Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
I think its becoming a pointless debate with him, unfortunately. I could sense a disturbance in his force a long time ago
The dark side awaits YOU...AngryAtheism "Only the dead have seen the end of war..." - Plato “Those who wish to base their morality literally on the Bible have either not read it or not understood it...” - Richard Dawkins
(September 10, 2009 at 12:46 pm)Retorth Wrote: I think its becoming a pointless debate with him, unfortunately. I could sense a disturbance in his force a long time ago
People like him have that common delusion often found in theists that we are somehow very special and have some special purpose. As if the universe was made for us or something. Not everything has a purpose. We have an evolutionary purpose which is to ensure the survival of our species but outside that...
Humans naturally look for purposes in everything without realising that not everything needs nor has a purpose. I doubt he'd realise that.
Anyway, if everything has a purpose then whats the purpose of god?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
September 10, 2009 at 1:00 pm (This post was last modified: September 10, 2009 at 1:02 pm by Retorth.)
(September 10, 2009 at 12:53 pm)Ace Wrote:
(September 10, 2009 at 12:46 pm)Retorth Wrote: I think its becoming a pointless debate with him, unfortunately. I could sense a disturbance in his force a long time ago
People like him have that common delusion often found in theists that we are somehow very special and have some special purpose. As if the universe was made for us or something. Not everything has a purpose. We have an evolutionary purpose which is to ensure the survival of our species but outside that...
Humans naturally look for purposes in everything without realising that not everything needs nor has a purpose. I doubt he'd realise that.
Anyway, if everything has a purpose then whats the purpose of god?
Very true. Dinosaurs and other creatures roamed the earth for decades before humans ever stepped foot on it so we are no where near the primary cause. Who are we to claim ourselves so damned important in this world anyway lol Like what George Carlin said: The earth has been through so much shit before humans, so who are we to think we're killing the planet? Something along those lines anyway.
The dark side awaits YOU...AngryAtheism "Only the dead have seen the end of war..." - Plato “Those who wish to base their morality literally on the Bible have either not read it or not understood it...” - Richard Dawkins
(September 10, 2009 at 12:46 pm)Retorth Wrote: I think its becoming a pointless debate with him, unfortunately. I could sense a disturbance in his force a long time ago
People like him have that common delusion often found in theists that we are somehow very special and have some special purpose. As if the universe was made for us or something. Not everything has a purpose. We have an evolutionary purpose which is to ensure the survival of our species but outside that...
Humans naturally look for purposes in everything without realising that not everything needs nor has a purpose. I doubt he'd realise that.
Anyway, if everything has a purpose then whats the purpose of god?
Not only that, if God made the universe Just for us, it's a serious waste of space. Literally.
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin
September 10, 2009 at 3:33 pm (This post was last modified: September 10, 2009 at 3:36 pm by ecolox.)
(September 10, 2009 at 11:39 am)Ace Wrote:
(September 10, 2009 at 11:21 am)ecolox Wrote: You are relying on the ignorant position - why do you think that suffices? It is honestly ignorant.
The supporting evidence for an ultimate cause is our existence. You are happy with ignorance. I know that there must be a cause, and I am seeking to explain what the cause must have been. God is what I have found to be true thus far.
Admitting to not knowing the answer is actually a smart intellectual responce. Our existence is not evidence of a creator. The universe is capable of existing without the need of a creator.
Anyway, that very argument can be used to support the FSM as much as god.
It is not evidence of god. Not knowing the answer isn't ignorance, it's without knowledge. I do not have the knowledge about the reasons of how and why the universe exists. I will not lie and start assuming I know the answer. That would be ignorant. I can only assume. That is honesty.
It's ignorant to claim to know the answer to everything without supporting evidence. You are making a huge claim without evidence to support it. It is you who is ignorant. Now, please give actual evidence of a god and afterlife.
Christians admit to not knowing the answer when they claim to have faith (they have a best guess, and they will (ideally) live as if they're sure). You assume that there is no reason for your existence because you don't know, and you assume that there is no god because you cannot see one. You then go on to make up your own reason for living that doesn't make any sense - because no one can live for no reason - you need something to grasp to... If everyone made up individualized reasons for existing then we would have conflict in the world, perhaps worse than we do - but if everyone accepted that God made this world and His will is for us to do unto others as we would be done by, then there could be no conflict.
I can give evidence for God that suffices for you as easily as you can give an explanation as to why you exist that suffices for me.
