "Atheist - One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."

Notice, atheism can be considered DENIAL of God's existence, which IS an absolute.

If you deny the existence of God, you are giving an absolute, based on nothing, since you have no proof that He doesn't exist.

You can't just take one portion of the definition and apply it to your point. You have to take the WHOLE definition. If someone just DISBELIEVES that there is a God, then that is fine. That is not the contention presented in this thread.

If someone DENIES the existence of God, therefore giving an absolute that He doesn't exist (based on NO evidence), that someone is in err.

I understand what all of the flavors of atheism and agnosticism are.

I am specifically talking about the variety of atheist that says, "There is no God."

It is an ignorant statement, and unprovable.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 07-30-2005).]

Snoopy:

Proverbs 6:12-19 - "A scoundrel and villain, who goes about with a corrupt mouth, 13 who winks with his eye, signals with his feet and motions with his fingers,

14 who plots evil with deceit in his heart —he always stirs up dissension. 15 Therefore disaster will overtake him in an instant; he will suddenly be destroyed—without remedy.

16 There are six things the LORD hates,

seven that are detestable to him:

17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, 18 a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, 19 a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers."

Proverbs 4:16 - "For they cannot sleep till they do evil; they are robbed of slumber till they make someone fall."

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

Is the crude language getting to Miss Dumbshit's stupid brain?

Not really..I find it amusing that you need to attack me personally...which is what people do when they haven't got a real argument.

quote:Originally posted by Irregular:

"There is no God." and "I don't believe in a God" are two very different statements. You don't have to know everything to be an atheist.

Also, atheists could ask you the same question. "Would it be possible, in the ninety-nine percent of the knowledge that you haven't yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to disprove the existence of God?" If you suggest that it is impossible to be an atheist because of this statement, then it is also impossible to be a Christian because you do not know everything.

Of course you could turn it around, however there IS proof of Intelligent Design in this universe, which can only come from one kind of entity...

But that is not the point.

Merely having disbelief in God is not the issue presented in this topic. DENYING His existence is, however.

Really, all anyone that doesn't believe there is a God can be is "agnostic". To call ones self an atheist is to spit in the face of logic, since this supposed lack of existence cannot be proven.

We also have to ask what is "proof". For some, the metaphysical (often outside of the 5 senses) is proof enough.

For others, the intelligent design of the universe is enough.

For atheists, "proof" seems to be restricted to the five senses, which I find to be incredibly obtuse, but that's just my personal opinion.

Christians shouldn't claim that they can PROVE that there is a God, with empirical evidence based on the 5 senses. If they do, they are in err. Christians can say they BELIEVE that there is a God. The Bible is clear that the defining element of belief in God is FAITH.

In contrast, a lot of atheist's say, "There is no God.", an assertion which cannot be proven.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Not really..I find it amusing that you need to attack me personally...which is what people do when they haven't got a real argument.

I'm not attacking you. See, this is where your dumbshit arrogant brain goes in effect.

Hmmm...you called me almost every negative word possible in reference to my intelligence. Slanderous, defamatory...those are just a few words that come to mind.

If calling someone a "dumbshit" is not attacking them in your mind (what is it, a term of endearment ?)...well, that just solidifies what I have already said about you.

quote:"Notice, atheism can be considered DENIAL of God's existence, which IS an absolute."

I agree. Which is why atheists have different different definitions for different kinds of atheism.

quote:"I am specifically talking about the variety of atheist that says, "There is no God.""

Then you might want to make that more specific. You are talking about a variety of strong atheism, and not atheism as a whole.

It would be like me saying christians are stupid and christianity is false because they worship the Pope.

That's an incorrect statement because not all christians worship the pope, and I'm sure those that don't would have a problem with what appears to be a blanket statement.

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

You've most definitely done anal too.

Yep. Your Mom was afraid she would have another retarded bastard child like you so I stuck it in her butt instead.

(It's very hard to keep from feeding the trolls, you look at them and they stare back with those sad cow eyes, and you just know the zoo keeper sodomizes them at night, so you have to give them food to eat. They can only survive on their own feces for so long.)

I didn't think I needed to be more specific, since the article was pretty clear which "variety" of atheist it is talking about.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Hmmm...you called me almost every negative word possible in reference to my intelligence. Slanderous, defamatory...those are just a few words that come to mind.

If calling someone a "dumbshit" is not attacking them in your mind (what is it, a term of endearment ?)...well, that just solidifies what I have already said about you.

Stating a fact isn't attacking. Attacking is punching someone in a face. You can't attack someone on the Internet. You can only be defensive in the Internet. You gotta be defensive when your beliefs have more holes than the underwear of a rapevictim.

It doesn't seem clear to me. The fact that it confuses agnostic with weak atheist, and suggested atheists who don't claim an absolute are not atheists made it seem that it was trying to redefine atheism so it could make it's arguement.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Yep. Your Mom was afraid she would have another retarded bastard child like you so I stuck it in her butt instead.

(It's very hard to keep from feeding the trolls, you look at them and they stare back with those sad cow eyes, and you just know the zoo keeper sodomizes them at night, so you have to give them food to eat. They can only survive on their own feces for so long.)

Then maybe you shouldn't troll on totse.

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

Stating a fact isn't attacking. Attacking is punching someone in a face. You can't attack someone on the Internet. You can only be defensive in the Internet. You gotta be defensive when your beliefs have more holes than the underwear of a rapevictim.

ATTACK

"To criticize strongly or in a hostile manner."

So, we can't do that on the internet, huh ? *snickers*

Prove that what you say is fact. It is merely OPINION.

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

Then maybe you shouldn't troll on totse.

Maybe you should heed your own worthless advice.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

QUOTE Originally posted by BaKeD_gOoDs:

How is thought proof of god? Why do you need god to think.

Explain how thought occurred through chance, random process.

Explain how information occured (dna etc.) at the formation of life; through chance, random process.

Thought is no more than organized electrical impulses and chemical releases in the brain that are always triggered by stimulous.

"Organized". Oh. Not chance, random process?

If you were born without any of your senses, you wouldn't be congnitive that your even alive little known have a thought.

Exactly. At the beginning of evolutionary life (you know, the accidental chemicals/elements and process that 'ignited' life).. those single celled organisms could not have had thought. Even now, as far as we know, plants dont have thought.



First question: We learn how to think from our parents. Stupid kids aren't a genetic phenomenon. You don't think the same way as me, but it's not random either. You said that. Our thoughts are determined from prior knowledge. Nothing happens by chance, everything is mathematically probable. If a 680nm light wave hits a phosphorous ion it gains an electron. It's an ion that can't support this so active transfer took place, in water since i'm talking about algae. This causes a new melecule to form which can then trigger another reaction which causes it to build. Eventually as the products become bigger they attatch to new ions creating different structures depending on nutrient availability present. Eventually their was an oxidation process of one of the plants the sun triggered which caused a new type of molecule to form which was lifes beginning.

As we evolved from a singular organism, organization was part evolvement.

Of course single celled organisms couldn't process thought as it takes more than one cell for a transfer to take place. Plant's don't have thought, they react to stimulous though through chemical reactions. They also don't have knowledge, or anywhere to store knowledge, and lack a nervous system which is essentially the first step of transfering information. If you hadn't noticed we aren't plants, and our biology is pretty much the reverse.

See, your thoughts aren't as good as mine as I have more knowledge to base them on.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

There certainly could, but since we don't have evidence either way, it is kind of ignorant to say that there isn't any evidence proving God at all, which is what an atheist must believe in order to come to the assumption that there is no God.

There is no evidence that a god exists, now, which is enough to justify having the belief that he doesn't exist, now.

When and if new knowledge is found, then the belief will be based on the sum of all the knowledge we posses.

quote:How is "actively believing in the non-existence of deities", and "of the existence of God or gods" not equivalent to "claiming that god doesn't exist" ?

That has got to be the weakest argument you have ever tried to present. If you can't see how full of holes that assertion is, then it is not worth arguing.

If you disbelieve that something exists, you will most certainly (AT SOME POINT IN YOUR LIFE) state/claim/articulate that it doesn't.

I don't believe pink unicorns exist, so I will claim that they don't.

Maybe I am just missing your point here...

My point, which you did miss entirely, is that a BELIEF is not a CLAIM. A CLAIM implies knowledge because it implies that what you're stating is a fact.

A belief does not imply knowledge. Thus, I can believe that god doesn't exist, without claiming I know that he doesn't. As such, atheism is completely possible without all the knowledge in the world, and a completely logical position to have if the current knowledge doesn't support the existence of a god.

quote:

Going back to what this guy said - it is impossible for us to claim we even have 1% of the 100% Knowledge scenario.

So, what may seem like a myriad of evidence to you is possibly, in fact, paltry.

Just as paltry as you claim the Bible is, which is OUR myriad of proof that He does exist.

We're basing ourselves on CURRENT knowledge. When and if new knowledge arises, then the belief is questioned. It is NOT questioned when new knowledge hasn't arisen.

Again, it is a BELIEF, a belief based on current understandings. The fact is, that based on our current knowledge, the Judeo-Christian god either doesn't exist, or is illogical.

P.S. WolfinSheepsClothing made an awesome post, I suggest you read it an reply to it if you haven't already.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-31-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



Explain how thought occurred through chance, random process.

Explain how information occured (dna etc.) at the formation of life; through chance, random process.



Logical fallacy. You are answering a question with a question (a request with a request in this case).

Answer HIS question first please.



quote:

"Organized". Oh. Not chance, random process?



