(March 9, 2010 at 7:33 pm)bibleabc123 Wrote: Oh you have a rating system for believers do you? Personally I'm just thrilled to meet one of you who freely admits you believe. Knowing you are a fellow believer simply makes my day!
No, we don't have a rating system for believers. I'm just saying that the only theist members of these forums that have garnered any respect at all are the ones that come here and ask questions about who we are, what we believe, etc rather than use some stereotypical assumption and present a flawed argument.
If you present an argument from a stereotype, you may have a good argument, but it is irrelevant if the stereotype is wrong.
I don't know why it makes your day that I'm a "fellow believer" because my beliefs seem to be in stark contrast with your own. I do not believe in God, I accept evolution. You believe in God and reject evolution. Just two examples...
Quote:May I share with you that you may have a reason for not believing but there is no reasoning that can justify what you do believe. Your non belief is a belief because you simply do not know... and cannot!
You can justify what you believe; there are various methods of justification through logic, science, philosophy, etc. Do you not see the contradiction in calling "non-belief" a "belief"? It seems self evident to me, and by saying that "non-belief" is a "belief" you are violating a law of logic, namely that ¬A =/= A.
Just because I do not know, or cannot know, does not mean I hold a belief in something.
Quote:So you say but in the end, if you'd be honest you'd understand all you have is faith. For a fact tomorrow is not promised so it logically follows that your plans for tomorrow are based on nothing but faith.
I would agree with you completely if it weren't for your last three words "nothing but faith". Yes, there is some faith involved, but there is also rational thought behind planning for tomorrow. Tomorrow is not guaranteed, but if it does occur, the man with the plan is more prepared than the man without one. We know enough about the universe and nature to have a pretty good idea about whether we'll be here tomorrow. This is why I dispute that my belief in tomorrow is based on "nothing but faith".
Quote:If you do not believe in Intelligence as a first cause you indeed believe in random chance and dumb luck.
False dichotomy. Please provide evidence that the only two "first causes" are intelligence or random chance. Why can't the first cause be natural?
Quote:Lacking a belief in an Intelligent 1st Cause.... lady luck is in fact your god by default.
Seeing as I'm an atheist, and as such does not believe in gods, I find this amusing. Lady luck is no more my god than Yahweh. I do not believe in "luck" anyway.
Quote:I have more admiration and respect for someone who has a different understanding of God as the 1st Cause but those of you who embrace the idiocy of order out of disorder, systems out of chaos, intelligence out of a void, spontaneous generation and abiogenesis ...these things are pure impractical silliness and only an "intellectually" dishonest person would consider these things as intelligent
The thing is, all of those things you've listed are not relying on random chance, but natural processes, which are far from random. You have just shown me that you do not have even a basic understanding of the things that you label "impractical silliness". You are stereotyping again, only this time with ideas.
Quote:Huh? Are you talking about the people who invented the carcinogens we haven't identified yet? Where is the intelligence? Are you talking about the increase in Alzheimer's and heart disease? What are you talking about our ability to keep people hooked up to machines longer so that people who do not believe in God can decide who can be unplugged and when?
No, we're talking about the people trying to prevent carcinogens, to prevent Alzheimers and heart disease, and to prevent death by "hooking people up to machines" so that they can say a final goodbye to their family.
Quote:Oh yea please name a few Mensa's that would be listed among the most notable for improving life on planet earth. Would any of them be Gandhi, MLK or Mandela, how about Abe Lincoln, William Wilberforce or Mother Teresa? Geesh!
No, and I've already said that you can improve life without being clever...
Quote:And the quality of life is improving because of the internet? Don't get me wrong its great I use it on a regular basis but....please get serious.
How about all the businesses that have sprung up, creating jobs for people? How about all the charities that now get funds from all over the world even though they can work out of a single office? What about the cloud-computing research programs that millions of people run on their computers, analysing more data than could have previously been done before? The internet has become a bastion of knowledge as well, meaning information is more accessible (and for cheaper prices). I thought you were complaining about the "lack of education" in this modern era? People can study online these days, they can stay at home to help their family business whilst also completing a degree program. Not only that, but they can create their own resources and share them with others.
So please, *you* get serious, and realise how much life has improved because of the internet.
Quote:The daggone Mayan Temples and the Great Pyramid of Giza are have more substantively to offer than the world wide web are you kidding me?
Those relics are great for historians, but the internet has more practical applications...
Quote:Content is what makes the web either good or bad and even that cannot produce greatness. You simply have confused education and intellect with wisdom and human purpose.
No, communication is what makes the internet good (I'm talking about the entire internet, not just the world wide web), and communication can produce greatness. You say content cannot but it really can; the only reason I got into computing was because of the content I found on the internet, and now I'm doing a Computer Science degree. I've learned how the internet functions, how it was invented, even how to manipulate it. That is education and intelligence in action.
Quote:You really should consider becoming a Rosicrucian, a Free Mason an Illuminati or in some organization that aligns the knowledge of the material, spiritual and metaphysical realms
Those are the breeding ground for the most intellectually astute logical reasoning believers.
My grandfather was a Free Mason. I don't think I'm eligible seeing as I don't believe in a supreme being. I also do not believe in the spiritual "realm".
Quote:I assure you atheism is a shallow wasteland for insincere believers for most atheists are believers who have not yet reached a point of being honest with themselves
I assure *you* that I'm not a believer, and I'm being completely honest with you. I do not believe in gods. Not even slightly. Zip. Nada. Nothing...
The more you try to press that I do believe, the more I'm going to deny it.
(March 9, 2010 at 8:06 pm)bibleabc123 Wrote: In science a theory is something speculative. Speculation based on presumption but still speculative. Terms like scientists think, it could be, quite possibly, probably or maybe are all intellectual dodges and substitutes for the phrase WE DON'T KNOW BUT ...
Nope, sorry. In science a theory is an explanation of the facts, supported by evidence and repeated tests. It couldn't be further than "speculation".
Quote:Variation and mutation are both proven and observable scientific facts.
Complete species becoming another totally different species is utter nonsense and has totally been refuted in countless scientific ways.
Macro evolution is the biggest fraud and hoax ever perpetuated on the masses of all time
Actually, they have been observed as well, and not just in the fossil record:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
I'd love to hear how this has been "refuted". Please present your evidence.