(September 10, 2009 at 12:53 pm)Ace Wrote: Anyway, if everything has a purpose then whats the purpose of god?
We can't explain the inside of the universe, much less the outside. I think it's reasonable to stop trying to explain things once we have explained the universe.
(September 10, 2009 at 3:33 pm)ecolox Wrote: Christians admit to not knowing the answer when they claim to have faith (they have a best guess, and they will (ideally) live as if they're sure). You assume that there is no reason for your existence because you don't know, and you assume that there is no god because you cannot see one. You then go on to make up your own reason for living that doesn't make any sense - because no one can live for no reason - you need something to grasp to... If everyone made up individualized reasons for existing then we would have conflict in the world, perhaps worse than we do - but if everyone accepted that God made this world and His will is for us to do unto others as we would be done by, then there could be no conflict.
I can give evidence for God that suffices for you as easily as you can give an explanation as to why you exist that suffices for me.
*yawn* Strawman. That is not at all what we say. We don't believe in god because there is no evidence for it. There are plenty of things I believe in that I have never seen. For instance, I believe in black holes despite never having seen one. Our scientific data proves they exist.
You miss the point about everyone giving their live reason. These are simply values we place on experiences. I desire to live because I love interacting with my friends and family, I love my cat, food, roller coasters, etc... These reasons can be very simple to very complex.
And of course, if you're going to insist that we'd become selfish apes, you're wrong because it simply hasn't happened. We value our lives so we create a social construct in which murdering is wrong. This is how our laws and morals developed.
Statistics have shown that the healthiest societies are those that are more secular rather than less.
(September 10, 2009 at 3:33 pm)ecolox Wrote: We can't explain the inside of the universe, much less the outside. I think it's reasonable to stop trying to explain things once we have explained the universe.
What? This is a completely nonsensical statement. You're essentially admitting we don't have an answer, but hey! Let's stick God in there and call it a day! At least scientists are honest about what they don't know and are actively trying to know more about it, where your answer stunts intellectual growth and is effectively a non answer!
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin
Quote:Does that qualify as a reason? You are good to others for yourself? If you were really good ("the goodness of your own heart") then you would love your enemies also - being a force to end conflict, whether it works or not.
Do you always need a reason to help someone, Ecolox?
Yes (e.g. if someone didn't need any help, I probably wouldn't help them).
(September 10, 2009 at 10:49 am)ecolox Wrote: Why you exist - why you survive? The only explanations you have provided are short-sighted ones. Ultimately you live for poofs/nothing - that's what I'm taking away from this. Yu live for things that will be gone soon.
You can’t spell and just repeating the same question over and over is pretty fucking dumb!
(September 10, 2009 at 10:49 am)ecolox Wrote: Does that qualify as a reason? You are good to others for yourself? If you were really good ("the goodness of your own heart") then you would love your enemies also - being a force to end conflict, whether it works or not.
Of course it qualifies as a reason … his reason not yours. That you don’t like his reason is utterly irrelevant.
(September 10, 2009 at 10:49 am)ecolox Wrote: You have no idea how sad atheism sounds, apparently.
And you have no idea how pathetic a belief in a 2000 year old zombie Jew who is his father, his son and some other tosspot sounds to us!
(September 10, 2009 at 10:49 am)ecolox Wrote: People don't live for God, that's why the world is the way it is. He allows us to be free - as your ideas have proven.
Yet recent research implies that crime is WORSE in the US (a supposedly god-fearing country) than it is in secular ones … how do you explain that?
(September 10, 2009 at 11:21 am)ecolox Wrote: Hope and a reason for existing - results in a different lifestyle. Belief in God results from seeing this existence (all the evidence in the world) and answering the question of where it came from...
For you maybe a belief in a cartoon caricature does, we prefer more rational explanations.
(September 10, 2009 at 11:21 am)ecolox Wrote: For you - where did this existence come from? Give me one explanation, so I know you're living for a reason.
Evolution
(September 10, 2009 at 11:21 am)ecolox Wrote: You are relying on the ignorant position - why do you think that suffices? It is honestly ignorant.
Yet you believe the ignorance of your bible
(September 10, 2009 at 11:21 am)ecolox Wrote: The supporting evidence for an ultimate cause is our existence. You are happy with ignorance. I know that there must be a cause, and I am seeking to explain what the cause must have been. God is what I have found to be true thus far.
And you do that without a shred of validatable evidence … do you realise how impressive that isn’t?