Evolution isn't a completely random process...

quote:

Exactly. At the beginning of evolutionary life (you know, the accidental chemicals/elements and process that 'ignited' life).. those single celled organisms could not have had thought. Even now, as far as we know, plants dont have thought.

And? Prove that they couldn't have evolved to have thought later.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-31-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

Infinity

Care to back that up?

Nobody can debate that there is any proof that god exists at this moment. You can have the belief that a god does exist in some form, but you can't prove it. We could debate this until the cows come home and it won't change lack of proof. You can say you believe in god, but don't present your belief as fact and use lack of knowledge as your argument as it only proves what we already know, that it's possible.

Thanks to this lack of knowledge that us humans have we need to try and develop logic and concepts from the knowledge we do have. Science can't prove anything it can merely disprove everything that couldn't be, based on our concepts and logic developed from our incomplete knowledge or information that we have. Accordingly, we can never disprove god do to this, but I am more likely to not believe god excists because our Science shows that we can't prove god.

Many other things add to my disbelief just because of how believers talk.

1. Why do bad things happen if god excists? Well god can't act on earth (for some reason or another depending on who you talk to). Then when something we can't explain happens it's a MIRACLE. <---I thought god wasn't allowed to.

2. All these guys who heard god in today's society would be medicated. A big guy in the sky tells me to build a boat because he's about to kill most of the people and animals in the world by drownding them, I may not be of sound mind. Yet, these thoughts have been passed down so long that no one questions that psyco behavoir could be involved.

Just wondering have any of you seen the South Park episode where the mormons come to town and they tell the story of the man who heard god? If not watch it and see how stupid everything sounds. Don't say I'm stupid to watch South Park because some of the things sound as stupid as that in religion.

God is just as likely not to exist if not more so then to exist, due to us not being all knowing. I don't know that sticking a knife in to my head between my eyes will hurt but does that mean that I should believe it won't? You shouldn't really say that atheism is just there because we don't know when from that 1% of knowledge we have we can develop ideas.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Of course you could turn it around, however there IS proof of Intelligent Design in this universe, which can only come from one kind of entity...

But that is not the point.



For now, as others are arguing everything from your first post, to your sexual preference, I will only call this into question. Where is your proof of intelligent design? I am dying to see this.

For truth; I used to be a christian, most devout, most evangical, most....faithful many would call me, and one day I just felt like I woke up. For now, I am an atheist. I believe god does not exist, I will state that I believe god does not exist. That does NOT, however, mean that I am saying that he doesn't, just as you cannot say that he does. For the same reasons you gave.

Anyway, none of this is any kind of jab at you, but really, you cannot bring the bible into an argument of atheism vs. creation/theism/whatever. It would be akin to bringing up Harry Potter books in trying to prove unicorns exist. If one person believes they don't, then, while existance is questioned, they cannot come into play.

Not to speak for Digital but even though I think she is a creationist/IDist I understood her post to mean there was evidence of intelligent design from her perspective, and didn't mean it as scientific evidence for ID.

But I could be wrong.

Judging from posts of her in the past, she claims there is scientific evidence for ID, as she does of creationism...

If there was any intelligence in our design - she missed out.

Now, let me ask you a question DS:

Does God exist?

It is a simple closed question; yes, no, i don't know.

Read your first post and then answer that question.

Going by your first post Ds, surely we would all have to be agnostic? As it is based on lack of knowledge and/or not knowing whether or not a God exists.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Judging from posts of her in the past, she claims there is scientific evidence for ID, as she does of creationism...

Why are you trying to talk with her on a human level? It's a waste of energy. Just tell her to suck on a shit. It's the only thing she understands, and it's amusing at the same time.

And THIS is the calibre of our moderators.

You know, hindsight is 20/20...the Admins will let a monkey like Snoopy be a mod, yet they demod me.

Hmm...

I think it is a compliment that they didn't think I was "like them".

quote:Originally posted by Daz:

If there was any intelligence in our design - she missed out.

Now, let me ask you a question DS:

Does God exist?

You expect me to answer any of your questions after you talk about me like that ?

You've got another thing coming, bud. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Anyone that wants to talk about the science supporting Intelligent Design, feel free to make a thread about it.

This thread is about atheism, and lack of absolutes.

Thanks.

The fact that you took the time to type a reply and yet wouldn't answer the question says a lot.

D/w about answering the question anymore, you pretty much achieved that by not answering it http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Actually, no...I just didn't want you to spend too much time wailing in the darkness, wondering why I never responded.

If I ran from ANYONE's arguments, it would be Rust's. He's actually GOOD at this.

I could continue to dissect your unbelievably daft posts, but...why ?

Since you think I am lacking in intelligence anyway, why do you bother writing anything at all ? Surely someone so superior would have better things to do than challenge the village idiot to a battle of the wits ?

My not answering your question should tell you but one thing: you're not worth it.

QUOTE]Originally posted by Beta69:

Xtreem: Danger danger xtreem, Logical fallacy.

Thank you for pointint that out.

First of all, evolution is not random, Not Random, NOT RANDOM.

So it is driven? By what?

Please dont say natural selection, because that is random.

Second, this is a logical fallacy, called God of the gaps (or argument from ignorance). It means that if something can't be explained it doesn't mean God did it. This is a very common fallacy, don't fall into it.

Thanks again, but that isnt exactly what i was trying to do. I was just trying to turn the question around.. and i did a poor job of it.

Digit, your eloquence and consistence in stating your ill-advised logic has gone to your head and tricked others into treating you like a relevant intellect. You present a fancy package for country fried, steaming shit. To everyone intelligent, your desperate attempts to put what is quite rational coming from others into a form you like is just a pathetic display of you writhing about in a puddle of your own semen as you jack off your non-existent penis. It serves no end except to reaffirm your ego, and it's disgusting.

Where do you get the definitions for all those words you define? It's almost like you just make them up or omit one or a number of alternate definitions. A source is never provided and they are always oh so convenient. Give up now. Your unsound preaching techniques won't fool anyone but you.

Unlike Karik's post, this is a jab at you. It's people like you who give meaning to the word self-important and it is a pity people engage you in serious discussion.

[This message has been edited by railroad wino (edited 07-31-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by railroad wino:

Digit, your eloquence and consistence in stating your ill-advised logic has gone to your head and tricked others into treating you like a relevant intellect. You present a fancy package for country fried, steaming shit. To everyone intelligent, your desperate attempts to put what is quite rational in a form you like is just a pathetic display of you writhing about in a puddle of your own semen as you jack off your non-existant penis. It serves no end except to reaffirm your ego and it's disgusting.

Where do you get the definitions for all those words you define? It's almost like you just make them up or omit one or a number of alternate definitions. A source is never provided and they are always oh so convenient. Give up now. Your unsound preaching techniques won't fool anyone but you.

Unlike Karik's post this is a jab at you. It's people like you who give meaning to the word self-important and it is a pity people engage you in discussion seriously.

ROFLMAO

her own semen????

And if you are wrong about that.....

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Huh? Just how the fuck did I ran from someone's argument?

Care to back that humongous PILE OF BULLSHIT up?

Rust, reread what Digital wrote. She was not talking about you running from an arguement.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Anyone that wants to talk about the science supporting Intelligent Design, feel free to make a thread about it.

This thread is about atheism, and lack of absolutes.

Thanks.

Well seeing as you made the original claim, it should be you who create the topic, shouldn't it?

^^^ alright, what happened to the post that i was replying to...

Yes, xtreem. It was my mistake. I suck at reading.

I already deleted the post.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Yes, xtreem. It was my mistake. I suck at reading.

I already deleted the post.



LOL oh, ok... i thought i was losing my mind.. again http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

ROFLMAO

her own semen????

And if you are wrong about that.....

"Non-existant penis" as in: I know she's a chick and it was a metaphor.

quote:

thought

Chaos theory is shedding light on how order can emerge from disorder. We will be able to explain these things through science, it's only a matter of time.

quote:Infinity

Everything is finite. Infinity is a concept invented by people to explain what happens when there is no solution to an equation.

All in all, not proof.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Well seeing as you made the original claim, it should be you who create the topic, shouldn't it?

No, because I am not the one that wants to know about it. I already know about it.

If someone else wants to know about it, I encourage them to open a thread.

quote:Originally posted by railroad wino:

Digit, your eloquence and consistence in stating your ill-advised logic has gone to your head and tricked others into treating you like a relevant intellect. You present a fancy package for country fried, steaming shit. To everyone intelligent, your desperate attempts to put what is quite rational coming from others into a form you like is just a pathetic display of you writhing about in a puddle of your own semen as you jack off your non-existent penis. It serves no end except to reaffirm your ego, and it's disgusting.

Where do you get the definitions for all those words you define? It's almost like you just make them up or omit one or a number of alternate definitions. A source is never provided and they are always oh so convenient. Give up now. Your unsound preaching techniques won't fool anyone but you.

Unlike Karik's post, this is a jab at you. It's people like you who give meaning to the word self-important and it is a pity people engage you in serious discussion.



Not only did you just describe everyone here, but you exposed the utter hypocrisy of people just like you...

I get the definitions from a reliable source. Maybe you've heard of it...it's called...

THE DICTIONARY.

You tantrum was amusing.

Now be gone with you.

*waves her hand in a shooing motion*

I think that, going from past experiences with you, DS, and your "sources" on scientific evidence of creationism and ID, we can safely assume that you have none.

I don't know how many times I've counted that you claim to have sources to back up your claims, but when asked to present these sources, you mysteriously stop posting and the thread dies.

And the rare occasion that you DO post sources, they either have no scientific merit (i.e. are posted by a group that would benefit from proving that god does exist) or they have holes so large in their logic that I could drive my car through them.

quote:Chaos theory is shedding light on how order can emerge from disorder. We will be able to explain these things through science, it's only a matter of time.

Really ? Links, please ?

And that statement you just made takes a whole lot of one thing that Christians are ridiculed for...

FAITH.

quote:Everything is finite. Infinity is a concept invented by people to explain what happens when there is no solution to an equation.

All in all, not proof.

Everything is finite ? *LMAO* How could someone without a Hubbell telescope, 8 trillion dollars to waste, and the best space craft in the world even BEGIN to assert such a ridiculous claim ?

The farthest place that people have visited in person is our Moon.

The spacecraft that have travelled the farthest are Pioneer 10 and Voyager 1. Pioneer 10 was the first spacecraft to travel through the asteroid belt and fly by Jupiter. It is now 7.4 billion miles away. For a long time, it was the farthest man-made object from the Sun, but recently Voyager 1 passed it. Pioneer is headed in the direction of the red star Aldebaran, and will pass by it in over 2 million years from now.

Logically we can assume that what we have "discovered" only a fraction of our universe. There is NO WAY for you to say that our universe is finite. It's simply unprovable.

This is just ONE example of why your statement was completely wrong.

I think you should be careful not to make such sweeping statements.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Really ? Links, please ?

And that statement you just made takes a whole lot of one thing that Christians are ridiculed for...

FAITH.

Wrong.

That statement requires absolutely no faith since it is a fact. Order can arise from disorder.

If I shatter a jigsaw puzzle, it will result in a disordered state. After this, I assemble it, an ordered state.

Ta-da!: Order from Disorder.



quote:

Everything is finite ? *LMAO* How could someone without a Hubbell telescope, 8 trillion dollars to waste, and the best space craft in the world even BEGIN to assert such a ridiculous claim ?

The farthest place that people have visited in person is our Moon.

The spacecraft that have travelled the farthest are Pioneer 10 and Voyager 1. Pioneer 10 was the first spacecraft to travel through the asteroid belt and fly by Jupiter. It is now 7.4 billion miles away. For a long time, it was the farthest man-made object from the Sun, but recently Voyager 1 passed it. Pioneer is headed in the direction of the red star Aldebaran, and will pass by it in over 2 million years from now.

Logically we can assume that what we have "discovered" only a fraction of our universe. There is NO WAY for you to say that our universe is finite. It's simply unprovable.

This is just ONE example of why your statement was completely wrong.

I think you should be careful not to make such sweeping statements.

All evidence points to the universe having a begining, and the expanding from that state. If it can expand, it isn't infinite. You can't add more to infinity.

Not to mention that by claiming that it isn't you would be arguing against creationism... so, really, you shouldn't disagree with him.

Carefull with the jigsaw puzzle analogy, I can just see someone claiming that it took an intelligence to order the jigsaw puzzle.

Better examples are Mesh, or other form of sifting device or formation, freezing water especially in the case of snow, etc. Or an example of apparent order, the now destroyed michigan man of the mountain (was it michigan?). Rain and wind caused what looked like a face, causing the appearance of order even though it was really just random.

quote:Originally posted by devil's haircut:

I think that, going from past experiences with you, DS, and your "sources" on scientific evidence of creationism and ID, we can safely assume that you have none.

I don't know how many times I've counted that you claim to have sources to back up your claims, but when asked to present these sources, you mysteriously stop posting and the thread dies.

And the rare occasion that you DO post sources, they either have no scientific merit (i.e. are posted by a group that would benefit from proving that god does exist) or they have holes so large in their logic that I could drive my car through them.

You just gave me all the reason in the world to believe that your bias will ever blind you to anything other than the "science" that you agree with.

Science is science. I have no way of knowing what you have seen me post, since I have hardly seen YOU post. So, I cannot address whether or not what you saw was the extent of what I have posted or not.

It is really very silly for you to say that science which is presented by CREATIONIST'S is biased...duh. Science is biased no matter the source. From those that think the universe was not created (evolutionist's), to those who think it was. Both sides are trying to find the answers to their questions, based on their personal bias. I think you would find it difficult to locate a scientist without a bias leaning either toward evolution, or creation.

Since most scientist's believe in evolution, it is expected that their motives for their scientific work would be to prove evolution.

Since Creation scientist's believe in creation, it is expected that their motives for their scientific work would be to prove creation.

Does this nullify EITHER sides scientific findings and hypothesis ?

I don't believe I have ever once claimed I had information that I didn't. Not my style. I don't know why you think I am this seedy little Christian conniver, but you think wrong.

I have data to back up all of my opinions. Whether the data is valuable, tested, or proven is another matter entirely.

I have disappeared for great lengths of time in the past, and neither you, nor any of your minions, can prove the "WHY" for my absence, so it is nothing more than an assertion for you to claim that the reasons were solely for the purpose of evading a sticking point in an argument. I don't need to check in with you guys every time my life requires my attention.

So, make a thread. I will post to my heart's content. I am not afraid of this topic. Let's go.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Carefull with the jigsaw puzzle analogy, I can just see someone claiming that it took an intelligence to order the jigsaw puzzle.

Yes, be careful not to use analogy's that indicate there was a Creator, and therefore order.

Carefully manipulate your argument in such a fashion as to NEVER imply Intelligent Design.

Don't give the Christians ANY ground to stand on...

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

Self-martyrdom!

His point was a very good one. His point was that the jigsaw analogy wasn't an entirely scientific one. It was a very crude example.

Even if the analogy doesn't work, which it does work, that would show how I used a bad analogy, not how order cannot arise from disorder.

Take any of the numerous examples he gave if you want, they all refute you completely.

In any case the fact is, the jigsaw puzzle works; though I do agree with him in hindsight that it was not a good choice given that I would then have to explain probability, but it works.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-31-2005).]

quote:Since most scientist's believe in evolution, it is expected that their motives for their scientific work would be to prove evolution.

Since Creation scientist's believe in creation, it is expected that their motives for their scientific work would be to prove creation.

Does this nullify EITHER sides scientific findings and hypothesis ?

HAHAHAHAHAHA

You seriously have very little understanding of science dont you.

First of all, science works by falsifacation. Many scientists do hold onto their views stronger than someone who hasn't spent their life dealing with them. However, one doesn't make a name for themselves by going along with a theory. There is no giant scientist conspiracy to support evolution. If someone could provide serious scientific evidence that could falsify evolution it would be Nobel Prize winning and one of the biggest biological breakthroughs since genetics.

Think of famous scientists for a second, I bet every name you come up with will be someone who falsified an old theory by proposing a new and better one.

This same thing happens inside evolution. Scientists argue all the time about the exact details, trying to falsify the others findings.

That is how science works.

Now creationists, they are a different story. They have come up with the conclusion and pick and choose evidence to fit. Don't believe me? Visit their sites. Every major creationist group requires their members to agree that the theory of creationism is true before they are allowed to publish papers in that group. Creationist "peer review" journals have the same requirement. No one is allowed to question the creationist theory. That is NOT how you do science. It is how you keep a lie afloat, and justify the creation of more lies.

quote:Wrong.

That statement requires absolutely no faith since it is a fact. Order can arise from disorder.

If I shatter a jigsaw puzzle, it will result in a disordered state. After this, I assemble it, an ordered state.

Ta-da!: Order from Disorder.

Hmm..

quote:We will be able to explain these things through science, it's only a matter of time.

Looks like YOU are wrong, Rust. Having a "hope" of being able to prove something is faith.

FAITH - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Belief without proof is faith.

quote:All evidence points to the universe having a begining, and the expanding from that state. If it can expand, it isn't infinite. You can't add more to infinity.

Not to mention that by claiming that it isn't you would be arguing against creationism... so, really, you shouldn't disagree with him.

I said that saying our universe is finite is unprovable (at this point in time). It hasn't been proven yet, so it is an assertion to say that it is finite. It may be, but it has not been proven to be, and to say otherwise is to make an assumption from what "evidence" we currently have.

The First Law of Thermodynamics, also known as the law of conservation, states that matter or energy cannot be destroyed. It can revert to forms difficult to utilize (Second Law of Thermodynamics) or be converted to each other (e=mc^2). No completely new matter or energy has been created since the big bang. (Thermodynamics is a field of physics on whose principles much of science and engineering is based.)

Einstein concluded that energy and mass are actually different states of a single energy-matter continuum. Energy is matter in its intangible form; matter is energy in its tangible form. What this means is that all the matter and all the energy that exist in the universe have existed since it’s creation in one form or another.

Einstein’s theory of special relativity states that the universe had a beginning. That beginning includes not only matter and energy, but space and time as well. This obviously presents a problem cooperating with the first law of thermodynamics. The universe could not suddenly exist where nothing had existed before; at least not by natural means.

Sine Einstein understood the universe to have a beginning, we should then consider from whence he believe this beginning to originate from.

"I want to know how God created the world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."

"Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper."

Do not take these quotes to mean I am manipulating Einstein's opinion of what "God" is to be the Christian God. I am not. I am very well aware of what Einstein's opinions were of God.

I am merely saying that he recognized a beginning, and that this beginning was created.

And I would just like to end with a quote from Einstein, which should be applied to both Evolution and Creation science...

"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be."

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Wrong.