(September 10, 2009 at 11:21 am)ecolox Wrote: You haven't answered the question of why you exist - because you failed to explain where the singularity came from. You have to provide an explanation for our universe. You may as well have said that your mom birthed you such and such years ago, thats why you exist!
Scientists are working on that and one day they might well be able to tell us but I can tell you one thing … the other won’t be found in your 2000 year old book of fairy tales.
(September 10, 2009 at 3:33 pm)ecolox Wrote: Christians admit to not knowing the answer when they claim to have faith (they have a best guess, and they will (ideally) live as if they're sure). You assume that there is no reason for your existence because you don't know, and you assume that there is no god because you cannot see one. You then go on to make up your own reason for living that doesn't make any sense - because no one can live for no reason - you need something to grasp to... If everyone made up individualized reasons for existing then we would have conflict in the world, perhaps worse than we do - but if everyone accepted that God made this world and His will is for us to do unto others as we would be done by, then there could be no conflict.
You really don’t have a clue about science do you? I an a vague attempt to teach you something I will try:
Science & Scientific Methodology Introduction
The following discussion is designed to explain how science as a methodology applies to the real world.
Discussion
Science is a methodology and any interpretations based with the scientific knowledge base should be necessarily derived from properly derived data. By "scientifically derived" I refer to the characteristics of science. These were necessarily established during the US legal trial, McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 1996:
Science
It is guided by natural law;
It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
It is testable against the empirical world;
Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
It is falsifiable.
"Science" which begins with an unshakeable assumption, is not true science. True science is about having no assumptions until they have been accepted through the application of evidence and have demonstrated resilience to genuine falsifiability experiments. This does not apply to pseudo sciences such as creationism.
A scientific theory is not a guess or an approximation but an extensive explanation developed from well-documented and reproducible sets of data derived from experiments which repeatedly observe natural processes. From such data models are developed and it is important to note that these models (and their subsequent outcomes) are not decided in advance but can be modified and improved as new empirical evidence is uncovered. Science is constantly subject to peer-review and is a self-correcting attempt to understand nature and the observable universe. Science is not teleological that is to say theories do not start with a conclusion, refuse to change and acknowledge only data that the initial conclusion supports. Further, science does not base theories on untestable collections of dogmatic, mythical or mystical proposals but is characterised by questions, hypothetical proposals, design of empirical models and conceptual frameworks with the aim of researching natural events.
Those who claim that science and naturalism are two variants are mistaken; science is the study of the natural universe turning to the natural universe for the explanation. Science and naturalism are one and the same.
The scientific method relies upon two phases, those of observation and hypothesis or theory. Hypotheses and theories are slightly different but in principle a hypothesis must be verifiable or repeatable, falsifiable and it must only use as accepted facts theories which have yet to be found flawed. All hypotheses are under "attack" and may be removed from understood science in one of two ways ... an observation may be made which does not fit the hypothesis forcing modification or a new experiment may be devised that proves the hypothesis to be false.
Natural Law
Natural law is central to science. Natural laws are broad generalisations, essentially descriptions, of the way nature has been repeatedly observed to operate. If a phenomenon depends on supernatural intervention, then it is not relying on natural laws, and it is not explanatory by reference to natural law. (Overton, 1982)
Falsifiability
Another essential characteristic of science is the requirement that a scientific theory be falsifiable, that it be testable and most scientific theories have some trouble with this criterion. Historically based theories such as evolution cannot turn history back so we can view it directly but in that it is no different from many other forms of science ... in fact no one can literally look directly back to any time prior to their own lifetimes so what are we to do? Would critics of science have us assume that everything before our own time is untrue?
Verifiability
Once a hypothesis has been tested through experiment and/or prediction it must be possible for other experimenters to repeat those self-same experiments. That verification may employ the same experimental techniques or different ones but it must be possible.
Tentativeness
Scientists often say there are no facts, that is to say that nothing is "set in stone" in science, although being human, scientists are often reluctant to give up long-standing theories. From this (and verification) it can be seen that science is self-correcting. If a given hypothesis or theory does not fit the available evidence it is modified or it is discarded to be replaced with one that better fits the observations ... it really is that simple.
Scientific laws are generalised descriptions of an ideal or isolated systems behaviour and will seldom, if ever, occur exactly as predicted in the real world because the only truly naturally occurring, isolated system is the universe itself.