That statement requires absolutely no faith since it is a fact. Order can arise from disorder.

If I shatter a jigsaw puzzle, it will result in a disordered state. After this, I assemble it, an ordered state.

Ta-da!: Order from Disorder

You just proved my point.

In order for the puzzle to be put back together, it needs YOU.

Order cannot come from disorder without a force to cause that order.

You are the force that puts the puzzle back together...what is the force that causes order from disorder in regards to the universe ?

When something is left to itself, it always tends toward disorder.

If you leave a house unattended, it will delapidate. The forces of entropy will cause it to delapidate.

This applies to everything. There is no evidence of ANYTHING measurable that, when left to itself, does not have a tendancy toward decay. Nothing IMPROVES (a.k.a. ORDER) on it's own.

Give me one instance where that is not true...just one. If you can, I will give you ten others showing that it is.

Your puzzle analogy DOESN'T work in your favor.

Comedy relief:

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Snoopy:

Proverbs 6:12-19 - "A scoundrel and villain, who goes about with a corrupt mouth, 13 who winks with his eye, signals with his feet and motions with his fingers,

14 who plots evil with deceit in his heart —he always stirs up dissension. 15 Therefore disaster will overtake him in an instant; he will suddenly be destroyed—without remedy.

16 There are six things the LORD hates,

seven that are detestable to him:

17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, 18 a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, 19 a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers."

Proverbs 4:16 - "For they cannot sleep till they do evil; they are robbed of slumber till they make someone fall."

Does that remind anyone else of Aunt Esther, ripping on Fred Sandford?

*guffaws*

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I said that saying our universe is finite is unprovable (at this point in time). It hasn't been proven yet, so it is an assertion to say that it is finite. It may be, but it has not been proven to be, and to say otherwise is to make an assumption from what "evidence" we currently have.

I agree. (not everything Digital posts is wrong, just most of it. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) )

It is quite possible the universe is infinite in space. This is fine with an expanding universe, since remember, the universe is not expanding into anything (as far as we know). Lets say I have an infinite line of marbles, each 1 inch apart. Now, if I were to move the marbles so they were each 2 inches apart, my line has expanded. This is what the universe is doing.

The universe appears flat (infinite) yet it could be that our area is too small to study and it's really spherical (finite) just like your backyard looks flat even though the earth is a sphere.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

No completely new matter or energy has been created since the big bang.

Nit picking time. You should say no new useable matter or energy has been created. Quantum mechanics shows particles and energy are formed and destroyed all the time. This doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics because these particles don't exist long enough to exit the realm of quantum mechanics.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

That beginning includes not only matter and energy, but space and time as well. This obviously presents a problem cooperating with the first law of thermodynamics. The universe could not suddenly exist where nothing had existed before; at least not by natural means.

Although this was Einstein's belief, it is not valid today. Once we track the big bang back to a very small amount of time before 0 and a high enough energy level, thermodynamics and relativity no longer apply. Currently we don't have a well enough defined theory of gravity to understand the very very early universe, let alone first cause.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Give me one instance where that is not true...just one. If you can, I will give you ten others showing that it is.

As you can see, this is why I would suggest against that example. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

I thought I already gave multiple examples of where order can come from disorder without an intelligent force acting.

Ice is a rather interesting example, it actually takes special circumstances or human intervention to prevent it from naturally forming an ordered structure out of disordered liquid.

quote:I thought I already gave multiple examples of where order can come from disorder without an intelligent force acting.

Ice is a rather interesting example, it actually takes special circumstances or human intervention to prevent it from naturally forming an ordered structure out of disordered liquid.

Ok, let's go with ice, then.

At the temperature of 32 farenheit, water freezes. The drop in temperature is what CAUSES ice to form.

There is a STILL a force causing order from disorder.

I wouldn't even consider liquid to be "disorder", however.

Water, ice, and steam...still H2O.

Something else now ?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Ok, let's go with ice, then.

At the temperature of 32 farenheit, water freezes. The drop in temperature is what CAUSES ice to form.

There is a STILL a force causing order from disorder.

I wouldn't even consider liquid to be "disorder", however.

Water, ice, and steam...still H2O.

Something else now ?

I never said it didn't require a force. I said it was done without dirrect influence from an intelligent force. The entire claim was that order is caused by intelligence, is it not? Or has the claim changed all of a sudden?

So, tell me, what exactly is "order"

A pile of sticks is structurally disordered compared to a cube latice work of those same sticks. Structural order is what genetics and evolution deals with.

In the case of water, the crystal structure formed is more ordered than a pile of flowing molecules.

In the case of thermodyamics and entropy, a solid is almost always more ordered than a liquid and a liquid is more ordered than a gas. In solids the molecules don't move much, liquids they are allowed to flow with some constraints and Gases they move about randomly.

quote:I never said it didn't require a force. I said it was done without dirrect influence from an intelligent force. The entire claim was that order is caused by intelligence, is it not? Or has the claim changed all of a sudden?

First, prove that ALL creation was not "influenced" by an intelligent source.

Order comes from intelligent design, not random chaos.

I was using the puzzle analogy, and then the ice analogy to show that chaos is not the force from whence order comes, but from Intelligent Design, which infers a Creator.

quote:So, tell me, what exactly is "order" ?

A pile of sticks is structurally disordered compared to a cube latice work of those same sticks. Structural order is what genetics and evolution deals with.

In the case of water, the crystal structure formed is more ordered than a pile of flowing molecules.

You tell me what YOU think order is ? You and Rust are the one's asserting you know that order can come from disorder based on scientific hypothesis...so, you define it. I think I have been running right alongside you, based on your definition, which I have derived from the manner in which you have constructed your posts.

The molecules in ice are simply molecules that are "frozen" (bound tightly, since when they melt, the space required expands). Water/ice/steam is H2O, molecularly. Right ?

quote:In the case of thermodyamics and entropy, a solid is almost always more ordered than a liquid and a liquid is more ordered than a gas. In solids the molecules don't move much, liquids they are allowed to flow with some constraints and Gases they move about randomly.

What the hell does that have to do with what I said ?

Entropy occurs in all matter.

This shows a tendacy toward DISORDER, and never towards ORDER.

Order can only occur when FORCED from matter's natural state, which is DISORDER.

Digital, your first arguement was that any scientific proof we have now isn't up to your standards to allow people to say that god does not exist. You are now trying to prove stuff with very flawed science which you seem to be bending if not completely destroying to fit your arguement. So all I can suggest is that you shut the hell up stop talking because the 99% of stuff we don't know along with that 1% we do know proves your a dipshit.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Looks like YOU are wrong, Rust. Having a "hope" of being able to prove something is faith.

FAITH - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Belief without proof is faith.



Err, that's if we assume what he said was correct. It isn't.

It's a scientific fact that order can arrive from disorder, and as such "science isn't going to shed light on it" in the sense it won't prove it further; it's already proven to a scientific fact. What it could do is provide more examples, or information, but order arising from disorder is a SCIENTIFIC FACT.

So that is NOT faith.

quote:I said that saying our universe is finite is unprovable (at this point in time). It hasn't been proven yet, so it is an assertion to say that it is finite. It may be, but it has not been proven to be, and to say otherwise is to make an assumption from what "evidence" we currently have.

I agree, but you're not pointing this out because you want him to correct him because you love Science so much... you're doing so because you have an agenda.

I'm pointing out that all evidence points to it being finite and that it would serve creationism best if it were finite.

quote:The First Law of Thermodynamics, also known as the law of conservation, states that matter or energy cannot be destroyed. It can revert to forms difficult to utilize (Second Law of Thermodynamics) or be converted to each other (e=mc^2). No completely new matter or energy has been created since the big bang. (Thermodynamics is a field of physics on whose principles much of science and engineering is based.)

Einstein concluded that energy and mass are actually different states of a single energy-matter continuum. Energy is matter in its intangible form; matter is energy in its tangible form. What this means is that all the matter and all the energy that exist in the universe have existed since it’s creation in one form or another.

Einstein’s theory of special relativity states that the universe had a beginning. That beginning includes not only matter and energy, but space and time as well. This obviously presents a problem cooperating with the first law of thermodynamics. The universe could not suddenly exist where nothing had existed before; at least not by natural means.

Sine Einstein understood the universe to have a beginning, we should then consider from whence he believe this beginning to originate from.

Do not take these quotes to mean I am manipulating Einstein's opinion of what "God" is to be the Christian God. I am not. I am very well aware of what Einstein's opinions were of God.

I am merely saying that he recognized a beginning, and that this beginning was created.

And I would just like to end with a quote from Einstein, which should be applied to both Evolution and Creation science...

"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be."



Great. Who said otherwise? And What does this have to do with what you said? Sorry, but I don't like huge redundant and irrelevant posts.

A theory stands on its own merits, not on who supports it. Einsteins words, which support evolution, are irrelevant. That's right, the very words that would support my case if we were to take them as meaningful in the debate, I am saying are irrelevant.

quote:Digital, your first arguement was that any scientific proof we have now isn't up to your standards to allow people to say that god does not exist.

I suggest throwing sand in my eyes, next...it is much more effective.

You cannot be an "atheist". You can't say God doesn't exist, because you can't prove it. Call yourself an agnostic, if you don't know for sure. That's the only logical thing anyone who doesn't believe in God can say. That was the original point. Sorry you missed it.

quote:You are now trying to prove stuff with very flawed science which you seem to be bending if not completely destroying to fit your arguement.

What am I trying to prove, hmm ?