Within science many things are not directly observable. No scientist is able to see within the heart of a star or planet, no one has directly observed "black-holes", dinosaurs, gravity or sub-atomic molecules but much data is available concerning these objects and few scientists doubt the validity of such findings. Singularities or "black holes" are not directly visible but scientists searching for explanations of the beginning of our universe hypothesised their existence and the effects that would be caused by such bodies and several such bodies were later identified.
Whilst it may not always be possible to demonstrate how something happened in much of science it is often possible to demonstrate how something could have happened. Having demonstrated how something could happen that hypothesis can be used to predict other events and thus confirm or deny their own validity.
At the root of any theory or scientifically derived conclusion there should be a reasonable interpretation of scientifically derived data that means that data that was acquired non-scientifically can be disqualified. Hypotheses do not necessarily require such supporting evidence because hypotheses are essentially unproven assumptions. Nevertheless hypotheses have significant value in that they can form the framework for further research and may, one day, evolve into theories.
Conclusion
Many individuals are under the mistaken apprehension that to carry out science it is necessary conduct experiments ... this is a vastly over-simplified view. Science requires that a hypothesis or model is formulated and that that is then tested against observations to determine its validity. Experiments are just one method of generating the observations that the validation of a given hypothesis requires. Stars & volcanoes have never been built in laboratories but science nevertheless knows a great deal about such objects.
Claims that science in any way opposes the inspired word of a given religions god or that it is not qualified to investigate a given subject are illogical and irrelevant to science & to rational investigation. Science has no interest in belief systems (myths & fairy tales) nor, whilst they will not submit to valid scientifically based peer-review, in pseudo-sciences.
As for claims that science or theories and disciplines within science are simply religions in themselves, whilst it must be admitted that some individuals do follow science in such a manner, science neither requests nor requires faith in any measure.
References
"The Talk.Origins Archive Feedback: August 1999", Kenneth Fair
"The Talk.Origins Archive Feedback: July 1997", John Wilkins
"Information For All Biologists", Dr. Morden
"Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism", Kitcher (1982)
National Center for Science Education 1999
(September 10, 2009 at 3:33 pm)ecolox Wrote: I can give evidence for God that suffices for you as easily as you can give an explanation as to why you exist that suffices for me.
I seriously doubt any of us would regard your evidence for god as valid but you’re welcome to try.
(September 10, 2009 at 3:33 pm)ecolox Wrote: We can't explain the inside of the universe, much less the outside. I think it's reasonable to stop trying to explain things once we have explained the universe.
Shockingly there are many scientists who believer we DO have affair idea about what’s going on in the universe … I know that your bible doesn’t teach you that but if you’d paid attention in science lessons (or more likely were ever taught any) you’d have a better idea about that.
(September 10, 2009 at 3:42 pm)ecolox Wrote: Yes (e.g. if someone didn't need any help, I probably wouldn't help them).
We don’t need your *help* so why are you here?
Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings! Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
(September 10, 2009 at 3:33 pm)ecolox Wrote: Christians admit to not knowing the answer when they claim to have faith (they have a best guess, and they will (ideally) live as if they're sure). You assume that there is no reason for your existence because you don't know, and you assume that there is no god because you cannot see one. You then go on to make up your own reason for living that doesn't make any sense - because no one can live for no reason - you need something to grasp to...
Ace, I hope you don't mind my interjecting,
To clarify, We are not assuming there is no god. We disbelieve the notion that there is a god. There is a distinct difference between the two.
Quote:If everyone made up individualized reasons for existing then we would have conflict in the world, perhaps worse than we do - but if everyone accepted that God made this world and His will is for us to do unto others as we would be done by, then there could be no conflict.
In your pefect world maybe, but in the real world that never could and never will happen. In any case, what make you think the christian god is the only god if there were such a thing to begin with? Nibble on that for a while.
Quote:I can give evidence for God that suffices for you as easily as you can give an explanation as to why you exist that suffices for me.
We can't explain the inside of the universe, much less the outside. I think it's reasonable to stop trying to explain things once we have explained the universe.
How about you provide us with this evidence you talk about?
The dark side awaits YOU...AngryAtheism "Only the dead have seen the end of war..." - Plato “Those who wish to base their morality literally on the Bible have either not read it or not understood it...” - Richard Dawkins
Quote:Does that qualify as a reason? You are good to others for yourself? If you were really good ("the goodness of your own heart") then you would love your enemies also - being a force to end conflict, whether it works or not.
Do you always need a reason to help someone, Ecolox?
Yes (e.g. if someone didn't need any help, I probably wouldn't help them).
Then let me rephrase that. Do you always need a motivator to help someone, Ecolox?