Prove that my science is flawed. Just know that everything I posted came from scientific journals, approved by the Evolution Administration. (hint: that's a joke)

quote:So all I can suggest is that you shut the hell up stop talking because the 99% of stuff we don't know along with that 1% we do know proves your a dipshit.

*laughs*

Resorting to personal attacks proves, once again, that you haven't got a logical leg to stand on.

Stop detracting from the intelligent format of this thread.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 08-01-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You just proved my point.

In order for the puzzle to be put back together, it needs YOU.

Order cannot come from disorder without a force to cause that order.

You are the force that puts the puzzle back together...what is the force that causes order from disorder in regards to the universe ?

When something is left to itself, it always tends toward disorder.

If you leave a house unattended, it will delapidate. The forces of entropy will cause it to delapidate.

This applies to everything. There is no evidence of ANYTHING measurable that, when left to itself, does not have a tendancy toward decay. Nothing IMPROVES (a.k.a. ORDER) on it's own.

Give me one instance where that is not true...just one. If you can, I will give you ten others showing that it is.

Your puzzle analogy DOESN'T work in your favor.



I proved nothing of the sort because nobody is denying causality, what we are arguing against is that it is caused by an intelligent creator. Thus, I refuted your point, I most certainly did not prove it.

The jigsaw puzzle could have very well been put together by chance.

Let's say an earthquake shook the pieces into place. Unlikely? Sure. Impossible? No. Is that an example of cause and effect? Yes. Is that an example of a creator causing order? A big resounding NO.

The same applies to water turning into ice. Yes, it's an example of causality, but NOT an example of a creator.

Thus, your point is refuted completely: Order CAN, and DOES arise from disorder, without the need for a creator. The jigsaw examples, works entirely in my favor.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-01-2005).]

I've noticed through the whole thread that whenever someone does point out flaws in your science you just start saying something else or using more flawed things to try and prove a point that is impossible to prove or dismiss it all together.

And the personal attacks are just because I "BELIEVE" you are a dip shit.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

First, prove that ALL creation was not "influenced" by an intelligent source.

LOL, I heard that in my head while writing the last post and thought, "No, DS isn't that stupid or desperate to make such a claim." I was wrong. I even specified "direct influence" as a preemptive comment on this argument.

It's ironic, I thought of using a similar argument but I saw the holes in it so I didn't. It is: You could just as easily say that the source of Humans is natural, so even though the puzzle takes intelligence to put back together the intelligence is natural and thus the puzzle was indirectly put together by natural laws.

1) ID theory claims science can provide evidence for Intelligent Design. To fall back on the claim "God did it" is almost like saying ID theory is wrong.

2) Circular Logic.

We must assume God exists before we can accept order as proof things were influenced by an intelligent source.

Yet you give order as proof the intelligent source exists.

This is circular.

3) Asking to prove a negative.

If I can't prove all creation was not influenced by an intelligent designer, it doesn't mean it was. Anymore than not being able to prove magic elves hold people to the ground creating gravity makes it true.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Order comes from intelligent design, not random chaos.

That is the statement we want you to back up. So far you suck at this.

I could say order comes from falafel, or that X-rays steal minerals that are later sold as anti-depressants. Doesn't mean crap if I can't back it up.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You tell me what YOU think order is ? You and Rust are the one's asserting you know that order can come from disorder based on scientific hypothesis...so, you define it.

You mean to tell me you keep making the absolute claim that Order can't come from anything but intelligence, yet you don't even know what order is. Wow, that's some shaky ground. It's your claim, I will give you the freedom to define your own terms. Think for yourself at least once.



quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The molecules in ice are simply molecules that are "frozen" (bound tightly, since when they melt, the space required expands). Water/ice/steam is H2O, molecularly. Right ?

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. I MUST be reading this wrong. Did you just say ice expands when it melts?

I hope I am reading this wrong. If not, did you skip elementary school?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

What the hell does that have to do with what I said ?

Entropy occurs in all matter.

This shows a tendacy toward DISORDER, and never towards ORDER.

I was discussing the correct definition of entropy as it pertains to the second law of thermodynamics. If you don't understand this, I would say you need to open up a physics book.

2LOT deals with heat energy. Entropy deals with the number of ways the configuration of a system can be created and yet "look" the same (please don't lose me because I said look). Heat energy and other random movements increases entropy. Thus gas often has a higher entropy than liquid because of those movements.

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 08-01-2005).]

quote:Err, that's if we assume what he said was correct. It isn't.

It's a scientific fact that order can arrive from disorder, and as such "science isn't going to shed light on it" in the sense it won't prove it further; it's already proven to a scientific fact. What it could do is provide more examples, or information, but order arising from disorder is a SCIENTIFIC FACT.

So that is NOT faith.

He has faith that SOMEDAY tangible evidence will prove this. FAITH. I didn't say that this won't happen. I said it hasn't happened, which means he is relying on his personal faith that the evidence will some day be found. FAITH.

You have still not provided one shred of evidence supporting your assertion that "order arising from disorder is a SCIENTIFIC FACT."

quote:I agree...

Wait a minute...let me just bask in this moment...

Ok.

That wasn't actually as cool as I thought it would be, but worthy of a screenshot, nonetheless.

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

quote:...but you're not pointing this out because you want him to correct him because you love Science so much... you're doing so because you have an agenda.

Agenda or no, my response to him was that he was incorrect. If you are going to make statements in defense of evolution, you need to be correct scientifically, just as I must be in defense of Creationism. This is what you would expect and DEMAND of me, so it is fair for me to expect the same, so that the playing field is even.

You can't just make erroneous statements. I should expect that you demand the same approach from people who agree with you (him), as you do from people who don't (me).

You have an agenda. He has an agenda. We all have an agenda. Since when was having an agenda on Totse wrong ?

quote:I'm pointing out that all evidence points to it being finite and that it would serve creationism best if it were finite.

What evidence points to the universe being finite, since the universe is not measurable, because we have yet to reach the end of it ?

I don't see how it would serve any point of view, since it is not a possibility at this point.

quote:Great. Who said otherwise? And What does this have to do with what you said? Sorry, but I don't like huge redundant and irrelevant posts.

You are entitled to dislike whatever you wish.

My point with all of that was a little off the topic, but served it's purpose.

I was illustrating that Einstein believed that the universe began, and that is was created. *shrugs*

quote:A theory stands on its own merits, not on who supports it.

Oh, no ? Then science is a sham, and we should stop idolizing Einstein's wicked intelligence in our science textbooks.

But you claim that creationist "science" is pseudo-science. It has been made abundantly clear by YOU and others here that as long as science comes from Creationist's, it holds no merit.

So, you are saying that "who supports the science" matters !

It seems like this new opinion of yours applies only when it is working in your favor.

quote:Einsteins words, which support evolution, are irrelevant. That's right, the very words that would support my case if we were to take them as meaningful in the debate, I am saying are irrelevant.

Einstein's words support both evolution, and a creator.

Say that they are irrelevant all you like...the words are there to interpret to your heart's content.



[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 08-01-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

He has faith that SOMEDAY tangible evidence will prove this. FAITH. I didn't say that this won't happen. I said it hasn't happened, which means he is relying on his personal faith that the evidence will some day be found. FAITH.

You have still not provided one shred of evidence supporting your assertion that "order arising from disorder is a SCIENTIFIC FACT."

It isn't faith because it has already been proven! The jigsaw puzzle, and the water into ice example show this.

Hell, you admitted that order form disorder is possible with a "force". That's all I need to support the claim that order can come from disorder!

I proved to you how order can com from disorder. You admit that it can. If you believe that isn't a scientific fact, then please tell me why it isn't, and please justify why you said it can. Refute what I've said. Until you refute it my argument stands.



quote:Agenda or no, my response to him was that he was incorrect. If you are going to make statements in defense of evolution, you need to be correct scientifically, just as I must be in defense of Creationism. This is what you would expect and DEMAND of me, so it is fair for me to expect the same, so that the playing field is even.

Sorry but that IS scientific because most scientific evidence points to it being finite.

quote:

You have an agenda. He has an agenda. We all have an agenda. Since when was having an agenda on Totse wrong ?



Did I say it was wrong? NO. Self-martyrdom.

quote:What evidence points to the universe being finite, since the universe is not measurable, because we have yet to reach the end of it ?

I don't see how it would serve any point of view, since it is not a possibility at this point.

The Big Bang. If the universe was at some time collected in one area, which it did ( we even have a picture of how of the backround radition which shows how it looked like approximately 300,000 years after the Big Bang occured) and then expands from that area, it will not be infinite. It could be humongous. Sure. But not infinite.

quote:I was illustrating that Einstein believed that the universe began, and that is was created. *shrugs*

Well you failed because he never said such a thing.

quote:Oh, no ? Then science is a sham, and we should stop idolizing Einstein's wicked intelligence in our science textbooks.

But you claim that creationist "science" is pseudo-science. It has been made abundantly clear by YOU and others here that as long as science comes from Creationist's, it holds no merit.

So, you are saying that "who supports the science" matters !

It seems like this new opinion of yours applies only when it is working in your favor.

I claim it's pseudo-Science, because it's science is wrong. Not because the people supporting that "Science" are not famous.

I have NEVER stated that a theory stands because of those who support it. This is just a lie on your part.

quote:Einstein's words support both evolution, and a creator.

Say that they are irrelevant all you like...the words are there to interpret to your heart's content.



They don't support a creator because he never said he believed in a creator. This is simply a matter of reading.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-01-2005).]

originally posted by Rust

Wrong.

That statement requires absolutely no faith since it is a fact. Order can arise from disorder.

If I shatter a jigsaw puzzle, it will result in a disordered state. After this, I assemble it, an ordered state.

Ta-da!: Order from Disorder.

Order from disorder... on it's own?... In other words- without intelligence?

This post from you, surprised the shit outta me. I havent caught up on the thread yet, but i hope this isnt your point.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

All evidence points to the universe having a begining, and the expanding from that state. If it can expand, it isn't infinite. You can't add more to infinity.

Not to mention that by claiming that it isn't you would be arguing against creationism... so, really, you shouldn't disagree with him.

Again, this is not a typical Rust post.. have you been drinking?

Then please, catch up.

1. She was asking for proof of order coming from disorder, PERIOD. Nothing else. No talks about how, no talks about who caused it, no talks about ANYTHING else.

2. The jigsaw puzzle could have been completed without any intelligent life form.

A monkey could have completed it, or a simple shake from an earthquake. I'm sure you're familiar with probability (i.e. Typewriter + monkey = ...)

With each subsequent post what Beta said becomes surprisingly clear. If I wanted to avoid the headache of explaining how the jigsaw puzzle can still apply, I shouldn't have used it...

P.S. And please, I beg you, stop with this false surprise/concern... "This argument is weak, I'm surprised you're arguing it" or "please tell me you're not arguing this"...

It certainly doesn't make me look like a fool, it makes you look like one. (You being anyone who does it).

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Again, this is not a typical Rust post.. have you been drinking?

EDIT: After further reading what I exactly said, you're correct. It is rather weak. Yet please, stop with this idiotic false concern. Either refute what I said, or agree with it.

Don't give me bullshit.

EDIT2: The reality is, this is inconsequential in the debate. If you want, I'll gladly take back anything I said about the creation of the universe.

What I'm really interested in is the "order from disorder" part of it.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-01-2005).]

QUOTE]Originally posted by Rust:

Then please, catch up.

1. She was asking for proof of order coming from disorder, PERIOD. Nothing else. No talks about how, no talks about who caused it, no talks about ANYTHING else.

I know. And i took that into account, before i hit submit.

However, most people here, including myself, come to expect "Rust quality".. and that post failed.

I was giving you the benifit of the doubt, that you might have been setting Digital up (or anyone else), for you to continue.

2. The jigsaw puzzle could have been completed without any intelligent life form.

A monkey could have completed it, or a simple shake from an earthquake. I'm sure you're familiar with probability (i.e. Typewriter + monkey = ...)

Yes, you know that i am. You also know that i disagree and why.

But also from Probability Theory, you must know that once it gets to a certain point, probability becomes highly improbable.

Not to mention, i think i understood you to say that that the universe is finite. With the monkey example, it was given (asked by Huxley, granted by Wilberforce, right?) that infinite time and paper was allowed (monkeys too, if i remember right). And the reason Huxley used this arguement in their debate, was that Wilberforce was the head of the math department... he knew that Wilberforce could not deny probability theory. And as i've said before, there was no "locking mechanism" (this makes more sense in the puzzle example), without a locking mech., the puzzle can only get so large, before it falls apart again, and has to start over.

P.S. And please, I beg you, stop with this false surprise/concern...

It was not false surprise/concern.



It certainly doesn't make me look like a fool, it makes you look like one.

It was not meant to make you look like a fool.

Answer honestly:

1. Do you feel that my posts to anyone (not counting ones directed at Snoopy) are for the purpose of trying to make a fool of them?

2. Do you think that any concern that i show in TOTSE, is false?

And, as to Snoopy, the only time i attack him, is when he is making an attack at a person... AND not contributing to any discussion. When he is contributing, i have not attacked him.

I'm hearing something about the law of entropy, so I'll say my piece.

You must not confuse order/disorder with simple/complex. Yes, an early universe containing only energy is simple, but is it not ordered? I would think so. Complexity can arise from something simple, such as a snowflake from a cloud or quartz crystal from magma. It is really just a case of not understanding the terms involved.

As for the possibility of the universe being infinite or finite, I do not know why this is being debated (I skipped a lot of posts) but here is a page by NASA about it:

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



I know. And i took that into account, before i hit submit.

However, most people here, including myself, come to expect "Rust quality".. and that post failed.

I was giving you the benifit of the doubt, that you might have been setting Digital up (or anyone else), for you to continue.



1. What you or anyone else here on totse "expect" from my posts matters little to me.

2. To claim that what I said wasn't a "Rust quality post" is to claim it was wrong. It wasn't. It was in fact, entirely correct.

If you're arguing it is wrong, then first argue that successfully before claiming it isn't a "Rust quality post".

Again, the fact is, she was questioning whether or not order could arise from disorder. I showed how it could. That's what my post required, and that's what I provided.

How is that not a "Rust quality post"? Because it didn't comply with your arbitrary and foolish notion of what "Rust quality" is?

Next time, how about providing me with what "Rust quality" is?

Or better yet, how about concerning yourself with Digital_Savior's post who was asking for such an elementary thing as how could order arise from disorder, even when she admittedly agrees that it can happen?

quote:

Yes, you know that i am. You also know that i disagree and why.

But also from Probability Theory, you must know that once it gets to a certain point, probability becomes highly improbable.

Not to mention, i think i understood you to say that that the universe is finite. With the monkey example, it was given (asked by Huxley, granted by Wilberforce, right?) that infinite time and paper was allowed (monkeys too, if i remember right). And the reason Huxley used this argument in their debate, was that Wilberforce was the head of the math department... he knew that Wilberforce could not deny probability theory. And as i've said before, there was no "locking mechanism" (this makes more sense in the puzzle example), without a locking mech., the puzzle can only get so large, before it falls apart again, and has to start over.



The amount of monkeys and papers, is a triviality of the original claim, that's not a requirement.

It could be an immortal monkey with a computer which deletes any sequences of letters that do not match Shakespeare (or whatever document you want). The argument really proves neither an infinite universe nor a finite one. It has nothing to do with it.

And it getting "highly improbable" is irrelevant as the only relevant thing is that it isn't impossible. If there exists a possibility, however remote, my argument stands completely. The rest would just be icing on the cake.

As the "locking mechanism" if by this you mean a mechanism which locks the paper in place the moment Shakespeare is achieved, then, just as the amount of monkeys, a triviality of the original argument. The point is that it can be achieved. Not to mention that such locking mechanism is entirely possible.

quote:

It was not meant to make you look like a fool.

Answer honestly:

1. Do you feel that my posts to anyone (not counting ones directed at Snoopy) are for the purpose of trying to make a fool of them?

2. Do you think that any concern that i show in TOTSE, is false?



Your purpose is unimportant, as is my opinion of your purpose. The fact is that the statement you made was irrelevant and served to do nothing but insult, regardless if that was your aim or not. You in other words said: "That post was so fucking stupid I can't believe you made it".

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-01-2005).]

Attention:

Seeing as For Digital Savior: Science behind Intelligent Design (http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/004410.html) was closed, I suggest we debate it here, http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum25/HTML/002241.html

since it is a thread already created for a similar purpose, and that has not been closed.

So DS, since you said you were going to reply there as you had data, then feel free.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

2. To claim that what I said wasn't a "Rust quality post" is to claim it was wrong. It wasn't. It was in fact, entirely correct.

No, "Rust quality post" is not a claim that it is wrong or right. I disagree with most of your arguements, but i do respect most of them.

QUOTE Originally posted by Rust:

It could be ... with a computer which deletes any sequences of letters that do not match Shakespeare (or whatever document you want).

This does not conform to probability theory, nor the point that Huxley was trying to make.

As the "locking mechanism" if by this you mean a mechanism which locks the paper in place the moment Shakespeare is achieved, then, just as the amount of monkeys, a triviality of the original argument. The point is that it can be achieved. Not to mention that such locking mechanism is entirely possible.

no, that is not what i mean. Locking mech., each time the correct letter, in the correct place; this is what i mean.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Your purpose is unimportant, as is my opinion of your purpose. The fact is that the statement you made was irrelevant and served to do nothing but insult, regardless if that was your aim or not. You in other words said: "That post was so fucking stupid I can't believe you made it".

Absolutly not!!

As many people have said ,you also can not say "God Exists" without that also being wrong.

And Digi ,Tell me about god. Doesn he exist ,does he not exist or don't you know. Im asking nice surely you can answer MY question.

Also ,lets say i say "I deny i am male" . I am male ,but because i say that i am not a male does not prove i am a male. i can also say "I am male" but once again this doesnt mean i am male. By making a statement i prove nothing .

How do you define god? i don't fully understand what is defined as a god. I could say that god is chance. And you could not prove me wrong ,from chaos comes order. Even if there is a god ,God is ruled by chance ,and if god controls chance then he is chance.

I deny your existence. Tell me. Are you real?

Is it to be assumed that if you make a statement and you have no backup for that statement that your statement proves something. Is the statement proof.



I state I Am Eternal Ruler Of Infinity.

prove that i am not.

well ive completly forgotten what i was writing now ...

DS:

It's funny that you immediately assume I am biased. Pot calling the kettle black? Really, though, that's beside the point. EVERYONE on here has something of a bias. Me? I try to be open minded, but it's people like you who make it difficult for me to do so.

And don't worry, I've seen a lot of what you've posted. I've been here since you first started spamming some of the other forums. The fact that you don't read a lot of my posts doesn't surprise me, since I usually stay out of this ridiculous forum. But because I don't always post doesn't mean that I don't always read. Usually people like Rust are already there, saying what I would have said (usually).

I wasn't attempting to attack christian science directly, because it's obvious that all science is somewhat biased. Humans carry out science, so of course bias is rampant. There's no such thing as an objective creature.

The fact was, you're so adamant against atheists (enough to create this thread, anyway), and you make claims about all of these sources, yet you yourself just admitted that all sides are biased. What then is the point of you posting these sources you keep talking about? If you admit they're biased, what credibility do they have? Just the same as if I would post sources of my views...again, they're all still biased, so what's the point? They needn't be brought up in the first place.

I don't believe I have ever once claimed I had information that I didn't. Not my style. I don't know why you think I am this seedy little Christian conniver, but you think wrong.

You've made that claim more than once. And each time, you act as if it never happened. Maybe you're just forgetful, who am I to judge?

And who are you to assume that I think you're a "seedy little Christian conniver"? I never made any claim like that. Relax, and stop taking offense to insults that I never posted.

I have data to back up all of my opinions. Whether the data is valuable, tested, or proven is another matter entirely.

Exactly.

I have disappeared for great lengths of time in the past, and neither you, nor any of your minions, can prove the "WHY" for my absence, so it is nothing more than an assertion for you to claim that the reasons were solely for the purpose of evading a sticking point in an argument. I don't need to check in with you guys every time my life requires my attention.

It's an assertion, but it's interesting to note that it occured several times, right at the point where it was obvious you were losing the argument. Of course you probably have a life, and I don't blame you for leaving totse to attend to it. But given the chance to assert, well...assert I will.

So, make a thread. I will post to my heart's content. I am not afraid of this topic. Let's go.

A challenge? No thanks. I've been in enough of these threads to realize that they never go anywhere. They always turn into a battle of "who can post the most sources", then the opponent will immediately discredit the other's sources. There's no real challenge in that.

[This message has been edited by devil's haircut (edited 08-01-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital Savior:You cannot be an "atheist". You can't say God doesn't exist, because you can't prove it. Call yourself an agnostic, if you don't know for sure. That's the only logical thing anyone who doesn't believe in God can say. That was the original point. Sorry you missed it.

So one couldn't call themselves an atheist because they can't prove that god doesn't exist. Can you prove that he does? No?

So what's with all these people calling themselves Christians, Catholics, Buddhists, Taoists, etc etc etc? They can't prove anything. Everyone should just call themselves agnostics.

Do you see now where this logic is leading?

Although I have to admit that a lot of atheists are actually agnostic at heart...it seems there's a lot of confusion over the two categories. So for the post that started this thread, I'd have to agree. But I'm sure anyone in their right mind would agree with it.

[This message has been edited by devil's haircut (edited 08-01-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

No, "Rust quality post" is not a claim that it is wrong or right. I disagree with most of your arguements, but i do respect most of them.



So it's an arbitrary label which you decided to make up, and not inform me of; which then makes it idiotic to point out how any of my posts are not deserving of the label... that you made up and that I didn't even know existed, let alone that I needed to conform to... Great.

quote:This does not conform to probability theory, nor the point that Huxley was trying to make.

Of course it does. It doesn't change anything from the analogy only the need for an infinite amount of paper. I'm not saying that we keep every word that is good, and discard the rest, I'm saying attempts.

The monkeys have attempts. When and if that attempt does not match Shakespeare, it is discarded. No need for paper.

quote:no, that is not what i mean. Locking mech., each time the correct letter, in the correct place; this is what i mean.

Then that is unimportant. You don't have to lock each correct letter. If that were the case, random generators wouldn't be possible.

If you wanted to achieve 172,324,123 in a random generator, your argument is that if the random generator pops "1" it needs to be locked and then locked again when it reaches 7, et cetera. That's not true.

The monkeys will of course, many times during their trials, begin to type Shakespeare, only to screw it up later. For example, lets say they begin to type Shakespeare's sonnet 18:

"Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?

Thou art more lovely and more temperate:"

And then screw up by typing, "THjdfjd,f". That's an attempt (this is what we're discussing above. This is were the computer would deleted it since it didn't match what we're trying to replicate, and the monkey would get to start over).

They will of course, most likely, screw up many many times, but given enough times, they will get through the sonnet without screwing up.

They don't have to have a "locking mechanism". A "locking mechanism" would make it more likely of course, but without it it is still possible. More difficult? Yes. But still entirely possible.

quote:Absolutly not!!

Absolutely not? Then what does "Again, this is not a typical Rust post.. have you been drinking?" mean? Why drinking? Because the post wasn't "Rust quality"? How wasn't it Rust quality? Because it didn't conform to your views on an intelligent post? Then you're calling me idiotic.

Even if it wasn't an insult, which I don't see how it could not be, it is still uncalled for.



Don't get me wrong, I'm not whining about insults. I use them and it would be ridiculous if I thought they shouldn't be used against me. The problem is how false and unreasonable it is. As if somehow my post wasn't "Rust quality" (which I still don't even know what the hell it means, seeing as you never justified your statement) and worse of all, as if I should care.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-01-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Of course you could turn it around, however there IS proof of Intelligent Design in this universe, which can only come from one kind of entity...

There is no proof. You've been fooled by Natural Selection.

EDIT: How about we turn this around a bit. There is no proof that we didn't evolve from monkeys because we don't have all the fossils yet. So how do we know? I'm using your flawed logic, but maybe you can run with it?

[This message has been edited by Atomical (edited 08-01-2005).]

Actually DS, i'm an amateur scientist working on building what looks like a toy, but is actually scale replica based on my gyroscopic atom theory. What i've done, is gone into the inner workings of each atom, and by using the propper number of protons and neutrons i'm able to predict exact electron path. Based on my own theories of how electrons are paths or rings of energy instead of particles. The part that might trouble someone like yourself is that when if I take one part oxygen and one part hydrogen, put them in a container and shake, they form a molecult called H2O all on their very own, even in the proper shape as well. With the help of a computer programmer, i'm going to make an evolution simulation on a small scale based on these exact principles. By merely introducing different ions into the program all possible products will form. I'm also going to be creating a simulation of how the atoms themselves form at maximum density of energy, protons, and neutrons. What i'm proving is that atoms form beacause of laws of magnetism, and that this trend countinues to molecules and the oveall reaction of everything in the universe. It's not random, and it's not intelligent design. It's mathematical probability for design to take place. An atom couldn't possibly form any other way because laws of magnetism dictate their design. I guess you could say that god is doing this, but he doesn't have to do anything to make this happen because it's impossible for them to stabilize another way. My theory is just way to fricken big to write the whole thing in a post, so you'll have to wait till i'm ready to release my findings. It might be random how things happen, but not why they happen a certain way.

I thought this thread was going to be done with. Digital_Saviors attempts were fruitless in her explanation. To say that us atheists shouldn't deny the existence of god because we lack overall knowledge. If this were true it would also mean that nobody can say there is indeed a god on the same grounds of lack of knowledge, so the arguement is bullshit to begin with.

And whats this shit about intelligent design. To prove to me intelligent design, you'd have to prove to me that the universe can be designed another way. Were not talking about two cars, one has a drink holder kind of design, but rather how could anything work differently in the universe and still be functional. Whether there is a god or not there was only one way the universe can materialize or it would equal error in mathematical formuala and be non-existent. God or no god, we'd still have the universe. I wish I could go into more depth, but the math would be lost on almost all of you.

^Someone hasn't heard of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Go to university or college, then formulate theories. Or get your ass ripped by the guys in Mad Scientists.

I haven't been on Totse for a while. I didn't readd all the subsequent replies, but I skimmed a few posts. I came across some tool saying that since Albert Einstein was a religous man any scientist whould be religious. Guess what? He disregarded quantum mechanics and said that God diddn't play dice with the universe. A great scientist's own religious convictions prevented him from being even greater. Quantum mechanics is very accurate, despite Einstein.

A scientist isn't always right.

[This message has been edited by Dehymenizer (edited 08-02-2005).]

Ugh, my IQ dropped from reading this thread. Digital, learn the difference between strong atheism and weak atheism.

I claim that with the limited knowledge we posses that it's impossible to know if a god exists or not. Since it's impossible it's better not to trouble yourself with it.

Oh no, I hear I butchered version of Pascals wager marching on the horizon, heading straight for Mr. Lost.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Oh no, I hear I butchered version of Pascals wager marching on the horizon, heading straight for Mr. Lost.

*dons my 'pro-logic suit'*

My belief in the existence of life that destroys genesis (what a stupid name)

One cell was spawned from say... a meteor hitting the earth and carrying with it some ameoba these ameaba by doing thing like duplicating over and over and over again created some mutations, the mutations that were beneficial worked their way into they gene pool and the ones that weren't died out this kept happening for 600 million years until m ore and mmore species were created then a chimpanzee got a cool mutation a thumb this let him hold on to things better and it started experimenting with tools others followed and so man was created 600000 years later man destroyed the world as for though it is derived both from genetic code and social environment it's not random it's preset and continues to be preset due to basic genetics

^You should pay attention in biology class.

quote:Originally posted by Dehymenizer:

^Someone hasn't heard of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Lol, I was going to say the same thing.

quote:Originally posted by Dehymenizer:

^Someone hasn't heard of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Go to university or college, then formulate theories. Or get your ass ripped by the guys in Mad Scientists.

I haven't been on Totse for a while. I didn't readd all the subsequent replies, but I skimmed a few posts. I came across some tool saying that since Albert Einstein was a religous man any scientist whould be religious. Guess what? He disregarded quantum mechanics and said that God diddn't play dice with the universe. A great scientist's own religious convictions prevented him from being even greater. Quantum mechanics is very accurate, despite Einstein.

A scientist isn't always right.



Einstein is not that religious. He doesn't belong to any kind of organised religion.

quote:Originally posted by quasicurus:

Einstein is not that religious. He doesn't belong to any kind of organised religion.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -- Einstein

His infamous quote that "God does not play dice" was just a reaction to the fundamentally probabilistic idea of quantum mechanics posited by such as Niels Bohr.

If anything Einstein should be considered naturalist?

Despite the latin word for agnostic being 'ignoramus', all you did was prove agnostisism is the best choice. Good going.

You must know this isn't a proof of god, whether 'unlikely' or not, right?

Edit: As an agnostic that has definate priase and awe for the universe around me, I love that Einstein quote. I'm humping my screen as you're reading this...

quote: Digital Savior: You cannot be an "atheist". You can't say God doesn't exist, because you can't prove it. Call yourself an agnostic, if you don't know for sure. That's the only logical thing anyone who doesn't believe in God can say. That was the original point. Sorry you missed it.

Wow, don't you realize that by the same logic you can't be any sort of theist? Organized religions run on blind faith, not "proof". Again, all your doing is providing an argument for agnostisism, show me that I'm wrong.

And to paradise, not sure about that Huxley thing, I'll have to check on that.



[This message has been edited by great_sage=heaven (edited 08-02-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by great_sage=heaven:

Despite the latin word for agnostic being 'ignoramus', all you did was prove agnostisism is the best choice. Good going.

You must know this isn't a proof of god, whether 'unlikely' or not, right?

I whole-heartedly agree that she completely fucked herself over with her own logic. But wasn't 'agnostic' coined by T.H. Huxley?

quote:Originally posted by Paradise Lost:



If anything Einstein should be considered naturalist?

If Einstein were alive today, he would probably consider himself a secular humanist, or a bright. The brights are gaining ground politically and culturally with ethics that fully support a naturalistic worldview. "Bright" is a huge umbrella term for atheists, agnostics, humanists and naturalists.

"Atheist" is a sorely outdated term, in my opinion.

Read more on The Brights' Net:

http://the-brights.net/

True, we cannot know for certain that there is no god without absolute 100% knowledge, but can we can make an educated guess that is more than probably correct just from 1% of the knowledge.

To take your 'gold in china' analogy, we would have to know every cubic inch of china inside out to say with absolute certainty that there is no gold. But for instance, if we know roughly what rock-type and rock formation china is made of, and we know that gold has never been found in similar rock types anywhere else in the world, we can assume that there is no gold in the rocks in china.

The same applies to god. If he did exist, there would likely be clues or things to suggest so in our 1% of knowledge. Likewise if he didn't exist, there would be things that suggested so in out 1% of knowledge.

So, in everything that the human race does know, you take the amount of things that suggests existence of a god, and weigh that against the amount of things that suggest there is no god, see what you come out with and make an educated guess.

who cares believe watever you want.

I didn't fuck myself over with anything.

You can't use the "TITLE" of atheist, because by definition, it cannot be an absolute. THAT WAS THE POINT. Just the title was the contention, not the belief. You can believe there is no God all you want.

You guys attempted to whittle down the intended point with all your pseudo-intellectual babble, but it didn't work. Sorry.

I never said, "There is a God."

I believe there is a God (for reasons historical, scientific, and theological), which goes right in turn with the logic given in the first post.

You'll do ANYTHING to try and make me out to look stupid...but you will always fail. *grin*

That was a JOKE, for all you Christian-bashers out there who like to point out how arrogant I am. Psh.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I never said, "There is a God."

I believe there is a God (for reasons historical, scientific, and theological), which goes right in turn with the logic given in the first post.

The biggest mindfuck I've had in years.

This whole thread is retarded, because you're confusing the word God with the word creation. Atheists don't deny creation, they deny a God like it is described in human made religious texts. This definition of God hasn't got jack shit to do with this thread, creation, or anything else for that matter.

Therefor, you're a stupid shit.

I may be wrong here, but it is my understanding that Christians believe in (and claim there is) only one God. If that is so, then from the argument given in the first post, they may not call themselves Christians, as there may be more than one.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I didn't fuck myself over with anything.

You can't use the "TITLE" of atheist, because by definition, it cannot be an absolute. THAT WAS THE POINT. Just the title was the contention, not the belief. You can believe there is no God all you want.

You guys attempted to whittle down the intended point with all your pseudo-intellectual babble, but it didn't work. Sorry.

I never said, "There is a God."

I believe there is a God (for reasons historical, scientific, and theological), which goes right in turn with the logic given in the first post.

You'll do ANYTHING to try and make me out to look stupid...but you will always fail. *grin*

That was a JOKE, for all you Christian-bashers out there who like to point out how arrogant I am. Psh.

I'm still trying to figure out why you feel that an absense of knowledge is an abundance of proof that God exists. All christians are arrogant in some way.

If the bible is based on faith why would God leave such undeniable proof, if it exists, that he is truly real? From a biblical perspective, and a christian, this is where I disagree with you. I don't think there are any signs out there that suggest that God is real besides the Bible.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I never said, "There is a God."

I believe there is a God (for reasons historical, scientific, and theological), which goes right in turn with the logic given in the first post.

That is refreshing, then.

If you remember my post on nescience, then welcome to the club!

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

You can't use the "TITLE" of atheist, because by definition, it cannot be an absolute.

Why can't someone use the title of atheist if they are using a different meaning than strong?

You do realize words can have multiple meanings, right*?

*Right as in, correct, not right as in the opposite of left.

Didn't read the whole thread yet, but it was a good post. This is what I have concluded to be very "wise" as opposed to saying I'm athiest:

I do not believe in the existence of the "christian" god.

There may be a god out there, or some sort of magical "creator" that we should bow down to... but this creator is not anything like modern-day religions percieve him as.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I didn't fuck myself over with anything.

You can't use the "TITLE" of atheist, because by definition, it cannot be an absolute. THAT WAS THE POINT. Just the title was the contention, not the belief. You can believe there is no God all you want.



Which is ENTIRELY WRONG as I already showed. Your point, the one you initially made, is wrong.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-04-2005).]

Where in the definition of atheist does it state that atheism is anything other than a belief? 100% knowlege is not required for a belief. If so, you couldn't be a "Christian" , as you cannot possibly know with 100% certainty that Jesus existed and is the son of God.



From Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

One entry found for atheist.



Main Entry: athe·ist

Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist

Function: noun

: one who believes that there is no deity

- athe·is·tic /"A-thE-'is-tik/ or athe·is·ti·cal /"A-thE-'is-ti-k&l/ adjective

- athe·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

Atheist is just opposite of theist. And the topic of this thread was misleading and distorted by some because D_Savior worded it to sound like she was scoffing at the idea that an "atheist" could even exist, by definition. Went so far as to call it "The ultimate anti-thesis". Then she redeemed herself at the very last sentence of her opening statement by saying, in total contradiction to the rigid thread title, "Just know that I am not trying to be insulting here...I think it is far wiser to say, "We don't know, because it cannot be proven." than to say, "There is no God."

No wonder there has been so much discourse.

These quotes were compiled from various definitions of atheism from past theologians:

Richard Watson:

Well-known for his attacks on various freethinkers, including Thomas Paine, Watson states in his 1831 book A Biblical and Theological Dictionary:

Atheist, in the strict and proper sense of the word, is one who does not believe in the existence of a god, or who owns no being superior to nature. It is compounded of the two terms ... signifying without God.

Robert Flint:

In his 1885 book Anti-Theistic Theories, Flint notes:

The atheist is not necessarily a man who says there is no God. What is called positive or dogmatic atheism, so far from being the only kind of atheism, is the rarest of all kinds. ...every man is an atheist who does not believe that there is a God, although his want of belief may not be rested on any allegation of positive knowledge that there is no God, but simply on one of want of knowledge that there is a God.

In a later book, Agnosticism, pubished in 1903, Flint said much the same thing again, concluding with: "The word atheist is a thoroughly honest, unambiguous term. It means one who does not believe in God, and it means neither more nor less.

Thomas Chalmers:

In his book Natural Theology, Chalmers states:

Judging from the tendency and effect of his arguments, an atheist does not appear positively to refuse that a God may be. ...His verdict on the doctrine of God is only that it is not proven. It is not that it is disproven. He is but an atheist. He is not an anti-theist.



^That was excerpted from: http://tinyurl.com/7sjgc Articles and Resources for every possible perspective on the term *atheist*.

Digital, would it be "contentious" (like you pointed out) to give yourself the title of: Anti-atheist? By definition, that would be what you are. No "absolute truths" would be held over your head for stating that. It's like Clarphimous said, you don't have to prove anything to believe it. Thus, it is quite possible to be an atheist - or, in your case, an Anti-atheist.



[This message has been edited by AngryFemme (edited 08-06-2005).]

There is a God. I believe in a creator God. It is sooooo godfuckindamn obvious. I just don't believe in any of the gods described in any kind of books. God says "Fuck your religion!". And he means it.

quote:Originally posted by Antagonist:

There is a God. I believe in a creator God. It is sooooo godfuckindamn obvious.

You didn't respond in the other thread so I'll try this. How is it so obvious?